Sign Jason Varitek thread!

I think we need to make a move for Tek! He can be a key part of our defense, and can really help mature Dusty. Dusty has way too many passed balls, and Tek can mentor him to better that.

He also hits a long ball here and there, despite his downfalling offense.

We need Tek!

Sign Him

He's 36 and will turn 37 just after the season starts.

He hit .220 last season with just 33 extra base hits. His OBP of .313 wouldn't even lead the league, or come close, if it were his batting average. He slugged .359 last season which would be a respectable, but not great, on base percentage.

And to reiterate, he'll be 37 after the first week of the season and he's a catcher.

catbox_9 wrote:

He's 36 and will turn 37 just after the season starts.

He hit .220 last season with just 33 extra base hits. His OBP of .313 wouldn't even lead the league, or come close, if it were his batting average. He slugged .359 last season which would be a respectable, but not great, on base percentage.

And to reiterate, he'll be 37 after the first week of the season and he's a catcher.

Sign him to a one year contract


See what happens

He's still super durable, and even if he gets fatigued at all, we have Ryan as a semi-reliable back up. He hasnt been injury prone, and is a very experienced catcher that we could use very much at this point.

I say the Tigers should go younger and bring in more youth!!

Say no to proposition V!!

Ok. I still say yes.

Though cost could be a factor



I still like to see Varitek in a Tigers Uniform

tigersaint wrote:

Say no to proposition V!!

I voted yes on Proposition 5. Early returns aren't promising though

catbox_9 wrote:

tigersaint wrote:

Say no to proposition V!!

I voted yes on Proposition 5. Early returns aren't promising though

What is Prop 5?

gs78 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

tigersaint wrote:

Say no to proposition V!!

I voted yes on Proposition 5. Early returns aren't promising though

What is Prop 5?

One you'll criticize me for supporting

It's to spend money treating nonviolent drug offenders.

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

tigersaint wrote:

Say no to proposition V!!

I voted yes on Proposition 5. Early returns aren't promising though

What is Prop 5?

One you'll criticize me for supporting

It's to spend money treating nonviolent drug offenders.

Actually; If it is cheaper than putting them in prison


And it frees up space for violent people that are released early because of overcrowding


I am for it

better than giving people blank checks for welfare or reparations

California passed a proposition a while back that was similar to this one. The jails were less crowded and the state saved money as the drug offenders were less likely to re-offend. The proposition only let the money run so long and the money is gone. Despite the fact that the previous proposition worked, it doesn't look like the voters are going to vote for a similar proposition this year.

catbox_9 wrote:

California passed a proposition a while back that was similar to this one. The jails were less crowded and the state saved money as the drug offenders were less likely to re-offend. The proposition only let the money run so long and the money is gone. Despite the fact that the previous proposition worked, it doesn't look like the voters are going to vote for a similar proposition this year.

That doesn't make sense

I rather spend a fraction of the 30 grand a year it costs to jail non violent offenders


But people will bitch when someone gets released early [ because of overcrowding] and robs a bank, kills or rapes someone

It happened in Michigan couple years ago


A guy named Selepak was released early due to overcrowding [ by mistake] and robbed and killed several people

That is why I like Ron Paul


He wants to decriminalize drug use and end the war on drugs

gs78 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

California passed a proposition a while back that was similar to this one. The jails were less crowded and the state saved money as the drug offenders were less likely to re-offend. The proposition only let the money run so long and the money is gone. Despite the fact that the previous proposition worked, it doesn't look like the voters are going to vote for a similar proposition this year.

That doesn't make sense

I rather spend a fraction of the 30 grand a year it costs to jail non violent offenders


But people will bitch when someone gets released early [ because of overcrowding] and robs a bank, kills or rapes someone

Where'd you get 30 grand? It's a hell of a lot more than that here! In the State Hospitals (for the "criminally insane") they spend something like 150K/year per inmate. Even in a state where the average income is way higher than the national average, VERY FEW people make 150K/year here. Why the hell should we spend that on criminals?

I'm pretty damn liberal and am all for the rights of the accused, but once they are guilty we shouldn't be spending the income of 3 typical families to lock them up!

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

California passed a proposition a while back that was similar to this one. The jails were less crowded and the state saved money as the drug offenders were less likely to re-offend. The proposition only let the money run so long and the money is gone. Despite the fact that the previous proposition worked, it doesn't look like the voters are going to vote for a similar proposition this year.

That doesn't make sense

I rather spend a fraction of the 30 grand a year it costs to jail non violent offenders


But people will bitch when someone gets released early [ because of overcrowding] and robs a bank, kills or rapes someone

Where'd you get 30 grand? It's a hell of a lot more than that here! In the State Hospitals (for the "criminally insane") they spend something like 150K/year per inmate. Even in a state where the average income is way higher than the national average, VERY FEW people make 150K/year here. Why the hell should we spend that on criminals?

I'm pretty damn liberal and am all for the rights of the accused, but once they are guilty we shouldn't be spending the income of 3 typical families to lock them up!

I have a minor in Criminal Justice


it was 30,000 grand in Michigan a few years back


Probably a lot more now

That could be. My figures (in CA at least) are pretty current. I took a psychology and law class last summer and that's where I got my numbers.

gs78 wrote:

I have a minor in Criminal Justice

And I did not know that.

catbox_9 wrote:

That could be. My figures (in CA at least) are pretty current. I took a psychology and law class last summer and that's where I got my numbers.

Earlier this decade for me


Regardless


Money can be better spent for non violent drug crimes


Probation, Rehab, Community Service are a lot better