By Chad Finn, Boston.com Columnist

Realized the other day that it's been about three years since I last pulled together a mailbag. Not sure why I got away from it -- they're always fun to do, and I'm inexcusably awful at staying on top of email these days, so I figure this is a good way to catch up on some of it. Other questions arrived via Twitter as well as outtakes from the Friday chat. We'll do another one before 2016, I promise. In the meantime, let's get to it, and keep the questions coming ...

Beyond the fact that it is creepy do you have a problem with sportswriters jumping all over themselves to document the increase in body mass of Bryce Harper and Mike Trout? I get that it is a "story" in the sense that these are two of the biggest stars in baseball, but at the same time if these writers were reading stories written in this manner that were published back in 1998 there would be a chorus of "we should have known betters". Are "BEST SHAPE OF THEIR CAREER" stories really that enticing? Or just that easy? -- Neil (DC)

"Best shape of their career" is of course one of the great recurring cliches of spring training, at least unless you're talking about Felix Doubront, aka Southpaw Guapo. The guys at "Hardball Talk'' especially have a great bit of fun with that particular spring-training narrative, and it's understandable, but in the case of Trout in particular, it's actually a worthwhile storyline. He came in at 241 pounds, which is huge given that he's a rangy center fielder and one of the most electric and efficient basestealers we've ever seen. For someone coming off a historically brilliant rookie season, it's a bit jarring to see him make such a drastic change to his physique. His first year was so incredible that it's a reasonable to ask whether he will ever have a better one. If he slips a bit this year -- and as Baseball Prospectus's Ben Lindbergh writes today, it's reasonable to expect that he will -- there will be questions about his offseason workout regimen, whether that's fair or not.

Chad, the likelihood of all the things you say in your Unconventional Preview column today that need to happen for the Red Sox to be a winning team actually happening is remote. Like winning the lottery remote.
-- Your Name

Sure. But I don't think all of those things -- everyone staying healthy, the Victorino/Napoli/Drew newbies bouncing back, Buchholz and Lester thriving -- will happen. But I think it's reasonable to expect that, oh, half of it does. And if Lester finds his old form but Buchholz can't stay healthy, Victorino hits like he did in '11 while Napoli needs a walker by midseason, Ellsbury is an MVP candidate while Papi gets hurt, that sort of split -- they still have a chance to be pretty good.Everything went wrong last year. They won 18 of their final 60 games. They lacked more than talent. They lacked competence. They will be much better in both regards this season.

Hope you're right with your prediction of 87 wins [for the Red Sox]. Maybe it's the pre-2004 in me popping up, but I'm not so optimistic. I'm old and old-school when it comes to baseball, and a shortstop who can save 50 runs a year really appeals to me. I should not judge Stephen by J.D., but I drew my conclusions by watching the former No. 7 and having him on a few Rotisserie teams. Except for the grand slam [in the 2007 ALCS against the Indians], of course, almost as big a hit as David Ortiz's homer in the first inning of Game 7 vs. the Yankees.
-- Peter S.

If Iglesias saves 50 runs over the course of a season, he will be the greatest defensive shortstop in the history of baseball, bar none. Brendan Ryan -- a decent comp for what Iglesias might ultimately become -- led the majors in Defensive Runs Saved by a shortstop last year ... with 27. Iglesias's sensational defense simply will not compensate for his wet noodle bat at this point. Give Drew a chance. If his ankle is right, he'll be capable at shortstop and an asset in the lineup.

I agree with your feelings on a trade involving either Paul Pierce or Kevin Garnett for guys with questionable attitudes. It's just incredibly frustrating as a Celtics fan to see this team continue to fail to get a decent true center. Garnett doesn't count. He's told you he's really a 4; and at age 36 I think he might collapse from exhaustion banging around at the 5, basically by himself. I like Danny Ainge, but am I crazy to say he has completely failed in this regard? The best center we've had since Perk has been a 39-year-old Shaq. Is it really that hard?
-- Bob P.

You know ... it kind of is that hard. The results haven't been great, but given how challenging it is to fill in a roster already dotted with highly-compensated stars, I have no problem with the process. Trying to wring a little more high-quality play out of Shaq, Rasheed Wallace, and even Jermaine O'Neal as complementary players to the Garnett-Pierce-Allen-Rondo core made a lot of sense. It was something Red would have done, and did, with players like Pete Maravich, Bill Walton, Scott Wedman, or the Lakers with a guy like Bob McAdoo. It just didn't happen to work, but because it's so difficult to find a decent big man -- I mean, Michael Olowakandi was a No. 1 overall pick, Todd Fuller went ahead of Kobe Bryant, and on and on -- that it seems the best way to go is to take that risk on a player who actually has accomplished some things.

