2016 Red Sox Hot Stove Discussion Thread

[jacksonianmarch]

Kimmi, Jeter won it in reputation. There were some years where his defense was solid, but most of the time he was below average. I think he had a solid UZR in 2009 interestingly enough. And he held his own early in his career. But most of the time he was a liability

[sk7326]

They're not all BS. But as long as there are people voting based on things like RBIs, errors, and pitcher's W-L record, they won't get it completely right.

 

Gold Gloves are largely reputation based - and usually a player has to become good offensively to get on people's radars. It's silly of course.

 

Cy Young tends to be solid largely - there are some shaky years (Welch over Clemens in 1990) but largely the voters seem to do fine.

 

MVP you get a lot of doozies because of how open ended the criteria is and writers projecting the value of contention (which means it's a referendum on a player's teammates). In my lifetime as a fan, just looking at the AL there have been howlers. For a quick version, I used baseball reference, and said it was a good vote if the MVP was within 1.5 WAR of the lead. This means that a bad choice is one where there were obviously better candidates. I noted a couple of borderline years where voters chose the 2nd best player by WAR in a year where the leader was a pitcher who lapped the field.

 

1987: George Bell over Boggs, Alan Trammell, Clemens, Viola

1989: Yount over Henderson, Boggs, Saberhagen

1992: Eckersley over Clemens, Mussina, Appier, Puckett

1993: Thomas over Appier, Griffey, Olerud, Langston, Lofton

1995: Vaughn over Randy Johnson, Valentin (and yes, Belle)

1996: JuanGone over Griffey, ARod, Knoblauch, Hentgen

1997: Griffey over Clemens (Griffey was actually a good choice 2nd in the AL in WAR but Clemens was such a monster that year)

1998: JuanGone over ARod, Clemens, Jeter, Kenny Rogers, Chuck Finley, Pedro, Belle, Nomar

1999: Pudge over Pedro, Alomar, Manny, Jeter

2000: Giambi over Pedro, ARod

2002: Tejada over ARod, Thome, Halladay, Derek Lowe

2004: Vlad over Ichiro, Johan Santana, Schilling, ARod, Tejada

2006: Morneau over Santana, Sizemore, Vernon Wells, Chien Ming Wang, Carlos Guillen

2009: Mauer over Greinke (Greinke was really good for KC that year, but Mauer was excellent choice among "everybody else")

2012: Cabrera over Trout

 

What is encouraging though about all the awards is that as the writers have turned over, the voting has gotten better informed. There are notably "finer" choices in the 2000s.

[mvp 78]

Got rid of Kapstein so they could sell those seats!

[a700hitter]

Got rid of Kapstein so they could sell those seats!

I thought that I read that DD parted ways with Kapstein. He will have to pay for his tickets.

[Kimmi]

Kimmi, Jeter won it in reputation. There were some years where his defense was solid, but most of the time he was below average. I think he had a solid UZR in 2009 interestingly enough. And he held his own early in his career. But most of the time he was a liability

 

Exactly. Jeter is worthy of some kind of award, but it certainly isn't the Gold Glove.

[Kimmi]

Gold Gloves are largely reputation based - and usually a player has to become good offensively to get on people's radars. It's silly of course.

 

Cy Young tends to be solid largely - there are some shaky years (Welch over Clemens in 1990) but largely the voters seem to do fine.

 

MVP you get a lot of doozies because of how open ended the criteria is and writers projecting the value of contention (which means it's a referendum on a player's teammates). In my lifetime as a fan, just looking at the AL there have been howlers. For a quick version, I used baseball reference, and said it was a good vote if the MVP was within 1.5 WAR of the lead. This means that a bad choice is one where there were obviously better candidates. I noted a couple of borderline years where voters chose the 2nd best player by WAR in a year where the leader was a pitcher who lapped the field.

 

1987: George Bell over Boggs, Alan Trammell, Clemens, Viola

1989: Yount over Henderson, Boggs, Saberhagen

1992: Eckersley over Clemens, Mussina, Appier, Puckett

1993: Thomas over Appier, Griffey, Olerud, Langston, Lofton

1995: Vaughn over Randy Johnson, Valentin (and yes, Belle)

1996: JuanGone over Griffey, ARod, Knoblauch, Hentgen

1997: Griffey over Clemens (Griffey was actually a good choice 2nd in the AL in WAR but Clemens was such a monster that year)

1998: JuanGone over ARod, Clemens, Jeter, Kenny Rogers, Chuck Finley, Pedro, Belle, Nomar

1999: Pudge over Pedro, Alomar, Manny, Jeter

2000: Giambi over Pedro, ARod

2002: Tejada over ARod, Thome, Halladay, Derek Lowe

2004: Vlad over Ichiro, Johan Santana, Schilling, ARod, Tejada

2006: Morneau over Santana, Sizemore, Vernon Wells, Chien Ming Wang, Carlos Guillen

2009: Mauer over Greinke (Greinke was really good for KC that year, but Mauer was excellent choice among "everybody else")

2012: Cabrera over Trout

 

What is encouraging though about all the awards is that as the writers have turned over, the voting has gotten better informed. There are notably "finer" choices in the 2000s.

