Who is the backup SS?

MakMan44 · Feb 27, 2015

I don't get why having Holt at SS maybe once a week is a big deal. Doesn't seem like he's going to kill your there.

semsox · Feb 27, 2015

I would imagine they plan on running him out basically full-time. Even last year when he was hitting terribly for a large chunk of the year, he still managed to get into 144 games. Absent an injury, I bet he starts 150+ games at SS. Holt can fill in whatever remained he doesn't play. If an injury were to occur that would keep him out for a period of time, I would imagine Marrero would be called up and split time with Holt with any hitting they do being gravy.

smastroyin · Feb 27, 2015

Did we ever get a definitive answer on whether they could option Craig? The guy needs reps, even in the bucket. Seems he is the easiest cut while everyone is healthy.

Hanley played infield for a lot of years. I think in an emergency situation he could take infield for a couple of weeks and move back. Having him play LF exclusively right now makes sense in the "learn a new position while the games don't count" way.

I think Holt makes the roster though. The advantage of having a 5 position guy to cover short term injury, etc. Seems to be worth more to me than having both Nava and Craig.

Darnell's Son · Feb 27, 2015

smastroyin said:
Did we ever get a definitive answer on whether they could option Craig? The guy needs reps, even in the bucket. Seems he is the easiest cut while everyone is healthy.

Hanley played infield for a lot of years. I think in an emergency situation he could take infield for a couple of weeks and move back. Having him play LF exclusively right now makes sense in the "learn a new position while the games don't count" way.

I think Holt makes the roster though. The advantage of having a 5 position guy to cover short term injury, etc. Seems to be worth more to me than having both Nava and Craig.

Yes he can be optioned, but he has to go through Optional Assignment Waivers, which are revocable.

Edit to add: They're revocable the first time you do it, if he's claimed and you take him off then try again 30 or more days later(which is the soonest you can) it is no longer revocable.

ivanvamp · Feb 27, 2015

Here's how I see it shaking out...

Starting lineup
C - Vazquez
1b - Napoli
2b - Pedroia
3b - Sandoval
SS - Bogaerts
LF - Ramirez
CF - Castillo
RF - Victorino
DH - Ortiz

Bench: Hanigan, Holt, Betts, Craig

Now, I think that one of Betts/Craig/Nava (amazingly, I think all three (well Betts obviously) have options left) will end up in the minors. OR one of Craig/Victorino/Nava gets traded. OR someone gets hurt and they can keep all these guys for a while longer until it sorts itself out.

But let's say that Nava ends up in AAA again (poor guy…). I think Craig backs up LF/RF/1b/DH. Betts backs up LF/CF/RF/2b and, in a pinch, 3b/SS (though you wouldn't want this for too long). In a real big emergency, Hanley could play SS for a bit. Holt backs up everywhere.

So let's say Bogaerts goes on the 15-day DL. Nava gets called back up. You let Holt and maybe Betts play SS (Holt getting the majority of ABs).

They have plenty of versatility to mix and match as need be. Pretty much every position is covered by several layers of redundancy.

Plympton91 · Feb 27, 2015

The Gray Eagle said:
He wouldn't, which is why he is most likely to start the season as the backup. But if Xander ever had to go on the DL, we might see Marrero play there regularly, if he is hitting in the minors. But if Marrero isn't ready, then Holt would be out there for a couple weeks with Bianchi as his backup. We have depth and options, no doubt.

But the Hanley as a possible infielder thing makes it more interesting. If he is still an infielder. I guess until and unless Hanley works out in the infield in spring training, then Holt is the guy. And if Hanley is not an infielder anymore, then one of the outfielders has to go off the roster, either to the DL, the minors or a trade.

I would think the answers in would be quite different depending on the scenario. If Bogaerts stays healthy and settles in offensively somewhere north of his overall line last year, then Holt is the backup playing SS once every 2 or 3 weeks and in blowouts to give Xander some rest. If Xander goes on the DL with a minor injury, then I bet they call up Bianci and use Holt there for up to 3 weeks. If, God forbid, Xander goes down with an injury that looks like it will last a month or more, then I would think that Hanley Ramirez would become the everyday shortstop while he's out, especially if they're still looking for excuses to give at bats to Victorino or Craig.

So, if they need a long-term injury replacement, the Ramirez is the backup. Otherwise it's Holt.

smastroyin · Feb 27, 2015

Nava doesn't have an option left.

