Art -- Please stop saying this: "Adding Ramirez, with his 2000 production in Cleveland, to the 2000 Red Sox lineup increased the team's run production enough that the Sox' won-loss record, based on their 2000 runs-allowed total, jumped from 85-77 to 96-66. Well, the 2001 Sox are currently on pace to finish 95-67 . . . and their Pythagorean numbers actually project to 98-64." This was inaccurate on Dec. 13 and still is. You didn't add Ramirez's 2000 production to the 2000 Red Sox. You added it to projections for the 2001 Red Sox. These projections included: 1) A full season of Dante Bichette, 2) 300+ ABs each for Stynes and Valentin, and 3) an improved Jose Offerman, Troy O'Leary, and Brian Daubach Usually, your columns educate readers on how much players are really worth. These two do the opposite. They make it sound like Manny Ramirez is 11 games over who he's replacing -- when that 11-game improvement is clearly due to a combination of the factors listed above. I would appreciate it if you would clarify your beliefs on this issue in a future column or on the Your Turn board.

ART: Darren's right. My wording in yesterday's column -- Adding Ramirez, with his 2000 production in Cleveland, to the 2000 Red Sox lineup increased the team's run production enough that the Sox' won-loss record, based on their 2000 runs-allowed total, jumped from 85-77 to 96-66 -- was inaccurate. What I actually did on December 13, as Darren said, was add Ramirez's 2001 STATS projections to the 2001 projections of the other Sox hitters. He's also right when he says Ramirez doesn't deserve all the credit for that potential 11-game increase.

In my defense, I think I was more clear on December 13 (dramatic beginning aside). And I still believe the big-picture point of the column, which is to say Ramirez is a big reason the Sox have moved from 12th to 7th in runs scored. Because while there have been improvements from Offerman, Daubach and Nixon, and while Bichette has jacked up the DH production, there are other areas where production isn't as good as anticipated. Everett is down, third base is still substandard, and the dropoff from Garciaparra to what they're currently getting from their shortstops reminds me of Wile E. Coyote plummeting off a cliff in the middle of the desert. (I can't escape this vision of Mike Lansing hanging in midair with a stricken look on his face, holding up a little sign that says "UH-OH", then becoming smaller and smaller as he falls, eventually becoming a dot and then invisible until you hear a little "THUMP" and see a little puff of smoke rise from the ground.) Ramirez isn't worth 11 games -- no one is -- but he's worth quite a bit.

----

So we're unsure how healthy (and effective) Pedro Martinez will be when he returns. We have the same concerns about Bret Saberhagen, who has reached the fish-or-cut-bait stage of his rehab. Then there's the physically fragile David Cone, who in the past has worked best on long rest. And Frank Castillo, coming back from a pulled whatever-it-was muscle.

With all this in mind, what would you think of a six-man rotation? Martinez, Wakefield, Nomo, Saberhagen, Cone and Castillo, backed by a bullpen of Arrojo, Schourek/Florie (one or the other), Pulsipher, Beck, Garces and Lowe. Wakefield could also be available for bullpen duty in the third and maybe even the fourth days after his last start.

The advantages: It would protect the pitchers physically (and many of them need protection). It would, in theory, enable them to pitch longer in games than they do now. Wakefield's availability in mid-rotation would boost the bullpen.

The disadvantages: You'd have to lop a position player off the roster, since you could only carry 13 if you had 12 pitchers. But would it be so difficult? What about:

Catchers: Hatteberg (1) and Mirabelli (2).

Infielders: Daubach (3), Offerman (4), Stynes (5), Garciaparra (6), Merloni/Lansing (one or the other) (7).

Outfielders/designated hitters: Ramirez (8), Everett (9), Nixon (10), O'Leary (11), Lewis (12), Bichette (13).

It's not perfect. With so few infielders, you wouldn't have many pinch-hitting possibilities . . . and that would make O'Leary somewhat superfluous. (Lewis would have some value as a pinch-runner/defensive sub.) On the other hand, the versatility of Stynes and Offerman give you in-game options, as does Nixon's ability to play center field and, for that matter, Hatteberg's ability to play first base.

One key to all this would somehow be keeping John Valentin on the disabled list until Sept. 1; if he declares himself ready to return before then, you'd have to make a very serious roster decision. And if it was me, I'd much rather keep Merloni than Lansing. (But I'm not signing Lansing's checks, and Merloni -- need I remind you -- does have options.) Maybe the best thing to do is find a buyer for O'Leary, hopefully getting a dependable reliever for the Schourek/Florie slot in return, and keeping both Lansing and Merloni; that gives you an extra infielder as insurance for Garciaparra (and an easily opened roster spot for Valentin).

It could work. I doubt they'll do it, but it could work.

----

Finally, a little explanation about the Trot Nixon/Carl Everett controversy. Maybe the best way (the only way) to tell this story is chronologically.

