Marco Hernandez and Christian Vazquez recalled, Swihart to AAA
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
I think its more of:
--they're not letting him catch 7 days a week, even at AAA;
--They think he's a really good hitter;
--they want to hedge against Holt slipping and castillo not being a good MLB player;
--vazquez is a significantly better catcher
--and for *this* season's Red Sox, it might be helpful if Swihart could contribute some other way in addition to catcher.
A day here or there wont Doumit him or diminish his trade value.
who knows...maybe Biggio turns out to be the comp?
If Swihart is going to catch 4 days per week to work on "softening" his receiving skills during game action, I think it's more important for him to be able to chart pitch sequences the other 2-3, in order to learn how to call games better.
Just one man's opinion, of course, but the things that Swihart needs to work on as a catcher, are IMO things that could be worked on in AAA. And they're the type of things that generally make catchers develop latest among positional baseball players as a group. Only, he can't work on them when he's instead learning to shag flies and read hook/slice off the bat from 250+ feet away from the plate.
It's still a baffling decision for me. Much like adding Rutledge to the 40-man and then also calling up Hernandez the next day. Honestly, it makes me wonder if perhaps there's something wrong with Pedroia's thumb, once again, already.
Maybe a Ben Zobrist who can catch?
This does seem a sudden move, and the Sox haven't really explained it well. That's said, it's early for hitting the panic button. They are going to keep him catching, which only makes sense, and maybe LF is the easiest position at which they can look at him on the fly while he is still catching a lot. (And a position at which there is still a need). Obviously 1B might be even better for the short term, but their top AAA hitting prospect is already there.
If he adapts well to LF, I'm sure he will see action at the other OF spots, too.
This could be bad, but it isn't necessarily bad.
Porcello served up two middle, middle sub 90mph pitches that were parked over the monster. Framing skills are only a plus to pitcher and team performance on pitches around the edges or with late movement that actually reach the catcher.
Batting practice meatballs are food and drink to the majority of major league hitters and swapping BS for CV didn't prevent those gifts to Encarnacion. I hope that the Sox aren't banking only on catcher framing and the occasional pickoff to improve the rotation.
EDIT. Actually on reflection I don't think my view around CV or BS is that much difference that yours. I just think that they and tinkering around the edges of the pitching problem because they don't know how or don't have a plan to fix it. I'm just placing a higher priority on the pitching because I don't think that the catching is that big a problem. Less than 6 innings a start isn't sustainable without absolutely trashing the bullpen.
Last edited:
Remeber the good old days when similar statements from Hall of Fame caliber pitchers about Varitek's "intangibles" we're mocked on SoSH
I see your point that catcher framing doesn't help if your pitchers throw meatballs, but I also think that there's an argument to be made that good framing is just as important, if not more so for pitchers like Porcello who periodically throw meatballs. If you have a pitcher who you know will periodically throw a meatball at a higher than average rate, then having a good framer will help a. reduce the number of pitches they have to throw, thus lowering the number of meatballs and b. reduce the number of walks/hitters counts, helping to keep people off the bases for when the inevitable meatball does occur. Adding in the fact that some pitchers may be more meatball prone in certain situations (the first HR came off a 3-2 pitch, though the second was a 0-0 pitch) may help reduce the number of times they feel like they have to just throw the ball over the plate to get back in the count.
I guess I think of it this way----having an elite framer such as CV probably wouldn't be as much an issue if the guy pitching is, say, Kershaw, because even if he has to throw a few extra pitches or deal with an extra baserunner, its unlikely that much extra damage will be done, just because the true talent of the pitcher will probably minimize the impact. But for a shaky pitcher? I want him to get as much of an edge as possible.
But Tek wasn't new and shiny at that point; and defensive metrics for catchers were just a gleam in someone's eye
And when the run value of framing and other defensive metrics for catchers started to gain attention, Tek was the poster child for what not to do -- stabbing at pitches, unable to keep his hands steady for the umpire.
Which makes the comments about his value from Pedro and Schilling and others all the more relevant. Is it even possible in this day and age to praise someone's abilities for things beyond the box score and the playing field?And when the run value of framing and other defensive metrics for catchers started to gain attention, Tek was the poster child for what not to do -- stabbing at pitches, unable to keep his hands steady for the umpire.
