Captain of the sunken ship

Buster Olney had this question on the Twitter machine this morning:

"Open-ended question: What are the benefits in naming a captain in baseball?"

He seemed to find it somewhat dubious.

My own view of naming a captain: There is no practical benefit, and any upside is far outweighed by downside. For example: during BOS collapse, stuff went on in the clubhouse, and Varitek didn't address -- but that's not really his personality, anyway.

Somewhere in the rubble of the Boston's lost September -- yes, I was gleeful -- is Jason Varitek's reputation as a leader. For the most part, I'd say naming him captain was relatively harmless.The "C" was a bit indulgent and pointless, but Boston's a big hockey town, so it fit.

And then it all went to hell in September, and a few people started to ask, "Isn't a captain supposed to do something about that?"

But as Olney contemplates captains, a better question about the Red Sox might be "If Varitek doesn't come back, what will that mean for the pitching staff?"

People around here acted like he was the greatest, smartest game-caller ever, a Sheldon Cooper of the straight change, if you will. Josh Beckett, in particular, seemingly couldn't think without his Varitek binky out there with him, which may be just as well, because left to his own devices, seemed to think mostly about chicken and beer. 

It will be interesting come spring training if the pitchers can develop any kind of trust with Jarrod Saltalamacchia, Kelly Shoppach and Ryan Lavarnway behind the plate. Then again, it may not be a problem, since Bobby Valentine is apparently as smart as two Sheldon Coopers.