ESPN MLB

• Austin Jackson scored a run in each of the Tigers' first six games this season. That was the longest streak by a Detroit batter to start a season since Darrell Evans crossed the plate in each of the first eight contests in 1986. And it's the longest streak by a Tigers leadoff hitter since 1939, when one of Jackson's center field predecessors, Barney McCosky, also scored in the first eight games of the season. In game seven on Friday, however, Jackson was on base only once (he walked in the eighth) and was stranded at third.
• [+] Enlarge
  Duane Burleson/AP PhotoAustin Jackson is having a solid season for the Tigers early on.
  The Red Sox managed to blow a three-run lead in the ninth and a two-run lead in the 11th in losing a wild one to Detroit on Sunday, 13-12. It was the first time Boston had scored a dozen runs and lost since May 31, 1970, when they were on the wrong end of a 22-13 slugfest with the White Sox at Fenway.
• Alfredo Aceves gave up all three ninth-inning runs in Sunday’s game without retiring a batter, making him just the second Red Sox pitcher in the live-ball era to work zero innings pitched in each of his first two appearances of the year. Guido Grilli faced one batter each in the first two games of the 1966 season, and didn't get either of them out.
• The Tigers used eight pitchers in that 13-12, come-from-behind win over the Red Sox. It marked just the second time in 70 years that Detroit had come back to win a game in which their starter surrendered seven-plus runs without getting through the third inning. Omar Olivares was the starter in 1997 when the Tigers rallied to beat Baltimore 11-8.
• On Sunday, the Yankees managed just three hits -- all doubles. That same day, the Twins had just two hits as Jason Hammel posted the longest no-hit bid of the year so far. Both Minnesota knocks were doubles. It's the first time in almost three years that two teams have done that on the same day. But then … the Royals did it against Oakland (three hits, three doubles) on Monday … and the Athletics did it against Kansas City (one hit) on Tuesday.It's the first time since at least 1917 that there have been three straight days where a team had every hit be a double.
• On Sunday, Jeff Samardzija (making just his sixth career start) was afforded the chance at a complete game. He had to be pulled after giving up a two-out homer that pulled the Nationals to within a run. Four days later, Matt Garza was en route to a shutout against Milwaukee, but was pulled after committing a two-out error that allowed the inning to continue. So the Cubs had two pitchers this week leave the game after 8.2 innings pitched.The Cubs hadn't had two pitchers work exactly 8.2 innings in the same season since 1995 (Jaime Navarro and Frank Castillo).
• In Sunday's Cardinals-Brewers game, you could say the teams spread it around. In the 9-3 Milwaukee victory, the 12 runs were charged to eight different pitchers. In fact, every hurler who appeared in the game ended up with at least one earned run on his record.It's the first game in eight seasons where the teams combined to use eight or more pitchers, and every single one of them got charged with at least one earned run. The last time that happened was on Sept. 9, 2004, when the Royals erupted for a 26-5 victory over the Tigers in the first game of a doubleheader.
• James Shields got called for a balk Wednesday on an illegal pickoff throw to third. That was in the bottom of the fifth -- after Justin Verlander had been called for his own balk in the top of the fifth.It was the first MLB game to feature balks by both teams in the same inning since Aug. 16, 2004, when the Rangers' Mickey Callaway and then-Indian CC Sabathia committed them in the fourth inning of a 5-2 Texas win.
• In that same game, Verlander threw eight shutout innings before getting tagged for four runs and the loss in the top of the ninth. He became the first pitcher to throw eight scoreless innings, then surrender four (or more) runs in the ninth to take a loss since Tim Hudson did it for the Braves on Sept. 22, 2005. Hudson allowed a three-run homer to Shane Victorino of the Phillies for most of that damage before Macay McBride had to come in and get the final out.
• In Monday's Yankees-Orioles game, Derek Jeter went a perfect 4-for-4 for the visitors, while Matt Wieters went a perfect 4-for-4 in the home dugout. It was the first game this year to feature two players with four-hit games.Since the start of 2010, there's been only one other MLB game where a player for each team went a perfect 4-for-4 or better -- and it was between the Orioles and Yankees. On July 30, 2011, Vladimir Guerrero’s 4-for-4 was the bright spot for Baltimore as the Yankees -- led by Robinson Cano's 5-for-5 -- demolished them 17-3.
• In Yu Darvish's much-anticipated major league debut on Monday, he allowed five earned runs, four walks, hit a batter, threw one wild pitch -- and won the game because the Rangers spotted him eight runs.He's the first pitcher in the live-ball era to win his major league debut while giving up all of those stats (or worse). Even take away the wild pitch, and only one other hurler has hit five earned runs, four walks, one HBP and a win in his debut. That was the Blue Jays' Matt Williams on Aug. 2, 1983.
• Jeff Gray of the Twins earned the first one-pitch victory of the season on Wednesday. Gray threw his one and only pitch to Peter Bourjos to end the top of the seventh, after which the Twins took the lead in the bottom of the inning. The Twins, conveniently, recorded the last one-pitch win last season, by Matt Capps on Sept. 23.
• Speaking of pitching oddities, the Royals-Athletics game was finally called in the top of the eighth inning on Tuesday after its second rain delay. Aaron Crow, who had pitched the seventh for the Royals, was credited with his first career save. Technically, he does meet the save criteria set forth in the rule book, notably that of being the "finishing pitcher" in a game his team won.The last player to be credited with a save prior to the ninth inning was Tony Sipp of the Indians, who received one in a rain-shortened affair with Tampa Bay on July 23, 2010. That also remains Sipp's only career save.
• On Tuesday, Freddy Garcia of the Yankees famously threw five wild pitches to tie the single-game American League record for such a thing. He was also the first pitcher to throw five-plus wild pitches in an outing of less than five innings. But two of those wild pitches scored runs for Baltimore. Another run scored on an error. That made the Orioles the first team in two years to score four-plus runs with one or fewer RBI. (The one RBI they did get came on a home run.)For the Orioles, it was just the second time since moving to Baltimore that they scored four runs on one or zero RBI. The other was in their inaugural year: On June 27, 1954, they scored three times on errors by the Athletics before finally walking off on an RBI single in the bottom of the 11th.
• Oakland "walked off" in unusual fashion on Wednesday when Jonathan Broxton plunked Yoenis Cespedes and Jonny Gomes to force in the winning run in the bottom of the 12th. It was the first game to end with back-to-back hit batters since Sept. 2, 1966, when Stu Miller of the Orioles hit Al Weis and Tommie Agee of the White Sox in the bottom of the 11th. (I admit that Elias found this a lot quicker than I would have.) However, Gomes became the first Athletics batter to get hit by a pitch with the bases loaded in extra innings since at least 1947. (It had never happened in the Baseball Reference "play index" era.) It's also noteworthy that Oakland scored its two runs in the 12th without a base hit. The three runners ahead of Cespedes reached on two walks and an error.
• Before Friday, there had been 36 double-digit strikeout games by teams this week (including seven games where both teams did it) but not one by a single pitcher. Max Scherzer's 11-strikeout outing on Friday afternoon broke that string.
• In Wednesday's 17-8 eruption between the Giants and Rockies, there were four pitchers (Tim Lincecum, Jeremy Guthrie, Guillermo Mota, Jeremy Affeldt)who all gave up at least six hits and at least five runs. It's the first time that that has happened since July 17, 1998, when Seattle dropped an 18-5 score on the Royals at the Kingdome.(It is also very intriguing that, in that game, both teams posted a seven-run inning. Except I don't know of a good way to search line scores.)
  
