SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Swihart vs. Vazquez vs. Hanigan
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 4, 2016 10:42:02 GMT -5
The trade/don't trade Swhihart (or CV) discussion has been incomplete, and I don't know why. Hardly anyone accounts for what we could expect to come back in a trade of Swihart. It is frankly weird, it is like everyone thinks we would get an Allen Craig/Joe Kelly type return, which is not reasonable. When talking about the next 10 years of the Sox core, or the value that Swihart represents, there has to be some value given to who would come back in trade. Otherwise, the conversation will stay stagnant and the same points will be made over and over again. It should be a given that Swihart would bring back significant talent. Like a top 50 player, plus a usable major league player, a solid low-minor prospect, and a low-minor lottery ticket or two. Quibble with my example if you want, it really is a guess, but that is not the point. Trading Swihart may or may not hurt the Sox in the short-term, but it is an excellent opportunity to stock up on quality prospects, especially at positions or levels where the Sox are thin. Agree or disagree, but holy heck, don't ignore the potential return, it makes the conversation less than useful. Swihart is currently a slightly-below-average defensive catcher who is slightly above average offensively, but with limited power. He has terrific upside, but for now he has yet to show more than a glimpse of that upside. Now, if you mean a top-50 *prospect*, I'd say that package is a little light--Swihart was top-20 and then played reasonably well in MLB. He was the top catching prospect in baseball and demonstrated why. The Sox have plenty of middling talent at the MLB level, and a LOT of outstanding to elite talent in the minors. The only way trading Swihart makes sense is if they get talent in return that is *likely* to represent a significant upgrade at one or more positions. He's a fair bet to be top-10 or even top-5 in baseball at catcher, arguably the most important defensive position. That means they need to get back a guy in the Seager/Urias/Sano/Lindor/Correa/Gallo echelon, or it's probably not worth it. Alternatively, you package him with another quality prospect like Kopech, an arm like Johnson and/or Kelly, and try to get Gerrit Cole. But what you're talking about is the dreaded "quarter for a dime and three nickels" scenario, which really only makes sense for a small-market team with a lot of holes to fill cheaply, or a team like the Angels who have no minor league system to speak of. The Sox have 4 (!!?? I still can't believe our outrageous fortune) BA top-20s, a guy who could break into that group, or at least top-50, this year (Kopech), and the #12 pick in the draft. Their bullpen is four excellent relievers deep. The rotation is nine deep. Another top-50 prospect and filler doesn't help them. The sole obvious need for 2017 is a 1B or DH who's better than Sam Travis Shaw. There will be guys available. If you're trading for a pitcher, you're trading two of Buchholz (assuming the option is picked up), Kelly and Owens. You could shoot for Sale or Archer if our pieces play well enough this year, especially since the White Sox and Rays are more likely to be interested in a move that downgrades one roster spot to upgrade several long-term.
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Mar 4, 2016 16:19:49 GMT -5
The trade/don't trade Swhihart (or CV) discussion has been incomplete, and I don't know why. Hardly anyone accounts for what we could expect to come back in a trade of Swihart. It is frankly weird, it is like everyone thinks we would get an Allen Craig/Joe Kelly type return, which is not reasonable. When talking about the next 10 years of the Sox core, or the value that Swihart represents, there has to be some value given to who would come back in trade. Otherwise, the conversation will stay stagnant and the same points will be made over and over again. It should be a given that Swihart would bring back significant talent. Like a top 50 player, plus a usable major league player, a solid low-minor prospect, and a low-minor lottery ticket or two. Quibble with my example if you want, it really is a guess, but that is not the point. Trading Swihart may or may not hurt the Sox in the short-term, but it is an excellent opportunity to stock up on quality prospects, especially at positions or levels where the Sox are thin. Agree or disagree, but holy heck, don't ignore the potential return, it makes the conversation less than useful. Swihart is currently a slightly-below-average defensive catcher who is slightly above average offensively, but with limited power. He has terrific upside, but for now he has yet to show more than a glimpse of that upside. Now, if you mean a top-50 *prospect*, I'd say that package is a little light--Swihart was top-20 and then played reasonably well in MLB. He was the top catching prospect in baseball and demonstrated why. The Sox have plenty of middling talent at the MLB level, and a LOT of outstanding to elite talent in the minors. The only way trading Swihart makes sense is if they get talent in return that is *likely* to represent a significant upgrade at one or more