Swihart moved to AAA

[iortiz]

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.

Also, proven players are the only ones who have time. Rookies? I don't think so.

[Spudboy]

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.

 

You are being totally unreasonable!!1!!1!!!1:p

[iortiz]

You are being totally unreasonable!!1!!1!!!1:p

 

Quoting Bruce Hornsby, " That's just the way it is... but don't you believe them." LOL!

[User Name]

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.

 

Neither do you, and we're back at square one.

 

To put another way: Catcher is the "safest" route to MLB, because the offensive requirements are lower and most players don't want to play C, but it's not the "fastest" route, because it takes the most preparation time out of any position in the baseball, and this a demonstrable fact. If you check out the average time for an amateur prospect to reach the Majors, catchers take the longest time.

[sk7326]

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.

 

First, aside from somebody underestimating how fast internet commenters can type with one hand ... catcher is a safe route to the bigs, but it helps to have a fairly uncommon body type (I don't know that many people who look like utility fridges) which a lot of guys who catch in high school outgrow.

 

And then you get the odd Bryce Harper who had 80 power as a high school junior, and the Nats decided he could get to the bigs even faster as a non-catcher, and an 80 power bat is not something they want to limit (since catchers play fewer games a season than other positions assuming good health).

[cp176]

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.

 

Like this one!!!

[cp176]

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?

 

Last year counts too. Who gets to decide how long you should stay with a player be he young or old before you have seen enough? Just like everybody else, I love the kids athleticism but seriously he just was not and is not ready to catch at the big league level. Keeping him up with the big club was hurting him as much as it was hurting us.

[Dojji]

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?

That's pure speculation though. We have the team acting based on what sounds a lot more like a plan now that we know about the service time thing.

[Dojji]

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.

 

Actually I think he might have been sent down anyway. you're the one who's frequently saying an 8 game sample size means very little. It might have improved his trade stock a bit to have a better start to the year under his belt but he really was only up as an injury replacement, he'd have had to kill the ball and show substantial improvement in catching fundamentals to Wally Pip a guy with the defensive luster of a guy like Vazquez. the whole Red Sox analytics department has been drooling over the impact of CV's defense. that's a high freaking bar for Swihart to try to clear in 8 games.

 

Even if he destroyed the ball, unless the franchise just doesn't see him as a catcher at all anymore, and they've made it clear that they do, the place to be is the place where Swihart can get the maximum reps to build proficiency. Right now that's AAA where he can be a starting catcher rather than at the MLB level where he can't because Vazquez is the starting catcher -- and at the moment seems to be paying for himself bigtime in runs prevented. That's not a good environment for a one position player trying to break into the league, especially one who's clearly thinking about plays that should be automatic for a big league catcher..

Edited April 17, 2016 by Dojji

[cp176]

Actually I think he might have been sent down anyway. you're the one who's frequently saying an 8 game sample size means very little. It might have improved his trade stock a bit to have a better start to the year under his belt but he really was only up as an injury replacement, he'd have had to kill the ball and show substantial improvement in catching fundamentals to Wally Pip a guy with the defensive luster of a guy like Vazquez. the whole Red Sox analytics department has been drooling over the impact of CV's defense. that's a high freaking bar for Swihart to try to clear in 8 games.

 

Even if he destroyed the ball, unless the franchise just doesn't see him as a catcher at all anymore, and they've made it clear that they do, the place to be is the place where Swihart can get the maximum reps to build proficiency. Right now that's AAA where he can be a starting catcher rather than at the MLB level where he can't because Vazquez is the starting catcher -- and at the moment seems to be paying for himself bigtime in runs prevented. That's not a good environment for a one position player trying to break into the league, especially one who's clearly thinking about plays that should be automatic for a big league catcher..

 

At what point in his development was Swihart moved to the catching position?

[mvp 78]

As a junior in high school, but wasn't fulltime until drafted.

[Elktonnick]

I am in the school of thought that Swihart was always going to be sent down as soon as Vazquez was ready. Remember Vaz had a somewhat abbreviated Spring Training. In addition, I suspect that the FO told Blake Swihart that the plan was to get him playing time in the outfield. Defensively Swihart is far behind Hannigan, Leon as well as Vaz. Looking at Castillo's failure to hit ML pitching consistently and his defensive lapses, I suspect that FO may see Swihart as having more of a future in left than behind the plate.