No longer sold that Jose Iglesias is the shorttop of the future. He is more likely the next Rey Ordonez. I say let Drew man the job until Xander Bogaerts is ready, because he is the SS of the future. Or until they convert Will Middlebrooks to 1B and Bogaerts to 3B, when Deven Marerro is ready at SS. Either way, Iglesias is not the answer. If he can't hit AAA pitching after 2 years, he's a lost cause.
-- Peter G.

I don't know that he's a lost cause. While comparing him to Ozzie Smith or Alan Trammell at the same age, as his defenders have done, simply does not work (Ozzie was in the majors after one minor league season, and Trammell hit .300 at age 22 in his third full season). And anyone who thinks being the next Rey Ordonez is a compliment was familiar with him only from Web Gems. He had a .600 OPS in the majors -- miserable, and yet better than Iglesias's in Triple A after two years. I suppose there's a glimmer of hope in the Omar Vizquel comps -- he had just a .598 OPS in Triple A. But the hunch here is he gets passed by Bogaerts, and with Deven Marrero getting a chance to advance quickly, it's now or never for Iglesias with the Red Sox.

Given the media's recent (last two seasons) predictions of grandeur, why exactly should The Nation listen now that they predict A Bridge To Nowhere?
-- BigONo

Depends who you're listening to in the media. Lot of reasonable voices out there who explain their thinking -- PeteAbe, Gordon Edes, Alex Speier, and many others. I try to be among them. The "Best Team Ever'' stuff is the work of headline writers trying to get you to buy the paper. Be discerning in who you read and who you believe. Also, read and believe me, always.

I enjoy your coverage of the radio wars. While I listen to both stations the question I have is why is Jason Wolfe not taking a huge hit for WEEI?s troubles? A lot of this is on him and his decisions.
-- Howard F.

Been getting this question a lot lately, for obvious reasons. Jason played a huge role in WEEI's success, and also contributed to the institutional arrogance that put them into their current position. But I think he is taking a huge hit -- he had to fire Glenn Ordway, someone with whom he had a long, successful, lucrative run, and presumably someone who is a good friend. That couldn't have been easy, and it won't be his last difficult task. If he does survive this, and I actually believe he should, some of the burden should be off him. These recent decisions are on Jeff Brown, Entercom Boston's VP market manager and Jason's boss, and if they don't work beyond saving a few bucks, he deserves as much heat as Jason is receiving.

When I look back on Celts after 1st Big 3, I see Len Bias, Reggie Lewis and a bum lottery ping-pong ball. Can't the Celts hope for better draft luck next time around?
-- Duncan

It's certainly overdue -- perhaps sending someone other than M.L. Carr and his lousy just-tanked-for-this-chance karma would be a better idea this time. (Who was the lottery rep in the Greg Oden/Kevin Durant year? It was Wyc, right?) Sheesh, the first time around they weren't even lucky enough to get Keith Van-Bleepin' Horn. But the history of the post-Big Three Celtics is often retold without enough of an emphasis on Reggie Lewis's death. Len Bias was incredible, but given how many players in that '86 draft washed out because of drugs, who's to say that wouldn't have been his fate had he survived past the night after the draft? Reggie, though ... we already knew what we had and what he could be. It didn't go straight from Larry Bird to Dominique Wilkins, you know? Also: Ainge would have totally taken Durant.

Gun to your head, which game 7 are you taking back; Lakers in 2010 or Miami last year? Banner 18 or the chance to say you beat the team nobody said you could beat and that pill LeBron doesnt have a ring. I think I'm taking Miami. Thoughts?
-- Jake

Lakers. No doubt. None. If Perk had been healthy ... if Doc had given Nate Robinson a few extra minutes ... If Artest's cheap-shot on Ray Allen earlier in the series hadn't mess up his quad ... If Sheed didn't run out of gas ... If Artest's heave doesn't drop ...If KG didn't get out-rebounded by 15 by Pau Gasol, and yes, I feel horrible for bringing it up ... those are the ifs you've got to live with. LeBron? I have the utmost respect for the way he plays the game. Game 6 was the pivotal performance of his career, and in retrospect, it's starting to feel inevitable. Plus, that Celtics team overachieved.

