The Red Sox should probably cut Ortiz right here and now.

Allrighty, how about $6.25 for 2 yrs ea. with 1 mill for each milestone...oh, the union doesn't allow stat based contracts do they? That's toooooooo bad David. How bout we offer you arbitration? No? You don't like the idea of playing one year for 9mill? Think you're gonna get 12.5 mill from another team?

Now take your 12.5 mill and your .599 OPS against lefties and STFU.

Maybe if he'd hit earlier in the season it wouldn't be a rollercoaster.

Because he can make more money that way, and gets to play longer. Did we really need to ask for an explanation?

The Red Sox should probably cut Ortiz right here and now.

I think they should just pick up his option and let him whine. Ortiz was, despite another slow start, one of the Red Sox best hitters last year. He crushes right-handed pitching.

If Boston lets him go, Adam Dunn seems to me like he might be an apt replacement. Dunn, also, tends to struggle against LHPs. I would guess Dunn is going to get more than $12.5 million as a free agent. The upside of Dunn is that, if needed, they could stick him in left field or at first base if the Red Sox want to use Victor Martinez at DH.

In fact, given how crappy a defensive catcher Martinez now is, maybe the best route is to re-sign Martinez and use him as their everyday DH. I don't know if Varitek has retired, but he is pretty much worthless. There are a few capable free agent catchers (John Buck? David Ross?) they could consider signing as their everyday backstop, and use a Varitek or a random Molina as a back-up catcher.

given how crappy a defensive catcher Martinez now is

How is this a given?

"How is this a given?"

Every time I saw Martinez play, he looked horrible behind the plate. I presume Red Sox fans (I am not one of them) all saw the same thing. I don't know if this is definitive, but it supports what my eyes saw.

If you have a better objective analysis, please present it. I am open-minded.

I can see the Rd Sox maybe declining the option and seeing about a 2-year deal for less AAV *or* giving them time to line up a non-Ortiz option.

All eras have to end at some point, and I hope the Red Sox realize Ortiz has zero leverage here, since it is highly doubtful he's ever get an NL job at this point, and AL DH openings are pretty limited as well. I think I'd be fine with declining the option and trying to work something out and, if not, moving on. The last thing we need is year another first 2 months of "Is Papi Done?" talk/actual non-production for 2 months.

David Ross is not a free agent.

Every time I saw Martinez play, he looked horrible behind the plate. I presume Red Sox fans (I am not one of them) all saw the same thing. I don't know if this is definitive, but it supports what my eyes saw.

Maybe it was just a case of getting use to the suckiness but I thought he improved considerably as the season went on. He got off to a pretty rotten start at the plate so it's possible that there was an injury there or a cause/effect (bad defense affecting his hitting or vice versa). After he came off his July DL stint he was great with the bat and his defense seemed to be much improved.

He's still not good defensively but the net effect of his offense and defense is probably better than anything the Sox can get. Despite that I think anything more than 3 years is a BIG risk. He's got an .840 career OPS so he really can't be moved to 1st base in a few years and he wouldn't be a $12 million DH either and I think 2-3 more years of palatable catching is all he has left.

Another suggestion that Victor Martinez is not a good defensive catcher. Baseball-reference has a stat called "Rctch" or Total Zone Catcher Runs Above Avg. It is supposed to represent "the number of runs above or below average the catcher was worth based on baserunner kills and baserunner advances."

In the majors this year, there were 45 catchers who caught 400 or more innings. Of them, Martinez ranks 40th out of 45:

1 Yadier Molina - 16
2 Yorvit Torrealba - 9
3 Humberto Quintero - 9
4 Carlos Ruiz - 8
5 Ivan Rodriguez - 8
6 Matt Wieters - 7
7 Lou Marson - 6
8 Miguel Olivo - 6
9 Buster Posey - 5
10 Joe Mauer - 4
11 Russell Martin - 4
12 Ryan Hanigan - 4
13 Brian McCann - 3
14 Josh Thole - 3
15 Gerald Laird - 2
16 Jason Kendall - 2
17 Nick Hundley - 2
18 Ramon Hernandez - 2
19 Ronny Paulino - 2
20 A.J. Pierzynski - 1
21 John Buck - 1
22 Matt Treanor - 1
23 Geovany Soto - 0
24 Jose Molina - 0
25 Kurt Suzuki - 0
26 Miguel Montero - 0
27 Rob Johnson - 0
28 Rod Barajas - 0
29 Jason Castro - -2
30 Koyie Hill - -2
31 Alex Avila - -3
32 Chris Iannetta - -3
33 John Jaso - -3
34 Jonathan Lucroy - -3
35 Chris Snyder - -4
36 Kelly Shoppach - -4
37 George Kottaras - -5
38 Mike Napoli - -5
39 Jeff Mathis - -6
40 Victor Martinez - -6
41 Adam Moore - -8
42 Bengie Molina - -8
43 Francisco Cervelli - -9
44 Jorge Posada - -10
45 Ryan Doumit - -10

