Who Will Be the Sox Opening Day Catcher? [Archive] - Talksox

italstallianion

01-16-2009, 07:03 PM

I also put Varitek. I think Varitek will sign with us and for around the same rate or slightly reduced. I think we'd still get a trade done for a young catcher and not even play Bard, which is ok because he had a non-guaranteed contract. That's just me though, but I still think that Varitek would be the starting catcher, especially considering the other possible options.

BSN07

01-16-2009, 07:24 PM

Tek. The fact they get to avoid Boras only helps.

I still think there could be a trade even if he is signed.

Coco's Disciples

01-16-2009, 07:28 PM

Tek. The fact they get to avoid Boras only helps.

I still think there could be a trade even if he is signed.

That would leave three catchers, though. Why even bother signing Tek if you can make a trade?

JimEdHOF2009

01-16-2009, 07:34 PM

I think and hope it will be Tek. Short deal and plan for the future. Have Bard/Kottaras/Brown battle out for backup role.

Tek's bat is soooo slow. He cannot touch a fastball thrown above his knees 92 MPH or higher. He is basically an automatic out when facing above average pitching...unless they make horrific mistakes.

Color me disappointed if we go into Spring Training with the CORPSE of Jason Varitek as our starting catcher...

On the bright-side, he handles the staff well and with no Lugo...he will be the only weak spot in the lineup.

italstallianion

01-16-2009, 07:59 PM

That would leave three catchers, though. Why even bother signing Tek if you can make a trade?

For the record Bard's contract is a non guaranteed one. You can still sign Varitek and trade for a better mentor.

Or you can use one of the other catchers in a trade for a greater one, which is much less likely, but also doable.

WhiskeyBreath

01-16-2009, 09:43 PM

I think it will be Tek and I'm hoping he will be. My ideal scenario even though it seems unlikely will be to sign Tek for a year or maybe 2 and trade for a catching prospect.

Coco's Disciples

01-16-2009, 09:47 PM

Why is that more advantageous than trading for a young catcher now?

example1

01-16-2009, 09:54 PM

Tek's bat is soooo slow. He cannot touch a fastball thrown above his knees 92 MPH or higher. He is basically an automatic out when facing above average pitching...unless they make horrific mistakes.

Color me disappointed if we go into Spring Training with the CORPSE of Jason Varitek as our starting catcher...

On the bright-side, he handles the staff well and with no Lugo...he will be the only weak spot in the lineup.

From my point of view, this is the most important thing this team can get from its catcher next year and the year after, assuming they're not going to get an offensive juggernaught like Mauer or Martin. I think he instills confidence in the staff and his game preparation is great. I also think he can come back offensively and have some semblance of success at the plate. With the diverse staff of young/old, recent acquisition/rookie/veteran Sox members, I think Tek is still a great fit.

example1

01-16-2009, 09:56 PM

Why is that more advantageous than trading for a young catcher now?

I think the young catchers who seem to have the best shot of being a 'franchise' catcher are going to cost Buchholz. The other guys might not be worth a guy like Bowden. At another time perhaps the Sox will be able to deal a few OF prospects, some relief pitchers, or some young pitchers who weren't BP's #2 overall prospect in 2008. Or, perhaps best of all, the Sox could draft someone.

Redguitar985

01-17-2009, 12:49 AM

They'll sign Varitek to a one-year deal, maybe $2 million, with a bunch of incentives if his offense improves.

TheKilo

01-17-2009, 01:18 AM

George Kottaras.

example1

01-17-2009, 04:36 AM

Do you think Henry attended this meeting to do a face-to-face negotiation or to breakup with Tek?

Dojji

01-17-2009, 08:33 AM

They'll sign Varitek to a one-year deal, maybe $2 million, with a bunch of incentives if his offense improves.

You can't actually make incentives based on statistical performance -- only games played, at bats, etc.

Dojji

01-17-2009, 08:35 AM

Do you think Henry attended this meeting to do a face-to-face negotiation or to breakup with Tek?

I think Henry legitimately wants to keep Varitek around. IMHO that's a mistake but it's not a very big one.