  By the way, on their next two games on Thursday and Friday, the Giants promptly had two pitchers (Madison Bumgarner and Matt Cain)carry no-hit bids into the sixth inning. The only team to have bids in consecutive games last season was also the Giants. That happened on May 8 and 10 by Ryan Vogelsong and Lincecum.
• The Orioles and Blue Jays combined to hit seven home runs in Baltimore's 7-5 victory on Friday. All were solo shots. It's the first game with seven-plus home runs that were all solo since a July 20, 2010 game at Camden Yards between the Rays and Orioles.
• There's always one guy left out.In the 10-9 "pitchers’ duel" between the Twins and Angels on Thursday, 17 of the 18 starters recorded at least one base hit. Howard Kendrick was the lone collar, going 0-for-4 plus a walk.
  
  It's the first nine-inning game this season to have 17 different starters record a base hit. There were three games last season where all 18 did.
• Minnesota got a four-hit game from Denard Span and three-hit games from Joe Mauer, Josh Willingham and Danny Valencia. It's the first time the Twins have had four players with three hits, including at least one with four, since they dropped a 20-1 score on the White Sox on May 21, 2009.

Last year, You Can't Predict Baseball came up with bold predictions for the year. We had a lot of fun coming up with them, and then laughing at how hilariously wrong they were at the end of the year. This year, we're bringing these predictions to SweetSpot, along with explanations for some of them. Keep in mind, these predictions are supposed to be bold, but not insane -- even we know the Orioles aren't going to the playoffs in 2012.

Los Angeles Angels: Kendrys Morales stays healthy all year.

Houston Astros: Bud Norris is top five in K/9 in the NL. We figured something good had to happen to the Astros, right? Norris actually has a pretty nice career K/9.

Oakland Athletics: Yoenis Cespedes is their starting center fielder by Memorial Day.

Toronto Blue Jays: Brandon Morrow makes the jump to elite starting pitcher. He's struck out more than 10 batters per 9 innings two years running, though his ERAs have remained ugly. We think this is the year his results finally match the stuff, especially considering his declining walk rate.

Atlanta Braves: Julio Teheran has more wins than Tim Hudson.

Milwaukee Brewers: Rickie Weeks leads the team in home runs. He was fourth on the team last year, with 20. In front of him were Corey Hart with 26, Ryan Braun with 33, and Prince Fielder with 38. Fielder is gone, and for this prediction we'll assume Braun will miss a third of the year due to a suspension. It's not too bold to think Weeks could pass Hart in 2012.

St. Louis Cardinals: Carlos Beltran outproduces Albert Pujols from last year. Albert Pujols was great last year, but not quite best-player-of-his-generation Albert Pujols. If healthy, it's not absurd to think of Beltran outproducing Pujols' 5.1 WAR in 2011.

Chicago Cubs: Matt Garza isn't their best pitcher. It'll be Ryan Dempster, who had great peripherals but bad results last year.

Arizona Diamondbacks: Aaron Hill will be good again. He was great with them in limited time, and Arizona's park is quite hitter-friendly.

Los Angeles Dodgers: James Loney will be a top-three first baseman in the National League. Many thanks to Mike Scioscia's Tragic Illness for somewhat alerting us to this one. We just decided to take it semi-absurdly far.

San Francisco Giants: Madison Bumgarner is their best pitcher. In terms of ERA, he already wasn't very far behind Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum, and his K/BB ratio eclipsed theirs by quite a bit.

Cleveland Indians: They'll have the best pitching in the American League Central. We're banking on Ubaldo Jimenez, making a major comeback to something closer to what he was in 2010, and the rest of the staff displaying the good that they did in 2011. We're also counting on the Tigers' starters not being very impressive behind Justin Verlander, which is bold but not quite insane, and the pitching of the White Sox, Twins and Royals not being able to keep up with Cleveland's.

Seattle Mariners: Jesus Montero catches 100-plus games. The Mariners probably aren't going to compete, so why not try and play him where he'll accrue the most value?

Miami Marlins: Despite all their new acquisitions and the hype, they still finish fourth in the NL East. When you think about it, this one isn't so crazy. If Josh Johnson isn't healthy and maybe even if he is their pitching still trails that of Philadelphia, Washington, and Atlanta; even with Heath Bell, we don't think their bullpen is as good, either. Their offense might be better than some of those teams', but the Marlins were quite a bit below league average offensively last year and we're not sure how much Jose Reyes is going to make up for that.

