Who Catches if Doumit Goes?

by JRoth95 on Dec 8, 2009 5:10 PM EST Comment 49 comments

I mean, obviously Jaramillo, but do the Bucs need to get a catcher back in any trade? Or would they be fine with picking up a misc. backup catcher on the open market? I have no idea who's available, but I note that the Nats just gave Pudge 2 years/$6M to basically act as insurance for their young starting C.

My concern is that Jaramillo really isn't good enough to start ~140 games, which makes me think that they kind of need another catcher who is at least as good, rather than an Osik-like scrub to fill in for day games.

Surely we can't realistically expect to see Sanchez in Pittsburgh in 2010?

And no, you're not allowed to say Clement.

0 recs | Comment 49 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

It would be a long shot but what about moving neil walker back?

by Sage18 on Dec 8, 2009 5:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

um,

no.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 8, 2009 5:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Clement

by getwonkafied on Dec 8, 2009 5:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

+1

by joegonzo on Dec 8, 2009 6:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Kratz would probably be fine as a backup.

With maybe an occasional start from Clement, if his knees feel up to it.

We’d need to sign another guy to start at AAA, but that’s small beer.

by Vlad on Dec 8, 2009 5:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, OK

How much does a Jaramillo/Kratz tandem hurt the team? I mean, obviously, it costs you some wins compared to Doumit, but would that be bad enough to have knock-on implications? Worse pitching*, huge holes in the lineup, bad plate defense?

I know that a lot of people question the catcher’s role as a receiver, but, while there may not be a big/measurable difference between ML-grade starting catchers, I’m not sure that pitchers can’t lose faith in the pitch-calling of scrubs.

by JRoth95 on Dec 9, 2009 11:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Depends where you set Doumit's baseline.

He was a 4-win player in 2008, so that’s probably about the best-case scenario for 2010. The expected return is somewhere below that, depending on how healthy you think he’ll be.

Jaramillo and Kratz both have better defensive reputations than Doumit, for whatever that’s worth.

by Vlad on Dec 9, 2009 12:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

From watching both Jaramillo and Doumit last year, I think Doumit is a lot better defensively at blocking pitches and runners at the plate. The only rub on Doumit is his “framing” of pitches. However, no one has ever been able to show that skill makes any difference in a pitcher’s performance.

by MarkInDallas on Dec 9, 2009 6:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't underestimate

the rotations comfort with their catcher.

I guess they will have all spring to get used to a new one, but I always had a favorite catcher whenever I pitched growing up and with all baseball superstitions… if you think it makes a difference, it makes a difference

by Mr. E on Dec 9, 2009 7:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nice mini-piece by DK on Doumit’s improvement in pitch selection this year. I’m for him staying unless there’s some blow away deal.

by MarkInDallas on Dec 9, 2009 10:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, Jaramillo did start like 60 games last year.

It’s not like he’s some stranger off the street.

by Vlad on Dec 10, 2009 9:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Jason Kendall reunion tour. Book it!

by Adam Reynolds on Dec 8, 2009 8:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

........

Ronnie Paulino

"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce

by gorillakilla34 on Dec 8, 2009 9:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'm trying to come up with a....

pithy comment that mingles and transmits in their purest form the Lovecraftian horror you have just invoked and my desire to curse you, your children, your children’s children, etc., ad nauseum, infinito, for even uterring those two words. But pithiness fails me.

by Trogluddite on Dec 8, 2009 9:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

better

than signing pudge rodriguez to 2yrs / 6M total

by BurgherKing on Dec 8, 2009 9:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

…not really.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 8, 2009 10:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hey buddy...

Did you ever decide on a date for the “BD day” game?

"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce

by gorillakilla34 on Dec 8, 2009 10:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was kinda waiting

until after the 1st of the year to take another survey…

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 8, 2009 11:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You

and your children, and your children’s children….for three months.

Jason
The Hanging Curve

by poorboywilly on Dec 11, 2009 9:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

May the fleas

of a thousand camels infest your armpits.

by bucdaddy on Dec 8, 2009 11:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Y'know...

As well as he played last year, I really don’t miss Ron’ Paul’ at all.

by Vlad on Dec 9, 2009 9:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Marlins were very smart with Paulino and mainly just played him against lefties (and of course the standard backup catcher days). He has some value to teams with a lefty hitting catcher, but not much else at this point. I don’t think anyone’s thinking about him as a starter.

by ElDuce on Dec 9, 2009 12:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

“Ron’ Paul’” – Hah!

by Adam Reynolds on Dec 9, 2009 10:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Paulino still looks better than Jaramillo to me, BTW, even if FLA was hiding him against lefties.

by Adam Reynolds on Dec 12, 2009 12:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

some shlub until sanchez comes up

lovers salavate. broken hearts tesselate tonight.

by omar moreno on Dec 9, 2009 2:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

when the Rays non-tender Navarro

I’d see what it takes to pick him up, even if we don’t trade Doumit

by epoc on Dec 9, 2009 4:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'm not entirely convinced...

…that they will. After the Shoppach trade, they were talking about a time-share (though I guess it might just have been posturing in search of a trade).

by Vlad on Dec 9, 2009 5:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Who Catches if Doumit Goes?