I can see the Rd Sox maybe declining the option and seeing about a 2-year deal for less AAV

I think this is plausible. Maybe 2 years at $9-10 million each?

43 Francisco Cervelli - -9
44 Jorge Posada - -10

Ouch.

It seems how no matter how you shake it out Yadier Molina is head and shoulders above everyone else every year.

Dunn, also, tends to struggle against LHPs.

No he doesn't. For his career he is 235/352/465. P-I doesn't do splits but that will be one of the better LH vs. LH splits you'll find out there. He had a "bad" 2010 with a 719 (less than 200 PA) which, as bad goes, is pretty good.

43 Francisco Cervelli - -9
44 Jorge Posada - -10


Ouch.

Somehow I think Montero in fact has a chance to stick at catcher.

The Red Sox should simply exercise the option, without apology.

I've read a lot about the idea of trying to put together a package of ~2/$20 with a mutual option. To me, that's ridiculous; it's not the money we should be concerned about, it's the years. He was still one of the best hitters in the AL last year, so I'm fine with overpaying for one year- the flexibility of a one year contract is worth it. However, once you extend out to 2012 or beyond, those extra years inevitably influence the team's decision-making going forward, even at a lower AAV. In theory, if he falls of a cliff, the team would realize the sunk cost and cut him, regardless of what's left on the contract. But we all know (including David himself), that his icon status and having a couple of years left on a new contract will buy him extra slack if his production takes a nosedive... which is exactly why he's making this leverage play with the media.

DH is the easiest position to fill on the field. David Ortiz is 35 years old, ineffective against LHP, and has endured prolonged slumps each of the last two years... all of which indicate to me he's only worth keeping on a year-to-year term.

How come Andy Pettitte can buy his PEDs with a one year contract but Big Pillpapi needs a multi-year deal?

VMart's offensive numbers look pretty pedestrian for a 1Bman/ DH; the rumor appears to be that Detroit is going to make a strong play for him, and I can't see the Red Sox really fighting to keep a C who's poor defensively and on the wrong side of 30.

I really think the Red Sox will go hard after a trade for Napoli rather than signing VMart to any kind of deal over 3 years.

Somehow I think Montero in fact has a chance to stick at catcher.

SC, I completely agree. How much worse can he be ?

How come Andy Pettitte can buy his PEDs with a one year contract but Big Pillpapi needs a multi-year deal?

Pettitte steals them from his father, doesn't he?

I can't see the Red Sox really fighting to keep a C who's poor defensively and on the wrong side of 30.

So Sox are gonna let VMart *and* Beltre walk? (I know, neither is a given...but...)2011: 90 wins. Max. And that's assuming they fill both spots with Youk to third/FA 1B and a John Buck type catcher.

edit: yes, yes...this is all GD premature, I know.

Big Opium poppy needs to get off the drugs and get a clue.

If DH is so easy to fill why do so many teams have poor DHs?

If DH is so easy to fill why do so many teams have poor DHs?

Seriously. I support this endorse this confusion, primarily because I've asked this before. Well, not about the position being easy to fill, but more just generally wondering why so many DHs are so terrible.

If DH is so easy to fill why do so many teams have poor DHs?

I think it's because a lot of AL teams tend to not use it as an actual position, and instead treat it kind of like flex-time. They rotate semi-injured guys through the DH spot who were dinged up or injured; they probably should not have been playing in the first place, and would then wind up suffering from the "DH penalty." It seemed like a lot of the so-called smarter/ sabermetrically oriented teams would find a guy to play DH, a player who did not suffer such a penalty (Thinking Edgar Martinez, Frank Thomas, or Ortiz).

