JERI's Big, Dorky Question O' the Day

White Sox.

I see something like 83 or 84 victories in their future.

Partly due to extreme luck last year and partly because Minnesota and Cleveland are very good.

Also Houston should fall very far. They have no offense and no Roger Clemens. That's doesn't look good. 78 wins.

by Klostrophobic on Mar 27, 2006 11:16 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

They added Jim Thome who has looked amazing this spring. Crede and Uribe should have better years offensively, as should Iguchi and Pierzynski. They added Vazquez to give them 6 top starters (including B-Mac.) The bullpen although worse than last year has Neal Cotts and Cliff Politte who are arguably the two best lefty/righty set-up combination in the majors. Jenks just needs to get the rust off (and the fat,) so he should be rolling in mid-April. They are still the best team in the division. Twins have no O, the Indians lack depth in the rotation and their backend of the pen is iffy with Wicky, the Tigers have no bullpen and a young group of starters and well the Royals just suck.

by maggsmaggs on Mar 27, 2006 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Never

take anything as other than homer-ism when the team in question being commented on by someone with obvious fan bias in their username. WS win 87-90 games max this year. B-Mac is a top starter? There were plenty of questions about the Sox heading into last year, just as there about Cleveland/Minny. Cleveland was still good enough to win 93 games last year while Minnesota won 83. The WS were extemely lucky they were as healthy as they were last year, as well as some other lucky breaks going their way. A little bit of that playing out at a normal rate this year will put them right in the middle of it w/ the rest of the AL central, not the clear-cut best team. I think the central will be the closet division in baseball and think it will be very interesting to watch. The Sox may very well win the division again this year, but they are far from a lock.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on Mar 27, 2006 12:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't forget

Minny won 83 while dinking around with their roster over the last month of the season. They stopped trying to win and started holding tryouts after August 31. Had they not rested starters down the stretch, they would have been at least an 86 win team.

by limozeen on Mar 27, 2006 6:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

dont think so

theres no way that all 4 of those guys (tad, uribe, pierz & crede) have better offensive years...if anything one can make a more legitimate case that each of them had career years in '05, along with pods, and each will decline this year...the fact that cotts and politte are arguably the best in the majors, yeah thats VERY arguable cause i agree theyre good buts its really early to say that theyre the best...and i'd say its MUCH more likely that his run last october was the exception and his play this spring (as well as back with the halos) is the rule with him...you're REALLY going out on a limb assuming someone as inconsistent as jenks will bounce right back

however, im probably right about 1/2 of those things and you are too, which still puts them right in the hunt for the division title...but following a year where SO many things went right for them, i just don't see that happening, again where theyd win 90+...

by robcast23 on Mar 27, 2006 1:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't want to be a jerk, but...

How can we know that Tadahito Iguchi had a career year in 2005...his only year in MLB? And if Uribe's 2004 was much better than his 2005...it was...why is 2005 his career year? Pierzynski's total OPS in 2005 was his lowest in his career, and .036 points below his career total?

I'll agree with you that Crede certainly could regress...however, he could also become a marginally useful batter in his age 28 season.

Podsednik has two good years and 1 bad one. He certainly could regress, or get injured, and I think the likelihood of him being either effective AND healthy for the whole season is small.

And you're right about Jenks. He could certainly be a sub-par reliever this year, or injured. Actually, the situations with Podsednik and Jenks are similar--healthy, effective, both?

by Stealfirstbase on Mar 28, 2006 3:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dang. Left something out

To sum up: Iguchi and Crede could be up or down this year, I'm looking for improvements from Uribe and Pierzynski, and Podsednik and Jenks have both effectiveness and injury concerns. I doubt there will be regression..or by the same token, improvement...from all of them. It'll be interesting to see which way these players go this season, and to what degree.

Uribe and Pierzynski = Almost certain modest improvement, on the order of 25-50 OPS points.

Crede and Iguchi = Either could regress, but either could improve in a big way. Lose 20 OPS or gain 50-70 OPS.

Podsednik and Jenks = Injury risks AND effectiveness risks. Not players I'd depend on. Jenks ERA could go up from 2.75 to about 4.25, or he could get injured. I don't think Podsednik will regress, but he had a large potential for injury, so it doesn't really matter. Any injury to Podsednik's legs renders him a useless player and pretty bad regular, with or without regression.

That's quite a bit of offensive improvement with a potentially Large--no pun intended--drop in pitching effectiveness if Jenks goes down. The Sox can't afford too many more injuries in the bullpen.

by Stealfirstbase on Mar 28, 2006 4:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Once again...

All in all, if the bullpen doesn't implode, White Sox will be better in 2006 than they were in 2005.

The offense is improved by the addition of Thome, and likely hurt by going from Rowand to Anderson in center field. The Sox have a lot of solid performers who are either likely to improve of have the potential to improve in 2006--guys like Pierzynski, Crede, Uribe, Iguchi.

The team defense shouldn't suffer much, unless Podsednik proves incapable of staying healthy in left field. Anderson--like Jeremy Reed, Mike Cameron and Aaron Rowand before him--should prove to be an above average defensive center fielder. He apparently is an above average fielder, and watching him play...I can buy that. He's also got a better arm than Rowand.

