The Future of the NL Central

by John Sickels on Jan 17, 2006 12:57 AM EST in News Comment 44 comments

We turn our attention once again to a topic of considerable debate here in past weeks, the future of the NL Central.

Do the Cardinals take this division handily? How soon will age catch up with them? Their farm system is improving but is this happening fast enough? And does it matter? Who will challenge them? The Cubs. . .they look somewhat dysfunctional to me but can't be counted out. The Astros...will they win 75 or 95? The Pirates...how soon will they compete? The Reds, same question. The Brewers? It wouldn't surprise me at all to see Milwaukee make a huge push this year or in 2007.

What do you think of the farm systems, and what impact does the state of the farm have on the future of these particular teams?

0 recs | Comment 44 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Your Grandmother

As a nurse that works in long-term care, I see people in this condition frequently. I can tell you it never gets any easier, but you have to take time to take care of yourself as well. I wish nothing but the best for you and your family and hope that Olga is peaceful at all times and not in pain.
Times like these show what families and friends are for. Be strong and, as I said, be sure to take care of yourself as well.

Luther

by luthanham on Jan 17, 2006 2:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, wrong story.

Sorry.

Luther

by luthanham on Jan 17, 2006 2:12 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Three levels of competition in the NL Central

This is my favorite division and I like several of the teams in it, as well as dislike. I can't pick the exact order now because there is still adjustments to be made to the rosters. So I have three levels. I also did this to not upset people more than necessary.

1-2 Cards/Stros 90-100 wins
3-4 Brewers/Cubs 75-88 wins
5-6 Reds/Pirates 65-80 wins

Astros: I Have them in the playoffs again. I don't think losing Clemens hurt them since the Stros only won 13-15 of his starts last year. Can't replace him but 13-15 wins out of 33 starts is easy. The bulpen is the biggest strength and will be in the top three in baseball. The offense is decent and will be around 5-10 in the NL. The starting pitching rotation is in question, but there are enough pieces to put together a well above average rotion over a full season. This is a team that seems to manufacture a 10-15 win pitcher every year out of a #225 ranked prospect. They will have the worst producing catchers in the NL once again but the only way they don't see 90 wins is if Ensberg, Berkman, Ausmus, or Oswalt get injured for a long period.

Farm: They have Zero position players ready or great above A Besides Scott. One of three pitchers have a chance to make the team out of ST(Nieve, Hirsh,Buchholz). They have 5 pitchers that could see time in the bigs durring the year and another 5 that could in the next 2 years. Only a few are top notch(98% chance there is no RoyO). Five Position players are 2-2 1/2 years away but 2 or 3 will go by the wayside. The system is on the rise but the next year could raise them to the top third or stay settled in the lower middle third.

This is taking a long time and I will finish later.

Thank you

by Shamus on Jan 17, 2006 4:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Nothing against the 'Stros

Your post interested me enough to go & check out Clemens's record last year. The 'Stros record when Roger started (32 games) was 15-17. That's a far cry from the record he actually compiled (13-8), and from the one he deserved (BP has him at approx. 17-6). Still, the record when he pitched was still about .500 ball. If you include the playoffs, Houston went 17-19 when he started, a rather similar figure.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, as I think Nieve & Hirsh have a lot to offer in the Bigs, but here is where the luck turned the other way for this team:

Wandy Rodriguez actual win% was 0.526 (10-9), but he should have been much worse than that, at about 0.417 (or 6-9). Also, Backe's was 10-8, with a win% of .556, but should have been more in the order of 8-10, or 0.459.

That staff was amazing last year; but a couple things are bound to happen: (1) Clemens will get more wins if he pitches this well in 2006; (2) he won't pitch this well in 2006; & (3) when his luck turns good, others will turn the other way.