RANDOM LaSCHELLE TARVER INTERLUDE

END OF RANDOM LaSCHELLE TARVER INTERLUDE

Are you still convinced the Sox are going to trade Andrew Bailey? I never understood your logic. He was hurt most of last year, and had 7.04 ERA. Talk about selling low.
-- Todd

Not so much, in part because there will probably be attrition, and also because I haven't heard a peep about him wanting to close elsewhere. (Doesn't hurt that Bruce Rondon is hitting 100 miles per hour in Tigers camp, either.) But it still wouldn't completely surprise me -- there were rumors he was headed to Toronto as compensation for John Farrell before it ended up being Mike Aviles.

The Aaron Hernandez deal seemed smart at the time. It was the exact thing they didn't do with other guys (Vince Wilfork, Logan Mankins) that eventually got them into trouble. Doing Rob Gronkowski deal early certainly seemed smart too.

But did they swing too much to the other guardrail with Hernandez? Especially after they already locked up Gronkowski? Should they have waited for it to play out with Hernandez?

If they didn't do Hernandez deal early, he would be going into the last year of his rookie deal this year, at chump change.

What they gave him is more total dollars than it would take to keep Welker at this point, and the $16 million guaranteed dollars Hernandez got is probably in spitting distance of the guaranteed dollars Welker would want at this point. Same for the $8 million a year Hernandez is getting.

Anyway if you had to have one guy next year, Welker or Hernandez who would it be? in my opinion, hands down, Welker.
-- Larry

Interesting take. Hernandez is so talented and versatile, but he's lost some luster because of his struggles to stay on the field and his inconsistency in big games. (Is that fair? I think that's fair.) But given the choice right now, I take Hernandez without a second thought. He's just 23, and his best days should be ahead. No matter where Welker signs or the amount he signs for, at 32, there's no denying he'll be getting paid for past performance rather than what he is likely to be. Welker should have a couple more highly productive seasons ahead. I hope the Pats keep him. But forced to make a choice between one or the other, there's not really a choice at all.

Ever wonder what your demographic is for the chat? Might be interesting to put that up as a question (ie, are you 18-34, 34-50, etc.) Might be risky for you though. :)
-- DMV

Tend to think my demo is roughly my age group or younger, extraordinarily handsome, and generally much smarter than me. I suspect there's pretty decent demographic appeal there than, say, what you'd find in the comments section of a Bleacher Report slideshow.

I can't be the only one who thinks that Big Papi plays in less than 81 games this year.
-- Jackie

Beginning to think the same way, Jackie. He's 37, admitted recently that there was a partial tear in the Achilles' has played one game since last July 16, and doesn't exactly look like he was addicted to cardio (for understandable reasons) this offseason. He was great when healthy last year, but it's hard to fathom right now that he has 150 games or so ahead of him this year.

Alfonso Soriano is available from Cubs with significant salary relief. His OPS '10-12 .816/.754/.815. Jonny Gomes in the same span: .749/.704/.853. Worth a shot?
-- Thom H.

Meh. He did hit 32 homers last year, but he's redundant with Gomes. Maybe if he hit lefthanded. Actually wonder if he ends up with the Yankees since Curtis Granderson is out for a couple of months. Brian Cashman has denied it, which sometimes foreshadows it actually happening. By the way, I refuse to believe Soriano is 37. I still think of him as the young fella in the Yankees lineup who couldn't hit Pedro's breaking ball even if he had one of those giant red plastic bats.

How do you see Jeff Demps fitting into the Patriots offense next year?
-- Eric M.

Honestly, no clue. He obviously has electric speed and should be what they desperately need in the kicking game, but he's coming off a redshirt season and needed to put on some weight after making the transition from Olympic sprinter. Seems like overall expectations are higher than they should be. He was productive at Florida, but let's not anoint him the second coming of Percy Harvin until he, you know, actually plays some football. What did he have, three catches last preseason?

Every time I see a writer take a shot at Bobby Valentine, I'm reminded of a quote from "Married with Children"--"If you give a gun to a chimp, and the chimp shoots someone, don't blame the chimp." Thanks for 2012, Larry Lucchino!
-- Studio 00

Obviously. What you should do is name the chimp athletic director. Standard procedure.

When I started piecing together this angry maelstrom of a semi-mailbag Monday night, I was beginning to wonder if I was the Last Rational Baseball Fan in New England.

My cries from atop my creaky soapbox that these disappointing Red Sox, coming off a three-game sweep to the Baltimore Orioles, were too talented to continue to fail were drowned out by the wails of an aggrieved majority.