positions. He's a fair bet to be top-10 or even top-5 in baseball at catcher, arguably the most important defensive position. That means they need to get back a guy in the Seager/Urias/Sano/Lindor/Correa/Gallo echelon, or it's probably not worth it. Alternatively, you package him with another quality prospect like Kopech, an arm like Johnson and/or Kelly, and try to get Gerrit Cole. But what you're talking about is the dreaded "quarter for a dime and three nickels" scenario, which really only makes sense for a small-market team with a lot of holes to fill cheaply, or a team like the Angels who have no minor league system to speak of. The Sox have 4 (!!?? I still can't believe our outrageous fortune) BA top-20s, a guy who could break into that group, or at least top-50, this year (Kopech), and the #12 pick in the draft. Their bullpen is four excellent relievers deep. The rotation is nine deep. Another top-50 prospect and filler doesn't help them. No. I am not talking about that kind of trade, I am saying the exactly the opposite. I thought I was pretty clear that my trade guess was just for example. Any trade of either CV or Swihart will bring back a substantial return, or the trade won't happen. Assuming anything else is just kind of pointless. The choice between an offense-first vs. a defense-first catcher is a pretty good topic of discussion. The question of whether keeping both CV and Swihart provides more value than trading one of them, and relying on a clear second stringer like Hanigan (or someone like him), should also be a good discussion. But I think the discussion has been undervaluing or ignoring what would come back from trading one of the catchers (like you did above), and also overvaluing the benefit of keeping both CV and Swihart indefinitely. If either CV or Swihart is traded, it means Hanigan will get 60-70 games behind the dish, maybe a little more, maybe less. So the appropriate question is whether having either CV or Swihart instead of Hanigan for 80 games is worth forgoing opportunity to trade one of them for a healthy return. Sure, go ahead and make the argument that Swihart and CV could split the games more evenly, stay fresh, and be high quality backups in case of injury, but once CV is all the way back from injury, that scenario also has some pitfalls. The theoretical advantages of having both Swihart and CV sharing catching duties has problems as well as benefits. It has the potential, likelihood actually, of being a bit divisive. Catcher is a leadership position, and it is hard to share leadership without clear roles, especially without the benefit of experience. Playing Swihart/CV every-other game is a nice idea for fantasy league, but these are young guys playing the game, with a lot of personal, organizational, and industry wide expectations. Clear-cut starters get big money contracts, clear-cut starters go to all-star games, clear-cut starters win MVP awards. With all the hype about both players, those thoughts are not unreasonable for either CV or Swihart to harbor (not likely either, but that doesn't matter, we want our young players to have that type of ambition and drive). The stage would be set for one or both to press, have funky dynamics in terms of which pitchers prefer which catcher, and not be able to settle into their roles. To be more concrete, the question is whether Swihart or CV can meet development goals as part-time or platoon players Both, I suspect, will need regular, uninterrupted playing time to work on defense (Swihart) and offense (CV). As for your last point, I wonder if you even read my post, like this part: T rading Swihart may or may not hurt the Sox in the short-term, but it is an excellent opportunity to stock up on quality prospects. I don't know how you translated "quality prospects" into "filler," but it's not legit.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 4, 2016 17:41:54 GMT -5
No. I am not talking about that kind of trade, I am saying the exactly the opposite. I thought I was pretty clear that my trade guess was just for example. Any trade of either CV or Swihart will bring back a substantial return, or the trade won't happen. Assuming anything else is just kind of pointless. The choice between an offense-first vs. a defense-first catcher is a pretty good topic of discussion. The question of whether keeping both CV and Swihart provides more value than trading one of them, and relying on a clear second stringer like Hanigan (or someone like him), should also be a good discussion. But I think the discussion has been undervaluing or ignoring what would come back from trading one of the catchers (like you did above), and also overvaluing the benefit of keeping both CV and Swihart indefinitely. If either CV or Swihart is traded, it means Hanigan will get 60-70 games behind the dish, maybe a little more, maybe less. So the appropriate question is whether having either CV or Swihart instead of Hanigan for 80 games is worth forgoing opportunity to trade one of them for a healthy return. Sure, go ahead and make the argument that Swihart and CV could split the games more evenly, stay fresh, and be high quality backups in case of injury, but once CV is all the way back from injury, that scenario also has some pitfalls. The theoretical