The Curt Schilling situation -- a 41-year-old pitcher who spent 7 weeks on the disabled list last season -- is a prime example of why you don't give multi-year contracts to players over 40. The Sox might be able to siphon something out of 38Pitches later in the season, or perhaps they're simply going to eat $8 million. But no matter, his situation doesn't influence the Red Sox as much as many people seem to think. A rotation that went Josh Beckett, Dice-K, Schilling, Tim Wakefield, Jon Lester/Clay Buchholz, now goes Beckett, Dice-K, Wakefield, Lester, Buchholz. Considering they had no idea what to expect from Schilling anyway (and hence, the one-year deal) is this second rotation precipitously worse? If this were October, absolutely, because Schilling's post-season experience is irreplaceable. But a week before Valentine's Day? And nearly six months before the trading deadline? Yawn. Wake me up when the Yankees find a true #1 starter, much less an aging #3.

The revelation of his injury -- in particular, its timing -- has many Sox fans screaming about the loss of Johan Santana, who got traded to the Mets last week for a Pinto, a cheese wheel and a half pint of Old Grand Dad. But let's be clear: Curt Schilling's absence this season would not have brought Johan Santana to Boston. If ya believe the Red Sox were dissuaded from making the trade because of the presence of a 41-year-old #3 starter with lingering health issues, who'd already said he was retiring after this season, well, I probably can't convince you otherwise. If Schilling had retired at the end of last season, the Red Sox still wouldn't have sent a Jon Lester and/or Clay Buchholz package to the Twins.

The whole point in hanging on to your young players is to allow them to grow into their roles, which these Sox pitchers now will, albeit quicker than expected with Schilling out of commission.