Tommy John Surgery for Christian Vasquez

[Kimmi]

Leon is a .156 hitter. You hit .156 -- that "ain't good."

 

 

I have stated that Leon's offense is mostly nonexistent. I am only speaking about the defensive side of things.

[Kimmi]

There you go again with that "clone" thing. So, in your opinion, is Vasquez a special defensive talent or do several teams have guys that play defense like Vasquez for which they have no room on their 40 man rosters? If these clone guys are around to be scooped up for carfare, why would you think that there would be a negative impact on our defense from losing Vasquez? It seems to me that you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

 

 

Vazquez is a special defensive talent. No, several teams do not have catchers that can play defense like Vazquez can, though the Nationals seem to have one, at least through the minor leagues. There are no 'clones', plural. Just one clone.

 

Who knows why the Nationals were willing to part with Leon over Ramos or Lobaton. Maybe they don't value catcher defense as much as the Sox do. Maybe they feel that with their great pitching staff, they don't need the pitch framing as much as they need the offense from that position. Maybe they felt that Ramos and Lobaton are both better overall catchers because Leon's offense is so weak.

 

Why will there be a negative impact on our defense from losing Vazquez? For one, there will be a learning curve for Leon in getting to know our pitchers. For two, Leon will not be catching as many games as a healthy Vazquez would have been. For three, I don't know how proven Leon is at the major league level.

 

All that said, I have also said that I feel less concerned about the loss of Vazquez since Leon was added.

[Kimmi]

And stylistically, I prefer a catcher with all world defensive potential and adequate offense, over an all-world hitter with adequate defense. This is one of the two positions where having all world defense is worth making that level of offensive sacrifice, the other obviously being SS.

 

 

Stylistically, I agree with you. I am a huge fan of defense, especially at catcher and SS. That said, the team has to go with the better overall player. If that means sacrificing a little defensively, then so be it. It's a similar situation to Iglesias versus Bogaerts. I loved Iglesias' defense, but Bogaerts is supposed to be the better overall SS, although we didn't see that last season.

[a700hitter]

Vazquez is a special defensive talent. No, several teams do not have catchers that can play defense like Vazquez can, though the Nationals seem to have one, at least through the minor leagues. There are no 'clones', plural. Just one clone.

 

Who knows why the Nationals were willing to part with Leon over Ramos or Lobaton. Maybe they don't value catcher defense as much as the Sox do. Maybe they feel that with their great pitching staff, they don't need the pitch framing as much as they need the offense from that position. Maybe they felt that Ramos and Lobaton are both better overall catchers because Leon's offense is so weak.

 

Why will there be a negative impact on our defense from losing Vazquez? For one, there will be a learning curve for Leon in getting to know our pitchers. For two, Leon will not be catching as many games as a healthy Vazquez would have been. For three, I don't know how proven Leon is at the major league level.

 

All that said, I have also said that I feel less concerned about the loss of Vazquez since Leon was added.

Fair enough. We will have to see what Leon has. I doubt he is anywhere close to Vasquez behind the plate. Vaszuez has incredibly quick feet and throwing release.

[User Name]

We've thought that about players before who came up to the big leagues and did a grand total of nothing. Ryan Lavarnway probably the most recently example. Vazquez is an acceptable starting catcher right now, or would be if his elbow was healthy. He was on pace for about 3-3.5 WAR over a full season based on his performance last year, that's not just acceptable, that's excellent. Let's let Swihart catch up to that level before starting to label him as superior.

 

It's true of no position more than catching that hitting is NOT everything there is to the position. And even if Swihart hits, if Vazquez is contributing the same number of wins in another area while not actively costing his team wins with his bat, which is quite possible considering the significance of catching defense, it's still a wash despite the fact that Vazquez is a lower third hitter and Swihart has the *ceiling* to be a middle of the rotation hitter.

 

Except that you're pulling this assessment out of thin air, because he hasn't actually done it at the ML level in a sustained manner.....and around and around we go.

[Dojji]

55 big league games ain't nothing. It's 55 more than Swihart has at this point

[User Name]

But it's still just 55 games. It's not nothing, but it sure isn't sustained success. I get it, you like rooting for the underdog, but the chances of Vasquez being the primary catcher long-term for this team were slim in the first place, and with the injury, he's almost certainly going to get Wally Pip'd unless Swihart is a complete and utter bust.