I would take the chance on the OA waivers for Craig. Not because I'm that down on him, because I'm not sure they can get him the time he needs to straighten that swing out. In other words, I predict they do this and then a summer on mazz complaining about how well he's hitting for team x, doubly so if betts has a sophomore slump.

In other words, in terms of maximizing utility to the team, I think it makes the most sense that Holt be super sub with Ramirez being the holy crap that sucks scenario SS. As opposed to just stacking the end of the bench with guys who may or may not be hitters and getting them 5-10 PAs per week.

Minneapolis Millers · Feb 27, 2015

While cringe-worthy with this GB-heavy staff, Hanley at SS would likely be option A if X misses significant time. We'd just hope the offense carries us. I think they'd prefer Hanley at SS and Betts in LF to Hanley in LF and Holt at SS for any weeks-long stretch. Especially since Holt seems merely ok there (as in, good enough to spell X every 2-3 weeks).

I don't think we'll ever see Betts at SS, since he hasn't played there in years and wasn't good when he did.

ivanvamp · Feb 27, 2015

Ok thanks. I didn't realize Nava was out of options. Oh well.

As for Hanley, no he isn't a good defensive SS. But the last 3 years he was -0.5, +0.7, and -0.6 dWAR (b-ref). That's a total of -0.4 WAR over the course of three seasons. So if you had to play him at SS for even a month, how much is he really going to cost you? By these numbers, -0.4 WAR over three seasons is -0.13 WAR per season, divided by 6 months = -0.02 WAR per month.

Hard to see how that really kills the Sox if you have to play him there for a little while.

LahoudOrBillyC · Feb 27, 2015

Farrell will tip his hand this spring by how many innings Ramirez plays at SS. I am guessing that number is zero -- the guy is learning a brand new position, and I suspect they want him to focus all of his defensive energy there forever more.

Dan to Theo to Ben · Feb 27, 2015

One of the reasons Hanley was signed was because of his versatility. He and Holt are your backups, with DM in the wings if all 3 can't hack it defensively. Backup SS is the least of our problems.

Rasputin · Feb 27, 2015

Dan to Theo to Ben said:
One of the reasons Hanley was signed was because of his versatility. He and Holt are your backups, with DM in the wings if all 3 can't hack it defensively. Backup SS is the least of our problems.

Am I the only one who doesn't think there is a chance in hell we see Ramirez play short? He's bad at it.

The first backup for short stints is Brock Holt. The secondary backup for long stints is either Deven Marrero or whatever scrub is hanging around just because we need a scrub hanging around for this kind of situation.

geoduck no quahog · Feb 27, 2015

The debate is this:

Given the strength of the 2015 lineup, and the depth of the outfield - are the Red Sox better served by a good-glove (no-hit) utility infielder or an average glove / average hit utility guy? We're really only talking about the left side of the infield, and possibly only shortstop (if Xander covers 3B with Pablo not playing for any length of time).

Personally, I'd go for a classical great glove bench guy because I don't see hitting as being a big depth problem, and I don't see the bench being needed much unless XB is so terrible that a late-inning defensive replacement is required.

Just a bit outside · Feb 27, 2015

Rasputin said:
Am I the only one who doesn't think there is a chance in hell we see Ramirez play short? He's bad at it.

The first backup for short stints is Brock Holt. The secondary backup for long stints is either Deven Marrero or whatever scrub is hanging around just because we need a scrub hanging around for this kind of situation.

I agree with you. Ramirez looks like he has bulked up and would not be able to play shortstop. I think he needs to stay in left and focus on his offense. Holt is fine for a short DL stint.

Rasputin · Feb 27, 2015

geoduck no quahog said:
The debate is this:

Given the strength of the 2015 lineup, and the depth of the outfield - are the Red Sox better served by a good-glove (no-hit) utility infielder or an average glove / average hit utility guy? We're really only talking about the left side of the infield, and possibly only shortstop (if Xander covers 3B with Pablo not playing for any length of time).

Personally, I'd go for a classical great glove bench guy because I don't see hitting as being a big depth problem, and I don't see the bench being needed much unless XB is so terrible that a late-inning defensive replacement is required.

I don't think there's much debate. I don't think Xander is going to sniff third this season, and I'd be completely floored if the primary backup infielder isn't Brock Holt.

KillerBs · Feb 27, 2015

I agree. I dont see an issue here, especially with Marrero in the wings. Back up 3b is maybe more an issue: if they want to give Pablo a day off here and there vs a tough lefty, is Craig an option? I thought I read something about Craig and 3b this spring.