advantages of having both Swihart and CV sharing catching duties has problems as well as benefits. It has the potential, likelihood actually, of being a bit divisive. Catcher is a leadership position, and it is hard to share leadership without clear roles, especially without the benefit of experience. Playing Swihart/CV every-other game is a nice idea for fantasy league, but these are young guys playing the game, with a lot of personal, organizational, and industry wide expectations. Clear-cut starters get big money contracts, clear-cut starters go to all-star games, clear-cut starters win MVP awards. With all the hype about both players, those thoughts are not unreasonable for either CV or Swihart to harbor (not likely either, but that doesn't matter, we want our young players to have that type of ambition and drive). The stage would be set for one or both to press, have funky dynamics in terms of which pitchers prefer which catcher, and not be able to settle into their roles. To be more concrete, the question is whether Swihart or CV can meet development goals as part-time or platoon players Both, I suspect, will need regular, uninterrupted playing time to work on defense (Swihart) and offense (CV). As for your last point, I wonder if you even read my post, like this part: T rading Swihart may or may not hurt the Sox in the short-term, but it is an excellent opportunity to stock up on quality prospects. I don't know how you translated "quality prospects" into "filler," but it's not legit. Before we rush to make a trade - please consider these points: - Neither of these guys have proven they are a star catcher - If one of them fails while the other becomes a star, we would greatly regret trading away the star (if we guessed wrong) - If they both succeed and become stars then one can be traded for a great return (probably Swihart as his skills would fetch more presumably) - If one of them gets injured, then your asking Hanigan and scrubs to hold down the catching duties - which means the Red Sox would have to trade for a catcher The only argument I can think of for trading one of these guys now is that one of them will underachieve and lose value in the future and you know who that one will be. Traditionally players going from year 2 to year 3, without showing diminished skills/results, don't lose much/any trade value as a result of the lost year of service time. So how about we just hang onto both of them, stash one in AAA until there is an injury or a need elsewhere, and see how things go?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 4, 2016 19:40:44 GMT -5
No. I am not talking about that kind of trade, I am saying the exactly the opposite. I thought I was pretty clear that my trade guess was just for example. Any trade of either CV or Swihart will bring back a substantial return, or the trade won't happen. Assuming anything else is just kind of pointless. The choice between an offense-first vs. a defense-first catcher is a pretty good topic of discussion. The question of whether keeping both CV and Swihart provides more value than trading one of them, and relying on a clear second stringer like Hanigan (or someone like him), should also be a good discussion. But I think the discussion has been undervaluing or ignoring what would come back from trading one of the catchers (like you did above), and also overvaluing the benefit of keeping both CV and Swihart indefinitely. If either CV or Swihart is traded, it means Hanigan will get 60-70 games behind the dish, maybe a little more, maybe less. So the appropriate question is whether having either CV or Swihart instead of Hanigan for 80 games is worth forgoing opportunity to trade one of them for a healthy return. Sure, go ahead and make the argument that Swihart and CV could split the games more evenly, stay fresh, and be high quality backups in case of injury, but once CV is all the way back from injury, that scenario also has some pitfalls. The theoretical advantages of having both Swihart and CV sharing catching duties has problems as well as benefits. It has the potential, likelihood actually, of being a bit divisive. Catcher is a leadership position, and it is hard to share leadership without clear roles, especially without the benefit of experience. Playing Swihart/CV every-other game is a nice idea for fantasy league, but these are young guys playing the game, with a lot of personal, organizational, and industry wide expectations. Clear-cut starters get big money contracts, clear-cut starters go to all-star games, clear-cut starters win MVP awards. With all the hype about both players, those thoughts are not unreasonable for either CV or Swihart to harbor (not likely either, but that doesn't matter, we want our young players to have that type of ambition and drive). The stage would be set for one or both to press, have funky dynamics in terms of which pitchers prefer which catcher, and not be able to settle into their roles. To be more concrete, the question is whether Swihart or CV can meet development goals as part-time or platoon players Both, I suspect, will need regular, uninterrupted playing time to work on defense (Swihart) and offense (CV). As for your last point, I wonder if you even read my post, like this part: T rading Swihart may