1) yes. The framing alone will help. The confidence in the c helps. I'm hateful of the psyche games as much as anyone but pitchers have stated it b
2) how do any of us know that this wasn't planned before opening day- for the starting catcher to get his job back.
3)It's a week into the season I'm not sure there is enough data to know what needs fixing yet.
For what it's worth, though by the time PITCHf/x was available Varitek was a mediocre framer at best, it's likely that he was a good to excellent framer at his peak. This article at Baseball Prospectus by Judge, Pavlidis, and Brooks places him as one of the 10 best framers from 1988 to 2014. However, he wasn't very good by the time his framing could be more directly measured, as I showed in this article.
I hope so, and I hope it's possible on this board, because it's not just pitch framing and a strong arm that makes Vazquez (and made Varitek) valuable.
There's calling a game and allowing your pitcher to focus on executing pitches, which means doing your preparation and knowing the hitters. There's knowing what's working for your pitcher today. There's spotting and correcting flaws in the pitcher's mechanics. There's knowing when to go out to the mound to keep the pitcher calm and focused (and knowing when not to). There's making sure your pitcher maintains a rhythm comfortable for him.
Vazquez, by all accounts, excels at all these duties.
See, this is nonsense.
We don't know what the actual truth is. We don't know if the team viewed Vazquez as The Guy. We don't know if they didn't. We don't know if that changed when Dombrowski came in. We don't know what the plan was re Vazquez and the timing of him coming up when he was healthy. There are a lot of things we don't know because management doesn't tell us because why the hell would they?
So when things happen, we're looking at three or four data points in a narrative that has fifty of them. When that happens, we apply a narrative to the data points we have. The problem is there are multiple narratives that fit the data points.
The narrative that says the Sox have been reactive rather than proactive for a while fits the data points.
The narrative that says Vazquez was viewed as The Guy and got his job back when he got healthy fits the data points.
The narrative that says that whatever happened in the past, Vazquez looks like the best option now and got called up as soon as he was deemed healthy fits the data points.
We have a tendency to interpret new facts as supporting our previously held beliefs. It's why conspiracy theorists point to a lack of evidence as support for their theory. It's why people who think Farrell is on ice see this as a managing problem. It's why people who viewed this management team with some skepticism view it as a symptom of organization malfunction. I've been saying for a while now that having Swihart play some other positions is a great way to keep them both on the roster so you have deep depth at a very important position. It's no wonder that I see Swihart in left as supporting that notion, and it's no wonder that those who see him primarily as a trading chip see it through that lens.
We should all think less highly of ourselves and remember that we're working with a tiny fraction of the information that the team has.
This.
And This.
If baseball is 90% pitching and the other half mental, one can surmise that how pitchers feel about their catcher(s) would influence performance and therefore wins and losses.
Even though they don't fit on a spreadsheet, things like confidence, trust and leadership do matter. Since a catcher is only second to a pitcher in terms of handling the ball during a game and preventing runs, I'm sure how a pitcher feels about who is catching is very important for their team's success.
This can't be reduced to statistical modeling, but that said, most of human endeavors can't either.
On Swihart playing in the outfield as well as catching, this certainly has multiple precedents. One prominent example (and this is meant to be an example, not a general statement) is Yogi Berra, as was mentioned up thread.
In six separate seasons Yogi played in left field a total of 149 games. During seven different seasons he played in right field 116 times. The Yankees started putting him the OF during his sophomore season. The frequency and number of games in the OF increased towards the end of his career.
You can scroll down to "Standard Fielding": http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/berrayo01.shtml
In six separate seasons Yogi played in left field a total of 149 games. During seven different seasons he played in right field 116 times. The Yankees started putting him the OF during his sophomore season. The frequency and number of games in the OF increased towards the end of his career.
You can scroll down to "Standard Fielding": http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/berrayo01.shtml
Jason Mastrodonato @JMastrodonato 4m4 minutes ago
Farrell said Blake Swihart has begun taking reps in left field at Pawtucket and could play his first game in left in about a week.
Farrell said Blake Swihart has begun taking reps in left field at Pawtucket and could play his first game in left in about a week.
The two are not even close to being related. Okay, maybe they're close.
The point of having Swihart learn other positions is not that we need the other positions, it's that we want both Swihart and Vazquez on the team and in the game and they can't both play catcher at the same time.
But, why do want Swihart playing LF? If he's not a good enough hitter to beat out noodle bat Vazquez despite the defensive difference, then why would you want him at a position where offense is at a premium? If they want Vazquez to catch and need a LFer, trade Swihart for a LFer.
