bostopz

In one breath you say "there is a chance that." Then in your 2nd breath you assume that everyone as a rookie will falter in all parts of the game. I don't agree with how you look at this. And while you think you can give an example to back up yours - I can easily do with mine too.

Sure they do. However a defensive catcher --most of his uneven season will come from offense. So your point IS ARGUABLE. Some of the best player's in the game have NOT struggled defensively when they 1st entered the league. Some do and some don't. And again - I said I would have traded Vasquez the very next season -- but that is beside the point. Fact is - Vasquez is/was a stud defensively. In this subject of Vasquez (not Swihart) - it is a loss because we've SEEN what he can do and believe he can continue to do what he showed last year.

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

What does "prove" mean to you? Per the article from Dan and from what some of us have seen we beleive he certainly HAS proved he is/was a tremendous defensive catcher. https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/03/28/christian-vazquez-injury-worst-development-red-sox-spring-training/wOmAlYAcJ84AZA4eiNQHAI/story.html

This tells me (the bold) that we'll never agree on this subject. We can agree to disagree. A major point we differ is that you are suggesting / implying that most of what "we" are lamenting on- is-- his potential. That's very very little. I and a few others here believe we SAW incredible defensive performance. If it was just me okay - a poster or two- okay. But even the link I provided someone else believes they SAW it. What we don't believe is your statement "not his demonstrated past performance." We could never prove this. Just a different belief in what we believed we saw. I posted before he got hurt that I was hopeful that we could get a year out of him and trade him -- because I expect like everyone else Swihart to come up. I was hopeful we could package Vasquez and get something really good for him. A position of need. And as far as some of the posters that simply say -- "good now we can just bring up Swihart quicker." I didn't think front office wanted to do it. They wanted him in the minors one more year. I suspect because they thought it would do him real good. So for those that suggest it is good - I'm skeptical.

I think obp is important but I lend more to ba in terms of ability to drive in runs. But OBP important. If you can't drive in runs - you're pretty useless at the plate unless you're speed demon. What's our fun? I just see this guy as a downward spiral - and the last two much more indicative than his career.

With my luck hell get hurt in the 1st month, career will end and wind up batting .206.

Care to make something fun of this-- I'm saying his ba wont go above .205. You say it will?

The thing about having a .230 hitter in your nine hole vs having a .150 hitter in your 9 hole is that the dude hitting .230 is getting close to one hit per game. Quite a few games during the season we hear "the bottom of the order came through picking up the top of the order." If your 6 or 7 hitter goes into a bad slump you then you'll get a cluster of many games in which you get less-than-crap from the bottom of the order thus putting a ton of pressure on the top to produce while we continue to throw out sub-par pitching.

1--- I don't agree with you when you say no one is saying .150 is the same as .230. The poster that said below in italics sure sound like he is exactly saying that when he replied to my posts. . Do you really think pitchers will change their approach because the mighty Vazquez is on deck? I don't see it. Yeah, that's going to make such a difference over the course of 80 or so games. Please... 2-- And while I hope you are right about Hanigan -- I seriously doubt you are. I'd love to say - I was wrong but I think the fact that you are deliberately looking at Hanigan's career batting and not paying much attention to his last two years god-awful hitting tells me you may be looking with red-sox bright-red rose colored glasses. Even his cs% is dramatically down. I hope you aren't but I think you are. As a follow-up to this- his last two years imo would be more indicative of a 34yo journeyman catcher. Not the .250 hitter you just mentioned. Again - I hope you're right.

This is why I disagree with you. You think .150 and .230 is the same. Secondly, I said we'll be hurting without Vasquez. I didn't say bring up Swihart. I said as of this moment we are a 4th place team. Give us a stud starter and if we can get or have a legit closer then we could live with lousy catching.

No I'm not overstating it. I'm in agreement with the article. I think others are understating the difference between a good defensive catcher and a great one. Also the difference between a .150 hitter and a .230 hitter. I'm more aligned to the following article: https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/03/28/christian-vazquez-injury-worst-development-red-sox-spring-training/wOmAlYAcJ84AZA4eiNQHAI/story.html "Watching Vazquez behind the plate in the second half of 2014 was like watching Freddie Lynn in center field in the first half of 1975. The kid was phenomenal. You could tell he belonged from Day One. Defensively, he showed you something new and better every day." "Vazquez is never going to be the kind of MVP hitter Lynn was, but behind the plate he looked a little like a young Pudge Rodriguez." ". The Globe’s Peter Abraham warns that the loss of Vazquez could be “season-altering.’’" I happen to agree with these type of comments. I don't know how anyone can dispute these points - maybe point 1: 1--- There is probably little difference between 2nd and 4th. 2--- Vasquez was a sensational defensive catcher. Others suggest "he is good just like many others." I don't agree. Vasquez's defense was superior to 99%. 3--- Vasquez is a .230 hitter. Not a .150 hitter. There is a difference. There is a difference There is a difference between .150 and .230. A big difference. 4--- Vasquez is a major league everyday catcher when healthy. The guys we have now aren't.

No. But they'll change their approach to a .150 hitter. Tell me if you were batting against major league pitching at the 9 spot. Do you think they would pitch to the .280 hitters above you? WHy? Because you are an automatic out. If you hit .230 you aren't an automatic out.

The problem with Leon is if it is 2 outs -- our 7th and 8th hitters are going to be pretty good. Why give them anything to hit? Leon's offense is worse than awful. For the good he does dfenively he is a nightmare offensively. Sure he is fine as a backup. But he isn't a starter. And I don't share other's opinions of a 34 yo Harrigan. He's a backup catcher. Vasquez would have been a dynamite defender that could hit .230. Our current crop isn't close to what he was. Leon apparently is a terrifiic defender but horrific offense. We have two backup catchers. Vaquez wasn't a backup catcher.

