November 17, 201015 yr Someone in the Fangraphs article put it well: Buck is basically the Mike Jacobs of catching. But Mike Jacobs at 1st base is worth a lot less than he would be if he could play any sort of serviceable catcher. Look @ the offensive stats for catchers in the NL - pretty bad after the first few. Buck will very likely be at least average, and could be Top 7 offensively (out of the ~25-30 catchers who get 200+ PA)
November 17, 201015 yr Someone in the Fangraphs article put it well: Buck is basically the Mike Jacobs of catching. And Mike Jacobs would be more valuable, if he was a catcher. I'd take Mike Jacobs offensive production (when he was hitting for power here, that is) from the catcher's position anyday of the week.
November 17, 201015 yr I think they had to overpay somewhat to get a guy to come here number one, and I think they needed this postion and couldn't take the chance of losing who they want over a couple of million. Well, that's sort of it in a nutshell, isn't it? I like it. Hopefully, he continues to hit like a maniac and the catching problem is mostly solved for a year or two or three while Baker and others sort themselves out.
November 17, 201015 yr Kevin Gregg loves Uncle Buck: Former Marlins closer Kevin Gregg spent all of last season throwing to John Buck. The two are free agents, and Gregg secretly hoped he would end up in the same place as Buck. For that to happen, Gregg would have to reunite with the Marlins. As early as today the Marlins are expected to announce the signing of Buck to a three-year contract. Gregg thinks it’s a great acquisition. “He is outstanding,� Gregg said. “This guy is one of the first people to show up every day. He’s studying video, studying his own film, making sure he’s working correctly and doing the right sequences. Just a real student of the game. He’s not just concerned about hitting and hitting home runs. He takes a lot of pride in not giving up runs and really helping his pitchers excel. “You could trust him. You knew his preparation. You knew when he came out and said something he had the conviction he was on the right page. Of course, every time I crossed him I gave up a hit so I learned real quick not to do that…His ability to help a pitching staff, you can’t say enough about it.� Good article. It goes on at the source: http://blogs.sun-sen...ck-signing.html
November 17, 201015 yr Just for the lazy amongst us, the final sentence: “Spending a whole year with him, his [new] deal, it’s a great deal. It’s a good thing for all those [Marlins] pitchers. I know John Baker did a good job, but he’s not going to be around with the Tommy John surgery. [The Marlins] aren’t going to miss anything. He’s going to figure out real quick how to help that pitching staff and make them even better.� Gregg may just be speculating about Baker or he may know something we don't know. Either way, he loves the Buck, and I hope he's right about him.
November 17, 201015 yr Just for the lazy amongst us, the final sentence: “Spending a whole year with him, his [new] deal, it’s a great deal. It’s a good thing for all those [Marlins] pitchers. I know John Baker did a good job, but he’s not going to be around with the Tommy John surgery. [The Marlins] aren’t going to miss anything. He’s going to figure out real quick how to help that pitching staff and make them even better.� Gregg may just be speculating about Baker or he may know something we don't know. Either way, he loves the Buck. He's not saying something we dont know. John Baker had TJ surgery. He's not going to be catching.
November 17, 201015 yr I think they had to overpay somewhat to get a guy to come here number one This unfortunately will be our misfortune until this present ownership is gone. Too bad because this could be such a great franchise, but we will always have to beg people to come here until they are gone because they have such a horrible reputation among the players.
November 18, 201015 yr Keith Law on Buck deal. "The Marlins threw three years and $15 million at John Buck, a catcher who was worth less than a single win above a replacement catcher in 2008 and 2009 combined. He boasts a career OBP of .301, meaning that once we back out intentional walks, Buck makes an out in more than 70 percent of his trips to the plate. He's a dead fastball hitter with some pull power but nowhere near enough to make his bat valuable, and he's also leaving a good home run park and much of his power on the road came in other hitters' parks or against questionable pitching. And he's a below-average catcher in throwing and receiving. Yeah, I want three years of that at inflated prices ... on my rival's payroll."