The starting pitching should be improved...yes, improved...by the addition of Vazquez and the depth that McCarthy provides. I could see regression from Buehrle and Garland, but not enough to outweigh the benefit of replacing El Duque with Vazquez. Having 6 above average and injury resistant starters who plow through innings like freight trains is a real plus when you consider the...

Bullpen. Please, please don't fall apart on us. Worst case scenario: Hermanson is done, Jenks gets hurt, no one from the minors can help, and Logan and Lopez and whoever we got from Seattle suck. OK, that last possibility might be a certainty in every scenario. Regardless, there's the potential in this bullpen to have only two or three effective relievers for a whole season in McCarthy, Politte and Cotts.

On the whole, improvement. My guess? Like I said before, 90-95 wins.

by Stealfirstbase on Mar 28, 2006 4:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes

if the bullpen doesn't implode then the 2006 White Sox will be better then the 2005 White Sox. But, the 2005 White Sox over-preformed last year by quite a bit. There is some heavy competition in that league, and there is a good chance that White Sox decline just because of those two factors. They will not win 99 games again this year without strong stretches of the imagination. Mid eighties to Mid ninties is probably reasonable, understanding that is a pretty big gap.

by Trenchtown on Mar 28, 2006 5:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yup.

I'm down with that. Where are you that you're posting at 5 AM?

Myself, I'm in Australia.

Also, a ten game reduction in wins makes it unlikely that the White Sox will be the biggest slider in 2006. My vote goes to the Red Sox on that front. I just don't trust Beckett, or Schilling, or Foulke, or whoever they run out at shortstop.

Actually, that seems a tad unrealistic. I'll go for the Astros.

by Stealfirstbase on Mar 28, 2006 5:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

west coast

it was 3am which is a little less insane but I am an insomniac

by Trenchtown on Mar 28, 2006 10:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't see it

The White Sox major changes were Thomas, Hernandez and Rowand replaced with Thome, Vazquez, and Anderson.

Will they experience a dropoff? Sure. Will they be the largest dropoff? I seriously doubt it.

by rojosoto on Mar 27, 2006 4:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The White Sox...

are going to make a lot of people sad this year when they make the playoffs as either the division winner or wildcard. The backlash against them has been so strong that they're now underrated. Has their ever been a more disliked and disrespected team?

I say 90 wins is a fine projection. That's pretty conservative, and accounts for some injuries.

I'd feel better if, in the Thome trade, they'd forced the Phillies to swap Abreu for Dye. Then they'd have a middle 3 of Abreu, Konerko, and Thome. Pretty stern stuff there. With Dye, it's just not as menacing.

by Stealfirstbase on Mar 27, 2006 8:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dreams

are nice aren't they.

"I'd feel better if, in the Thome trade, they'd forced the Phillies to swap Abreu for Dye. Then they'd have a middle 3 of Abreu, Konerko, and Thome. Pretty stern stuff there. With Dye, it's just not as menacing."

Ya almost had me until you threw the Abreu/Dye thing out there. Not as menacing w/ Dye indeed. And the Sox could have "forced" Abreu how? No, the Sox aren't under-rated...

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on Mar 27, 2006 10:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

The Phillies were looking to trade Big Jim. Thome was looking to come to Cleveland or Chicago, and no where else. You do the math.

A deal of Rowand, Dye (5.5 mil this year, club option for 6 mil in 2007), Gio Gonzalez and Daniel Haigwood

for

Jim Thome (3 yrs, 46 mil with 22 mil included from the Phillies end) and Bobby Abreu (2 yrs, 30 (!) mil)

isn't a bad deal for either team. The Phillies lose 54 million dollars in salary over the next three seasons, while picking up only about 8.5 mil. I'm not sure of Rowand's contract situation, but I believe he's between 3 and 5 mil for this year and next. The Phillies pick up bargains and prospects for a guy they have to trade--Thome--and a guy they shopped all off-season--Abreu. The White Sox get a nice way to spend all the money they made from winning the world series, and they don't have to play the free agent market to do it. Historically, the White Sox don't bring free agents to the south side. They mostly resign their own players--who they've developed--or bring in talent through trades.

It would have worked out fabulously for both teams and front offices. The Phillies get out from under the gun and free up a spot for Howard and trade Abreu--who they were looking to get rid of anyway. Now, the rumors were that the Phillies would trade Abreu for starting pitching. If that were the case, Jose Contreras could be worked into that deal, provided something else came back from the Phillies end. In principle, the deal would have been great.

Also, the Sox are getting picked to win, what, 80 games? People think they'll actually go 80-82? or 85-77? That's underrated. It's really not worth talking about, since last season they got picked to finish fourth. We'll just have to see how the games play out, won't we?

by Stealfirstbase on Mar 27, 2006 10:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I should say

8.5 million in 2006

by Stealfirstbase on Mar 27, 2006 10:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll take Dye, for now

He's one of the best bargains in baseball at this point. He'll earn less in the next two years (if his '07 option is picked up) than Abreu will learn in 2006 alone.

Dye is finally fully recovered from his freak injuries in Oakland. He's always been a pretty well built guy, so it's certainly not out of the question for Dye to repeat last year's numbers (.276/.333/.512, 118 OPS+).