One other note: Dayn Perry had a nice piece in BP in November, arguing that Pettitte was the staff's best pitcher, not Clemens, and that Andy indeed deserved the NL Cy. It's an argument based on park factors: in sum, that it's much easier to toss as an RHP in Houston, than as a LHP. You may disagree (I did & do), but it's worth a look: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4606

by Azteca on Jan 17, 2006 9:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree

I would argue that Pettite may regress slightly back to the mean next season.

I think the Brewers will be a better team than the Astroes next season. Plus, if Jeff Bagwell comes back, the Astros may very well be worse (nothing against Bagwell since I really like him as a player). I do not believe the pitching can compensate for the offense this season.

We know Berkman is great, but will Ensberg keep it up? Will Tavares and his unimpressive OBP still be adequate at leadoff? Will Preston Wilson be productive?

There are too many questions for the Astros to be considered a 90 win team IMO.

by count sutton on Jan 17, 2006 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Quick note

I do agree with your assessment, but I would like to add that if Houston wants to have a shot at the wild card (because I don't see them competing with the Cardinals next year), they need a big year from Jason Lane, who a lot of people have tabbed as a major breakout candidate for this year. If Lane shows 30 HR power, and Berkman is healthy, then the lineup may be every bit as good as it was last year.

by sasquatch83 on Jan 17, 2006 11:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't disagree...

...but the Astros are one of those "never write them off" teams. This is an organization that does a good job of filling holes, and making the most of their roster.

by dvdmgsr on Jan 17, 2006 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The quick gate

The young Astros pitchers have almost no wiggle room. Garner pulls them like taffy. It upsets many fans at the park. There are two direct effects caused by this. First is the number of total inings is lowered. If they just finish those innings or maybe go another then they would have higher total innings. Second is the quality of relief man. If they are taken in the sixth then the quality of reliever is lowered and the runs allowed as you know hurt the starters. This really infuriates Backe. But Backe will be considerably better next year by focusing less on his hard fastball.

by Shamus on Jan 17, 2006 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Relief

If you go by the analysis you were using for Backe and Wandy then all of those wins should have been made up by the bulpen. The lack of late ining runs left them with very few. I am a fan of blanket projection stats because they are great at general projections, but for some reason most don't work on the Astros last year. They started so bad then won 80% of games for a month and a half. So the stats are skewed. Wandy, Backe, and Zeke started horribly. Andy Pettite started the year 3-7 or 2-7 then won almost every start in 3 months.

I had the Astros over 10 games better than the average for last year and I can't wait to see the final projections this year.

by Shamus on Jan 17, 2006 3:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Some of the rest

Cardinals: They have a good number of great players on the team. They do almost all have question marks besides Pujols. The starting rotation and bulpen are huge questions to me. The starters broke out in 04 and blew away expectations. This area will decide if they are a playoff team or not. The offense will be good if Rolen is healthy. The outfield is horrible, but the infield is great. They are more of a swing team to me as far as wins than the Brewers.

Brewers: They don't have enough this year. This is my second favorite team in the division and they are not going to push this year. The pitching is not good enough. The team seems to sway with Genkins. If he has a good year they can break .500. The young guys will have a learning curve for the whole year and the pitching will not overachieve as much this year. The team has yet to find the edge for a wild card or division race.

Cubs: IMO the Cubs are a joke every year. I could never be a Cub fan for numerous reasons. They can go nowhere with Dusty "Wristbands at Elbows" Baker. I think this is the year he finally reaches his goal of putting three once #1 prospects on the DL together(Zambrano, Prior, Wood). The pitching is in question and is a liability. I read that Walker will not even start at 2nd(Dusty is stupid). They got rid of Burnitz for Jones at twice the money. I like Murton a lot (red hair great bat). It will be interesting to see how Dusty uses the rookies or 2nd year players, since he likes to play veterans ad nosium. The train wreck will be fun to watch again this year.

