Author Topic: Top priority: catcher  (Read 3584 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #25: October 14, 2017, 02:27:27 PM »
Yes. It was painful to see Wieters in the on-deck circle. Maybe he calls a good game, but the Nats cannot run 2018 with Wieters and Lobaton. Either Severino is good enough to start or the Nats need to discover their next Wilson Ramos hiding as someone else's second string.

Also, yes, another starting pitcher. Maybe that's Fedde? Maybe it's a mid-rotation guy like Quintana...good enough to pitch in a playoff game even if he's not the next Max Scherzer.

Lobatón is a free agent.

Online bluestreak

  • Posts: 4943
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #26: October 14, 2017, 02:30:00 PM »
Dude.  I root for the Nats as well just like you root for Michigan.

Yeah, that would have more weight if you didn’t name yourself “ChicagoCubs” and show up here only after the Nats lost....

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 25026
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #27: October 14, 2017, 03:06:58 PM »
meh, he's not talking trash or anything.

Offline KV

  • Posts: 1297
  • PULL MY FINGER!
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #28: October 16, 2017, 05:20:58 PM »
So are there any FA catchers worth going after this year? 

Online hotshot

  • Posts: 452
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #29: October 16, 2017, 05:30:14 PM »
So are there any FA catchers worth going after this year?

Matt Lucroy-- good bat and field. Wellington Castillo -- good bat, don't know how he's rated at playing the position. Lucroy is 32, Castillo, 30. Looks to me like it's Wieters and Severino.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 43360
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #30: October 16, 2017, 07:05:31 PM »
So are there any FA catchers worth going after this year? 
Or just give the job to Severino, who is at least good defensively.

Online bluestreak

  • Posts: 4943
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #31: October 16, 2017, 07:14:18 PM »
Matt Lucroy-- good bat and field. Wellington Castillo -- good bat, don't know how he's rated at playing the position. Lucroy is 32, Castillo, 30. Looks to me like it's Wieters and Severino.

Jonathan Lucroy used to be one of the best pitch framers in baseball, now he’s among the worst, down with Wieters. His bat has suffered a bit as well over the past two years.

I think we are stuck with Wieters and Severino and hope Read develops.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 43360
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #32: October 16, 2017, 07:58:29 PM »
I just don't see any team that would part with anything of value for Wieters right now.

Face it, the Learners freaked us.

But you should take heart in the fact that he didn't cost us a series.

Offline nfotiu

  • Posts: 2004
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #33: October 16, 2017, 08:54:54 PM »
I just don't see any team that would part with anything of value for Wieters right now.

Face it, the Learners freaked us.

But you should take heart in the fact that he didn't cost us a series.

How many runs did he cost us in the 5h inning Thiursday?  4?

I'm not a Weiter hater, but he may have single-handedly done more than anyone else to cost us game 5.

Offline Ali the Baseball Cat

  • Posts: 14620
  • babble on
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #34: October 16, 2017, 09:00:44 PM »
Too bad the Barves signed Suzuki again.  Or is that "Studzuki"?

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 43360
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #35: October 16, 2017, 09:14:11 PM »
How many runs did he cost us in the 5h inning Thiursday?  4?

I'm not a Weiter hater, but he may have single-handedly done more than anyone else to cost us game 5.

Please. Dusty, the bats disappearing for four games, and Gio did far more than Wieters in one innings.

Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 18762
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #36: October 16, 2017, 09:22:14 PM »
I'm not sure you're right. I mean, it was a costly mistake, I'm sure you're right about that, but I'm not sure that Lerner and Boras don't outline deals and then tell Rizzo.

Rizzo might have been directed by ownership to sign him still it was up to Rizzo to negotiate the deal I'm sure he wasn't directed how to do that.  There was no reason to include a second-year player option.  That was a costly mistake.

Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 18762
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #37: October 16, 2017, 09:24:44 PM »
Could you trade him even if you found a willing party? Couldn't he just decline his 2nd year and look for work himself?

I just don't see any team that would part with anything of value for Wieters right now.

Face it, the Learners freaked us.

But you should take heart in the fact that he didn't cost us a series.

Online bluestreak

  • Posts: 4943
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #38: October 16, 2017, 09:32:09 PM »
Could you trade him even if you found a willing party? Couldn't he just decline his 2nd year and look for work himself?

