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.
7/1-7/3 Red Sox vs. Angels Series Thread
|
Post by trotfan on Jul 3, 2016 10:50:42 GMT -5
Blake Swihart is -29 below average in defensive runs saved (according to Baseball Reference) over 94 big league games. If he were anywhere close to passable defensively at catcher, he never would have been moved off the position and put in Left freakin' Field. Swihart is so incompetent as a catcher that the front office didn't even bother pretending to keep Swihart at catcher. They took catcher off the table at a time when CV was a great big question mark coming back from TJS and not looking great behind the plate. Think about it. Swihart was, once upon a time, a huge trade asset as an offensive catcher, and the front office took no care to preserve that trade value in 2016. Was that because they are psychotically incompetent? Maybe! But more likely is that everyone in baseball understands that Swihart sucks at catching, and nobody was going to give value in trade for him. As a catcher, the Sox missed the boat on selling high. It happens. But they do believe in his bat, at least believe in it enough to keep him around, and he's looked decent in LF. I hope all the above is horrid coaching and horrid luck ...but this is also the reason to make a run at Lucroy in the case all the well thought out above is the painful reality ....
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,830
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Jul 3, 2016 11:06:48 GMT -5
Blake Swihart is -29 below average in defensive runs saved (according to Baseball Reference) over 94 big league games. If he were anywhere close to passable defensively at catcher, he never would have been moved off the position and put in Left freakin' Field. Swihart is so incompetent as a catcher that the front office didn't even bother pretending to keep Swihart at catcher. They took catcher off the table at a time when CV was a great big question mark coming back from TJS and not looking great behind the plate. Think about it. Swihart was, once upon a time, a huge trade asset as an offensive catcher, and the front office took no care to preserve that trade value in 2016. Was that because they are psychotically incompetent? Maybe! But more likely is that everyone in baseball understands that Swihart sucks at catching, and nobody was going to give value in trade for him. As a catcher, the Sox missed the boat on selling high. It happens. But they do believe in his bat, at least believe in it enough to keep him around, and he's looked decent in LF. Sorry.....I disagree with your estimation on Swihart as a catcher. Every time I've seen him in his many stops through our minor league system, he has worked hard at his craft. He is so athletically gifted that I have no hesitation in saying with his work ethic he will eventually become, at least, league average. I do believe who ever made the decision of detouring him to left field because of our situation in the majors is nuts. At one time, I thought Swihart may become a really good offensive player, but I believe he will be above average and not elite like Posey. Blake is so young and has been catching for so little time. How can anyone think what you see now is what he will be in a year or two?
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Jul 3, 2016 11:19:59 GMT -5
Blake Swihart is -29 below average in defensive runs saved (according to Baseball Reference) over 94 big league games. If he were anywhere close to passable defensively at catcher, he never would have been moved off the position and put in Left freakin' Field. Swihart is so incompetent as a catcher that the front office didn't even bother pretending to keep Swihart at catcher. They took catcher off the table at a time when CV was a great big question mark coming back from TJS and not looking great behind the plate. Think about it. Swihart was, once upon a time, a huge trade asset as an offensive catcher, and the front office took no care to preserve that trade value in 2016. Was that because they are psychotically incompetent? Maybe! But more likely is that everyone in baseball understands that Swihart sucks at catching, and nobody was going to give value in trade for him. As a catcher, the Sox missed the boat on selling high. It happens. But they do believe in his bat, at least believe in it enough to keep him around, and he's looked decent in LF. Sorry.....I disagree with your estimation on Swihart as a catcher. Every time I've seen him in his many stops through our minor league system, he has worked hard at his craft. He is so athletically gifted that I have no hesitation in saying with his work ethic he will eventually become, at least, league average. I do believe who ever made the decision of detouring him to left field because of our situation in the majors is nuts. At one time, I thought Swihart may become a really good offensive player, but I believe he will be above average and not elite like Posey. Blake is so young and has been catching for so little time. How can anyone think what you see now is what he will be in a year or two? I respect that you have seen him in person and have a different opinion. And I respect Swihart as an athlete. But it isn't my estimation that Swihart is a terrible defensive catcher, the metrics estimate that he is a bad catcher.. And my comments about the front office moves in regard to Swihart still stand. Their actions absolutely indicate that they have no faith in him as a catcher. Even if he were the only option for LF (he wasn't, not by a long shot, CY was still healthy), why did they take catching off the table so blatantly and so definitively?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 3, 2016 11:29:59 GMT -5
Some metrics estimate that he is a bad catcher. Others: fangraphs, for one - has him slightly above average for his career. At under 800 career innings at the position I'm not sure how much the fielding stats mean anyhow. We're at the point where we really need to be trusting the scouts more than the stats, and those scouting reports are mixed. He's not Christian Vazquez back there, but not a buther, either. Plus, catching is more than defense. Jose Molina was much better defensively than Mike Piazza, but he certainly wasn't the better player.