I believe in Varitek's intangibles -- we saw them in full profile after he got hurt in 2006 and we saw the disaster that was Javy Lopez the catcher (while the Sox were ~.500 in Mirabelli-called games during the same stretch!).

That said -- I dojn't believe they'll reach a deal because Varitek will want to be a starter and Theo will want to cut down his playing time and treat him like a platoon guy. Also, Varitek isn't the only guy who can call a game -- both Bard and Kottaras have shown signs of decent ability in that regard.

My vote is Bard -- he did a great job with the Padres staff in '07 and has a pretty similar profile to 'Tek really and I fail to believe (despite wanting it to happen) that Theo will just promote both halves of the Pawtucket tandem.

BTW whoever is the starting catcher, unless there's a trade Kottaras will make the roster. He's shown some lefthanded power and great discipline at the plate -- and each of the othre 3 current catching options either are RHH or hit best from the RH side. He's not the worst candidate in the world to be mentored by Tek and he's shown success as a platoon catcher in AAA so I think Kottaras is the most likely (least unlikely) of our current catching threesome to make it.

Redguitar985

01-17-2009, 04:20 PM

You can't actually make incentives based on statistical performance -- only games played, at bats, etc.

Why not? The FO gave Schilling an incentive after winning the World Series in '04 and put weight clauses into his '08 contract. Is there a rule saying you can't make incentives if a player hits for a certain average or number of home runs?

italstallianion

01-17-2009, 04:49 PM

I don't think there is a rule saying such, or at least governing the use of a possible contract clause. Considering Schilling's contract, and the weird extraneous details of many baseball contracts I wouldn't be surprised if something like that crept it's way into Varitek's contract. I'd support it, afterall we're looking for the production from the plate (amongst other things) and that extra bit of motivation would be helpful in bringing the desired results.

Maybe we can add something about the cERA into the contract.

Dojji

01-17-2009, 05:49 PM

Why not? The FO gave Schilling an incentive after winning the World Series in '04 and put weight clauses into his '08 contract. Is there a rule saying you can't make incentives if a player hits for a certain average or number of home runs?

Yes. Yes, there is. Because performance based incentives open a can of worms if a front office finds itself in a position of needing to not hand out the incentive. Rather than having to field a whole lot of borderline cases the union just negotiated the whole concept of production-based incentives right out of the CBA.

Jacoby_Ellsbury

01-17-2009, 09:10 PM

jeoa fuckine maure babaay

BSN07

01-18-2009, 06:29 AM

jeoa fuckine maure babaay

:lol::lol:

I know this is one of his "drunk" post, but it made ma laugh.

riverside sluggers

01-18-2009, 09:48 AM

This gave me a good laugh this morning

http://www/mlbtraderumors.com

11:37pm: More on Varitek from NESN's Heidi Watney. She says Varitek's meeting with Henry was to "clear the air" rather than negotiate. The Red Sox had not been returning Scott Boras' phone calls, but now they'll reopen negotiations. Watney notes that Varitek was not aware when he turned down arbitration that any signing team would have to give up a draft pick. Tek does not blame Boras for this.

BSN07

01-18-2009, 10:50 AM

This gave me a good laugh this morning

http://www/mlbtraderumors.com

This is totally Boras's fault. It was a complete misjudgment of the market for Tek's servives. And not knowing about the pick would be insanely ignorant.

I truely wonder if his divorce had any bearing on his offseason agenda. I think it's reasonable to think he didn't want any kind of guranteed deal until after it was final. That way half of his new deal wouldn't be going to his ex-wife. And the market just ended up being alot worse then what they originally expected. This is the only was I think Tek can resolve Boras of any kind of fault. Nothing else makes a whole lot of sense. I hate Boras but he usually doesn't botch things this bad.

italstallianion

01-18-2009, 01:00 PM

Yeah, usually Boras is screwing over the teams and the owners, not the players and his own clients. Malpractice lawsuit anyone?? j/k

CrespoBlows

01-18-2009, 02:15 PM

Fuck the 'Telfon' catcher.

