Sammy Sofa

You are the child all of us dread.

You rarely disappoint, my boy.

Just do a count. For fun.

Oh, Kyle.

No one's claiming that. Even if his elbow had blown up, it still wouldn't justify one side or the other. I was just pointing out that it wasn't just his elbow that was a concern at the time. How many times does the issue of Peavy's shoulder come up in that thread?

And a passing mention of his shoulder really doesn't mean much. The focus was, by far, on his elbow when it came to talking about injury risk. You yourself are focusing almost completely on his elbow the very next page of that thread when discussing injury risk vs what it would take to get him.

Kyle, you do know what his injury actually was, right? I don't give a flying [expletive] if people were "worried about his shoulder" in 2008. Nobody was "worried" about what actually happened. If I say "there's a decent chance you'll wreck your car" because you live in an area where a lot of accidents happen and then an elephant falls on your car I'm not some kind of genius or prognosticator.

Wait, what? Your checkmate is to say that a coach would pick the player he coached over the player he didn't coach?

That sounds like a challenge, Backtobanks. PROVE HIM WRONG.

[expletive]. Really, people are going to be knocked for really, really wanting Jake Peavy on the Cubs 2 years ago? And the people with injury concerns are now validated because of what happened to him? They do realize exactly what happened to him, right? Nobody was calling anything like that. They were, rightly so, concerned about his elbow more than anything else. But you're not "right" if you're worried about a player having, say, back issues and then they blow out their knee.

Defensive metrics. Check out BaseballReference.com. Better range, too. We're not talking a world's worth of difference here, but Perez likely has the advantage at this point simply due to the difference in age between the two. Plus you're going to see a lot more errors in spring training games (and especially a lot more than usual from outfielders), so using a single one usually isn't the best way to judge a player's defensive capabilities.

Yeah, it's this catch-22 situation where, naturally, anyone would want someone better than Hill, but it's ultimately improvement for a roster spot where ideally the player is essentially just taking up space. Castillo is, hopefully, way too good to be a backup and Ramirez is indeed still young and has a lot of potential. I'd much rather see Ramirez in a situation like TT proposed than being dumped into the backup catcher role.

If Geo is injured then call up Castillo. This isn't complicated.

I didn't. I've stated numerous times he's really bad offensively even by backup catcher standards. The point is that is replacing him with anyone short of damn good player isn't going to make much of a difference in the limited PA a backup should get (ideally 70-90).

Not sure how you're expecting Ramirez to get all that better if he's only getting like 90 PA at best if things go as they should. He doesn't have to. If he gets on base like he always has, you're already ahead of Hill. If he does get better, you've to a really good backup catcher. And I'm assuming more than 90 AB until Soto makes it through a full season. 2008 doesn't count? You're really limiting Ramirez' future if he's just the backup. See TT's post for a better scenario if you truly think that Ramirez still can come anywhere near meeting his potential.

Well its not an optimal situation for Ramirez sans he gets to be paid major league money. And the potential young player we care about will be in AAA. Ramirez being the backup catcher isn't some sure-fire option, but it would be an easy choice for me. Its not like Hill is a defensive whiz, which would cause me to not take the chance of a possible offensive upgrade so callously. I'm more inclined to go TT's route and look at Ramirez as an all-around bench guy as opposed to just the backup catcher. It would seem that would be more appealing to you as well since it get Ramirez more PA than if he was banished to the backup catcher role. And it's hardly the end of the world if the cared about young player is in AAA where he can get regular playing time.

Not sure how you're expecting Ramirez to get all that better if he's only getting like 90 PA at best if things go as they should.

I have no idea what Ramirez would likely do. Yes he has a small sample size but he also has more potential. He could be serviceable with the bat and get on base at a good clip, Hill already proved he can't. I don't have any reason to believe he can't call a game or get to know the pitchers well. This just sounds like Lou speak to me, perceived value > value. Basically I'm more than willing to choose the question mark over the known crap. Yes fine, it is tiring. But its because Hill is so monumentally bad even a small change could be impactful if Ramirez hits. If he proved himself to be that monumentally bad I would want him out too because he does bring less intangibles than the savvy 3 fingered vet. But we would have given ourselves the chance to see if he can be better than that. If he blows it let Hill come back and be the CERA king. And conversely, I won't lose any sleep if Hill retains his job and is used properly. The constant black hole being played day after day still resonates so perhaps I am overstating. How much of a chance are you really giving Ramirez if he's actually relegated to the backup role as he and Hill should be? If you want to get a better idea of what an unknown can do then they they need to be playing regularly, and Ramirez still has a lot to prove. The only way he's going to have a chance to have a serious impact on the Cubs' offense is if the backup catcher is getting way, way, way too much playing time, otherwise the backup catcher is going to be ideally relegated to too few PA for Ramirez over Hill to really make that much of a difference over the course of the season. If you've got a young player who has potential then why dump them in a role where you're ideally going to do your damndest to get as little regular playing time as possible?

