Their success is going to ride on comebacks by Schilling and Foulke.

I guess the 2001-2002 offseason wasn't recent or questionable enough. For those with memories as short as Massarotti's, this was the one in which its three best players (Martinez, Garciaparra and Varitek) were all coming back from season-ending injuries, they had a new CF (Damon) who had yet to prove he could perform in a big market, a closer trying to convert himself into a starter (Lowe), and another starter coming back to the AL from the NL after a two-year absence (Burkett).

I would also add Nixon to the list of question marks. Can he stay healthy and hit as he did a few years ago?

I agree that there are some question marks.

I disagree that they depend on Schilling and Foulke. They could be very good without either of them throwing a pitch all season.

I also don't see the 85-95 win range. How are they possible 10 games worse than last year? Schilling and Foulke were essentially replacement level players last year, so I don't buy any dependence on them. They lost Damon, but Crisp put up offensive numbers last year equivalent to Damon's. Losing Renteria has to be a plus. I still hope that Pedroia will be starting by ASB at the latest. But even if it is Gonzalez, Renteria's offensive numbers last year, adjusted for park are not that much better than Gonzalez's. And the defense has to make up for any difference with the bat. Youk is almost guaranteed to be as good a hitter as Millar ws last year. Loretta is markedly better than Bellhorn was last year, both with the leather and the wood. If he gets hurt, we still have Graffanino. Lowell is the only real downside question mark in the positional players and he could be anything from much worse than Mueller to much better. But that is +- a few games. The entire rest of the starting lineup is either comparable to better replacements or the same players returning after non-exceptional years. The defense in CF may have gone down, but 3B/SS/2B/1B are all better.

The entire rotation is back from last year, none of whom had particularly good years, plus they added Beckett. He may not be the ace that some in RSN hope for, but he is certainly a marked improvement over Wade Miller last year. Papelbon starts the season as relief/7th starter (how many teams have a Papelbon quality 7th starter?), replacing Jeremi Gonzalez, another marked upgrade. The bullpen in general is a massive upgrade over last year, with both hot young arms and proven veterans. The only concern in the pen is a lack of a proven LOOGY.

Yet the media sees their upside as equalling last year. That seems more like the downside to me. Last year they won 95 games with 2 of their most important players (and 2 of the most reliably good players in the majors) collapsing and with only Mike Timlin having an unexpectedly good year.

The team that had the 3rd best record in all of baseball last year lost 9 players with more than minimal playing time: Damon, Mueller, Renteria, Millar, Bellhorn, W. Miller, J. Gonzalez, Myers, Embree. Half of them played at or below replacement level. Only Damon, Mueller and Myers could be considered good players by any stretch of the imagination. Damon was replaced with a younger equivalent. Mueller's and Myers' replacement I agree are iffy. In addition to the replacements for those 3, they added Beckett, Seanez, Tavarez, Riske, A. Gonzalez and have Delcarmen, Hansen, Papelbon and Pedroia who are ready for significantly greater contributions this year.

If Pedroia gets the job and matches his Pecotas and Lowell rebounds to the average of the last 2 years, they could easily win 100 games without Schilling or Foulke. If those two both rebound to close to recent career norms as well, this is a team that should win well over 100 games. The only real crisis potentials are major injury/collapse for any of Manny/Ortiz/Tek. They either have in house talent or could trade a SP for a replacement (with some decline) for anyone else.

I don't have time right now to rebut Craig. But it's quite possible to see the Sox being 10 games worse because they probably won't go 13-6 against an improved Devil Rays team or 7-2 against an improved Texas team. That could in fact account for 10 games right there.

Meanwhile, everyone's talking about Curt and Keith. Let's not forget that Curt Schilling is now 39 years old. Even if his ankle is healthy as he claims it is, he cannot defy age forever. Furthermore, Beckett is overrated. He's now playing in a better offensive park in a potent division. He won't be putting up Pro Player Stadium numbers anymore. Beyond that, what are you expecting from Clement? And Wells is going to be 43 in May.

