beck72

Haven't Erstad's hamstrings been only a recent injury? I know he dislocated a finger this yr, and I seem to recall a back injury in the past, and maybe a knee injury. But if his hamstrings were only new in 2003, and the start of this yr, I wonder what other recurring risks and problems there are to his legs.

If they were that bad then why is he stealing bases? If he can't play LF, I'd want no part of him.

I know he's a crazy man in CF. But I still haven't heard or seen how bad his hammies are, or if it would prevent him from playing LF. That Erstad went from May to October staying healthy says something. So does his 16 SB's. I know why Ana would be cautious w/ him they had him signed for 3 yrs and a large contract. The sox could play him in LF in 2005 and if he gets hurt, play him at 1B in 2006 when PK becomes a FA. But I'd want to go through his med records with a fine tooth comb. Knowing how badly KW has wanted Erstad in the past, my guess is he's already got copies

People talk about him like he's 90 yrs old and can't even walk. I don't know how bad his legs are but I'd guess not many around here do either

I'd only get Erstad if he could play LF. There's less wear and tear being in LF than CF. Keeping Aaron in CF would save Erstad's legs. I don't know the extent of his leg injuries. But him stealing 16 bases and getting thrown out only 1 time this year tells me he doesn't exactly need a walker in the field.

No to Alou. Not after his disastrous year, complaining, threatening, etc. The sox need speed and defense. Alou gives neither

Why wouldn't you move Erstad to LF? He won a gold glove there in 2000, and it would save his legs. Getting Erstad would mean keeping PK, which I think the sox are intent on doing. Plus they have an Erstad type [minus the speed] at 1B in Gload.

Another name just came to mind when I was thinking of the question "is Erstad making too much money?" JD Drew. He was even more injury prone than Erstad, missed more games and was very overpaid. Many people would sign Drew to a long term contract, yet wouldn't take a chance on erstad. It's very possible that Ana would put in cash to make his salary less than $6 mill. While Erstad isn't going to put up Drew like numbers, Erstad could provide some missing pieces well worth that price

Erstad has played hurt, and still has been productive. the only significant time he missed was in 2003. He had over 600 ab's in 2002 and 2001, and had the monster yr in 2000. Last yr he was hurt to start the yr [maybe a carry over from the 2003 hamstring problems?] but finished strong. He slumped a little during Sept. but was near .320 late in the yr. My concern would be if there were any carryover, long term effects from his leg injuries that would prevent him from playing LF for the Sox. Paying him $4-6 mill would be well worth the price.

If the Sox wanted to expand the deal, then the Sox would have to give up more minor or major league talent for Erstad. My thinking was if the Sox didn't have to give up top prospects for him, taking on the rest of his contract [minus the $4-6 million] could be worth it for Ana.

If healthy, [and that's a big "if", though he was able to stay healthy from May on this yr, only missed time in 2003, and he had over 600 ab's in both 2001 and 2002] and the injuries haven't taken much away from his game, esp. his OF defense, he'd probably be in line for his 2004 stats--.295/.346/.400, with 16 Sb's, good contact hitter, hits tough pitchers, able to work counts.

I saw an article that had a lot of possiblities in it for moves by other teams. One had Anaheim going after Beltran, so they can move Garret Anderson back to LF, this according to the Post here: http://www.nypost.com/sports/33028.htm This got me thinking of how specific FA signings and trades could affect the Sox. Say Ana. does get Beltran, they would want to cut salary. Erstad at 1B for 2 yrs and $16 mill is a luxury they wouldn't be able to afford. [and the Sox, or any other team, should be responsible for all his salary] There would be a risk in getting him, esp as he would likely not play CF. Yet he earned a gold glove in LF in 2000. He could leadoff [esp vs RHP--Rowand could lead off vs LHP] like he did in the playoffs and provide the Sox with a more balanced lineup--speed [16 SB's w/ 1 CS]; good defense; and a contact hitter rather than a power guy. If the Sox could get Ana to pitch in some cash, [like $4 mill, that would bring his salary down to $6 mill a yr] Ana. would basically give him away for mid level prospects. They'll have to make room for their big contracts. The key would be the health status of Erstad and what is the outlook for his hamstring. He hurt his hamstring early in the yr, yet was well enough to finish out the yr w/ 16 SB's. I have no doubt playing 1B helped him. Yet the sox could give him rest vs LHP, with Escobar likely to be on the team. And Brian Anderson could be ready and waiting in AAA in case of injury. KW has long wanted Erstad. There's a big risk in getting him. And it's unlike the sox to take one like this, with a possible big reward. They like to try cheap reclamation projects instead. If Erstad could give the sox a yr like his 2004 yr--.295/.346 /.400--his defense and intangibles could give the Sox a big dose of what the sox need--heart and desire. If it's not Erstad, I still think the Sox will add an OFer who can play good defense, steal bases [15+ a yr] hit LH, and who can hit leadoff at least against RH pitching.

I like Rowand in the 6th hole. With our power guys also good OBP guys who can draw walks, Aaron will get his RBI chances. Plus, Ozzie seems to like some middle of the order guys who have some speed. As Aaron showed last year, he can have success stealing bases. He'll get more chances to steal hitting in front of the 7th hitter, say ross gload, then he would hitting in front of Frank.