Additionally, your narrative about him being switched off of catcher so abruptly doesn't hold. When he was sent back to Pawtucket he was catching exclusively at first, and then started splitting time between catcher and left. In his first nine games, he caught six and was DH three times. From then on, he played 11 times in left and 10 at catcher. That indicates to me that they weren't ready to give up on him as catcher, but rather were hoping that he could fill the short-term void in left field while still keeping catching on the table.
|
|
|
Post by trotfan on Jul 3, 2016 11:35:19 GMT -5
the impression I get from everyone is Blake is a great athlete who is raw right ? So even with the raw data this kid is raw and still in that growth phase ..Put Blake in AAA for another year at catcher his numbers will explode offensively and he will once again at worst be a huge trade chip right ? In the mean time Vaz is hurting this team behind the plate and sandy although a decent journeyman is not helping matters ...Go get Lucroy he is a grinder love his skill set and his swing is perfection for Fenway ...
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jul 3, 2016 11:44:48 GMT -5
I'm not against Swihart learning to play LF. Position flexibility isn't a bad thing right, and with the idea that Vazquez would be a solid MLB catcher, you could rotate them and play Swihart in LF in order to give an OF a day off. Like having the 4th OF and the backup/starter catcher being the same player, one with a great bat. It wasn't IMO a bad idea per se.
Having said that, I have no idea if playing multiple positions work any different for catchers, like if it would hurt his development in that position.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Jul 3, 2016 12:22:32 GMT -5
If Groome doesn't sign, look at it as a positive. We'd have two top 13 picks next year in a pitching strong draft. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Jul 3, 2016 12:31:56 GMT -5
My, how opinions change quickly on this site. A month ago the prevailing mood was to make Vasquez the default catcher and either rotate Swihart between positions or trade him. At least we can say we're flexible.
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Jul 3, 2016 12:39:52 GMT -5
Some metrics estimate that he is a bad catcher. Others: fangraphs, for one - has him slightly above average for his career. At under 800 career innings at the position I'm not sure how much the fielding stats mean anyhow. We're at the point where we really need to be trusting the scouts more than the stats, and those scouting reports are mixed. He's not Christian Vazquez back there, but not a buther, either. Plus, catching is more than defense. Jose Molina was much better defensively than Mike Piazza, but he certainly wasn't the better player. Additionally, your narrative about him being switched off of catcher so abruptly doesn't hold. When he was sent back to Pawtucket he was catching exclusively at first, and then started splitting time between catcher and left. In his first nine games, he caught six and was DH three times. From then on, he played 11 times in left and 10 at catcher. That indicates to me that they weren't ready to give up on him as catcher, but rather were hoping that he could fill the short-term void in left field while still keeping catching on the table. Okay. i went back and looked at the media quotes, and they did leave catching on the table, they were going to have him catch bullpens and but not play behind the plate. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of his catching skills. My overall point still stands. Blake Swihart is not the catching prospect/young player that many thought he was. He went from 2015 mainstay, with pretty great offensive stats, to being the opening day catcher in 2016, to not even playing catcher because they wanted to to use him as a platoon player in left field. That is not how you handle a future all-star/first-division play-off starter/extremely valuable trade chip/potential hall of fame (hi Temple!) catcher who already had 84 games under his belt. That is why there was so much consternation and puzzlement about the position switch. If Swihart really fit the defensive profile you suggested--so-so with room for improvement--then he would have been starting, job-sharing with Vasquez, or headlining a major trade. But he isn't, so I conclude that he isn't the player we hoped he would be. Maybe he will be a decent enough defensive catcher in a few years and his career will take off. But that. in and of itself. is a pretty major revision of what we hoped Swihart would be.
|
|
|
Post by trotfan on Jul 3, 2016 12:39:57 GMT -5
Squeezed on that at bat
|
|
|
Post by trotfan on Jul 3, 2016 12:42:28 GMT -5
Sandy with the hose there needed that
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Jul 3, 2016 12:44:58 GMT -5
Good o'Sullivan inning. One pitching out, two outs on base paths.
|
|
|
Post by trotfan on Jul 3, 2016 12:49:53 GMT -5
Xanderrrrrrr !!!double trouble
|
|
|
Post by trotfan on Jul 3, 2016 12:59:44 GMT -5
Holy crap Sean O pitching really well ,changing eye level and sandy calling a good game ...keep it up .
