Yeah, he goes through a concise assessment -- and screws it up. How do we have so bloody much invested in the rotation? Lester's signed for awhile but his salary right now isn't huge, Beckett has one more year at a cost that in the current market is very reasonable, after the Dice-K posting his salary is reasonable if he's healthy, Buchholz is cost controlled, and Wake is a bargain. So we paid a princely sum for Lackey and now we have "so much invested in the rotation"? So what if we spent a lot of money on a 3rd starter? IF he's worth it and is better than your usual 3rd starter, that just says we're putting together a top-flight rotation. The 1971 O's will tell you that a deep, topflight rotation is NOT lilygilding.

On other issues, Ortiz was subpar last year. I guess Sheehan figures he can go only one way from here, but that isn't as obvious to me as he makes it out to be. In any event, he isn't going anywhere until after next season, so I don't see what Sheehan finds so "strange". In LF, Cameron is presumably the answer, so "pending a Cameron contract" sort of makes frivolous the "question mark in LF". Yes there's a missing piece on the IF corner as of Dec. 15. So?? There's over two months until ST starts and the Sox are missing one significant piece of the puzzle? This makes for a "strange" situation?

I guess I don't see why this article is a reason why Joe Sheehan is a sportswriter and we aren't.