PDA

View Full Version : Damien Miller? Very possible!


1917
11-12-2004, 01:17 PM
What do you guys think of Damien Miller? Trib and ESPN both say the Sox are looking into him....I like it, he is a verteran Cather with some power and good defenseand if the Sox do land RJ (IF) he has caught him before. If the Sox do end up with a dominate pitching staff, Miller would be a good choice behind the plate....Any thoughts? Should come at a decent price too!

hitlesswonder
11-12-2004, 01:38 PM
What do you guys think of Damien Miller? Trib and ESPN both say the Sox are looking into him....I like it, he is a verteran Cather with some power and good defenseand if the Sox do land RJ (IF) he has caught him before. If the Sox do end up with a dominate pitching staff, Miller would be a good choice behind the plate....Any thoughts? Should come at a decent price too!According to rotoworld, Miller wants a 3 year deal. I wouldn't give him that. 2 years at 2.5 million each would be OK, but I wouldn't pay anymore than that. I know he's supposed to be a good defensive catcher, and his bat would be an upgrade, but he is 35. Maybe it's irrational, but I'd like for the Sox to stop acquiring so many older players (Alomars, Everett, Vizquel,...). There's starting to seem like the Mets.

Ol' No. 2
11-12-2004, 01:41 PM
What do you guys think of Damien Miller? Trib and ESPN both say the Sox are looking into him....I like it, he is a verteran Cather with some power and good defenseand if the Sox do land RJ (IF) he has caught him before. If the Sox do end up with a dominate pitching staff, Miller would be a good choice behind the plate....Any thoughts? Should come at a decent price too!Damien Miller is a solid catcher, but if you don't like Davis' bat, you won't be thrilled with Miller. He had an above-average year at the plate in 2003, but chances are good that what you'll get is closer to the 2002 version that played for the Cubs. His strength is defense, which is fine with me. He kinda reminds me of Officer Karkovice in a way. I would try for Kendall as a first choice, provided the money is there. Kendall isn't as good defensively, but I L-O-V-E that high OBP. And with a pretty experienced pitching staff, the need for a solid catcher isn't as great as with a bunch of kids. If they can't get Kendall, Miller would be a good choice.

BTW, which of these catcher candidates speak Spanish? It sounds ridiculous, but on this team that's sort of an essential skill for a catcher.

Randar68
11-12-2004, 01:42 PM
BTW, which of these catcher candidates speak Spanish? It sounds ridiculous, but on this team that's sort of an essential skill for a catcher.Davis is fluent, although I can't speak for Miller.

Ol' No. 2
11-12-2004, 01:44 PM
Davis is fluent, although I can't speak for Miller.I knew about Davis. What about Kendall?

dugwood31
11-12-2004, 01:50 PM
Miller cost 2 times as much as Davis last year. Is he twice as good? I'd rather have Henry Blanco. He's got a gun.

hitlesswonder
11-12-2004, 02:42 PM
Miller cost 2 times as much as Davis last year. Is he twice as good? I'd rather have Henry Blanco. He's got a gun.
Blanco actually hits worse Davis. And I think that controlling the running game isn't that big of deal these days (not many teams run). I'd stick with Davis over Blanco.

Flight #24
11-12-2004, 02:48 PM
Miller cost 2 times as much as Davis last year. Is he twice as good? I'd rather have Henry Blanco. He's got a gun.
And he'd be better off using that gun to hit pitches than his bat (except against the Sox).

HomeFish
11-12-2004, 03:18 PM
Blanco actually hits worse Davis. And I think that controlling the running game isn't that big of deal these days (not many teams run). I'd stick with Davis over Blanco.

If we are to have any pretensions of being able to beat the Twins, we need to not only control the running game, but shut it down completely.

Ol' No. 2
11-12-2004, 03:20 PM
If we are to have any pretensions of being able to beat the Twins, we need to not only control the running game, but shut it down completely.Damien Miller has another very valuable skill. He's outstanding at blocking balls in the dirt. If the Sox are going to assemble a pitching staff heavy on sinkerballers and forkballers and every-other-kind-of-lowballers, this is not a skill to be taken lightly.

dugwood31
11-12-2004, 03:25 PM
If we are to have any pretensions of being able to beat the Twins, we need to not only control the running game, but shut it down completely.


This is a good point, but I just think the difference between Davis and Miller isn't enough to justify the cash. Miller hit fewer than 10 home runs last year, abeit in a pitchers park and granted his OBP is considerably better than Davis'. I just think a Davis/Blanco situation doesn't justify the added cash that a Miller/Davis situation would require.

hitlesswonder
11-12-2004, 03:51 PM
If we are to have any pretensions of being able to beat the Twins, we need to not only control the running game, but shut it down completely.
OK, well we're going to disagree here. Controlling the running game is way down on the list of things I think the Sox would need to do to beat the Twins. My first choice would be to have the Sox pitching staff be better than the Twins.

The Sox were fifth in the league in percentage of runners thrown out (3 points behind the Twins). So let's guess the Twins attempted 20 steals against the Sox last season (they attempted 162 total). Say the Sox sign Blanco, upping the Sox throw out rate from .35 to .40 (which would best in the league). This ends up getting the Sox 1 more throw out against the Twins last year. That's not worth having Blanco in the lineup hitting .216.

soxwon
11-12-2004, 06:40 PM
damn no then when WE make the Series in 2005, that will be atleast one ex-cub on our team.

please no ex-cubs!!!!

michned
11-12-2004, 06:52 PM
What do you guys think of Damien Miller?
I'm interested in hearing if Miller has taken any grief from teammates over the years. Remember, he crossed the picket line and became a replacement player so he can never be a member of MLBPA. I know there are just a few of these players (Kerry Ligtenberg and Cory Lidle?). I've never heard anything regarding bad blood with him, although he's moved around the league a bit.

