I've been promising this for a while, so I'll run here the Translated Records for Pedro's last four seasons as compared to Sandy Koufax's final four:

Appreciate this man, while he's in front of you. I never saw Walter Johnson. I never saw Lefty Grove. But I've seen Pedro... and I'll tell my grandchildren about him. I’ll probably run the how-great-exactly-is-Pedro column later in the year, with the historical perspective.

Have you looked at the Red Sox schedule for the coming season? I have. And if you are thinking about the schedule at all, you are thinking about two things:

1. How many games will Pedro start?
2. How many games will Pedro start against the Yankees?

Follow me on this one, Sox fans: if Pedro starts opening day (April 2 at Baltimore), it will be impossible for him to appear on his regular rest in the Sox' first two series against the Yankees (April 13-16 and 20-22). If he starts either Saturday or Sunday during the opening weekend at home (April 7-8 against the Rays, which would no doubt keep the sellout crowd happy), and if Jimy Williams is willing to give him an extra day of in May (good possibility), Pedro can appear in all four Sox-Yanks series in April and May. thus potentially face the Yankees six times this year.

Granted, the Yanks beat Pedro 3 times last year, but he's still the guy you want in that situation. And granted, this approach means 11 starts the first two months instead of 12, a loss the Sox don't get back. But there's something to be said for using extra days to keep the Ace of all Aces fresh for the long haul. And if you move beyond that, it’s possible to work the second half so that he could start the opener of the first second-half series against the Yanks, a 3-game set ending September 2, and the final Sox-Yanks game to end the last, with a start against the Indians in between.

Here’s Pedro's first two months could go if the Sox attempt that six-man rotation for the first few weeks to keep everyone fresh:

4/2 opening day, Orioles
4/8 home-day-Rays
4/14 home-night-Yankees
4/20 road-day-Yankees
4/26 home-night-Twins
5/2 road-night-Mariners
5/8 home-night-Mariners
5/13 home-day-A's
5/18 road-day-Twins
5/24 road-night-Yankees
5/30 home-night-Yankees

Notice how Pedro would get five days rest for every start through the second week of May... and he would face the Yankees in every NY-Boston series. I won’t run the whole thing, but the extra rest will cost him starts; if he starts the opener and goes every fifth day without fail he could start 36 times. My schedule would cut that to 35, and 34 if he sits out the last day of the season to prepare for the ALDS (best-case scenario).

It appears, instead, that Jimy intends to give Pedro even more extra days of rest, getting the fifth starter as many starts as Pedro. That means he'll probably use off-days on May 7th and May 14 to give Pedro an extra day of rest, causing him to miss one start against the Yanks. Too bad. I’m all in favor of working Pedro carefully to keep him from repeating past DL trips, but that might be just as well accomplished by keeping some of his early outings short, and either way the prime consideration should be maximizing Pedro’s value over the season and postseason, not getting enough starts to decide between Cone and Castillo. Pedro was 4-5 last season on 5 days’ rest (albeit with a 1.91 ERA), so it’s not like the record suggests that one extra day of rest is the best way to keep him fresh. We’ll see how it works out, but I’d love to see him get six shots at the Yankees.

#2 STARTING PITCHER
--Hideo Nomo (32)
--9-11, 4.70 ERA, 180 IP, 175 H, 86 BB, 172 K, 1.450 WHIP

The Sox are spinning the idea that Nomo will benefit greatly from the new strike zone since he has control troubles and likes to work high in the zone. He certainly will be helped, and there's no reason to think he can't be a solid starter, but I wouldn't get too excited about a return of Nomomania. When Nomo was with the Mets, the popular theory was that he had some sort of incurable degenerative disorder that caused the muscles in shoulder to slowly unravel, sapping his ability to control his pitches. There was also a lot of talk of how insanely hard pitchers work in Japan - Nomo often threw 150+ pitches a night - and the accumulating toll that had taken on his arm. Nomo will be the Sox' number two starter this year (in terms of workload) by default unless the youngsters step up, but I can't see him winning 18 games. A 15-10 season is a much more reasonable forecast, if all goes well and he gets good run support.

The good news is that Nomo has been – however maddening he may be to watch – steady and durable the last few years. He’s a good bet for 30 starts, at least.

#3 STARTING PITCHER
--Tomokazu Okha (25)
--2-4, 3.46 ERA, 39 IP, 42 H, 15 BB, 23 K, 1.462 WHIP

Yeah, you read the WHIP right – Okha was the third-best starter in the AL (ranked by ERA) last year with at least 10 starts, behind Pedro and Barry Zito (Frank Castillo was fourth), and he allowed only one unearned run, so that’s not a deceptive stat. But opposing batters weren’t really baffled, hitting .263 with a 741 OPS.