It's not the numbers that are lacking from Carlos. It's something much more important. Both Ozzie and KW have said publicly this year Carlos that he's not a complete player. If its not his defense or hitting then what is it? IMO, its a question of heart, of playing baseball the right way in order to win. If Lee hasn't got that now, at age 28, no matter what physical talents he has, it won't be enough to help the sox be a better team. If he doesn't have that hunger to win, to push himself, the Sox would be better off trading him when he's at his highest value.

No one is talking about trading Shingo. People are just saying they'd like insurance in case he can't do the job, or gets hurt. If he goes down, what other option is there? We know Shingo can do the job in set up as well as close. What I'd like to see the Sox do is get a hard throwing setup guy who could close.

For.......? Involving......?

I think Gammons just goes by what he thinks is "conventional wisdom" re: money and the sox. He looks at the Sox not signing Maggs and shopping Lee or PK for purely financial reasons. What he doesn't see is it's to get different type personnel instead.

I'd be for getting Percival or Benitez. Yet I'm not sure how Shingo would react to losing a job he earned and did well in. He seems like a team player and would do whatever the sox wanted. Yet Percival certainly wouldn't want to set up. Shingo did great in set up, and in the closer's role.

KW seems to love having a bullpen that can give a team different looks. Baez would provide that. The key is would TB deal him [probably, he makes too much] and for what. Gload could be a fit, plus they need some starting pitching.

Danys Baez from TB. I know he came into his own last year as a closer, converting 30 of 33 saves. Yet TB had one of the best bullpens in the AL, and has a lot of young arms like Bobby Seay, Jesus Colome, etc. His $3.5 mill, salary doesn't seem to fit, esp. if they have other possible options at closer. Now 27, he's dropped his ERA three yrs in a row, from 4.41, to 3.81, to 3.57 this past yr. He's versatile; can go more than one inning [started over 20 games in 2002]; he only allowed 5 IR to score and stranded 21. I can see him in the 8th inning, along with Marte. [Politte seems destined for the 6th and 7th innings.] And he'd be great insurance in case Shingo gets "solved". Getting an established closer like Percival or Benitez might be tough. And it would be a big slap at Shingo. Shingo deserves to be the closer, as he was solid and did everything the team asked him. Could TB be enticed to trade Baez? Probably. But it would mean a few cheap guys like Ross Gload and Felix Diaz/ Arnie Munoz or someone close to the majors. I like the Sox chances of getting a possible closer and set up man via trade rather than free agency. There aren't a lot of proven closers out there, who would also accept a set up role. Or set up guys who have the potential to develop into a closer. I'd rather go with someone who had some experience closing games than go w/ potential [unless it's a guy like Lidge, Dotel or Mota who have electirc arms] Yet there are few of these guys around. Baez always had the arm, hitting between 93-97 regularly.

Vizquel can give the Sox more speed than Polanco even at age 38. If Polanco hit LH, then I'd say go for him. But he doesn't. Plus, it gives Willie a chance to redeem/ prove himself at 2B.

I agree Kerry is using this screw up in Al Qaqaa as a political issue. Whatever happened to the explosives, the point is that there weren't enough troops in Iraq to begin with, and couldn't control large parts of the country. The larger case Kerry's trying to make is that Bush and co. screwed things up in Iraq, this is another example of their poor foreign policy judgment. Kerry's trying to show that Bush won't or can't admit he made any mistakes in Iraq, that he puts the blame on others again and again [the mission accomplished sign--the ship wanted it; the missing explosives-- Russia might have took them]. While it may seem like a small issue [i don't think so, because these roadside bombs that are killing and maiming many US troops aren't just being made with a few sticks of tnt, prob. from explosives from many such places as Al Qaqaa], it's a legitimate issue BTW-I'm talking about Iraq, not al qaeda and the war on terror. They are two different issues, no matter how much this admin. likes to blur the lines between them.

If true it would show this admin is even more incompetent than we previously thought. They allowed dangerous weapons [and possibly WMD--if the diehards still believe Saddam had them] to be moved w/o their knowledge. The reliability of the entire intelligence system would be at stake. I think these guys see the writing on the wall, that they only have a few days left, and are trying desperately to make this story go away, by throwing anything out there to see if it will stick. Yet their confused stories make people ask more questions. What a tangled web they weave..... Can't say I'm surprised by their tactics. But truth eventually wins out

Before you go too far in praising me, let the record show I think GW has missing nat'l guard documents that are in files and records he is supposed to reveal, that are an important part of showing he "completed all his requirements". These are the "records" that most critics of his point to about his Nat. guard record. Bush and his cronies simply point to his having received an honorable discharge as proof he completed all he needed to do. Yet the record is not complete on this. I don't care about some non-descript piece of paper that's missing from part of his or Kerry's file. But something important, that tries to paint a picture different than the reality, is and should be fair game.

The stories coming out of this admin are really getting ridiculous. If the missing explosives were moved BEFORE the invasion, the US knows who did it. They would just have to review the satellite spy tape that we had running and say "Smile you're on candid camera!". Nothing like getting caught on tape to ruin international relations. Yet it never happened so no pictures will surface. We had complete surveillance on Iraq before the war [and the lead up to war esp. as our gov't was worried about Saddam's WMD, him giving them to terrorists or rougue nations!]. Most likely, the weapons cache was looted during the war, when we [the US and the spy satellites] were more worried about fighting Iraqi troops instead of caring what happened at a weapons depot. For this admin. to claim ignorance about what happened to the weapons or start putting forth crock pot theories about Russian special forces being responsible is beyond absurd.