Kimmi

Let me first say that I agree with you that Manny was very good at playing the ball off of the monster and gunning it quickly back into the infield. Outside of that, the only reason why he was "good enough" was because his offense was so strong. This is not meant to be an insult to you or the rest of the posters who are claiming that Manny was much better than Hanley defensively, but you guys are exhibiting a classic case of confirmation bias and other things that are wrong with the "eye test". Hanley was so obviously bad because you could see his bumbles. You could see his misplays. As I said, they were obvious. Manny was nearly as bad defensively, but his weakness fell mainly with his range, and lack of range is not as glaring or as obvious. Also, Manny hit while Hanley didn't. The Sox were mostly winning when Manny played LF while they finished in last place with Hanley playing there last year. Those are huge factors in bias for Manny and bias against Hanley. I know most of you don't have any use for defensive metrics, but years of defensive metrics all saying the same thing, that Manny was a terrible defender, do not lie. Besides that, his terrible defense was usually noticeable just watching the games, even without the stats.

Also read that Price stayed 45 minutes after his workout today and signed roughly 200 autographs for fans. Kudos to him. Edit: Oops. Meant to put these last 2 posts in the ST thread.

I read some nice things about Shaw having an intense, optional workout at 1B today, while many position players, including Hanley, opted to take the weekend off. Shaw has that hunger that is so refreshing to see in young players.

I don't disagree. As I've said, I really like the idea of having him playing first or third.

The need to market to men in that way just doesn't make any sense. Men (and women) are supposed to be watching sports because they are into sports, not because there is some hot reporter on the broadcast.

Is Gary eye candy?

I am not insulted, and I will respond to this later. Duty calls.

If by "adequate" you mean terrible, then yes, he was "adequate".

I actually have nothing against Heidi. I like her, and I think she is very pretty, prettier than Jenny Dell. I just don't understand the need to have "eye candy" sideline reporters.

You're right. Wright will likely get his share of starts in soon enough, for the reasons that you posted. Barring a multitude of injuries, I think our staff, the rotation and the pen, are in pretty good shape.

I'm not sure about that. The Sox fan base might be a little more biased towards Swihart than the rest of the league, but I think most other teams see some pretty good value in him as a catcher.

And you will be wrong.

JBJ will be the everyday starting CF, and IMO, his hitting will have to be atrocious for him to be supplanted. Mookie will not be regularly moving between right and center.

You should be scared that this makes you excited.

On this we agree. I would still like to see Swihart tried out at first and third base, even though I realize his greatest value is at catcher.

Pythagorean W-L record last year was 81-81. That's the number you start with.

I like Wright better as a 5th starter than I like him in a relief role. That said, with the way that Kelly pitched late in the season last year, he has to be given another look as a starter, which means Wright will be in the pen since he has no options.

Farrell has already backed down from his earlier statement that Swihart will be the starting catcher. He is being noncommittal now.

If by "fine" you mean terrible, then yes, Manny was "fine" in LF. He was not leagues better than Hanley defensively. The difference was that Manny was able to hit well enough to overcome his defensive shortcomings. The FO was expecting Hanley to do the same, to likely play below average defense but to hit well enough to overcome the poor defense. Hanley is not the hitter that Manny was, but he should have been able to hit well enough to be a 3 WAR player.

I have mentioned this as a possibility before. I sure hope that's the case.

That's possible, but given the choice between Price @ $217 mil or Lester at @ $105 mil, I'm going with the latter. The money saved could be better spent elsewhere.

They do have a budget, though, regardless of what some think. The whole idea about not caring how much they spend on a free agent is fine for a fan since "it's not my money", but FOs cannot think like that.

That's what I said. Two thumbs down.

A big factor in signing Porcello over Lester though was their ages.

Bungling the re-signing of Lester was bad. Very bad. If that was Ben's doing then shame on him.