Swihart moved to AAA

[Dojji]

he's also pretty small, well shorter than most of the players around him, not sure how that'll play out. you know I have concerns with small players as they age -- but that's years down the road in Vazquez' case.

[User Name]

As an outfielder. UN?, I know you love this kid, but there's a reason why a no hit player in Vasquez beat him out. And it isn't like the kid is really young, he's 24, about the age he should be hitting the bigs. He might be the second coming of Posada, but they don't allow poor defensive catchers to stay catchers anymore. The days of the hit first slugger behind the dish are over.

 

The fact that he's 24 means jack in this conversation. He's a recent catcher convert with little in the way of reps at the position. You have said before in your defense of Gary Sanchez and Jesus Montero that developing catchers takes times and reps. Be consistent.

[jacksonianmarch]

Yes, it does take time and reps. Montero ate himself out of the position. Sanchez is just hitting his stride. That being said, if Sanchez were to come up, it'd be as a backup for at least the next few seasons. Also, Sanchez has a gun, better than Swihart's for sure. The biggest issue with Swihart in the sox system is Vasquez. You have a far superior defender who is the same age. This isn't a rookie learning from a vet thing that could eventually lead to taking over the starting gig with more time and training. This is a poor defensive catcher with a solid hit tool who lost out to a catcher the same age with a ridiculous set of defensive tools.

 

The problem in terms of Swihart's value is that his big league sample size saw him as the worst catcher in baseball defensively. That torpedoed his stock. And with a club that needs that D to help the pitchers and the fact that the current starter has nearly the same service time, he's done here as a C. And he won't return the same value he had before last season. His stock is currently low and the only way to recoup that would be to have Vasquez either get hurt or dealt and have Blake prove he can be a big league catcher

[User Name]

That's a bunch of hogwash. Why would his stock take a hit in a relatively small sample when the rest of the league knows he's not a finished product? Do you think you know better than the Red Sox or leagues' talent evaluators?

[mvp 78]

he's also pretty small, well shorter than most of the players around him, not sure how that'll play out. you know I have concerns with small players as they age -- but that's years down the road in Vazquez' case.

 

A whole inch shorter than Russell Martin!

[mvp 78]

A whole inch shorter than Russell Martin!

 

2 inches shorter than Yadier!

[SoxHop]

Yes, it does take time and reps. Montero ate himself out of the position. Sanchez is just hitting his stride. That being said, if Sanchez were to come up, it'd be as a backup for at least the next few seasons. Also, Sanchez has a gun, better than Swihart's for sure. The biggest issue with Swihart in the sox system is Vasquez. You have a far superior defender who is the same age. This isn't a rookie learning from a vet thing that could eventually lead to taking over the starting gig with more time and training. This is a poor defensive catcher with a solid hit tool who lost out to a catcher the same age with a ridiculous set of defensive tools.

 

The problem in terms of Swihart's value is that his big league sample size saw him as the worst catcher in baseball defensively. That torpedoed his stock. And with a club that needs that D to help the pitchers and the fact that the current starter has nearly the same service time, he's done here as a C. And he won't return the same value he had before last season. His stock is currently low and the only way to recoup that would be to have Vasquez either get hurt or dealt and have Blake prove he can be a big league catcher

 

Swihart had only 38 games in AAA ball between 2014 and 2015. He then was brought up during the 2016 season, without spring training to get to know the pitchers and thrown into the mix with a rotation of fairly bad pitchers. During the second half he proceeded to hit above 300 and was the third best hitting catcher, and led the team to win 28 wins and loses. Pretty dang good for a AA guy that needs AAA training.

 

And he's not blocked at all. He's a trade chip. If he builds defensively he alone could possibly fetch a high slotted rotation pitcher. And there's no rush to trade him.

[SoxnCycles]

Swihart had only 38 games in AAA ball between 2014 and 2015. He then was brought up during the 2016 season, without spring training to get to know the pitchers and thrown into the mix with a rotation of fairly bad pitchers. During the second half he proceeded to hit above 300 and was the third best hitting catcher, and led the team to win 28 wins and loses. Pretty dang good for a AA guy that needs AAA training.