The Sox have no viable back-up catcher, a poor hitting short stop, a third baseman coming off a horrible season, and a first baseman and centerfielder who haven't really played the position. Defense doesn't win you that many games, Craig. And I would say the Sox aren't better than they were last year.

Craig - I understand your analysis, but the issue is that the Sox were a 89-91 win team last year. The starting point should not be 95. So if the Sox are just as good as last season and get unlucky, they could reasonable be at 85-87 wins. ON the flip side, if everything goes right they could win 100. I think TM article was right on.

Benjamin (and many others above): I agree with many of your individual comments. But many of them (questioning Schilling's ability to return to form, Nixon returning to 03 form) are really upside over last year risks. They did not get an exceptional year from anyone last year, except Timlin. That record was not built on fluke years (Aaron Small anyone?) or multiple players having breakout years (WS starting pitching anyone?). And the only talent that was lost off that team was reasonably replaced. Plus some. I still maintain that the only notable downside risk on the team compared to last year is Lowell vs Mueller. And he also represents a notable upside risk as well. And several places have improved, almost beyond argument.

El Guappo: I know that they were actually lucky last year to win as many as they did. I have a hard time not seeing them as a baseline improved team coming into the season. Without assuming any help from Schilling, Foulke or, my personal favorite, Pedroia.

Assuming nothing from any of those, I think the simulation runs by the replacement yankees site that David posted a link to are about right. An average of 92 or 93 wins. If they are smart and let Pedroia play, I think you raise that by about 1/2 a win a month that he plays.

I also think his 135M payroll is high. I have the impression that they slightly cut payroll this year as it stands, meaning that they should be more like 115-120M. I could not find a site posting 2006 salaries, so I could be wrong. Maybe TM is counting a $20M salary for Clemens! Of course that might change the expected win total a tad as well.

$135 is on the high side. If you account for Manny at $19 (not counting 4 mil def.), Renteria at $2mil, Wells at $7.5 earning his perf clauses and if the Sox gave the Indians cash, then TM can get to $135.

Re: Trot Nixon

The thing about Nixon is that he isn't at all likely to reach those 2003 levels again. He's turning 32 in April, well past his peak age, and he hasn't made it through a full season since 2002. If you look at this stats, 2003 was a clear outlier AND it came at his age 29 season, typically a player's best offensive season. PECOTA pegs him at .278/.361/.467 with a 15 VORP and 14 home runs in 406 plate appearances. I would say that's a fairly accurate projection if he remains healthy for him, and even his 90th percentile numbers aren't as good as his 2003 numbers.

Benjamin:

I completely agree that Trot is unlikely to match his 2003 numbers. I'm only expecting him to roughly match his numbers of last year. 2003 only represents an upside risk, albeit an unlikely one.

I am still curious to see someone's analysis comparing this year to last year arguing how they got potentially 10 games worse. Or even the 4 games worse from their 3rd order projection for last year. The only significant downside risk compared to last year is Lowell. Several positions are notably better. Why does the media portray this as a down year upcoming? David, you seem to be on the sox down year bandwagon. Can you explain why you see it that way?

It seems to me that every good team has question marks, and that you could say of every good team that they could finish with anywhere from 85 to 95 or 100 wins. Every year, there are rookies who surprise, average players who break out, former stars who bounce back. Every year, there are rookies who flop, players who get injured, stars who drop off. It seems to me, therefore, that by saying "the Sox could finish with anywhere from 85-95 wins", this writer really didn't say anything.

I agree with a lot of what Craig says, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the Sox do very well this year. At the same time, I disagree with an analysis that takes as a starting point the number of wins a team had the previous year, and then tries to figure out what they added and subtracted to come to a new win estimate. For one thing, players, let alone teams don't perform exactly the same way in exactly the same situations from year to year. Not everyone matches their pythagorean record each year.

