My two cents.

The readers have spoken.

The closer situation in the Boston bullpen has ignited a firestorm of responses from our loyal readership, and it would be irresponsible for me not to throw in my two cents. While I sit here in New York and listen to stories about how the allegedly-37-year-old Mariano Rivera is adding a changeup to his repertoire of pitches (which entails a fastball and a cut fastball, by the way), the Sox are apparently on the verge of starting a show on NESN in the style of You're The One That I Want where the winner will become the Beantown stopper.

(Side note: What would this show be called? Closing Time? Stop the Bleeding? Dennis Eckersley's Smile Time Variety Hour?)

But here's a revolutionary idea that will have the old man (stop calling me junior!) tearing his distinguished salt-and-pepper hair out of his head.

Why do we need a closer?

Everyone knows the closer by committee was an unmitigated disaster. However, the problem was not with the concept; the problem was with the personnel. You are looking at a bullpen that season that, before Byung-Hyun Kim and then Scott Williamson entered the picture, featured Embree and Timlin. Here is a list of everyone else who made five or more appearances out of the bullpen in 2003: Brandon Lyon, Ramiro Mendoza, Todd Jones (pre-resurrection), Jason Shiell, Chad Fox, Steve Woodard, Bronson Arroyo (only 6 appearances), Scott Sauerbeck, Bruce Chen, Robert Person, Rudy Seanez, Hector Almonte, and Kevin Tolar.

I can't believe that didn't work.

Now here's the difference. The real closer-by-committee concept works with a relief ace rather than a closer and dismisses the completely useless and artificial statistic of "saves." It can easily be proven with those scary "statistics" that a three-run save should have a special statistic of its own: "wasted appearance." Anyone in your bullpen should be able to get three outs before surrendering three runs. Those aren't the times we need our stud pitcher to be eating innings.

On the flip side, we've often heard it said that the most important at-bats in the game can occur as early as the sixth inning. This is true, but the current socialist "closer" model discourages managers from employing the players best suited for the situation at hand because the hayseeds who are too lazy to look up what VORP means refuse to accept that a "closer" should be in the game unless we're in the ninth inning.

The way to get around this situations is to not have a definitive closer, but instead a steady stable of arms with various skills that will suit every situation that occurs.

Let's say we make Mike Timlin our bullpen ace. No one will question the manager if he uses someone like Timlin to get out of a bases-loaded jam in the sixth inning to maintain a one-run lead. If we make a splash to get someone (take Cordero, for instance), and he makes an appearance in the sixth inning, all the traditionalists will be screaming for blood.

(Don't get me wrong, I think Cordero would look great on this team this year. But, as I've been saying, I think Theo is building this team towards an internal motto: "Great in '08." Between Hansen and Bryan Cox, a Sox farmhand out of Rice, the front office thinks it will find its next Papelbon. And quite frankly, what are you going to have to give to Washington to make that trade happen? Cordero is young and cheap, and the Nats are working towards a new stadium...how could you sweeten the pot enough to slip him away?)

In any case, I actually do believe the Sox are going to be okay. Is this the best situation in the world? Of course not. Would I love a shut-down closer? Who wouldn't? But in the long run, am I willing to make a major sacrifice to improve this position from what we currently have? I don't think so.

Timlin, Donnelly, Piniero, Okajima, Tavarez, Romero, Delcarmen/Hansen. That's not bad; its certainly a long way from Timlin/Embree/Lyon/Fox/Mendoza/Shiell/Chen.

Hmm. I wonder who was the guy in charge of making that improvement since 2003?