Maybe because if Swihart can play LF, you can dump Young and carry 3 catchers and 4 outfielders?
You can pinch hit for Vazquez or Hanigan late and behind?
The only issue is needing Betts or Holt to play CF, or Holt to play RF if someone gets hurt.
Or maybe he's a better hitter than Holt.
Or maybe he's simply a more valuable player if he can play more than one position...
but you know this.
You can pinch hit for Vazquez or Hanigan late and behind?
The only issue is needing Betts or Holt to play CF, or Holt to play RF if someone gets hurt.
Or maybe he's a better hitter than Holt.
Or maybe he's simply a more valuable player if he can play more than one position...
but you know this.
The best I can come up with is that he's still focused on catching. So they figure he can start his non-catching duties at the easiest position. If he adapts well to LF he'll get a shot in RF or CF.
And if turns out Swihart can't play the outfield, then what? Isn't his potential value trashed? Not good enough to be a starting catcher or outfielder? What's that worth in a trade?
If Hernandez turns out to be a serviceable outfielder, where does he fit? There is also Castilo who is already a great outfielder, and Young who you suggest should be dumped.
I may have missed something but this seems like throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks, not some thought out player development plan.
If Hernandez turns out to be a serviceable outfielder, where does he fit? There is also Castilo who is already a great outfielder, and Young who you suggest should be dumped.
I may have missed something but this seems like throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks, not some thought out player development plan.
Sounds like a good offseason plan...before you sign Young. We already knew Vazquez can't hit.
No, his value isn't trashed. A team trading for him is probably going to want him to catch and they will make their evaluation on games he catches. Why the hell would they give a goddamn if the Sox want to play him somewhere else occasionally? They're going to make up their own minds about whether he's good enough to be a starting catcher.
Honestly, do you think other teams form their opinions by reading the newspapers?
We knew and know nothing of the sort.
Why is it that because Vazquez is described as brilliant at the defensive side and not so much on the offensive that it's assumed he can't hit at all? He has a clear minor league track record of taking a while to adjust to a new level, but hitting just fine for a catcher once he adjusts. Look for yourself, it's not hard. http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=9774&position=C#advanced
Minor league stats are great. I see a guy with a pretty slow bat who has had a ton of trouble with major league offerings. I would love to be wrong.
I have nothing against CV, but I'm admittedly disappointed that Swihart is being jerked around as a residual effect of having been rushed to the bigs (and doing pretty well all things considered).
I have nothing against CV, but I'm admittedly disappointed that Swihart is being jerked around as a residual effect of having been rushed to the bigs (and doing pretty well all things considered).
Exactly.
Swihart's elite value is based off of his offense coming from the Catcher position. If you take his offense and put it in LF the result is that he is now JAG. The trade value for a potentially elite Catcher and a JAG in left field would appear to be pretty massive.
Yes I know all of that and agree that it mitigates the loss of value.
Here it is in math:
Swihart as a starting catcher has value: A
Swihart at any other position has value: B < A
In a trade, the Red Sox should get at least A; otherwise why make the trade?
Hence, if you are not making Swihart your starting catcher, trade him for something worth more than B, Swiharts value as not a starting catcher.
Because catchers get hurt, a lot. And backup catchers tend to suck horribly.
If somehow Vazquez and Swihart both hit their ceilings, then your catching situation is the best in the game and you are covered if either one gets hurt. In that case, Swihart being able to cover LF makes your team much better. But if you trade either one now, then you are betting the house that your judgment of BOTH if them is correct, AND that the guy you keep won't get hurt very often. Even though catchers get hurt a lot and even healthy catchers need a lot of days off.
What kind of return would you even get for one of these guys that is worth putting all your eggs in one of their baskets? If you trade either one of them now and the guy you keep gets hurt, then you are starting Sandy Leon for loads of games. Neither one of these guys makes any money and they both have good upside. Letting one of them play another position only has upside for you if they both become good major league players, and no downside.
You don't need to choose one or the other now. If you do, you are gambling like three times on one move: that the guy you keep will be better, that the guy you acquire will be good, and that the catcher you keep will be healthy. Instead of just letting things play out with you keeping control of both of them for dirt cheap. This is a classic example of whether you want to try to maximize theoretical value, or if you want to try to have the best team you can have.