Ed

MisterB
11-12-2004, 07:24 PM
I'm interested in hearing if Miller has taken any grief from teammates over the years. Remember, he crossed the picket line and became a replacement player so he can never be a member of MLBPA. I know there are just a few of these players (Kerry Ligtenberg and Cory Lidle?). I've never heard anything regarding bad blood with him, although he's moved around the league a bit.

Ed
Well, the Sox have already had one 'scab' recently: Brian Daubach. In addition to Ligtenberg and Lidle is Rick Reed, Matt Herges, Frank Menechino, Kevin Millar and about 10 others no longer in the majors.

dugwood31
11-13-2004, 01:28 AM
Well, the Sox have already had one 'scab' recently: Brian Daubach. In addition to Ligtenberg and Lidle is Rick Reed, Matt Herges, Frank Menechino, Kevin Millar and about 10 others no longer in the majors.

Don't forget Brendan Donnelly! He didn't even have his name on the Anaheim Angels '02 championship gear because it's licensed by MLBPA.

Jabroni
11-13-2004, 03:34 AM
I don't know how much of an upgrade Miller would even be over Ben Davis. He was a decent hitter with the Diamondbacks and Athletics this year but he could just as easily hit like he did for the Cubs in 2003. He was almost as brutal as Paul Bako with the stick.

jordan23ventura
11-13-2004, 04:25 AM
I don't know how much of an upgrade Miller would even be over Ben Davis. He was a decent hitter with the Diamondbacks and Athletics this year but he could just as easily hit like he did for the Cubs in 2003. He was almost as brutal as Paul Bako with the stick.
I agree. If there is no Kendall, then stick with Davis and Burke and move on to the other areas.

hitlesswonder
11-13-2004, 01:46 PM
In the Denver Post its sounds like the Sox might be interested in Charles Johnson at C. It says:

Benefiting from a scarce free agent market, the Rockies, according to officials familiar with their discussions, found possible fits with Chicago, Oakland, Tampa Bay and Milwaukee as they exited the general managers meeting Friday.


I'm assuming it's the Sox, since the Cubs have Barret and the Sox and Rockies seem to like to deal. Just for the record, I'd rather not get him. Even with the Rox picking up half of the salary, he'd still cost around 4 to 5 million. Which would be way too much. He's little more patient than Davis and has a little more power. But he's actually slower (than Konerko even, maybe) and projects to hit for about the same avg. I'd rather save the money and I certainly wouldn't want to trade anything of value for him.

The ESPN scouting report on his once vaunted defense is pretty funny:


Baserunning & Defense
Johnson is among the slowest players in the game. Fortunately, he knows what he can't do, and doesn't try to force issues. Defensively, Johnson still is adequate but not the Gold Glove receiver of his younger days. He throws decently and can block balls, but he wears down and he is not as fluid in the second half of the season. Don't look for Johnson to block the plate. He will set up upside the line to avoid a collision, and makes no bones about his desire to avoid an injury.

Sounds just like the sort of hard-nosed player the Sox want:?:

Jjav829
11-13-2004, 03:59 PM
In the Denver Post its sounds like the Sox might be interested in Charles Johnson at C. It says:



I'm assuming it's the Sox, since the Cubs have Barret and the Sox and Rockies seem to like to deal. Just for the record, I'd rather not get him. Even with the Rox picking up half of the salary, he'd still cost around 4 to 5 million. Which would be way too much. He's little more patient than Davis and has a little more power. But he's actually slower (than Konerko even, maybe) and projects to hit for about the same avg. I'd rather save the money and I certainly wouldn't want to trade anything of value for him.

The ESPN scouting report on his once vaunted defense is pretty funny:




Sounds just like the sort of hard-nosed player the Sox want:?:
They are talking about the Cubs wanting CJ as their backup to Barrett.

hitlesswonder
11-13-2004, 04:10 PM
They are talking about the Cubs wanting CJ as their backup to Barrett.You're right, it looks like the Charles Johnson article is talking about the Cubs, rather than the Sox. Thank goodness. My apologies for not reading thoroughly enough the first time. I blame the reporter, though, for the unforgivable sin of referring to the Cubs as "Chicago".

Jabroni
11-13-2004, 04:10 PM
Well, since we traded for Charles Johnson from the Rockies in 2000 and we traded Sandy Alomar Jr. to the Rockies in 2002, why don't we trade Sandy Alomar Jr. to the Rockies for Charles Johnson in 2004? :tongue:

MeanFish
11-13-2004, 05:21 PM
If Miller can drastically improve the youth we're more than likely going to have pitching in middle and long relief with his glove and playcalling, that could win us more ballgames than his bat ever could. Is it *really* important to have a catcher who can hit?

jabrch
11-13-2004, 06:42 PM
If we aren't getting a catcher who can hit, why not stick with Davis/Burke?

TheBull19
11-15-2004, 05:13 PM
Damien Miller is a solid catcher, but if you don't like Davis' bat, you won't be thrilled with Miller. He had an above-average year at the plate in 2003, but chances are good that what you'll get is closer to the 2002 version that played for the Cubs. Miller is a career .264 hitter who has handled RJohnson, Schilling, Wood, Prior, Zambrano, Mulder, Hudson, and Zito. There's a reason why teams with good pitching want him. His year with the Cubs was the 2nd season out of 8 where he failed to hit .270. Davis is a career to .237 hitter who has never batted .260. Miller would be a definite upgrade over Davis.

Whether or not it's worth it financially is another matter, though. If it's between him and getting a good bullpen arm, I'll take the reliever.