(Completely unnecessary early digression here, but the Orioles, despite a hideous start, aren't the pathetic sad-sack operation they're being made out to be. They have a nice core of potential cornerstones -- Jones, Markakis, Wieters, Matusz -- and they absolutely will finish ahead of Toronto. Though Garrett Atkins does kinda stink. Agree there.)

I believe TATB readers tend to be more thoughtful, informed and grounded than the typical three-Bud Lights-and-a-screechy-call-to-Ordway type, so it was a little disconcerting to watch them abandon the bandwagon before May was a week old. According to my e-mail inbox (and Twitter account, and Facebook page), Sox fans not only were racing to declare this team a lost cause, but they were racing to say they saw it coming before anyone else.

While it was disappointing, I understood it to a degree. The Sox had been stunningly inept, they have a new, relatively unfamiliar additions to the cast who need to win over the fandom, their two rivals in the division have been terrific, and Theo Epstein's offseason mantras of "run prevention" and "the bridge" -- sources of skepticism from the moment the words rolled out of his mouth -- had become full-blown talking points of mockery and derision.

Yeah, that's right -- had. Past tense. Maybe I'm still exuding too much optimism here for the entitled and short-sighted bleacher cynics, but I do still expect those with faith to be rewarded to some degree by this team when October comes around. The postseason remains a reasonable goal. We've seen encouraging signs since the Baltimore debacle -- two straight wins over the Angels, the team that ended their 2009 season, some thump from various sources in the lineup (will you please give Adrian Beltre a chance?), a third straight sterling start from Jon Lester. It's not all good, but they're getting there.

It's probably not fair that I'm addressing the negative mail now. It may even seem disingenuous, coming after two victories. But you know how slowly I roll -- I started this post four days ago, and I'm not about to abandon it now.

All facetiousness aside, I suspect the small progress of the last couple of days doesn't change the perspective of the stubborn doubters who are convinced a 6.5-game deficit in the division to a very good Rays team with 135 games to play is too steep to overcome.

But we're sticking to our positive approach anyway. Let's get to the questions and comments . . .

The first game of the season I predicted [you will have to confirm with my brother] that the Sox will miss the playoffs this year. . . . This team hits when the pitching stinks and doesn’t hit when the pitching is good. The vaunted defense stinks. If you’re an opposing pitcher, does a regular outfield of Cameron, Drew, and Ellsbury scare you? There is not one power guy there and then throw in Papi and there are many holes here in relation to the Yankees and the Rays. All in all I don’t see progression or improvement in the roster or the players on it in that many are on the decline. . . . They are built for Fenway and that is it. There is no speed sans Ellsbury and there is no big bopper in the lineup. Dice-K is a colossal waste of $ . . .

I am 48 years old and I remember the times before 2004 and I am not the newfangled breed. This ownership group is very good but to think this team as constituted is a playoff team will be born out. -- Ken M.

I should note that this reader went on to note that he doesn't much like the Beckett signing, he's not sold on Buchholz, and kids these days, will all their video games and roller skates and other gadgets of the devil, they have it too easy, and . . . HEY, YOU LITTLE PUNK, GET OFF MY LAWN! (OK, just the Beckett/Buchholz stuff is true.)

As for the other gripes, let's go to the always trusty bullet points to respond:

If you missed our chat last Friday, you didn't miss much -- that is, unless you're into trainwrecks, epic disasters, public humiliations of moderately clued-in, semi-coherent sportswriters, and that sort of perverse stuff.

A quick and whiny recap: The questions didn't load. Then I couldn't see the answers. Then I turned into Fluto Shinzawa, at least according to the screen name. (OK, that part was a little bit liberating.) Then Cover It Live crashed totally. Then came the sobbing and whimpering and heaving. As you probably know, only that last part is usually included in my Friday routine.

If my year-old HD television hadn't blown out Sunday -- I suspect the doomed Samsung was as sick of watching the Patriots as I was -- the chat debacle might have been the most annoying thing to happen to me this week. Did I mention we bought the TV at Circuit City? At least returning it should be a breeze. (What?)

As usual I've drowned the actual point in blather. At last, here it is: Taking a cue from a fine football writer I once knew, I managed to salvage the unused questions from the chat. The numbers tell me I allegedly answered 28 of 222 on Friday, or roughly 12.612 percent.

Analysis: I'm stunned nearly 800 people stuck around for a chat that was clearly becoming nothing but a nitwit's confused monologue, the online equivalent of a hack comedian tapping a microphone and saying, "Is this thing on?"