 

1. Gold Gloves awards have had little or no merit. They have improved in the last 3 years with the addition of the saber component, but the managers and coaches are still largely voting on the wrong criteria.

 

2. I agree about the Cy Young winners being, for the most part, solid. That said, I remember a few years back (2010, I think), when several people insisted Sabathia should win the Cy because he was a 20 game winner, and that Felix should not win because he only had 12 wins or something close to that. I was so glad to see Felix win it that year. If I recall correctly, no pitcher with less than 15 wins had ever won the Cy before. As you said, the voters are becoming better informed.

 

3. I think you hit the nail on the head with the criteria being so open ended with MVP. Most valuable player does not necessarily mean the best player, and it's hard to quantify 'valuable' beyond WAR. Is a player valuable to a team that is nowhere near playoff contention? Does a player's leadership add any value? If a player is injured and his replacement plays almost as well, does that make the first player less valuable?

 

There are some head scratchers for sure, Cabrera over Trout being the most recent. Miggy had the sexy homerun and RBI numbers that voters seem to love. I am encouraged by the improvements in recent voting, but there is still a way to go.

[Kimmi]

got rid of kapstein so they could sell those seats!

 

lol

[Hitch]

Bradley wouldn't - although he should be the first guy they offer for anybody. There is power in telling somebody "I have a solid starting CF who will cost you $1.5M for the next three years". That has real value. But I think the Mets would want Betts - as well they should.

 

Yeah I don't mean as a centre piece, but as part of a deal it could entice people?

 

Buch

Owens

Bradley

and possibly Hanley if we can find somebody that wants his bat...

 

...would bring back a pretty decent pitcher no? Then get to the free agent market to pick up another, move Kelly to the pen and we'd be all set(rotation wise). :)

 

 

I agree with what a previous poster said though, Harvey looks off the table now. He and the Mets seem to have squared things up.

[a700hitter]

The Nats have hired Dusty Baker as there manager for two years. Baseball loves to recycle managers.

[Bellhorn04]

One trade suggestion on the Boston.com forum that seems at least plausible looks like this:

 

Swihart, Bradley and something else, possibly Owens, to Cleveland for Salazar or Carrasco

[jacksonianmarch]

Swihart, Bradley, and Owens should get you more than Salazar. I love Salazar, but before this season, he'd been nothing more than a flash in the pan kind of guy. And while he was dominant when he pitched, he averaged barely over 6IP and was 15IP short of 200IP even though he started 30 games. If you're going to provide a team a starting catcher, CF, and mid rotation starter, you should get as close to a reliable return as you can get. Carrasco is the guy there.

[sk7326]

1. Gold Gloves awards have had little or no merit. They have improved in the last 3 years with the addition of the saber component, but the managers and coaches are still largely voting on the wrong criteria.

 

2. I agree about the Cy Young winners being, for the most part, solid. That said, I remember a few years back (2010, I think), when several people insisted Sabathia should win the Cy because he was a 20 game winner, and that Felix should not win because he only had 12 wins or something close to that. I was so glad to see Felix win it that year. If I recall correctly, no pitcher with less than 15 wins had ever won the Cy before. As you said, the voters are becoming better informed.

 

3. I think you hit the nail on the head with the criteria being so open ended with MVP. Most valuable player does not necessarily mean the best player, and it's hard to quantify 'valuable' beyond WAR. Is a player valuable to a team that is nowhere near playoff contention? Does a player's leadership add any value? If a player is injured and his replacement plays almost as well, does that make the first player less valuable?

 

There are some head scratchers for sure, Cabrera over Trout being the most recent. Miggy had the sexy homerun and RBI numbers that voters seem to love. I am encouraged by the improvements in recent voting, but there is still a way to go.