Again, you're mixing up Hill's misuse last year with how a backup catcher is supposed to be used. If Soto ends up getting 140 starts as planned then Hill would get, what, 70-75 PA? 80? I agree, Hill stinks. I agree, Hill getting 150+ PA is hideous. Neither Ramirez nor Hill should be getting 150+ PA. Only 2 catchers in baseball managed to play 140 games last year. Only 6 managed even 130. And that's games played, not games started. It was a down year for catchers last year but it's still not an easy thing to do to play that much. That assumes perfect health and playing a lot of day after night games. Hey, I'm not assuming Soto is going to play 140. I'm assuming that 130 is more along the lines of his optimum season. Even with those extra 10-12 games I'm still not going to flip out over Hill being the backup unless those 10-12 extra games come in a row because Soto is injured, in which case he needs to be on the DL and Castillo needs to be called up. Bottom line, if the backup catcher is getting as much time as Hill did last year and in 2009, it's going to suck. It'll probably suck less with Ramirez, but it'll still suck. If they're not going with Castillo if Soto is missing that much time then THAT'S the actual problem. Koyie Hill sucking as a typical backup catcher is not that big a problem. It's an annoyance.

Again, you're mixing up Hill's misuse last year with how a backup catcher is supposed to be used. If Soto ends up getting 140 starts as planned then Hill would get, what, 70-75 PA? 80? I agree, Hill stinks. I agree, Hill getting 150+ PA is hideous. Neither Ramirez nor Hill should be getting 150+ PA.

Might want to re-check that math. No, I got it. Sure you can ramble on about the importance of backup catcher, like none us already knew it. Fact is Ramirez is already better in the time he has played (.340+ OBP) compared to Hill's .200 something. Win. It doesn't matter if its not a guarantee, its the move that should be made. You can keep marginalizing it, it's just the backup catcher spot, sure. But its also the position where backups are used the most, and history suggests the Cubs backup catcher will get a significant amount of at bats, due to days off and injury. If Castillo comes up for the injuries I'm fine with that too. The less Hill the better, no matter how much Old Gummy rationalizes it. You're working with a much, much smaller sample size with Ramirez; 140 PA in just two seasons over the last 3 years. Hill really, really, really sucks, but Ramirez likely would really suck himself the more playing time he gets in the majors. Again, your logic of "somewhat better = win" doesn't hold up when you're talking about the variance between two crappy backup catchers. If you're choosing between two crappy backup catchers I'd ultimately rather go with the one who knows most of the staff and apparently works well with them since, like you said, this the position where backups are typically used the most and they have a role that's arguably more important than what they do with the bat. I'm usually not a fan of those type of intangibles, but when it comes down to picking a backup catcher I'm going to lean towards the vet that knows and works well with the staff. Look, if Ramirez got the job I wouldn't lose any sleep over it at all; it's not like I'm a fan of Hill's. I just think the continual bemoaning of Hill's existence as already a tired, tired meme this season and we're not even to April, and it's translated now to people wanting Castillo rotting on the bench as the backup because it looks like he might actually be decent with the bat. Again, what needs to be separated is what the backup catcher is supposed to be and how Hill was misused last year. Hill or Ramirez for 20-30 games this season isn't likely to be that much of a difference offensively. Hill or Ramirez getting more starts because of a misguided platoon or Soto being injured is bad news either way. All we can do is hope that the Cubs call up Castillo if Soto goes down, because relegating him to the backup role in the meantime is not a smart move.

Because if Castillo is actually good enough offensively to start he needs to be starting regularly and not riding the pine as the backup catcher. If Soto does down for a prolonged period of time he should definitely be called up to start, but in the meantime you're effectively wasting him if the goal is for Soto to start 140 games. Remember, backup catcher is typically a dumping ground position. Castillo needs to start regularly so the Cubs can get a better idea down the line as to whether or not they can move Soto while he still has significant value or to up Castillo's trade value.

Might want to re-check that math. And the histrionics is the never ending bitching over the idea of Hill being the backup catcher. Hill actually being a backup catcher = really not that unusual. Hill effectively platooning for Soto or becoming the regular starter if Soto goes down = no good. That said, how many teams have a backup catcher where if the latter scenarios (and I'm talking unnecessary platoons, obviously) occur it wouldn't be a crappy, crappy situation?

Some people have been overreacting, but given the choice between Hill and Max Ramirez for backup catcher, it's blatantly obvious who the better choice is. Yeah. And if Hill only starts 20-25 games, it's no biggie. Castillo is better off starting in Iowa than riding the pine. But it's a leap of faith to think they'd call up Castillo to start if Soto gets hurt. And it's a leap of faith to think that Ramirez starting in place of an injured Soto would be that much better than Hill (and no, I'm not advocating Hill starting regularly for an injured Soto).

Some people have been overreacting, but given the choice between Hill and Max Ramirez for backup catcher, it's blatantly obvious who the better choice is. Yeah. And if Hill only starts 20-25 games, it's no biggie. Castillo is better off starting in Iowa than riding the pine. But it's a leap of faith to think they'd call up Castillo to start if Soto gets hurt. In my eyes, if you are choosing to start the inferior player, it's a biggie even if it's only 20-25 games. They're both likely inferior players. Backup catcher is a position where you can afford to go with the veteran that the pitchers like because it's going to be a [expletive] player. People are dramatically inflating the position because of their hatred of Hill because of his misuse by Piniella. If Quade doesn't make the same mistakes it's really not that huge a deal if it's Hill over Ramirez.