He has zero reason to decline the option. No one will sign him based on this season. His only chance is to play for Nats (or anyone) and hope he has a better season to get a better chance at a better contract.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 25026
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #39: October 17, 2017, 08:17:21 AM »
I know LAC, but what do you think his real market price would be if he were a free agent? would someone sign him for $3MM?  If he exercises his option, then maybe you can trade him by paying a ton of cash.  At this point, I'd rather bring in a marginal vet and count on  Severino, with Kieboom in AAA and Read in AA getting prepared.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19312
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #40: October 17, 2017, 08:18:46 AM »
I'm not sure you're right. I mean, it was a costly mistake, I'm sure you're right about that, but I'm not sure that Lerner and Boras don't outline deals and then tell Rizzo.


It's nice to see that we're back to the bad deal is the owner's fault, good moves is the GM dichotomy. Thank god we have a gm who can do no wrong, now if only we could get rid of those dastardly owners

Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 18762
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #41: October 17, 2017, 08:27:00 AM »
Nice to see you decided that I believe that all bad deals are on the Lerners. Try to be less presumptuous.

It's nice to see that we're back to the bad deal is the owner's fault, good moves is the GM dichotomy. Thank god we have a gm who can do no wrong, now if only we could get rid of those dastardly owners

Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 18762
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #42: October 17, 2017, 08:28:45 AM »
Good point.
He has zero reason to decline the option. No one will sign him based on this season. His only chance is to play for Nats (or anyone) and hope he has a better season to get a better chance at a better contract.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19312
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #43: October 17, 2017, 08:28:45 AM »
Is there any evidence that any of this is anyone other than the gm?

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 19612
  • Oh you call what you got a team?
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #44: October 17, 2017, 08:42:12 AM »
With Kansas City in sell mode, what about finding a trade agreement for Sal Perez?

Online Ray D

  • Posts: 9711
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #45: October 17, 2017, 09:52:34 AM »
He has zero reason to decline the option. No one will sign him based on this season. His only chance is to play for Nats (or anyone) and hope he has a better season to get a better chance at a better contract.
There seems like room for mitigation.  If the Nat said to him, "sure, you can exercise the option, but you're not going to play much; however, if you'll play for half the money, we'll send you to a team where you'll play".  Then that team pays $3M, and we're out only $6M.

I'm sure some of you would say, it doesn't work that way.  But why the hell not?

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19312
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #46: October 17, 2017, 10:43:41 AM »
There seems like room for mitigation.  If the Nat said to him, "sure, you can exercise the option, but you're not going to play much; however, if you'll play for half the money, we'll send you to a team where you'll play".  Then that team pays $3M, and we're out only $6M.

I'm sure some of you would say, it doesn't work that way.  But why the hell not?

If he's confident in himself, he may go for that, I think it depends on whether or not he thinks this is the end of the line for his career- if that's the case, banking the money is more important. 

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 21832
  • Take two of these 30 minutes before first pitch.
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #47: October 17, 2017, 11:13:04 AM »
Castillo suggests Realmuto might be a trade candidate as the Marlins look to cut salary. He's about to hit arbitration. His salary is about to spike.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 43360
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #48: October 17, 2017, 11:18:05 AM »
I know LAC, but what do you think his real market price would be if he were a free agent? would someone sign him for $3MM?  If he exercises his option, then maybe you can trade him by paying a ton of cash.  At this point, I'd rather bring in a marginal vet and count on  Severino, with Kieboom in AAA and Read in AA getting prepared.
I agree, but that's a lot of money to eat.

Also, unless Wieters asks for it, I don't think the Nats will let him go because it may damage their relationship with  Boras and they're still hoping to sign Harper.

Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 18762
Re: Top priority: catcher
« Reply #49: October 17, 2017, 11:30:12 AM »
I agree, but that's a lot of money to eat.

Also, unless Wieters asks for it, I don't think the Nats will let him go because it may damage their relationship with  Boras and they're still hoping to sign Harper.

I wouldn't mind if they had a relationship with Boras that was a little more like other teams. One thing that's guaranteed: the relationship does zero for the Nats.  It's only about money, whatever the Lerners or Rizzo may think.

That Strasburg deal for instance... Steven gets to decide after 2019, and again after 2020, if he wants out. So basically if he keeps ptiching like this, he goes somewhere else for huge money. If he gets injured again... guaranteed pay for four more years beyond 2020.