Red(s)HawksFan · Feb 27, 2015

KillerBs said:
I agree. I dont see an issue here, especially with Marrero in the wings. Back up 3b is maybe more an issue: if they want to give Pablo a day off here and there vs a tough lefty, is Craig an option? I thought I read something about Craig and 3b this spring.

Holt and Hanley are probably the first two options at 3B. Craig maybe in a pinch...same with Betts.

geoduck no quahog · Feb 27, 2015

Rasputin said:
I don't think there's much debate. I don't think Xander is going to sniff third this season, and I'd be completely floored if the primary backup infielder isn't Brock Holt.

Ditto.

Only way XB plays third is if Sandoval goes down with a long term injury, Cecchini is no longer available, Holt sucks, and Marrero is great. Odds of that happening are infinitesimal.

LHH Holt it is, unless he's traded.

grimshaw · Feb 27, 2015

There's a three level gap between Marrero and Devers in the minors, so it's one of the few positions that isn't ridiculously stacked. There would need to be multiple injuries to really have to worry about scrambling for a back up. I don't see that or any other position to not be covered 3 deep. Having a backup to the backup who can play replacement level isn't a significant worry IMO.

Dan to Theo to Ben · Feb 27, 2015

Red(s)HawksFan said:
Holt and Hanley are probably the first two options at 3B. Craig maybe in a pinch...same with Betts.

Yeah, we have like 7 guys for 4 positions (SS, 3B, LF, DH), with Betts able to move from his CF/RF position to help in an emergency.

If Pablo is close to what he is defensively as he was in the NL and if Pedroia is Pedroia, I am not too much worried about defense at SS. I'd love to put up 962R with Xander at SS for 155 games.

The #1 and #2 and #3 issues are still SP1

Rasputin · Feb 27, 2015

Red(s)HawksFan said:
Holt and Hanley are probably the first two options at 3B. Craig maybe in a pinch...same with Betts.

I don't think Hanley is a third base option either. I think the short term option is Holt and the long term option is Cecchini.

Lose Remerswaal · Feb 27, 2015

geoduck no quahog said:
Ditto.

Only way XB plays third is if Sandoval goes down with a long term injury, Cecchini is no longer available, Holt sucks, and Marrero is great. Odds of that happening are infinitesimal.

LHH Holt it is, unless he's traded.

Did I miss a trade or injury?

Darnell's Son · Feb 27, 2015

Lose Remerswaal said:
Did I miss a trade or injury?

He's saying that's the one of the only ways X moves to 3B.

Lose Remerswaal · Feb 27, 2015

Ahhh, of course

HomeRunBaker · Feb 28, 2015

Rasputin said:
Am I the only one who doesn't think there is a chance in hell we see Ramirez play short? He's bad at it.

The first backup for short stints is Brock Holt. The secondary backup for long stints is either Deven Marrero or whatever scrub is hanging around just because we need a scrub hanging around for this kind of situation.

Precisely what I'm thinking and expecting. Ramirez is awful at SS when it's his focus and he's getting reps in the IF every day.....he was signed to play LF and aside from an emergency you won't see him playing SS.

How much Marrrero hits in AAA isn't relevant nor a predictor of how he will hit in a SSS should X go on the DL. How quickly people forget Iglesias and his .400/.500/1.000 line over his first 150 AB's in '13. If X goes down Marrero is your full-time SS especially with the sinkerball-heavy staff we've assembled.

Mighty Joe Young · Feb 28, 2015

Yep .. This seems pretty simple to me. If X is only missing a few days Holt is the SS. If X goes on the DL Marrero comes up. In that scenario I bet Holt would still get some starters. Hanley only plays in an emergency.

Toe Nash · Feb 28, 2015

ivanvamp said:
Ok thanks. I didn't realize Nava was out of options. Oh well.

As for Hanley, no he isn't a good defensive SS. But the last 3 years he was -0.5, +0.7, and -0.6 dWAR (b-ref). That's a total of -0.4 WAR over the course of three seasons. So if you had to play him at SS for even a month, how much is he really going to cost you? By these numbers, -0.4 WAR over three seasons is -0.13 WAR per season, divided by 6 months = -0.02 WAR per month.

Hard to see how that really kills the Sox if you have to play him there for a little while.

I would think this is pretty fluky over a small sample. He is a bad shortstop.