 

For me, baseball is one of those sports where the individual contribution is easy enough to glean - the reason statistical analysis works in baseball is that at its heart, it is a series of one-on-one interactions, compared to 5-on-5 NBA or 11-on-11 NFL. Now I would never just run down the list of bWAR, fWAR leaders and stop there, but it is a fair starting point to identify player value. But the direction and magnitude can tell you whether the player created reasonably close value. Obviously a good team gets more mileage out of value than a bad one (the marginal value of wins). And yes, the MVP can be a pitcher (the real reason the Pedro year was so scandalous) and it can be from a bad team. (using team results too heavily in MVP voting means you are voting on crappy teammates, not MVP)

[Kimmi]

For me, baseball is one of those sports where the individual contribution is easy enough to glean - the reason statistical analysis works in baseball is that at its heart, it is a series of one-on-one interactions, compared to 5-on-5 NBA or 11-on-11 NFL. Now I would never just run down the list of bWAR, fWAR leaders and stop there, but it is a fair starting point to identify player value. But the direction and magnitude can tell you whether the player created reasonably close value. Obviously a good team gets more mileage out of value than a bad one (the marginal value of wins). And yes, the MVP can be a pitcher (the real reason the Pedro year was so scandalous) and it can be from a bad team. (using team results too heavily in MVP voting means you are voting on crappy teammates, not MVP)

 

I don't disagree with any of that SK. Unfortunately many of the voters do.

 

The race between Trout and Donaldson is very close this year. It will be interesting to see who wins it.

[Kimmi]

Just read that the Sox had 3 players who were the worst in the AL at their position defensively in terms of DRS. Hanley and Pablo, whom we all know about, and Swihart was the third.

[jacksonianmarch]

But Kimmi, his defense was improving!!!! /sarcasm. His defense is not ready for prime time and he likely will never be a good defender, but his bat will play at the position

[SoxHop]

Just read that the Sox had 3 players who were the worst in the AL at their position defensively in terms of DRS. Hanley and Pablo, whom we all know about, and Swihart was the third.

 

Interesting. I wouldn't have thought Swihart was the worst. I wonder how much those games catching Wright hurt his stats.

[SoxnCycles]

Interesting. I wouldn't have thought Swihart was the worst. I wonder how much those games catching Wright hurt his stats.

 

It probably hurt him some.

But, he had quite a few games where he struggled defensively.

He'll make a good trading chip this off season.

Keep Vazquez and Hanigan.

[Dojji]

Ehh, Swihart was rushed and green in his first few months, I'm not surprised his numbers don't look fantastic over a full season. I do think he improved as the year went on and his defensive ceiling is pretty clear as an average to above average defensive catcher, which coupled with his bat out to be valuable.

 

I still think we can't dare to trade either Swihart or Vazquez until at least midseason because we don't know how well Vazquez will hit after the long layoff. Not so much the injury, I don't think TJS really hurts hitters that much, but the lost year of reps could come back to bite him hard, especially where his offensive skills were already pretty marginal. This should have been a big developmental year for Vazquez before he went and got hurt, especially offensively. Loosing hundreds of plate appearances at an age as young as that can't help but dilute the man's ceiling, and we're counting on CV's bat to solidify into something that you can carry in the 8-9 hole without inflicting damage to the offense, so his sterling defensive potential can carry the package.

 

If we trade Swihart, and then a rusty Vazquez can't put it together offensively, then we've just turned a strong position organizationally into a very weak one. And having a weakness at catcher is one of the hardest positions in all of baseball to rectify. I'd rather have too much depth there than too little.

 

There's also the fact that Vazquez may turn out to be injury prone, and needing more rest than we were hoping. So until we know what Vazquez is capable of offensively and what workload he can stand, I don't think we can trade either one. We may wind up needing Swihart to be our starting catcher if Vazquez hits like a backup. I don't trust Hanigan to take over if we need to take it slow with CV. Last time we tried that he made it less than a month before he himself got hurt, given his age I can't see that not happening again.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Dojji

[Spudboy]

It would be nice to maintain strength at catcher. But will the Sox want to have three catchers on the 25 man roster?

[GomesBeard]

CV probably would start at AAA and stay there for a bit, right? Until he is deemed ready? Maybe late May - and who knows where Swihart and Hannigan will be at, health-wise.

[mvp 78]

It would be nice to maintain strength at catcher. But will the Sox want to have three catchers on the 25 man roster?

 

Dump Hannigan

[a700hitter]

But Kimmi, his defense was improving!!!! /sarcasm. His defense is not ready for prime time and he likely will never be a good defender, but his bat will play at the position

The numbers say that he is the worst so he must be the worst.