Okha has succeeded everywhere he’s pitched, and I expect him to hang in with an ERA around 4.10 this season; if the offense breaks right and he’s healthy he could win 16 or 17 games. But he’s not going to dominate; another 3.12 ERA is too much to ask.

#4 STARTING PITCHER
--Rolando Arrojo (“32”)
--10-12, 5.07 ERA, 167 IP, 180 H, 65 BB, 123 K

Arrojo is probably the biggest wild card on the Sox; I really don't know what to make of him. I have no idea whether he's actually healthy or not, or how old he is, and his time in Coors Field makes it difficult to tell whether his track record the past few seasons spells success or failure. Certainly he's got the deceptive motion and bewildering array of pitches that are common among Latin American pitchers, but then David Cone has those too, and he's still finished. He’s not a horse like El Duque. My sense is that, if he struggles, the Sox might prosper by getting him into the bullpen, where batters will get only one look at him (particularly with the imbalanced schedule). He will likely have a long trial in the rotation to prove himself first because the other options aren’t so impressive.

#5 STARTING PITCHER
--Frank Castillo (32)
--8-8, 4.88 ERA, 138.1 IP, 143 H, 54 BB, 100 K, 1.424 WHIP

I’d compare the Sox rotation to Russian roulette, but that would imply getting their brains blown out only once every six days. Castillo is about as high-risk a starter as there is, but of course he was outstanding last year. In 1993 he followed a 3.46 ERA with a 4.84 ERA, and lasted just 4 starts the next season. In 1996 he followed a 3.21 ERA with ERAs of 5.28 and 5.42 (the latter with a little help from Coors). Each time, his peripheral stats (K/BB ration, hits/IP, HR/IP) were good, no signs of trouble. In 1998 he started well, then got reamed the rest of the way, and didn’t pitch in 1999.

CLOSER
--Derek Lowe (28)
--5-5, 2.89 ERA, 102.2 IP, 94 H, 26 BB, 79 K, 1.169 WHIP, 72 G's, 27 Saves

In the regular season, Lowe may well be the most valuable relief pitcher in baseball. He’s not as lights-out effective as Rivera or Hoffman (and of course he lacks Rivera’s postseason resume), but he works harder, and I can’t say it often enough: how much a pitcher pitches is as important to his value as how well he pitches.

That said, even sinkerballers have their limits when it comes to working 90-100 innings a year in relief. I’m not a fan of the current save-driven closer scheme, but while the 2-inning closer can be hugely valuable, it’s not clear whether pitchers today can handle Goose Gossage/Kent Tekulve/Mike Marshall/Dick Radatz type workloads. But there’s absolutely no reason Lowe couldn’t be effective – and probably more durable – as a starter. It’s not like the Sox don’t need a good number 2 starter. He wouldn’t have a 2.89 ERA in the rotation, but he could pitch twice as many innings with less stress on his arm. If the Sox have other options to close games – I think they do – putting Lowe in the rotation would make a whole lot of sense.

RIGHTHANDED SETUP
--Rich Garces (“30”)
--6-1, 2.91 ERA, 58.2 IP, 46 H, 22 BB, 51 K, 1.159 WHIP, 47 G's

The new Aurelio Lopez, but not as durable. Maybe this is unfair, but I just have a hard time imagining that El Guapo is only five months older than I am. The Twins were talking about making him their closer ten years ago. If he’s healthy again (as early reports suggest, but you know what they’re worth) there’s no reason he can’t finish games.

LEFTHANDED SETUP
--Pete Schourek (32)
--4-9, 5.06 ERA, 112 IP, 122 H, 44 BB, 79 K, 1.482 WHIP

--Sang-Hoon Lee (30) (not established in the major leagues)

I loved it when the Sox re-signed Schourek and Jimy said it was because he “knows how to win.” Is that how he went 3-11 last year? I guess a less crafty, less veteran pitcher would have been 0-14. Schourek must’ve picked up that winning attitude from being a teammate of Anthony Young . . .

Schourek still has a decent shot at a spot on the staff mostly because the Sox are so short on lefthanded pitching. The only other lefties anywhere in sight are Pena and Lee, unless you're keeping your fingers crossed for Kent Mercker. Pena’s pitched 50 innings at one stop only once, but he’s been reasonably effective in the minors; the problem is nearly a walk an inning at the major league level. My guess is that the Sox will go north with two lefthanders (they could still get one in a trade) and Lee will be one of them; he should be ready.