or may not hurt the Sox in the short-term, but it is an excellent opportunity to stock up on quality prospects. I don't know how you translated "quality prospects" into "filler," but it's not legit. Before we rush to make a trade - please consider these points: - Neither of these guys have proven they are a star catcher - If one of them fails while the other becomes a star, we would greatly regret trading away the star (if we guessed wrong) - If they both succeed and become stars then one can be traded for a great return (probably Swihart as his skills would fetch more presumably) - If one of them gets injured, then your asking Hanigan and scrubs to hold down the catching duties - which means the Red Sox would have to trade for a catcher The only argument I can think of for trading one of these guys now is that one of them will underachieve and lose value in the future and you know who that one will be. Traditionally players going from year 2 to year 3, without showing diminished skills/results, don't lose much/any trade value as a result of the lost year of service time. So how about we just hang onto both of them, stash one in AAA until there is an injury or a need elsewhere, and see how things go? Actually, no one is arguing for trading one of them now. We're even assuming Vazquez recovers more or less fully from his TJ surgery, and that's going to take a while. We're thinking ahead (to at least the trading deadline, but probably until next winter), because the team is almost certainly doing just that, and because it's fun.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 4, 2016 19:45:02 GMT -5
Swihart is currently a slightly-below-average defensive catcher who is slightly above average offensively, but with limited power. He has terrific upside, but for now he has yet to show more than a glimpse of that upside. Now, if you mean a top-50 *prospect*, I'd say that package is a little light--Swihart was top-20 and then played reasonably well in MLB. He was the top catching prospect in baseball and demonstrated why. The Sox have plenty of middling talent at the MLB level, and a LOT of outstanding to elite talent in the minors. The only way trading Swihart makes sense is if they get talent in return that is *likely* to represent a significant upgrade at one or more positions. He's a fair bet to be top-10 or even top-5 in baseball at catcher, arguably the most important defensive position. That means they need to get back a guy in the Seager/Urias/Sano/Lindor/Correa/Gallo echelon, or it's probably not worth it. Alternatively, you package him with another quality prospect like Kopech, an arm like Johnson and/or Kelly, and try to get Gerrit Cole. But what you're talking about is the dreaded "quarter for a dime and three nickels" scenario, which really only makes sense for a small-market team with a lot of holes to fill cheaply, or a team like the Angels who have no minor league system to speak of. The Sox have 4 (!!?? I still can't believe our outrageous fortune) BA top-20s, a guy who could break into that group, or at least top-50, this year (Kopech), and the #12 pick in the draft. Their bullpen is four excellent relievers deep. The rotation is nine deep. Another top-50 prospect and filler doesn't help them. No. I am not talking about that kind of trade, I am saying the exactly the opposite. I thought I was pretty clear that my trade guess was just for example. Any trade of either CV or Swihart will bring back a substantial return, or the trade won't happen. Assuming anything else is just kind of pointless. The choice between an offense-first vs. a defense-first catcher is a pretty good topic of discussion. The question of whether keeping both CV and Swihart provides more value than trading one of them, and relying on a clear second stringer like Hanigan (or someone like him), should also be a good discussion. But I think the discussion has been undervaluing or ignoring what would come back from trading one of the catchers (like you did above), and also overvaluing the benefit of keeping both CV and Swihart indefinitely. If either CV or Swihart is traded, it means Hanigan will get 60-70 games behind the dish, maybe a little more, maybe less. So the appropriate question is whether having either CV or Swihart instead of Hanigan for 80 games is worth forgoing opportunity to trade one of them for a healthy return. Sure, go ahead and make the argument that Swihart and CV could split the games more evenly, stay fresh, and be high quality backups in case of injury, but once CV is all the way back from injury, that scenario also has some pitfalls. The theoretical advantages of having both Swihart and CV sharing catching duties has problems as well as benefits. It has the potential, likelihood actually, of being a bit divisive. Catcher is a leadership position, and it is hard to share leadership without clear roles, especially without the benefit of experience. Playing Swihart/CV every-other game is a nice idea for fantasy league, but these are young guys playing the game, with a lot of personal, organizational, and industry wide expectations. Clear-cut starters get big money contracts, clear-cut starters go to all-star games, clear-cut starters win MVP awards. With all the hype about both players, those thoughts