|
|
|
Post by trotfan on Jul 3, 2016 13:03:02 GMT -5
Jacke could drag bunt
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 3, 2016 13:05:48 GMT -5
I saw what Shelby Miller, considered a #2/#3 before the season began, cost. Are you really telling me that if Dombrowski thought Margot/Asuaje/Guerra/Allen would get them a starter that was considered a #2/#3 type he would have passed up that deal to get Kimbrel? Sorry, but I don't buy that. If that offer had been on the table, I have little doubt Darren O'Day would be closing for the Sox right now (or maybe he would have crapped the bed closing for the first time in a big pressure market like Boston - we'll never really know.) First of all, just because Arizona got fleeced doesn't mean that the Shelby Miller trade now defines the market for starting pitching. It was and will likely remain an outlier. It also doesn't matter that Margot/etc wouldn't have landed a #2 starter (theoretically a MASTER TALENT EVALUATOR like Dombrowski might have identified a pre-breakout guy who could be had for that package, but whatever). The point is that Dombrowski expended a ton of resources on 60 innings of a 2.60 ERA reliever when this team has more important needs, and when 2.60 ERA relievers don't typically cost that much. So much of the justification for the Kimbrel trade was "well, this team doesn't need Margot when they have Benintendi". Ok, well another way to look at that is that Margot would be a nice fallback position if they want to go trade Benni for Teheran. Or maybe you can get away with not trading one of the big four for a starter if Margot is in the package. This team has finite resources and because of the irresponsible way those resources were spent over the winter, we're now living in fear of the much more painful trade that now seems imminent. Someone who is good at the economy, please help the Red Sox. I would think Dombrowski would know the market better for a #2/#3 than you or I do. After all, he's the one (along with Hazen) in communication with the other front offices - not you or me. Again, don't you think he saw and decided the starting pitching market was too expensive in a deal (more expensive than what he gave up for Kimbrel.) Secondly, I doubt that Dombrowski thought he was dealing for a guy with a 2.6 ERA in 60 innings. He thought he was dealing for a guy with a 1.6 ERA in 60 innings with the ability to be dominant in the post-season and that he'd have that guy for 3 seasons. Kimbrel hasn't been that guy - yet. Maybe he never will be again. He expected Kimbrel to be the best in the league or up with them. Instead Kimbrel has been good (shaky at times, dominant at others), not great. FWIW, Dombrowski did identify one of those pre-breakout closer types - Carson Smith and he paid less for him than Houston paid for Giles, but the fact of the matter is these days teams are stacking their excellent relievers the way the Royals did and the way the Yankees are now. Honestly I was in fear of the cost of a trade for a good/excellent starter in December and now I'm still in fear of that. Having Margot does nothing to lessen that fear, and having Margot doesn't make me want to deal Benny away for Teheran. A lot of Margot's value is as a defensive CF, not a LF, where Benintendi's bat plays better. It really doesn't. I'm sure the Braves would want Margot in a deal for Teheran but unless the Sox send Kopech or more likely Espinoza, given how the Braves like to negotiate, I'll pass. But we can argue about this until the end of time. It doesn't matter. Margot will be a good CF for the Pads before he gets dealt in year 4. The Sox should get at least good if not excellent closing from Kimbrel over 3 years and maybe they even get a draft pick for him if/when he walks if they offer a QO should that be a viable thing by then. It's not like having a young Fred Lynn, Dwight Evans, and Jim Rice and deciding to deal a young Ben Oglivie for an aging Dick McAuliffe.
