No gray area: 'Baggers don't like the new look

It's that time again, when the spring turns warmer, when the birds return, when the Yankees finally make their first trip to Fenway Park. And this time they're bringing Mark Teixeira with them. Uh oh. But none of the questions in this week's mailbag relate to the Yankees (though there is one that touches on their uniforms). There were a ton of questions in the last two weeks about the new uniforms that the Red Sox have adopted, especially the new road grays.

If we judge by my inbox, there's not a whole lot of love for the grays. I've gotten comments about the choice of blue socks and the similarities to the Yankees' road uniforms. There has been disapproval of the "Hanging Sox" hats and questions of whether we've returned to the Sox of the 1980s. I'm sure there are some people who like the new uniforms -- they just haven't e-mailed me.

But if that's all that there is to gripe about -- and, really, it's not -- then it's a sign that the Sox are doing well. And they are. They come into this weekend's series against the Yankees with seven straight wins to get them out of the cellar in the American League East. The pitchers are pitching well. The hitters are getting hot. The Sox are winning.

What could a fan want more?

Hi, Amalie ~ Kudos on your coverage. My question: What in the name of all that's holy are the Red Sox doing wearing blue socks on the road? It's clearly messing with their mojo. If a little more navy is what the designers are looking for, why not bring back the classic red-white-and-blue stirrups with the away unis? How might we old-school fans register our disapproval with navy socks and lobby for the old stripes? Is there anyone in the front office who might listen?
Mark, Ashland

Hi, Amalie. First time sending in a question, but I think its a very important one. Why does the team continue to wear those stupid alternate uniforms?! Besides having the audacity to remove the iconic 'B' from the hat for the first time since before Ted Williams played, I tune in and it feels like a new look every night! What are we the Rockies?! Not to mention, I cannot stand having anything other than home whites and away grays. You seem to know people in the organization...does anyone else seem to agree with me?!
Tom, Beverly

A: I wanted to include multiple questions about the uniforms because it's definitely the most common question I've gotten for this week's edition of the mailbag. I agree that the new road grays look very similar to the Yankees away uniforms, and I'm with you on the confusion about the use of blue for the socks instead of the red, like the ones the team wears at home. I talked to Sox chief operating officer Mike Dee on this topic yesterday, and asked him why the Sox have chosen to go with blue socks with the uniforms. Apparently the blue socks weren't a major design element in the new uniforms. "Socks are not usually a prime consideration when you design uniforms, because two years ago we had 25 guys who wore their pants down to their shoes," Dee said yesterday. "Socks have been more noticeable than they have been in the past. The story on the blue socks is there was never a commitment that we were only going to wear blue socks with this uniform. We're still getting used to the uniforms. We'll probably wear red socks at some point." So look out for that. As for whether there are others out there that don't like the socks, there are quite a few that have been e-mailing me and commenting on the blog that agree with that point of view.

Hi Amalie! I know that Terry Francona is loyal to his veterans to a fault, but I've just watched the first three games against the Orioles and David Ortiz looks completely lost at the plate. Is there any chance that we see Chris Carter playing any games as DH? At this point he can't contribute much less than the Sox are getting from Ortiz, and it's probably worth seeing how he performs in that role before he gets sent down when Mark Kotsay comes back. It would be nice if the Sox could have more baserunners on in front of Kevin Youkilis, who's tearing things up right now. Thanks!
Steve, Great Falls, Va.

A: This question did come in on Sunday, before David Ortiz started to show some signs of life at the plate. While there are some grave concerns about Ortiz's ability to be the player (and slugger) he has been in the past, I don't think Chris Carter is the answer. Carter was sent back down to Pawtucket after Wednesday's game to get more consistent at bats. The Sox hadn't been using him much over the first two weeks of the season -- and he wasn't able to convert in the few at bats he had, other than one sacrifice fly. While I've gotten scores of e-mails and comments about Ortiz's slowed swing and about Carter waiting in the wings, I would advise a bit more patience on that front. I'm not saying Ortiz won't prove that he's on the downswing of his career, but I think people are far too quick to anoint someone they've only seen in spring training. Admittedly, Carter is a very good hitter, but give it a little time.

Despite his work with Dave Magadan and his recent spike in numbers a lot of people are making the annual doom and gloom "He's turning into Mo Vaughn" predictions about David Ortiz again. From what I can tell, he looks like he's slimmed down in the midsection as opposed to the last two seasons, while maintaining the proper upper body bulk. Mo clearly never found a buffet he didn't like and avoided any sort of conditioning, meanwhile Papi remains athletic (he's looked much better running the bases). You get to see these guys up close, talk to trainers and coaches, so which is it?
Juggernaut, Salem

A: Physically David Ortiz came into spring training in much better shape than we've seen him in recent years. He was slimmed down, and looked ready to go. But losing weight doesn't always translate into producing offensively. Clearly Ortiz has looked better at the plate in recent days. He's been going the other way consistently, and the hits have been falling. Yet I'm still not at all convinced that Ortiz is going to be the Ortiz of the past. His bat has looked a bit slower, and pitchers have been throwing him quite a lot of offspeed pitches. So, as they say, the jury is still out. But if you're solely asking about Ortiz's conditioning, that is significantly better than it has been in past seasons.