[Bellhorn04]

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.

 

But how do we know that they weren't planning from the start for Vazquez to be the #1 guy as soon as he looked ready? Vazquez looks great to me.

[Kimmi]

But how do we know that they weren't planning from the start for Vazquez to be the #1 guy as soon as he looked ready? Vazquez looks great to me.

 

We don't know that. And I am in no way saying that I'm unhappy with Vazquez being called up. Given the choice between the two, Vazquez has always been my guy.

 

I have no way of knowing for sure, but I would be willing to bet that if Swihart had played well, which means the pitching staff had pitched well also, Swihart would still be up.

 

I think most people would agree with that, if they're being honest.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

The thing is, you can determine nothing after 8 games.

 

On your second count, I agree. This move will benefit the team and Swihart. It's still a reactionary move.

[Spudboy]

We don't know that. And I am in no way saying that I'm unhappy with Vazquez being called up. Given the choice between the two, Vazquez has always been my guy.

 

I have no way of knowing for sure, but I would be willing to bet that if Swihart had played well, which means the pitching staff had pitched well also, Swihart would still be up.

 

I think most people would agree with that, if they're being honest.

 

Absolutely.

 

But that did not happen and the Sox decided that it would be best to make a move to hopefully extract better pitching performance and shore up the defense behind the plate now.

 

I see no reason to not put the best players available out on the field each day. That is what a team should be doing.

[User Name]

Absolutely.

 

But that did not happen and the Sox decided that it would be best to make a move to hopefully extract better pitching performance and shore up the defense behind the plate now.

 

I see no reason to not put the best players available out on the field each day. That is what a team should be doing.

 

This is the crux of the entire argument.

[Bellhorn04]

We don't know that. And I am in no way saying that I'm unhappy with Vazquez being called up. Given the choice between the two, Vazquez has always been my guy.

 

I have no way of knowing for sure, but I would be willing to bet that if Swihart had played well, which means the pitching staff had pitched well also, Swihart would still be up.

 

I think most people would agree with that, if they're being honest.

 

Maybe they would have moved Hanigan in that case. We don't know. For some time now this Vazquez-Swihart situation has been brewing. They can't both be our #1 catcher.

[Kimmi]

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?

 

Umm no. Perhaps you're the one that's wrong?

 

Seriously? You think that teams should make moves after 8 games? Dustin Pedroia says hello!

 

I don't think there's a person on this board who is more against long term guaranteed contracts than I am. What does that have to do with showing some patience and giving a player a fair chance?

[Bellhorn04]

Umm no. Perhaps you're the one that's wrong?

 

Seriously? You think that teams should make moves after 8 games? Dustin Pedroia says hello!

 

I don't think there's a person on this board who is more against long term guaranteed contracts than I am. What does that have to do with showing some patience and giving a player a fair chance?

 

But this case is different, because they needed a certain amount of time for Vazquez to show he was game-ready.

[a700hitter]

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

Vasquez went to the minors on a rehab assignment. Once he finished that, it was certain that he would be coming up as he is our best catcher and probably the organization's future at the catching position. That leaves 2 choices-- 1. send down Swihart. 2. Trade or DFA Hannigan. One of these 2 things was imminently inevitable. Which would have been your choice?

[User Name]

Vasquez is a significantly better defensive catcher than Swihart, full stop. With the pitching issues this team is facing since the ofseason, it is common sense that Vasquez would

claim the mantle of #1 catcher. This pitching needs all of the help it can get.

[Kimmi]

That's pure speculation though. We have the team acting based on what sounds a lot more like a plan now that we know about the service time thing.

 

Your opinion is pure speculation also.

 

Perhaps if this move were made in and of itself, I would be more likely to believe the "plan" based on service time.

 

Taken with the big picture of other "aggressive" moves that have been made, along with the FO's sense of urgency this year, it looks more reactionary than anything else.

 

No worries though. This will end up being a good move.

[Kimmi]

I am not arguing who is the better option at catcher. I've said many times, going back to last year, my preference is Vazquez. I am also not arguing against the decision to call Vazquez up and send Swihart down. I'm just questioning that it was done after only 8 games.