SPARE PARTS
It's an intriguing list...

Tim Wakefield (34)
--8-10, 5.16 ERA, 162.1 IP, 169 H, 70 BB, 110 K, 1.472 WHIP
--48 G's, 20 Starts, 5 Saves

Wakefield should be traded. His main attribute as a soft-tossing knuckler is the ability to handle a heavy workload, but he’s not Stretch Armstrong; even a knuckler needs a predictable schedule, and his struggles the last two years are at least partially the result of getting jerked around so much (Now he’s a starter! Now he’s the closer! Now he’s a mopup man!). At 34 he may just be entering his prime, and with a regular rotation turn he might well rebound to his 1997-98 form, which plenty of teams could use. But the Sox can’t give him the space to try, with too many options and too much pressure to win now. Philly or Detroit would be a good destination. Obviously he won’t help anyone if he gives up 31 homers in 159.1 innings again.

Rod Beck (32)
--3-2, 3.91 ERA, 48.1 IP, 48 H, 15 BB, 39 K, 1.303 WHIP, 45 G', 12 Saves

Hipolito Pichardo (31)
--4-3, 4.03 ERA, 51.1 IP, 53 H, 20 BB, 28 K, 1.422 WHIP, 24 G's

If Beck can pitch, he can close. I’m not a big fan, but he held his own last season, and the glass-armed Pichardo did that one better. I’d feel better about arguing for Lowe in the rotation except that the back of the bullpen is as unreliable as the back of the rotation; neither of these guys is exactly a safe investment.

Bret Saberhagen (37)
--6-3, 3.41 ERA, 68.2 IP, 71 H, 9 BB, 44 K, 1.165 WHIP, 13 G's

Personally, I’d like to see the Sox try Sabes in the bullpen. In fact, if he’s healthy, there’s no reason he couldn’t prosper as an Eck-style closer. Granted, he’s 5 years older than Eck was, but Saberhagen can still get people out; the problem is getting him healthy. Throwing 15 pitches three or four days a week is much less stressful than starting for a guy his age (the opposite of Lowe’s issue, but only because Lowe goes more than an inning and comes into games that aren’t save situations; Sabes could be saved for those precisely as a limit on his work).

Paxton Crawford (23)
--Stats not established in the majors

Crawford should be the first option when one of the others breaks down. With just 11 starts at AAA, he's probably best suited to start the season there, but if Pichardo, Beck and Saberhagen are on the roster, there will be call for him soon enough.

David Cone (38)
--9-11, 4.99 ERA, 176.2 IP, 182 H, 81 BB, 154 K, 1.489 WHIP, 30 Starts

It's hard to think of any pitcher who has come back to any significant success after a year as bad as Cone's; guys have had bad or injury-riddled years, but a 6.91 ERA in 155 innings is an awful lot of awfully awful pitching. And he didn't really have a major injury last year; anything that was wrong with Cone physically last season is still wrong with him. Tom Seaver bounced back from a dreadful 1982 (5.50 ERA in 111.1 innings), but that season wasn't quite as bad and Seaver was suffering from a back injury. Also, he was younger. About the only example that comes to mind is Robin Roberts, who was 1-10 with a 5.85 ERA in 117 IP in 1961, and rebounded to four more years of good pitching that stretched his career win total from 234 to 286.

Probably the most similar situation I can think of is Jeff Fassero, who entered last season with many of the same problems Cone has - Fassero had suffered more from a loss of location and movement than velocity, but it was the same sudden wrong turn into a batting tee. After a few touches of Joe Kerrigan magic, Fassero wasn't useless last season, with an ERA better than the league average, but he didn't have the stamina to finish 6 innings and he lost steam as the season went on.

Cone just looked done last season -- he doesn't have the heat anymore and struggled with his command. The new strike zone won't help him, because he doesn't have the high hard one anymore and nibbling at the edges will be harder with a narrower zone. I won't be stunned if Cone throws 120 innings, reels off a few wins in a row and has an ERA a shade under five, a la Fassero and Schourek last season. But I'll be shocked if he stays the season in the rotation and has an ERA below 4.50. It's far more likely that the Cone retirement press conference will be before the end of June.

*****

There are actually people out there who think David Cone is a "traitor" for taking his 6.91 ERA to the Red Sox (not kidding; listen to WFAN if you don’t believe me). More like a double agent, I'd say, and anyway if Cone is a traitor at all he has been one since the day he put on Yankee pinstripes. Did the Yankees give him his first rotation spot after seven years in the minor leagues? Did the Yankees stick by Cone when he was accused (falsely) or rape the night before his 19-K game and accused of exposing himself in the bullpen (the only obscene act I can remember Cone performing was in a 1990 game against the Braves when he inserted his head completely into his rectum, holding the baseball to argue with an umpire while two runs scored)? Or when he turned in 3 straight disappointing 14-win seasons on contending teams? Or antagonized the opposing team in print before a big playoff start, in which he got hammered?

