Finishing up . . .

41) UGUETH URBINA
Position: Closer. 2001 stats (Boston and Montreal combined): 66 2/3 innings, 3.64 ERA, 58 hits, 24 walks, 89 strikeouts. 2002 spring training stats (through March 25): 8 innings, 1.13 ERA, 2 hits, 2 walks, 9 strikeouts.
So why didn't the Yankees want this guy? I will grant you there's an injury risk, and I will grant you he's a bit of a head case. You grant me that he throws the snot -- or something -- out of the ball, and he certainly seems to feed off the bright lights and energy of baseball's fast lane. Wouldn't he have been a better midseason addition than Jay Witasick? Wouldn't he have been a better return for D'Angelo Jiminez? And isn't it possible the ninth inning last November 4 in Arizona would have played out differently had Urbina been around to pitch the eighth as the set-up man, leaving Mariano Rivera to get only three outs instead of six? Here we've been deifying Luis Gonzalez all these months, and it turns out Oogie might be the real hero.

But Urbina's real value is in what he'll do for the Red Sox, not what he didn't do for the Yankees, and that's where the "I will grant you"s come into play. Today will be the first of what Grady Little plans to be back-to-back outings, to test what Sean McAdam aptly described Urbina's "durability". (Joe Kerrigan once used Urbina in four straight games, during that marathon August weekend in Texas, but that was only time in his Boston stint that Urbina pitched on consecutive days.) If the bone chips in his elbow hold up, then there's the question of his clubhouse deportment. The incident on the plane last September was pretty ugly, I'm told, and not something quickly forgotten. It's the sort of thing that gets buried when everything's going well and people are focused on a common goal, but -- as we saw so starkly last year -- it's also the sort of the things that bubbles to the surface when trouble arises. Kerrigan made an interesting comment in the immediate aftermath ("You have to learn how to fight [with teammates]. You're going to have disputes, but you have to move on and forget about it the next day.") that's absolutely true. Forget about it and move on. If Urbina continues to rack up saves with an ERA in the low 2s, striking out 1 1/2 batters per inning, and the team wins, it probably won't be a problem. As long as he wears his headphones while playing his music, that is.

And every time he steps to the mound in a Red Sox uniform, we'll be reminded that the Yankees -- a model organization in many ways -- are not the flawless geniuses they're frequently made out to be.

44) ROLANDO ARROJO
Position: Reliever. 2001 stats: 103 1/3 innings, 3.48 ERA, 88 hits, 35 walks, 78 strikeouts. 2002 spring training stats (through March 21): 12 innings, 3.75 ERA, 11 hits, 2 walks, 9 strikeouts.
I've been so focused on the baggage Arrojo toted into Fenway (Mike Lansing, whom the Rockies attached to his hip) that I've allowed it to cloud my vision. Arrojo's pretty valuable. Just how valuable may finally become apparent this year if, as I fear, Rich Garces continues to struggle and Arrojo slides into the main set-up role.

Still, was it worth it? The Sox surrendered nothing to get Arrojo, but his acquisition meant they were stuck with a $6-million-a-year albatross . . . an albatross they couldn't trade, wouldn't release, and when Garciaparra went down, actually chose to play. People say Lansing earned his paycheck with a sterling second half last year, but that second half was actually one good month (.349/.397/.571 in 63 at-bats). He also had a .745 OPS in August, built on 11 extra-base hits in 97 at-bats; his batting average that month was .258 and his OBP was .291. Other than that, he was Mike Lansing: .572 OPS in April, .582 in May, .556 in June, .382 before his season-ending injury in September. It was replacement-level production at filet-mignon prices, and Lansing exacerbated the problem by being one of the canisters of clubhouse poison that broke open in September. (In fact, his canister was leaking all through the year.) Arrojo would have had to have pitched like Pedro Martinez to justify the deal.

But that was then. This is now. Lansing's gone, and so are all the players the Sox traded to Colorado, and Arrojo's shaping us a key member of the 2002 pitching staff. Unless you can make the case that Lansing prevented from the Sox from winning in either 2000 or 2001 -- and while I certainly don't think he helped any, I'm not ready to go that far -- patience, indeed, was its own reward. The trade worked out. It was worth it.

