Dipre

The teams are even? Wow what a f***ing homer. It's impossible for some Yankee fans to admit that right now, the Sox are simply a better team on paper. Specially from a guy who''s always so quick to pronounce the Yankees' on-paper superiority. Double-standard much?

In time? He's a great defensive SS now. Every possible scouting report and everyone who has ever saw him play says the same thing. The only question is how much is he going to hit. Defense is not like hitting. If you're a great defender, you're a great defender anywhere. "Learn the difference".

The Sox have examples of not one, but two lefties who can't hit lefties: Ortiz (.670 OPS against them last three years), Crawford (.697 career OPS against them). Only in situations like that is not having two consecutive lefties a necessity.

I think Francona should (and probably will) experiment with hitting Ellsbury first and Crawford second, because Ellsbury has no platoon issues. This has double merit since you can argue that the number three hitter should be the "best" hitter in the team, a title that arguably belongs to Pedroia, and a one-two of Ellsbury and Crawford would create many a sweaty night for opposing catchers. As for the Lowrie subject, it amazes me how people keep talking like they know more about the players than the FO does. Wow.

Don't argue with Dojji when he has a boner for a player. @Palodios: So durability issues don't apply? They do for Drew, who doesn't have a "specific injury" but rather "durability issues" but not for Lowrie.

Questions asked during the podcast: "Can he keep that offensive production during a whole year, he simply hasn't done it yet?" "What about his D? He has limited range, and while he's steady, he's around average" "Is he durable enough?" "Is he capable of being an everyday player?" "Do the Sox really mean he could be an everyday player? He started getting tired while playing a lot towards the end of last year". We were definitely looking for different things, because these seem like legitimate questions and concerns to me. Opinions conveyed: "He would play a lot with so many post-surgical players, he would essentially replace Bill Hall and if kept in that role would get close to 400 AB's a year". "If he proves he can play every day, he's going to be a heck of a player" "The Red Sox view Iglesias as the SS of the future." "The Red Sox view

Then how do you get a Catcher, 4th OF and two setup men (assuming they traded Joba)?

I don't see it. They were going to spend 23-24 per on Lee (had he signed) and Haren would have cost 12.5 mill. They haven't a lot of money on an AAV basis, so i really don't see the connection here.

"Softy?" Who called him a "softy"? Not me, at least, what i have stated, however, is that credible sources have mentioned the issue of the Sox Fo being weary of Lowrie's health. You can say "he's healthy" until you're blue in the face, but if they want to take him slow due to fear of injury, there is something there.

I think Cashman absolutely did the right thing by not trading for Haren. Haren is a HR-prone pitcher with a notable split difference who would have been moving from the NL West to the best hitting stadium of the NL East. The state of the rotation must be considered, but when trading for a player (and a high priced one) you want to give them the best chance to succeed, and moving Haren to a place that exposed his flaws would have not been the case here. No matter how nice the stats are, i think he simply wasn't a good fit, specially if he was going to cost money and prospects.

And the "Dojji can't understand what he reads" saga continues. Do. You. Read. Through. What. I. Post? Have. I. Not. Mentioned. Several. Times. The. Realistic. Possibility. Of. Overperformance. And. Actual. Talent. Level? Have. I. Not. Mentioned. In. Previous. Posts. Questions. About. His . Defense? I. Am. Typing. Like . This. So. You. Can. Understand. Maybe you're the one who needs to grab a clue about what a skillset question is? The Sox have (and these are things that Sox executives, mainly Theo have ACTUALLY said) stated they view Iglesias as the Shortstop of the future. Do you know why that is? Because they evaluate talent, and they're pretty certain that Iglesias will provide right around league level production. I find it hypocritical that people talk like they have a significant ML sample to work with when regarding Lowrie. They don't, and they're also not talent evaluators. There's a distinct possibility that Lowrie overperformed last year, and a lot of people (unsurprisingly) agree with this assessment. Go to Boston.com and listen to the Boston Globe Red Sox podcast: http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/multimedia/podcast/ Nick Cafardo and Chad Finn discuss the situation right around the halfway point of the podcast: This is what they think: 1) There are questions about Jed Lowrie's health. They speak of real health concerns voiced by people that actually work for the Red Sox. 2) There are questions about Jed Lowrie's actual offensive talent level. (Hint, hint: Skillset question marks). Last year's production was qualified as "surprising". 3) There are question about Jed Lowrie's defensive proficiency at SS. (Hint, hint: Skillset question marks. 4) A guy who can hit around or above replacement level and play all defensive positions is golden. They speak of Lowrie playing three out of every four days. 5)They also speak of the Red Sox having voiced the conviction of Jose Iglesias being the SS of the future as soon as 2012. Now someone come back and tell me how they know more than Nick Cafardo, Gordon Edes, and things proclaimed by the FO are all wrong because they essentially are better talent evaluators or know more about baseball than them. /endrant.

I need Advil. The questions about Iglesias are legitimate, but the questions about Lowrie aren't. Off to the pharmacy i go.

Where are these scouting reports? From all i've read (including a breakdown on his mechanics) he's a bat on ball guy who has has made adjustments and has the potential to be a decent hitter in the majors. The only real concern i've read about him is that he's a natural free-swinger, which is not a fit with the Sox' offensive philosophy. On the other hand, you mention Lowrie "turning himself into an above-average defender". Unlike offense, defense (specially at SS) is very difficult to improve upon, even though it is possible (See: Pujols, Albert; Ramirez, Hanley; Youkilis, Kevin; Cano, Robinson) but why can we make the assumption that Lowrie's defense can improve drastically but Iglesias' offense won't? The people who evaluate talent say Iglesias has all the tools to be a Major League regular soon. I believe them.

Lol! By the way, i take credit for the "Glovey Mcnoodlebat" line which i initially used to describe another light-hitting shortstop in 2009, who went on to hit twenty-three homers last year. Let's keep calling Iglesias that to apply some mojo.

Some voting guidelines will be introduced as the power rankings proceed through the season. Everything needs to be taken into account when evaluating a team, and defense and lineup balance are no exception,

Executive decision: Any and all voting done for the purposes of this draft will be handled via PM. Avoiding conflict is a must.

I didn't know he was better offensively than Robin Yount, Barry Larkin and Carl Ripken Jr, but i digress.

Jeter's fielding is just as, if not more, atrocious than Damon's, and he plays an up-the-middle position, giving some validity to his point.

Don't mind him, he's trolling. He's hella mad because the Sox have assembled an obviously superior team for '11. Don't you see he's a hit-and-run artist?

I simply can't stress how massive Lowrie's value as an all-purpose backup who can hit above replacement level is. I'm fairly convinced there's reason for other people (including the organization) to think the same way. But we never know, and he may be traded.