are not unreasonable for either CV or Swihart to harbor (not likely either, but that doesn't matter, we want our young players to have that type of ambition and drive). The stage would be set for one or both to press, have funky dynamics in terms of which pitchers prefer which catcher, and not be able to settle into their roles. To be more concrete, the question is whether Swihart or CV can meet development goals as part-time or platoon players Both, I suspect, will need regular, uninterrupted playing time to work on defense (Swihart) and offense (CV). As for your last point, I wonder if you even read my post, like this part: T rading Swihart may or may not hurt the Sox in the short-term, but it is an excellent opportunity to stock up on quality prospects. I don't know how you translated "quality prospects" into "filler," but it's not legit. Settle down, Beavis.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 5, 2016 8:36:09 GMT -5
That was meant in jest, btw. I'll say this:
I read your whole post. I understand your post, the gist of which came across to me as your last italicized words in the retort, i.e. an opportunity to stock up on talent. I don't disagree with that, necessarily, but I was pointing out an issue that will arise, and explained it. I'll try clarifying here:
In trading Swihart, I see essentially three types of possibilities: 1) packaging him with other talent for an established, star-level player. 2) doing what amounts to a one-for-one for a similarly high-ceiling MLB talent with limited exposure. This might require secondary pieces on either side, depending on return, but the essence is of a one-for one. I gave some examples. Obviously, to get a player like Correa or Seager, who have played very well in MLB (not Correa, but a similar talent), Swihart would probably have to show continued development (but not to the point where he's so good that the Sox don't want to trade him). And the player coming back would probably have to still be in the minors, or have struggled a bit in MLB (like Swihart; Taijuan Walker comes to mind, although the M's are set at catcher), because most teams don't like trading their best young MLB talent. This is a viable option, but not a common type of trade, because teams like "knowing" their prospects/young talent. 3) doing a trade for mostly, or all, prospects, as a "restocking" plan...i.e., for delayed return. This is the example you gave and the philosophy you seem to be talking about. I'm not saying that it can't be done. But, I think there's significant risk. When I say "filler," you're equating that with "junk." If I'd meant junk, I'd have said it. What I mean by "filler" is low-minors lottery tickets or B-grade prospects. Hey, Frank Montas was "filler" in the Iglesias-Peavy trade, and he isn't junk by any stretch. Logan Allen was "filler" in the Kimbrel trade. These are players added on to the centerpiece(s) to "even up" things. In fact, let's use the Kimbrel trade as an example: Swihart *might* (I think it's optimistic) return that sort of package, e.g. a pair prospects in the 30-60 range (one in AA/AAA and one in A ball), a lottery ticket arm, and a fringy, probable utility player. I think that that would be an optimistic return, but let's switch out the utility player with another low A/SS ball lottery ticket. That would be a great return. The problem I see is this: the most experienced prospect (like Margot) either has a relatively low ceiling (like Margot...a quality starter, but not All-Star, because otherwise he'd be top-15), or significant questions about reaching that ceiling (I think of Gary Sanchez of the Yankees). And the second player (like Guerra) might have a terrific upside, but he's still far enough away that there's very little guarantee he'll reach it. Of course, you could end up with an All-Star caliber player, especially if you're smart *and* lucky, and get a guy like Correa, Seager, or Bogaerts early enough in development. But prospects are risky, especially those on another team that you don't know well. As for the lottery tickets, there's a reason they're called lottery tickets. So you're giving up a player who looks very much like a perennial positional top-5 for a possible solid starter, a longshot All-Star, and two shots in the dark.
Again, I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm just pointing out that there is a **very** real risk (and a substantial one) that you end up with very little to show for it. Even if you do the "quarter for two dimes and two nickels" strategy.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 5, 2016 9:12:19 GMT -5
Put it this way: Would you trade Swihart for Dansby Swanson? Joc Pederson? Taijuan Walker? Steven Matz? AJ Reed? That's scenario 2, and you're lucky if you get any additional players back. Maybe you include Kopech and get Byron Buxton...but would the Twins do that?
How about Jose DeLeon and Alex Verdugo? Sean Newcombe and Ozzie Albies (or Colby Allard)? Or Albies/Allard and a GCL lottery ticket? Robert Stephenson and Tyler Stephenson, with maybe a GCL lottery ticket? Max Kepler (or Jose Berrios) and Jorge Polanco? Clint Frazier, Brady Aiken, and a C+/B- grade, probable utility INF/4th OF/relief prospect? Those are probably reasonable (edit:generous) scenario 3s.