New York Mets: Mike Pelfrey is the worst starter in the NL. Pelfrey's been pretty terrible two of the past three years, and now they're moving the fences in at Citi Field. He was far better in his huge home stadium, but we're guessing with the moved-in walls he'll be significantly worse at Citi. Here at YCPB, we actually don't think the Mets are going to be quite as dire as many are saying, even if they do come in last place in the NL East - but Pelfrey won't be a bright spot.

Washington Nationals: Stephen Strasburg has a 17-strikeout game.

Baltimore Orioles: Matt Wieters is the best catcher in the AL. A lot of people are so obsessed with Wieters not matching the hype that they didn't notice he became a plus offensive performer last year, to go along with very good defense. His taking the next step isn't that bold as predictions go, especially if Joe Mauer has to move off catcher.

San Diego Padres: Luke Gregerson is a top-three closer in the NL.

Philadelphia Phillies: Cole Hamels is their best starter. And this isn't meant to be a slight to Roy Halladay or Cliff Lee, but considering their ages and the fact that Hamels is pretty darn good himself, plus a possible boost from a contract year...

Pittsburgh Pirates: Charlie Morton is their All-Star.

Texas Rangers: Yu Darvish isn't their best starter -- but he's still good. And we think he'll be pretty good, we just think Derek Holland will become more consistently good, or Matt Harrison will put up numbers like his 2011.

Tampa Bay Rays: James Shields will have no complete games. Predicting someone to have no complete games might not seem bold, but it is when it's a guy who was known as "Complete Game James" last season. Shields did have 11 complete games in 2011, an almost unheard-of number these days, but he had no complete games in 2009 or 2010.

Boston Red Sox: No one hits 30 home runs. This might seem crazy when you consider their great offensive numbers last year, but only one player on their team hit 30 home runs and it was Jacoby Ellsbury with 32.

Cincinnati Reds: Brandon Phillips is the best second baseman in the NL.

Colorado Rockies: Jamie Moyer will have the best HR/9 on the staff.

Kansas City Royals: They reach .500. While their pitching won't be great, their offense will take a big step forward this year. Combined with the rest of their division being the Tigers and some dumpster fires, it's not that difficult to see it happening.

Detroit Tigers: They score fewer runs than they did in 2011. Yes, that’s even with Fielder. It's not improbable that Jhonny Peralta, Alex Avila and Delmon Young regress quite a bit from their numbers with Detroit last year, and that Prince Fielder's production "only" makes up for the offensive loss of Victor Martinez in 2012. They'll still have a very good offense, though.

Minnesota Twins: Joe Mauer hits 15 home runs.

Chicago White Sox: Robin Ventura gets ejected more times than Ozzie Guillen. Look at the state of the White Sox. We'd get ejected too.

New York Yankees: Hiroki Kuroda leads the team in ERA.

You Can't Predict Baseball is an affiliate of the SweetSpot network.

Let's face it: Like it or not, money is the driving aspect of this great game. And the best player on the planet is Albert Pujols. Mr. Pujols, as you might have heard, has set a negotiating deadline of Feb. 16, 2011, and he's all done giving the Cardinals a hometown discount. According to FanGraphs.com, Pujols has "delivered" nearly $270 million in "value" while being paid only $89.5 million to date in his amazing career. That's a darned good return on investment.

Pujols is threatening to become the highest-paid player in baseball, and as a Yankees fan, I know more than a little bit about highly paid baseball players. Rumor has it that Pujols wants a multiyear deal for a lot of money -- maybe 10 years at $30 million a year. That's more than a lot of money. What team could possibly afford to pay Pujols that much money?

We're Yankees fans and we're not completely stupid, so maybe the better question is: What other teams could afford to pay Pujols that kind of money?

Let's give it some thought. Some of you may be old enough to remember the 10-year, $252 million contract that Alex Rodriguez signed with the Texas Rangers in 2001. History's judgment is that this contract crippled the Rangers -- that after signing A-Rod, the Rangers lacked the wherewithal to do anything else. If we do the math and figure that the Rangers' payroll was around $100 million in the early years of A-Rod's contract, that would mean that the Rangers had about 25 percent of their payroll committed to one player. Let's establish a rule of thumb and say that no team should devote more than 25 percent of its payroll to any single player since the 25 percent allocated to A-Rod was enough to stifle an organization. This is simple asset allocation theory with a baseball application. Quick math indicates that if Pujols is going to make $30 million a year, then only teams with a payroll in excess of $120 million a year should sign Pujols.

This is not to say that there will be some new owner, or lovestruck owner, who will ignore this basic business premise and decide that having Pujols on their team is a risk worth taking, even if it means allocating 40 percent of the organization's liquid resources toward one asset. Put nothing past the owners. How else could you explain Mike Hampton, Barry Zito, Alfonso Soriano, Jayson Werth, etc.? It only takes one. And the one owner I'm personally scared of is Tampa Bay Rays owner Stuart Sternberg. If he can rationalize 40-plus percent of his payroll to one player, look out!

What teams are we talking about?

There were only six teams with a 2010 Opening Day payroll of over $120 million: the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Phillies, Mets and Tigers. I'll add the Angels to the list of teams that might sign Pujols, since the Angels' 2011 payroll will exceed $120 million, plus this team seems to be willing to spend money without reason. I'll add the White Sox to this list, since they play in Chicago and ought to be able to spend money like a big-market club. I'm tempted to add the Rangers to this list, only they have already signed Adrian Beltre and Josh Hamilton to big contracts this year, plus they already have one unhappy, highly paid infielder more than they know what to do with.

I'm going to scratch the Mets off the above list, because the only way Pujols is going to get millions out of the Mets is if he lost money investing in Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. The Mets have Ike Davis at first, and he'd be an attractive trade target if the Mets were able to spend at will, but that's not the case. Shea goodbye.

I'm going to scratch the Tigers off the list because they have $20-plus million annually committed to Miguel Cabrera to play first base for them through the year 2015, plus $12-plus million annually committed to Victor Martinez to do something for them through the year 2014. Pujols might have the ability and desire to move back to the other side of the diamond and man third base again (he started 89 games at third base back in 2001-02). Putting Cabrera and Pujols together could be as great a 3-4 batting duo as baseball has ever seen, but the Tigers' existing commitments seem to rule out this pairing.