If we keep both of them and one of them turns into a really good catcher and the other sucks, that is a huge win for us. Even though with hindsight everyone will be complaining that we didn't make some mythical trade of the other guy, because in hindsight trades always work out and you obviously should have been able to tell which guy would be good and which one would be bad. In the real world, that isn't the case.
If you trade one of them now and you trade the wrong guy, you have a sucky catcher and no alternative at that position.
If somehow Vazquez and Swihart both hit their ceilings, then your catching situation is the best in the game and you are covered if either one gets hurt. In that case, Swihart being able to cover LF makes your team much better. But if you trade either one now, then you are betting the house that your judgment of BOTH if them is correct, AND that the guy you keep won't get hurt very often. Even though catchers get hurt a lot and even healthy catchers need a lot of days off.
What kind of return would you even get for one of these guys that is worth putting all your eggs in one of their baskets? If you trade either one of them now and the guy you keep gets hurt, then you are starting Sandy Leon for loads of games. Neither one of these guys makes any money and they both have good upside. Letting one of them play another position only has upside for you if they both become good major league players, and no downside.
You don't need to choose one or the other now. If you do, you are gambling like three times on one move: that the guy you keep will be better, that the guy you acquire will be good, and that the catcher you keep will be healthy. Instead of just letting things play out with you keeping control of both of them for dirt cheap. This is a classic example of whether you want to try to maximize theoretical value, or if you want to try to have the best team you can have.
If we keep both of them and one of them turns into a really good catcher and the other sucks, that is a huge win for us. Even though with hindsight everyone will be complaining that we didn't make some mythical trade of the other guy, because in hindsight trades always work out and you obviously should have been able to tell which guy would be good and which one would be bad. In the real world, that isn't the case.
If you trade one of them now and you trade the wrong guy, you have a sucky catcher and no alternative at that position.
Except that, only Vazquez will continue being groomed into potentially "a really good catcher" now. Swihart has proven himself a capable-hitting catcher, but the Sox appear to be cutting bait on him improving any further defensively. That's why he was replaced after 6 games, and why he's now taking reps in LF.
DDski's set up Swihart to potentially develop into the Sox' version of Brandon Inge. But one thing that guy isn't, is a really good catcher.
Probably for the same reason that Swihart's offensive promise leads some to tab him as a crappy defensive catcher. From the start, the thinking about both of these guys has been distorted by this weird dualistic narrative that says one of them is the Defensive Guy (and therefore a terrible hitter) while the other is the Offensive Guy (and therefore a terrible defender). The idea that they both have the potential to be two-way catchers, with different mixes of strengths but no glaring weaknesses, seems to be more nuance than some people can handle.
I agree. These guys have been described and thought of around here based on the ceiling for their best tool like it's a zero sum situation. The better that can be, the worse the other must be. We know based on what little we've seen at the ML level that isn't correct and there is quite a bit of development left for both of them.
Blake Swihart is likely a better catcher now than Brandon Inge ever was. Swihart isn't a bad catcher. He didn't get sent down because he was a bad catcher. He got sent down because Vazquez is older, more polished defensively, has a lower offensive ceiling and less need for mL polish, and most importantly demonstrated that he was healthy. Meanwhile Swihart was rushed up last year during a catching emergency and never went back down. Had everything gone according to plan we'd be talking about when Swihart would get called up this year, not when he got sent down.
As for his time in LF, I'd argue it is as simple as Dombrowski assessing (accurately in my opinion) that there is a substantially greater than zero chance for Swihart to be one of the 10-12 best hitters in the organization by mid-season, if he isn't already, and a few of the guys who are better than him share the same positions while lacking his athleticism to move off those respective positions (see the Hanley/Ortiz/Sam Travis trio all only capable of 1B/DH).
So what would you rather see, the club sticking with Holt/Young/Castillo in LF come hell or high water or maybe adding Swihart into the mix as a viable LF option?
They aren't taking Swihart out from behind the dish permanently. He has played in five AAA games this year. They were all at catcher. He wasn't missing games just to practice LF either. LF is in addition to, not at the expense of, playing catcher. His bat has every day player potential but no one can hold up as an every day catcher.