 

Another thing to think about is that if Vasquez is as good overall as you think he is, why are other teams asking for Swihart right off the bat regarding negotiations for any pitcher? And don't give me any BS about different types of valuations. The entire industry sees Swihart as close to a surefire All-Star level catcher in their projections as you can get. They could all be wrong, but I'll trust their valuation over yours.

[mvp 78]

I think it's not either or. There's room for both guys. Swihart may play 40% of his starts at 1b.

[User Name]

I seriously doubt that. They're not going to keep Vasquez as a backup if they can get a legitimate Major League piece back for him. Backup catchers with good/great D are a dime a dozen. Vasquez has youth and some upside, so he's not bench material yet.

[mvp 78]

Well, it wouldn't be the first time you were wrong.

 

My fantasy GMing is clearly superior to all others!

[Dojji]

But it's still just 55 games. It's not nothing, but it sure isn't sustained success. I get it, you like rooting for the underdog, but the chances of Vasquez being the primary catcher long-term for this team were slim in the first place, and with the injury, he's almost certainly going to get Wally Pip'd unless Swihart is a complete and utter bust.

 

Another thing to think about is that if Vasquez is as good overall as you think he is, why are other teams asking for Swihart right off the bat regarding negotiations for any pitcher? And don't give me any BS about different types of valuations. The entire industry sees Swihart as close to a surefire All-Star level catcher in their projections as you can get. They could all be wrong, but I'll trust their valuation over yours.

 

Right now Vazquez isn't the underdog. He's the titular starting catcher, and it's up to Swihart to catch up. Calling Swihart the superior player sight unseen when Vazquez is the man who's earned the job right now and will be the starting catcher if he recovers faster than expected isn't reasonable.

 

I don't get why this is so hard for you. Yes, I get that you're excited by Swihart, so am I. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. I've seen guys with every bit of Swihart's potential turn to nothing, and so have you. Heck, just last year Garin Cecchini was the bomb because of his incredible AVG and OBP at AA, where'd that go eh?

 

Most of my schtick boils down to railing against a rush to judgment and trying to kick down prejudices that close people's minds to legitimate possibilities. You're ignoring the very real possibility that Vazquez is the superior catcher overall, despite the fact that we're comparing him to a player that yes, has all the upside in the world, but hasn't played one single second in the big leagues yet. And despite the fact that the Sox brass are raving about Vazquez' defensive skills in a position where defense is far more important than offense. If Swihart is also a good defender and hits 20 HR's, neither of which he's proven conclusively yet (although I agree the potential is certainly there) that's a superior package. But if we find the holes in Swihart's game and there's more of them than we think there are right now, which happens *ALL* the freaking time with minor league prospects, or he doesn't hit like a titan right out of the box which is obviously a very real possibility, then it becomes a much grayer area than you seem to want to admit.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Dojji

[User Name]

Right now Vazquez isn't the underdog. He's the titular starting catcher, and it's up to Swihart to catch up. Calling Swihart the superior player sight unseen when Vazquez is the man who's earned the job right now and will be the starting catcher if he recovers faster than expected isn't reasonable.

 

I don't get why this is so hard for you. Yes, I get that you're excited by Swihart, so am I. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. I've seen guys with every bit of Swihart's potential turn to nothing, and so have you. Heck, just last year Garin Cecchini was the bomb because of his incredible AVG and OBP at AA, where'd that go eh?

 

Most of my schtick boils down to railing against a rush to judgment and trying to kick down prejudices that close people's minds to legitimate possibilities. You're ignoring the very real possibility that Vazquez is the superior catcher overall, despite the fact that we're comparing him to a player that yes, has all the upside in the world, but hasn't played one single second in the big leagues yet. And despite the fact that the Sox brass are raving about Vazquez' defensive skills in a position where defense is far more important than offense. If Swihart is also a good defender and hits 20 HR's, neither of which he's proven conclusively yet (although I agree the potential is certainly there) that's a superior package. But if we find the holes in Swihart's game and there's more of them than we think there are right now, which happens *ALL* the freaking time with minor league prospects, or he doesn't hit like a titan right out of the box which is obviously a very real possibility, then it becomes a much grayer area than you seem to want to admit.