So the least I can do is actually answer some of the questions here, in sort of a mailbag/chat/column combo. Hey, it's not like I have a decent TV to watch or anything.

(One last digression: We had to dig out our ancient non-HD model for the time being, the one with the tint problem that makes everyone look like they have hepatitis. When my 3-year-old woke up this morning, tuned in to Nick Jr. before school, and noticed the color issues, he immediately shot me a concerned look and said, "Daddy, you won't be able to watch the Red Sox -- everything is yellow!" I know, I know, it'd be cuter if your kid said it.)

Let's kick this sucker off with one massive answer to three Patriots questions, all of which apply to both last week's disheartening loss and this week's disheartening loss . . .

I am wondering if the Patriots' second-half collapses are due in some part to other teams' coaches continuing to adjust to the Patriots' adjustments. I still think Belichick is a genius but I am wondering if these up-and-coming young head coaches are starting to know what he knows and his knowledge/ideas aren't so innovative anymore. Like he's becoming a version of old-school or something. The resurgence of the Wildcat that we couldn't handle in the beginning of the season is one example. I'm not really explaining this well, but do you know what I mean and what do you think? -- Gracie

One problem with the Pats D is the lack of leadership, don't you think? That and Adalius Thomas being a bust, of course. -- Chris

Hey Chad, the problem with the Pats, in my opinion, is they have had substantial turnover in their front office/coaching staff the last few years and I think it's starting to catch up to them; the assistant coaches are inexperienced and it spreads BB too thin, why not bring Weis back to lesson the load for BB and also bring some ingenuity back to what I believe is a predictable offense (shotgun: long overthrown ball to Moss or dump off to Welker-handoff to Maroney up the middle of off tackle) Your thoughts? -- Kenny

Again: All of these questions came in (obviously) before the Miami game, but they're relevant since many of the problems from the Saints debacle were again evident -- and even magnified -- this Sunday.

Anyway, the short answer is that I'm with Bert Breer on this -- the defensive issues are due to an utter lack of a pass rush more than anything else.

I know I'm in the minority today, but I think Darius Butler and Jonathan Wilhite are going to be good cornerbacks. Wilhite reminds me somewhat of Asante Samuel in 2003-04, when he seemed to be just close enough in coverage to look like he almost made a play while getting burned. To expect them to cover receivers for five seconds or more because no one is getting within an arm's length of the quarterback, well, that's an impossible task even against the Hennes of the world.

(Keeping Seymour and Vrabel, by the way, would not have been the answer to the pass rush. Every time I've seen the Raiders, Seymour has been hard to find even when you're looking for him. And it's OK to admit it: Vrabel was declining before our eyes last year.)

As for the guy in the hoodie . . .

Maybe Belichick isn't quite as sharp or devious or singleminded as he was a decade ago, when he had so much more to prove and his legacy was that of a defensive mastermind who failed in his shot as a head coach (Parcells reportedly was not shy about reminding him about this); his legacy is secure now as one of the greatest coaches in the sport's history, and it's natural for him to be less hungry, even if it's a subconscious thing.

I'm not saying that is definitely the case, but I do agree that maybe he is spread too thin, particularly when it comes to the offense. If you can tell me what Bill O'Brien's offensive expertise is other than apparently saying, "What the hell, let's chuck it deep!" on the third and 6, please, clue me in. But for all of the caterwauling today after two straight ugly losses, I challenge you to name a coach you'd rather have leading them out of this mess than Belichick. I thought so.

What the hell am I going to do now? -- Charlie Weis

What are you going to do? Here's exactly what you're going to do:

When you see that 617 area code pop up on the caller ID, and it's your old buddy Bill on the other end of the line, and he mentions getting band back together, he's not talking about Bon Jovi, OK? Hop in the Cadillac, stop to pick up ol' Romeo along the way, and be here by, oh, 1 p.m. next Sunday.

And when a guy who is dressed like a GQ model and looks like he might have cuddled a goat or two along the way hugs you like you're a Brazilian supermodel or something, don't be alarmed. That's Tommy. He might have changed a little, but trust us: He's really, really missed you lately.

if you were Theo, and money were available for a game-changing trade or acquisition, who would you sign? -- SAJ

Well, that's tough to answer directly because the free agent market is so thin that the two biggest names are obviously Jason Bay and Matt Holliday, and since they are so similar, signing one or the other is basically the status quo from last year. Plus, the level of compensation in a trade also has to be taken into consideration. But all things being relatively equal, I'd put Felix Hernandez and Adrian Gonzalez at 1 and 1A of any and all names that we've heard.