Reds: Another team I like. They have no pitching. It is such a shame to see all there bats lose 8-7 every night. They need to just be working 2 seam fastballs in ST. They have wasted stock in prospects over the last 3 years. They traded a fan favorite for nothing in the division, so the fans can still see him 9 times a year. They have refused to get out of one of the worst contracts ever several times when they could have. They are run horribley and is little hope the next couple years.

Pirates: They have some good left handed starters and a few good outfielders. They will struggle with pitching a little and don't have enough bats to compensate. If several of the young guys work out then they have a good future in store.

by Shamus on Jan 17, 2006 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Cards outfeild

"The outfield is horrible, but the infield is great..."

Edmonds is still one of the best outfeilders in the game if you count both offense and defense. Juan'cion is a half-step below average offensively and a plus on defense. And the Cardinals likely platoon in left figures to be average defensively & offensively. So I am quite unsure how you get a horrible outfeild.

-Zubin

by Zubin on Jan 17, 2006 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Best offenses, worst pitching

Reds were #1/2 in NL runs scored, but bottom of the barrel in ERA and runs allowed. They put up worse numbers than the Colorado Rockies. Dan O'Brien thought his short-term solution to the rotation was Paul Wilson, Eric Milton, and Ramon Ortiz as his #1/2/3 starters. The season was doomed before it even started.

The bright spot was the maturation of Aaron Harang and Brandon Claussen who are now the #1/2 guys of this rotation. Unfortunately, the Reds front office again decided against going after that top-of-the-rotation starter in free agency. With nothing obviously close in the minors, it looks to be another long year from Reds fans. The could come close to a .500 season IF Eric Milton pitches closer to his career norm (instead of Jimmy Anderson's career average) and David Williams doesn't bust as big as everyone is predicting that he will.

by rojosoto on Jan 17, 2006 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Astros pitching

Losing Clemens does hurt. It's not like a Clemens replacement will put the team in a better position to win more games than Clemens. Combine that with Pettite's regression to normal, and I think the Astros are very average next year.

by rojosoto on Jan 17, 2006 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Pirates Compete?

Not with Jim Tracy around.

by count sutton on Jan 17, 2006 9:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Tracy

Funny, I'm starting to see some reactions from Dodger fans about the adulation Tracy is getting from the Pittsburgh. There are frequent references--many from Tracy himself--about his great successes in LA, and there's a lot of talk about "Tracyball." It's left me curious whether Dodger fans share the Pittsburgh media's view of Tracy as one of the great managers of our times.

As for the team itself, I don't see it competing until it's sold. The priority every year is to win 70-75 games, just enough to keep attendance from collapsing and to allow the owners to make a healthy profit with their bottom-rank payroll. Long-term success is not a consideration. The farm system is rapidly deteriorating. They're getting a boost right now from prospects who were in the system when Dave Littlefield took over, but he's done little to add to it. I expect within a couple years they'll be in the bottom five or so in talent.

by WTM on Jan 17, 2006 10:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Should have been . . .

. . . "from the Pittsburgh MEDIA."

by WTM on Jan 17, 2006 10:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The praise that Tracy is getting

is probably in large part due to comparing him aginst the previous manager of the Bucs. Stories keep trickling out now that the players didn't like McClendon's style. Sounds to me McClendon was a lot like Larry Bowa in Philly.

matty fred is a web log.

by matty fred on Jan 17, 2006 10:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Some LA Fans still like him

But I think he's better served as a bench coach. My problem was Hee Seop Choi. I understand that some do not see his value and make the honest mistake of not sticking to a Choi/Saenz platoon. However, when Tracy deliberately played Jason Phillips (with his zero power and sub .300 OBP) over Choi, it was obvious that he was just sticking it to DePo even if it meant losing. How is playing what you know is not your best lineup much different from throwing games?