 

I'm not "excited about Swihart". That's the main difference between the two of us. "I don't know why this is so hard for you", but for me, it's about having the best player on the team long-term, not about "Who I like", which is why we always butt heads. You're also dead wrong about Vasquez not being the underdog here. He is. People who have forgotten way more about baseball than you or I will never know project Swihart to be the long-term catching option for this team. No amount of tl;dr posts is going to change that fact.

[User Name]

Well, it wouldn't be the first time you were wrong.

 

My fantasy GMing is clearly superior to all others!

 

Bitch I'm never wrong. The most I've ever been is partially incorrect. That's why I'm must-read material here at Talksox.

[Spudboy]

I think it's not either or. There's room for both guys. Swihart may play 40% of his starts at 1b.

 

The Sox converted Swihart to catcher when they drafted him, I think. I read that he had previously played 3rd and OF.

 

Obviously his greatest value is his bat as a catcher. But I think in the long run he will be another Joe Mauer. Converted to another position to protect his health. This assumes that he does hit well in the Majors, of course.

 

I don't see any urgency in any of this. I won't regurgitate what I have already said. The Sox are lucky to have catcher. Even if the MLB ready players are not all world. And if the present catchers don't get it done than the Sox will grab another catcher during the season.

[Spudboy]

I think it's not either or. There's room for both guys. Swihart may play 40% of his starts at 1b.

 

The Sox converted Swihart to catcher when they drafted him, I think. I read that he had previously played 3rd and OF.

 

Obviously his greatest value is his bat as a catcher. But I think in the long run he will be another Joe Mauer. Converted to another position to protect his health. This assumes that he does hit well in the Majors, of course.

 

I don't see any urgency in any of this. I won't regurgitate what I have already said. The Sox are lucky to have catcher. Even if the MLB ready players are not all world. And if the present catchers don't get it done than the Sox will grab another catcher during the season.

[sk7326]

We've thought that about players before who came up to the big leagues and did a grand total of nothing. Ryan Lavarnway probably the most recently example. Vazquez is an acceptable starting catcher right now, or would be if his elbow was healthy. He was on pace for about 3-3.5 WAR over a full season based on his performance last year, that's not just acceptable, that's excellent. Let's let Swihart catch up to that level before starting to label him as superior.

 

It's true of no position more than catching that hitting is NOT everything there is to the position. And even if Swihart hits, if Vazquez is contributing the same number of wins in another area while not actively costing his team wins with his bat, which is quite possible considering the significance of catching defense, it's still a wash despite the fact that Vazquez is a lower third hitter and Swihart has the *ceiling* to be a middle of the rotation hitter.

 

I don't think anyone is actually arguing this point. Lavarnway is something of a false comparison. The view of most of the industry was that Lavarnway couldn't catch - but was worth trying there because if he could, with the bat that is potentially an All-Star. As it turned out his failure was because of both factors at the same time - 1) he couldn't catch and 2) his bat did not really play anywhere else that he COULD play.

 

The projection from those who rate Swihart so highly is that he absolutely can catch - at a very high level. This is not trading Vasquez for Lavarnway. The idea would be that Swihart's bat AND glove would be well above average major league catcher level. Now, if his bat turns out even better than that, there will be pressure in the future to reduce his catcher workload so he can get his bat in the lineup 20-30 more times. But that is a future "good" problem to have - and you can find a Ryan Hanigan clone to take up that slack if it comes to that.

[Dojji]

According to Soxprospects he was mostly a shortstop in high school, which speaks highly of his athletic skills and certainly suggests that he might go the Napoli/Mauer/Hatteberg route. But if he can play catcher, and it certainly looks like he can, his value there would exceed what he could do in a CIF/COF spot.

 

For the record I've been going over Swihart's numbers and I'm not sure I do see an elite bat there. His hitting looks more on par with a guy like Jason Varitek. Very, very likely to be an offensive asset , but not star level unless other things help carry the overall package, like Tek's glove and smarts did.

 

From what I'm reading Swihart's more of a complete athletic package than he is an elite hitter, and that's fine too, but it does flavor my assessment of the comparison between Swihart and Vazquez. If Swihart is merely a pretty good hitter, then he needs to be pretty close to Vazquez' level DEfensively to overtake him, and I'm not sure he has the experience at catching to get to that level quickly.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Dojji

[Spitball]

... he [Hanigan] was never that good even in his prime.