What a great pickup last offseason. One of the many bashed moves made by Kenny Williams, yet Dye was spectacular replacing Maggs.

by CWSKeith on Mar 27, 2006 10:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, but...

Players--or contracts, I should say--have different values to different teams. The White Sox are going for the brass ring this year, and so don't really need any "bargains." A contract like Abreu's, even with its outrageous cost, is more valuable to the Sox because it takes them a win or two closer to the world series.

Abreu is better than Dye, and has a better injury history. Has Abreu ever been to the disabled list? In Dye's case, the question asked is "what hasn't Jermaine injured?" He went on the DL last year for spider bites.

Dye is good when healthy, and has recently been healthy. He's a bargain and his steady performance would be more valuable to a team like the Phillies, who aren't as likely to reach the playoffs this season.

Abreu is slightly older than Dye and much more expensive. In a vacuum and free of all context, Dye's contract is probably better, simply for the cost to results ratio that the players put up. But neither the White Sox or the Phillies operate in that vacuum. Each has specific needs. Dye's contract fills the Phillies needs better than does Abreu's, and Abreu's contract meshed perfectly with what the White Sox are lining up to do--compete hard for the next couple of years.

The trade would've been so perfect that I question whether there's something I'm missing here. Is Abreu a bad teammate? Was there some reason that Williams didn't want him? I mean, the Phillies wanted to get rid of both Thome and Abreu for salary relief, to provide an opening for Howard, and to acquire talent in return. They had to trade Thome's contract--with his no-trade clause--to either Cleveland or Chicago. Even if Thome agreed to go to another city, he had to go to the AL. The list of partners was limited, the White Sox perfectly filled the Phillies needs. It seems like we saw the first half of a trade--Thome--and not the second half--Abreu. All I can deduce is that there must be something up with Abreu--like a no trade clause or being a bad teammate or some other nonsense--or that the Phillies asked for Brandon McCarthy or an unreasonable player in return.

This trade is just to perfect for neither Williams or Gillick to see it. They must have, and yet they didn't complete it.

by Stealfirstbase on Mar 27, 2006 10:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

indeed

The trade would've been so perfect that I question whether there's something I'm missing here.

What you appear to be missing is that Abreu is a really, really, really good player.

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Mar 27, 2006 11:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Abreu is really really good

But he's also really really expensive, and on a team that has a real real chance of missing the playoffs this year.

I've made my points. We're not talking about players here, we're talking about their contracts. This is a good trade for both teams. The match is perfect.

It's a shame it didn't happen.

by Stealfirstbase on Mar 28, 2006 12:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Williams was probably not willing to...

part with McCarthy and any of Anderson/Sweeney/Dye.

Hello stealfirstbase,

As Mean Dean mentioned, Abreu is a very good player, probably the best player on the Phillies.

For the White Sox to get Abreu, you probably would have had to give up McCarthy AND another prospect, either Ryan Sweeney or Brian Anderson, or perhaps Jermaine Dye, along with McCarthy. If that was the offer made, that is probably why Williams said no.

Would you have traded McCarthy and either Sweeney, Anderson, or Dye for Abreu? I don't think I would have - Abreu isn't that young anymore (32 for the 2006 season) and you have to wonder how long he can stay healthy (he's averaged over 150 games from 1998-2005 - how long can that continue?) and continue to perform at that high level. Plus, he's never played in the AL - it's not usually easy for a player to switch leagues, and especially for an NL player to change to the AL (Renteria, Boone,) more so than an AL player switching to the NL in my opinion (Thome, Giles.)

Just my 2 cents. :-)

Take care and have a great day!

by indiansfan on Mar 28, 2006 1:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ouch!

If that's the price, I'd pass too. I guess the Phillies better enjoy paying Abreu 30 million in the next two years. I guess the question is, then, would you rather have Jose Contreras and Jermaine Dye for 14.5 million, or Abreu for 15 million?

I'd rather have Contreras and Dye, and I'd certainly rather have McCarthy. That sort of asking price, in addition to that contract, could explain why Abreu is still in Philadelphia. Demands like that will make it tough to trade a contract, no matter how hard you shop it.

I guess we're counting on Dye for another year.

by Stealfirstbase on Mar 28, 2006 2:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh,

and I didn't think that Abreu's age was such a big deal...

until I saw that his #1 comp was none other than Bernie Williams.

Let's see how he does this year.

by Stealfirstbase on Mar 28, 2006 2:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Two picks

The Marlins are the obvious choice, mainly because they gutted their entire roster and lost all their best players. But taking them's just way too easy.

I'd have to say the Astros. They relied last year on massive seasons from Ensberg and Pettite, neither of which I think will approach those seasons. Clemens will at least miss a month or so, and may not even pitch for them. Biggio will decline because of age. The Pirates and Brewers should both be better than last season, so that means harder competition. I think they'll struggle to get to .500 this season.

by cinqua on Mar 27, 2006 11:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Several

1. Nationals-Guillen is injured (again), Soriano is Soriano, Guzman is still employed. They over achieved last year, now the other shoe drops.

The Marlins could have the biggest decline just because of the roster changes. I still expect them to be better than the Nats though. Better at almost every position than the Nats.

