He took a week off during the off-season? What kind of work ethic is that? Release him!

I guess maybe he won't be in the best shape of his career.

Cafardo reads unfamiliar concept on interwebs and pontificates on it in an uninspired way in the Sunday notes column.

Rinse, wash, repeat.

That article was painful. He talked to Henry and Epstein and both shot the theory down. And he throws in Dice K, who's smack in the middle of his contract.

The Matsuzaka comment was in a section separate from the commentary about contract year players.

He had Dice K in the contract year section as well, though:

Then you have a guy like Daisuke Matsuzaka, though this one is a little different because he is smack in the middle of a six-year, $52 million deal.

Etc.

Oops, missed that. Um...ignore #5, thanks.

We’ll have to get an explanation on this one

You have to love that. "We could have waited until Epstein or someone on the Red Sox had commented but instead we'll print the rumor first, toss in some negative speculation as to the reason (without having confirmed that he's even left for a week) before seeking an explanation."

Cafardo is a dope. This is the second week in a row that he has shown that he doesn't understand the significance of park effects. Last week it was Bay agreed to go to Citi Field, which will kill his statistics as a righty, even though the park effect was 98 and Wright hit just as poorly for power at home as he did on the road. This week it is Beltre "is banking on his numbers going up in a small ballpark, which he could parlay into a bigger deal either in Boston or elsewhere."

There are a bajillion non-injury reasons a guy could take a week off in the offseason. Illness, fatigue, mental health days, family stuff, finally got around to the finale of Battlestar Galactica and kinda depressed about it, homesickness, broke up with girlfriend, running away from stalker . . . and so on. I'm not too worried about it.

finally got around to the finale of Battlestar Galactica and kinda depressed about it

I wasn't that upset initially with it, but the more time that passes makes me a bit angrier about it. It doesn't ruin the series by any means, but, it leaves a "really? that's it?" feeling I can't shake.

I've sorta had the opposite reaction. I still don't like the last scene -- didactic and over-the-top -- but I've come to accept that the story is still interesting, even if I don't have a precise explanation of what the hell was going on with Starbuck.

I like the way Starbuck was handled. Any sort of a precise explanation would have had to been sort some of amazing not to ruin it.