Anyway, surprise, surprise, Cone is a mercenary. He was one of the union leaders during the 1994 strike, remember? It's not like he's never been a free agent . . . I like Cone, actually, but this is not a new phenomenon with him. Live with it. And remember the Cone-bashing next time a Yankee fan claims to be above the whole Yanks-Sox rivalry. Cone had the best perspective on the whole thing, when he explained last week that he signed with the Red Sox to stay in the Sox-Yankees rivalry, adding, "I'd rather be booed than forgotten."

Actually, the Red Sox played a crucial but now-largely-forgotten role in Cone's development as a starting pitcher. In April 1987, with Dwight Gooden in rehab, Davey Johnson made an ill-fated decision to go to a four-man rotation. Bob Ojeda hurt his arm almost immediately, and the Mets were down to three starters. Cone had pitched brilliantly in relief (a 2.79 ERA to that point), flashing the curveball the scouts had raved about to strike out Jack Clark and Dale Murphy in key situations, so Davey decided to stick him in the rotation. This was not a smashing success; Cone got hammered in his first two starts. He looked terrified and couldn't find the plate. The Mets needed him, but it looked like Cone would have to be sent back to the pen because he was too nervous to handle the pressure of starting.

Enter the Sox. In 1987, for the second year in a row, the Mets and Red Sox played an in-season exhibition game to benefit the Jimmy Fund (the game was discontinued after this, presumably because Red Sox fans never wanted to see the Mets again). This time it was in early May. Picking a starting pitcher to waste on exhibition games is always an adventure, but there was a lot of speculation that Davey would use the low-pressure forum of an exhibition to get Gooden tuned up. Instead, he started Cone. Freed of the pressure of starting a regulation game, Cone settled down and pitched well, and went on to reel off several more good outings before he had the pinky on his pitching hand crushed by a pitch while trying to bunt. The following year, Cone entered the rotation full-time following an injury to Rick Aguilera, and with the help of the new strike zone vaulted to 20-3 with a 2.22 ERA. A star was born - thanks in part to the Red Sox and the Jimmy Fund game.

*****

RED SOX OUTLOOK:
On paper, looking just at the teams as they are, I have to say the Sox stack up just fine with the Yankees; Pedro is worth about 50 runs a year even over Clemens, and I really think the Sox can score more runs than the Yanks, because of the holes they are plugging and because of Manny. The pitching staff, despite leading the AL in ERA last year, is the concern, and the Sox’ shaky defense exacerbates that, as does the need to compete with the Mussina acquisition. The rotation needs to be stable; it would be much moreso with Lowe in and Cone given his walking papers, but even so there should be at least 3 semi-dependable starters and more if one of the youngsters like Crawford steps up. The bullpen will be solid as is, and even with Lowe in the rotation it could be OK, though not the strength it was last year.

Unless something really surprising happens, a team with this many weaknesses can’t win 98 games. But 90-93 wins is a distinct possibility, and that could be enough to win the division if the Sox fare well in head-to-heads with the Yankees. That alone, by the way, is good reason to keep Daubach and either O’Leary or Burkhart in the lineup against right-handers: you need lefty power to win in Yankee Stadium, and need lots of lefthanded hitters to beat Clemens, Mussina and Hernandez.

I’ll do predictions as we get closer to Opening Day. But February is an optimistic time, and the important thing is that the Sox are plenty good enough to support the dreams that make spring training exciting.

*****

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

"There's a best way to throw, there's another way to pitch. The best way to throw isn't always the best way to pitch. You can make a guy throw better, but all of a sudden, the ball's straight and he can't get anybody out."

-- Sandy Koufax, on working with Rick Croushore in Mets camp

If Boston's goal was to maximize the number of veterans in their prime ? guys between 27 and 31 ? this roster certainly gets them there. Of the 15 major everyday and bench players, none are younger than 27, one (Offerman) is 32, and three of the four guys over 32 are likely to ride a lot of pine. Of the 13 pitchers with significant big league experience, only one (Okha) is younger than 28 while three (Wakefield, Cone and Saberhagen) admit to being over 32.

In other words, this is a team designed to be ready to contend now but have just a 2-3 year window to win before everyone is on the wrong side of 30.