The White Sox better hope the horses in the rotation don't go to the pasture this year because that bullpen is iffy.

by colinadam on Mar 27, 2006 11:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

This could be ugly

The Nationals' rotation, bullpen, outfield and middle infield should all be worse this year. That Soriano/Wilkerson-Sledge trade already looks bad and losing Loaiza is going to hurt. They may lose 100 even if Zimmerman breaks out and Johnson stays healthy.

by asinwreck on Mar 27, 2006 7:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

St. Louis

I say St. Louis declines. I think they will still be decent, but only slightly above .500 and missing out on the playoffs.

The NL Central cupcakes (Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Cincinatti) are improved, the Cards won't be able to steamroll them like in the past.

by SmokeyJoeWood on Mar 27, 2006 11:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Declines

Like others, I agree that the White Sox will underperform - their bullpen is shaky, and their lineup will strike out a lot.

My other candidates to underperform include

Yankees - Pavano, Small and Wright are already injured, Mussina isn't getting younger. Offense is still there, but who is going to pitch for them?

Cardinals - Pujols is imposing in the lineup, but I don't know if he'll get the same protection this year. Rolen and Edmonds are supposedly healthy, but who knows? The pitching staff is still good, but I don't believe this is a 100 win team.

Padres - I don't see more than 75 wins for this team - I like Peavy and Chris Young, and I like Barfield and Mike Cameron. Other than that, I'm not liking their chances this year.

But my pick for Biggest Underperformer goes to the Angels

Reason? I don't think Vlad is healthy. I don't think he's going to play more than 125 games this season, and even then, he'll be at 75%. I'm not a fan of their infield, Garrett Anderson is getting older, and while their bullpen is good, K-Rod is a big injury candidate this year. I think Colon and Escobar can win games, but I'm not sure about the rest of the rotation.

Discuss.

by sasquatch83 on Mar 27, 2006 11:37 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Vlad's Health

Vlad's not healthy? No one who covers the team -- the four beat writers, the mlb.com correspondent, the the announcers, etc. -- has suggested that Vlad is less than healthy. Also, no one who watches Vladdy play on a regular basis -- that is, fans of the team who travelled to Arizona to watch him play -- has suggested that he is less than healthy. My conclusion: Vlad is perfectly fine.

by Crows Landing on Mar 27, 2006 12:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ST Stats

Furthermore, Vlad's been raking this spring, hitting .457 with and OBP of .487 and a SLG% of .829. So, not only has there been no hint that he's less than healthy, but his play in the field also suggests that he's healthy.

by Crows Landing on Mar 27, 2006 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You're right

I guess I'm still thinking about how he was performing at the end of last season. For some reason, I do think his back will flare up at some point this season, but that's more of an irrational hunch than anything else.

Even so, if Vlad can play over 140 games, the Angels offense still seems very thin to me.

by sasquatch83 on Mar 27, 2006 3:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Sox

Like others, I agree that the White Sox will underperform - their bullpen is shaky, and their lineup will strike out a lot.

Wow, compelling argument for the Sox' offense being bad: strike outs.

BTW -- when you have six good-to-great starters, like the White Sox do, you can get by with an average offense. Last year the Sox offense ranked ninth in the AL in runs scored -- I expect they'll be in that 7-10 range this year.

by CWSKeith on Mar 27, 2006 8:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure

The White Sox do have a lot of power. They also have a lot of guys who K a lot. Look at the lineup - a lot of potential 100 K guys in there. That makes me nervous for their success this year.

Also, they probably will be in the same range this year, which is to say - not that great.

Their staters are good of course - but as good as last year? Buerhle is solid, and probably will be again. But I'm not sure that Garland or Contreras can repeat their performances.

And even if they can, their bullpen is nowhere near as solid, with Hermanson out, and Jenks out of shape. It may be that they're good enough to repeat, but personally, I think they're very good candidates for fewer wins this year.

by sasquatch83 on Mar 27, 2006 10:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agree

on the angels completely, but for different reasons. That offense right now is horrible, and they have a lot of big contracts for declining veterans that they can unload. Even with the new crop of talent, PR and financially they cannot afford the potential 26 million dollars worth of players who should be on the bench (Erstad, Cabrera, Anderson)

Vlad is a decent chance for injury because of his semi-injury prone history and his playing style is one condussive of playing with reckless abandon.

Frankie K really needs to do something about his mechanics falling across his body with such force that his leg windmills to left side of his body causing him to actually fall to the ground on the occassional pitch.

Colon did a good job of lowering walks and homeruns which made his 2004 campaign a disaster but he still isn't the power pitcher he used to be and which one is the real Colon is still up for debate.

think of their line-up

C- Mathias/Molina no offense to speak of

1st- Casey Kotchman league average at best for a 1st baseman. His 2.15 GB/FB ratio does not porject well for a power-hitter and there is the distinct possibility of a lack of power from him. If he reproduces his 2005 I'll be suprised

2nd- AK slightly better then average as a 2nd baseman. BA and OBP are nice, as is the speed, but his slugging disappeared.

SS- O-Cab. I will admit that I hate Cabrera with an unreasonable passion so I will be biased about my beliefs. A sub .700 OPS from anyone sucks, and with O-Cab's tendency to swing at everything from the heels I don't think any bounce back is eminent. Again, I am Biased

DH- Juan Rivera. A we'll see situation, he has a chance to do pretty well or be average or slightly below average.

