I bet Varitek is feeling pretty foolish about that big market talk from late last year right now. I also wonder whether or not Boras finally over-playing his hand - what with there being no other public suitors for Varitek's services besides the Red Sox - on such a high-profile player might bring some equalization to the oh-so-ugly Boras factor.
You know: it occurs to me I could probably write pages on why we - who, as fans of a team where prices are driven by demand, have no stake in player salaries - hate on Boras for being so good at his job. Rationalizations by fans of smaller-market teams seem appropriate, as Boras's ability to pull the highest prices for his stars guarantees that many teams won't be able to compete, but the Sox do not fall into this category, and my (and I have no doubt, yours as well) dislike of Boras and his reputation is probably nothing more than irrational musings on abstract measures of "fairness." Point of fact, there is no fairness, only relative ability to play the game and the jealousy of those left in the dust.
Like I said: pages. However, I prefer to contemplate the relative merits of Saltalamacchia, Montero and Teagarden. Assuming a reasonable trade, who would you rather see behind the plate at Fenway? The Herald calls Taylor Teagarden the most well-rounded of the three, but if Miguel Montero is as much of a pitch calling wiz as the article says, I suspect I'd rather have him instead. The 2005 Red Sox and 2008 Yankees both proved how useless a killer offense can be without a strong pitching staff, and we've heard time and time again about how important a strong backstop can be when it comes to managing that staff to victory. With a stable full of young arms, wouldn't a defensive catcher be more of an asset?