Marco Hernandez and Christian Vazquez recalled, Swihart to AAA

[geoduck no quahog]

I guess it depends on whether or not he misses real time behind the plate to play left field.

It could range from (1) Playing LF on the days he would normally have off, to (2) Putting him in LF at the end of a game due to game circumstance...(who knows, maybe someone pinch ran for the starting LF or some other bullshit)

If he only catches 3 out of every 5 games, then there's something fishy.

 

[soxhop411]

Having him take reps in LF speaks a lot about his they view Castillo IMO

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

I hope there's a grand plan here that they are purposely hiding from all of us. Cuz it ain't making sense to me right now. What value does Swihart really offer, to us or anyone, in the short term or longer term, by learning how to play LF? Did Hanley's butchery of that position suddenly elevate it higher up the defensive spectrum? Seriously, Swihart doesn't have the power projection typical of a corner OF. If they HAVE to develop his position versatility, why not try him in a more valuable, up-the-middle position (2d or CF)? And if it's just looking ahead for this season, do they really envision a scenario where they'd need to play Swihart in LF over any of the other existing options (Holt, Young, Rusney, or even Brentz/Benintendi, etc.) not to mention the possibility of trading for a Young platoon partner?

If he needs to work on catching, let him do that full-time in AAA. Why force him to learn a new position at the same time?

None of this feels well thought out.

 

[TheoShmeo]

If Swihart has the bat to be even tolerable in LF, then he's a top 5 catcher in baseball and they should leave him alone. This is inane.

It would be inane if they did not have Vazquez in the organization. Vazquez appears to be an uncommonly great defensive catcher. He at least has that potential. They're both at the beginning of their careers. They both cannot be the number one catcher for the Red Sox. While splitting the job seems possible, Swihart's defense and game calling have been questioned somewhat, which gives Vazquez a natural edge over Swihart. As a result of all of that, and their somewhat uncertain situation in left (and I love the Brockstar), building some versatility with Swihart is, I think, understandable.

 

[johnnywayback]

Look, if they think Vazquez is the catcher of the future, then I'm all for it. I think he's already an elite defender, and assuming his offense doesn't completely fall off a cliff, I'm very happy with him as our longterm starter.

But if that's the case, the position at which Swihart can do us the most good is "catcher for some other team." And if they are already prepared to begin the Vazquez era after eight games, then they should have traded Swihart in the off-season, and failing that, they certainly shouldn't be giving other teams reason to doubt his ceiling as an All-Star two-way catcher.

Baffling, troubling move, in my opinion.

 

[LondonSox]

This has been a bad year for gms of teams I support. Sigh.

I can't have nice things.

 

[joe dokes]

Yogi Berra and Elston Howard both played more than a little OF in their careers.

And if they are already prepared to begin the Vazquez era after eight games, then they should have traded Swihart in the off-season, and failing that, they certainly shouldn't be giving other teams reason to doubt his ceiling as an All-Star two-way catcher.

"OHMYGOD the RedSox played Swihart at not-catcher (because they had Vazquez); he must suck" said no competent GM ever (except perhaps the RedSox 1st base coach ). Whatever opinions other teams have about Swihart, I'll guess that zero of it will be based on this.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

If Swihart is what many say he is - one of the best catching prospects in MLB, then stashing him in a savings account in the Pawsox Bank isn't hard to understand (except for the LF crap). He's either going to be a Red Sox Catcher of the future or bring the team something valuable in trade. His value should only grow, provided he doesn't implode.

 

[E5 Yaz]

This will all be rendered moot and mute if CV blows out his elbow again

 

[johnnywayback]

"OHMYGOD the RedSox played Swihart at not-catcher (because they had Vazquez); he must suck" said no competent GM ever (except perhaps the RedSox 1st base coach ). Whatever opinions other teams have about Swihart, I'll guess that zero of it will be based on this.

Yeah, a competent GM would understand that Swihart is still an excellent catcher prospect. But a competent GM would also understand that demoting him after eight games in favor of his still-recovering-from-TJ competition for the long-term catcher job, and immediately announcing that you're also going to start seeing where else he might be able to play, diminishes our leverage in a trade. (And, reflecting on how the Kimbrel trade went down, I am tempted to wonder about Dombrowski's general understanding of trade leverage...)

 

[derekson]

I feel like time at 3rd and 1st would make more sense than putting Swihart in LF part time. He seems like he should be athletic enough for 3B (and obviously has the arm for it as a catcher) and that seems like a more useful position to gain flexibility for the team.

