Kimmi

I was a big fan of Ellbury's as well, but no way would I want the Sox to have re-signed him for the contract that the Yankees gave him.

I completely understand the value of not making outs. With your better hitters, however, over the long run, sacrificing homeruns, triples, and doubles too often in order to avoid making an out will result in less value than avoiding an out. I don't know what the 'break even' point would be,

The thing about run differential is that it is a pretty darn good measure of a team's talent level regardless of how that differential comes about. It's a fact that the good teams will win more games by blowouts, and that their records in close games can be as random as a coin flip. You expect good teams to have a better record in blowout games, not necessarily in 1 or 2 run games.

Didn't get to see the game, but supposedly both our offense and pitching looked good. I have not had the privilege of being able to watch a game in my area yet.

I don't like Bogaerts going either, but he is not dealing with an injury that we know of. The other two are.

Hanley is definitely out. Thank goodness they came to their senses about that.

There have been some pitchers who go to see him more for peace of mind than anything else. Beckett comes to mind. I would take Buchholz back even if Price is 100% healthy.

That would be our luck. This news about Price really has me bummed. I am confident that our team is still a contender without Price, but our pitching depth took a big hit that it couldn't afford to take. Our starting pitching depth was weak with a healthy Price. It will be all that much more of a concern if Price is out for a long time. I really wish we would have kept Buchholz.

I don't get it, but I see that it has something to do with AC/DC, which explains why I don't get it. LOL

I think a well-timed bunt base hit can be very effective. If it's overused or used in the wrong situation, it loses its effectiveness.

I get what you're saying with > 30% being a success, but that's not necessarily true. If all you're concerned with is getting on base, then a bunt single is as good as a line drive hit which is as good as a walk. However, if you're sacrificing extra base hits in too many of those at bats, the result could be a net loss.

As I said, bunting for a base hit to beat the shift has its merits. My point was that I hope it does not become overused. If you're bunting for base hits too often, you are essentially giving up your power and your extra base hits. Papi might be an extreme example, but didn't we want him swinging away most of the time? I'm sure the opposing teams would gladly give him a bunt single in lieu of a homerun. A bunt single will be more effective in some situations than in others, for example with 0 outs rather than with 2 outs. All I'm saying is don't get too bunt happy.

I can agree with your definition of clutch. I also agree that it's hard to believe that MLB players can raise their game at will when the pressure is on.

I think he's pretty much a lock for the starting rotation too, as opposed to being in the pen.

Don't make me listen to Gary Thorne ever again. And I'm already hype!

Ouch.

This girl right here is choosing the WBC over March Madness all day long. WBC baseball is better than no baseball. Actually, I find it fairly exciting. As I said before, I'm looking forward to it.

Of course. But you still don't want the players overusing the strategy of bunting for a base hit.

The more depth and flexibility you can keep, the better. It would stink to release somebody, only to find out two weeks later that he could have helped the team.

Agreed. The injury risks are going to be higher, IMO. Additionally, the WBC effectively extends the season. Normal wear and tear and fatigue later in the season could be factors.

While an injury can certainly happen in any game, including spring training, I don't think the risk is quite the same in spring training. The players are not ramping it up quite as quickly in spring training. Hanley was brought up in an example today. He has not played first base yet due to shoulder soreness. It doesn't seem to be anything serious, but playing in the WBC, which starts Friday I believe, could cause Hanley to play 1B before the Sox feel he is ready.

Personally, I enjoy the WBC. I am looking forward to it.

I really can't fault the players for wanting to represent their countries in the WBC. I certainly understand that desire. But I really respect Porcello and others who have made the Red Sox their top priority. I wish more players would take that stance. I really wish that there weren't any Sox players participating in the WBC. The idea that ERod is still considering playing in it with his knee injury irks me.

I almost spit my drink out. That was hilarious, and so out of the blue.

I agree that Swihart needs to spend time in AAA focusing on nothing but catching. The idea of having him available to step in at 3B should Pablo fail is a nice idea, but there is a good chance that Pablo will be just fine. And if Pablo sticks at third base, then Swihart is still left with no place to play. On top of that, his development as a catcher would be delayed once again. If the Sox have any desire to see if Swihart can be a major league catcher, and they should, then they need to put him behind the plate and leave him there. Pete Abraham nailed it with the following: The Sox erred last season by making Swihart into a left fielder and not because he got injured. They allowed to him catch only 21 games before having him change positions. It was a reckless, short-sighted decision. So, too, are proposals that Swihart could become a third baseman or a super-utility player. Let him catch this season and see where it leads. A young, athletic catcher with above-average offensive skills is such a rarity. Swihart should be given every chance to succeed as a catcher.