For those of you downplaying the loss of Vasquez. His arm probably would have shut down every running game (and I don't mean that nobody would ever steal. Of course the opposing teams will have some degree of success but forget about "a running game.") )-- but for a poor pitching staff -- you either need more great offense or a defender that can limit the other team's offense. Vasquez had all the tools for not just a good defensive catcher but a super defensive catcher. Not understanding the pitching staff, being able to throw out over 50% of the runners like he did last year and basically being compared defensively to Pudge Rodriguez -- means/equates to less runs for the opposition. Losing a super defensive catcher means pitchers becomes more cautious throwing their full arsenal. That means less effectiveness. A less effective staff means more losses. Vasquez's defense was projected to be a high impact defense. This team needs all the help it can get in preventing runs. One run here or there can be the difference between 2nd place and 4th. We weren't winning the division as the team was constructed anyways. And doubtful we were going to come in 2nd without better picthing. Now with no Kelly and no Vasquez-- more pressure gets put on the hitting. The difference between 2nd place and 4th place in our division isn't thatmuch but more minor leaguers and journeymen and relying on a decling 34 yo catcher whose last two years he hit .218 and .198 while also needing a learning curve is not ideal for finishing in 2nd.

He's 34 yo. The last TWO years he hit .198 and .218. Last year his cs% was bad. Not sure about the rest but I seriously doubt if he was that good - he would have been slated for a backup. Which he would have been with Sox. I'm not grateful that we have a below average overall catcher slated to be our prime catcher. That's not good.

Crap! Crap! Crap!! This is an enormous enormous loss. Right now I predict 4th place. Need to make some moves.

It's one thing to believe JBJ has good upside. It's entirely a different manner to bench Pedroia in place of JBJ.

Nothing -- I think it is inevitable that he is going to breakdown. But the Red Sox don't agree it seems. So based on what I fee l he Red Sox are going to do -- my statement of "Victorino imo-- but then again if he is healthy, a terrific defender and hitting . . ." applies is some manner otherwise Castillo may possibly start (I don't think SOx start Castillo. IMO they go with Castillo because they hope he can hit and defend very well). So--- 1--- Then you don't agree with iortiz when he said Castillo will share time? Or you think Castillo is going to share time? If so, with who? 2--- My guess is if Victorino goes down / gets traded - Castillo will be more than a "share-time player." Do you agree? 3--- I do expect Victroino to break down. Until that happens you think Farrell is going to keep Castillo on the bench without at-bats waiting for the probable inevitable of Shane breaking down? 4--- Or do you think after say 10 games Castillo and Shane will split near even? Or maybe throw in Betts where they all split even?

I agree. --- Though he could be traded for the right catch also. But I highly doubt that will happen.

1--- Then you don't agree with iortiz when he said Castillo will share time? 2--- My guess is if Victorino goes down / gets traded - Castillo will be more than a "share-time player." Do you agree? 3--- I do expect Victroino to break down. Until that happens you think Farrell is going to keep Castillo on the bench without at-bats waiting for the probable inevitable of Shane breaking down? 4--- Or do you think after say 10 games Castillo and Shane will split near even? Or maybe throw in Betts where they all split even?

I'm with you. Comes down to victronio's health. Maybe you keep Castillo IF you are unsure about Victorino and the several weeks you do platoon to see how Victorino is holding up.

No way he should be on the 25 roster unless he is ensured good playing time. You don't bench a talent like him that hasn't played in a year or two. He needs ta bats. Not slivers on the pine. Did it with Youk - sending him to the minors rather than just sitting on the bench. We'll do it here / should do it here with Castillo.

1--- Yes you are wrong. You're way off with your comments of "elephant in the room" "the Betts problem" etc. 2--- You speak of .Pedroia's injuries yet you want to move Betts to 2b thereby allow more games for Victorino? Are you serious? 3--- Regarding Pedroia's size and age-- so weed out Pedroia yet you want to bench him in favor of Victorino? A guy that has basically missed two of the last three years and unlike Pedroia's thumbs- Victroino's back injury along with age is much much much worse. Yet you favor Shane? You're nervous about Pedroia's body more than Victorino???? 4--- If we are talking this year -- why are you mentioning Pedroia at 35? What does that have to do with anything? You mean you are looking for the future? So then what about Moncada being the 2nd baseman? Now that you have Betts what's your future plan for Moncada? Right now from the accounts I hear Moncada is believed to be most comfortable at 2b. Have you heard different? So this early you want to to throw in the towel with Moncada potentialy being most comfortable at 2b and move him to another position? Because if you put Betts at 2nd -- you're locking up that position for many years aren't you? 5--- No offense but really there is nothing here to discuss other than you're being nervous. Which is fine. We all get nervous about different things. IMO you're nervousness on this issue ranks below the equator. 6--- So you are willing to bench Pedroia in place of Jackie Bradley? Really? There is no elephant in the room when it comes to Pedroia at least for the near-term.

If he is going to share time - sure-- but who is he going to share time with? Ramirez? Nope. Betts? -- Why would you split them when Betts looks so promising? Betts doesn't deserve to split time. He's too good. I agree with Victorino -- but if the guy is hitting .300 like he did 2 years ago -- man that is a tough sell -- he's gonna create problems. We wona title with him. If he is performing - he's gonna be pissed if you deliberately sit him "for potential." I don't know if it is worth it. In this case you trade Victorino imo-- but then again if he is healthy, a terrific defender and hitting why would you want him out of the lineup for an unproven guy? Just because of the money?