 

[alwyn96]

Yeah, a competent GM would understand that Swihart is still an excellent catcher prospect. But a competent GM would also understand that demoting him after eight games in favor of his still-recovering-from-TJ competition for the long-term catcher job, and immediately announcing that you're also going to start seeing where else he might be able to play, diminishes our leverage in a trade. (And, reflecting on how the Kimbrel trade went down, I am tempted to wonder about Dombrowski's general understanding of trade leverage...)

I wonder to what degree the "leverage" you're speaking about really exists. I think GMs generally have their own staffs and evaluations of players, and are much more likely to trust their own sources than whatever other teams do. My guess would be that Dombrowski is currently more focused on winning now than building Swihart's short-term trade value because he has little intention of trading him in the near term anyway. And if Swihart develops and crushes in AAA for the next two months, then I don't think anyone will be too disturbed about him being sent down in April.

 

[Rasputin]

So they want him to work on his catching, but oh yea lets try out left field.

I just don't get it. If the goal is the maximize a players potential they need Swihart behind the dish as much as possible.

The goal isn't to maximize a player's potential, the goal is to win the World Series as many times as possible before we die.

Once Brock Holt became our left fielder, this roster got seriously whacked and a Blake Swihart that can play left helps make it work.

I feel like time at 3rd and 1st would make more sense than putting Swihart in LF part time. He seems like he should be athletic enough for 3B (and obviously has the arm for it as a catcher) and that seems like a more useful position to gain flexibility for the team.

This I agree with and the only thing that makes sense to me is them thinking that there's a lot less to learn to be a competent left fielder than third baseman.

 

[Boggs26]

What if the goal is to see if he's competent fielding LF in order to bring him back up and keep all 3 catchers on the roster. Vazquez catches 3-4 games a week, Swihart catches 2 and plays 2 in LF and Hannigan fills in the remaining game or 2 at C. This lets the team use Holt's flexibility a bit more too.

Not sure that's the plan, obviously, but creating a situation where Vazquez gets a couple days off a week while also allowing Holt to give Shaw, Bogarts, and Pedroia days off doesn't seem terrible.

 

[iayork]

The PawSox currently have four catchers: Swihart, Dan Butler, Sandy Leon, and Danny Belthea. Belthea is on the 7-day DL, and neither Butler nor Leon are exactly top prospects. But still, there are four catchers there. If Swihart catches 4 games out of 5, then what happens to the other three? Should the Sox trade, or cut, Leon and Butler? What happens when Vaz needs Tommy John on his other arm, Hanigan breaks his other thumb, and Swihart has a concussion?

Given that Leon and Butler are, if not highly valuable properties, at least useful commodities, they need to both play a little. So Swihart has to sit a lot, or else play in another position. Left field seems as realistic as anything to let him keep hitting consistently.

What's the alternative here?

 

[E5 Yaz]

David Lopez‏@dlh1610
@keithlaw Is Swihart offense enough to make him valuable in the outfield instead of catching? Thanks

 

[Rasputin]

David Lopez‏@dlh1610
@keithlaw Is Swihart offense enough to make him valuable in the outfield instead of catching? Thanks

Well, duh, it's a hit to value, but the point is not to maximize value. The point is to win the goddamn world series. If Swihart can be a part time Ofer and part time catcher for essentially the league minimum, that's going to provide value and more importantly, help us win the goddamn world series.

We don't need star caliber hitters on offense. We already have them. What we need on offense is guys who are good enough hitters that they aren't a black hole. We need guys who can make sure we have depth of coverage at every position. If Blake Swihart means we can pinch hit for the catcher more just by playing a couple games a week in a position that doesn't maximize his value then why the fuck isn't everyone incredibly enthused by that?

Now maybe at some point there's a trade that is only possible if Swihart is involved and you weigh all the details and you either pull the trigger or you don't, but his trade value isn't going to go down because he plays a little outfield.

Honestly, people see the word "value" and they freak right the fuck out. Value is a nebulous concept at best that attempts to put some kind of tangibility on the relative scarcity of people who can play different positions. A catcher who can hit like Swihart is more valuable than a left fielder that can hit like Swihart because there are more people who can play left field competently than there are that can play catcher competently. It doesn't mean Swihart isn't going to hit as well as a left fielder as a catcher and it sure as shit doesn't mean his trade value is going to go down.