I'm going to scratch the Phillies off the above list, because they have upwards of $25 million committed annually to Ryan Howard to play first base for them through the year 2016. Also, they don't need a DH. Also, they don't want to admit (yet) that the Howard contract was probably a mistake.

I'm going to scratch the White Sox off the above list, because they probably did not belong on this list in the first place. Also, they have both Adam Dunn and Paul Konerko signed to huge long-term contracts. General manager Kenny Williams is unpredictable, so maybe he can Jedi mind-trick Pujols into moving back to the hot corner … but I doubt it.

I'm going to scratch the Yankees off the above list, because they have a $22-plus million annually long-term commitment to Mark Teixeira, plus a long list of aging players that will need to share the DH position until most of us are receiving Social Security. Not to mention, one of those aging players is A-Rod, who ripped up the balance of that $252 million contract only to get Hank Steinbrenner to panic and up that contract when no one else was within $100 million.

The Cubs stay on the list. They have committed $10 million this year to Carlos Pena to play first base, but that's a one-year commitment. The Cubs' salaries for Aramis Ramirez and Kosuke Fukudome come off the books in 2012. So, the Cubs will have both money to spend and the need for a first baseman when the 2011 season comes to an end. Not to mention their new ownership who might be very eager to make a splash.

The Angels stay on the list. Given the way that Moreno has reacted the last few years about the front-line free agents he didn't get, I can't see him going the extra yard to land Pujols. He spit the bit on Carl Crawford and pitched a fit about it. But just because I have my doubts doesn't mean we take them off the list. The team has $75 million committed to the 2012 roster, but that ignores many arb-eligible players due for nice raises, like Kendry Morales, Jered Weaver, Erick Aybar and Howie Kendrick. Adding in an estimated $25 million for those four guys puts the team's payroll at $100 million. Are the Angels prepared and able to afford a $150 million payroll? Ask Arte.

The Red Sox stay on the list. True, the Red Sox already have Adrian Gonzalez (assumption that he signs this spring) and Kevin Youkilis manning the corners for years to come. But come 2012, J.D. Drew and David Ortiz will be free agents. The Red Sox will need another big bat in the 2012 lineup, and they'll have some money to spend to acquire that bat. The team has shown an ability to surprise with the Carl Crawford contract, but keep in mind, the Red Sox already have over $101 million committed to the 2012 roster, and that doesn't include Gonzalez's pending deal and the escalating arbitration costs of Jacoby Ellsbury and Clay Buchholz.

The Yankees go back on the list. No way the Yankees let Pujols go to the Red Sox without a fight. OK, maybe the Yankees don't need Pujols, maybe there's no place for him to play. But the Yankees would pay Pujols $30 million a season to replace John Sterling on their radio broadcasts before they'd let him go to the Red Sox. Brian Cashman could whisper: "Albert, we will beat every other offer, but you need to be willing to move to third base four days a week, with a day a week at first with another day or two at DH to keep you fresh."

If Albert Pujols doesn't re-sign with the Cardinals, then he's going to become something else for the Yankees and Red Sox to fight over, even if there's no obvious "need" at either club for his services. I'm still of the belief that he remains in St. Louis the balance of his career. Any other place would be a huge upset. But, if Pujols is truly going to test the free-agent market, prepare for an epic showdown of the league's financial super powers.

Jason Rosenberg is the founder and lead writer of "It's About The Money," a SweetSpot Network member. IIATMS can be found on Facebook and on Twitter. Larry Behrendt contributed to this article and can be followed on Twitter.

A friend: "Carl Crawford is a fine player but his off/def tools are based largely on speed. With few BB, what will his OBP look like in years 5-6-7?"

I'm not wild about the contract. Crawford's coming off his best season, and probably won't ever enjoy another quite as good. Seven years is a long time; $142 million is a lot of money.

I'm not worried about the particular nature of his skills. It's long been said that speed doesn't age well; that players who rely on speed don't age well.

I don't believe that's true. I believe that Bill James -- who, perhaps not coincidentally, works for the Red Sox -- made a convincing case, some years ago, that it's not true. But I can't find that article.

Of course, it's absolutely true that players lose speed as they get older. But players with great speed when they're young usually still have good speed well into their 30s. Rickey Henderson, Lou Brock, Willie Wilson, Joe Morgan, Davey Lopes ... all of these fast young players aged quite well.*

* One of my all-time favorite stats ... When Davey Lopes was 40, and playing just part-time for the Cubs, he stole 47 bases and was caught four times. Nobody else has stolen more than 37 bases in a season when 40 or older. Let alone with that sort of success rate.

Right now, Crawford is great on the bases and great in left field, largely because he's one of the fastest players in the game. Five years from now, he'll probably still be fast, and he'll probably still be a fine left fielder and a good baserunner.

Crawford's OBP, though? Yeah, that might be a problem. Crawford's on-base percentage in the past five seasons, as he approached and entered his peak, was .350 on the nose. We wouldn't expect him to do much better or worse over the next five seasons, except for maybe a little bump from playing all those games in Fenway Park (but that's hardly a plus, as almost anyone the Red Sox might acquire would get the same bump).

Which is to say, the Red Sox can probably count on four or five seasons of the Carl Crawford we've come to know and love. He'll reach base reasonably often, pop the occasional over, and run all over the field making plays and stealing bases. It's not hard to imagine his OBP slipping, though, in the last two or three seasons of this seven-season contract. And if Crawford's OBP slips below .340, he probably won't be worth what the Sox are paying him.

What's odd about all this is Theo Epstein's frequent expressions of distaste for contracts running more than three or four seasons. But they gave J.D. Drew five years, then John Lackey, too. The Drew contract has worked out decently for them -- with one more season to go -- while Lackey's deal is off to a shaky start. Like Drew and Lackey when they signed with the Red Sox, Crawford is an excellent player but something less than a household name.

Perhaps this is just the new paradigm, seven-year deals for players who Little Leaguers don't dream about. Just seems a year or two too long, to me.