 

And he's not blocked at all. He's a trade chip. If he builds defensively he alone could possibly fetch a high slotted rotation pitcher. And there's no rush to trade him.

 

Exactly.

Jack was right about one thing, the only problem with Swihart is that Vazquez is much better, defensively.

I'm not sure how that hurts his trade value. With regular playing time and less pressure, he can work on his defensive game.

A good hitting, decent fielding catcher always has value.

[Kimmi]

Keeping 3 catchers on the roster never made much sense. Since Vazquez was brought up, the only logical move would be sending Swihart down. Trading Hanigan at this point would be stupid.

 

I love Vazquez. Last night's game, albeit only one game, was a showcase for why he needs to be our starting catcher. For that reason, I'm very happy to see him on the team.

 

That said, the move to call him up still seems a little rash to me. It had only been 8 games.

[Dojji]

Not rash at all. They kept Swihart up until keeping him up woult cost them a year of service time, and that dovetailed nicely with when they expected Vazquez to be fully ready.

 

if Vazquez wasn't fully ready, they'd burn the year of service time and keep rolling with swihart. since he was, they were able to save the service time.

 

It was very rational and calculated, and happened to take place 8 games into the season because that's when the plan called for it to happen. the optics don't look good because the team was having trouble preventing runs when swihart went down, but any executive would tell you that's most likely a coincidence. Unless Swihart was making it abundantly clear exactly why they needed to keep running with him (and probably even if) Vazquez was coming back.

 

(people seem to have forgotten this AGAIN, but the Boston Red Sox never, not once, made any noise that sounded anything like a commitment to Blake Swihart as the starting catcher. He was strictly and only an injury replacement)

[Kimmi]

He's not moving to left, unbunch the pantaloons. He's getting a taste of left field while working on his catching. That's how the team is framing this.

 

if any team saw him as a potentially valuable trade chip 5 minutes ago the fact that he suddenly has left field experience isn't going to change their minds one little bit. The only significance of the move to LF is that it annoys people yet further who somehow still see Swihart as the guy who should be starting at catcher either right now or in 2 years (or in other words those who want catchers that hit and see Vazquez as a backup) despite the team making it clear that Vazquez was the starter and Swihart wasn't, and maybe gives Swihart a little more usefulness off the bench in a couple niche situations. That's it. Cool your jets people.

 

Incidentally I'm reading here and there that Swihart was right on the edge of burning a year of service time, and sending him down, if they leave him down all year, will save them a year of control over him. That's never the only reason to hold a guy in the minors, but with 2 good young catching hopefuls and only 1 that you can commit enough big league reps to to let them develop in Boston, it makes a good tiebreaker.

 

A voice of reason here.

 

Getting Swihart some reps in LF is a good thing. The Sox are not saying that Swihart is done as a starting catcher, by any means. This could possibly be a way to eventually get Swihart and Vazquez both on the big league roster, carry 3 catchers, while maintaining versatility and depth on the bench.

[Kimmi]

Yeah, I think Swihart is better defensively than what he's given credit for. I still think he should spend the whole year at C and worry about another position in the offseason if it comes to that.

 

All early scouting reports said that he should develop into an above average defensive catcher. Many reports stated that he could be a better overall value than Vazquez when you couple that above average defense with his offense.

 

Swihart has two things playing against him. 1. He was thrown into a difficult situation last season rather than being given the proper time to develop and improve defensively. 2. He will never be able to compare to Vazquez defensively, which doesn't mean that he's bad, just that Vazquez is that good.

 

He just needs more time to hone his skills.

 

Varitek sees him as an All-Star catcher. If Varitek sees it, it must be true!

[Kimmi]

Exactly.

Jack was right about one thing, the only problem with Swihart is that Vazquez is much better, defensively.

I'm not sure how that hurts his trade value. With regular playing time and less pressure, he can work on his defensive game.

A good hitting, decent fielding catcher always has value.

 

Agreed.

 

I'm guessing that other teams, especially ones who are weak in the catching area, see a lot of value in Swihart.

