Much ado about David

There's much more too. There is information on a potential trade of Brad Penny, a potential signing of Jason Bay, and the potential of Daniel Bard. Still, I know the focus is the man in the middle, and it was heartening (certainly on a personal level) to watch him at least hit his first home run.

So on to the mailbag, as we get the chance to see the Red Sox' first installment of interleague play this season with the Mets in town for the weekend. After that comes an extended road trip that takes us into June when more exciting things are on the horizon. John Smoltz's return could be imminent, and the date when free-agent signees (Penny, that's you) can be traded arrives on June 15.

Until then, keep the questions coming.

Dear Amalie: I read the Globe entirely on the 'net (I know, I know...) so I may be missing something but, for the life of me, I can't figure out how game story assignments are sorted out. Sometimes you write the story, sometimes Adam Kilgore, other times Nick writes it and, still others, the story is written by an AP writer. What gives?
David S., Burke, Vt.

A: David, that's a good question. As I am the Red Sox beat writer for the Globe, I am almost always -- with rare exception, like when David Ortiz talked a couple of weeks ago in St. Petersburg, Fla. -- the person who writes the game story and notebook. It's my responsibility to write those two pieces whenever I'm at the ballpark. Because I do get a few days off, my backup Adam Kilgore usually gets the game story assignment on those days. He then will write the game story and the notebook instead of the other stories he writes, called sidebars. Those are usually mini-features on some aspect of the game. Nick Cafardo generally writes the On Baseball column, but occasionally he also fills in on my days off. AP stories are never used, though they are sometimes put up on boston.com before our game stories are fully written. You shouldn't see a game story by the AP for longer than a couple of hours after the game is over.

First, I'm noticing that just about every other question to you starts off with praise headed in your direction. Who wants to read that? Can't you edit out this garbage? On to the real question: I read another person's question concerning Ellsbury's steal of home against the Yankees. I immediately wondered about J.D. Drew's actions. Steals of home are exceptionally rare and I assume most players wouldn't necessarily know how to react. What would have happened if J.D. sees Jacoby running down the line and then steps out of the box? Would he be given time out? What would happen if he was given time out? Are there any rules concerning batters and runners attempting steals?
Michael, Boston

A: Sorry you don't appreciate it, Michael. I don't edit out anything on any questions, though the copy desk sometimes does. That's true. It was difficult for J.D. Drew to know how to react on Jacoby Ellsbury's steal of home. He happened to catch Ellsbury coming out of the corner of his eye, and didn't want to tip off Andy Pettitte, so he didn't move out of the batter's box. But he also made sure not to swing, so as not to hit Ellsbury in the head with his bat. The batter is not automatically given time out when he steps out of the box, it has to be granted by the plate umpire. So Drew could have stepped out, but that would have given the Yankees easier access to get Ellsbury out. It seems that he chose the best possible reaction in a very rare situation.

My understanding on the subject of Jason Bay not being signed to an extension is that, A) the Sox were rumored to have offered somewhere in the area of three or four years at about $10 million a season, which, for a five-tool player like Bay might be a bit hard to swallow; B) I've been hearing that the Sox will not sign Bay to an extension because they have Drew under contract for two years after this one (I believe) and that they have some outstanding kids (Ryan Kalish being one) that would come up and take over for Bay. From what I've seen, the Sox have no player anywhere near Bay's caliber. Josh Reddick is about as close as it gets, and I don't see him in Boston next year. So this long, drawn out question is simply; isn't .316/.476 with an OPS over 1.000, along with 8 HRs, 29 RBIs, 28 walks to 25 strikeouts through 29 games. Isn't that worth what Drew's getting? Maybe more? He's not going to demand Manny money to stay, I don't think. Let's face it, it's not going to handicap the Red Sox to have two contracts around $15 million per season in the outfield. Your thoughts? Thank you much and look forward to your next mailbag.
Josh, Deerfield

A: Essentially, yes. Jason Bay is worth the money that J.D. Drew is making. But that's not necessarily how it works. The market is very different than it was at the time that Drew signed his deal. So even though the team gave Drew $14 million per year (mostly bidding against itself), the Red Sox are waiting to see how the rest of the free agent market shakes out for outfielders. That could be a smart move, or it could burn them with the Yankees also in the market for a left fielder this offseason. But the Sox appear unwilling to pay significantly above value for Bay at this point. So they're waiting. We'll see if that's a good move or not in time.