For fuck's sake, people, it's pretty rare when someone gets to run a baseball team while being a complete and utter fucking moron. If someone is interested in trading for Blake Swihart and using him as a catcher, they're going to scout games he catches and form an opinion. They aren't going to kermit flail and drop the idea because he plays a little outfield.

 

[Plympton91]

What a massive overreaction to the underperformance of the pitching staff.

John Farrell is a master at that maneuver, as well as the small sample of Vazquez's offense.

We shall see. There really isn't a wrong choice here Asa long as Vazquez's arm is sound at this point.

I just hope they trade the "loser" of the competition at peak trade value.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Well, duh, it's a hit to value, but the point is not to maximize value. The point is to win the goddamn world series. If Swihart can be a part time Ofer and part time catcher for essentially the league minimum, that's going to provide value and more importantly, help us win the goddamn world series.

We don't need star caliber hitters on offense. We already have them. What we need on offense is guys who are good enough hitters that they aren't a black hole. We need guys who can make sure we have depth of coverage at every position. If Blake Swihart means we can pinch hit for the catcher more just by playing a couple games a week in a position that doesn't maximize his value then why the fuck isn't everyone incredibly enthused by that?

Now maybe at some point there's a trade that is only possible if Swihart is involved and you weigh all the details and you either pull the trigger or you don't, but his trade value isn't going to go down because he plays a little outfield.

Honestly, people see the word "value" and they freak right the fuck out. Value is a nebulous concept at best that attempts to put some kind of tangibility on the relative scarcity of people who can play different positions. A catcher who can hit like Swihart is more valuable than a left fielder that can hit like Swihart because there are more people who can play left field competently than there are that can play catcher competently. It doesn't mean Swihart isn't going to hit as well as a left fielder as a catcher and it sure as shit doesn't mean his trade value is going to go down.

For fuck's sake, people, it's pretty rare when someone gets to run a baseball team while being a complete and utter fucking moron. If someone is interested in trading for Blake Swihart and using him as a catcher, they're going to scout games he catches and form an opinion. They aren't going to kermit flail and drop the idea because he plays a little outfield.

Chill out, Clarence ... I was just passing along what a national talking head said

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

The goal isn't to maximize a player's potential, the goal is to win the World Series as many times as possible before we die.

Once Brock Holt became our left fielder, this roster got seriously whacked and a Blake Swihart that can play left helps make it work.

I agree the goal is to win championships rather to maximize player value, but this move still makes no sense.

Brockton Holt is a LHH LF with a reverse split. This is not the kind of situation that "seriously whacks" the roster. Rather, this is a situation to celebrate, because it means our LF should be able to exploit platoon advantages simply by being who he is, because he's good enough to be the starting LF against RHP, and is even better against LHP. The 3B may also be that kind of hitter, although the sample size there is too small to tell.

Except, Farrell is now playing both of them in a straight platoon with a RHH who needs a caddy to hit RHP. And he has just given the Sox' best offensive catching prospect a vote of "no confidence" after some tough games against good teams. And it's not like we haven't seen this stuff before with Farrell.

But for the new FO, the endgame shouldn't be developing Swihart into the second coming of Brandon Inge. It should be to maximize the value of the players in order to win championships.

So if this feels reactionary, it's because it is reactionary. Swihart isn't why the Sox pitching has stunk. The Sox pitching has stunk because except for Price they're not really that good but have faced two of the best offenses in MLB for six of the first eight games.

It all comes down to Farrell. He wants Rutledge, he get a Rutledge. He wants a Brandon't Inge, he'll get the closest thing to one. He wants to keep his job, well....

I don't think he can make it past May 15.

 

[Plympton91]

I am completely fine with this move. I also admit a 6) Shaw 7) Holt 8) Vaz 9) JBJ bottom of order could have some lean nights.

I'm convinced John Farrell feels better after losing 3-2 than he does after winning 10-8.

Moving Swihart to another position right now is collassally stupid. If Vazquez is the starting catcher and you need an outfielder, you auction Swihart for the best outfielder you can get. If you don't need anything, then let him focus on being the best catcher he can be.

 

[Strike4]

What a massive overreaction to the underperformance of the pitching staff.

What I'm hoping is that this was all decided before opening day. As in, they had always envisioned Vasquez being called up when he was ready and there was some sense that it might be timely for Swihart's service time. So this decision was made a long time before the starters underperformed etc., and it is just bad timing for optics and poorly messaged.