CATCHER
--Jason Varitek (29) - .256/.427/.334, 132 G, 422 AB
--Scott Hatteberg (31) - .267/.421/.367, 75 G, 202 AB

Varitek?s second-half flameout was one of the single largest reasons why the 2000 Sox missed the playoffs. As you see from the numbers above, his 3-year picture shows someone who's a decent enough hitter for a catcher... but not among the league?s elite like Jorge Posada and Darrin Fletcher (Pudge is on another level). Varitek?s defenders point to injuries as the reason, but catching injuries tend to recur; the pounding behind the plate doesn?t let up. Varitek might still have a .280-20 HR season in him if he stay healthy, but it seems like his role is to hit at the bottom of the order and prevent a hole from opening at catcher ? still a valuable role, but not a starring one.

It makes sense to work Hatteberg into the lineup more often, since Hatteberg is basically a known quantity at this point (and a slightly better hitter than Varitek). The knock on Hatteberg has always been his throwing, but Varitek was a disaster on that front as well; only the Mets were robbed blind by base thieves worse than the Sox last season. The pitching staff didn?t help that; Hideo Nomo's arrival will only make the problem worse.

SECOND BASE
--Jose Offerman (32) - .282/.400/.378
--Other stats: 134 G, 522 AB, 89 R, 14 SB, 10 CS

Varitek was one part of the failure of guys who the Sox counted on; Offerman was the other. At 32, Offerman basically lost it as a base thief and he?s no longer an elite leadoff hitter. But he IS the Red Sox? leadoff man -- they need at least a .375 OBP and a full season of at bats from Offerman. I suspect he has one more solid year left.

Offerman?s defense has never been as bad as it looks. With Mike Lansing in the latter stages of rigor mortis, the Sox don?t really have another option here, anyway.

SHORTSTOP
--Nomar Garciaparra (27) - .357/.595/.415
--Other stats: 139 G, 543 AB, 46 2B, 25 HR, 105 R, 103 RBI

Baseball?s second-best shortstop must be thinking about the $19 million a year salary for baseball?s third-best . . . I may get to the raging debate on the Three Shortstops soon, but SG more than covered it for this week.

The consensus ? supported by his defensive stats ? was that Nomar had slipped a bit in the field last season. He?s still a good shortstop, and sometimes guys suffer an off year in the field just like at the bat. Declining home run power is another issue, but Nomar?s 51 doubles last year suggest bad luck more than anything else; he certainly hit the ball well enough.

Nomar led the AL in intentional walks last season; if he bats ahead of Manny -- which he should -- that's extremely unlikely to happen again. One of the funniest lines of the offseason had to be when Jimy Williams said that he hadn?t decided where Everett, Garciaparra and Ramirez would bat, but once he made up his mind, he felt it was very important that they get used to batting in the same place every night.

Yup, that?s Jimy Williams, a man who hates to mess with the lineup card . . .

THIRD BASE
--Chris Stynes (28) - .304/.444/.362
--Other stats: 104 G, 286 AB, 50 R, 7 SB

--John Valentin (34) - .252/.406/.323

I'm assuming that Stynes probably has the everyday third base job, with Valentin coming off the bench as the utility infielder (now that Manny "the Body" Alexander has been given his walking papers). Stynes hit .348, .254, .239, and .334 the last four years; while it's impressive to hit over .330 twice in any context, he is obviously neither a .330 hitter nor a .250 hitter. The EPL above is probably a fair estimate of what he can do in 400 at bats, and another way of saying the same thing is that he hit .288 in 545 at bats in 1997-98 and .312 in 493 at bats in 1999-2000. Playing everyday may wear him down further - Stynes is a hustling, aggressive player, the type that sometimes burns out over a full season. And he can actually do a little of everything else besides hit for average - he runs well, will hit a ton of doubles in Fenway, and draws the occasional walk. As long as they keep his legs fresh, Stynes should give them what Bill Mueller gave the Giants last year - no star power, but a guy who fills a key gap. And a vast improvement over Wilton Veras.

Valentin? I'm not so optimistic about him -- he was on his way down even before the injury. But he remains popular and can at least nominally fill in at several positions. Even playing a declining Valentin everyday would be an improvement over last season.

RIGHT FIELD
Manny Ramirez (29) - .333/.663/.437
--Other stats: 133 G, 489 AB, 34 2B, 41 HR, 108 R, 140 RBI, 88 BB

The best hitter in baseball, period. I?m assuming Ramirez plays right, although since 1) he?s a constant adventure in the field (his defensive stats were atrocious last year, although he was playing on a bad leg) and 2) he's going to be around until he?s old and slow, it would probably make sense to wean him on left field from Day One. If I were an optimist, I?d say he will outlast the Green Monster... but don?t bet on it.