FanGraphs' Dave Cameron: "I like the Adrian Gonzalez deal for Boston, but I wonder how many Red Sox fans realize 2011 Gonzalez will be a downgrade from 2010 Beltre?"

At the risk of being terribly presumptuous, I'm going to guess that Cameron's not suggesting the Red Sox would be better in 2011 with Beltre instead of Gonzalez. What he's saying, I think, is that Gonzalez just won't be as valuable in 2011 as Beltre was in 2010.

And I think he's right. Beltre was fantastic this year, a fine hitter and one of the best-fielding third basemen in the majors. Add everything up, and Beltre was probably one of the five best players in the American League.

Adrian Gonzalez wasn't quite as valuable in his league. He's certainly been more consistent than Beltre, and there's a pretty good chance that he'll be more valuable than Beltre next year. At best, though, all Gonzalez does is replace Beltre's lost value. And he probably doesn't do that, considering that the Red Sox will probably go from having outstanding defensive players at both first base and third base to having merely adequate players at both positions (Gonzalez is fine, if often overrated, at first base; considering his bulk and relative inexperience, we can't expect Kevin Youkilis to play brilliantly at third).

Dave Cameron is right: Gonzalez isn't an upgrade.

Fortunately, the Red Sox don't really need an upgrade. A replacement (or near-replacement) is fine. The Red Sox' fates hinge on their ability to stay a lot healthier than they did last season. If they're reasonably healthy, they'll win 95-odd games. If they're decimated by injuries as they were last year, it won't matter who's playing first base (or third).

But they couldn't just sit on their hands this winter. They gave up two outstanding prospects to get Gonzalez, but when you're trying to win 95 games every season you'll occasionally have to give up an outstanding prospect (or two). I'm sure it hurts the guys in the front office a lot more than it hurts us. Once you pick up a couple of World Series rings, though, it's hard to give up on another, even if for just a year (or two).

To this point, it's not been a great offseason for the Red Sox, who lost one of their best players when Victor Martinez signed with the Tigers. Here's Alex Speier on the (non-)move, and Jarrod Saltalamacchia's apparent ascendance:

So, why did the Sox balk?

Multiple Red Sox sources indicated they felt that, even with the strides that Martinez made this year to perform at a respectable level, he is unlikely to remain a viable everyday catcher for more than two more seasons. After that, he would likely be consigned to duty as a designated hitter and first baseman. When that happens, his value will drop precipitously.

That might explain why the Sox initially approached Martinez with a two-year offer during the season. His current production as a catcher would justify one of the richest contracts ever for a backstop. And this past year, his OPS ranked fifth in the majors among catchers.

But even his current production as a DH/first baseman would have been far more modest. His .838 OPS would have ranked 18th among DH/first basemen, just ahead of Jack Cust (a likely non-tender candidate by the A’s) and just behind Vladimir Guerrero (whose $9 million option was declined by the Rangers).

And that's really that. If Martinez can't (or won't be allowed to) catch, he's not worth the money the Tigers gave him. He's not really worth what the Red Sox supposedly offered him, either (three years, $36 million, or four and $40 million). But the Red Sox can afford to overpay a little.

Not a lot, though. Four years and $50 million is a lot if Martinez isn't catching regularly in the third and fourth years.

More to the point, the Red Sox understand a simple truth about free agents in their 30s: They're a great way to look foolish. If you make a list of the 100 worst moves in the last 30 years, you're going to find a few trades and a bumper crop of contracts given to free agents in their 30s.

Victor Martinez is almost 32. If he's not still playing brilliantly at 34 and 35, it's not a killer. Given MLB's ever-expanding revenues and the relatively modest, $12.5 million Average Annual Value (AAV) of the deal, it won't rank among the dozen worst contracts in the majors. It's just not the sort of thing you can do much of, and still expect to win almost every year. Which is why the Red Sox aren't doing it.

Meanwhile ... Jarrod Saltalamacchia? Sorry, but I'm not buying it. The good news is that a) Salty's a switch-hitter, and b) Salty's fared significantly better against right-handed pitchers, as a major leaguer. As it happens, there's a certain Red Sox captain who just happens to c) also be a switch-hitter, and d) fare somewhat better against left-handed pitchers. This certain someone is old and can't really throw, but he's been there forever and there are people in the front office who think the world of him.

A Saltamacchia/Varitek platoon (of sorts) next year won't give the Red Sox the production they got from Martinez this year. But it should be decent in the short term, while helping the franchise avoid a long-term mistake.

From the tail end of Theo Epstein's conference call today (which was mostly about exercising the one-year option in David Ortiz's contract):

Yeah, we’d love to have Bill Hall back in the right circumstances. He really, I thought, blossomed this year in a super-utility role. He played so well, in fact, especially in terms of his power production that he might attract interest from a number of teams as an everyday player and get more substantial playing time. And if that happens, I’m sure that would be of interest to Billy. If later in the offseason, he’s in a position to consider a super-utility role and based on the moves we’ve made with our everyday players, that type of player makes sense on our roster, I’m sure we’ll be talking. He was nothing but a great teammate while he was here and a contributing player.”

I think the term "super utility" is a fairly recent invention, don't you?

The first player I recall being used in a super-utility role was Tony Phillips.

Originally a shortstop, Phillips later became a second/third baseman, and finally qualified for super-utility status by becoming an occasional outfielder as well. In 1988, Phillips started one game at shortstop, one game in right field, three games in center field, 14 games in left field, 14 games at third base, and 20 games at second base. He also appeared in three games at first base. Which is to say, he did everything except pitch and catch.

All this was masterminded by Tony La Russa, of course.

Phillips might have been the first player who did that (except as a stunt), but my quick-and-dirty search suggests that the "first Tony Phillips" was actually Cesar Tovar, who played for the Twins in the 1960s. In 1968 (for example), Tovar started eight games in right field, 12 at second base, 15 in left field, 20 at shortstop, 29 in center field, and 68 at third base. Tovar also played first base, catcher, and pitcher for one inning apiece in this game. Which obviously was a stunt, as he became the first major leaguer to play all nine positions in one game. Granted, a stunt that worked exceptionally well, as Tovar pitched a scoreless first inning and scored one of the Twins' runs in a 2-1 victory.

