Like it? It's the new look of the column, part of a general site redesign that is expected to be rolled out at the end of this month. (Don't ask me any more about the redesign; I've just exhausted my knowledge on the subject.) I hate to admit it, but the picture above you -- which someone on SOSH aptly described as making me look like an old college linebacker -- is far closer to the real me than the old photo with the notebook, which was taken in 1995 when I was still running. Time marches on . . . unfortunately.

Before we start, a giant thank-you to the many folks who wrote in over the last two days, pointing out that the bottom of the March 11 column ended in mid-word somewhere. What happened was, they did the redesign on mid-day Monday and, somehow, the bottom of the column got cut off when they did. When I got back today and saw all the e-mails, I attempted to recreate the ending as best I could. If it looks a little different than the original, it probably is. But the gist of it remains the same.

Anyway. Since we never got to it last autumn, I thought this might be a particularly appropriate time to begin looking at the players. We're now at the stage of spring training in which we're beginning to formulate the Opening Day roster, at least in our own minds, and perhaps a look at each of the serious candidates -- with both their current spring-training stats and their Baseball Prospectus projections -- will give us a little insight as to which direction the team will go.

So, without further ado . . .

2) DAMON BUFORD
Position: Outfield. 2001 stats (with Chicago Cubs): .176/.213/.306 . 2002 spring training stats (through March 12): 21 at-bats, .143/.143/.190. 2002 Baseball Prospectus projection: .238/.311/.383
He's shown the ability to hit left-handers in the past, and he can catch the ball. That's pretty much all he brings to the table at this point in his career, but luckily -- for him -- those are two things the 2002 Red Sox can use. He could spell either Trot Nixon or Johnny Damon once in a while against left-handers, and he could give the Sox a decent glove to replace Ramirez/Daubach/Henderson in the late innings of a close game. He could even pinch-run every now and then.

If the Sox keep Rickey Henderson, it would seem Buford will be fighting Michael Coleman for the final outfield spot. Coleman, as it happens, has many of the same strengths (and weaknesses) as Buford, except he's six years younger and (presumably) a little hungrier. On the other hand, no one's ever questioned Damon Buford's attitude or approach to the game. So what do the Sox want: An established veteran from whom you know exactly what to expect (and not to expect), or a potentially higher-upside "youngster" who also carries the risk of implosion? Grady Little's choice may give us a glimpse into what sort of manager he'll be.

3) QUILVIO VERAS
Position: Second base. 2001 stats (with Atlanta): .252/.330/.357 . 2002 spring training stats (through March 12): 12 at-bats, .083/.083/.083. 2002 Baseball Prospectus projection: .266/.339/.243
Will he get a real chance? Not if Jose Offerman sticks around, is my guess. Except for two games in the outfield with Florida in 1995, Veras has never played any position except second base in the major leagues, which means he either starts for the Sox or he doesn't make the team. Offerman's presence limits the number of infielders the Sox can keep, and the signing of the more versatile Rey Sanchez eats up one of the remaining spots. I'd be surprised if Veras stuck in Boston, though I suppose the Sox could stash him in Pawtucket. He was a pretty good player not so long ago, and it'd be interesting to see if he can recapture some of the skills that made him valuable for both the Padres and the Braves. But the fact is, he'll be 32 years old at the end of April and he had reconstructive knee surgery less than two years ago. The Sox have better options.

5) NOMAR GARCIAPARRA
Position: Shortstop. 2001 stats: .289/.352/.470 . 2002 spring training stats (through March 12): 17 at-bats, .412/.412/.706. 2002 Baseball Prospectus projection: .301/.361/.494
All that's left is the back-to-back-games hurdle. Once that's cleared, I think it's safe to assume Our Nomar is back.

And none too soon.

7) TROT NIXON
Position: Right field. 2001 stats: .280/.376/.505. 2002 spring training stats (through March 12): 24 at-bats, .292/.370/.458. 2002 Baseball Prospectus projection: .297/.399/.541
If Baseball Prospectus is correct, the Sox just might have the best right fielder in the American League in 2002. Me, I'd feel more confident in that projection if Nixon had showed he can hit left-handers . . . which, to this point in his career, he hasn't. His three-year totals against them, in 201 at-bats, are .204/.303/.308. He got more than half those at-bats (105) in 2001, and his numbers -- .210/.309/.295 -- were almost identical to his career totals.

Now, I know exactly what's coming. The entire blame for those putrid statistics -- along with the blame for anything and everything that's gone wrong in Red Sox Nation for the last half-decade, not to mention global warming and the high price of beans -- will be placed, by some of you, on the head of a man whose initials are J.W. I refuse to get drawn into that morass again; this is still a Weebles-free zone. Let's just say we'll find out this year, won't we, whether The One-M'd One was an anchor around Trot Nixon's neck who prevented him from soaring to his rightful heights, or someone who astutely maximized Nixon's strengths by keeping him out of the batter's box against pitchers he couldn't hit.

I certainly hope he was an anchor, rather than astute; it would be great to have a right fielder with an OPS in the mid-.950s. But even if Jimy was right, Nixon is still a pretty valuable hand. After all, that -- the mid-.950s -- is where his OPS was against right-handers in 2001, and they pitch about two-thirds of the time.

10) CARLOS BAERGA
Position: Second base/third base. 2001 stats: Who knows? 2002 spring training stats (through March 12): 19 at-bats, .474/.474/.632. 2002 Baseball Prospectus projection: None.
I have no idea -- none whatsoever -- what to make of this guy. He's 33 years old. He hasn't played in the major leagues in two years. He hasn't been good in the major leagues in seven years. You could cut off all your fingers and both thumbs, and still be able to count on both hands the number of players who've rebounded from all that to be useful contributors to a big-league team. Yet, he did well enough in the winter leagues to wrangle a spring-training invite, and he's crushing the ball during the early days of spring.

On WEEI this morning, Larry Lucchino was talking to Dennis and Callahan about the interview process for the new manager, and he made the point that the interview was only part of the deal; the man's record -- his history, his references, the stuff he did rather than the stuff he said -- carried more weight when the decision was being made. "Just depending on the interview," said Lucchino, "is like choosing a shortstop on the basis of a spelling bee."

That being the case, you have to think Baerga has no shot. How can 20 exhibition at-bats, and a meaningless winter-league season, override seven years' worth of clear and incontrovertible evidence of decline?

On the other hand, no other infielder (with more than six at-bats) is hitting .474 . . .

We'll continue tomorrow.