By the way, am I the only one who noticed this? Compare Manny?s 2000 to ?Player X?:

Player X is Babe Ruth, 1922... the following season, Ruth batted .393, drove in 131 runs, scored 151 and set the walk record. The year after that, he won the batting title and smacked 46 home runs. What?s funny in this comparison is that Ruth didn?t draw a single MVP vote even though his team won the pennant, while Ramirez drew significant support (granted they had some odd rules then; Ruth may have been ineligible or the voters were upset at his early-season suspension for barnstorming).

Anyway, Manny Ramirez isn?t Babe Ruth, but anyone who can play hurt and post numbers that stack up to a healthy Ruth in his prime... well, that?s a hitter. And it wasn?t even Ramirez? best year.

CENTER FIELD
--Carl Everett (30) - .308/.568/.378
--Other stats: 132 G, 481 AB, 28 HR, 17 SB, 82 R, 103 RBI

Range factors aren't always as reliable a defensive measure for outfielders as infielders -- because of the as-yet-undetermined extent of park effects -- but a guy who finishes at the bottom of the league just isn?t making many plays. Carl Everett was dead last among major league centerfielders in making plays last season; in 1999 (playing in the Astrodome in front of a totally different pitching staff), he finished ahead of only ESPN analyst Brian McRae. Everett runs well, but he?s a powerfully built guy who?s likely to slow down in his thirties; if the Sox had another option he?d be better suited for right. An outfield with Ramirez in right and Everett in center is going to give up a lot of singles and doubles.

If you are looking for the Achilles heel of the 2001 Sox offense, look at the EPL in Games for Offerman (missing 28 games), Garciaparra (missing 23 games), Ramirez (missing 29 games) and Everett (missing 30 games). This offense looks wonderful on paper, but so did the Sox in the 70s who never seemed to keep Lynn, Fisk, Evans and Hobson healthy at once. It?s also why they need a deep bench, which they only sort of have (and the bench will suffer even more if one of the outfielders gets dealt).

Sometimes you get the breaks; Bernie Williams suddenly got healthy in 1999 after years of nagging injuries. But the Sox need to have their four best hitters change their injury-riddled (and Jimy-benched) ways all at once. And they need it with the luck of the Red Sox, not of the Yankees. That?s a tough act.

LEFT FIELD/ FIRST BASE/ DESIGNATED HITTER
--Brian Daubach (29) - .263/.488/.329
--Trot Nixon (27) - .275/.449/.364

--Izzy Alcantara (28) ? .300/.658/.365 in 380 AB's at Pawtucket in the last two years.

Here?s where things get sticky. Daubach and O'Leary represent the best side of Dan Duquette - a GM who liberates veteran minor league hitters and uses them as low-cost alternatives to proven mediocrities. Alcantara and Burkhart are these kinds of players too, although Burkhart's minor league track record is hard to figure.

The problem is this: good hitters who are stuck in the minors are often there for a reason, and if you load up your roster with guys who can't hit lefthanders, can't run, can't field, have no common sense, and/or have attitude problems, pretty soon you have a chronic problem on your hands. Also, if (as with O'Leary) you keep these guys around too long, they wind up turning into the same expensive mediocrities they were hired to replace.

In my opinion, both Daubach and O'Leary should be platooned at this point in their careers. Both have established beyond any doubt that they can't hit lefthanders. Last season, both were ineffective overall, but Daubach's averages were .257/.468/.326 against righthanded pitching (closer to being useful, and his 1999 was great), and even O'Leary's were .265/.429/.331. (Unfortunately we have Duquette telling the media that O?Leary has ?proven? his ability to play everyday and Nixon hasn?t).

There has been a curious hesitancy in recent years to rely on platoons, particularly with these types of players. Fifteen years ago platoon arrangements were all the rage, with Bobby Cox, Sparky Anderson and Davey Johnson platooning at multiple positions (remember Mulliniks/Iorg and Backman/Teufel?) Today Cox and Johnson hardly platoon at all. I haven't studied the issue but it seems that very few teams anymore use fixed righty/lefty platoons at any position. When they do, it's often to platoon younger lefthanded hitters, like Trot Nixon, Corey Koskie, and Brian Giles (in Cleveland). This may be a decent strategy for rookies, but young, developing players, particularly those with star-quality hitting talent, need and can benefit from the chance to be everyday players. We've seen many examples of guys like Giles, Paul O'Neill and Lenny Dykstra who became stars when they were traded to teams that played them every day.