[sk7326]

Yes, it does take time and reps. Montero ate himself out of the position. Sanchez is just hitting his stride. That being said, if Sanchez were to come up, it'd be as a backup for at least the next few seasons. Also, Sanchez has a gun, better than Swihart's for sure. The biggest issue with Swihart in the sox system is Vasquez. You have a far superior defender who is the same age. This isn't a rookie learning from a vet thing that could eventually lead to taking over the starting gig with more time and training. This is a poor defensive catcher with a solid hit tool who lost out to a catcher the same age with a ridiculous set of defensive tools.

 

The problem in terms of Swihart's value is that his big league sample size saw him as the worst catcher in baseball defensively. That torpedoed his stock. And with a club that needs that D to help the pitchers and the fact that the current starter has nearly the same service time, he's done here as a C. And he won't return the same value he had before last season. His stock is currently low and the only way to recoup that would be to have Vasquez either get hurt or dealt and have Blake prove he can be a big league catcher

 

1. If by "same age" you mean "over a year and a half older than Swihart" than yes, Vasquez is the same age.

2. The issue with the "he can't catch" thing with Swihart is nonsense. There are guys like Montero or Lavarnway who outgrew the position (and folks knew when Montero was on AA that is was a probability) and who frankly aren't good enough athletes to do anything else. Swihart is an actual good athlete (like Posey or Mauer, but not the same level as Biggio) who needs time to figure out the catching thing. He did not have that chance last season because all of the Sox catchers got hurt and the idea of Sandy Leon starting 130 games scared most of the United States

3. Kid needs reps - he just turned 24. Catcher is one of the positions which is later arriving in general. He has had very little time in AAA, was brought up before he was ready - and this is a kid who had previously conquered every level at a good age.

4. Sanchez when he comes up it will be to replace McCann - not right away, but not "several seasons". It's a waste of team resources - and McCann's decline is not that hard to forecast anyway.

5. Swihart taking fly balls in LF means nothing. It's like Posey playing 1B occasionally. Creative way to keep his bat in the lineup and use both guys if it came to it.

[Kimmi]

Not rash at all. They kept Swihart up until keeping him up woult cost them a year of service time, and that dovetailed nicely with when they expected Vazquez to be fully ready.

 

if Vazquez wasn't fully ready, they'd burn the year of service time and keep rolling with swihart. since he was, they were able to save the service time.

 

It was very rational and calculated, and happened to take place 8 games into the season because that's when the plan called for it to happen. the optics don't look good because the team was having trouble preventing runs when swihart went down, but any executive would tell you that's most likely a coincidence. Unless Swihart was making it abundantly clear exactly why they needed to keep running with him (and probably even if) Vazquez was coming back.

 

(people seem to have forgotten this AGAIN, but the Boston Red Sox never, not once, made any noise that sounded anything like a commitment to Blake Swihart as the starting catcher. He was strictly and only an injury replacement)

 

Well, if the whole thing about service time is true, then perhaps it was a very rational and calculated decision. As you said though, the optics do not look good, especially knowing the setbacks that Weiters faced having been brought back too soon.

 

I have to wonder whether Vazquez would have been called up so soon if the team were not having trouble preventing runs. Perhaps the service time thing is a convenient excuse?

[Kimmi]

1. If by "same age" you mean "over a year and a half older than Swihart" than yes, Vasquez is the same age.

2. The issue with the "he can't catch" thing with Swihart is nonsense. There are guys like Montero or Lavarnway who outgrew the position (and folks knew when Montero was on AA that is was a probability) and who frankly aren't good enough athletes to do anything else. Swihart is an actual good athlete (like Posey or Mauer, but not the same level as Biggio) who needs time to figure out the catching thing. He did not have that chance last season because all of the Sox catchers got hurt and the idea of Sandy Leon starting 130 games scared most of the United States

3. Kid needs reps - he just turned 24. Catcher is one of the positions which is later arriving in general. He has had very little time in AAA, was brought up before he was ready - and this is a kid who had previously conquered every level at a good age.

4. Sanchez when he comes up it will be to replace McCann - not right away, but not "several seasons". It's a waste of team resources - and McCann's decline is not that hard to forecast anyway.