 

Whoa! I am just now seeing this...not true. Hanigan was good in his prime, very good. Bill James and Rob Neyer both rated him one of the most underrated players just a couple of seasons ago. Unfortunately, he played for Dusty Baker who was stuck in another century, and though successful, didn't grasp modern concepts. Hanigan was not only an exceptional pitch framer, but he was also a stolen base thwarter (lead the league twice and 10% over league average through his career).

 

Offensively, he has had OBP of .364, .367, .361, .405, .356, and .365. In 2011, he OPSed .834. He was a pretty good for his position in his prime.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Spitball

[a700hitter]

Whoa! I am just now seeing this...not true. Hanigan was good in his prime, very good. Bill James and Rob Neyer both rated him one of the most underrated players just a couple of seasons ago. Unfortunately, he played for Dusty Baker who was stuck in another century, and though successful, didn't grasp modern concepts. Hanigan was not only an exceptional pitch framer, but he was also a stolen base thwarter (lead the league twice and 10% over league average through his career).

 

Offensively, he has had OBP of .364, .367, .361, .405, .356, and .365. In 2011, he OPSed .834. He was a pretty good for his position in his prime.

He was never more than a part time catcher.

[User Name]

According to Soxprospects he was mostly a shortstop in high school, which speaks highly of his athletic skills and certainly suggests that he might go the Napoli/Mauer/Hatteberg route. But if he can play catcher, and it certainly looks like he can, his value there would exceed what he could do in a CIF/COF spot.

 

For the record I've been going over Swihart's numbers and I'm not sure I do see an elite bat there. His hitting looks more on par with a guy like Jason Varitek. Very, very likely to be an offensive asset , but not star level unless other things help carry the overall package, like Tek's glove and smarts did.

 

From what I'm reading Swihart's more of a complete athletic package than he is an elite hitter, and that's fine too, but it does flavor my assessment of the comparison between Swihart and Vazquez. If Swihart is merely a pretty good hitter, then he needs to be pretty close to Vazquez' level DEfensively to overtake him, and I'm not sure he has the experience at catching to get to that level quickly.

 

No he doesn't. Because Vasquez can't hit at all. Now, there is the possibility that Vasquez pulls a Yadi Molina and becomes a competent hitter, in which case your assessment would be spot on. But which is more likely? Swihart hitting to his ability and remaining an above-average defensive catcher, or Vasquez learning how to hit? Think about it.

 

Also, as SK pointed out, your Swihart-Lavarnway comparison is ridiculous.

[Spitball]

He was never more than a part time catcher.

 

But justify your statement that "he was never that good." Posts should be justified with facts and not unsubstantiated opinions.

[a700hitter]

But justify your statement that "he was never that good." Posts should be justified with facts and not unsubstantiated opinions.

He was a good part time catcher, and he is 34.

 

Edit: I never said that he wasn't good. I said that he wasn't "that good".

 

I don't put a lot of value on guys that start 60-70 games a year. Good yes. "That Good" ? No. If he was "that good", he would have started more games. He has been the primary catcher on his team in 2 of his 8 seasons. He is a backup type, nothing more.

Edited April 3, 2015 by a700hitter

[Spitball]

He was a good part time catcher, and he is 34.

 

Edit: I never said that he wasn't good. I said that he wasn't "that good".

 

I don't put a lot of value on guys that start 60-70 games a year. Good yes. "That Good" ? No. If he was "that good", he would have started more games. He has been the primary catcher on his team in 2 of his 8 seasons. He is a backup type, nothing more.

 

That was Dusty Baker's fault. He put up excellent numbers when he played.

[a700hitter]

That was Dusty Baker's fault. He put up excellent numbers when he played.

 

I know that you are old enough to remember Johnny Blanchard of the Yankees. He was the best third string catcher/pinch hitter of his day. The Yankees traded him to Kansas City and he cried. One of his teammates urged him to look at the bright side, that he would be starting in KC. Blanchard looked his mate in the face and was still upset and told him that he knew he wasn' t good enough to play everyday. He quickly slipped out of baseball. His Yankeee managers utilized him in a limited fashion giving him his best chance to succeed. He was not a full time player.