Tracy then proceeded to go the LA media and say that he wanted the previous year's team. What does that say to Lowe, Kent, Drew, Choi, and other additions? Tracy did not want them. Instead of Kent, he wanted Cora. Instead of Drew, he wanted Beltre. Instead of Lowe, he wanted Lima. Instead of Choi, he wanted Finely. And so on. If you ask me, those are the makings of a poor manager and a poor choice for Pittsburgh.

by count sutton on Jan 17, 2006 10:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

Before last year, in my mind, Tracy walked on water. He's well-liked by his players, I think, and smart about the game. What he did with DePo's acquisitions, however, was awful. Now he's in a place where those bad habits (as you said, benching guys with potential, playing nonproducing vets) are a virtue.

by Azteca on Jan 17, 2006 11:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Brewers

They are in the best shape for the future IMO. Fielder and Weeks are conceivably the starting right side of the infield in the NL in a few years. Koskie is a solid hitter/defender and will benefit in the NL. Hardy rounds out a very very good infield.

OF: Nelson Cruz should get a shot soon, since Lee is in his contract year. Corey Hart will get a shot somewhere, and Brady Clark was a solid leadoff man (he is old though). Jenkins has a few more years (2 years and an option), but he's a very good lefty bat as well.

SP: Sheets is a number one and one of the best pitchers in the league. Doug Davis is a solid number 2. Dave Bush and Chris Capuano make out a solid 3/4 tandem. Helling fills out a solid rotation. In the future, Mark Rogers and Yovani Gallardo have very high ceilings, and Dana Eveland should take over that 5th spot next year. Makings of a great future rotation.

RP: Wise is a very good set up man. Kolb is back and possibly will revert back to his former success. Capellan has a dynamite arm, and is another set up choice. Turnbow was flat out fabulous and should continue to succeed (though i expect his ERA to go down about a point).

Lineup:

Brady Clark (CF)
Rickie Weeks (2B)
Geoff Jenkins (RF)
Carlos Lee (LF)
Corey Koskie (3B)
Prince Fielder (1B)
Damian Miller (C)
JJ Hardy (SS)

Bill Hall fits great as a super utility man.

The lineup is pretty righty heavy though. Top hitting prospects (Cruz, Hart and Braun) are all righty as well.

by ohad on Jan 17, 2006 10:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

huh?

RH-dominant lineup? There aren't too many teams that can throw a lefty-righty combo lineup 3-7 like the Brewers can:

Jenkins
Lee
Koskie
Weeks
Fielder

(FYI, Hardy will hit 2nd, Yost has been on record numerous times saying JJ is etched in the 2 slot this year)

by mjwelch11 on Jan 17, 2006 10:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

brain fart

Fielder is lefty, that's correct.

Clark
Hardy
Jenkins
Lee
Koskie
Weeks
Fielder
Miller
Pitcher

That still has 6 righties and 3 lefties though.....

by ohad on Jan 17, 2006 4:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Geoff Jenkins

Any thoughts on this guy's future? Yes, he turns 32 in July, and his 2004 is a big ugly stain on his record. His #s, however, a really rather similar to his 2003...

year......OPS......BABIP......BB/PA......K/PA
2005......888......35.2%........9.1%.....22.3%
2004......798......31.1%........6.8%.....22.3%
2003......913......34.2%.......10.5%.....21.7%

Some regression for 2006 is in order, but I didn't see those 2005 #s coming. The walk-rate & BABIP, in my mind, are what changed.

by Azteca on Jan 17, 2006 11:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Injury history

Also have to question how long he can keep his healthy steak alive. He's been on the field pretty consistently the past 2 seasons, but prior to that had trouble avoiding the DL.
2004-2005 = 305 games played
2001-2003 = 296 games played

by rojosoto on Jan 17, 2006 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Brewers comments

OHKA: Um, I might be higher on Ohka than most, but omitting him entirely seems a bit extreme. His ERA's have been: 3.18, 4.16, 3.40, 4.04 the past four seasons, with component stats to support those. He'll be 29 this year. I'd take him over a herd of Rick Hellings.

MIDDLE RELIEF: I'm optimistic about the relief prospects of some of the arms too, but aside from Turnbow, the pen was our weak link in 2005.