If Swihart improves his defense to solid-average and hits more like his second half (.300/.350/.450) this year, maybe then you're talking about a top-15 prospect and a 70-90 range prospect. But, would you really want to trade him then?
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 6, 2016 3:54:27 GMT -5
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,672
|
Post by gerry on Mar 6, 2016 4:02:29 GMT -5
Huge for him. So glad he came through it in fine shape. Price could probably request and pick a caddy, anyone of Hanigan, Swihart, Basquez.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 6, 2016 8:29:03 GMT -5
Rob Bradford @bradfo 43s44 seconds ago
Christian Vazquez said he is slated to play in Tuesdays vs Baltimore in Sarasota. Says feels fine today after sim game yesterday
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Mar 6, 2016 14:41:06 GMT -5
The somersault pop up drills for the catchers Pete Abe posted video of today was pretty interesting haha
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 6, 2016 14:53:09 GMT -5
The somersault pop up drills for the catchers Pete Abe posted video of today was pretty interesting haha If you noticed there were far more bobbles than catches.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Mar 6, 2016 15:01:59 GMT -5
Just read Eric use the term "we're again. He isn't speaking for me in case that isn't clear.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 6, 2016 15:08:30 GMT -5
Just read Eric use the term "we're again. He isn't speaking for me in case that isn't clear. Phew, thanks for clarifying that.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Mar 6, 2016 15:15:09 GMT -5
Just read Eric use the term "we're again. He isn't speaking for me in case that isn't clear. Phew, thanks for clarifying that. Lol, good for you Phil, twice the humor Eric has.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 6, 2016 16:57:45 GMT -5
Phew, thanks for clarifying that. Lol, good for you Phil, twice the humor Eric has. Good for you, Ray, that you don't mind being mocked. Someone complained about people in this thread talking about trading one of the catchers. I replied using "we", which is to say, the people talking about trading Swihart or Vazquez. No implication that everyone agreed with me, and in fact "we" can refer to as few as two people. Were you one of those people talking about trading Swihart, should our assumption that CV recovers be correct? No, you were not. Did anyone believe you were one of those people? No, they did not. Did your post actually serve any clarifying purpose? No, it did not. Was the actual point of your post clear? I think so.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 6, 2016 23:03:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 7, 2016 7:40:02 GMT -5
Given that the picture is Pablo (which is pretty hilarious), I'd have to guess that it would mean absolutely nothing to him.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Mar 7, 2016 10:50:38 GMT -5
Given that the picture is Pablo (which is pretty hilarious), I'd have to guess that it would mean absolutely nothing to him. I believe it's Carlos Santana....Pablo never played for Cleveland. I would hope Pablo could at least get to that physique.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 7, 2016 11:18:03 GMT -5
Given that the picture is Pablo (which is pretty hilarious), I'd have to guess that it would mean absolutely nothing to him. I believe it's Carlos Santana....Pablo never played for Cleveland. I would hope Pablo could at least get to that physique. Doh, I said that pre-coffee.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 8, 2016 11:06:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Mar 10, 2016 14:40:58 GMT -5
Lol, good for you Phil, twice the humor Eric has. Good for you, Ray, that you don't mind being mocked. Someone complained about people in this thread talking about trading one of the catchers. I replied using "we", which is to say, the people talking about trading Swihart or Vazquez. No implication that everyone agreed with me, and in fact "we" can refer to as few as two people. Were you one of those people talking about trading Swihart, should our assumption that CV recovers be correct? No, you were not. Did anyone believe you were one of those people? No, they did not. Did your post actually serve any clarifying purpose? No, it did not. Was the actual point of your post clear? I think so. I don't mind being mocked. I deserve it for repeatedly calling you out. Your stats stuff belongs on the board. Why you can't bring it without talking down to those who challenge you is beyond my simple mind.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 13, 2016 2:09:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 14, 2016 22:20:19 GMT -5
CBS Sports MLB @cbssportsmlb 4h4 hours ago Orioles gets good news on Matt Wieters' elbow; no structural damage found cbsprt.co/1S0BY2k
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 16, 2016 7:04:33 GMT -5
Over the past few days I've seen tweets that the Mets and Rangers are looking for catching help. I was somewhat surprised about the Mets.
|
|
|