Hopefully someone who can catch the damn ball the great majority of the time.

by patthatt on Dec 9, 2009 6:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Doumit Jays Yankees

The Jays need a catcher. The Yankees lust after Halliday. The Yankees don’t want to part with Montero, a catcher, their top prospect. The Yankees are actually deep in catching prospects. The Bucs know the Yankees farm well. Maybe Doumit goes to Toronto, Halliday to NYY, Joba to Toronto and the rest of the NYY farm (including Romaine) spread out between Pgh and Toronto.

by Pinstripe Pirate on Dec 9, 2009 8:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

DK would tell you No Soup

But that’s an interesting grouping of needs/availability.

I think the Yankees’ interest in Halliday hinges on what they think of Wang – at this point he looks more like an injured guy who had a good season once instead of a good pitcher who’s had some bad luck. But if they think he can stay healthy and pitch (reasonably) well, then there’d really be no reason to trade the farm for Halliday.

by JRoth95 on Dec 10, 2009 10:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I posited something similar...

…about a Halladay-to-the-Dodgers scenario earlier, in a different thread.

by Vlad on Dec 10, 2009 12:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I Think the Dodgers

…are hurting with the McCourt thing up in the air. I don’t see them in the Halladay sweepstakes simply because they won’t be able to extend him given the circumstances. Of course, then it doesn’t happen.

The Juan Pierre (w/salary) + prospects trade for a Duke-like pitcher makes more sense for the Dodgers to me. DIVORCE is a nasty thing…

by God Loves on Dec 10, 2009 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Haven't had

anyone indicate to me how Juan Pierre benefits the Pirates roster…other than raising payroll significantly. Hell, Nyjer Morgan is more of an asset to a team than Pierre. And we already have a CF…in case no one has noticed.

by Thunder on Dec 10, 2009 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Pirates have the payroll flexibility to take on Pierre’s contract. Dodger’s have to compensate us for taking on his contract, thus give up higher prospects for us to do so. Dodger’s don’t have $ flexibility to get another starting pitcher given divorce of owner, so to get rid of Pierre’s contract and make some room for team improvement, they trade top prospects to get out of short term bind.

So, in the end, to get Duke, the Dodger’s give up more than it would normally take to get Duke to get rid of Pierre contract and solve their short term problem.

by God Loves on Dec 10, 2009 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Pretty good summary of the situation.

by Vlad on Dec 10, 2009 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But surely

It would be just as easy to give the Dodgers Duke and a couple $million in exhcange for the prospects we want and not have to deal with Pierre at all.

I understand that the league office reviews cash transactions, but are we talking about such an outrageous figure? It’s funny to think of the Pirates sending cash to LA, but if it works, it works.

Is there any reason that we’d want Pierre even if he were free?

by JRoth95 on Dec 10, 2009 4:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not really.

But part of the advantage for the Dodgers in getting rid of him is the extra roster spot. So we’d get less of a return picking up the diffference between Pierre’s money and Pierre’s market value than we would picking up Pierre himself. And it’s very tough to get clearance on a deal where there’s more than $5M in cash changing hands.

by Vlad on Dec 10, 2009 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

As I was writing I was suspecting that we were talking about a LOT of cash for Pierre.

Unless we get a stud prospect, I just don’t see it – not that I think Duke alone should be returning a stud, but I hate the idea of adding Pierre to this team.

by JRoth95 on Dec 10, 2009 9:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"... but I hate the idea of adding Pierre to this team."

Any sane person does.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 10, 2009 9:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll remember this

Next y’all are calling me crazy.

by JRoth95 on Dec 11, 2009 9:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was

agreeing with you.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 12, 2009 12:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I know

My point was that this is proof that I’m sane.

by JRoth95 on Dec 12, 2009 12:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Careful, now.

;-)

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Dec 13, 2009 12:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

who says if we acquire him, we have to keep him? NH paid matt morris $10 mil not to play for us when it became clear he couldn’t help the team.

we wouldn’t be acquiring him to improve our team, we would be acquiring his salary from LA in return for some other players that would improve our team. that is, he has no value to us as a player, but he does as a liability we would assume in return for some other benefit.

as i said in a post in another thread somewhere, i don’t think it’s realistic. just wanted to go through the scenario.

by johnnycuff on Dec 11, 2009 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There are teams...

looking to acquire leadoff hitters (of the speedy variety). The White Sox and Tigers are both said to be ineterested in Pierre. If we picked up a portion of his salary Pierre has trade value.

by Slick1 on Dec 11, 2009 12:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

surely, then

the dodgers trade him directly to such teams. I understand why giving up prospects might help LA dump him, but I just don’t see it happening with us. At the same time, if we acquired “premium” prospects, I wouldn’t mind- I m just saying I dont think the Dodgers have/would give up what NH would be interested in!

by BurgherKing on Dec 11, 2009 7:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You are probably right...

but those intersted teams don’t want to pick up his full salary and LA, with the divorce, is clearly looking to get rid of burdensome contracts. The one thing we have going for us is room within the budget.

by Slick1 on Dec 12, 2009 12:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Slick1 is right

In that we essentially launder Pierre’s salary to get it to something market-appropriate. For us, it’s a few million plus Duke for LA’s best prospects and another prospect or two from another team; for LA, it’s prospects for cash + Duke; for Detroit or ChiSox, it’s prospect(s) for Pierre at a good price.

I had missed the idea of flipping Pierre, and, as long as we have a realistic path to that, I have no problem at all. I thought the idea was either keeping Pierre or cutting him and eating his salary, neither of which would be ok.

As you say, probably not realistic – too many moving parts – but a plausible set of exchanges (and one that would be a great deal for the Bucs, assuming they get good enough prospects).

by JRoth95 on Dec 12, 2009 12:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs