Why would a 10U team look for players who play specific positions rather than the best players available? This is when I can tell the coaching staff is a bunch a dads who don't understand the game. This is a good situation to avoid.

You're right. I misread it. From the other side I wouldn't advertise position. I would advertise he can hit, run and throw. I have an opportunity for him. He can pay $300 per month year round for training and another 3K for the team to train and play for the Arsenal.

I remember when my son was 14U, during a break I watched part of a 10U game. A dad told me his son was going to play college ball because he was part of the Arsenal program. Last year I told the story to a friend with a son playing 17U Arsenal (the kid is playing D1 this year). The friend said there were only four players remaining from the 13U team.

"Gotta read between the lines on this one. Saying he's a corner guy is the same as saying he can't run."

You never know at age ten. My son was small and fast when he was ten. He caught.

I'll be honest - when I saw "1st and 3rd baseman" and "10U" I was thinking the same thing: that tall chunky kid who can't run, but can hit, hit for power, catch, and throw, but has the range of a bronze Buddha (then again, so did Al Oliver).

I know the "prototypical" catcher of yore is the chunky kid who can't run but has skills, but it's not always true.

There seem to be two models - the squatty kid, and the rangy model, and those long, lean catchers can sometimes run.

Squatty kid: think Ivan Rodruigez.

Rangy model: think Carlton Fisk (who could run, tied his career high with 17 stolen bases when he was 37), Benito Santiago.

My son was the rangy model, and he could run too. Not blindingly fast, but fast enough, and good instincts - didn't get thrown out stealing on the big diamond until he was 17, and he ran a lot. He's 6'3" 185 now, 195 after a meal. At one point he was 6'1" 135 - a beanpole in shins.