 

Rather than blaming Dusty Baker, maybe it was Baker's utilization of Hanigan that gave him his best opportunity to succeed. If he was the Reds best catcher, he would have played more. Your criticism of baker with relation to hanigan is baseless. He is a part time player, and the first season that he was separated from Baker was his worst season. He is a backup -- a good one-- but nothing more than a backup.

Edited April 3, 2015 by a700hitter

[Dojji]

No he doesn't. Because Vasquez can't hit at all.

 

Leaving aside the fact that Swihart hasn't proven he can hit big league pitching either yet, Vazquez should hit well enough to hold his own as a defensive specialist if he can put in the reps. If he can get his average up into the .260 range he's fine at the bottom of a batting order as long as the glove holds up.

[a700hitter]

Our best hope is for Swihart to come up by June and take the full time job. I can't see getting through the season with an aging backup (no matter how good he had been in that role) and a bush leaguer discard. That is not a good situation. We have to hope that Swihart blossom like Mookie Betts when he comes to Fenway and doesn't sputter and fail like Boegaerts, Bradley and Middlebrooks.

[Bellhorn04]

Our best hope is for Swihart to come up by June and take the full time job. I can't see getting through the season with an aging backup (no matter how good he had been in that role) and a bush leaguer discard. That is not a good situation. We have to hope that Swihart blossom like Mookie Betts when he comes to Fenway and doesn't sputter and fail like Boegaerts, Bradley and Middlebrooks.

 

That seems like a reasonable position.

[a700hitter]

That seems like a reasonable position.

I am a reasonable and wise man. It just takes people some time to figure me out. Some never do. Some don't want to. LOL!!!

[sk7326]

According to Soxprospects he was mostly a shortstop in high school, which speaks highly of his athletic skills and certainly suggests that he might go the Napoli/Mauer/Hatteberg route. But if he can play catcher, and it certainly looks like he can, his value there would exceed what he could do in a CIF/COF spot.

 

For the record I've been going over Swihart's numbers and I'm not sure I do see an elite bat there. His hitting looks more on par with a guy like Jason Varitek. Very, very likely to be an offensive asset , but not star level unless other things help carry the overall package, like Tek's glove and smarts did.

 

From what I'm reading Swihart's more of a complete athletic package than he is an elite hitter, and that's fine too, but it does flavor my assessment of the comparison between Swihart and Vazquez. If Swihart is merely a pretty good hitter, then he needs to be pretty close to Vazquez' level DEfensively to overtake him, and I'm not sure he has the experience at catching to get to that level quickly.

 

Swihart if he arrives in Boston in any capacity at all in 2015 would have arrived there a full two years younger than Varitek. That matters a great deal in the view of the numbers.

[Spitball]

I know that you are old enough to remember Johnny Blanchard of the Yankees. He was the best third string catcher/pinch hitter of his day. The Yankees traded him to Kansas City and he cried. One of his teammates urged him to look at the bright side, that he would be starting in KC. Blanchard looked his mate in the face and was still upset and told him that he knew he wasn' t good enough to play everyday. He quickly slipped out of baseball. His Yankeee managers utilized him in a limited fashion giving him his best chance to succeed. He was not a full time player.

 

700, an anecdotal story about Johnny Blanchard in no way proves anything about Ryan Hanigan. Especially, an anecdotal story that probably isn't totally being remembered correctly. Blanchard wasn't acquired by the A's to be a starter. He started only 28 games for them that season.

 

In Ball Four, Jim Bouton described Blanchard "as one of the guys." He was a drinking partner of Mickey Mantle, Whitey Ford, and Clete Boyer. Surely he cried because he was leaving his pals with the Yankees and going to Charley Finley's A's, one of the worst organizations in baseball.

 

Rather than blaming Dusty Baker, maybe it was Baker's utilization of Hanigan that gave him his best opportunity to succeed. If he was the Reds best catcher, he would have played more. Your criticism of baker with relation to hanigan is baseless. He is a part time player, and the first season that he was separated from Baker was his worst season. He is a backup -- a good one-- but nothing more than a backup.

 

I can't give Dusty Baker any credit. I liked the man, but he had some strange ideas like leading off with his centerfielder, batting a middle infielder second, and the catcher eighth. He also didn't appreciate players like Hanigan who could draw a walk. He claimed they just clogged up the bases.