Pete Abraham @PeteAbe 1h1 hour ago
Farrell also announce definitively that Blake Swihart will have season-ending ankle surgery.
Farrell also announce definitively that Blake Swihart will have season-ending ankle surgery.
Swihart's Season Over: Ankle Surgery Set
- Thread starter E5 Yaz
- Start date
As least Vazquez was injured by actually, you know, catching. Swihart was injured playing a different position because Farrell thought Vazquez was a better catcher. Oops.
And to be fair, he might be. Blake is hardly a sure thing. We could very well go from "what do we do with one of our catchers?" to "who is our long term catcher?" in a span of a year.
The emergence of Sandy Leon is a positive since he wasn't part of the conversation, but now he certainly is.
It's definitely been a disappointing year for both Swihart and Vazquez for different reasons. Of course, JBJ's auspicious beginning to his career should remind us that it's far too early to give up on either.
From the moment it happened, Swihart's injury looked worse than the reports that emerged in the following hours and days.
Second year in a row that an infield player with no business being in the outfield incurred a season destroying injury up against that LF walk.
Anyone seen any details? Is this tendon, Achilles, broken bone, etc? This injury was pretty vaguely disclosed from jump street.
I disagree. Just because Swihart's an infield player doesn't rule him out for having the capacity to play elsewhere. Betts has performed exceptionally well moving from the infield to outfield
This. I was always expecting him to need surgical repair in order to regain the ability to play catcher again.
Glad he's getting it now, rather than after a couple of months.
Robin Yount, Pete Rose, Craig Biggio, Ian Desmond, and MOOKIE BETTS would like to see the list of factors that make someone "an infield player with no business being in the outfield."
Is not like it's an unusual move, I think someone needs to offer more proof than just "well, he got hurt" if there's going to be an argument that he never should have been playing in the OF. This is an argument that's completely separate from whether he should have been playing catcher instead - there are plenty of arguments that he'd be more valuable as a catcher - I want to see the evidence that he was incapable of safely or reasonably playing the OF.
There is obviously a good deal of bad luck with the injury and to argue otherwise is ridiculous. He had played a number of games and was basically fine in the outfield and it's not unreasonable to move an athletic catcher out there. But of the above list, how many made a transition mid-season? I definitely think it would have been wiser to implement this idea in spring training instead of the second week of the season.
It's also notable that he was hurt in his 7th game in left at Fenway, even though he had a number of LF games in the minors and on the road. It's not an easy LF.
Finally, I always argued that the upside wasn't particularly high -- at best he was going to be a slight improvement on a Holt / Young platoon, and the downside was hurting his trade value, his catching development, or the chance of an injury playing an unfamiliar position.
It's also notable that he was hurt in his 7th game in left at Fenway, even though he had a number of LF games in the minors and on the road. It's not an easy LF.
Finally, I always argued that the upside wasn't particularly high -- at best he was going to be a slight improvement on a Holt / Young platoon, and the downside was hurting his trade value, his catching development, or the chance of an injury playing an unfamiliar position.
I think it's fair to say that Mookie transitioned mid season, and Craig Biggio certainly did in 1990 as well.
Has it actually been reported as to what type of surgical procedure is planned? After a month or two of calling it a sprain, are they now saying that some tearing occurred? If so what tore??
Is he?
He has 2000+ minor league ABs that show he's a .240/.320/.330 hitter.
Now, his 2016 has been awesome, but is there anything to show it's anywhere close to sustainable? His last 60 plate appearances his OBP is around .300. The dude killed it for 60 PAs, and that was amazing, but I don't think he's pushed himself into the conversation as much more than a backup long term.
Why not? Swihart's athleticism has always been considered one of his biggest strengths.
A sprain IS tearing.
Well, it has been a couple of months.
Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case, I haven't had my morning caffeine yet.
Blake is considered a good athlete for a catcher while Mookie is one of the best athletes in professional baseball. They aren't comparable. Mookie could play anywhere on the diamond based on talent.
While Blake isn't in the class of Mookie as an athlete he undeniably has the ability to play multiple positions with left field being one of them. I think it is crazy to assume he had a higher chance of being injured as an outfielder than he did as a catcher, a position that many high upside players are moved away from due to the wear and tear and chance to get injured.
That he did get injured sucks but it is one of those things that happened. That people are now saying he shouldn't have played left field because of the chance of injury strikes me as the same kind of 20/20 hindsight that we've seen too much of around here lately.
There were reasons to not want him to play left field, an increased chance of injury wasn't one of them.