This is why I've always thought of DH as an actual position; wrt retaining VMart I think the issue is that a C who can hit still commands a lot more on the FA market. I don't see the Sox fighting to hard to retain him when they might be able to land Napoli, who hits just as well, and doesn't look to be that much worse behind the plate, and who is on the right side of 30. They also have Salty, who they've like for awhile, and even Tek who is probably looking to come back.

Why are there so many crappy DHs?

1. Short benches -- it's more costly to carry a DH-only bat; it's really hard to platoon two DH-only bats. However a couple of weeks ago, I and somebody were taking quick looks at this and there doesn't seem to have been a huge increase in part-time DH slots over time -- it's always been the case that about half the teams go without a full-time DH. May have been more platooning in the old days.

2. Money -- AL teams have to pay as many pitchers plus 9 positional starters. Some position has to be filled cheap.

3. Age -- it's not a young man's position. It's also often a last-gasp position (maybe especially now for guys who teams are stuck with due to long-term contracts) and a position filled by guys who've always had old man skills.

4. Collective insanity -- despite all of the above, you ought to at least be able to find somebody bouncing around AAA or some other team's bench who can put up a 100-105 OPS+. Yet there are many teams perfectly happy to completely waste that spot in the lineup. An aging Jose Vidro? Mark Kotsay?

On Napoli ... why do you think he's available? Nobody holds more strongly to the notion that the Angels undervalue Napoli than I do but with Matsui out of the way, he would seem to be their #1 choice for low-cost DH (and maybe still part-time C and 1B backup). I'm sure you could make them an offer to get him but what have you got to give? The Angels are desperate for a 3B ... so are the Sox. The Angels could use either CF or LF/RF where the Sox have no depth. If Ellsbury hadn't been hurt, that would have been a possibility assuming the Sox go FA OF shopping. The Angels bullpen was something of a mess but, other than Bard, so was the Sox. The Angels would have to be quite high on somebody like Kalish to flip a solid ML hitter for a kid -- the Angels aren't in rebuilding mode. The most realistic thing I see is Papelbon (and maybe money) for Napoli.

Errr ... OK seems Matsui bounced back pretty nicely and ended up with a 124 OPS+. He is an FA though. But, yes, if the Angels re-sign Matsui, Napoli would be easier to pry away from them ... but I still don't see what the Red Sox have to offer.

The Angels are still in love with Jeff Mathis, have Bobby Wilson as the back up, and have Hank Conger coming up. Even if you're not in love with Hank Conger, that's still 3 alternative catchers the Angels can use. It'll be one thing if Napoli was entrenched as the Angels catcher, but he's not. Its about time to cut bait with Napoli, mostly because he's only a year away from FA.

Why are there so many crappy DHs?


If a guy was truly talented, he wouldn't be a DH.

The Angels are still in love with Jeff Mathis, have Bobby Wilson as the back up, and have Hank Conger coming up. Even if you're not in love with Hank Conger, that's still 3 alternative catchers the Angels can use. It'll be one thing if Napoli was entrenched as the Angels catcher, but he's not. Its about time to cut bait with Napoli, mostly because he's only a year away from FA.

Man, and I get crap from Angels fans for dissing the Angels' love of Napoli.

The Angels aren't in love with Mathis. They love Mathis more than they should but Napoli has always gotten more playing time than Mathis -- not a lot, essentially a 90/70 split. This year, once Morales went down, Napoli became the nearly full-time 1B. At the moment, the Angels don't have a DH for next year (and I don't know how Morales' rehab is going). According to Cots, Napoli's not an FA until after 2012 (he's got to be the most super super-2 ever). He'll get a nice raise this year given his jump in playing time but still probably won't cost more than $5-6 M. And it's not like the Angels are a low-payroll team.

And nothing you wrote answers the question of what the Sox (or another team) has that the Angels want. Is anybody going to give them a starting 3B or top reliever or top prospect for Napoli? Seems unlikely to me. If not, why should they give him up?

Napoli only played 68 games as catcher in 2010. Mathis played 68 games total, and started 62 of them as catcher, this while multiple trips to the DL this year.

Walt, you are fooling yourself if you don't think the Angels and Mike Scioscia in particular treat Mathis as the favorite son, and Napoli as the Red Headed Step child.

Most hitters don't want to be full-time DH's. I think it's primarily because it reduces their value going into contract time. It makes it hard to jump to the NL if you have to convince the team that you can play the field all year when you haven't done it recently.

It makes sense to avoid a long-term commitment to a DH, because then you can slide in one of your current position players whose defense and/or knee cartilage is declining.