HART: Late last year, I read that Hart was going to be turned into a super-utility-guy in 2006, getting lots of PT ala Rob Mackowiak (1b,3b,all three OF). If he can handle this without disrupting his development, that sounds very useful.

TIMEFRAME: I think Milwaukee needs a year to consolidate the gains, should compete in 2007, and be the class of the division in 2008 (when Fielder, Weeks, Hardy will be 24-25 years old). I think the next two years will measure the desire and competence of the front office. The past few years fill me with optimism though.

MORE HOLES: I actually think C-Lee, Clark, Jenkins will be fairly productive through 2008, but would like to see the team add another OF bat (or have Hart develop... although a lefty bat would work better). They will need an MLB-level catcher, unless they want to carry Miller's bat as it declines with age, ala Ausmus.

by BobbyMac on Jan 17, 2006 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

NL Central Race

I agree that the Brewers seem ready to make the biggest jump, and I see them getting 2nd place ahead of Houston and the Cubs and even competing for the wild card if everything falls into place.
My beloved Reds will be in the basement due to the absolute incompetence of Dan O'Brien (who I pray will be fired as soon as the new ownership takes over), although there might be hope for the future with Encarnacion/Lopez this year and Bailey in the future...
In the next few years I see it being the Cardinals (with the major league lineup and large payroll) and the Brewers (with their good young talent) fighting it out with the Cubs/Astros (depending on free agency and the health of the Cubs pitchers) close behind and the Pirates/Reds bringing up the rear...

"Why do we need so many scouts? All they do is sit around and watch games" Marge Schott, the bane of my existence...

by BigRedMachine on Jan 17, 2006 11:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the compliment!

The Cubs. . .they look somewhat dysfunctional to me but can't be counted out.

Somewhat is a little too nice.

The Cubs and Astros should win 80-85 games, at best. The Cardinals should win around 90. The Brewers should win around 83-86. The Pirates and Reds have no chance and should win around 70, 75 a piece. None of the teams in the division have an impressive system. I would like to say the Cubs have a decent future due to their pitching in the minors and ability to consistently add to the payroll, but that is all negated by Jim Hendry's reluctance to part with his prospects since the Willis deal.

by Ienpw on Jan 17, 2006 11:10 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hard to disagree with this assessment

The Cardinals are (still) the best team in the division. The Brewers are gaining, but their young players still have some adjustments to make to the majors, and I see further improvement in '06 as problematic (in '07, watch out, though). The Cubs and Astros are sliding backward. All three teams are likely to be in the 78-84 win range, IMO.

Mike Emeigh http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/minor_key/

by MikeE on Jan 19, 2006 11:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Reds

I just wanted to point out that in the poll of who has the best farm system in the NL Central, the Cincy Reds got 2 votes.

by Jgaztambide on Jan 17, 2006 11:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Well

Hows that rebulding going? What a horrible team top to bottom.

by goalieguy on Jan 17, 2006 5:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Offense is top in the league

Offensively, the Reds have 7 of 8 position players all drafted/traded for under Jim Bowden's watch:
c-LaRue
1b-Dunn
ss-Lopez
3b-Encarnacion
lf-Pena
cf-Griffey
rf-Kearns

Unfortunately, the organization has not had any visible plan for developing pitching. Bowden's complaint was that the owner's did not give him the money promised when the new stadium opened. So, they have all this offense and no pitching prospects or money allocated to spend on pitching.

I'm not sure they realize how good their hitting is or how small of a window they have to remain that good offensively because they should be buying good pitchers to catapult themselves into the playoffs. They just may be too cheap.

by rojosoto on Jan 17, 2006 7:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Have to disagree... COMPLETELY

"but that is all negated by Jim Hendry's reluctance to part with his prospects since the Willis deal."

