Red Sox Hot Stove: Position Player Needs

Are the Red Sox planning a spending spree? That's Peter Abraham's question from the GM meetings.

I have no idea what the Red Sox are planning. But here are my thoughts, position by position.

Catcher - This looks pretty clear cut. Victor Martinez will be the No. 1 catcher, and if Jason Varitek wants to be the back-up, the option is out there. The question is why. Varitek really provides no true value at this point. His hitting is bad, and his defense has deteriorated a lot. The Sox need a young or veteran catcher who's great defensively, with a rocket arm.

First Base - Yooouuuuuuuk! Martinez will play here as well.

Second Base - Mighty Might

Third Base - Mike Lowell looks like the incumbent, but his defense is slipping badly. Worth keeping? Sure. But we need a good back-up plan. Youk will likely play here when Martinez is playing 1B.

Shortstop - This is the big hole. Last year we started with Lugo, Lowrie and Green as the back-up. Green, unfortunately, got most of the ABs. Now we have an oft-injured Lowrie as our best option. I was hopeful we'd deal for J.J. Hardy, but the Twins beat the Sox in that 'sweepstakes.' At this point I would go for defense first, even at the expense of offense.

LF - Matt Holliday is the answer. I like Jason Bay, and would be happy with his return. But his defense is not good, and he's a future DH. But Holliday is basically the same bat but with a glove. Will it break the bank? You bet. But the Sox do not have a good internal alternative, so it's Holliday, Bay or a trade. I pick Holliday.

CF - My wife's favorite player, Jacoby Ellsbury.

RF - J.D. Drew, who is totally underrated right now by Sox fans. Is he a great hitter? No, but he's a very good one, and his defense is good as well. I'm fine penciling in Drew everyday.

DH - Big Papi has had two non-Papi years in-a-row. In 2009, he was an average hitter, which is unacceptable at DH for a team with money. Could he bounce back to his decent 2008? Sure, but I think the Sox need a back-up plan in case Big Papi falters. Jeremy Hermida could be that. He could play LF and Bay (if he re-signs) could move to DH. Lars Anderson, if he starts well in 2010, could be the bat. The Sox need to be ready if Ortiz is not the old Papi.

Bench - Hermida was an interesting edition. As Theo said at the time, there is upside here. At age 23 in 2007, Hermida had a very good season. He's been a below average hitter since then, but he is a plus defender. If Lowrie isn't the starting SS, he'd be a pretty good back-up infielder (if he's healthy). He can play SS and 3B well, and I bet 2B or 1B wouldn't be beyond him. They need another power bat off the bench, a Matt Stairs-type who can hit for the SS or back-up catcher.

Batman vs. Batman

Recently I watched both The Dark Knight as well as the 1989's Batman. I've been wanting to watch Batman since Batman Begins came out in 2006, but hadn't had the chance. And when I saw The Dark Night, I really wanted to compare the two Jokers. Everyone was on the Heath Ledger bandwagon (I was as well), but in 1989 everyone was the on the Jack Nicholson bandwagon.

So here is my uber-geeky attempt to compare the two films. Enjoy.

Leading Lady vs. Leading Lady
This comparison is like asking me if I would rather watch a never-ending loop of the romatic scenes in Twilight or The Lake House; do I really have to pick? Kim Basinger is absolutely awful in this movie except for maybe 1 or 2 scenes. Maggie Gyllenhal is similarly bad. Yes, I know, everyone thinks she's great. But she over-acts almost everything, and there was a clear lack of chemistry between her and Bale. (Not surprising, seeing that he's a big jerk.) Winner: TDK, only because Bassinger sucked worse.

Alfred vs. Alfred
Though Michael Gough is very good in Batman, Michael Caine is awesome in his limited role in TDK. He's awesome in everything. Whether it's playing an eccentric isolationist in Children of Men, or a funny pageant coach in Miss Congeniality. He always delivers. Winner: Sir Michael Caine, by a hair.

Director vs. Director
Again, I thought Christopher Nolan would easily come out on top, but Tim Burton was closer than I thought. Batman is an awesome film, and very well done. Infusing it with Prince music is annoying 20 years later, but made some sense at the time. Still, Nolan's vision has lifted superheroes movies beyond just comic book/action fare. Winner: TDK, but closer than you think.

Gotham vs. Gotham
In Burton's vision, Gotham is a surreal city infusing a 1950s style (fedora hats everywhere) with a 1980s vibe (Prince music and selected modern amenities). The buildings, the streets, the people, all seem to come from a combination of eras. His Gotham is haunting, beautiful and very comic book-esqe.

Nolan's version is a dark, post-modern city. Filmed mostly in Chicago, Gotham looks gritty and real, from a car chase under a an overpass bridge, to the hospital Joker blows up. Like Burton, it seems like Nolan eyes every detail to make sure the city supported his gritty, dark tale.

Winner: Batman. Burton's vision is more distinctive and feels more like Gotham to me. TDK's Gotham feels too much like Chicago.

Batman vs. Batman
Before I re-watched Batman, I would have given it to Christian Bale hands down. He brought a coolness to Bruce Wayne and a dark menacing to Batman. But I had forgotten how well Michael Keaton did. His Bruce Wayne isn't a classic, flamboyant playboy, but more nuanced and subtle, as his his Batman.

I know this will go against modern sensibilities, but Keaton was better. Winner: Batman

Joker vs. Joker
This is the big one. Heath Ledger rightfully received major accolades for his performance as the Joker. After watching it a second time, it's hard to believe this is the same guy who's breakout performance was 10 Things I Hate About You, and then received acclaim for Brokeback Mountain. Ledger played the Joker as a more modern Joker, in no way related to the 1950s Joker, a complete physcopath.

Jack Nicholson's performance was similarly acclaimed in 1989. His Joker was a combination of his classic, crazy persona and a classic Joker. The result is a dark, funny character, who, while not as dark as Ledger's Joker, is hardly someone you'd want to bring home to mom, unless you're a Manson.

But Nicholson's Joker was Nicholson with make-up and a few good one-liners. A fantastic performance, but it was an entire level behind Ledger, who is now the iconic Joker and the ultimate superhero villain performance, surpassing the greats (including Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor in 1978's Superman, and Ian McKellen's Magneto in the X-Men movies). Verdict: Heath Ledger is the Joker.

Overall
Batman was a great film. I've watched it probably 15 times, and I've never gotten sick of it. There's nothing glaringly wrong with the film except Bassinger and the fact that it spawned three awful sequels. (Everyone knows Patrick Stewart should have been Mr. Freeze, not Arnold! Where's my Delorean?)

The biggest gripe I have with TDK is that it is too dark. Was it a great film? Yes, but I don't think it was as good as Batman Begins, and when I left it after seeing it the first time, I left feeling depressed, not pumped. And when I leave a superhero movie, I want to be pumped.

But I can't ignore how good of a film TDK was; it's so well done, and I enjoyed it more the second time, especially with the expectation of the film's melancholy tones.

But what separates the two films is Heath Ledger. His performance makes TDK Batman's superior, if only by a little. And I would take either of these films over anything I saw in the theater this year. (That's right, G.I Joe, I'm talking about you.)