It's hard to explain why this has happened, particularly at a time when most managers are obsessed with left/right matchups in the way they use relief pitchers and pinch hitters. Perhaps the very fact that everyone has effective counter-measures available has frightened managers into thinking they could be the next Cox after the Blue Jays' platoons were decimated by Dick Howser's right-left-right switches in the 1985 ALCS. Perhaps, with more teams carrying 12 pitchers, managers are more determined than ever to divide their teams into everyday players and flexible bench players, rather than carrying two guys for one job. But platoons can have tremendous value in keeping fading older players fresh and turning a pair of below-average hitters into cheap, league-average solutions (Don Baylor is headed in the right direction with his idea of platooning Matt Stairs and Ron Coomer, although Coomer is on the Mike Lansing career track). And the Red Sox are clearly in need of such solutions at a few positions.

My preference would be to see Daubach and a righthander platoon at first, and Nixon play every day in whichever outfield corner Manny Ramirez doesn't occupy. An O'Leary/Bichette platoon at DH would probably be a good baseball decision, but it would seem that the Sox have fallen into the trap of thinking that Bichette is actually a good everyday player (he's really quite similar to O'Leary as a hitter at sea level) and in any event his ego has had too many 130-RBI seasons to accept being the righthanded half of a platoon.

The other problem is, who platoons with Daubach? From what I understand, Burkhart is a better hitter lefthanded than righthanded, and the only other alternative is to play either Bichette or Izzy at first base. (In theory you could do a 2-position platoon with Lansing playing second against lefties and Offerman at first, but Casey Stengel's success with the 50s Yankees notwithstanding, you need a really clear benefit to the offense to make a 2-position platoon worth the cost in defensive instability, and Lansing looks like he's just plain finished.)

Given the need for a righthanded bat to match up with the lefthanders (including Nixon - there's always the possibility that you reach August and he's hitting .150 against lefthanders, in which case his future development has to take a back seat to the pennant race), it seems like a great idea to bring back Alcantara for another spin - IF AND ONLY IF Jimy Williams has agreed to it. Izzy's minor league stats are pretty convincing ? in addition to his AAA stats, Alcantara has hit well at every stop since 1996, and if you can slug .658 at Pawtucket (never a hitter's haven) you can hit major league pitching.

The problem, of course, is that Dizzy Izzy doesn't hustle, can't play the outfield and is a hazard on the basepaths; Jimy's refusal to play him last season almost led to his resignation while Alcantara's presence on the roster badly undermined Jimy's authority. This can still be a positive situation if Jimy agreed to it, because Izzy will be coming into spring training knowing he has to prove himself to a skeptical manager to win a roster spot. And he should obviously be kept out of the outfield at all costs.

The best way to break the logjam and fill the gaps is probably to trade Bichette for a righthanded first baseman so that O'Leary and Izzy can platoon at DH. This won't happen, since nobody wants Bichette's contract, so the Sox instead are actively shopping O'Leary (reportedly the Mets, who have about 12 relief pitchers and two outfielders, have been in talks about O'Leary). That probably spells doom for Alcantara and everyday jobs for Bichette and either Daubach or Burkhart.

Burkhart, I'd love to see get a shot - he's patient, has power, and gets hit by lots of pitches. He MIGHT be better than any of the others except Nixon. But it's hard to say if he's going to pan out as a major league regular... and the Sox aren't really in a position to be patient.

BENCH
--Darren Lewis (33) - .247/.324/.319, 15 SB
--Mike Lansing (33, but in dog years) - .256/.387/.305 (14 GIDP in 398 AB)
--Dwayne Hosey (made you look)

I didn?t mention him above, but Lewis hit lefties well last season and can still cover some ground, albeit not the way he used to. But giving him 300 at bats is lunacy, and at 33 he?s on the way down.

If the Duke wants to send the players a message that he?s serious about winning, he should cut Lansing and admit that the team was willing to eat his salary to help the rotation all along. Whoever bats behind him will lead off a lot of innings.

OUTLOOK
This can really be a fun offense; the top six guys match anyone else's top six in baseball. But there are causes for alarm. Last season the Red Sox had the kind of clubhouse chemistry that disturbed loners cook up in their basements. The people responsible for that - starting with Mount Everett - are still around, which doesn't bode well. Chemistry may be way overrated, but the ?Mustache Gang? A?s not withstanding, a winning team needs at least a bare minimum of stability and peace in the clubhouse so people don?t wind up with their heads in the latest soap opera instead of the game.