That he did get injured sucks but it is one of those things that happened. That people are now saying he shouldn't have played left field because of the chance of injury strikes me as the same kind of 20/20 hindsight that we've seen too much of around here lately.
There were reasons to not want him to play left field, an increased chance of injury wasn't one of them.
No. Blake Swihart has been praised for his excellent athleticism irrespective of which position he's playing. You're flat out wrong here.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/swihart-still-aims-to-be-a-catcher/#jbmBmg4LGuBagHAf.97
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/10/29/blake-swihart-tops-baseball-americas-list-of-top-10-red-sox-prospects/
http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/catcher-year-vocal-swihart-nearly-ready-sox/#IsHH1ZQY5WBC3APb.97
The kid played baseball, basketball and football and played some shortstop in high school. He even pitched a little.
Blake is not just considered a good athlete for a catcher. He's a good athlete period. If you didn't see a natural athlete out on the basepaths or manning left, I'm not sure what you were watching. For being completely new to left he made some nice plays out there. He's not Mookie, but few are.
I mean, I guess you can get caught up in wording all you want but if you look back at my post I simply stated that Mookie Betts and Blake Swihart aren't athletically comparable. I don't believe the are. The 'for a catcher' line is semantics and admittedly a throw away line, and yes, he is a good athlete. But if people want to use Mookie Betts as an illustration of position changing success in reference to Blake Swihart moving to left field then we need to pull the context out of that because they aren't the same.
And I need to add.... my disdain for moving Swihart had nothing to do with his athleticism and everything to do with the fact that it robbed him of developmental time behind the plate, where I think he has a real chance to be long term.
The argument is ridiculous. Playing catcher is safer than playing the outfield, really?? Maybe check with Hanigan on that.
Swihart got hurt, it happens. Leon went from semi-dud to semi-stud. Swihart will be back, Vazquez will be another year removed from TJ. The RS will again have an abundance of catching prospects come April.
Swihart got hurt, it happens. Leon went from semi-dud to semi-stud. Swihart will be back, Vazquez will be another year removed from TJ. The RS will again have an abundance of catching prospects come April.
It's not semantics. It fundamentally alters the meaning of the description. And if you want to stick to your guns despite all of the evidence working against you, be my guest.
Hey... you're the one who jumped in to bark at the comparison. Your reason for objecting in the first place is irrelevant to this discussion.
I don't know if fully at fault is fair, but if the manager doesn't have final say in a situation like the Red Sox had last April then he really isn't the manager. There weren't any extenuating circumstances like one of them being out of options, or one player clearly having established himself as the starter. John Farrell looked at two players and decided to go with the one who hasn't hit in a big league de it in 2014 then missed all of 2015, then had a partially limited spring training and handful of rehab games at AAA. Meanwhile Swihart's biggest negative was that he'd dropped a popup the previous day.
Comparing Blake Swihart to Mookie Betts is a bad comparison and no one has said or demonstrated anything to disprove that in this thread. But you're right, in terms of this discussion, it really should have no impact on whether you think it was a good or bad move.
It's a bad move because you don't move high upside catchers off the position so they can play left field with a fringe bat (for LF)
This seems like a bit of a stretch. How can you classify his ability to play other positions as undeniable, when he had never done it before?
I don't think it's fair to call it 20/20 hindsight. Many of us didn't like the move beforehand, and said so.
Go back and reread these... It seems as though the Red Sox, many scouts, and other experts all believed he could play other positions. The last quote there specifically says the Sox believed he could play any number of positions and choose to put him at catcher when they drafted him (presumably because all else being equal his bat would separate him as a catcher more than in another position).
Yes, and it was as stupid an objection then as it is now.
When you h ave two valuable catchers and one of them has both an offensive profile and the general athleticism to play other positions, having him learn how to play those positions allows you to keep him and maximize your roster flexibility. That's a pretty valuable thing (see also Brock Holt) in an age of seven man bullpens. But it didn't maximize the value of Blake Swihart which is totally important because reasons.
To your first point multiple people have posted many stories from scouts stating that he had the ability to play all over the field, we also saw him play left field just fine until he hurt himself so I don't think it is even remotely a stretch to say what I said.
As for the second point I see you cut off the part of the quote where I said there were reasons to dislike the move. The part that was 20/20 hindsight was when people used his injury as a reason to not like the move. I don't recall anyone saying that before the move and I'd strongly argue that there was no increased risk of injury, end results not withstanding.