Grey Eagle's point that it's better to keep both until you know which one is the starter and which one isn't is a better play than betting the club knows who is who and trading one away only to be made into fools down the road. You need two catchers. The Red Sox have two promising young catchers. Why fuck with it? The only reason would be the argument that Swihart is being devalued by sharing time with Vazquez, since Swihart's bat offers real value. Well having him play LF would solve exactly that problem.
If they were looking to permanently move him off C don't you think they would have tried the former HS shortstop turned catcher at something higher up the defensive spectrum than LF? Scouts have talked about him being athletic enough to handle 2B or 3B his entire career, the Craig Biggio career arc if you will. Instead of even entertaining that they're putting him in the easiest defensive position he can see real time at (between Hanley, Travis Shaw, and Sam Travis 1B is spoken for at both AAA and MLB levels).
It makes complete sense from my view why they're getting him in at LF. They want to:
1. Continue to develop his defense at catcher at the AAA level
2. Determine how best both Swihart and Vazquez can provide maximum contributions on the same 25 man roster
3. Further Swihart's development as a hitter, which requires more ABs
4. Give Swihart more time to develop before just leaving him at the ML level, as he all but skipped AAA last year (played in all of 20 games)
Swihart is already a solid ML catcher. We saw that over half a season last year. He could get better, but he can do so playing 3-5 games out of 7 there at AAA while also picking up LF to maximize his potential to contribute to the ML club. Frankly I consider this to be one of the few smart moves they've made so far in this young season.
Detroit made Inge a utility player once they got a better catcher in Ivan Rodriguez. Now Swihart is being made a utility player, although Vazquez has nowhere near the complete package of offensive-plus-defensive skills. Still, that doesn't mean Swihart is thought of as "a solid ML catcher." Rather the opposite, it suggests to me that he isn't viewed that way by the people making the decisions.
From this article:
And from these and other statements which have been made public, Farrell appears to clearly think of Swihart as Vazquez's backup. Almost certainly, this is because Vazquez is the backstop favored by Boston's pitching staff which shouldn't be surprising since Christian's by far the better defensive catcher.
However, for Swihart to become a better defensive catcher, and potentially surpass Christian as a complete player, he needs to focus on doing catcher-related things at AAA, not increasing his versatility. Charting pitches, blocking and framing practice, learning to read hitters in the box and adjusting his in-game calling skills. He may never be as good at these skills as Vazquez, who was always a catcher and learned from the Molinas how to become a better catcher, but Swihart can still become a better catcher than he is now.
However, he can't become one when he's learning to shag flies and how to read hook and slice of the bat from 250'+ away from the plate. Considering how the Sox already have Young, Holt, Shaw, and Castillo for LF -- in addition to Benintendi and Moncada busting through the ranks -- and turning Swihart into a utility player remains a complete head-scratcher for me.
And then there's this. IMO, JBJ's started playing like his head's next on the block. He's both slipping into pull-happy bad habits and putting up more consistently terrible at-bats; his affect at the plate appears tighter than at the beginning of the year and he's not swinging to drive the ball to the opposite field. Prior to Blake's demotion, he hit .283/.300/.393. Since then, the line's been .154/.241/.231. Both of those are unreliably small sample sizes, but it's more than clear he's not a Farrell guy based on his pattern of usage/demotion in 2014-15. I have long thought he knows it too, and now is playing like the next axe to fall will be on his neck.
From this article:
This is a Farrell-driven move. If DDski can't tell us what the end goal is, that suggests he's making moves that aren't based on his own analysis, but rather is providing the pieces his manager is requesting.
And from these and other statements which have been made public, Farrell appears to clearly think of Swihart as Vazquez's backup. Almost certainly, this is because Vazquez is the backstop favored by Boston's pitching staff which shouldn't be surprising since Christian's by far the better defensive catcher.
However, for Swihart to become a better defensive catcher, and potentially surpass Christian as a complete player, he needs to focus on doing catcher-related things at AAA, not increasing his versatility. Charting pitches, blocking and framing practice, learning to read hitters in the box and adjusting his in-game calling skills. He may never be as good at these skills as Vazquez, who was always a catcher and learned from the Molinas how to become a better catcher, but Swihart can still become a better catcher than he is now.
However, he can't become one when he's learning to shag flies and how to read hook and slice of the bat from 250'+ away from the plate. Considering how the Sox already have Young, Holt, Shaw, and Castillo for LF -- in addition to Benintendi and Moncada busting through the ranks -- and turning Swihart into a utility player remains a complete head-scratcher for me.
