Well... for the Yanks, 1B is somewhat up in the air. It sounds like Girardi is picking Giambi, at least to the extent Giambi is healthy enough to play.

The other options are various platoons:

Betemit/Ensberg
Betemit/Duncan
Lane/Ensberg
Lane/Duncan

I have no idea what they see in Lane, but he's supposedly in the mix.

Angel DH isn't a battle, Angel SS is: Izturis vs. Aybar (with Wood trying to position himself if that battle underwhelms).

I looked at LAA shortstops but the data I looked at and one informed individual indicated to me that Izturis was not even passable in the field at short.

He would obviously be the superior option at the plate for 2008, however.

Its ironic isn't it that the Sox have a highly contested cf battle and the Twins have basically cr*p for options. Explain to me again why the Sox couldn't complete the Santana trade?

I like Ellsbury, but I think people are over overestimating his upside. He hit a lot of flairs, bloopers and slap doubles down the lines and I'm not sold on his possibility of developing true gap power. However if his OBP sits around .375, with his speed then he'll be devasting in the lead off position.

I'm an Angels fan, and I have almost no idea what their lineup will be this year.

Which players are still hurting and by how much will go a long way to determining who plays where.

It's actually almost easier to list the positions that are more or less set for the Angels, but even those are question marks:

CF: Torii, but GMJ may have something to say about that
1B: Everone assumes Kotchman, but is there any way he logs 150 games there? Morales will see some action, as well as a random OF who loses in musical chairs
2B: Kendrick, the only really locked in position, but it's dangerous out there
C: Napoli, but hot/cold streaks could make Mathis the starter
RF: Vlad if healthy, with some Rivera, Morales and GMJ sprinkled in
SS: Everyone assumes Aybar, but he has not seized previous opportunities, Izturis gets on base, or Wood could make the leap

There are just an infinite amount of ways it can play out, but they have some serious depth.

The Angels are planning to rotate their four outfielders in the field and at DH. Hunter will play the most in the field and Anderson will DH more often than the other three. Willits is best suited in LF but can also play CF and RF and will likely pinch hit, pinch run, and serve as an occasional defensive replacement. Rivera can play either corner or DH against certain LHP.

Morales will not see time in RF and will be nothing more than a backup 1B/DH and a pinch hitter. Quinlan is a lefty masher and will fight Morales for a roster spot.

Here is how I see it unfolding...

C: Mathis and Napoli
1B: Kotchman (with either Morales or Quinlan as a backup)
2B: Kendrick
SS: Aybar
3B: Figgins
UT: Izturis
LF/CF/RF/DH: Matthews
CF: Hunter
RF/DH: Guerrero
DH/LF: Anderson
Backup OF: Rivera and Willits

+ 5 SP (Lackey, Weaver, Garland, Santana, and Garland to begin the season with Escobar taking over for Saunders if and when healthy in May) and 6 RP (K-Rod, Shields, Speier, Oliver, Moseley, and the sixth spot up for grabs).

Look for one of Matthews, Willits, Rivera, Morales or Quinlan to be traded if a deal can be worked out.

Granted, Ellsbury shouldn't be expected to maintain the numbers he put last year, but I see now way that he doesn't outslug Crisp. Not only is Crisp an unproductive hitter, he looked completely lost the last 2 months of the season. Also, the main problem with starting Crisp is that you've essentially got 4 no-power outs in a row at the bottom of the red sox order (Drew-Varitek-Lugo-Crisp). especially when Manny sits out his 25-30 games and Ortiz takes a couple of days off.

Drew had a .373 on-base and Varitek .367 last year. Drew slugged .423, Varitek .421.

Maybe both fell short of your expectations, but "no-power outs" is a preposterous characterization.

Yeah, they weren't that bad. The holes in the Red Sox lineup were Lugo and Crisp.

As for the Santana trade, the Twins waited too long and once Theo figured out Cashman wasn't going to bite either, he let it go. It's also possible the Twins wanted Johan out of the AL. Ellsbury probably is overvalued by some, but I doubt by Theo. He just did the same math the Yanks did (fistfull of major-league ready prospects + huge contract extension for 1 pitcher, albeit an excellent one), and passed.

I think it's amusing that the use of two projections is enough to conclude that Crisp is the "better option". For one, although neither player can be expected to hit for much power, I think it's absurd to "project" for them to each have similar OBP numbers. Ellsbury has patience and has shown it at virtually every level of his career, and I would simply call a sub .350 OBP wrong. I'd be happy to make a bet on that too...and I think that alone would at least even things out.

Of course, let's not forget that Ellsbury visibly charged the Red Sox in playoffs when he started. I don't like to rely on "intangebles", but he has something there.

Finally, who decided that Crisp is automatically the better fielder? I'm fully aware of how excellent he was last year, but Ellsbury is also an exceptional fielder. Look at some of his minor league fielding numbers to see what I mean.

P.S. I love Coco on the team, too! I hope he sticks around...

I agree for the most part with Peter on the Ellsbury/Crisp battle. There are a couple of misleading things about the straight BA/OBP/SLG comps.

First, ZiPS and PECOTA project them to have basically identical OPS, but if the true measure of OPS' value is 1.8(OBP) + SLG, then Ellsbury comes out slightly ahead on offense. I'd grant that Crisp, at least for next season, would more than make up for that on defense, given these numbers, but...

Second, I agree that we can't judge Ellsbury fully on one good month in 2007. The problem is that's basically all Coco Crisp had, as well. From June 14-July 14, Crisp hit .383/.446/.642 in 22 games. Before then, he hit .221/.277/.295 in 59 games. After that, he hit .272/.337/.373 in 64 games. That final stretch about mirrors his overall numbers -- but those overall numbers are unfairly boosted by 22 extraordinary games in June and July. I, for one, would not bet on Crisp suddenly rebounding from the catastrophically bad performance he had for 123 games in 2007 (a combined line of .247/.302/.335).

The point of the comparison was not to assert that Coco is clearly the man for the job.

There is a feeling in Boston that Ellsbury should just be handed CF based on his excellent performance in very limited time. The point of the comparison was simply to frame the discussion a little better.

I don't think there will be much difference between the two players in terms of quality for 2008.

With all due respect to Crisp, I would go with Ellsbury to start spring training. And why can't these guys, while under contract, simply show up and do the job they are paid to do. I just don't understand that side of people and athletes in general. It's one thing that was better about the older athletes.

In his age 24/25 seasons Crisp hit 15/16 Dingers, i can't see Ellsbury doing that this year.

then agian, Crisp hasn't been able to do that again either. at this point you might as well run Ellsbury out there to let him develope