Tovar did this sort of thing for about six years, and usually drew a bit of down-ballot MVP support, probably because of his versatility. When we think of Bill Hall and Tony Phillips -- and Chone Figgins in 2004 and '5 -- we should think of Cesar Tovar, the first Super Utility Man.

Again, as near I can tell. Of course we can all come up with our own definition. But the important thing is that you have to play the infield and the outfield. If you're just playing the infield, you're a utility infielder; if just the outfield, a fourth outfielder (unless you're Andres Torres, in which case you're a center fielder who's occasionally slumming it). And you also have to play more than one position in the infield.

Last year, Hall started 34 games in the outfield and 51 games in the infield, but all 51 were at third base.

This year, Hall started 53 games in the outfield and 43 games in the infield: 38 at second base, three at shortstop, two at third base. My preference would be to see a Super Utility Man play a few more games at shortstop or third base. But who am I to argue with Theo Epstein?

Theo Epstein on the radio yesterday (via Pete Abraham):

Pitching and defense, the two expected strengths of this Red Sox team when it began play six months ago, were “not acceptable" this season, according to general manager Theo Epstein.

“We didn’t pitch like we wanted to, we didn’t play defense like we wanted to, and we allowed our opponents to just score way too much," Epstein said during an appearance on WEEI radio yesterday.

--snip--

Epstein acknowledged that Beckett was not the same pitcher because of a back injury that put him on the disabled list for two months.

“It’s hard to say how much it cost his performance before he went down, and then coming back he clearly wasn’t himself all year," said Epstein ...

--snip--

Epstein came to the defense of outfielder Jacoby Ellsbury, who played in only 18 games because of fractured ribs.

“All in all, it became a lost season for Jacoby," he said. “We certainly missed his contributions along the way. Importantly, I don’t think there’s any residue of this going forward.

The Red Sox have the fifth-best record and the fifth-best run differential in the American League. They've done this despite -- as Epstein mentioned -- getting little from their two highest-paid pitchers and losing one of their starting outfielders for nearly the entire season. What Epstein doesn't mention -- not here, anyway -- is that the Red Sox lost another starting outfielder (Mike Cameron) for most of the season, their best player (Dustin Pedroia) for half the season, and their best hitter (Kevin Youkilis) for a third of the season.

Many things went terribly wrong for the Red Sox this year, and just one thing (Adrian Beltre) went wonderfully right.

Epstein has to address a couple of huge questions this winter; specifically, who's going to play third base next season, and who's going to catch? But I'm perfectly willing to suggest, even before we know Epstein's answers, that the Red Sox will open 2011 on perfectly equal footing with the Yankees and the Rays.

Here's what Craig Calcaterra wrote -- but didn't publish -- before we got the news that Roger Clemens will be indicted today:

After a nineteen month investigation, an announcement is expected soon -- possibly as early as today -- that a federal grand jury is poised to indict Roger Clemens for lying under oath to Congress when he denied taking performance-enhancing drugs. The specific charges are not yet known, but they likely involve, at the very least, multiple counts of perjury.

--snip--

And now, after months of collecting evidence, the grand jury is poised to issue an indictment. In lay terms: a formal accusation that a crime was committed. As I have wrote previously and will continue to note as the case proceeds towards trial, an accusation does not necessarily make a conviction likely, especially in a perjury case, especially in this perjury case. Many of Clemens' statements are exceedingly difficult to square with known facts and common sense. At the same time, many of the witnesses against Clemens already face credibility issues, Brian McNamee chief among them. Even if you believe, as I am inclined to, that Clemens was not truthful during his Congressional testimony, convicting him of perjury will be no easy feat.

But that is what trials are for and a trial in this case, if one ever occurs, will not take place for a very, very long time. In the meantime, Roger Clemens has a date with federal agents, a finger print ink pad and a mug shot photographer. Because he is about to be criminally charged.

Yes, Congress has more important things to worry about.

But no, you shouldn't lie to Congress.

Roger Clemens probably never should have been asked (or ordered) to testify before Congress. Every day, Congress wastes thousands of man-hours grandstanding and sticking its collective nose into small issues while ducking the big ones (and man, are there some big ones).

But when you stand up in one of those hearing rooms and raise your hand and swear to tell the truth and then you don't ... Well, there really must be some serious consequences. I don't want to see Roger Clemens behind bars. If he got up there and told a bunch of lies, though ...

They all hurt, a little. But Thursday's loss hurt the Red Sox a lot.

No, not because the Red Sox blew a three-run lead in the ninth inning.

OK, partly because of that.

But at this point, every loss hurts a lot. Realistically or not, the Red Sox still have designs on October. But the math is terrifying: They can't afford to lose many more games.

After Thursday, the Sox are 66-50. To have a reasonable chance at the playoffs, they need to win (let's say) 98 games. That means going 32-14 the rest of the way. But considering the Yankees' and Rays' records, 98 wins will be enough only if the Sox knock at least one of those clubs down a notch, too.

The Red Sox have six more games against the Rays, six more against the Yankees. If they take four of six from each of those outstanding squads, they still have to go 24-10 against everyone else. Seems like a tall order.

Especially because the Yankees, even if they lose four of six to the Red Sox, can still win 99 games by going 27-16 against everyone else (and they'll get a head start this weekend).

The Rays, if they lose four of six to the Red Sox, can still win 99 games by going 28-14 against everyone else.

The Red Sox still have a shot. They just have to play exceptionally well against one or both of their competitors and exceptionally well against everyone else ... and hope that one of those competitors doesn't play brilliantly against everyone else.

Hey, it could happen. But there's not room for many more games like Thursday's.

When Daisuke Matsuzaka joined the Red Sox, he was supposed to be a workhorse at the front of the rotation.

Instead, he's been one of the most frustrating pitchers in recent memory.