1. He only played 57, 76 and 115 games at short over the years you mention, so breaking it up by month is not particularly useful. Partially because of injury, partially because he played third for much of 2012. Taking just his time at short, he was -7 DRS, +3, -9 for -13 runs total or -7.9 runs per 150 games.
2. If you look at 2010 and 2011 he was horrid: -32 runs in 226 games at short or -21 runs per 150 games. So his "real" level is probably somewhere between the two.
3. UZR mostly concurs and has him at -9.5 runs per 150 games from 2010-2014. That's 3rd-worst among shortstops with at least 2000 innings in that time (Jeter is at -11.2).

I think the "how much would it cost" question isn't well served by breaking things up the way you did either. On average he may only cost 1 run below an average SS over say 10-15 games, but him not getting to a key ball in a crucial game or making a bad mistake (or even worse, lolligagging) could have a disproportionate effect on a game or two and maybe a snowball effect on the staff.

He also may not be up to his former level if he is a year older, learning a new infield, and thrust into the position after playing left for the whole year before that.

ivanvamp · Feb 28, 2015

Toe Nash said:
I would think this is pretty fluky over a small sample. He is a bad shortstop.

1. He only played 57, 76 and 115 games at short over the years you mention, so breaking it up by month is not particularly useful. Partially because of injury, partially because he played third for much of 2012. Taking just his time at short, he was -7 DRS, +3, -9 for -13 runs total or -7.9 runs per 150 games.
2. If you look at 2010 and 2011 he was horrid: -32 runs in 226 games at short or -21 runs per 150 games. So his "real" level is probably somewhere between the two.
3. UZR mostly concurs and has him at -9.5 runs per 150 games from 2010-2014. That's 3rd-worst among shortstops with at least 2000 innings in that time (Jeter is at -11.2).

I think the "how much would it cost" question isn't well served by breaking things up the way you did either. On average he may only cost 1 run below an average SS over say 10-15 games, but him not getting to a key ball in a crucial game or making a bad mistake (or even worse, lolligagging) could have a disproportionate effect on a game or two and maybe a snowball effect on the staff.

He also may not be up to his former level if he is a year older, learning a new infield, and thrust into the position after playing left for the whole year before that.

We are not arguing whether he should be a regular SS. Just whether it's that bad to have him fill in if Bogaerts is out for a couple of weeks or so.

He may make a big mistake, but he's also capable of making a nice play. He's a below average SS, there's no argument there. But he is also the player on the roster with the most SS experience, and if, say, you've got another hot OF bat going, maybe it's worth losing a run or two by Hanley's defense to have him at SS and put the better bat in the OF (assuming X is hurt, obviously), than have Hanley in left and Holt and his weak bat at SS.

Again, not a long-term thing, but I'm sure you could live with it for a couple of weeks if you needed to without really hurting the team.

Al Zarilla · Feb 28, 2015

Dan to Theo to Ben said:
Yeah, we have like 7 guys for 4 positions (SS, 3B, LF, DH), with Betts able to move from his CF/RF position to help in an emergency.

If Pablo is close to what he is defensively as he was in the NL and if Pedroia is Pedroia, I am not too much worried about defense at SS. I'd love to put up 962R with Xander at SS for 155 games.

The #1 and #2 and #3 issues are still SP1

Oh boy, to use a term used for another of our local sports teams, shortstop is kind of like an island unto its own. If, and I'm not predicting he will, Xander botches a lot of balls deep in the hole, or mishandles hard ground balls to the left of the second base bag, or makes a lot of bad throws, I won't personally be thinking well, it's a good thing we're good defensively at 2B and 3B. SS is the most important defensive position in baseball (except catcher?). Can't find a site that quantifies the importance of the positions. Sure, it's a lot better if the other guys in the IF are solid defensively, but you can't hide a poor fielder at SS. 962 runs would make up for a lot of errors though.

Minneapolis Millers · Feb 28, 2015

If X goes down, it's all a question of offense v defense. Assuming Hanley's bat plays the same at LF and SS, the choice is between an OF like Betts in LF or Holt/Marrero at SS. Holt's D at SS isn't worth the drop in hitting. Maybe Marrero's would be. I guess I could see Farrell going with Marrero instead of bringing the bulked up, older, bad glove Hanley back into the infield.

Saints Rest · Feb 28, 2015

ivanvamp said:
We are not arguing whether he should be a regular SS. Just whether it's that bad to have him fill in if Bogaerts is out for a couple of weeks or so.