Greetings, Amalie, from the land of the Albuquerque Isotopes. I have a question about the Sox scouting. Theo Epstein has the reputation of being an exec that depends a lot on numbers, stats, formulas, and other computer driven ways to evaluate players. Yet when the young guys get called up, they usually impress in that they show no fear of the big leagues or the situations they are in, which tells me that there is at least some old fashioned "gut instincts" by the scouting and development people that are part of the evaluation formula. Do you have a handle on how much they go by numbers and how much by sight and experience?
Glenn H., Albuquerque, N.M.

A: There's always a lot of gut instincts in scouting. I spent a day with one of the Sox scouts last fall out in Northern California, trying to understand how players are evaluated, and wrote about it then. It's a very difficult formula, and it's extremely hard to get right. But at that level there's a great deal based on instincts and conversations with prospects at the high school, junior college, and college level. Sure, numbers matter, but it's often it's more about looking at a batting stance and stroke, or a pitcher's mechanics and body type, or the way a player reacts to situations or hustles. As far as some player evaluation systems have gone toward the numbers and stats, there will always be some objectivity and some instinct in scouting and development. But there's no formula.

Amalie, your recent mailbag entries on Big Papi's sadly diminished performance, which attribute his problems to his wrist injury and age, ignore the elephant in the room that Sox fans are wondering about: whether his great years with the Sox are attributable to performance-enhancing drug use. Have you heard anything on whether Big Papi is on the "confidential" list of a hundred or so players who have tested positive in the past? What are your views on the possibility (or probability, as many fans are thinking and saying) that Big Papi took steroids during his prime? Say it ain't so!
Stephen S., Sandgate, Vt.

Love the Sox and you and the mailbag. Love Papi. But why has no one suggested the dramatic dropoff in power and production is, possibly, substance-related? A few years from now will it come out that David has been using "something" for a few years and then, when the heat was on, stopped? We've seen this already with a bunch of players. I hate to think this but I wonder why no one has even raised the possibility that Papi is now off whatever he was on and that's why his upper-deck power has become warning-track power.
Russ S., Houston

A: The problem is that one can't go around making such accusations without proof. At this point it sometimes seems like every player is under suspicion, whether that's fair or not. And believe me, there has been speculation about just about everyone in the game. But without solid documentation or sources regarding that sort of thing, it would be completely irresponsible for me or any other journalist to posit that David Ortiz (or any player) might have used performance enhancers. That's not to say that journalists (myself included) shouldn't be asking those difficult questions, on the record and off, but the determination that a player has been guilty of using is not easily come by.

Hi Amalie. Are the Sox even a little concerned about the number of stolen bases they give up? Putting the Carl Crawford game aside -- no one can seem to stop him -- we have backup catchers getting their first career stolen base against us and have to lead the league in giving up uncontested thefts. A caught stealing can be such a lift to a pitcher or team to get out of an inning and the Sox seem to act as if it doesn't matter.
Michael, Austin, Tex.

A: The Sox do care about stolen bases -- sometimes. But the team has decided, apparently, that there are times when it would rather the pitchers concentrate on the hitter in the batter's box rather than the runner on the bases. This works in some cases, and proves fatal in others. It's clearly a major problem for the team in terms of sheer numbers. Neither catcher is throwing anyone out (or almost anyone) and it's allowing runners to wreak havoc on the basepaths. To get this out of the way, runners are always going to steal on Tim Wakefield, and they're almost always going to be successful. That's just a fact of George Kottaras's life. Jon Lester, though, has an excellent pick-off move, and shouldn't give up that many steals. Brad Penny's leg kick does make him a bit slower to the plate, which didn't help when Carl Crawford got his six steals against the Sox. In other words, there are times when it truly makes more sense for the Sox to make sure the hitter doesn't reach, at the risk of allowing a steal. But the team has also allowed far too many baserunners to have their way on the bases, the result partly of that philosophy, partly of some bad throws from the catchers (more Jason Varitek, since Kottaras has a shot at catching someone more rarely), and partly of slower times to the plate by a couple of pitchers. Hey Amalie. From one eye-glasses wearer to the other, thanks for responding to great questions on Ortiz. I was just thinking the other day about bat speed -- and how Big Papi's seems behind even against the most modest of fastballs. I also was thinking about how Mike Lowell, the year before the Sox traded for him, was described as having a swing that had slowed down so drastically that people thought he was done. My question is, how did he turn it around? He was roughly the same age as Ortiz is now and I can't help but believe that Papi may very well do the same thing -- figure it out. I just hope it happens before the fans and team give up on him in the way the Marlins did with Lowell.
Jon B., Brooklyn, N.Y.