Our Steven Krasner was talking to Nixon, alone, in the locker room prior to the July 5 game in Cleveland. It was an interview -- Steve had his notebook out and was writing things down -- as they discussed a couple of topics. In the course of their conversation, Steve, as part of a discussion about Nixon playing center field, asked if he knew if Everett was close to returning. Nixon then said what he said, without prompting.

It was clear they were on the record. It was also the first time a player said publicly what some of them had said privately, off the record. Steve asked a couple of follow-up questions, and Nixon amplified his remarks. After he was finished, Krasner got comments from Everett and Jimy Williams.

At that point, Krasner was the only reporter who had the story. This is what he wrote . . .

By STEVEN KRASNER
Journal Sports Writer

CLEVELAND -- Center fielder Carl Everett has been missing from the Red Sox lineup since June 21, when he suffered a sprained right knee while attempting a diving catch at Tropicana Field.

And Trot Nixon, who has replaced him in center, is speaking out publicly about the irritation he and his teammates feel because they don't think Everett is exactly rushing his treatment to get back in the lineup.

"Who knows if he's trying to get better? We don't know if his knee's still swollen," Nixon said yesterday before Boston's game against the Indians. "He's very important to the lineup and to the team. The frustrating part is not seeing him making the effort because he feels a clicking in there maybe. But he has to go figure out how to get better so he can get back on the field because we need him."

Everett had an MRI shortly after suffering the injury, and nothing serious was detected. But Everett still has swelling in the knee. He remains philosophically opposed to taking cortisone shots, and he says he is allergic to aspirin, which cuts down on his options for anti-inflammatory medicines.

"Obviously he doesn't want to take that stuff, but if it's not getting any better, maybe he should go see (team physician) Doc (Bill) Morgan or someone else to find out what's wrong," Nixon said.

"It's got to be frustrating for the fans. It's got to be frustrating for ownership. He's too important to be sitting on the bench and we don't know what's wrong with him. Yeah, all right, we're winning games. But we need him in the lineup. I'm not airing him out, but I'm just saying he's important to this ballclub and it's time to make a move to do something to try to get back on the field."

Part of the Sox's frustration goes back to last year when Everett suffered a leg injury in Detroit late in the season and he showed up late for treatment and didn't show his teammates much of a commitment to returning, even though the Sox were about to play Cleveland five games in three days in a series at Fenway Park that had serious playoff implications.

That tension led to an Everett-Darren Lewis confrontation in the clubhouse. There hasn't been anything as open this time around, but Everett's approach to his health clearly hasn't changed much.

Yesterday, he arrived in the clubhouse at 4:55 p.m., or 15 minutes before the Sox were scheduled to stretch. He ultimately hit some balls off a tee and did some light outfield work during batting practice.

He's eligible to come off the disabled list tomorrow, but there's no chance of that. And if no one likes his personal timetable, well, that's the way it goes.

"It's a sprain. I'm being cautious. My leg will tell me what I can do," Everett said. "I hurt my left knee in 1993, and it took me three years to get over it. I know how knees are. I'm trying to get healthy. I don't want a setback. I won't rush it. You don't rush knees. I'm not going too risk anything by going out there with my knee 80-85 percent. If I go do something stupid, I can't play forever. It could be the end of my career. I'm not into that. My knee will tell me when I can do more."

Manager Jimy Williams said no specific tests are planned for Everett, who was batting .284 with 9 homers and 42 RBI when he got hurt, when the team returns to Boston today. But he didn't seem optimistic that Everett would be ready to play this weekend.

"He'd have to be able to run the bases first," said Williams. "It doesn't look good right now."

If you don't get the newspaper version of the Journal, you didn't read that. Our night staff didn't inform the Web staff that this story -- which was added to the budget around 7:30 -- was coming. So it was never on the Web.

That was one mistake we made. The second was that we sent the story to the Knight-Ridder News Service -- we belong to the service, and they distribute our stories nationally -- at around 9:30 p.m., instead of embargoing it until midnight (as we normally do with exclusives). Editors at the Boston Globe saw the story when it moved, and immediately called their reporters in Cleveland to find out if they had it. When the answer was no, their response was: "Get it."

So the Globe questioned Nixon after the game. The Globe story was the one picked up by the Associated Press, and the Globe story was the one that went out across the country. It was the second-hand reports from that story that Nixon apparently felt were taken out of context, and what Everett reacted to on Saturday.

I put this in here because WEEI asked us to fax a version of Krasner's story to them this morning; apparently, Nixon spoke on a radio show last night and (I'm told) said something to the effect that the first story -- our story -- was accurate. I don't know how he'd know that, since it wasn't on the Web and the Journal isn't available on a widespread basis in Boston, but I'm told that's what he said. Since he did, and since this is a source of controversy in the Nation, I thought I'd let you see it.

You didn't see it originally because we blew it. Twice. (First by not putting it on the Web, secondly by sending it out nationally too soon.) But that's what happened.