He may make a big mistake, but he's also capable of making a nice play. He's a below average SS, there's no argument there. But he is also the player on the roster with the most SS experience, and if, say, you've got another hot OF bat going, maybe it's worth losing a run or two by Hanley's defense to have him at SS and put the better bat in the OF (assuming X is hurt, obviously), than have Hanley in left and Holt and his weak bat at SS.

Again, not a long-term thing, but I'm sure you could live with it for a couple of weeks if you needed to without really hurting the team.

To me the bigger question is whether it is worth it to use HanRam as the backup SS for an occasional day of rest for X. The advantage being that if Hanley can back up SS and 3B, (and that Betts backs up 2B) then there is no need for Holt on the roster and the Sox can keep a better bat on the 25-man (assuming all 6 OF break camp with health and effectiveness).

Presumably, this yields a much stronger bench (offensively). But it only works if JF and the rest feel that HR can cover and that Mookie wouldn't be thrown by the rate day at 2B (because let's face it, if Pedey is healthy, his off-days are few and far between).

If X were to go on the DL, in my mind, that's where you look for Marrero.

Mighty Joe Young · Feb 28, 2015

Concerning Hanley at SS or 3b .. He's trying to learn a completely new position in LF. I don't thing they will jerk him around with occasional trips back to the infield. This isn't a strato-o-matic team. Besides, Holt has to play occasionally. If he's restriced to just backing up Pedroia he's going to get very very rusty.

Doctor G · Feb 28, 2015

if you play Hanley at SS you are increasing his chances of losing time to injury. Holt or Marrero is the prudent move if Bogie is out for a DL stint.

You don't want one DL stay to become two DL stays.
The lineup should be deep enough to survive offensively without risky moves.

Darnell's Son · Feb 28, 2015

Doctor G said:
if you play Hanley at SS you are increasing his chances of losing time to injury. Holt or Marrero is the prudent move if Bogie is out for a DL stint.

You don't want one DL stay to become two DL stays.
The lineup should be deep enough to survive offensively without risky moves.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Leave Hanley alone and let him rake.

pokey_reese · Mar 1, 2015

It's been roughly said throughout, but I think that the answer to the question in the thread title is quite clear to all of us. The backup SS is Holt in the event of a short absence from Bogaerts, and Marrero in the event of a DL stint, if Holt isn't hitting and he is.

The only reason that I can see Hanley playing SS is that he is raking, Bogaerts is also raking but gets hurt badly enough to go on the DL, and Marrero is not hitting at AAA and one of Craig/Nava/Betts is tearing the cover off the ball down there. Note, none of those pieces was an 'OR' statement, they were all 'AND' statements in this logical query. For a few days it isn't worth moving Hanley over the cost of a few games of Holt, and for a longer period of time it isn't worth NOT bringing up Marrero unless both Hanley and his replacement in LF are hitting so well as to add an expected win or two over the length of Bogaert's injury vs. Marrero (which is almost impossible if X isn't lost for weeks).

God, I need ST games to start.

Eddie Jurak · Mar 1, 2015

I agree. Bogaerts will start, Holt will back up, Marrero (or Bianchi) will be up as a glove guy if Bogaerts is gone for any length of time.

I don't think the Sox will be looking to replace Bogaerts for defense in games, so a good glove backup SS isn't needed.

Fireball Fred · Mar 1, 2015

Agree as well. I'd be surprised to see Ramirez get IF work this spring - or Betts, unless something happens to Pedroia. Pretty sure we won't see Drew again.

YTF · Mar 1, 2015

Hanley should only see infield time as a "Break glass in case of emergency" type situation. If someone is injured in game and there is no other option or in one of those ridicules marathon games when a lack of players in a "game on the line" situation forces a manager to be creative with what is available. Other than that I really prefer he is left to learn and own the position he's being groomed for and not concern himself over what glove he'll need for which game.

swingin val · Mar 1, 2015

Hanley has nearly 10,000 innings at SS in his major league career. Him playing LF exclusively in spring training and early in the season, and not taking regular reps at SS, is not going to suddenly render him completely useless. He may be a below average to awful defensive SS, but Holt is the same. Add that to the fact that the OF is super deep, so in case of a Xander injury, a Hanley SS, with Victorino/Nava/Craig as the third outfielder is far more preferable than Holt at SS.

