For frame of reference;

247/320/403, 237/309/396, 230/308/382 – Saltalamacchia
305/399/555, 283/379/513, 316/407/569 – Gonzalez
293/360/453, 297/363/454, 300/370/471 – Pedroia
279/349/399, 262/334/366, 272/341/381 – Scutaro
298/393/525, 286/386/498, 280/382/505 – Youkilis
311/364/478, 290/341/444, 312/359/491 – Crawford
277/332/387, 283/336/391, 284/336/397 – Ellsbury
266/367/470, 256/361/449, 260/362/473 – Drew
265/364/503, 256/360/490, 260/363/509 – Ortiz
256/332/459, 238/325/422, 243/322/413 – Cameron
257/335/412, 247/338/411, 252/333/422 – Lowrie
227/314/391, 213/307/365, 223/310/426 – Varitek
262/316/421, 261/312/410, 255/307/415 – McDonald

Oh, and my WAGs;

Saltalamacchia - Under
Gonzalez - Under (marginally)
Pedroia - Over
Scutaro - Under
Youkilis - Under
Crawford - Over
Ellsbury - Over (I have never been an Ellsbury guy but I'm talking myself into a big year for him)
Drew - Under
Ortiz - Under
Lowrie - Under
Varitek - Over
McDonald - Over (figure he'll get spotted against lefties)

For reference, these are the consensus / average numbers for the pitchers:

3.51 - Lester
3.77 - Buchholz
4.21 - Lackey
4.23 - Beckett
4.38 - Matsuzaka
4.85 - Wakefield
3.16 - Papelbon
3.57 - Bard
3.71 - Jenks
3.87 - Wheeler

EDIT: I see Jose already dropped in the hitters. thanks

3.77 - Buchholz

We shoulda traded that bum for Saltalamacchia.

Aaaand my pitcher guesses (note: I always find over/under on pitchers confusing because "Under"="Better" is counterintuitive to me so I'm using better/worse);

Lester - Better
Buccholz - Worse
Lackey - Better
Beckett - Better (I think in each of Buchholz/Lackey/Beckett the better/worse designation is marginal, these are about where I would have pegged the number)
Matsuzaka - Worse
Wakefield - Worse
Papelbon - Better
Bard - Better
Jenks - Better
Wheeler - Worse

Side note, the Red Sox actually won a game today. Intellectually I know it's irrelevent but I was getting irritated. If nothing else I was dreading an Opening Day loss followed by Shank writing "The Sox lost their last 13 exhibition games and that lack of focus carried over to Arlington, TX on Friday afternoon."

Over - Drew; Pedroia; Ellsbury
Under - Crawford; Ortiz; McDonald

Pitchers

Under (as in better)- Buchholz; Papelbon; Bard; Jenks
Over - Dice; Wake; Wheeler

t took me a little too long to come up with unders. If the projections have the Red Sox winning 95-98 games, and I’m struggling to come up with under bets on these projections, that’s very good evidence I’m fanboyishly overrating my team.

Maybe not, maybe it just means they're really a good team and you're a smart guy. Yeah!

I do agree with your over on Ellsbury. He seemed really have stepped his game up a notch, hitting with some real power, in the 2nd half of 2009.

As for the unders, I'd have to go with the Wheeler and Jenks. I look at their projections and think, "Wow, the Red Sox sure were smart to get these guys for such good contracts." But there are lots of smart, numerically inclined GMs out there and they all passed on these guys at these prices. It makes me think that there are non-number things that scared everyone off. Dice and Drew seem like pretty good undrest too.

I'll take the even on Adrian Gonzalez's projection, which would just about make him the best hitter in the AL, if the environment's the same this year as last. I think the park's a great fit, but I just can't see my way to going above and beyond that average projection.

I'll take the over (under?) on Lester. He's going to have an ERA to match his periphs one of these years; might as well be now. I think, with a solid offense and defense around him, he's a strong candidate for the AL CY.

Other than that . . . color me agnostic. I've come around on Crawford, but I think the projections for him might be a little optimistic. I still wish he could be persuaded to play CF -- I just don't think Jacoby, much as I wish otherwise, is a long-term solution there.

I do think this is a team with big upside and not nearly as much downside. I might be fanboying, too, but I think that 100 wins is more likely than 90, and 105 is certainly more likely than a losing record. The competition's not as strong this year, and this is the best Sox team since at least '04. I'm looking forward to this season for a lot of reasons.

I'll go for 95 wins, and the Wild Card behind the Tampa Bay juggernaut, with Manny winning the MVP.

You want fanboy...here it comes...

I'm taking the over on everyone except Paps, Papi and Scutaro...AND projecting 103 wins!

They' ve not won 100 since 1946.
To my eyes, they look solid as hell, not overwhelming. I like the depth, the planning.

Over: hitters
Under: pitchers

They' ve not won 100 since 1946.

I'm astonished they've never won 100 with the 162-game schedule. Although now that I look at it, a number of teams--Chicago, Texas, Toronto--haven't done it. How about that. I think Boston wins the division, but I can't see them winning 100 this year either, there's just too much quality in the East.

I would say that I see this team winning 100 games, but I don't think Tito will keep his foot on the gas to get there even if they're on pace to do it in September. Normally if the team has a playoff spot well in hand he gets very agressive in resting regulars and the starting pitchers, as well as the frontline relievers. It's hard to ever see a team he manages going to 100+ wins.

I'm astonished they've never won 100 with the 162-game schedule.

I wish they'd have won 100 with the 163-game schedule.

14-Ha ha. I get it.

Turpen for Mike McKenry:

stolen from Fangraphs;

7. Michael McKenry, C, Double-A
DOB: March 1985 Bats: R Throws: R
Signed: 2006 7th round – Middle Tennessee State University
MLB ETA: Late-2010 40-Man Roster: Yes Options: 3

Just 5’10”, McKenry generates surprising pop thanks to his squat build. He also historically hits for a pretty solid average and gets on base. Overall in ’09, he hit .279/.376/.455 in 358 double-A at-bats. He did see a decline in power last season as his ISO rate dropped from .210 in ’08 to .176. However, his walk rate remained strong at 12.9% and his strikeout rate dropped 6% to 19.3%. McKenry is a notoriously slow starter and his numbers could improve if he can find a way to get the bat going in April and May. Defensively, he’s a born leader who does a nice job of throwing out base runners (33% in ’09). He has the potential to be a solid big league regular, and he should have a nice MLB career even if he doesn’t hit as well as he did in the minors.

Seems like a good pick-up. His ZIPS and Marcels are decent enough for a catcher, especially if he can throw like they say he can.

He looks a bit more useful than Wagner or Exposito would be if Varitek or Saltalamacchia gets hurt. If this means that we don't have to suffer through Kevin Cash 3.0 that makes it worthwhile.

MLBTR is saying it is not a done deal though;

Red Sox GM Theo Epstein told Gordon Edes of ESPNBoston.com that "there is no trade." He said he doesn't know if there will be a trade at some point (Twitter link). However, Troy Renck of the Denver Post hears that the deal will happen

My guess is that the trade is done and either Turpen or McKenry simply hasn't been contacted yet so neither side wants to officially announce it.

Yeah, well, now the word is the trade did not go through...yet. Or something like that.
Damn.

In keeping with the spirit of the thread I'll put the number of trades with Rockies before Opening Day at 0.5 and I'll take the over.

Now they're saying its done, the Globe is. Good.

Fangraphs has a new Leaders/Splits toy...guess who led the Majors in oppo HR's last 2 seasons, playing in a humongo pitchers' park?

Hint: the player's idol was 1/4 Mexican.