That said, the FO made no previous statement about Vasquez being the starter when he was ready, and there's a general panicky attitude about the FO right now. So I wouldn't be surprised if it was like 30% planned and 70% overreaction. Which would be sad.

 

[Plympton91]

Yeah, if Swihart goes down before Monday (and stays down) the team gets another year of control. That's potentially valuable in trade equity or to the team down the line. Obviously it's not so valuable that extended sucking by Vazquez or an injury or something should keep Swihart down, but it's not ridiculous to keep your options open for at least a little while.

But bringing up Vazquez also keep his clock ticking. Had the kept Vazquez down throughJune, they could have partly made up for the year of control they lost to him on the DL.

 

[Rasputin]

Chill out, Clarence ... I was just passing along what a national talking head said

I didn't mean to direct that at you, it was just the right diving board so to speak.

I agree the goal is to win championships rather to maximize player value, but this move still makes no sense.

Except that it makes plenty of sense.

Brockton Holt is a LHH LF with a reverse split. This is not the kind of situation that "seriously whacks" the roster. Rather, this is a situation to celebrate, because it means our LF should be able to exploit platoon advantages simply by being who he is, because he's good enough to be the starting LF against RHP, and is even better against LHP. The 3B may also be that kind of hitter, although the sample size there is too small to tell.

Except, Farrell is now playing both of them in a straight platoon with a RHH who needs a caddy to hit RHP. And he has just given the Sox' best offensive catching prospect a vote of "no confidence" after some tough games against good teams. And it's not like we haven't seen this stuff before with Farrell.

Prior to the recent spate of moves, Holt was the only guy not starting in the infield who could play second or short. THAT MEANS HE CAN'T PLAY LEFT FIELD EVERY DAY, not even when "every day" is taken to assume the guy gets days off.

But for the new FO, the endgame shouldn't be developing Swihart into the second coming of Brandon Inge. It should be to maximize the value of the players in order to win championships.

No, the goal is to win championships. Not maximize value to win championships, but to win championships. Maximizing value is what you're doing when you keep a guy at a position in the minors for as long as you can. It has no business being on a major league roster.

So if this feels reactionary, it's because it is reactionary. Swihart isn't why the Sox pitching has stunk. The Sox pitching has stunk because except for Price they're not really that good but have faced two of the best offenses in MLB for six of the first eight games.

IT DOESN'T FEEL REACTIONARY! At least, it doesn't unless you want to read a hell of a lot more into it than you should. Vazquez wasn't ready to start the season. They wanted to make sure he could go nine innings several games in a row so they gave him a chance to do that. They're facing the Swihart service time deadline. It's a perfectly reasonable time to make the change and there is zero indication that it has anything to do with how the pitching has performed or how Swihart has performed.

Having Swihart get some playing time in the outfield makes perfect sense when you have the roster issues the Sox have, and that's true even if he doesn't ever end up playing the OF in a major league game. You try every option but you don't use them all.

And hell, having Swihart play some left makes perfect sense just because he shares a position with Christian Vazquez. Some of us have been saying that for a couple years now.

The only way this can feel reactionary is if you put way to much weight into the first eight games. Games, by the way, in which 4-4 is a perfectly decent record.

It all comes down to Farrell. He wants Rutledge, he get a Rutledge. He wants a Brandon't Inge, he'll get the closest thing to one. He wants to keep his job, well....

I don't think he can make it past May 15.

It only comes down to Farrell if you want it to come down to Farrell. While we can't really know what the front office is thinking, the notion that Farrell is on thin ice is almost certainly bullshit. They had the perfect chance to kick Farrell upstairs and didn't take it.

 

[Rasputin]

I'm convinced John Farrell feels better after losing 3-2 than he does after winning 10-8.

Moving Swihart to another position right now is collassally stupid. If Vazquez is the starting catcher and you need an outfielder, you auction Swihart for the best outfielder you can get. If you don't need anything, then let him focus on being the best catcher he can be.

You don't get to say the manager feels better after losing than winning then get to say someone else is stupid.

 

[SydneySox]

Yeah... Arm seems pretty good.

 

[daveuk]

I'm not sure how everyone here forgot that swihart was only up because of the injuries and was pressed into action at least a year ahead of projections. This is not a panic move or a sign of the team being run poorly. This is development of a young athletic catcher getting back on track while giving the team a defensive boost.