A: I talked to Mike Lowell the other day about this topic. Lowell -- as well as many other people I've spoken to -- said that so much of a slump like this is mental. A player looks up at his batting average and sees that it's not where he wants it to be, and he can't help but press. Whether or not David Ortiz's skills have completely eroded, he is pressing, which is never going to help him. Lowell said that he couldn't relax during his bad season because, even after he might go 3 for 4, his batting average was still awful. He didn't relax once that season (2005), until September, when he finally knew that it wouldn't matter. At that point he knew his average was shot, his home run total was shot, his statistics overall were shot. He wasn't going to be happy with them no matter how he finished the season. So he finally felt like he stopped trying too hard, and was able to carry that into the following year. Lowell also said he doesn't believe that the problem is Ortiz's bat speed slowing, or his eyesight, or any of the other issues suggested for the dramatic falloff in Ortiz's production. He might be right. He might not be. You are correct, though, Lowell was able to bounce back from a terrible year when many thought his career was over (see also Jones, Andruw). So there might be hope yet.

Amalie, I recently saw 2007 footage of David Ortiz. Could his "expanded" midsection be interfering with him getting the bat through on those inside pitches ? Keep up the ever-improving writing and NESN work.
Jim S., Wayland

A: Jim, David Ortiz is actually smaller than he was last season. He came into spring training having definitely lost weight. He looked great, which was part of the reason that many people felt he would get off to a good start this year. Clearly that hasn't panned out.

Hi Amalie. When do you foresee the Red Sox making a long-term change at DH for David Ortiz if his struggles continue? Would you expect the Sox to seek a low-risk / high-reward option, sort of a hitter equivalent of John Smoltz or Brad Penny? Have you heard any specific names to date? Keep up the great work!
Randy, Brookline

A: Thanks, Randy. David Ortiz is signed through next season with an option for 2011. With his current production and salary ($12.5 million for this year and next), he's virtually untradeable, and the Sox will have to pay out his entire salary for the next two years. Because of this, the Sox are likely to stay with him longer than quite a few fans would like. They will do everything they can to jump-start his offense, including sitting him for the Seattle series, as we saw. One home run certainly doesn't mean he's back, but it can't hurt, and the Sox will take it. If the right player comes along -- a la Mark Teixeira -- the Sox will find the money for him, though it would be extremely hard to swallow having Ortiz and that salary on the bench. So we could certainly see a low-risk signing or trade as a backup to potentially split some time there. We could also see J.D. Drew and Mike Lowell get more time at DH, depending on the production from Mark Kotsay. All in all, it's a very difficult position for the Sox to be in, given the money involved.

Hey Amalie -- Love your stuff. Maybe I missed some of the discussion, but how are the Sox going to use Daniel Bard this season? The team doesn't seem to have a need for set-up men or a closer, obviously . . . so, long relief?
Matt, Columbia, Mo.

A: Daniel Bard might go a few innings in an outing, though long relief would seem to be wasting his talents. I think as he settles into the big leagues, you might see him as part of that late-inning rotation, though it makes sense for the Sox to ease him in. Terry Francona always talks about his regret at misusing Cla Meredith, and the fallout from that, so he is very reluctant to use him in huge situations right away. He hasn't exactly been lights-out so far in the majors. But if Bard proves himself, as I believe he will, he is probably the team's next closer. That's a bit away, of course.

Amalie, Smoltz is progressing in his rehab and really starting to look like he will be able to contribute in mid-June. The question is, where do the Sox put him? Does he go into the rotation to form a six-man rotation, or is he placed into an already crowded bullpen? Thanks.
Nate, Chicago

A: Nate, he'll be in the rotation. The Sox will move some pieces around -- possibly including a trade of Brad Penny -- to find a spot for John Smoltz in the five-man rotation. The Sox have said definitively that Smoltz will not go to the bullpen (where they don't really need him, either).

Though Nick Green made a two-out throwing error to keep the inning going, the run Ramon Ramirez gave up in the ninth inning against Seattle was listed as an earned run in the box score. Why was that?
Larry, Tell City, Ind.

A: The ruling was that it was a single, with the hitter (Ronny Cedeno) going to second on the error. That's why the run was earned. The ruling was actually changed after it was initially called a two-base error.

This may sound crazy, but how does the team travel? Charter? Commercial? Team plane?
Bobby T., Cleveland, Miss.

A: The Sox travel on a charter when they go on the road.