And then there's this. IMO, JBJ's started playing like his head's next on the block. He's both slipping into pull-happy bad habits and putting up more consistently terrible at-bats; his affect at the plate appears tighter than at the beginning of the year and he's not swinging to drive the ball to the opposite field. Prior to Blake's demotion, he hit .283/.300/.393. Since then, the line's been .154/.241/.231. Both of those are unreliably small sample sizes, but it's more than clear he's not a Farrell guy based on his pattern of usage/demotion in 2014-15. I have long thought he knows it too, and now is playing like the next axe to fall will be on his neck.
A platoon of Holt and Young is likely to be far better than Swihart offensively and defensively in LF. An outfielder or starting pitcher acquired in a trade for Swihart may be all star caliber.
It's about opportunity cost. Sure there's value in having a potential starter take those 50 games Vazquez doesn't catch for the next 3 years. There's more value in having someone like Cole Hamels as your #2 or someone like Alex Gordon as your everyday left fielder.
It's about opportunity cost. Sure there's value in having a potential starter take those 50 games Vazquez doesn't catch for the next 3 years. There's more value in having someone like Cole Hamels as your #2 or someone like Alex Gordon as your everyday left fielder.
Yeah, I have come around on bringing CV up and sending Swihart down if they were just making sure CV was healthy, but I don't get the LF thing at all.
This isn't a guy who is hopeless behind the plate and relatively unathletic like Kyle Schwarber or Evan Gattis. Swihart was at worst a tick below average defensively last year and is athletic enough to improve. We know his framing stats were OK and he was also average at throwing out runners. His minor league framing and throwing were good to great.
He may or may not know how to call a game. I am willing to believe the psychological effect on the pitching staff of this even if they are probably prone to biases.
But if he has work to do in these areas, how is he going to get it playing left field in Pawtucket? Even though LF is "relatively" easy, they are asking him to spend his game and practice time learning a new position -- time that he can't spend on catching (or like, hitting, or resting). If you're just wanting to get him ABs, well, last I checked they have a DH in the International League. The non-Swihart DHs for the last week were Sandy Leon and Marco Hernandez -- I think I'd rather give the DH ABs to Blake (obviously Leon and him would just switch).
Further, he's not going to learn the Monster and the narrow foul ground of Fenway down in Pawtucket either, so he may be lousy in LF if he gets called back up.
The average AL LFer had a .731 OPS last year. ZIPs projected a .710 for Holt, .670 for Swihart, .700 for Young.
Even if you're bullish on Blake's bat, this doesn't seem like a significant upgrade at LF, and the downside is that you mess with his catching development. I don't think it will make or break him as a player but I don't see the point in bothering when the Sox have two competent LFers already.
This isn't a guy who is hopeless behind the plate and relatively unathletic like Kyle Schwarber or Evan Gattis. Swihart was at worst a tick below average defensively last year and is athletic enough to improve. We know his framing stats were OK and he was also average at throwing out runners. His minor league framing and throwing were good to great.
He may or may not know how to call a game. I am willing to believe the psychological effect on the pitching staff of this even if they are probably prone to biases.
But if he has work to do in these areas, how is he going to get it playing left field in Pawtucket? Even though LF is "relatively" easy, they are asking him to spend his game and practice time learning a new position -- time that he can't spend on catching (or like, hitting, or resting). If you're just wanting to get him ABs, well, last I checked they have a DH in the International League. The non-Swihart DHs for the last week were Sandy Leon and Marco Hernandez -- I think I'd rather give the DH ABs to Blake (obviously Leon and him would just switch).
Further, he's not going to learn the Monster and the narrow foul ground of Fenway down in Pawtucket either, so he may be lousy in LF if he gets called back up.
The average AL LFer had a .731 OPS last year. ZIPs projected a .710 for Holt, .670 for Swihart, .700 for Young.
Even if you're bullish on Blake's bat, this doesn't seem like a significant upgrade at LF, and the downside is that you mess with his catching development. I don't think it will make or break him as a player but I don't see the point in bothering when the Sox have two competent LFers already.
The PawSox have four catchers on their roster. Could you outline how you'd like to manage them all so that Swihart gets plenty of chances to hit while simultaneously playing full-time catcher?
Thanks.