RF. Vald. Excellent. no doubt.

CF. Erstad. .696 OPS as a first baseman. Did anyone else just vomit in their mouth a little bit? even the move to CF can't justify those numbers. And his knees are horrible which will inhibit his defense.

LF- Anderson. Below average for a premium power position. an empty .283 batting average to go along with cliff diving power and horrible defense.

Figgins: pretty good. High average pretty good OBP little slugging. Won't hurt the team that is for sure.

last year the Angels had an OPS+ of 98 as a team, and they will be worse this year. 95 wins won't happen again.

by Trenchtown on Mar 28, 2006 6:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

White Sox: their Pythagorean W-L says they should have been a 90-win team, not a 100-win team.

Marlins: roster changes, obviously

Cubs: I know they only won 79 games last year, but if Prior-Wood are hurt and Lee comes back to earth...they could really fall

by Ian Miller on Mar 27, 2006 11:43 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Declining in '06

I think the Astros will take a big step back this year. Considering their lack of offense and adding the loss of Clemens, I see them finishing 4th in the Central.

Please fire Dusty Baker!

by Buddy on Mar 27, 2006 11:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Florida

Florida is the obvious choice, due to aforementioned roster gutting.
I would expect significant decline from Washington as well (Won't win all the close ones this year, still no hitting)

like unto a thing of iron.

by Ryan Heimberger on Mar 27, 2006 11:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Three candidates

I think there are three clubs who are likely to implode this year:

The Twins: thin offense + defensive downgrades + total reliance on pitching = good chance to crap out. If they get breakout seasons from Morneau and Mauer, they could surpise. But they will struggle to score runs, and will have to play Cleveland and the White Sox often. It could be a tough year for them.

The Astros: I am not convinced that Morgan Ensberg is the real deal. They are not likely to get similar production from the starters even if Clemens does come back. If he doesn't, it will be a long year. Their lineup is aging, with more players likely to decline (Preston Wilson, Craig Biggio, Brad Ausmus) than players who should improve (Jason Lane, Chris Burke). They could be in full rebuild mode in 4 months.

The Angels: they didn't do nearly enough to stay ahead of the Rangers and A's. The Angels are the only club in the AL West that won't be much better in 2006. Their offense is thin outside of Vlad. Darin Erstad, Garret Anderson, Orlando Cabrera, and Edgardo Alfonso are all old and overpaid. They have a good group of young players, but the best of them (Brandon Wood, Howie Kendrick, Erick Aybar, Kendry Morales, Nick Ardenhart and Jarrod Weaver) are not going to be major contributors for a while. If the Angels are going to keep atop the AL West, they will need big contributions from Dallas McPhearson, Casey Kotchman, Jeff Mathis, and Ervin Santana. More likely, the Angels will have two mediocre seasons before their young players establish themselves.

Honorable mentions: Cardinals, Red Sox, Phillies and Braves

by Jerry on Mar 27, 2006 12:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

i Don't agree with the twins imploding

They got rid of May, who was by far the worst pitcher in the rotation. Lohse is looking way better this spring than in the past(I know, small sample size). The team also has two up and coming pitchers in the very consistent Scott Baker, and filthy Fransisco Liriano. Adding Castillo gives you a very good on base guy with Gold Glove defense. White should be able to stay healthy while being only a DH. Mauer and Morneau should also improve with natural progression.

by joeywyen on Mar 27, 2006 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Everyone has said it for years

but I'm going with the Braves because they lost Leo Mazzone and Rafel Furcal, have issues with the bullpen, the best starting pitcher is on borrowed time, and Chipper is also an injury risk.

by SLK on Mar 27, 2006 1:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Braves

I think that if the Braves lose the division, it won't be because they are necessarily worse, but because the Mets are that much better.

Yes, losing Mazzone and Furcal hurt, but I think Edgar rebounds a little. I think Giles will be fine in the leadoff spot, if what I saw in Spring Training was any indication.

There are concerns about the starting pitching, but they have the depth in the system that I think they can compensate.

Last, I think Chipper will bounce back this year, and that their bullpen is better than a lot of people think. They have guys with good K rates. Reitsma falls apart later in the season, but he's usually good for a few months. Devine is having an excellent spring. Villareal, if healthy, is lights-out. And McBride and Boyer could be very good as well.

by sasquatch83 on Mar 27, 2006 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Astros

The Royals. Just kidding. Is that even possible, mathematically? Can you win a negative amount of games?

by tim on Mar 27, 2006 2:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Fish & Red Sox

The Marlins because of the Huizenga-like gutting of the team, and I hate to say the Red Sox. I think the lack of strength in depth will see them out of playoff contention with Jays looking better every day.

"Never go to bed mad. stay up and fight" - Phyllis Diller

by hazy cosmic jive on Mar 27, 2006 2:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Lack of Depth in Boston?