And there are a handful of health questions; there isn?t one guy here I could be sure will play 150 games, with the exception of Bichette. The Sox will score at least 100-200 more runs than last year?s 12th place finish; they should outscore the Yankees as long as the big guns stay reasonably healthy. But that defense looks scary. And I?m not sure the offense can carry all the holes in the pitching staff.

But that's another story for another time. Until next week...

ANSWER TO LAST WEEK'S TRIVIA QUESTION
In 1972 Reggie Jackson missed his first World Series after tearing up his leg stealing home with the winning run of the ALCS.

The Mets drew about 800,000 fans a year in the late 70s (I guess that means they were a "small market" team then, but that's another day's issue); by 1986 it was over 3 million. Jim Baker, a Mets fan who used to work for Bill James, has a nice description on Rob Neyer's website of the frustration this created for long-time Mets fans. That meant plenty of people who cheered on Dwight Gooden and Ron Darling who didn't remember Kevin Kobel, Scott Holman, Mardie Cornejo and the day Mark Bomback gave up a home run to Pedro Guerrero that broke the windshield of Bomback's car in the Shea Stadium parking lot.

Boston fans who haven't lived here can't fathom the impact of this. I mean, at least in Boston, the fans are either full-fledged hometowners or such obvious bandwagon fans that they have no credibility. Losing a heartbreaker and having to eventually face people from another city is one thing; living with the bandwagon is another.

But there are two types of bandwagon fans. One is the frontrunner – the fan who switches gleefully from team to team, always in search of associating himself with a winner. The other is the fan who just doesn’t pay as much attention when the team is losing. To a certain extent we are all that way, even if only to the point of being less emotionally invested in each individual game when the team is going nowhere. I’ve never been a team-switcher, but I will admit that in football and to some extent basketball, my interest in the Giants and Knicks wanes when the team’s not very good. There is little in life more dull and depressing than rooting for a bad, boring football team.

The Subway Series, of course, was the true frontrunner's nightmare - two basically evenly matched teams from the same city, and the absolute necessity of taking sides in advance. Most of the bandwagon fans had been on the Yankee bus since at least 1998, and there they stayed. After all, if they lost they could still yell about all the other world championships, Yankee tradition blah blah blah. It even spilled over into politics, where Rudy Giuliani's withdrawal from the Senate race left us with a lifelong Mets fan from the Island running against a newly declared Yankee fan from the suburbs of Chicago (and by the way, how can anyone be both a Cubs fan and a Yankee fan? I understand the appeal of one or the other, but rooting for both is like saying your two favorite historical figures are John D. Rockefeller and Gandhi).

Thinking about the Senate race, though, brought another thought to mind: undecided voters. You see, most people, like me, who have strong political opinions find perennially undecided voters maddening; we can’t understand why they can’t see the major philosophical differences between the two sides.

But you know what? Our political system is better off for having undecided voters; for the same reason, our sports teams are better off for bandwagon fans. One-party governments, of course, are famous for their corruption and unresponsiveness to the people. Hey, why bother? For the baseball equivalent, you need look no further than Chicago. No matter how bad they are, the Cubs draw. They make money. No matter how good they are, the White Sox don’t draw as much. They just aren’t the cash cow the Cubs are. The consequence? Remember, Boston – with one baseball team since 1953 – has won the World Series more recently than Chicago, with two. Chicago
teams haven’t won a postseason series since 1917 – that’s thirteen straight, if you’re counting – during which time the Red Sox have won three. LA has won five World Championships and nine pennants in that time, even though it didn’t have a team until 1958.

Why is this? Coincidence? Partly. The curse on a city whose team threw the World Series? Maybe. But the refusal of Cubs fans to even stay home once in a while from Wrigley means that IT JUST DOESN’T MATTER if the Cubs win. I won’t stop following the Mets, but I have to consider it my duty as a fan to stay home from the park sometimes if my team is being run poorly. Management needs to have a message sent sometimes.

So... feel free to scorn frontrunners and scoff at the fans who didn’t suffer through bad times. But remember this as well: like the undecided voters, we need these people.

*****

TRIVIA QUESTION
What Hall of Famer once missed the World Series after tearing up his leg stealing home with the winning run in the decisive game of the LCS?

ADDENDUM
In last week’s strike zone column I forgot to mention one player who perfectly fits the profile of a hitter who is likely to suffer with the new strike zone: Barry Larkin.

IN MEMORIAM
You may have seen that Tommy Agee died last week. Ask any Mets fan of my generation (let alone people who remember 1969) – the Mets used to show old highlight reels from the 1969 World Series during rain delays, and we will always remember the footage of Agee’s heroics, from a leadoff homer to two spectacular catches in Game Three of that series.