Eddie Jurak · Mar 1, 2015

YTF said:
Hanley should only see infield time as a "Break glass in case of emergency" type situation. If someone is injured in game and there is no other option or in one of those ridicules marathon games when a lack of players in a "game on the line" situation forces a manager to be creative with what is available. Other than that I really prefer he is left to learn and own the position he's being groomed for and not concern himself over what glove he'll need for which game.

I'm sure they would not hesitate to use Hanley at SS in that kind of situation. But that's probably the only action he sees there. If Farrell ever opts for a 5 man infield in some kind of late and close situation, maybe then too.

Saints Rest · Mar 1, 2015

swingin val said:
Hanley has nearly 10,000 innings at SS in his major league career. Him playing LF exclusively in spring training and early in the season, and not taking regular reps at SS, is not going to suddenly render him completely useless. He may be a below average to awful defensive SS, but Holt is the same. Add that to the fact that the OF is super deep, so in case of a Xander injury, a Hanley SS, with Victorino/Nava/Craig as the third outfielder is far more preferable than Holt at SS.

I'm with you, SV. I don't quite get why asking a ML ball player to play a game at a position he has played a million times suddenly will throw off his game so much that he suddenly turns into Kevin Cash. Yes, X had a horrendous slump last season that may (or may not) have been connected to his position change, but that's a lot different situation than asking Hanley to grab one game out of every 10-15.

The potential upside of keeping 6 OFers while you figure out if Vic is back to 2013 form, if Craig is back to pre-injury form, if We have good Nava or bard Nava, and if both Castillo and Betts can live up to their promise, seems to me to outweigh the potential negatives of Hanley's less than great defense (which as pointed out, is not that much worse than Holt's).

Byrdbrain · Mar 1, 2015

I'm shocked anyone who has watched this team and this manager really think Hanley is going to play SS barring some highly unusual event.
I doubt Hanley plays one inning at short this year.

gryoung · Mar 2, 2015

Byrdbrain said:
I'm shocked anyone who has watched this team and this manager really think Hanley is going to play SS barring some highly unusual event.
I doubt Hanley plays one inning at short this year.

Agreed. Xman is the starter with Holt (or some utility if) as backup. If the Bird flu hits and takes down lots of players at the same time, I suppose it's possible Henley sees time there. But it would need to be under extraordinary circumstances.

Heck, Pedroia can play there for a couple of games with Betts at 2nd as another option.

Toe Nash · Mar 3, 2015

ivanvamp said:
We are not arguing whether he should be a regular SS. Just whether it's that bad to have him fill in if Bogaerts is out for a couple of weeks or so.

Again, not a long-term thing, but I'm sure you could live with it for a couple of weeks if you needed to without really hurting the team.

Sure, he could play a game or two. Mostly pointing out how you were bending the stats to make him look not terrible. I think even a couple of weeks would be pretty rough.

But as others noted it doesn't seem likely.

joe dokes · Mar 4, 2015

YTF said:
Hanley should only see infield time as a "Break glass in case of emergency" type situation. If someone is injured in game and there is no other option or in one of those ridicules marathon games when a lack of players in a "game on the line" situation forces a manager to be creative with what is available. Other than that I really prefer he is left to learn and own the position he's being groomed for and not concern himself over what glove he'll need for which game.

I think this is probably right. Just as there is no plan for Pablo to catch, there is no planned scenario for Hanley at SS. That said, I'm hoping for at least one of those games this year, so we can see Hanley at SS and Pablo at C, Ortiz at 1B, Craig at 3B, Brockholt play 8 positions and Joe Kelly PH. Add Betts's and Castillo's infield background and it could get interesting in that "only-in-baseball" sort of way.

(I still have flashbacks to 416-year old Sheffield playing 3B -- with ARod at SS -- in the Jeter-runs-into-the-stands game in '04, and throwing an utter lollypop to 1B that beat some Sox batter in the 12th or 13th inning.)

Who is the backup SS?

Member

stole corsi's dream

Member

Member

simpering whimperer

He's a machine.

captain obvious

bubble burster

simpering whimperer

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!

captain obvious

Indian name is Massages Ellsbury

Banned

Will outlive SeanBerry

not particularly consistent

Member

Will outlive SeanBerry

New Member

Member

not particularly consistent

Member

Banned

Will outlive SeanBerry

Experiencing Furry Panic

He's a machine.

Experiencing Furry Panic

bet squelcher

The North remembers

Member

captain obvious

Member

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!

Well-Known Member

The North remembers

Member

He's a machine.

Member

canderson-lite

New Member

Member

New Member

canderson-lite

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

Member