You know, sometimes you can't win. I had just finished this column when Sean McAdam called at 11:40 a.m. "Grady," was his cryptic greeting. "News conference at noon." Great, I thought. A whole morning's work, out the window.

But then I thought, you know, maybe not. Maybe all this work would indicate what it would take me four hours to reconstruct in a new column: That I think the Sox made the right choice today.

So here it is, the question-and-answer column I cobbled together when it looked as if there'd be no new manager today. Believe me: The last answer is something I actually wrote before I knew what happened.

----

What's taking so long?
Well, to be fair, it's been less than a week. It just seems longer because you have to think a) the new owners must have known there was at least a chance they'd gas Joe Kerrigan once they finally took control of the franchise -- actually, I think there was more than a "chance" of it happening -- and, thus, b) they'd have been farther along in the process than they seem to be.

To give them the benefit of the doubt, we're still three weeks from Opening Day. There's no real pressure to get someone on board immediately; this is a veteran team with only a few real decisions to make this spring. If the new manager is in place by the weekend, that's more than enough time. If they're being deliberate in an effort to make sure they make the absolute right hire, that's a good thing.

On the other hand . . .

Is this delay a sign of something other than what Mike Port has referred to (several times) as "due diligence"?
If you're inclined to believe that, you can make a reasonable case. They were denied permission to speak to two of their candidates. They were rejected by two others . . . including one who wasn't on their original list but whom they apparently added when rumors began circulating that he was interested. These are all ducks you'd think would have been in order before they handed Kerrigan his pink slip.

Me, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. This is a unique time to be starting a comprehensive managerial search, and it's not their fault they couldn't start it before the franchise officially changed hands. I'm willing -- for now -- to give them a pass on this point.

What about those rejections? Should we read anything into it . . . like, no one wants to work for/deal with the New Red Sox?
I don't think so. Look at each case individually, and you'll see there were legitimate reasons for each denial/refusal that had nothing to do with the Red Sox.

-- My understanding -- and folks who live in the Bay Area would know this better than me -- is that Art Howe took a lot of criticism for last year's playoff loss to the Yankees and is actually on something of a hot seat this spring. Unlike last year, Howe probably won't survive another slow start this time around; in fact, he may not survive any moderate bump in the road. Billy Beane is a big Ken Macha fan, and you can understand his not wanting to surrender the man he thinks could be managing his team in three months' time.

-- The Astros, as you might have heard, have a new manager and a new coaching staff. The players and the on-field management team are still in the getting-to-know-you stage. Removing Tony Pena at this point of the process would cause distractions that upper management would, understandably, rather avoid. Houston GM Gerry Hunsicker said he'd give permission for Boston to talk to Pena if the ex-Sox catcher were "a serious candidate" . . . which I assume means they'd let him go only if he were assured of getting the job. Since the Sox can't possibly know if they'd like to hire Pena until they talk to him, I guess we're in the ultimate Catch-22.

(Houston's media, by the way, is reporting that the Sox also are interested in interviewing Gene Lamont, who left Boston's coaching staff after last season to rejoin Jimy Williams. Strange that his name has never popped up hereabouts.)

-- Glenn Hoffman has legitimate concerns about being brought in by an interim GM and finding himself vulnerable to losing the job when a permanent general manager is hired.

-- The question isn't why Tom Kelly turned them down; the question is, why was Tom Kelly interested in the first place? His problem at the end of the last year wasn't with the Twins; my goodness, last October -- when the word "contraction" was still mainly being associated with maternity hospitals -- the Minnesota job looked to be as attractive as virtually any in baseball. He said he was leaving because he was sick of the managerial merry-go-round. That merry-go-round spins a whole lot faster in Boston than it does in Minneapolis, so it never stood to reason that he'd even listen to the Sox. My take: He was intrigued by the notion in a casual sort of way; then, when he actually stopped and thought about what getting back on the horse entailed, he came to his senses.