This is great and all, but does it in any way, however small, lead you to believe that it improves the pitching? I disagree with your premise that this isn't a sign that the team is being run badly. The Manager was a pitching coach and he got his personal choice hired as the actual pitching coach. Do you think that simply changing catchers will fix the pitching? I think it's a diversion from their ability to coach the best out of the rotation. Even with Molina back there, they would still suck.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Why are people shocked that the starting catcher is back to being the starting catcher now that he's healthy?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

You can certainly make an argument that Vazquez is the better choice to be the starting catcher right now--and the Sox brain trust has decided that he is, though their reasons may have as much to do with arbitration clocks as anything else. But calling him "the starting catcher" as a pre-established fact, on the basis of about 50 rookie starts a year and a half ago where he certainly impressed with the glove but was also quite terrible with the bat, is absurd. Vazquez has seniority, Swihart has (or had) incumbency; neither of them has any reasonable claim to have established himself, to this point, as The Guy.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

They probably made this decision weeks ago - it just seems like panic move in the context of subsequent events that unfolded around it.

If they did, they certainly didn't make their intentions known very well. Not that they had to, of course, but one would think there would have been an off hand remark about starters not losing their job or Swihart still having lots of seasoning issues still or something like that.

 

[Plympton91]

You don't get to say the manager feels better after losing than winning then get to say someone else is stupid.

This isn't football where every game is life or death. In baseball, a well played loss can be spun as portending good things over the medium term.

 

[finnVT]

I mean, this doesn't seem that hard to understand. If you think your best catching duo in the long run is Vazquez and Swihart, you don't want one of them just sitting on the bench 4x/week. If Swihart can be ok in LF, you get his bat in the lineup even on his non-catching nights, and let Holt either rest or move around to let anyone else rest.

 

[Rasputin]

This isn't football where every game is life or death. In baseball, a well played loss can be spun as portending good things over the medium term.

And you think how the manager feels is based on how the game can be spun?

And you think it's a given that a low scoring game is well played while a high scoring one isn't?

And oh, by the way, that's called moving the goalposts.

 

[Plympton91]

And you think how the manager feels is based on how the game can be spun?

And you think it's a given that a low scoring game is well played while a high scoring one isn't?

And oh, by the way, that's called moving the goalposts.

I wasn't using "spun" perjoratively there. For instance, even if the pen costs us this game tonight, Porcello's performance is by far the most important takeaway and should lead you to revise up (very slightly) your expected win total for the season.

 

[O Captain! My Captain!]

Clearly this just means the comp for Swihart is Yogi Berra, who played LF when he wasn't catching.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

But bringing up Vazquez also keep his clock ticking. Had the kept Vazquez down throughJune, they could have partly made up for the year of control they lost to him on the DL.

Vazquez was on the DL. He was accruing major league time. The only way to get him to stop is to "promote" him, and then to actually option him.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

You can certainly make an argument that Vazquez is the better choice to be the starting catcher right now--and the Sox brain trust has decided that he is, though their reasons may have as much to do with arbitration clocks as anything else. But calling him "the starting catcher" as a pre-established fact, on the basis of about 50 rookie starts a year and a half ago where he certainly impressed with the glove but was also quite terrible with the bat, is absurd. Vazquez has seniority, Swihart has (or had) incumbency; neither of them has any reasonable claim to have established himself, to this point, as The Guy.

You and I have been around and around on this since December. I've been consistent and you've been trying to poke holes in my logic every time I post. It went down exactly as I said it would. Get over it. Vaz didn't get called up in 2014 because the entire ML catching depth chart hit the DL, he got called up because he was the best catcher in the organization and he was ready. From the time he got called up, he caught 73% of the remaining games. I don't know how you don't call that guy the starter, but I'm sure you'll find a way.

 

[OCD SS]

Having him take reps in LF speaks a lot about his they view Castillo IMO

To me it suggests that maybe some of us (myself included) have been a bit bullish on Benintendi's schedule. What I don't understand is why not try Swihart at 3b? Instead of Buster Posey we could look for a Russel Martin comp… if Shaw has any problems there's behind him in the system unless younger to Devers or start to transition Moncada.

Finding a space for Swihart in a catcher- slash position would give a lot of flexibility if CV's bat doesn't develop or if they just need more offense (think deep depth shifting around the diamond, like the Shaw/ Holt-Young/ Panda progression, , but with the entering hitter being better), but I think that will be too complicated. If the Six think Swihart isn't going to be the next Buster Posey, he'll be traded for pitching to someone who thinks he is.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

From the time he got called up, he caught 73% of the remaining games. I don't know how you don't call that guy the starter, but I'm sure you'll find a way.

