M's sign Mitch Garver to minor league deal.

[bpj]

You'd rather Knizner makes the roster? Knizner has a career ops+ of 67, Garver's career ops+ is 112. Honestly, when it came to backup catchers this off season, Garver didn't seem that bad. But i don't know if anyone was looking for one other than the mariners.

Oh, there's also Jhonny Pereda. I hadn't seen that deal. Geez, the guy strikes out ohtani, slashes .345/.387/.483 and gets cut.

I think I would, yes.

Dan Wilson will play the aging vet who used to produce more than the guy who's never done anything, imo. Especially if he's owed millions. They'll want to see some playing time for their money.

If Knizer on the roster means 10 fewer games where we see the backup catcher, we'll be better off.

Garver would make $2 mil as opposed to Knizer making $1 mil. So we want Knizner on the roster not because he would be the better option but because Wilson would possibly be less inclined to use him. Personally I would prefer the best possible bat. I don't think Wilson will make decisions like that based on how he feels about either garvers or Knizers bat. It's going to be Cals workload

The problem with Garver is he's only better than the other backup catcher. If having Garver means he gets 5-10 more starts than Knizer, I dont think the difference between Garver/Knizer is as large as the difference between Garver and anybody else that will be in the lineup ahead of him.

So, to me, the option that keeps the backup catcher in the game as little as possible is better.

If they can resist the urge to play Garver at DH, great, backup catcher is what he is.

[Donn Beach]

they used him at DH because he's right handed. They have Refsnyder now for that role. Keizer is right handed, far as I know Wilson is using Keizer as a right hander as much as he would garver. My attitude is if they are beat down to needing a right handed bat I'd prefer it be garver over Kneizer

[Donn Beach]

Though one has to believe it's still going to be Kneizer since that costs a mil and garver now would cost $3 mil. Seems like a screwed up situation to me

[Pharmabro]

I think I would, yes.

Dan Wilson will play the aging vet who used to produce more than the guy who's never done anything, imo. Especially if he's owed millions. They'll want to see some playing time for their money.

If Knizer on the roster means 10 fewer games where we see the backup catcher, we'll be better off.

Garver would make $2 mil as opposed to Knizer making $1 mil. So we want Knizner on the roster not because he would be the better option but because Wilson would possibly be less inclined to use him. Personally I would prefer the best possible bat. I don't think Wilson will make decisions like that based on how he feels about either garvers or Knizers bat. It's going to be Cals workload

The problem with Garver is he's only better than the other backup catcher. If having Garver means he gets 5-10 more starts than Knizer, I dont think the difference between Garver/Knizer is as large as the difference between Garver and anybody else that will be in the lineup ahead of him.

So, to me, the option that keeps the backup catcher in the game as little as possible is better.

If they can resist the urge to play Garver at DH, great, backup catcher is what he is.

You’re pulling this stuff out of your ass most of the time we call that shit

Garver calls a solid game and he’s a decent bat for a back up a back up with a 90 OPS plus is fine Knizner who has a 67OPS plus career you’re insane dude.

Great fn signing

[Donn Beach]

Kirby and Munoz have credited garvers catching for helping them pitch. Only problem is I bet it's knizner that gets the job

[bpj]

Garver would make $2 mil as opposed to Knizer making $1 mil. So we want Knizner on the roster not because he would be the better option but because Wilson would possibly be less inclined to use him. Personally I would prefer the best possible bat. I don't think Wilson will make decisions like that based on how he feels about either garvers or Knizers bat. It's going to be Cals workload

The problem with Garver is he's only better than the other backup catcher. If having Garver means he gets 5-10 more starts than Knizer, I dont think the difference between Garver/Knizer is as large as the difference between Garver and anybody else that will be in the lineup ahead of him.

So, to me, the option that keeps the backup catcher in the game as little as possible is better.

If they can resist the urge to play Garver at DH, great, backup catcher is what he is.

You’re pulling this stuff out of your ass most of the time we call that shit

Garver calls a solid game and he’s a decent bat for a back up a back up with a 90 OPS plus is fine Knizner who has a 67OPS plus career you’re insane dude.