All his fault.

jacksonianmarch

01-18-2009, 02:17 PM

You can't actually make incentives based on statistical performance -- only games played, at bats, etc.

not true. Guys have clauses based upon CY and MVP voting as well as homerun clauses.

CrespoBlows

01-18-2009, 02:24 PM

GP and AB's are statistical categories.

riverside sluggers

01-18-2009, 02:24 PM

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2009/01/18/deep_thoughts_on_players/?page=4

Seattle might have interest in Varitek

diony

01-18-2009, 02:31 PM

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2009/01/18/deep_thoughts_on_players/?page=4

Seattle might have interest in Varitek

Their first round pick is protected. So it makes sense.

a700hitter

01-18-2009, 02:33 PM

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2009/01/18/deep_thoughts_on_players/?page=4

Seattle might have interest in VaritekDon't they still have Johjima and Clement? Where would Varitek fit in that mix, especially after they declared Clement as their starter last year.

WhiskeyBreath

01-18-2009, 02:39 PM

Don't they still have Johjima and Clement? Where would Varitek fit in that mix, especially after they declared Clement as their starter last year.

Clement did a lot of DH'ing last year though.

diony

01-18-2009, 03:40 PM

Johjima is an awful catcher for that young staff.

riverside sluggers

01-18-2009, 04:20 PM

Dont tell Dojii that lol

Redguitar985

01-19-2009, 02:35 PM

Varitek has roots there. He might like it.

BSN07

01-19-2009, 02:39 PM

We still get supplemental pick's, so that wouldn't be that bad.

BoSox21

01-19-2009, 02:40 PM

Maybe we could draft Heathcliff Slocumb's kid with the pick, irony as its best

BSN07

01-19-2009, 02:49 PM

Guys take this with a grain of salt.

But here on NASN(NorthAmericanSportsNetwork, soon to be ESPN America, it just scrolled by on the bottom that Varitek is expected to re-sign with the Red Sox for a reduced rate.

LIke I said, not sure how concrete it is, but that's our big sport station here, so I thought I would post what I saw. All it says it was from an MLB source.

BoSox21

01-19-2009, 03:03 PM

isnt ESPN America just....ESPN?

Redguitar985

01-19-2009, 03:23 PM

Yes. Yes, there is. Because performance based incentives open a can of worms if a front office finds itself in a position of needing to not hand out the incentive. Rather than having to field a whole lot of borderline cases the union just negotiated the whole concept of production-based incentives right out of the CBA.

I tried looking through the CBA just now, and I think you're right. Players can get incentives that aren't based on stats (MVP votes, CY Young awards), but I couldn't find anything about stats-related incentives.

I'd put it back in if I were the union, when the CBA expires. Are there really a lot of borderline cases every year?

BSN07

01-19-2009, 03:27 PM

isnt ESPN America just....ESPN?

You would think, but that's what it is called.

Dojji

01-19-2009, 07:14 PM

not true. Guys have clauses based upon CY and MVP voting as well as homerun clauses.

Not quite. They're the result of good statistical performance bes, but they're not a hard number themselves. What you can't do is give an incentive for batting .270 or posting a .340 OBP.

Dojji

01-19-2009, 07:17 PM

Are there really a lot of borderline cases every year?

Well since you can't actually put it in a contract I wouldn't think so, but we already have issues where players with games and AB incentives wind up having to fight their front offices for playing time so I could understand why the union would not want to go there.

jacksonianmarch

01-19-2009, 10:51 PM

Not quite. They're the result of good statistical performance bes, but they're not a hard number themselves. What you can't do is give an incentive for batting .270 or posting a .340 OBP.

but you can for reaching a certain number of innings or plate appearances or hits.

Dojji

01-19-2009, 11:02 PM

Redguitar985

01-19-2009, 11:23 PM

Well since you can't actually put it in a contract I wouldn't think so, but we already have issues where players with games and AB incentives wind up having to fight their front offices for playing time so I could understand why the union would not want to go there.

