Turn Off Ads?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28

Thread: Are three catchers really that bad?

  1. #1
    Member Spitball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    5,626

    Are three catchers really that bad?

    Is having three catchers really that bad? With two catchers, the second rarley gets into the game unless it is an emergency. With three, the third won't likely see action, but the manager has the option of using one to pinch hit from the left or one from the right. There is the option of pinch running for one if needed because there is still that safety valve provided by the third catcher.

    Really, Valentin is a versitile component that is available to catch, play first, or pinch hit. He removes that "last off the bench" handicap that is always affixed to the second catcher. I think it is more like having 2 and 1/3 catchers and it gives the manager more versitility than if he just had two catchers.
    "I am your child from the future. I'm sorry I didn't tell you this earlier." - Dylan Easton

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    RZ Chamber of Commerce Unassisted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    13,453

    Re: Are three catchers really that bad?

    I say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

    I don't think LaRue would agree that it "ain't broke." It would be less "broke" for him if he could be plugged into another position with regularity.

  4. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Newburgh, IN
    Posts
    3,458

    Re: Are three catchers really that bad?

    In the Reds situation they can have 3 catchers. When you have a guy like Ryan Freel who can play all 3 OF and basically all IF positions he can take the place of 2 or even 3 players. Then you have Aurilia, Phillips, and Lopez who can play all IF positions well. Valentine is the lefty specialist and Catcher with EZ, Then you swap Ross and LaRue out and keep them fresh and then the other is a bat off the bench or emergency catcher. You figure McCracken doesn't even get any playing time so holding the 3 catchers on this team is no big deal at all. In a pinch I think both Ross and LaRue could play LF or RF.

    The problem that could happen is if Ross becomes so good they start benching LaRue. Then LaRue never gets the bat going and then is not playing and can't even pinch hit because he can't get it going. I think while we are winning it will be fine and I also thing even if Ross gets more start that they will have to get LaRue in there at least twice a week to keep it going.

    We also have a tradeable component if the right player comes available. I really like this Ross guy though!

    Go Reds
    And This One Belongs to the REDS!!!

  5. #4
    Member redsrule2500's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    3,215

    Re: Are three catchers really that bad?

    I agree, it doesn't seem to be hurting anything. LaRue is the weakest link in my opinion, but he's the best defensive catcher. Why not keep it for the time being?
    redsrule2500
    Go Reds!
    Baseball Bliss
    Im a normal guy blessed with the ability to hit a baseball. - Sean Casey

  6. #5
    Redsmetz redsmetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Winton Place
    Posts
    11,194

    Re: Are three catchers really that bad?

    I mentioned this elsewhere, but with two players day to day, it was really clear the Reds would be jammed if something happened elsewhere. For instance, Mark Berry was extremely quick and quite direct in moving Ryan Freel away from the ump last night after a called third strike ended the inning. If Freel had gotten tossed, we had McCracken to take his spot. Jason has played the outfield in five games, so they could have chosen him too, but you can see what I mean. The Day To Day guys need to get back quickly.

  7. #6
    "So Fla Red"
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    South Florida - The Real Humidor
    Posts
    5,067

    Re: Are three catchers really that bad?

    The flexibility of Aurillia and Freel makes three catchers and an extra pitcher viable for this team. It can't be stated enough how those two productive and flexible guys are just huge to have on this club over a 162 game season. Especially with KGJ often day-day which would really be crimping this team without Freel/Aurillia to fill into the lineup card at Narron's disposal.

    The bench is actually a huge strength for this team right now. The third catcher subs for a late inning bat since you have the field covered by being able to simply move around guys like Freel/Aurillia/Phillips into a number of positions. A rare luxury for a small/mid market team and IMO a hidden strength for this club that has played a big role in the 36-24 start.

  8. #7
    Please come again pedro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    portland, oregon
    Posts
    14,747

    Re: Are three catchers really that bad?

    The way I look at it they just replaced Jacob Cruz with some who could hit and catch (Valentin). Seems like a winwin to me.
    Get your nunchucks and the keys to your dad's car. I know where we can get a gun

  9. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    4,086

    Re: Are three catchers really that bad?

    I dont like it when one of them is making over $3 mil, and he's not our number one, or possibly our number two. I'm not saying start him (bc of his salary), but I would rather get rid of his salary than let it rot.

  10. #9
    The Lineups stink. KronoRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West N. Carolina
    Posts
    55,702

    Re: Are three catchers really that bad?

    I think it is, if we had 11 pitchers not so much but 12, 3 catchers and 1 guy who can't play any other spot then 1st (The Hat) it makes for a REALLY short bench.
    Go Gators!

  11. #10
    Redsmetz redsmetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Winton Place
    Posts
    11,194

    Re: Are three catchers really that bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by KronoRed
    I think it is, if we had 11 pitchers not so much but 12, 3 catchers and 1 guy who can't play any other spot then 1st (The Hat) it makes for a REALLY short bench.
    Well Scott would be our FOURTH catcher in a pinch

  12. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Newburgh, IN
    Posts
    3,458

    Re: Are three catchers really that bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by KronoRed
    I think it is, if we had 11 pitchers not so much but 12, 3 catchers and 1 guy who can't play any other spot then 1st (The Hat) it makes for a REALLY short bench.

    That's what I'm saying about Freel. A guy who can play all positions is like almost having two guys - especially with the flexibility of the other players. It's somewhat of a unique position to be in. But that being said if we could trade one to help the team that's a good thing too! Apparantly the 3 catchers isn't hurting us at all right now, but if you have a lot of day-to-day ala Griffey then you have a problem.
    And This One Belongs to the REDS!!!

  13. #12
    Member CTA513's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    10,719

    Re: Are three catchers really that bad?

    LaRue will probably be the first one to complain about playing time.
    He was the starting catcher, then split time with Valentin last year and now is spliting time with 2 other catchers.

  14. #13
    THAT'S A FACT JACK!! GAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Bellefontaine, Ohio
    Posts
    26,680

    Re: Are three catchers really that bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by oregonred
    The flexibility of Aurillia and Freel makes three catchers and an extra pitcher viable for this team.
    And Phillips, as well as Valentin, can play other positions if needed. I see more versatility with this team then with recent ones. And that is a plus IMO.
    "panic" only comes from having real expectations

  15. #14
    Member Highlifeman21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Bristol, just around the corner from ESPN
    Posts
    8,694

    Re: Are three catchers really that bad?

    Hatteberg can be our emergency catcher. We do not need 3 designated catchers on the team. 2 catchers and Hatteberg will be just fine.

  16. #15
    Box of Frogs edabbs44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    16,298

    Re: Are three catchers really that bad?

    I'd rather have 3 catchers than Q taking up space...having both situations is suicide.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25