And as I've written 10 times if I've written it once, the steep price is worth paying for players of that magnitude.

Casey Kelly -- who, as Peter Abraham reports, has decided to pitch full time -- and Ryan Westmoreland are terrific prospects, but again, you just don't know. You don't. You're going to make me do it again, aren't you? OK, I'll do it again -- I'm grabbing a random old Baseball America Prospects Handbook here and rattling off their Top 10 prospects in the game from that year.

Here goes, from the 2005 Handbook (with Delmon Young on the cover). This is BA founder Allan Simpson's list:

1. Joe Mauer. OK, decent start to the rankings, I'll grant you.
2. Delmon Young. Career .322 OBP.
3. Felix Hernandez. Not helping my point whatsoever here, King.
4. Joel Guzman. Point helped. A complete and epic bust, rated 10 spots below Hanley Ramirez,
5. Rickey Weeks. Talented kid. Injuries happen.
6. Scott Kazmir
7. Ian Stewart
8. Lastings Milledge
9. Casey Kotchman
10. Jeff Francouer.

And these are the alleged can't-miss guys. I don't believe Kelly, whom the consensus seems to view as a No. 2 starter, and Westmoreland, who is still in A ball and has had injury problems, are viewed in that regard. Hey, Lars Anderson was a year ago, and all it took was one lousy season in Double A to damage his status.

The Red Sox in the Epstein Era have an excellent track record of separating their true prospects from the minor-league mirages, but it's safe to say there are no Mauers or King Felixes in the system right now; everyone should be available for someone like Hernandez. All but the most elite prospects are nothing more than lottery tickets. Lottery tickets. You have to trade them for the sure payout when you can.

Scutaro may be no great shakes, but there's something exciting about waking up to discover the Sox have a new everyday position player, no? -- Booyah

Oh, sure, absolutely, even if the Red Sox's press release earlier Friday that they would have a "major announcement" later in the day certainly stretched the boundaries of the phrase. Matt Holliday or Roy Halladay = major announcements. Marco Scutaro, at least in a well-balanced baseball universe, is a couple of paragraphs leading a Red Sox notebook and a line in the transactions.

But even with a less-than-major signing, I'm always a sucker for the little dog and pony show. You have to love it when the new guy awkwardly tries on new jersey over the dress shirt and puts on the Jimy Williams-stiff hat; it makes it seem like the new season isn't that far away.

My favorite, and here's the evidence, is the Manny presser right around Christmas in 2000. What was his comment? "I guess I hate the Yankees now?" Not sure anyone bought that even then, but it was a few months before they acquired his buddy Enrique Wilson.

OK, let's narrow down the teams the Red Sox will pay to take Marco Scuturo in 2011 ...-- Patrick

Ouch. You know, while I'm somewhat wary of signing a 33-year-old shortstop who has had one above-average statistical season in the six in which he's played more than 100 games -- and a 33-year-old shortstop who had to convince you in a workout that he was healthy before you signed him -- I really don't mind this deal for a couple of reasons.

It's a much, much more favorable contract than, say, the Julio Lugo money pit, and at worst (and if he remains healthy), he'll work the count, draw some walks, and field the position well. He is a better all-around player than Alex Gonzalez. And that the A's, for whom he played for four seasons, apparently outbid the Sox is a telling sign that there might be more to Scutaro than meets the eye.

Of course, that last sentence is also a crucial part of the David Eckstein Is An Adorably Good Player And I Don't Care What Your Calculator Says argument. My apologies. That sort of thing happens when you talk yourself into approving of a signing.

So Allen Iverson returns to the team he had a messy divorce with on the same day Ron Artest admits he used to drink at halftime. Then, Tim Donaghy says he didn't even need to rig games because the referees were so predictably biased. How much does David Stern love his job right now? -- GreasyWindow

Now that you mention it, I'm starting to wonder if he had someone bust Greg Oden's knee just as a distraction. I'll never understand why the Donaghy story isn't a bigger deal; maybe it's because people don't trust him, maybe it's because there is indifference about the NBA, maybe it's just that it's been assumed for years that the refs are crooked. But if this happened in the NFL or MLB, we'd never hear the end of it.

By the way, I'm too cynical -- or realistic -- to feel bad for professional athletes, but Oden, a likable, determined person cursed with either a brittle body or awful luck, is an exception. Being a Blazers center is the equivalent of . . . well, I'm trying to resist another "Spinal Tap" drummers reference here, but you get this gist. Walton, Bowie, now Oden. Heck, even Kevin Duckworth, who died much too young.