November 18, 201015 yr Keith Law on Buck deal. "The Marlins threw three years and $15 million at John Buck, a catcher who was worth less than a single win above a replacement catcher in 2008 and 2009 combined. He boasts a career OBP of .301, meaning that once we back out intentional walks, Buck makes an out in more than 70 percent of his trips to the plate. He's a dead fastball hitter with some pull power but nowhere near enough to make his bat valuable, and he's also leaving a good home run park and much of his power on the road came in other hitters' parks or against questionable pitching. And he's a below-average catcher in throwing and receiving. Yeah, I want three years of that at inflated prices ... on my rival's payroll." :|
November 18, 201015 yr Oh my god, enough with this. What are they supposed to do? They needed a catcher. Needed. Buck satisfies that issue. We had 1 legitimate catcher. Now we have 2. Problem solved. Stop the bickering. They could've just gone with... whatever was down in th eminors. Which is nothing.
November 18, 201015 yr Oh my god, enough with this. What are they supposed to do? They needed a catcher. Needed. Buck satisfies that issue. We had 1 legitimate catcher. Now we have 2. Problem solved. Stop the bickering. They could've just gone with... whatever was down in th eminors. Which is nothing. I'm not bickering. This is a message board, you post articles and news from around the media. But now I'm bickering, I guarantee you Buck will be a disappointment here. But this in your sig if you want.
November 18, 201015 yr Oh my god, enough with this. What are they supposed to do? They needed a catcher. Needed. Buck satisfies that issue. We had 1 legitimate catcher. Now we have 2. Problem solved. Stop the bickering. They could've just gone with... whatever was down in th eminors. Which is nothing. I'm not bickering. This is a message board, you post articles and news from around the media. But now I'm bickering, I guarantee you Buck will be a disappointment here. But this in your sig if you want. It's not just you, nor was I directing that solely at you. Everybody seems to want to complain about it. Answer me though. What were they supposed to do given the situation? Be realistic.
November 18, 201015 yr Oh my god, enough with this. What are they supposed to do? They needed a catcher. Needed. Buck satisfies that issue. We had 1 legitimate catcher. Now we have 2. Problem solved. Stop the bickering. They could've just gone with... whatever was down in th eminors. Which is nothing. I'm not bickering. This is a message board, you post articles and news from around the media. But now I'm bickering, I guarantee you Buck will be a disappointment here. But this in your sig if you want. It's not just you, nor was I directing that solely at you. Everybody seems to want to complain about it. Answer me though. What were they supposed to do given the situation? Be realistic. There were plenty of other options. There were some catchers on the market they could have gotten for cheaper. I'm not going to sit here and say they were backed into a corner to sign a 30 year old coming off a flukey season to a long term deal around 6 million a season. His power was the ONLY thing he had going for him. Getting older as a catcher and moving into this division and this stadium, there's no way he matches that production. This is one of not the worst signing in Marlins history in my opinion, and i think it deserves some "bickering" over.
November 18, 201015 yr Oh my god, enough with this. What are they supposed to do? They needed a catcher. Needed. Buck satisfies that issue. We had 1 legitimate catcher. Now we have 2. Problem solved. Stop the bickering. They could've just gone with... whatever was down in th eminors. Which is nothing. I'm not bickering. This is a message board, you post articles and news from around the media. But now I'm bickering, I guarantee you Buck will be a disappointment here. But this in your sig if you want. It's not just you, nor was I directing that solely at you. Everybody seems to want to complain about it. Answer me though. What were they supposed to do given the situation? Be realistic. There were plenty of other options. There were some catchers on the market they could have gotten for cheaper. I'm not going to sit here and say they were backed into a corner to sign a 30 year old coming off a flukey season to a long term deal around 6 million a season. His power was the ONLY thing he had going for him. Getting older as a catcher and moving into this division and this stadium, there's no way he matches that production. This is one of not the worst signing in Marlins history in my opinion, and i think it deserves some "bickering" over. Hater in the house. Did the Marlins overpay for Buck? No question. However, every team in the league overpays for players, and any sign that the Marlins are gradually becoming a normal team is overly welcomed by me. At the end of the day its $5 million/year, money that normal MLB teams wipe their a$$ with.