[Kimmi]

Vasquez is a significantly better defensive catcher than Swihart, full stop. With the pitching issues this team is facing since the ofseason, it is common sense that Vasquez would

claim the mantle of #1 catcher. This pitching needs all of the help it can get.

 

I do not disagree with this at all.

[a700hitter]

We don't know that. And I am in no way saying that I'm unhappy with Vazquez being called up. Given the choice between the two, Vazquez has always been my guy.

 

I have no way of knowing for sure, but I would be willing to bet that if Swihart had played well, which means the pitching staff had pitched well also, Swihart would still be up.

 

I think most people would agree with that, if they're being honest.

It was pretty clear that the Red Sox had intended for Vasquez to be the #1 catcher if healthy. He is hands down the best defensive catcher in the organization. They sent him on a rehab assignment. I am pretty sure that he has options left, but they made it known that he was going on a rehab assignment. Their plan in that regard was clear before opening day. When healthy, he would return as the #1 catcher. This wasn't clear to you? But it is crystall clear to you that Cherington had nothing to do with the Panda acquisition. You talk about the bias of other posters, but you have some obvious biases that are not backed by or based in facts or statistics. That's okay, because this place is all about opinions, and even the statistics presented during arguments rarely (extremely rarely) establish or prove any thing.

[Spudboy]

Umm no. Perhaps you're the one that's wrong?

 

Seriously? You think that teams should make moves after 8 games? Dustin Pedroia says hello!

 

I don't think there's a person on this board who is more against long term guaranteed contracts than I am. What does that have to do with showing some patience and giving a player a fair chance?

 

I guess that I am confused. Who are we discussing? Pablo? If so, yes, I do believe that benching him or whatever was the correct move. He simply is not prepared to play at an acceptable level.

 

I don't know about Castillo or even Swihart.

 

However, neither of those two are finished products and could use the time in AAA to get better while not hindering the Sox by playing sub-par ball every day in Boston.

 

You are correct that Swihart would likely be the #1 if Vasquez was not deemed ready and available to upgrade the position.

 

Castillo? I just do not know. He appears to be very athletic. But his baseball acumen is not sufficient ( apparently ) to warrant a a permanent starting gig on the Sox.

[Spudboy]

Vasquez is a significantly better defensive catcher than Swihart, full stop. With the pitching issues this team is facing since the ofseason, it is common sense that Vasquez would

claim the mantle of #1 catcher. This pitching needs all of the help it can get.

 

This is what that situation boiled down to. Put the player with the most to offer the team on the field each day.

 

I want Swihart's bat in Boston and certainly do not wish for him or Hannigan to be traded.

 

Vasquez is in the position to dramatically improve pitching performance. It would not make any sense at all not to go with him if he is healthy and prepared to play.

[mvp 78]

I am not arguing who is the better option at catcher. I've said many times, going back to last year, my preference is Vazquez. I am also not arguing against the decision to call Vazquez up and send Swihart down. I'm just questioning that it was done after only 8 games.

 

So Vazquez is better, but you want him in AAA? Huh?

 

Vazquez was the starter in 2014. Swihart only came up in 2015 due to injuries. Vazquez would have been the starter in 2015. Once he was healthy in 2016, he was going to be the starter again. Swihart will get more reps in AAA. This has nothing to do with the first 8 games.

[Dojji]

A lot of people missing the point.

 

Christian Vazquez was the starting catcher in the minds of the Red Sox organization for the entire time Blake Swihart was called up. He was in their plans as the starting catcher as soon as they moved away from Saltalamacchia. Pierzynski was a 1 year thing to get us to Vazquez. Vazquez is a player the organization has had their minds on for years and his lack of experience aside the team never had any indication of Blake Swhiart's callup being anything other than 100% temporary.

 

This was not, at all, a knee jerk spur of the moment move by the organization. If it were, I'd agree 100% with Kimmi, but she's lost sight of the fact that as far as the entire Red Sox organization is concerned Christian Vazquez is the incumbent, not Blake Swihart. there is no known dissent on this subject.

 

Swhiart wasn't sent down because of anything he did. He was sent down because the starting catcher (which he is not and never was) got healthy and there was no further need for his extended callup, so he can now go back to the minors where he still belongs and finish learning how to be a big league catcher.

 

it's just that simple.