Which position is it they lack depth at? Even after trading Arroyo, they have a half-dozen starters and after getting Pena and Choi, strong backups at most positions. The only depth they don't have is the same lack of depth everybody has; if Ramirez or Ortiz get seriously hurt, they are screwed.

by NBarnes on Mar 27, 2006 11:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Teams winning 10 less games in 2006

Top contenders for teams to end up with 10 less wins than last year include:
Washington
Houston
Anaheim
Florida
Arizona
Boston

by rojosoto on Mar 27, 2006 4:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Just to rock the boat

I'm going with the A's

Injury risks include:
Kotsay
Bradley
Chavez
Crosby
Kendell
Harden

Guys that plain stink it up:
Swisher (I'm going to catch hell for this but it's sooooo true)
Kendall

Clubhouse cancers:
Bradley (Just wait)
Jay Payton

If injuries/slow start/cancerous outfielders hurt this team then they will not get to the playoffs.

At least with the Angels they have Morales/Kendrick to look at later in the season to give them a boost.

Chavez takes longer to get started than an old Pinto and Johnson should not lose his starting 1B job to Swisher.

Take this with a grain of salt but how true could it be?

by colinadam on Mar 27, 2006 4:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

the boat has been rocked

no doubt, a couple of the guys you mentioned will indeed suck (i'm looking at you, kendall) or get hurt (everybody you mentioned, plus ellis and of course thomas). the beauty of the A's is that they've assembled a top-notch bench and the league's best pitching staff. so if some things go wrong, they will still break 90 wins--which will actually be an improvement on last year's record.

in order for them to plummet 20 games in the standings, i can't even imagine what would have to happen. the team plane crashes? seriously, what are the actual odds of below 70 wins? i agree that missing the playoffs is certainly a possibility, especially in a tough division where the rangers look significantly improved and the angels might hold everybody off again. but they didn't make the playoffs either, and we're attempting to compare with the 2005 baseline.

by jpahk on Mar 28, 2006 11:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

VS the flow

I'm going to say the Astros win the NL Central and lose in the first round. (read into that: not one of the biggest dropoff teams).

The Brewers are full of promise, but don't have the proven hitters of the rest of the NLC. The Cubs will be the Cubs. Their starting rotation is already thin with Prior and Wood currently hurt or soon-to-be hurt. The only hitters worth a darn right now are Lee and Ramirez. That's not enough to beat out the Stros. The Cards are getting old, but with Rolen, Edmonds and Pujols, I think they'll finish 1-3 games behind the Stros. Plus, there's no way Chris Carpenter repeats as CY Young, and Mark Mulder is in for a huge decline. Look at the decline of his indicator numbers the past 3 years and you'll see why Beane traded him. (and I'm not an A's homer, so stop that nonsense before it starts). The Pirates have some good young arms, but they need more experience. The Reds just don't have the pitching.

The Stros have a full season of Berkman, Biggio will drop a little, but not fall off a cliff. Tavares will be better his second full year, Wilson will help some, but not be an All-Star. The Pen is good, the rotation is ok, but with a boost from Clemens, they'll be poised for a good run down the stretch.

I'm going with the Cards to lose more than 10 games from last year simply because Carpenter won't repeat and Mulder is declining. After them, there's no pitching.

Tha's ma story and I'm sticking with it.

by lenred on Mar 27, 2006 5:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The Dodgers

I'm going to be a devout Giants fan and say the Dodgers are going to plummet this season. Record wise I predict they will once again finish around the 70-win mark, so perhaps I am not accurately answering the question. Many expect the Dodgers to fair much better because of the plethora of additions they have made this off-season. What's weird is, being a Giants fan, it's going to feel strange booing Bill Mueller, probably more weird than it was booing Jeff Kent last season. Not to mention the many other former Giants now wearing Dodger blue, although if you read any reports about a hostile fan pelting Brett Tomko with eggs, I'm probably the culprit. Bottom line, the Dodgers will not live up to expectations BECAUSE they just don't have the pitching depth to sustain any kind of success in '06.

by StickRat on Mar 27, 2006 5:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Dodgers

"Bottom line, the Dodgers will not live up to expectations BECAUSE they just don't have the pitching depth to sustain any kind of success in '06."

Lowe
Penny
Perez
Seo
Tomko

Billz is available if anyone goes down with an injury. Penny and Perez are healthy this season and were not last season. Where exactly is the lack of pitching depth?

And, many expect the Dodgers to do better simply due to luck. When most of your roster hits the DL, you aren't going to win. If they are not injured like last season, then they will do better.

by count sutton on Mar 28, 2006 9:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Show me aces

Because I don't see any. Only one of those 5 pitchers, Derek Lowe, logged more than 200 innings last year. Two of them lost 15 games. They are all injury prone, and Brett Tomko is a competitive liability. Add to that a rookie pitching coach and a defensively average middle infield, it could be batting practice at Chavez Ravine this year. Good thing they added some depth to their bullpen because they're gonna need it.

by StickRat on Mar 28, 2006 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Red Sox

Varitek, Trot, Lowell, are all on the downswing. Besides Covelli, Ortiz, and Manny, the offense is going to be lacking. This will be masked by the ballpark, but they won't win as many slugfests as in the past. Which is unfortunate, because they'll need to. Their pitching depth is overrated because no one posted a sub-4.00 ERA in decent innings last year. Their bullpen has major combustion risks. Plus the Yankees are better, the Blue Jays are going to be much improved, the Devil Rays are going to be better, and even those Orioles might surprise if they get breakouts from Dan Cab and Bedard.