What about when the guy needs work and reps to become a decent MLB catcher and moving him to an easily filled position takes practice and game time away from this goal? "Because reasons" is a cute rhetorical trick when people have actually laid out these reasons. As it turns out they got below average but not terrible production from left for most of the year and now it seems they have the position taken care of for years. So even if Swihart hadn't gotten hurt, he's only adding a fraction of a win over what they ended up getting and he'd be likely usurped by Benintendi at the end of the year.
Not sure why you are referring to positions, plural...it's not like he was playing anywhere other than left. If he could turn into Brock Holt 2, yes that would be cool, I guess. Didn't seem like that was the plan. Very few players can do that.
Plus, this wasn't shifting him to first a few times a week to get his bat in the lineup. This seemed like a full-fledged position change. Maybe they were going to bring him back at some point but he literally stopped catching. They still haven't committed to moving him back there next year.
Unless I missed something, I find it interesting that no specifics have been given on the injury or surgery.
"Surgery to repair the sheath to the peroneal tendon in Blake Swihart’s left ankle is scheduled for Monday and will end his season, but it should have him ready in time for spring training, Farrell said. Typical recovery is 3-4 months."
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox/2016/08/red_sox_notebook_clay_buchholz_gets_a_return_shot_to_the_rotation
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox/2016/08/red_sox_notebook_clay_buchholz_gets_a_return_shot_to_the_rotation
While some of the objections to moving Swihart to LF were arguable at the time, pointing out now that LF seems covered is the definition of hindsight. When they moved him there, things were pretty barren and there was certainly no consensus that AB was ready. Had he stayed healthy but been outperformed by Holt, Brentz, AB or whoever, they could (and probably would) have moved him right back to catcher, either in Boston or in AAA. The injury was shit luck, but it wasn't obvious at the time that it was a risk taken in pursuit of a marginal upgrade.
Same area, different kind of injury though. Swihart's was one acute injury, while Schilling's was more of a chronic attritional thing and his ankle was largely garbage at that point anyway. I think Swihart should come back from this just fine.
But we didn't have two equally valuable catchers. The catcher Farrell chose to name the starter hit so poorly that he was demoted to AAA. Swihart should have remained the starter, Vazquez should have remained in AAA.
No, it did not seem like a full-fledged position change, it was characterized that way by people who felt that bolstered their arguments against it.
Spending some time playing left has never meant he can't continue to catch.
I don't want to sound like I'm questioning a guy I just gave $10 to...
My memory is vague at this point, and I recall his ankle was less than healthy going into it, but didn't Schilling injure the ankle with an odd step on first base, or something along those lines, in the Angels game? Not quite as dramatic an angle as Swihart, but still running and having the toe catch higher than the heel landing?
No. Vazquez was optioned because he was the only one with an option to use. If they'd wanted to be rid of their worst hitting catcher they'd have DFAed Hanigan.
Schilling's injury was in the ALDS against the Angels and while it was one acute thing, it was really the straw that broke the camel's back. His ankle was an issue all year and had been managed with (from what I've heard) a TON of cortisone injections, so while there was one moment when his ankle took the final turn for the worse, it had been on a downhill trend for a while, whereas Swihart's was completely normal right up until he went full Hanley on it.
And that will be $20 for having the temerity to question me. Dick.
But getting rid of their worst hitting catcher was not what they wanted to do.
Vazquez was optioned because although he had been anointed the chosen starting catcher, he couldn't hit enough to be that for a club with realistic playoff ambitions. And he still hasn't in AAA.
Hanigan was merely the backup catcher. I assume he adds intangibles, like keeping the Fenway toilets flushing smooth. Because his bat has been a steaming pile all season.
IMO, Swihart should have been kept at catcher to continue to develop his defense and be ready to return if Vazquez failed offensively, but Leon's emergence as a credible bat has made that issue moot.
What direction the team goes in 2017 can't be guessed at this point, but my choice would be to decline Hanigan's option, start the season with Leon/Vazquez, and re-condition Swihart's ankle to work up to catching 4/5 days in AAA exclusively...and put all this LF malarkey in the rear-view mirror.
Just curious. Yes a fair number of members here didn't like the move from behind the plate to the outfield, but from what I can recall it was mostly about the idea that the organisation unfairly gave up on him as a catcher. How many BEFORE THE FACT said he was going to be at a greater injury for risk?
He's OPSing .755 in AAA. I'm not sure you're going to get much more than that from him, based on his history.
He's also OPSing .666 since he was sent back down. I don't think he's figuring things out down there.