Maybe they could still have incentives, but create a range. You get a bonus if you hit 10-15 home runs or hit for a .290-.300 average.

jacksonianmarch

01-20-2009, 01:40 AM

Which again, is not so much statistical performance as it is health, durability, and the ability to punch a clock. The closest you come to rebutting me with that is that you have to be doing some kind of job to be trusted with too many IP or games played.

and being durable is part of performance, right? And no team in their right mind would put incentives in play for percentages since they dont take into account ABs. You dont put a clause in play for a .300BA because that could be reached by playing 3 games and going 3 for 10

italstallianion

01-20-2009, 07:00 AM

Well you could have a minimum number of at bats required, much like one won't win a batting title for going 5/10 even though he batted .500 for the season.

The number of AB's however, is very typically put into contracts, Baldelli's and Kotsay's for 2 specific and recent examples.

Mr Crunchy

01-20-2009, 04:28 PM

Steve Avery had incentives to start 25 games i think?He was fucking useless while in boston.
on his 25th start and with the sox out of it jimy williams started him to gain him his bonus or it may have kicked in a players option,i forget.
Oil Can Boyd on the other hand led the NL in shutouts(4 i believe),led the expos in wins i think and needed 1 start with a week left to gain his option(or bonus)...The expos sat him,fucked him over and he never pitched again in the majors....Now that boy got fucked badly.

a700hitter

01-20-2009, 06:09 PM

Redguitar985

01-20-2009, 09:21 PM

With regard to Avery, the FO instructed Jimy to sit Avery, but Jimy gave him the start anyway to get the incentive payment.

Haha, and the Dan Duquette-Jimy Williams relationship deteriorated some more.

riverside sluggers

01-27-2009, 02:14 PM

http://startelegramsports.typepad.com/foul_territory/2009/01/more-hope.html

The Rangers wont mind dealing Salty for Clay straight up

TheKilo

01-27-2009, 02:25 PM

Of course not.

BSN07

01-27-2009, 03:37 PM

http://startelegramsports.typepad.com/foul_territory/2009/01/more-hope.html

The Rangers wont mind dealing Salty for Clay straight up

If they are willing to do that, I think its reasonable to think they could settle on bowden +1.

Dojji

01-27-2009, 03:56 PM

Of course not.

quite honestly I'd think about it. Clay is good but he didn't impress me much last year, they monkeyed with his delivery, and Catcher is a position of need. If we can deal him to fill that need with a top-notch replacement we do have 3 other prospects who could at least potentially become staples of the rotation if needed next year -- Bowden, Masterson, and Kris Johnson. If you're going to deal prospects there's worse times to do it.

Keeper

01-27-2009, 04:16 PM

So would I. The Sox need a serviceable catcher more than they need a work in progress, especially when they have other pitching prospects who could still be studs.

italstallianion

01-27-2009, 04:48 PM

I just think Texas got enough the last time we traded with them. And they only got a butt load for Teixeira because they screwed the Braves as well. The Rangers owe us as far as I'm concerned.

rician blast

01-27-2009, 04:50 PM

I wonder what Mark Teixeira would look like with a 98 mph fastball in between his ears....

ummm...Matsui?

Dojji

01-27-2009, 04:50 PM

Good luck collecting on that, meanwhile baseball is a poor place for grudgesso I think the rest of us still grit our teeth and deal with the Rangers.

italstallianion

01-27-2009, 05:20 PM

Good luck collecting on that, meanwhile baseball is a poor place for grudgesso I think the rest of us still grit our teeth and deal with the Rangers.

I just don't want to have to bend over in front of Texas (again) with that deal. I'd consider doing it if I thought we weren't going to get mauled in the deal. If anything we should at least hold onto Clay and raise his market value.

Dipre

01-27-2009, 05:33 PM

Saltalamacchia is not enough of a finished product defensively to be worth Bucholz IMO.......

TheKilo

01-27-2009, 05:34 PM

quite honestly I'd think about it. Clay is good but he didn't impress me much last year, they monkeyed with his delivery, and Catcher is a position of need. If we can deal him to fill that need with a top-notch replacement we do have 3 other prospects who could at least potentially become staples of the rotation if needed next year -- Bowden, Masterson, and Kris Johnson. If you're going to deal prospects there's worse times to do it.