Matsuzaka's first season -- after an unprecedented $51.1 million posting bid in 2007 -- was as good as could be expected. He pitched 205 innings and was a solid mid-rotation starter as Boston won its second World Series in this century. While his ERA was 4.40, his rates of 8.84 K/9 and 3.52 BB/9 portended a potential ace.

He has yet to see those rates again.

In 2008, Matsuzaka was perhaps the luckiest pitcher in the game, cobbling together a remarkable 18-3 record and 2.90 ERA while stranding a ridiculous 81 percent of runners (league average is around 72 percent). His xFIP, a statistic scaled to ERA that strips out fielding variables and also normalizes home-run rate, marked 4.70 as he walked a tick over five runners per nine while his whiff rate fell (slightly) to 8.27.

The next year was lost to injuries (both discovered and hidden) and his regressed to the mean ... to the point where he could have been considered unlucky. However, his falling K-rate, along with his twin penchants for nibbling around the strike zone and walking the bases loaded became untenable when he no longer exhibited the magic to keep runners from crossing home plate -- largely due to a high batting average on balls in play (.385, with the league average around .300) in a season where Boston's defense struggled to catch the ball.

This year, Matsuzaka continues to exhibit signs of regression. His strikeout rate has fallen for the fourth straight year and now stands at 7.43. His groundball rate continues to drop as well, also posting a career-low mark of 31.5 percent (only Ted Lilly and Kevin Slowey of qualified pitchers outpace him in this category).

And through it all, he's posting the second-best ERA of his short major-league career: 4.22. Given his falling whiff rate, trend of putting runners on base and becoming an extreme flyball pitcher, any belief that he's "arrived" is a mirage.

Matsuzaka is who he is. A career 4.60 xFIP shows his true talent with nearly 90 starts in the books: league-average pitcher.

And yet ... the talent. The talent Matsuzaka flashes all too rarely gives a hint of a Cy Young contender when -- or if -- things suddenly click. But Matsuzaka's lack of progression has frustrated many in the organization and fan base.

Which brings up the crux of the issue: Is Matsuzaka better than what a league-average pitcher could bring to the team?

There are differing opinions on just how much a league-average pitcher is "worth," but Baseball Prospectus values a league-average starting pitcher at $5 million. Using BP's performance metrics, Matsuzaka is just slightly above league average, meaning he's currently overpaid at $8 million; his salary goes to $10 million in the next two (and final) years on his contract.

His peripherals and time spent on the disabled list keep going in the wrong direction, with only luck hiding his warts. Even if he stabilizes or ticks up slightly, expecting Dice-K to suddenly morph into a pitcher worth $10 million annually seems fanciful.

The good news for Boston is that the organization has a significant amount of depth in starting pitching, and could look to move Matsuzaka. With Jon Lester under contract through 2013 and John Lackey and Josh Beckett through 2014, there's obviously a strong core. Moreover, Boston has a stable of young starting pitchers on the way, led by Felix Doubront, who made his major-league debut this season. Casey Kelly is pitching at Double-A at 20, and don't forget Tim Wakefield is under contract in 2011, too. Not to mention that the Red Sox could sign a pitcher to a one-year deal that might equal Dice-K's performance -- at a lower cost.

Boston has plenty of looming question marks in the lineup, and Dice-K may end up providing the most value to the 2011 squad as a trade chip. Pitching is always in demand, and acquiring a mid-rotation starter with just two years remaining on his deal with the potential to be an ace will be intriguing to teams.

Whether Matsuzaka would waive his no-trade clause is an entirely different question. But his tenure in Boston is probably about to end.

Hey, here's some mildly surprising news. According to SportsBusiness Journal, the Red Sox's TV ratings this season are way, way down:

The Boston Red Sox’s six-year reign atop MLB’s local television ratings is about to end, as the team’s local numbers have plummeted from first to fifth this season.

Entering the All-Star break, ratings for Red Sox games on NESN have dropped nearly 36 percent from last year, for a 6.25 average rating.

The last time the Red Sox finished out of the top spot was in 2003, when the Mariners posted an 11.53 rating on FSN Northwest. The Sox averaged a 7.86 rating that year on NESN. This year, Red Sox ratings trail the Cardinals (9.70 on FS Midwest), Twins (7.85 on FS North), Phillies (7.20 on CSN Philadelphia) and Reds (6.52 on FS Ohio).

--snip--

In Boston, the declining TV numbers are not the only evidence that suggests Red Sox Nation is more apathetic about this year’s team than in years past. Despite the fact that the team just had its 600th straight sellout at Fenway Park, the lack of the traditional enthusiasm around the local nine this year extends to the team’s radio broadcasts, too. For the first half of the season, Red Sox games on WEEI-AM were down 16.5 percent, to 107,500 listeners. The coveted male 25- to 54-year-old demographic was down 28 percent, posting a 10.2 average. It should be noted that the Celtics’ run in this year’s NBA playoffs required the relocation of 20 Red Sox broadcasts this spring from flagship WEEI-AM to WRKO-AM.

Mike McLaughlin, a 43-year-old cardiologist who grew up and still lives in the Boston area, is a lifelong Red Sox fan. But he has watched fewer games on TV this year and is hearing similar stories from his friends. He cited a lack of star power on the team as one of the reasons there’s less enthusiasm around the team. This year’s players don’t have the same draw as those from previous years’ teams, which included the likes of Manny Ramirez or, even, Jason Bay.

“People expected a bigger splash in the offseason,” McLaughlin said. “There’s a general feeling that the ownership took a pass on this season, and I think you’re seeing fans question why they should invest in it.”

The Red Sox did sign John Lackey and Adrian Beltre last winter, leading Craig to wonder, "Has it really gotten to the point that unless a $100 million free agent comes in that fans consider ownership 'taking a pass?'"

In a word: Yes.

With this franchise, anyway.

Maybe.

I think the offseason -- during which management talked a lot about that exciting strategy, "run prevention" -- helps explain the TV (and radio) ratings. I think the Celtics' and Bruins' playoff runs helps explain the ratings. And I think there's one more thing that somehow hasn't come up yet: the Red Sox have spent most of the season in third place.