If Boston finishes below 80 wins, don't count me surprised.

by limozeen on Mar 27, 2006 6:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Houston

The 'stros will be the biggest drop off. I don't count Florida since we expect it. And I think they don't drop as far as people expect.

The biggest disappointment?

Yankees or Red Sox - one of them misses the playoffs. I don't think the Jays will knock them off but small chance. Maybe Indians or A's does the job. Who knows. But I think one of them does not make it.

by pedrophile on Mar 27, 2006 8:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

worse dropoff

one thing none of you have considered are the prospects of these teams, the angels have a great farm system and will not plummet too far because they can trade away some of their prospects for help. the red sox can do the same thing and if nixon does get hurt pena will start and hit atleast 30 homeruns if he starts between 130 and 140 games. my personal pick is the tigers who will reestablish themselves as one of the worse clubs in baseball selling all their good players by the trade deadline, including irod and mags.

Talent can not make up for hard work.

by thook007 on Mar 27, 2006 8:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

but,

the Angels won't trade off their great prospects for help now. If Bill Stoneman ever trades a prospect of substance I will be extremely impressed. They love Wood and Kendrick and Morales and they will not be able to make an aquisition of anyone big without those names being demanded and they will refuse. The angels would be willing to sacrafice a year and a half of mediocrity for better futures.

by Trenchtown on Mar 28, 2006 6:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why the Astros?

I see that many people are picking the Astros to fall-off this season. I would like to hear from someone(all of you) that picked them to fall-off. Why do you think they will fall? Please say something more than no O.

If anyone gives a decent response I will post my O projections and give you the reasons they will not fall-off.

You bring the juice. I'll bring the ginick, Pam Minick!

by Shamus on Mar 28, 2006 4:46 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don't speak for everyone

And I don't think they'll be that much worse, but let's look at it anyway

Their offense should be ok, especially with a full year from Berkman. Their lineup is old, even without Bagwell in it, but it could be decent - better than last year if Ensberg, Berkman and Lane hit well.

I think their starting pitching is the main concern - no Roger for a month or two, and while Oswalt and Pettitte are excellent, the rest of the 5 are pretty suspect. Backe really walks too many to be very effective. Some people think that Oswalt and Pettitte are candidates for injury, but I'm not sure about that.

And if you think Lidge won't be the same this year, that could contribute as well. I like Wheeler and Qualls, but one could argue that there are depth issues in the bullpen as well.

by sasquatch83 on Mar 28, 2006 8:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re: Why the 'stros

i'd say lack of clemens (because it's definitely not clear whether he'll be back in the game, let alone with the astros) and the aging of the entire roster is suspect...remember ensberg is 30...it's possible he is simply a late bloomer, but there's just as good (or better) of a chance that he's never going to attain that level of production again...ausmus and biggio are still defying time, and it will catch them sooner than later...

plus...any team relying on production from preston wilson gets my negative attention immediately...lol

by biggentleben on Mar 28, 2006 8:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the aging of the entire roster?

I think that's pretty common

by niallmack on Mar 28, 2006 7:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mine

Cardinals are an obvious one...replacing Walker and Sanders with Encarnacion and Bigbie is possibly the biggest decline of any outfield in the offseason, they let Morris walk and replaced him with Pontoon, erm Ponson...and i'm just not a fan of their bullpen makeover either...add that to the fact that the pirates, cubs, and brewers should all be better in 2006, the cards are an easy pick...

no one has mentioned San Diego...granted, they weren't great last year as far as record is concerned, but they continue to rely on guys like Klesko for production, traded away their team catalyst in Loretta, and thinned the bullpen by moving Otsuka...i really like adding Young, but the rotation will still include two things no rotation - regardless of the size of the home ballpark - should include...Woody Williams and Chan Ho Park

my last candidates have been mentioned...washington and florida...washington's been burned by the injury bug already, losing their top setup man and their likely #3 in their rotation...florida, while arguably having the most raw talent on the field, will have some extreme growing pains...

lastly, a comment on the two teams i root for...the braves losing mazzone will not be a reason for their decline...if they decline, it's because of their reliance this year on youth because of an ever-slimming bottom line in atlanta...many pitchers have come out in the offseason to express that it was probably time for mazzone to leave, even smoltz, who has been with him from the beginning...and anyone who's been paying attention to the braves the last couple decades knows that mazzone isn't exactly the most patient guy with young pitchers, which is going to be about 2/3 of atlanta's staff this year...mcdowell is really turning heads at spring training, and his mentality will be good for the young guys...

the other team i root for, by locality more than anything, is the twins...i'm not seeing where the downfall is coming...they replace a drastically overrated right fielder with a solid platoon in ford and cuddyer until one of the brightest young outfielders in the game (kubel) can get his feet under him this season...they replace retread mays with baker...liriano will pull the roll that allowed johan to get his feet wet, doing mostly long relief and spot starting, but also having a couple spots where he sets up in a heated situation to get his blood flowing...the 7-8-9 in the pen is one of the best in the game...and i'm not seeing where the defensive dropoff is going to come...they improved their 2b defense over last season...3b is about equal...outfield should be better, providing hunter has the range of old upon his return...i think this is a much better team than the one that trotted out in the dome in 2005...

by biggentleben on Mar 28, 2006 8:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Padres

The don't have that far to go down, having already been right at the mean, but they could easily drop 10 games as every other team in that division regresses to the mean.