I'm relocated New Englander out in the Midwest. Your columns are great source for Red Sox news and updates. Do the Red Sox beat writers fly with on team charter flights? Especially the Globe writers, since the Globe’s parent company, the New York Times, is minority owner of the team?
Butch, Columbia, Mo.

A: Nope. Sox beat writers (all of them) flew on the charters many years ago, but that's no longer the case. We all fly commercial (or drive or take the train). As for the perception that the Globe writers get anything extra -- whether that be in terms of flying on team planes or getting extra insight or information -- that's absolutely not true. I have the same access to the players and front office as the Herald writers or the Providence Journal writers or the WEEI writers. It's all the same.

Hi Amalie, I know there has been a lot of talk about extending Jason Bay or signing Matt Holliday for next season, but I'm wondering what Carl Crawford's contract status is? I know he's the longest tenured Ray, but I think he might fit nicely hitting lead-off and playing left field. He seems to be tremendous at getting on base and he's obviously a pain once he's on. Ellsbury's still struggling with a low OBP and there's always room for another speed threat. Thanks!
Hank, Victoria, B.C. A: The Rays have a 2010 club option on Carl Crawford at $10 million with a $1.25 million buyout. They also had a 2009 club option, which they obviously exercised.

Hi Amalie. With Clay Buchholz looking more ready every day, Daisuke Matsuzaka’s shoulder strengthening, and Smoltz looking to kick the door open in mid-June, Penny would appear to be the odd man out of the rotation as we move into summer. Have you heard anything about trade talks involving him? My guess would be they'll try to move him to an NL team for a catching prospect, as they did with David Wells a few years back. No one's really running away with their division over there, especially now that Manny is suspended, so I would think that there's a pretty good market for a guy like Penny who's not expensive, has shown he's healthy, and has a decent big-league résumé. Maybe in a package for that Montero kid with Arizona people were talking about in the offseason? Are you aware of any other NL catching prospects who might fit the bill?
Max, Montpellier, France

A: Brad Penny easily could be the odd man out when the Sox have to clear space for John Smoltz. Smoltz is starting his rehab clock this week, so he'll have three weeks to return to the roster, barring another injury/setback. But Penny can't be traded until June 15, as a free agent signee with the Sox, so there is still some time to sort out what the Sox have at the moment, and what they'll have going forward. Buchholz is the big question. He started out the season on an incredible run, and though his scoreless innings streak ended in his last start, he still has been extremely impressive from spring on. Depending on how Penny pitches over his next couple of outings, if he continues his progress (including a very good start on Wednesday) versus reverting back to what he showed at the beginning of the season, he'll have some moderate value. Don't expect anything overwhelming in return, unless he was packaged, as you said. There's still a good couple of weeks before any of this can start to get done, time in which things can most certainly change.

Amalie, enjoy the bag. Ever thought about going weekly, so Saux fans in the heart of Bama country can get a more regular fix? My questions involve injuries. First the Sox seem more hesitant than most to disable players (i.e. Youklis) and instead play shorthanded. Given Beckett's oblique and other players with similar injuries, shouldn't they have known better? Next, no other way to say it, but is J.D. a baby? He seems to sprint to the DL or bench with the slightest injuries.
Mike R., Huntsville, Ala.

A: Mike, I'd love to go weekly, but there's just not enough time in the day to do weekly mailbags (as I sit here writing the 'bag on my day off). I think we were all surprised that the Sox didn't disable Kevin Youkilis earlier, given that they eventually were forced to do it anyway. It seemed clear that they could benefit from another player, and that Youkilis might not make it back in just a few days. The thinking was that if he could make it back within a week, the Sox would rather have not lost him for a second week when he would have been healthy. I think that move is directly affected by the fact that David Ortiz has been so weak offensively. If he were swinging the bat like he has in the past, it's certainly possible that the Sox would have been more apt not to worry about the loss of Youkilis's offense. As for J.D. Drew, I think calling him a "baby" is unfair. Drew has decided that it's not worth it to the team to play when he's less than 100 percent, and especially when he feels there's someone on the bench that is healthier and could provide better production. He is just not going to play through the type of pain that some other players play through.

I'm sure you are frequently contacted (stalked?) by Red, but I was wondering if you could give Surviving Grady a shout-out for winning the Best New England Sports Blog last week. The award was presented by TruFan.com. Thanks!
Tom D. (a.k.a. "Denton" from SurvivingGrady.com.)

A: I'd be happy to. Anyone not reading Surviving Grady should be reading it. It's funny and well written, neither of which are easy. Congrats, guys.