Do the Sox still rate?

197881.jpg

Do the Sox still rate?

By Michael Felger

Three thoughts for you as we exit the black hole of the sporting universe . . .

1. After going "all in" this offseason, Red Sox ownership is about to see whether their investments were enough to recapture the sporting buzz in Boston. And by that I don't mean simply garnering attention. The Sox will certainly do that. I'm talking about making a mark the way they used to -- where the Sox were Page One news and everything else (including NBA and NHL playoffs) took a back seat.

The first glimpse will come with the television ratings. If they aren't through the roof starting in Texas on Friday and carrying through the Yankees series in two weeks, then that will be an early indication that Boston has become more like everywhere else, where football-type ratings are actually reserved for football.

On the field, the Red Sox will unquestionably be more interesting than their predecessors the last few years. They'll entertain with a combination of power, speed and depth. The pitching has some question marks, but while Josh Beckett, Diasuke Matsuzaka, Jonathan Papelbon, John Lackey and Bobby Jenks could all have their problems, roller coasters are fun, aren't they? From a pure baseball standpoint, I don't see how the Sox won't be compelling this season -- even (or especially) if they struggle.

Off the field, however, it looks like this Red Sox team is no more entertaining than the button-down outfits of the last three years. This is no band of idiots. And even players who would normally fit that description (Papelbon, Beckett, Jenks, etc.) have been muted. In that way, the Sox remain built in Theo Epstein's image. Adrian Gonzalez is no Mo Vaughn, which is a great thing in terms of baseball but still not the ticket if Tom Werner is more concerned with his reality show than his starting nine.

Then again, maybe those days are simply gone for good. Even if the Sox had compelling personalities, even if they had a Pedro or a Mo Vaughn or even a Johnny Damon, would they be able to achieve that hold over us they used to? Not sure. Something tells me that ship has sailed. We tracked Matsuzaka's plane across the continent on our computers four years ago. We have no idea how Carl Crawford arrived for his presser. Times have changed.

Or have they? We'll begin to find out this weekend.

2. One question that remains from the on-going Max Pacioretty story is how the Canadiens players themselves have been affected by it. Some of them expressed disappointment in Mark Recchi's comments last week in Boston, but if they were truly outraged by them, then they sure haven't used it as fuel on the ice.

The Habs are in a free fall. They've been shut out in three straight games for the first time since 1949. They quit in Boston last Thursday and then followed that up with an 18-shot dud against the Caps on Saturday.

Not exactly rallying for the cause, is it?

It seems like just the opposite, which is why I wonder if there are players in the Montreal locker room who have actually been turned off by the hysteria that resulted from the Pacioretty hit. After all, if Zdeno Chara is going to be arrested for his check on Pacioretty, what is defenseman Hal Gill thinking? He sent the Islanders Jon Sim into the turnbuckle last December with nearly the same kind of hit. Is it safe to say Gill probably believes the police investigation is a bit much?

Or what about the players there who know what a "severe" concussion really means? Canadiens players are well aware that just 24 hours after the hit Pacioretty didn't even have a headache.

Is it possible that they've been as soured by the actions of their organization, fans and media as the rest of the hockey world?

Just asking.

3. I know I've done this many, many times before, but it is at times like these that I just can't help myself.

It's hard to tell who the bigger frauds are -- the Montreal media or the Green Teamers around here.

If you had asked Tanguay, Dickerson, Holley, Maxwell, et all, over the summer if the Celtics should swap out Kendrick Perkins for Shaquille O'Neal (which is essentially what the Perk-Jeff Green trade has boiled down to, largely because the pieces the C's added have done nothing to improve the offense) you would be laughed out of the room. To a man, they would tell you Perkins' role was underappreciated and essential to what the Celtics do as a team. They would tell you Shaq is too old, too out of shape, too selfish to fit with the C's.

Now, of course, they have resorted to exaggerating the other side's argument, which is all they have. No one ever said Perkins was Bill Russell. We only said he was an important part of what the C's were as a team. That's T-E-A-M. Ubuntu. All that. And here's the kicker:

We believed that because the Green Teamers told us! We got it from them.

But as soon as the team did an about-face, they reversed course as well. Embarrassing.

Here's all I know: The Celtics have not been better since the trade. They've lost home-court to Chicago and are on the verge of losing it to Miami, too. They were the odds-on favorite to win the title at the deadline, and now we wonder if they can get out of the East. Maybe Shaq will return and they'll get their act together -- just like they did last year. But if that doesn't happen, I wonder what the spin will be. Right now, it's Rondo's fault. Soon it will be Pierce's.

But here's one thing you can take to the bank: It will never be Danny's.

I await the next round of talking points.

E-mail Felger HERE and read the mailbag on Thursday. Listen to Felger on the radio weekdays, 2-6 p.m., on 98.5 the Sports Hub.

Young, Vazquez homer for Red Sox in 9-2 win over Twins

Young, Vazquez homer for Red Sox in 9-2 win over Twins

BOSTON - Chris Young hit a three-run homer and Christian Vazquez homered for the first time in more than a year as the Boston Red Sox routed the Minnesota Twins 9-2 on Tuesday night in a game delayed twice by stormy weather.

Drew Pomeranz (7-4) pitched five innings, three after a 1 hour, 16 minute delay between the second and third as a thunderstorm slowly passed over Fenway Park. Despite the interruption, Pomeranz held the Twins to one unearned run and four hits, struck out seven and didn't walk a batter.

Dustin Pedroia had three hits and scored twice and Xander Bogaerts had two hits and scored twice for the Red Sox as they won consecutive games for the first time in nearly two weeks.

The two rain delays totaled 2:06.

Drellich: MLB could explain umpire rulings more often

Drellich: MLB could explain umpire rulings more often

BOSTON — We know that Red Sox manager John Farrell did something wrong. In the absence of any sort of formal announcement otherwise, we’re left to assume the umpires did everything properly — but there’s room for MLB to make that clearer.

If the NBA can put out Last 2 Minute reports, why can’t MLB provide more regular explanations or reviews of contested calls?

Farrell on Tuesday said he’d like to see more public accountability in the umpiring realm, hours before the manager was to sit out Game No. 77. Farrell was suspended one game for making contact with crew chief Bill Miller on Saturday night as manager and umpire rained spittle on each other over a balk call that went against the Sox.

Well, was it a balk or not? Did Miller do anything wrong as well?

“I don’t know if there was anything levied on the other side,” Farrell said. “I don’t know that.”

But would he like such matters to always be public?

“I think there have been strides made in that way,” Farrell said. “I guess I would. I think everyone in uniform would prefer that to be made public. Whether or not that happens, I don’t know, but that would be a choice I would make.”

The league has a thorough internal review system. But it is just that: internal. Most of the time, any way.

On most every night at Fenway Park, there is someone on hand watching just the umpires and reviewing them.

MLB, to its credit, has announced suspensions for umpires in the past. The league has made public acknowledgments when calls have been made incorrectly. More of that seems viable — even if it’s an announcement to reaffirm that the call was made and handled properly, and here are the reasons why.

“I haven’t received any further determination or review of what transpired,” Farrell said. “My position, my stance, remains steadfast. I still firmly believe that time was called [before the balk call was made]. I wasn’t arguing the balk. I was arguing the timing of it. As I reiterated today to those that I spoke with, I still stand by my side of the argument. Unfortunately, there was contact made.”