Perhaps even more important is the fact that none of this is done in a vacuum. Other teams change and improve (and decline) as well. Assemble the same team you had last year and throw them out there again and they could win 5 more games than they won, or lose 5 more. There are a lot of things that could happen differently. I'm comfortable with someone saying there's a potential 10-game swing with the red sox next year. But I think I'd be comfortable saying the same about a lot of teams.

It's certainly fair to say that there are questions about this team. But I think the 2006 Sox are significantly better than the 2005 Sox. The rest of the division may be better too, so I'm not ready to predict the record. But the team will be better and will contend.

Crisp should replace Damon without missing a beat. Youkilis can't be worse than Millar. Lowell's PrOPS for 2005 suggests that he hit the ball much better than his numbers, and could be ripe for a big bounceback. And hitting in Fenway will play to his strengths, getting out of that park in FL will help him. And any team with Ortiz, Manny, and Varitek in the lineup will score well as long as the rest are just adequate -- and the rest, in this case, should be much mroe than just adequate.

Schilling can't be worse than 05, and might be much, much better. Beckett is virtually assured of pitching as well as whoever he replaces from 05 in the rotation. Clement and Wells are locks to be at least league-average pitchers, and either or both (if still here) are possibilities to win 15 games. Arroyo and Wakefield are reliable innings-eaters. Papelbon and Lester are great guys to have in the wings.

The pen cannot be any worse than it was last year (while winning 95 games), and could be anywhere from significantly better to great.

In my view, the 06 Sox are better at every roster spot than the 05 Sox were, except shortstop (I think people underestimate the contribution of Renteria scoring 100 and driving in 75). And if Pedroia grabs the job out of spring training, then I'm not even worried about that, and there's always the hope that AGon will be well-suited to Fenway. And with Loretta (another upgrade!) batting second, AGon hitting 9th is no problem.

Sure, Schilling might not rise back to 04 levels (then again, he might). Beckett might miss time, or be a 14-10 pitcher (but I doubt it). That still leaves the team with the 5 starters from LAST year who managed to win 95 games, a better everyday lineup, and a much-improved bullpen.

Interesting discussion - my favorite quote was this:
" an improved Texas team." How did Texas improve, exactly...
But anyway, Craig has a pojt a bout Schilling and Foulke - the Sox got nothing out of either of them last year, and they have significantly upgraded the pitching around each - the bullpen is entirely new and the rotation will certainly get more from Papelbon and Becket than they got from Schilling last year. It's strange that people keep harping on the fact that Schilling and Foulke are done - they well might be (especially Schilling), but the Sox made the Postseason last year without them, and they have added so much more in those two slots this year. If anything, their success this year depends less on Foulke and Schilling's health than it did last year. Wells is old, sure, but until he proves he can't pitch anymore you have to assume he can. Wakefield will be the same as usual, steady and unspectacular. Nixon will have his 280/360/450 season, and Crisp will equal Damon's numbers offensively. The Sox upgraded at 2nd and 1st by a lot, replaced a major disappointment at short with someone they're not expecting much from in the first place, and probably will be a wash at 3rd. This is their lineup right now:
c:Varitek
1:Youkilis/JT Snow
2:Loretta
ss:Gonzalez
3:Lowell/Youkilis
L:Manny
CF:Crisp
R:Nixon
DH:Ortiz

That's a lineup that, with average pitching, will win 85 games. If The Red Sox pitching even matches last year's performance, the Sox will win 90-95 easily. I think the Sox will win around 95, unless everybody gets hurt.

Just wondering, but did any team get worse this off-season? And by that I mean -10 games worse? Hell, even KC looks better on paper. This is a fun jousting session, but bottom line, health probably plays the trump card on every teams success in 2006.

Win or lose...good or bad...this season will be the last as we currently know the Red Sox. Theo WILL gut this team next off season. If the season turns sour for the Sawx earlier than they'd like, Theo will start the purge and the rebuilding process (yes ! rebuilding) that much earlier. And if you aint feeling what I'm putting out, you aint touching right.