Release the worst one of the 4, Send the second worst one of them to Portland, and the second best one backs up Swihart. We're talking about Sandy Leon and Dan Butler here. Even if they sign elsewhere, it'll be in AAA and they'll have peomises that they'll be released if a major league job opens up.
Not to pile on, but really who gives a shit about Butler or Leon. Release one or both and let Bathea back him up. Swihart is a legit top prospect. If he needs work, you give it to him. You don't prioritize getting innings for journeymen in their thirties. Give him five days a week and let the other guys help.
Repeating myself, but if the Red Sox stick with Young all year - the discussion changes a little bit.
Today you have the following situation (with one open spot, assuming Sandoval is toast):
Hanley gets hurt: Shaw to 1B, Holt to 3B, Young to LF (Castillo?)...Rutledge B/U IF
Shaw gets hurt: Holt to 3B, Young to LF (Castillo?)
Holt gets hurt: Young to LF (Castillo?)
JBJ gets hurt: Young (Castillo?) to CF
Betts gets hurt: Young or JBJ (Castillo?) to RF
Replace either one of Young or (Castillo?) with the switch-hitting b/u catcher Swihart, who is arguably a better hitter than either of them - and if not, will be. That only leaves CF/RF b/u as questionable, with Betts or JBJ moving over and Young playing CF, unless you can argue for putting Holt there.
Swihart knowing how to play LF opens up the possibility of dealing Young or Castillo. Not to say they would, but it provides an option beyond Shaw as the only B/U LF.
But there's no need to go through tortured logic to justify Swihart learning a 2nd position. By all accounts he's projected to be an ++ hitter, and if that's done as a catcher (without wearing him down or killing him) it's a huge factor. OTOH, if he's a better hitter than either Holt, Castillo or Young - then why wouldn't you open up a scenario that gives him more diversity? LF > than 1B.
Can't see any downside. Not with Vazquez healthy.
Today you have the following situation (with one open spot, assuming Sandoval is toast):
Hanley gets hurt: Shaw to 1B, Holt to 3B, Young to LF (Castillo?)...Rutledge B/U IF
Shaw gets hurt: Holt to 3B, Young to LF (Castillo?)
Holt gets hurt: Young to LF (Castillo?)
JBJ gets hurt: Young (Castillo?) to CF
Betts gets hurt: Young or JBJ (Castillo?) to RF
Replace either one of Young or (Castillo?) with the switch-hitting b/u catcher Swihart, who is arguably a better hitter than either of them - and if not, will be. That only leaves CF/RF b/u as questionable, with Betts or JBJ moving over and Young playing CF, unless you can argue for putting Holt there.
Swihart knowing how to play LF opens up the possibility of dealing Young or Castillo. Not to say they would, but it provides an option beyond Shaw as the only B/U LF.
But there's no need to go through tortured logic to justify Swihart learning a 2nd position. By all accounts he's projected to be an ++ hitter, and if that's done as a catcher (without wearing him down or killing him) it's a huge factor. OTOH, if he's a better hitter than either Holt, Castillo or Young - then why wouldn't you open up a scenario that gives him more diversity? LF > than 1B.
Can't see any downside. Not with Vazquez healthy.
OK. Now you have four catchers in Portland. Which of those catchers should lose their training time?
Swihart has a good chance of being back in the majors in a month or two (Vazquez or Hanigan hurt; or Hanigan traded). Now the PawSox are short a catcher, plus the Portland guys have lost training time.
It's not that Swihart getting a chance in left is a black-and-white right solution. But once you have to take into account roster juggling and planning two months ahead, it seems like it's a reasonable way to handle things.
I don't get the 4 catcher thing either. Especially if Swihart isn't in LF full time until he learns the position. Even three catchers makes little sense since there is a pretty good chance Butler and Leon are going to be available down the line if they are DFA'd.
This is what I would like to see 2 years from now.
Vazquez/Swihart behind the plate.
Travis Shaw 3B
Swihart at 1B or LF when not catching.
Presumably someone other than on the current roster or on the farm will be in LF. If he can do what Holt does with the bat or better, and also catches two days a week, that's a valuable player, even if not an all-star as his bat probably won't play great at those positions.
Sam Travis DH'ing and HanRam gone. I think Sam has a shot at replicating Hanley's 10 WAR .338/443 RC119+ over the past 5 years and 2400 AB's for not 20 million.
HanRam not being able to hit his weight for 1B or DH is a debate for a different thread, but I'm talking overall about the defensive alignment.