45) PEDRO MARTINEZ
Position: Starting pitcher. 2001 stats: 116 2/3 innings, 2.39 ERA, 84 hits, 25 walks, 163 strikeouts. 2002 spring training stats (through March 25): 13 2/3 innings, 8.56 ERA, 16 hits, 5 walks, 15 strikeouts.
John Tomase of the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune -- who's one of the best writers on the Red Sox beat -- said everything I've been thinking about Pedro Martinez in his March 24 column. I have nothing to add to:

-- "The Red Sox say Pedro Martinez is fine. So do scouts. And opponents. And Pedro himself. And yet the eyes say something else.

-- "It's hard to see what's holding Martinez back. Scouts at Thursday's game said he again touched 95 mph, though he pitched in the 92 mph range. His changeup remains as unfair as ever. And yet he's getting hit. His curveball lacks its usual bite, perhaps because he's afraid to really snap it off. He's left his fastball where it can be hit the last two starts. The Cardinals didn't even swing and miss at a fastball until the fourth inning Thursday, which is unheard of with Martinez on the hill."

-- "It's disconcerting to see Martinez struggle with his confidence. It has played as big a part in his success as his electrifying arsenal. The Red Sox say he'll get it back. We'll just have to wait and see."

Wait and see. That's all we can do. Though a little prayer probably wouldn't hurt, either.

Because let's face it. If Pedro's not Pedro, it's probably not realistic to dream any October dreams. I mentioned this in an earlier column, but Jerry Remy hit it right on the nose last July when he said the Sox would miss Martinez more than Garciaparra because of the ripple effect Pedro has on the rest of the staff. I didn't believe it then; I believe it now.

49) TIM WAKEFIELD
Position: Reliever. 2001 stats: 168 2/3 innings, 3.90 ERA, 156 hits, 73 walks, 148 strikeouts. 2002 spring training stats (through March 25): 12 1/3 innings, 9.49 ERA, 13 hits, 6 walks, 12 strikeouts.
The most welcome quote of the spring -- by far -- was Tim Wakefield's "I'll do whatever they ask" of a few days ago. No more talk of being a starter. No more whining about the Sox abusing his versatility. Just a willingness to accept the role he's given. Thank you, Tim. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Is it the right role? Some of you think not, and Darren Sechrist speaks for the group:

Darren Sechrist

Here's what you said about Castillo, but I think it applies equally to Wakefield: " . . . he's far most likely to succeed in the starting rotation than he is in the bullpen... Plus, he's not bad. He had a terrific season for Toronto in 2000, and a pretty good year for the Sox in '01. If you accept him for what he is, you realize he's a more-than-decent, back-of-the-rotation starter." Wakefield was a good starter for us. He's an excellent #3 who eats a ton of innings, the latter of which you can't say about Castillo.

I see the argument, but I'm unconvinced. From 1999-2001, Wakefield's record as a starter (14-24, 5.32 ERA in 51 starts) is not only far worse than his record as a reliever (7-9, 18 saves, 3.87 in 94 games), but it's not what you'd want from a No. 3 starter. In fact, he's four seasons removed from his last good year as a starter in Boston.

You can assert that his effectiveness has been curbed by bouncing back and forth from the bullpen, and maybe that's true. So put that aside and look at it another way: Is he better than the four pitchers -- John Burkett, Derek Lowe, Dustin Hermanson and Frank Castillo -- who currently comprise the non-Martinez part of the rotation?

My take: He's not better than the two (Lowe and Hermanson) who probably could take his place in the bullpen, and the other two (Burkett and Castillo) aren't suited for relief work. Wakefield may be better than Darren Oliver, who apparently will hold Burkett's spot in the rotation until he returns from DL, but do you want to deconstruct your bullpen to fill a two-week hole at the beginning of the season?

I think Tim Wakefield's where he belongs. He may not agree, but at least he's going to keep his mouth shut about it . . . for which I'm very grateful.

----

And finally, did you see this?

Vaughn has choice words for (expletive) Percival

Ah, Maurice. Life is so much duller without you.