What about the acknowledged candidates? What are Felipe Alou's strengths?
He's a man of respect. Pedro Martinez loves him -- no small thing -- and he'd probably be the perfect person to handle Manny Ramirez. A big part of the job in Boston is keeping controversy to a minimum, and Alou has a reputation of being able to keep his teams under control. He's handled pitching staffs well in the past. It would also be nice for the Sox to hire a minority candidate, to almost completely erase the stain of racism that began receeding during the reign of Lou Gorman and has become less and less of an issue in the ensuing years.

What are his weaknesses?
Like Jimy Williams, he's not a great chess player. His teams have displayed an alarming lack of plate discipline, which has been a problem here in recent seasons. He's older than you'd like (67), and more than one report last summer indicated that he acted as though he'd lost interest in managing. He wants a big contract, and that could be a problem when the new GM comes on board. (See Glenn Hoffman, above, for details.) Plus, he's never dealt with the sort of public scrutiny that comes with the manager's uniform in Boston. It's not to say he can't handle it; it's to say he's never had to, and it's something that's part of the package around here. It would be nice to know he's not going to fly off the handle every time one of his soundbites is replayed ad nauseum on The Big Show.

What are Grady Little's strengths?
He had an enormous measure of minor-league managerial success -- six half- or full-season championships in 16 seasons, only two losing records in two full-season leagues (in fact, he had winning records in his last eight years as manager), four Manager of the Year awards. He is well-liked and well-respected by the troops who were here during his stint as Jimy Williams's bench coach from 1997-99. He is extremely well-regarded in baseball circles. He's spent enough time in Boston to understand what the job entails.

What are his weaknesses?
He's never managed in the major leagues. From what we know of him, that's it . . . with the cavaet that we know nothing of his in-game managerial philosophies or the way he handles a pitching staff.

What about other candidates? Like Buck Showalter? Or Gary Jones?
Jones's name has been bandied about in at least some circles, and I can't stress this enough: Not only would he be an abysmal choice, he might be the worst of all possible choices. Jones spent the last three years in Pawtucket, where a) you'd be hard-pressed to name one player who advanced an inch beyond where he was when he arrived (and several, like Dernell Stenson, regressed), b) he was an unremarkable game strategist, c) the players didn't particularly like him, and d) he had such a hostile, paranoid personality that he alienated virtually everyone -- not just the media, but fans, baseball people, you name it -- he came in contact with. The idea that Gary Jones could stand up to the scrutiny of managing the Boston Red Sox, when he failed at standing up to the scrutiny of managing the Pawtucket Red Sox, is laughable. He was basically fired as PawSox manager at the end of last season, and it was said Dan Duquette gave him the Arizona Fall League job in the hopes he could market himself to another organization. As it turned out, out of the spotlight and far from the maddening crowds, he rehabilitated himself (to an extent) and Duquette kept him for a more low-profile position. And maybe he'll do a good job there. But Gary Jones as manager in Boston? We're talking about a disaster of Biblical proportions.

Showalter, on the other hand, intrigues me a little, if only because of what of Mike Lupica wrote last Sunday. (For those who missed it: Lupica pointed out that the cloud hovering over Showalter today is almost identical to the cloud that hovered over Bill Belichick after he was fired by the Cleveland Browns.) Several people ridiculed the analogy, on the theory that football and baseball are vastly different sports, but Belichick's coaching ability was never in question. Neither, to my knowledge, is Showalter's managing ability. It was all about handling people and situations, and that's the same whether you're coaching a football team or managing a baseball team or running a widget factory. If Belichick could learn from his mistakes in Cleveland and emerge from the tunnel as a better leader, why couldn't Buck?

I'm not saying Showalter's my first choice. He's not. But I'd be curious to see how he'd do.

Bottom line: If it was your call, who would you hire?
Grady Little. He knows the players, he understands what baseball in Boston is all about, and he's had success in the past as a manager (albeit at the minor-league level). Plus, his enthusiasm -- this would be his first big-league job -- would, in my view, be a plus.

----
Post-script: Sean says that when Little was introduced to the players this morning, they broke into thunderous applause. They like the choice.

So do I.