November 18, 201015 yr Who are those cheaper but better options? My point. Hater in the house. Did the Marlins overpay for Buck? No question. However, every team in the league overpays for players, and any sign that the Marlins are gradually becoming a normal team is overly welcomed by me. At the end of the day its $5 million/year, money that normal MLB teams wipe their a$$ with. My point. Thank you both. I'm glad they overspent, because previous to this offseason they would not have spent at all. The only other reasonable option that I'm aware of was Torrealba. In which case, you're getting a pretty similar product either way.
November 18, 201015 yr Who are those cheaper but better options? First of all I'd rather pay arby for Paulino than sign a guy like Buck to three years. Go will Hayes or Davis until his suspensions finished. Some of these guys wouldn't want three years so it would be less of a risk. Sign someone just for 2010 if not Paulino and wait for an off season with a better fit, or a trade in the future or even in one of the deals this off season. I wouldn't be surprised if all of these guys don't sign for 6 million+ for three seasons. Rod Barajas Ramon Castro Miguel Olivo David Ross Yorvit Torrealba Jason Varitek Hell I'd go with Treanor if it doesn't entail signing crap long term. The only way this deal works for me is if Buck keeps up his 2010 numbers. I just really don't believe that will happen.
November 18, 201015 yr We need to replace Uggla's power in our lineup somehow. Buck allows us to do that while filling another position of need. I don't think he's going to be what he was last year, but if he puts up a .740 OPS and gives us 15-17 HR in 115 games or so, we're fine. Basically, he plays 6 days a week until Bake is ready and then Bake can take the tougher RHP and Sundays from him. I don't think it's ideal, but I think catcher is a tough spot to get ideal production out of. Yeah, Barajas or Castro or Ross wouldn't cost as much, but they also aren't as good.
November 18, 201015 yr Keith Law on Buck deal. "The Marlins threw three years and $15 million at John Buck, a catcher who was worth less than a single win above a replacement catcher in 2008 and 2009 combined. He boasts a career OBP of .301, meaning that once we back out intentional walks, Buck makes an out in more than 70 percent of his trips to the plate. He's a dead fastball hitter with some pull power but nowhere near enough to make his bat valuable, and he's also leaving a good home run park and much of his power on the road came in other hitters' parks or against questionable pitching. And he's a below-average catcher in throwing and receiving. Yeah, I want three years of that at inflated prices ... on my rival's payroll." :| I hate Keith law. Has a smugness about him. I swear the guy only looks at stats and doesn't watch actual baseball. Not saying he doesn't know what hes talking about but he comes off as a dick most of the time.
November 18, 201015 yr We need to replace Uggla's power in our lineup somehow. Buck allows us to do that while filling another position of need. I don't think he's going to be what he was last year, but if he puts up a .740 OPS and gives us 15-17 HR in 115 games or so, we're fine. Basically, he plays 6 days a week until Bake is ready and then Bake can take the tougher RHP and Sundays from him. I don't think it's ideal, but I think catcher is a tough spot to get ideal production out of. Yeah, Barajas or Castro or Ross wouldn't cost as much, but they also aren't as good. I'm going to assume Buck hits somewhere around his career line of .243/.301/.421/.722. If this happens, with poor defense, I don't think its necessarily true that those guys aren't as good as Buck. But we'll see I guess.
November 18, 201015 yr Well, there's some reason to think the power increase is real, as the number of flyballs he has hit has increased over the last two years, so he should best his career line. The question is how much he would do so by. I don't love the deal, but it filled a couple of needs for us, in helping our team power and getting us a starting catcher and a good partner for Bake. Our catchers combined for .226/.289/.338 last year. We simply could not stand pat at the position, and the loss of Uggla made adding power a necessity wherever possible. We got the best option at C who would also give us some power.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.