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Jul 3, 2016 13:54:13 GMT -5
First of all, just because Arizona got fleeced doesn't mean that the Shelby Miller trade now defines the market for starting pitching. It was and will likely remain an outlier. It also doesn't matter that Margot/etc wouldn't have landed a #2 starter (theoretically a MASTER TALENT EVALUATOR like Dombrowski might have identified a pre-breakout guy who could be had for that package, but whatever). The point is that Dombrowski expended a ton of resources on 60 innings of a 2.60 ERA reliever when this team has more important needs, and when 2.60 ERA relievers don't typically cost that much. So much of the justification for the Kimbrel trade was "well, this team doesn't need Margot when they have Benintendi". Ok, well another way to look at that is that Margot would be a nice fallback position if they want to go trade Benni for Teheran. Or maybe you can get away with not trading one of the big four for a starter if Margot is in the package. This team has finite resources and because of the irresponsible way those resources were spent over the winter, we're now living in fear of the much more painful trade that now seems imminent. Someone who is good at the economy, please help the Red Sox. I would think Dombrowski would know the market better for a #2/#3 than you or I do. After all, he's the one (along with Hazen) in communication with the other front offices - not you or me. Again, don't you think he saw and decided the starting pitching market was too expensive in a deal (more expensive than what he gave up for Kimbrel.) Secondly, I doubt that Dombrowski thought he was dealing for a guy with a 2.6 ERA in 60 innings. He thought he was dealing for a guy with a 1.6 ERA in 60 innings with the ability to be dominant in the post-season and that he'd have that guy for 3 seasons. Kimbrel hasn't been that guy - yet. Maybe he never will be again. He expected Kimbrel to be the best in the league or up with them. Instead Kimbrel has been good (shaky at times, dominant at others), not great. FWIW, Dombrowski did identify one of those pre-breakout closer types - Carson Smith and he paid less for him than Houston paid for Giles, but the fact of the matter is these days teams are stacking their excellent relievers the way the Royals did and the way the Yankees are now. Honestly I was in fear of the cost of a trade for a good/excellent starter in December and now I'm still in fear of that. Having Margot does nothing to lessen that fear, and having Margot doesn't make me want to deal Benny away for Teheran. A lot of Margot's value is as a defensive CF, not a LF, where Benintendi's bat plays better. It really doesn't. I'm sure the Braves would want Margot in a deal for Teheran but unless the Sox send Kopech or more likely Espinoza, given how the Braves like to negotiate, I'll pass. But we can argue about this until the end of time. It doesn't matter. Margot will be a good CF for the Pads before he gets dealt in year 4. The Sox should get at least good if not excellent closing from Kimbrel over 3 years and maybe they even get a draft pick for him if/when he walks if they offer a QO should that be a viable thing by then. It's not like having a young Fred Lynn, Dwight Evans, and Jim Rice and deciding to deal a young Ben Oglivie for an aging Dick McAuliffe.That one HURT!
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Jul 3, 2016 13:55:41 GMT -5
Hanley becoming an offensive contributor.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 3, 2016 14:00:03 GMT -5
I would think Dombrowski would know the market better for a #2/#3 than you or I do. After all, he's the one (along with Hazen) in communication with the other front offices - not you or me. Again, don't you think he saw and decided the starting pitching market was too expensive in a deal (more expensive than what he gave up for Kimbrel.) Secondly, I doubt that Dombrowski thought he was dealing for a guy with a 2.6 ERA in 60 innings. He thought he was dealing for a guy with a 1.6 ERA in 60 innings with the ability to be dominant in the post-season and that he'd have that guy for 3 seasons. Kimbrel hasn't been that guy - yet. Maybe he never will be again. He expected Kimbrel to be the best in the league or up with them. Instead Kimbrel has been good (shaky at times, dominant at others), not great. FWIW, Dombrowski did identify one of those pre-breakout closer types - Carson Smith and he paid less for him than Houston paid for Giles, but the fact of the matter is these days teams are stacking their excellent relievers the way the Royals did and the way the Yankees are now. Honestly I was in fear of the cost of a trade for a good/excellent starter in December and now I'm still in fear of that. Having Margot does nothing to lessen that fear, and having Margot doesn't make me want to deal Benny away for Teheran. A lot of Margot's value is as a defensive CF, not a LF, where Benintendi's bat plays better. It really doesn't. I'm sure the Braves would want Margot in a deal for Teheran but unless the Sox send Kopech or more likely Espinoza, given how the Braves like to negotiate, I'll pass. But we can argue about this until the end of time. It doesn't matter. Margot will be a good CF for the Pads before he gets dealt in year 4. The Sox should get at least good if not excellent closing from Kimbrel over 3 years and maybe they even get a draft pick for him if/when he walks if they offer a QO should that be a viable thing by then. It's not like having a young Fred Lynn, Dwight Evans, and Jim Rice and deciding to deal a young Ben Oglivie for an aging Dick McAuliffe.That one HURT! Sorry for the reminder, Benji. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by trotfan on Jul 3, 2016 14:02:08 GMT -5
Two men on no out Defense playing back and you can't lay down a bunt there Farrell? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) ?
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Jul 3, 2016 14:11:18 GMT -5
Two men on no out Defense playing back and you can't lay down a bunt there Farrell? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) ? Why?
|
|
|
Post by patford on Jul 3, 2016 14:17:31 GMT -5
Good thing the Sox didn't have Lester pitching today.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Jul 3, 2016 14:23:11 GMT -5
I'd expect o'brien to know the game more than just cheering a ground rule double, instead of immediately noting the bad break.
|
|
|
Post by trotfan on Jul 3, 2016 14:26:06 GMT -5
Hanley going the other way !!!
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,444
|
Post by ianrs on Jul 3, 2016 14:26:40 GMT -5
I love seeing Hanley succeed, especially after last season.
|
|
|