Great fn signing

As soon as Dan Wilson starts putting Garver in the game and Refsnyder in the outfield, I'll be right here to LOL about it.

[bhofferb]

I think I would, yes.

Dan Wilson will play the aging vet who used to produce more than the guy who's never done anything, imo. Especially if he's owed millions. They'll want to see some playing time for their money.

If Knizer on the roster means 10 fewer games where we see the backup catcher, we'll be better off.

Garver would make $2 mil as opposed to Knizer making $1 mil. So we want Knizner on the roster not because he would be the better option but because Wilson would possibly be less inclined to use him. Personally I would prefer the best possible bat. I don't think Wilson will make decisions like that based on how he feels about either garvers or Knizers bat. It's going to be Cals workload

The problem with Garver is he's only better than the other backup catcher. If having Garver means he gets 5-10 more starts than Knizer, I dont think the difference between Garver/Knizer is as large as the difference between Garver and anybody else that will be in the lineup ahead of him.

So, to me, the option that keeps the backup catcher in the game as little as possible is better.

If they can resist the urge to play Garver at DH, great, backup catcher is what he is.

So you think we should wear Cal out to avoid using a shitty backup catcher? Hell, why not just sign an extra relief pitcher and keep Cal as the only catcher on the roster. Makes about as much damn sense. It's highly likely Garver is better than the other clown they signed, and if so, he should be on the roster, even if it costs an extra million. Bring them both to camp, and may the best man win

[bpj]

Garver would make $2 mil as opposed to Knizer making $1 mil. So we want Knizner on the roster not because he would be the better option but because Wilson would possibly be less inclined to use him. Personally I would prefer the best possible bat. I don't think Wilson will make decisions like that based on how he feels about either garvers or Knizers bat. It's going to be Cals workload

The problem with Garver is he's only better than the other backup catcher. If having Garver means he gets 5-10 more starts than Knizer, I dont think the difference between Garver/Knizer is as large as the difference between Garver and anybody else that will be in the lineup ahead of him.

So, to me, the option that keeps the backup catcher in the game as little as possible is better.

If they can resist the urge to play Garver at DH, great, backup catcher is what he is.

So you think we should wear Cal out to avoid using a shitty backup catcher? Hell, why not just sign an extra relief pitcher and keep Cal as the only catcher on the roster. Makes about as much damn sense. It's highly likely Garver is better than the other clown they signed, and if so, he should be on the roster, even if it costs an extra million. Bring them both to camp, and may the best man win

They should rest Cal as much as he needs. That's what a backup catcher's for.

But there should be zero motivation other than his rest that puts the backup catcher into the game.

Last year Garver got 43 games at catcher and 39 at DH. Absolute buffoonery.

And, sadly, I don't think Refsnyder will be much better than Garver who also had an .870 OPS the year before we got him.

[Coeurd’Alene J]

Evidently Cal thinks Garver is worth adding. This sounds to me like it may be already decided who joins the team

[gil]

The problem with Garver is he's only better than the other backup catcher. If having Garver means he gets 5-10 more starts than Knizer, I dont think the difference between Garver/Knizer is as large as the difference between Garver and anybody else that will be in the lineup ahead of him.

So, to me, the option that keeps the backup catcher in the game as little as possible is better.

If they can resist the urge to play Garver at DH, great, backup catcher is what he is.

So you think we should wear Cal out to avoid using a shitty backup catcher? Hell, why not just sign an extra relief pitcher and keep Cal as the only catcher on the roster. Makes about as much damn sense. It's highly likely Garver is better than the other clown they signed, and if so, he should be on the roster, even if it costs an extra million. Bring them both to camp, and may the best man win

They should rest Cal as much as he needs. That's what a backup catcher's for.

But there should be zero motivation other than his rest that puts the backup catcher into the game.

Last year Garver got 43 games at catcher and 39 at DH. Absolute buffoonery.

And, sadly, I don't think Refsnyder will be much better than Garver who also had an .870 OPS the year before we got him.

I also am afraid that will be the case. Obviously I hope I'm wrong but it wouldn't be the first time we've been disappointed by a guy with an impressive OPS in his pre-Mariner career. There is Garver and I'm also thinking Jesse Winker. I hope Refsnyder breaks this pattern.