Please tell me I'm not the only guy who says, OK Tiger cheated, lets see what he cheated with!! OK she is at least hot, because if she was so-so, then I would be really mad at him.

In that case, I'm guessing you were downright enraged at Steve Phillips.

Chad, Bay versus Holliday, Aren't the Sox going to wind up settling for whoever the Yankees don't sign? -- Bill from CT

If they're lucky. The worst-case scenario -- and the one I think is going to happen -- is that Bay signs in Anaheim or (most likely) Seattle, then the Yankees pull their usual stunt with yet another big-ticket Boras client who fills an NY need (Damon, Teixeira) and swoop in at the last minute to outbid everyone for Holliday.

I'm almost as convinced that he's going there as I was with Teixeira last December, and I challenge you to find a national baseball writer who saw that coming. If you're still skeptical about Holliday's desire to be in pinstripes, here's a comment from his father in The New York Times after Holliday was dealt from the Rockies to the A's last November:

“If someone would have called me today and said Matt had gotten traded to the Yankees, I’d have been hunting for a place to celebrate."

In a related note: Are you excited about a Hermida/Xavier Nady left field ticket in 2010?

chad, using the mindset of red sox ownership, do you think they have asked for the medical records of Bob Feller yet? -- michael

You'd think they'd have learned their lesson after Smoltz, Penny, and Bob Lemon didn't work out last year. Seriously, might my favorite line I've ever read in the chat, Michael. Congratulations -- your prize, a coveted Garry Hancock rookie card, is in the mail.

Your favorite Boston movie....Good Will Hunting, The Verdict, Eastwood's Mystic? Please don't say The Departed. I hated that one. -- Alex

What, no "Celtic Pride"? I'd probably go with "Good Will Hunting." I'll admit it, I think Affleck is a cool dude who has it all figured out, and it was so good not even Robin Williams could ruin it, though I pretty sure he still has no idea who Carlton Fisk is.

"The Departed" was too implausible at the end, Nicholson chewed scenery so shamelessly, even Al Pacino said, "Sheesh, tone it down, man. Hoo-HA!," and the Boston accents were atrocious (even Damon's was over the top) . . . but I still liked it quite a bit, though it's no "GoodFellas" by any stretch. DiCaprio convinced me he's legit in that movie, and I'll watch anything with Vera Farmiga, even though she sort of looks like Marilyn Manson's super-hot and popular sister.

The best truly Boston movie I have seen might be "Gone Baby Gone," though it was exceedingly depressing at the end. I told my wife the general plot and she has absolutely no interest in watching it even though it's been on our DVR for about a year.

What do you think Tito's nickname will be for Scutaro? I'm thinking Scoot, or 'Co. Or perhaps, Nick Green Ice. -- Pete

Tito sometimes throws a curveball with those. He called Alex Gonzalez "Gonzi" when everyone else was going with the logical "Gonzo," and it's always amused me that he's the only person on the planet who refers to Big Papi simply as "David."

I suspect for Scutaro, he'll go "Scoots," plural, just to mix it up. Though "Millsy" is another possibility. Even with Brad Mills in Houston, he'll never be able to quit that one cold turkey.

If Theo is unable to re-sign Bay and Holliday is either unavailable or unwilling to agree to a fair contract, would you be willing to give an Adrian Gonzalez-type trade package to the Brewers for Ryan Braun? -- CloakandSwagger

So if Theo calls Shapiro and offers to take Kerry Wood and his silly salary and offer back Ellsbury and Bowden, might Theo be able to get Grady Sizemore coming back to Boston too? -- Velvet Jones

Can't imagine the Brewers would trade Braun, Cloak. According to Cot's, he signed an eight-year, $45 million deal in May 2008, and isn't even making the big bucks yet; he's down for $1 million in '10, then that jumps to $4 million in '11 and $6 million the year after.

Given that his most similar player through age 25 is Manny (Braun has a pretty eclectic top 10, including Mike Greenwell, Fred Lynn, Vladimir Guerrero, and Danny Tartabull), I'd say he's going to be in scenic Milwaukee for the foreseeable future.

As for Sizemore, I've also wondered if he might be available, Velvet. He's coming off elbow and abdominal injuries that negatively affected his performance last season. He hit .248 and his slugging percentage and on-base percentage were career-lows in his five seasons as a starter.