This is what I would like to see 2 years from now.
Vazquez/Swihart behind the plate.
Travis Shaw 3B
Swihart at 1B or LF when not catching.
Presumably someone other than on the current roster or on the farm will be in LF. If he can do what Holt does with the bat or better, and also catches two days a week, that's a valuable player, even if not an all-star as his bat probably won't play great at those positions.
Sam Travis DH'ing and HanRam gone. I think Sam has a shot at replicating Hanley's 10 WAR .338/443 RC119+ over the past 5 years and 2400 AB's for not 20 million.
HanRam not being able to hit his weight for 1B or DH is a debate for a different thread, but I'm talking overall about the defensive alignment.
Last edited:
He was good enough to continue as the starting catcher even after Hanigan, a proven high quality defensive catcher, returned from injury last season. I'd say that speaks volumes. He isn't necessarily even "very good" but they had "very good" and chose Swihart over him for the glove + bat combination. Then did it again to start 2016.
From the same article:
“We think he can make a conversion to another position, even on a part-time basis so we can keep his bat in the lineup.”
Huh, kinda sounds like a team who has two promising young catchers, one of whom is athletic and can hit far better than the other, and is exploring one option on how to maximize the value of retaining both.
If Dombrowski was to tell us what the end goal was when holding two of the best young players at an incredibly hard to staff position he should have his head examined. He doesn't need to provide a narrative for why and doing so would only weaken his hand with regards to dealing with other clubs.
Like he would starting the majority of games at the position in AAA? Exactly what the FO has said he'll be doing? Yeah. So is spending his off days playing LF and getting more ABs going to somehow foul that all up? The professionals seem to disagree. In fact, many scouts and analysts have long held that Swihart has a better bat waiting to develop with time. Getting more ABs without the wear and tear of catching is a good first step towards seeing if that is true.
This would be a Farrell/JBJ problem unrelated to Swihart.
Swihart has almost all of his pre-FA years in hand. He plays a scarce position. The Sox have two young potentials for this position, but moving one now and moving the wrong one is a hell of a lot more damaging long term than flipping one for a market rate Cole Hamels a year or two before age related decline makes him overpaid. The Sox are clearly exploring a path that lets them keep both Vazquez and Swihart on the roster long term. The benefits of that are pretty obvious.
As for Holt/Young v. Swihart, in an idealized world probably. But in reality Chris Young is a guy who has had a sub-.700 OPS in two of his last three seasons and is 32. Brock Holt is off to his third hot start in a row but has cooled in each of the last two years to end up with a .711 OPS and a .727 OPS. Factoring in the O'fers we'll burn on Young to "get him ABs" and I would disagree that Blake Swihart, who posted a .712 OPS last season as a catcher who basically hopped through AA and AAA with a combined 139 games before doing that, offers more offensive upside a pretty similar floor.
Not to mention that if we're on the subject of extracting maximum value with respect to positionality what the hell sense does this argument make when it relies on playing someone capable of playing every position in the second least valuable position on the diamond? One he isn't particularly good at I might add. The current LF arrangement looked pretty stupid yesterday when they had to pull their "starting LF" to play short so Chris Young could fail against RHP some more.
Swihart posted a .712 OPS in over 300 PAs last season at the tender age of 23, so I'd say any projection system pegging him for a .670 followup has something inherently wrong with how it is rating the kid.
I mean, makes sense as his ML sample size was twice his AAA sample going into the season and just a little shy of his AA sample. As projections use MLEs pretty freely until a guy has multiple seasons of ML service the disconnect here is pretty obvious.
1. Why would it particularly mess with his catching development if he's still starting at catcher 5 out of 7 games?
2. If the plan is for a 2017 or beyond OF of Benintendi, Bradley, Betts then a Swihart/Holt tandem could provide a nice 4th/5th OF duo who also see substantial time at other positions (Swihart at C, Holt at 2B, SS, and 3B). Substantially deepening the bench.
On the MLB scale, JBJ has been provided with a relatively unimpeded pathway to claiming a regular post as a starting player. The failure to make that happen yet is on the player.
There is going to be playing time up for grabs in LF or Rf if JBJ becomes a part-timer in the coming months.
They did that because Hanigan has a tendency to fall off and/or get hurt if he's asked to play too often.
It doesn't count when Swihart is chosen over Hanigan for a job Hanigan literally cannot do.