Swihart caught a comparable percentage of the team's games during his stints last year. That made him "the starter" for the majority of 2015, just as Vazquez was "the starter" in late 2014. That doesn't mean either of them had established himself as "the starter" going forward. Vazquez has a chance to do that now. I hope he runs with it, since that will be good for the team.

This shouldn't be difficult to understand, though I'm sure you'll find a way.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

See I knew you could do it. Don't ever doubt yourself. That's some quality logic.

 

[Clears Cleaver]

I think Porcello complimented CV three times in two minutes in his post game narrative.

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

I hope there's a grand plan here that they are purposely hiding from all of us. Cuz it ain't making sense to me right now. What value does Swihart really offer, to us or anyone, in the short term or longer term, by learning how to play LF? Did Hanley's butchery of that position suddenly elevate it higher up the defensive spectrum? Seriously, Swihart doesn't have the power projection typical of a corner OF. If they HAVE to develop his position versatility, why not try him in a more valuable, up-the-middle position (2d or CF)? And if it's just looking ahead for this season, do they really envision a scenario where they'd need to play Swihart in LF over any of the other existing options (Holt, Young, Rusney, or even Brentz/Benintendi, etc.) not to mention the possibility of trading for a Young platoon partner?

If he needs to work on catching, let him do that full-time in AAA. Why force him to learn a new position at the same time?

None of this feels well thought out.

The Sox have been reactive rather than proactive for quite a while now. It sucks.

 

[Sprowl]

See I knew you could do it. Don't ever doubt yourself. That's some quality logic.

You're being a prick. Drop it.

 

[whatittakes]

Look, if they think Vazquez is the catcher of the future, then I'm all for it. I think he's already an elite defender, and assuming his offense doesn't completely fall off a cliff, I'm very happy with him as our longterm starter.

But if that's the case, the position at which Swihart can do us the most good is "catcher for some other team." And if they are already prepared to begin the Vazquez era after eight games, then they should have traded Swihart in the off-season, and failing that, they certainly shouldn't be giving other teams reason to doubt his ceiling as an All-Star two-way catcher.

Baffling, troubling move, in my opinion.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

There is no way they could have traded Swihart in the offseason, before they knew what Vazquez looked like in the post-Tommy John state. So that's a complete nonstarter from A to Z. As for giving other teams reason to doubt his ceiling as an all star two way catcher, seriously? Please turn down the melodrama for your own sake.

I think your mistake is in thinking that Swihart was ever the starting catcher of the Boston Red Sox. He was not, no one ever said or even hinted that Swihart was seen as anything more than an injury replacement. In the absence of any commitment to Swihart as the longterm starter once Vazquez was healthy, the logic of the rest of the moves clicks nicely.

There is less than zero sense in splitting time at the big league level between Swihart and Vazquez either. Swihart is very very green defensively. He NEEDS reps and lots of them, which he's not going to get as CV's backup, especially not with Hanigan still under contract. Sending him back to p'tuck to work on his gaps, build skills and gain the proficiency he lacks right now to become that elite all round catcher makes perfect sense, exactly zero teams have any reason to doubt Swihart's ascention to be a great two way catcher because he the starting catcher got healthy.

 

[whatittakes]

This is great and all, but does it in any way, however small, lead you to believe that it improves the pitching?

Why do people do this? I mean I'm not the world's brightiest, but who the hell actually thinks you call up a catcher to improve the pitching?

No, seriously, who actually thinks this? I mean you might as well ask whether getting a better left fielder improves the pitching -- maybe? Maybe not? but that has nothing directly to do with whether we upgrade or don't at left field.

Vazquez was called up to improve the catching. He's a catcher. Catcher's catch. Better catchers improve the catching. This should not surprise anyone. Vazquez is particularly good at catching. I think it's safe to say our catching got better.

Is there a direct correlation to a pitching improvement? Who the hell knows, I don't know, nor do I care, it doesn't matter. Improving the pitchinghas nothing to do with why anyone is doing anything at the moment, it's just noise to the discussion. Our catching got better, we have a better fielder behind the plate and he just took a baserunner away from the Jays tonight on a play I don't think Swihart could have made That's not a pitching thing, except that improving defense anywhere makes a bad pitcher look better.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

One of Vazquez's strengths is framing pitches, which in turn leads to better pitching.