Again, most if not all of that has to be fallout from the injuries, and at 26, it's logical that he'll bounce back. Even if he isn't exactly what he was before the dual surgeries, I can't see the club trading him, because he's still young -- just a year older than Jacoby Ellsbury -- and a total bargain. He's signed to a team-friendly six-year, $23.5 million deal through 2011, with a club option for $8.5 million in '12.

Does your wife ever get angry at you watching sports or can you watch it endlessly with no negative comments from her because she knows you can simply say, "It's my job; it puts food on the table!"? -- Michael

Let's just say that approach -- and I do break it out every now and then, usually when "I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant" is on -- is not nearly as effective as I'd hoped.

Chad, how about for this entire chat we all type in baby talk and you type in Elvis talk? Oaky-doaky Chaddi waddie? -- Peter

Chad is no longer in the building.

How awesome is the brand-new MLB Network? I'm watching a recap of the 1986 baseball season as I'm writing this, and they just showed noted TATB ombudsman and temporary major leaguer Rodney Craig sliding into home plate against the Red Sox. Yes, our Rodney! He was out, of course, but at least there's now proof that he actually existed.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure the MLB Network would spell doom for my marriage if I didn't already have some credit built up with Mrs. TATB for putting up with "What Not To Wear" and "The Biggest Loser" and the like for all these years. I realize it's early, but I'm already hooked, and I'm hopeful it will only continue to get better since there's no affiliation with ESPN. (I'm still infuriated at their gutting of ESPN Classic to make it an in-house promotional vehicle).

There is already so much to like. It is generous with using the archived footage -- there's been some classic Rice stuff this week that I've never seen -- and it features some innovative and compelling interactive analysis, whether it's Kevin Millar talking about hitting at Fenway while playing soft-toss with Harold Reynolds, or bringing in Tim Lincecum to demonstrate and discuss his quirky mechanics, or having Rickey Henderson and Reynolds teaching the art of stealing a base. The access is unprecedented, and they are utilizing it perfectly. You get the sense that the people behind this launch generally care about baseball and know precisely what fans want to see. Pretty refreshing stuff.

With that endorsement out of the way, let's check the mail . . .

Dear Mr. Finn -- If you think Jim Rice is unworthy of being voted into the Hall of Fame, then you're too young to remember. -- Coach Rahj.

Actually, a better argument would be that I'm so old that I forgot how good he was, but thanks for humoring me. Listen, as someone who fell in love with the Sox as an 8-year-old in '78, believe me when I say that I remember how great Rice was at his peak, 1977-79. The fan in me is thrilled that he made it into the Hall of Fame, and I've really enjoyed having some old memories refreshed by all of the tributes and remembrances of his career the last few days. (The story of him leaping into the stands to aid a young boy who had been bloodied by a foul ball really brought the feelings back regarding how kids my age perceived Rice as a real-life superhero during my childhood.) But it's also reminded me of some frustrating things about Rice -- the rally-killing double plays, the fact that he was never quite the same slugger after breaking his wrist in 1980, the sad realization in the late '80s that his skills were eroding at a rapid pace. I adored Jim Ed, and again, I'm thrilled he's in the Hall; it's been really cool to see just how giddy he is about it. But his final numbers and relatively short period of dominance will always make his inclusion debatable.

I don't think Rice quite has the numbers to get into the Hall, and I LOVED Jim Rice when I was growing up. In fact, he was my favorite player. Played hard. Played hurt. Played every day. Kept his mouth shut. And on top of that, his "non-clutch" reputation was not a deserved one--because of Bucky Dent, nobody remembers that Rice actually singled in the Sox' 2nd run off Guidry in the 6th inning of the '78 playoff, and because of Yaz's popup to Nettles, nobody remembers that Rice JUST MISSED driving a Gossage fastball into the Sox bullpen in the 9th for the game winning 3-run homer. Piniella caught the ball about 10 feet in front of the fence. I swear to this day that Rice missed hitting it into the bleachers by about 1/16th of an inch. -- Tony

God's honest truth here, Tony: I was watching the '78 playoff game a few years ago on ESPN Classic, I believe (you know, before it became the World Poker Tour 24-Hour Re-Run Channel), and when Rice just hammered that Gossage pitch, I yelped, "That's gone!" and nearly leaped out of my seat. For a brief moment, I guess I forgot that the outcome of the game wasn't going to change 20-something years later. But man, did he ever crush that ball, and you know what? Had it cleared the fence, he'd have been in the Hall of Fame 10 years ago. It woulda-coulda-shoulda been the defining moment in a big game that he never quite had.