5. Swihart taking fly balls in LF means nothing. It's like Posey playing 1B occasionally. Creative way to keep his bat in the lineup and use both guys if it came to it.

 

A+ post. I have nothing to add.

[a700hitter]

Catcher is one of the positions which is later arriving in general.

.

I don't think this is factual at all. I think it is commonly believed that catcher is one of the fastest routes to the majors and one of the longer tenured positions.

[User Name]

I don't think this is factual at all. I think it is commonly believed that catcher is one of the fastest routes to the majors and one of the longer tenured positions.

 

Incorrect. Catcher is the position that needs the most reps and seasoning before a player makes it to the Show. If your theory was correct, Bryce Harper would still be catching.

[cp176]

How often is it for a non-catching prospect to be drafted and then converted to the catching position? Just a few years ago most teams drafted their catchers early because of the length of time it actually took for them to develop. I would think I guess that all things being equal it would be a little unusual for someone who converts to the position of catcher from another position to become an outstanding major league catcher. It just seems like it would take an extremely talented athlete to make up for time lost. Swihart is a talented young athlete and I am pulling for him. I think that he is where he belongs right now.

[User Name]

I know some "buscones" who scout talent for a living. I've heard the opposite of what you say several times. Teams usually didn't go to the amateur ranks looking to draft catchers. They'd usually draft a big, stocky kid that played 3B and moved him to catcher if he had a good arm and was smart enough. However, this is only true for players in the Latin American ranks, so I don't know what philosophy teams use(d) for finding catchers up in the states.

[cp176]

It would seem to make sense to me to get them as early as you could so that they could be taught exactly what the system requires them to learn. It can take a long time for a catcher to learn what he needs to know and to actually put it all together.

[Kimmi]

Would Swihart have been sent down if he had played like an All-Star in those first 8 games? The answer is no.

 

Which means that sending him down after 8 games was a rash move.

[a700hitter]

Incorrect. Catcher is the position that needs the most reps and seasoning before a player makes it to the Show. If your theory was correct, Bryce Harper would still be catching.

I am not stating it as a fact. It is just something that I have heard announcers and other baseball people say -- that catching is the fastest rout to the majors and that catchers seem to stick around the longest. I don't think that sk has any factual basis for saying the opposite.

[iortiz]

Sometimes you don't need 162 game to figure out that something is wrong.

[Kimmi]

Sometimes you don't need 162 game to figure out that something is wrong.

 

No, but you need more than 8, and you certainly need more than spring training.

[iortiz]

No, but you need more than 8, and you certainly need more than spring training.

 

The way I see the thing, it's not the number of games, but the performance which needs to improve.

 

The way I see the thing, this will benefit both; the red sox and the kid.

[sk7326]

No real issue with the demotion - he has to play. Vasquez is in a better position to add defensive value, and offensively, we'll let that sort itself out.

[sk7326]

I am not stating it as a fact. It is just something that I have heard announcers and other baseball people say -- that catching is the fastest rout to the majors and that catchers seem to stick around the longest. I don't think that sk has any factual basis for saying the opposite.

 

I don't http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=13018

[Spudboy]

I am not stating it as a fact. It is just something that I have heard announcers and other baseball people say -- that catching is the fastest rout to the majors and that catchers seem to stick around the longest. I don't think that sk has any factual basis for saying the opposite.

 

Hmm. Very few statement here on talksox are based on facts!!!!

 

I have heard that if you want your kid to be a Major League baseball player, catcher is the best route. No one want to play it and there is less competition.

 

Not sure that is true either. Who f***ing cares? It's baseball. It's just for fun.

 

I think some people on this site should masturbate more. They would be far less likely to take this and themselves so seriously.

[Spudboy]

No, but you need more than 8, and you certainly need more than spring training.

 

Rosters are continuously in flux. Making moves after 8 games should not surprise anyone. If you see a problem, be proactive and deal with it. That is your job. Good for the Sox and Dombrowski.

 

I bet you like guaranteed contracts. You know. So a position can be had by seniority, not skill or production.

 

Maybe you are wrong again?