A framed pitch that should have been called a ball turns a 2-1 count into a 1-2 count, or a 3-1 count into a 2-2 count, or simply the difference between a called third strike and a walk, which we saw tonight with Koji and Pillar (granted it's debatable if any specific instance is because Vaz is good, or an umpire is bad). This helps keep the pitcher in pitcher counts, as well as helping to keep their pitch counts down, preserving the bullpen, etc, etc...

As catcher, Vazquez also has a lot to do with the pitch selection made by a pitcher, and if he's especially good at that too, it will also make the pitching better.

 

[whatittakes]

I'm not sure if that matters as much as people think TBH. Vazquez is the complete defensive package. I think it's very likely that he'll shave runs off the game both by framing and by controlling the run game, keeping the ball in front of him, and the other fundamental defensive skills of catching.

I dunno I just kinda feel like if the goal is to improve the pitching, get pitchers. Vazquez works because he's that good, and also because he's replacing a badly underexperienced catcher who had a lot of defensive adventures in the first handful of games. Vazquez can do a lot of good just by being fundamentally sound.

I do appreciate the fact that CV was able to make a statement his first game back from TJ by making the pickoff play off Tulowitzki. That put paid to a lot of concerns ver quickly

 

[soxhop411]

A lot of praise from Porcello for Vazquez

“@JMastrodonato: Porcello: ”I can’t say enough about the job Christian did back there, blocking balls, calling the game — he was tremendous.“”

“@JMastrodonato: Porcello: ”The pick off was huge … I got on a roll after that. That’s a huge play. I know he’s got a great arm and that was proof.“”

“@JMastrodonato: Last one, Porcello on Vazquez: ”He’s captain on the field. That’s what that position calls for and he brings that.“”

 

[rotundlio]

What a massive overreaction to the underperformance of the pitching staff.

I don't think so, man. I have more respect for their methods. People who manipulate baseball data tell us that the best pitch framers can prevent 30 runs this way (1, 2, and for instance this)—enough to shave a quarter of a run off the team's ERA; further, that Christian Vazquez was totally elite in this regard last time around. With José Molina's belated demise, he is possibly the premier pitch framer in the game. ESPN somehow values A.J. Ellis's game calling at more than ten runs a season. I wonder how Porcello values Vazquez's? Stinking Baseball-Reference pegs his defense at 1.1 wins in a third of a season, and you can bet they ain't incorporating any of that.

We're talking macroERAconomics. A third of a run is what separated 15th from 25th last season. On this team he's the positive end of the battery. The guy we sent down is cute and everything, but Swihart's projectable at the plate and average at best behind it.

Hopefully Vazquez continues to hit and we can solve this dilemma with another big trophy. Here is where I note his excellent batting eye and contact rate.

 

[joe dokes]

Yeah, a competent GM would understand that Swihart is still an excellent catcher prospect. But a competent GM would also understand that demoting him after eight games in favor of his still-recovering-from-TJ competition for the long-term catcher job, and immediately announcing that you're also going to start seeing where else he might be able to play, diminishes our leverage in a trade. (And, reflecting on how the Kimbrel trade went down, I am tempted to wonder about Dombrowski's general understanding of trade leverage...)

No it doesn't diminish any leverage at all. They didn't replace Swihart with Johnny Manziel.

Clearly this just means the comp for Swihart is Yogi Berra, who played LF when he wasn't catching.

You're working my side of the street, bub. (Or Elston Howard, who played LF when Yogi was catching).

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Vazquez had a terrific game last night, and he's a great defensive catcher. Hopefully he can become the Dustin Pedroia of catchers, and build a long and happy Red Sox career through superlative defense, leadership, and a swing built to leverage Fenway's dimensions into enough offense to keep starting.

If the same Vazquez as last night continues to show over the next month, DDski won't be as hesitant as Cherington to package Swihart up with Devers and a couple pitchers to return a playoff-caliber starter. But I definitely don't understand why the Sox decision-makers seem to want to train him for LF, though. If he needs to continue refining his catching skills, then keep him working on refining his catching skills, rather than giving him more different new stuff to learn.

Because, if Swihart isn't going to be the Red Sox catcher of the future, there's no reason to try to make him into the Ryan Doumit of the future, either. If another team wants that player, then great. He'll be available.