This is a joke, right? Buchholz has the best MiLB numbers out of all of these guys and there's absolutely no reason to trade for an inferior player just to fill "a position of need".

Scenario A - Sox go into 2009 with Varitek/Kottaras/Brown/Bard and all of their pitching prospects with the hope that Wagner/Exposito/etc. blossom into the "catcher of the future"

Scenario B - Sox deal Buchholz/Masterson/Bowden for their supposed "catcher of the future" knowing full well that individual may not even be a catcher in three years, and have a hole in their pitching staff for not just 2009, but 2010 and beyond.

Which has the better chance to be successful? Last time the Sox traded their stud prospect everyone was down on he became the best offensive player in baseball (when taking position into account). I'd prefer to not do that again.

I'm just fine with a Kottaras/Bard combo this season.

BSN07

01-27-2009, 06:06 PM

This is a joke, right? Buchholz has the best MiLB numbers out of all of these guys and there's absolutely no reason to trade for an inferior player just to fill "a position of need".

Scenario A - Sox go into 2009 with Varitek/Kottaras/Brown/Bard and all of their pitching prospects with the hope that Wagner/Exposito/etc. blossom into the "catcher of the future"

Scenario B - Sox deal Buchholz/Masterson/Bowden for their supposed "catcher of the future" knowing full well that individual may not even be a catcher in three years, and have a hole in their pitching staff for not just 2009, but 2010 and beyond.

Which has the better chance to be successful? Last time the Sox traded their stud prospect everyone was down on he became the best offensive player in baseball (when taking position into account). I'd prefer to not do that again.

I'm just fine with a Kottaras/Bard combo this season.

I'm fine with that combo as well.

Would you deal Bowden for Salty? Or Buchholz for Teagarden?

italstallianion

01-27-2009, 06:09 PM

I'm fine with that combo as well.

Would you deal Bowden for Salty? Or Buchholz for Teagarden?

Yes. Most definitely.

Dojji

01-27-2009, 06:13 PM

This is a joke, right? Buchholz has the best MiLB numbers out of all of these guys and there's absolutely no reason to trade for an inferior player just to fill "a position of need".

Salty is a more standout talent as a catcher than Buchholz is as a pitcher.

Scenario A - Sox go into 2009 with Varitek/Kottaras/Brown/Bard and all of their pitching prospects with the hope that Wagner/Exposito/etc. blossom into the "catcher of the future"

Scenario B - Sox deal Buchholz/Masterson/Bowden for their supposed "catcher of the future" knowing full well that individual may not even be a catcher in three years, and have a hole in their pitching staff for not just 2009, but 2010 and beyond.

Which has the better chance to be successful? Last time the Sox traded their stud prospect everyone was down on he became the best offensive player in baseball (when taking position into account). I'd prefer to not do that again.

I'm just fine with a Kottaras/Bard combo this season.

Why do I feel like I'm having a conversation with an earlier version of myself?

We can fill a lineup and rotation without Buchholz, that's not the question I have in my mind.

Wagner hit a brick wall this year in AA, ahs Expo will be starting this year at single-A Salem, so counting on either of them to be the catcher of the future at this point is categorically absurd. As for Kottaras, he has the ability to develop into an average to above average catcher but I certainly wouldn't object to a surer thing.

As for the concerns about his D, Varitek wasn't the best defensive catcher in the world when he first started either, but with work he improved. I have little difficulty believing Saltalamacchia can make the same improvements. Bearing in mind of course that Buchholz isn't exactly a perfect complete package of awesome right now either.

BTW -- considering that both the pieces we got back in the Hanley trade turned into huge contributors to the 2007 World Series win I consider us well compensated for Hanley.

diony

01-27-2009, 06:20 PM

Scenario B - Sox deal Buchholz/Masterson/Bowden for their supposed "catcher of the future" knowing full well that individual may not even be a catcher in three years, and have a hole in their pitching staff for not just 2009, but 2010 and beyond.

Well there's always the FA market.

Dipre

01-27-2009, 08:32 PM

Well there's always the FA market.