Fans like winners. Especially when they're used to winning. Right or wrong, for at least a month it's been widely assumed that the injury-ravaged Red Sox simply aren't going to keep up with the Rays (let alone the Yankees) this season. A small but significant percentage of fans simply won't be as motivated to watch (or listen) when the future's not quite so bright.

I'm going to say it's one-fourth the offseason, one-fourth the Celtics and Bruins, and one-fourth being in third place all summer. For the other fourth, you can come up with your own theories.

************

One fairly surprising note from the piece: the Angels of Anaheim have the second-worst share in the majors, just a hair ahead of the A's. And it's not because of the standing; the Angels' ratings are actually up nearly 12 percent from last year. There might simply be some measurement issues here. But I'm guessing they've got a low share because the entire metropolitan area is being measured. And while the Angels are presumably popular in Orange County, I suspect the rebranding simply isn't having the desired effects. And I suspect that someday, that rebranding will be seen by ownership for the tomfoolery that it's always been. Los Angeles Angels, indeed.

With Victor Martinez an All-Star, thanks to the players (and by the way whose brilliant idea was that, to let the players vote?), it's yet another great opportunity to wonder where Martinez will be in 2011. Nick Cafardo with the guts:

Earlier this season, it was easier to envision Martinez as the future designated hitter and backup catcher, but that was when David Ortiz was struggling. Now that Ortiz is hitting again, the Sox will have three rather large offseason decisions.

1) Do they pick up a $12 million option on Ortiz’s contract, or do they try to negotiate that down so he’s in line with the Hideki Matsui and Vlad Guerrero salaries, which are half that? 2) If Ortiz balks, do the Sox then sign Martinez long tm as a DH/1B/C? 3) What do they do with Adrian Beltre, who can also be a free agent. If Beltre goes elsewhere, that might open the door for Kevin Youkilis to go back to third and for Martinez to become the primary first baseman.

None of those decisions will be easy, and one can understand why Martinez’s situation hasn’t quite been settled yet.

Yes. One can.

You've got three important questions and all those moving parts, but fortunately the Red Sox have three things working for them: time, money, and intellectual capital.

The time will allow them to gather more data -- statistics, essentially -- that will inform every decision that's made.

The money will allow at least a small margin for error.

The intellectual capital will allow them to process -- as well as any organization in professional sports, I believe -- what the time and the data and the money mean, when all mashed up together.

None of which means everything will work out. They might make bad decisions anyway. They might make good decisions that wind up looking bad; there are a lot of moving parts, but not so many moving parts that playing the odds will necessarily lead to the desired outcome.

In the meantime, though, if I were a Red Sox fan I wouldn't be too worried about what happens after the season. Not when what happens this season still hangs very much in the balance.

For the Red Sox, the beat goes on.

[Victor] Martinez has a fractured distal phalanx, which is the bone on the tip of his thumb.

--snip--

Martinez didn't think he would go on the DL.

"By the time I got to the dugout, it was starting to get [swollen]. I couldn't put my hand in the glove. It was kind of painful," he said.

It sounds like that if the swelling goes down, Martinez could catch. But the question then becomes how well he could hit.

The Sox have catching issues. Mark Wagner and Dusty Brown are on the DL in Pawtucket. The catchers there are Gustavo Molina and Juan Apodaca. Luis Exposito is in Double-A.

Meanwhile, the injury-riddled Sox are 46-31 and alone in second place in the division.

I don't think we can identify when critical mass has been reached until after the fact. But with Jacoby Ellsbury, Josh Beckett, Clay Buchholz, Dustin Pedroia, and Martinez out, doesn't this seriously impact the Red Sox' chances?

They're currently leading the league on-base percentage, slugging percentage, and (naturally) enough scoring. But will Kevin Youkilis, at 31, continue to enjoy the best season of his career? Will Adrian Beltre, at 31, continue to enjoy his best season (by a lot) since 2004? Can Jon Lester carry the rotation all by himself?

I'm ready to predict, right now, that the Red Sox won't finish ahead of the Yankees. I won't predict that the Red Sox fail to reach the postseason. But if the injury picture doesn't improve significantly between now and the All-Star break, that could change.

No, Jonathan Papelbon isn't the pitcher he was two years ago. And yes, last night's loss was rough. But does that mean it's time to replace Papelbon with Daniel Bard? Well, (as Dave Cameron writes), maybe ...

Except, you don’t really want Daniel Bard on the mound against left-handed hitters in a high leverage situation.

This year, Bard has faced 78 lefties and posted a 4.56 xFIP against them. He has struck out just 12 while walking 8 (plus hitting another batter), which pales in comparison to the 27/4 K/BB ratio that he’s running against righties. He was better at blowing lefties away a year ago, but still struggled to throw strikes against them, and now sports a career 4.13 xFIP vs left-handed hitters.

Bard has good enough stuff to get lefties out, and in time, he could indeed be a quality ninth inning guy. But right now, the Red Sox are better off letting Papelbon work through his issues.

Cameron also points out that Papelbon's probably better than his (3.64) ERA and, presumably, his (2.08) strikeout-to-walk ratio, since 1) he's still throwing quite hard, 2) his swinging-strike percentage is right in line with his career rate, and 3) he's been throwing a lot of first-pitch strikes. Plus, we're talking about only 30 innings this season and you have to figure those six home runs he's allowed could (almost as) easily be three. In which case his ERA would look a lot better.

There's just one bit missing from Cameron's analysis: Papelbon's numbers against left-handed hitters.

They're awesome. Career-wise, he's been nearly as effective against lefties as righties. Given that the Sox don't have a reliable southpaw in the bullpen, they can't really play matchups in the high-leverage situations. Not effectively, anyway.

So I think Cameron's right. If Papelbon's struggles continue -- if he keeps giving up home runs, and can't get his strikeout-to-walk ratio closer to 3 than 2 -- they'll probably make a change. After this season, they'll probably have to make a change, because Papelbon won't be worth what his agent wants in a new contract. At this exact moment, though, he's probably still their best option in the ninth inning, most nights.