[cp176]

If the club decides to acquire pitching through trade and they go after a good one, it will cost someone major league ready. Swihart fits the bill. He fits it very well if Vasquez is healthy and ready to go. You have to take a chance somewhere to get better on the mound. A Vasquez who hits .250 or below will more than make up for any hitting lack with his glove. Swihart is a nice young player and they may decide to keep him but if the trade route is the one they want to go, he will be target.

[GomesBeard]

Assuming we keep Bogaerts and Betts, and with Papi, Shaw, Pedroia, etc, I'd rather have an outstanding defensive catcher who can hit a little, then an offensive catcher who's skills are at or below average. Vasquez showed some nice defensive skills and ability to throw before he got hurt. Assuming he continues to improve in those areas, I'd take him as my #1 and if Swihart helped me get another part I needed, I'd let him go. I'd still like to keep Hannigan as back-up.

[Kimmi]

But Kimmi, his defense was improving!!!! /sarcasm. His defense is not ready for prime time and he likely will never be a good defender, but his bat will play at the position

 

His defense is bound to improve. He was thrown into the fire before he was ready, and he is still developing. He won't be Vazquez-esque, but he should be above average defensively.

[Kimmi]

Interesting. I wouldn't have thought Swihart was the worst. I wonder how much those games catching Wright hurt his stats.

 

From what I recall, Swihart was below average this year in DRS, in blocking pitches, and in pitch framing. I am sure catching Wright doesn't help. IMO, Swihart will be fine defensively. He was just put into a difficult situation, one that he was not ready for, and it showed. That said, I think he did a very admirable job considering the circumstances.

[Kimmi]

It probably hurt him some.

But, he had quite a few games where he struggled defensively.

He'll make a good trading chip this off season.

Keep Vazquez and Hanigan.

 

I would hate to lose Swihart, but I would rather trade him than either Bogaerts or Betts. Also, I have always preferred a defensively oriented catcher over an offensive one. I really like the idea of a Vazquez/Hanigan tandem for next year. The defense would be elite, and any offense they provide would be gravy. So, trading Swihart would be the lesser of the evils.

 

That said, I keep hearing that Swihart's defense is good enough that he will eventually be the better overall catcher between the two. If that's the case, maybe Dombrowski plans on trading Vazquez after he shows he's healthy. Who knows?

[Kimmi]

Ehh, Swihart was rushed and green in his first few months, I'm not surprised his numbers don't look fantastic over a full season. I do think he improved as the year went on and his defensive ceiling is pretty clear as an average to above average defensive catcher, which coupled with his bat out to be valuable.

 

I still think we can't dare to trade either Swihart or Vazquez until at least midseason because we don't know how well Vazquez will hit after the long layoff. Not so much the injury, I don't think TJS really hurts hitters that much, but the lost year of reps could come back to bite him hard, especially where his offensive skills were already pretty marginal. This should have been a big developmental year for Vazquez before he went and got hurt, especially offensively. Loosing hundreds of plate appearances at an age as young as that can't help but dilute the man's ceiling, and we're counting on CV's bat to solidify into something that you can carry in the 8-9 hole without inflicting damage to the offense, so his sterling defensive potential can carry the package.

 

If we trade Swihart, and then a rusty Vazquez can't put it together offensively, then we've just turned a strong position organizationally into a very weak one. And having a weakness at catcher is one of the hardest positions in all of baseball to rectify. I'd rather have too much depth there than too little.

 

There's also the fact that Vazquez may turn out to be injury prone, and needing more rest than we were hoping. So until we know what Vazquez is capable of offensively and what workload he can stand, I don't think we can trade either one. We may wind up needing Swihart to be our starting catcher if Vazquez hits like a backup. I don't trust Hanigan to take over if we need to take it slow with CV. Last time we tried that he made it less than a month before he himself got hurt, given his age I can't see that not happening again.

 

Solid post Dojii. You bring up many good points. Because of what he brings defensively, I think Vazquez' offense will be good enough carry in the 8-9 hole, even if it isn't very good.

[Kimmi]

Assuming we keep Bogaerts and Betts, and with Papi, Shaw, Pedroia, etc, I'd rather have an outstanding defensive catcher who can hit a little, then an offensive catcher who's skills are at or below average. Vasquez showed some nice defensive skills and ability to throw before he got hurt. Assuming he continues to improve in those areas, I'd take him as my #1 and if Swihart helped me get another part I needed, I'd let him go. I'd still like to keep Hannigan as back-up.

 

Well said.

[Kimmi]

Dombrowski stated today that Barnes will be converted to a full time reliever and he should come into camp prepared to pitch in that role.

 

He also more or less said that Castillo, JBJ, and Betts will definitely be the starting outfielders to start next season. A trade of JBJ sounds very unlikely.