Except...the Giants are already very old, and could get ancient, and very, very bad if Bonds is unable to play a significant number of games this season.

by BIgMax on Mar 28, 2006 9:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

best records are likely to fall the most

they simply have the farthest to fall. Setting aside the Marlins (who are a special case and may not be as bad as people expect anyway), I will look at the 6 team that won more than 90 games last year:

Cards 100
WSox 99
Yankees 95
Angels 95
RSox 95
Indians 93

Decline is likely for any of these teams if they were lucky last year, individuals are likely to be worse this year than last year or they lost key performers from last year (without replacement).

Luck can most easily be categorized by variance from expected results, given the individual actions. At its most rudimentary, this is the variance from pythagorean prediction. I prefer the BP 3rd order winning pct. If the teams repeated all the individual performances, the 3rd order pct is a better predictor of next year's record than is last years record. So who has the big drop off there?

Cards -9
WSox -12
Yankees -1
Angels -7
RSox -4
Indians +5

The Cards, WSox and Angels all look like prime decline candidates.

Which teams had career year performers last year? I consider returning players with past major league experience who had a career high in WARP3 in 2005 by at least 2 wins, more than 2 wins above the average of the previous 2 years and, to rule out simple playing time increase, exceeding their career numbers by 10 points in EqA or .2 runs in NRA.

Cards
Carpenter +3.2 (WARP3 above 2004)

WSox
Konerko +3.1
Garland +2.6

RSox
Ortiz +2.1

More bad news for the WSox.

How about players lost? I list 2005 WARP3 lost for significant players (WARP 3+), plus 2005 WARP3 of players gained. In the case of Rolen, I included 2004 WARP3.

Cards
Walker -3.4
Sanders -3.7
Grudz -4.2
Rolen +10.8
Encarn +3.7

WSox
Rowand -6.0
Vazquez +6.0

NYY
Gordon -4.0
Damon +6.9

Angels
Byrd -5.3
Molina -4.9
Washburn -5.6
Weaver +5.2

RSox
Damon -6.9
Arroyo -4.7
Millar -4.6
Mueller -6.5
Beckett +6.1
Crisp +6.9
Lowell +3.8
Gonzalz +3.0
Loretta +3.6
Seanez +3.1

Indians
Crisp -6.9
Westbrk -3.8
Byrd +5.3
Michaels +4.4

The Angels have a big drop off, everyone else is within a few games. Wow the RSox made a lot of changes, and this excludes all the many changes in WARP 1.5-3.0 players, like Renteria, Riske, Tavarez, and Snow.

I have ignored aging and some of these teams will face aging problems (NYY seem most likely). But all of the WSox, Cards or Angels seem likely to have large drop offs. I pick the WSox as the biggest drop off, but none of the 3 would shock me. The Cards had such a huge lead and the Astros are likely worse as well, so they are probably safe for the playoffs. The Angels and WSox seem unlikely to repeat as division champs and are probably in for tough wild card fights.

by cdamon on Mar 28, 2006 10:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Nice analysis; one question!

Hello cdamon,

Nice analysis - very well thought out.

If I may ask one question, why did you mention Jake Westbrook under the Indians? We didn't lose him. Did you mean Millwood or Elarton? Perhaps I misunderstood what you wrote there. If you could provide further explanation - I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks!

Again, nice job!

Take care and have a great day!

by indiansfan on Mar 28, 2006 4:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Brain fritz

I meant to put Millwood, not Westbrook.

by cdamon on Mar 29, 2006 8:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's okay! :-)

Hello cdamon,

I thought that's who you meant - no problem! :-)

Take care and have a great day!

by indiansfan on Mar 29, 2006 11:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Joe Crede

Why do White Sox fans keep thinking Joe Crede is going to get better? He was 27 last season. He isn't going to make a miraculous improvement just because he's hit 28. Sure, 28 is considered prime. But so is 27! He has shown zero ability to improve his strike zone judgement nor has he shown any ability to hit for average. You get what you get: a guy who cranks a homerun every now and then but other than that gives you zilch.

He had his time in the sun. It was last year's postseason. Now he and Mark Lemke can have meaningful dialogue.

by Lunkwill Fook on Mar 31, 2006 3:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Good question!

Hello Lunkwill Fook, welcome if you're new!

I've had the same question. I don't see it either. Outside of the 2005 postseason, Crede hasn't been consistent offensively at all.

And when Crede was coming through the White Sox system, he was expected to hit for a .300+ BA with around 10-15 HRs. The power has been better by about 5-10 HRs, but at the sacrifice of about 50-60 points off the BA.

His glove is above-average, but in terms of his offense, I think he's very inconsistent. I don't see him being much, if any, different in 2006. His track record doesn't seem to indicate there will be any significant change in the near future.

Just my 2 cents. :-)

Take care and have a great weekend!

by indiansfan on Apr 1, 2006 12:48 AM EST reply actions 0 recs