And there's always the yankees to sign every top-tier FA, so............

CrespoBlows

01-27-2009, 08:50 PM

Mauer is available in 2011.

Dojji

01-27-2009, 08:59 PM

Mauer is available for anyone in 2011. Let's not make the mistake of assuming that we're the only one who would wany a premiere catcher.

Besides with Polahd gone I wouldn't lay too long odds that the new owners mightn't open their wallets to KEEP Mauer.

diony

01-27-2009, 09:18 PM

And there's always the yankees to sign every top-tier FA, so............

Hey bosoxnation07 #2 :lol:

Dipre

01-27-2009, 09:26 PM

Hey bosoxnation07 #2 :lol:

I wonder where you got the extra chromosome from........:D

italstallianion

01-28-2009, 04:51 AM

Wow, I'm just figuring out that diony is a yankee fan....damn...what a waste of a good avatar...

BSN07

01-28-2009, 07:45 AM

Hey bosoxnation07 #2 :lol:

But is there honestly any reason for me not to think that?

A team with no budget(no fiscal sense)- a team with a high budget(fiscally minded)......No, High, No, High ummm I'm pretty sure that means the No budget team can out spend the high budget team:lol:(which is well within the rules, so I'm not too bothered by it, just over dramatizing:D)

But this is why the Sox have put so much into their farm system, it allows them to not over spend for veteran FA players. Ya they may want some of these guys. But they are going to place a value upon such players. As they have shown, they typically aren't willing to break it for any player. While NYY have typically shown they'll add 10M or another year to the deal just to get them to come to NY.

The only time I see Boston beating out NY for a FA is if they go in fast hard and leave with a deal in place. . But how manyplayers are going to accept that? Knowing that the Yanks can always drive up their price for them, I don't see many FA's leaving them out. Or that NY is not in on the player

Jorge will be coming off the books, so the Yanks will be in on Mauer. If they want him, they will probably have to trade and sign an extension.

Too bad baseball didn't work like football as far as FA go. Most typically go visit 1 or 2 teams sometimes even being signed before they leave the to go to the airport. Baseball is a long drawn out, dead horse beating process.

riverside sluggers

01-28-2009, 08:08 AM

Jorge is signed through the 2011 season. Mauer will be a free agent in the 2010 offseason, but that wont negate the Yanks locking Mauer up as Posada will already be Dh-ing as his catching skills decline

Dojji

01-28-2009, 08:20 AM

The. Twins. May.. Very. Well. Lock. Up. Mauer.

BSN07

01-28-2009, 08:27 AM

The. Twins. May.. Very. Well. Lock. Up. Mauer.

We. Where. Saying. If. He. Became. A. FA. Please. Keep. Up.

italstallianion

01-28-2009, 08:29 AM

Girls, you're both pretty...stop fighting...j/k

Papelbon58

01-28-2009, 09:13 AM

Having Jorge with one last (dying from old age) season will not keep them from signing Mauer. Jorge may not even be their everyday catcher at that point. I'd be surprised if he makes it thru this year as an everyday catcher.

I don't think the Sox are likely to go for a Mauer. I think they would rather have a catcher who established himself within the last two seasons.

I'm back, by the way.

TheKilo

01-28-2009, 09:33 AM

Why WOULDN'T Mauer test the FA market when he's available?

Coco's Disciples

01-28-2009, 09:54 AM

Yeah, considering he's on the Twins right now, he's a good bet to test the waters.

italstallianion

01-28-2009, 09:55 AM

Why WOULDN'T Mauer test the FA market when he's available?

He probably will, but he seems like a player that the Twins may make an exception for, especially with Pohlad no longer in office (RIP). I'm not saying that the Twins will be able to beat out the Yankees in terms of spending, but with the help of Pohlad the Twins certainly have the resources available to make themselves known.

I know this is just speculation, but Mauer also doesn't seem to be as money-hungry as other players. I mean he has to know that he's a one of a kind player, but he doesn't seem as likely to screw his own team over for money. Obviously that's just speculation, as there are no facts to prove/disprove it, but I just don't see Mauer being a Yankee for the rest of his career.