The MLB rules state that using a designated hitter in the American League is optional, but in the past 33 years teams have almost never allowed a pitcher bat for himself. Has there really not been a decent hitting pitcher that entire time, or is it simply fear of injury? If Babe Ruth were pitching for the Red Sox today, would they put in a designated hitter for him?
Douglas, Saugus, Calif.

A: It's funny that you should ask. I was literally having this exact same debate with my boyfriend on Sunday. We were using a more current example -- Cincinnati's Micah Owings, who has a career .351 batting average. It's rare to find a pitcher with those batting skills these days, so it's not often an issue for a team. Few would really even need to consider the option of using a pitcher as a hitter. But I think that the fear of injury would be a major factor in that debate. We all remember Chien-Ming Wang injuring his foot last season running the bases against Houston. After that happened, Hank Steinbrenner blamed the National League, saying, "My only message is simple. The National League needs to join the 21st century." He also added, "This is always a concern of American League teams when their pitchers have to run the bases and they're not used to doing it. It's not just us. It's everybody. It probably should be a concern for National League owners, general managers, and managers when their pitchers run the bases. Pitchers have enough to do without having to do that." While I don't consider Steinbrenner to be an authority on all things, in this case, he's right that pitchers running the bases is a bit of an injury risk. But beyond that, most American League teams are set up to have designated hitters who are key parts of their offense. It's unlikely that managers would be interested in sitting those DHs for a pitcher. Terry Francona hasn't exactly been happy when he has had to sit David Ortiz during interleague games in past seasons, and he hasn't had any problems with expressing that frustration.

I want Florida to give back Hanley Ramirez in exchange for Pack the Duckling. I also want a pony for Christmas. But seriously, as someone who literally lost sleep over the Cecil Cooper and Jeff Bagwell trades, can you please tell these dreamers that it was a fair trade? Yes, we lost Hall of Famer-in-the-making, but at least this trade got us a world championship thanks to Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell. That's a good deal. Also, if we didn't make that trade, the Yankees would have gotten Beckett, and imagine all the Sox Nation self-loathing over a 2007 championship pennant over Yankee Stadium. No wonder the Sox were willing to play high-stakes. Another way to look at it: We wouldn't have dominated the '00s without four players we got for chump change -- Pedro, Lowe, Varitek and Schilling (unless anyone's lamenting Carl Pavano). Hard to complain that for once we had to pay the sticker price. Oh, and I'll take that pony dappled and gray.
Peter, Louisville, Ky.

A: Just one reader's opinion. I thought I'd include it. No question, so no need for an answer. But my two cents is that the window for winning a championship is so small. Would the Sox be better off now with Hanley Ramirez instead of the rotating black hole at shortstop? Of course. Would the Red Sox have won without Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell? There's a very good chance they would not have.

Hi Amalie. Looking at injuries and age of Sox, what prospect do you think will have biggest impact THIS year: Lars Anderson, Josh Reddick, Daniel Bard, or Michael Bowden and would team trade one of them in, let's say, a package deal with Clay Buchholz?
Steve, Grand Prairie, Texas

A: I believe it will be Daniel Bard. Of course, there are certain factors here that I can't predict -- like injuries -- but I believe that Bard is the closest one to being major league ready, and I believe that you could see him with the Red Sox at some point this summer. The Sox have been wary of trading their high-level prospects, especially pitchers, and have not wanted to part with Clay Buchholz in a Jarrod Saltalamacchia deal. That doesn't mean that he's 100 percent untouchable -- for the right player, a team will part with just about anyone -- but I would lean away from the Sox trading him.

Bill Simmons from ESPN said that Papelbon is heading to the DL. Have you heard anything about this?
Seth, Plainville, Conn.

A: As far as I could tell Bill Simmons was 100 percent speculating based on his viewing of how Jonathan Papelbon has thrown the ball so far. (He has been mostly effective, but far from dominating.) It was not related to any particular inside information about Papelbon's health. I believe he said that he would not be surprised if Papelbon landed on the disabled list.

Quick question -- any news on Nick Hagadone? Is he recovered from his surgery? I can't find him on any of the Sox minor league rosters. He was (hopefully still is) one of the bright starts of the future.
Michael Parry, Stamford, Conn.

A: I put the question to director of player development Mike Hazen. He e-mailed that Hagadone is "doing very well." The pitcher is getting stretched out in Fort Myers, Fla., in extended spring training, and has been facing hitters there. There isn't yet a timetable for Hagadone to join one of the team's minor league affiliates, as he comes back from Tommy John surgery. I'll keep you updated on Hagadone's progress.

What are the Red Sox going to do when a starter gets knocked out early? They do not have a long man in the bullpen. If they use 3 or 4 pitchers for 2 innings a piece it will hurt them the rest of the week.
Russ, Verona, NJ

A: We saw what the Sox did last week when Daisuke Matsuzaka came out after one inning, but that's not an option anymore with Justin Masterson in the rotation. Terry Francona doesn't really believe in having a long reliever in the bullpen. Most of the time a team doesn't need a long man, so it makes sense. And when the Sox do need a long reliever, the team will go with a mix-and-match approach, trying to get two to three innings out of a couple of guys on the way to finishing out nine innings. It's certainly an approach that can hurt a team. Had Tim Wakefield not thrown a complete game the day after Matsuzaka's bomb, the Sox would have been in deep trouble in that game.