Hendry has traded tons of prospects, just because they haven't been Pie/Guzman/Hill, etc. doesn't mean he is gun-shy as you seem to be implying. Choi was a top prospect, he got traded for D. Lee, well after Willis was grabbing headlines. He has been able to bring in some very good talent w/o giving up some of the other big names, which is very commendable. When you can get ARam/Lofton for Jose Hernandez/Bobby Hill/Matt Bruback, why the hell would give up a Guzman/Pie? Prior was also on the block. He's just 25 and there is a significant possibility he could have gone somewhere and had a HOF career. That is a more likely scenario than trading away Guzman and having him become the next Willis, yet Hendry stuck was willing to stick him out there. Hendry is not scared to trade anyone since Willis. Even if he knew Willis would turn out to be good, he would still have had to make that deal at the time, they got Clement and Alfonseca, which they definately needed to put their team in a position to go to the playoffs and they did that year.

"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 Jan 17, 2006 2:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Cubs apologist...

I'd really like to hear an explanation of this comment: "The Cubs [...] should win 80-85 games, at best."

The Cubs in 2005 won 79 games. But if you look at BP, their W3-L3 was 85.6-76.4. Perhaps some of this shortcoming is Dusty, but I think it's fair to say that the 2005 Cubs were already in the 80-85 (maximum) range you cite, in terms of on-field performance.

Now, let's consider the 2005 season for the Cubs, and what can be expected in 2006:

SP: Going in, Prior, Wood, Zambrano were arguably their three best players (with Rami being close). Zambrano dropped in value from 2004, although exceeding his (BP again) projection. Wood was almost a liability, and Prior racked up 30 VORP in 27 starts. Given Dusty's influence, I think this is about as good as expected. Is it reasonable to assume worse results in 2006?

INF(+C): The big$ FA signing of Nomar netted the Cubs almost nothing. And Ramirez missed the end of the season (when the Cubs actually had a shot at the WC). Still, with Lee's eruption, the IF was only slightly worse than expected. Now Nomar's gone, and Lee will drop a bit. I expect the IF to be slightly down from 05.

OF: The 2005 Cubs OF was TERRIBLE. (LF: .265/.319/.418, CF: .234/.281/.362, RF: .257/.320/.425...average OPS of 708). The average Zips projection for the Cubs 3 OF now is .774. Admittedly, this will be lowered by bench players playing some, but should still be a huge step up, especially in OBA. Defense doesn't seem to have changed much, although if Pierre is as bad as the stats claim, that may really hurt the Cubs.

RP: Despite the "big money" signings of Howry and Eyre, this doesn't look to be vastly improved in 2006. Slight upgrade, perhaps.

So, just looking at "deltas", it seems to me that the Cubs are somewhat likely to improve on last year, when they had expected wins of over 85. Putting their "maximum" at 85 seems difficult to defend, since - however unlikely - it has to be considered that there's a chance for the starting pitching to remain healthy.

by BobbyMac on Jan 17, 2006 3:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Cubs

I don't expect Zambrano + Prior to combine for 60 starts this season, and who knows when Wood comes back or if he is in the rotation or not. I'd suggest 70 starts between the 3 of them, again this season, is an accuarate estimate.

Offensively, you have addition by subtraction (Patterson.) Pierre gives you speed at the top of the lineup without much else. Anything else gained offensively, is counterbalanced by the expectation of D.Lee returning to reality.

They were 20th in scoring runs in MLB, while ranked 8th in OPS...I would expect the 2006 team to rank 14-17 in runs scored. That would put them on par for 80-85 wins.

by rojosoto on Jan 17, 2006 4:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Last few chances for St. Louis

St. Louis will certainly be favored to win again this year but I can see where their window for winning is slowly closing.. the age of the team is only getting higher and the team does not have a great farm system. Edmonds is getting older every year, Rolen needs to get healthy again this year, and Pujols will be Pujols, but like Bonds in years past, one great offensive player just simply isn't enough.

by blinkshot on Jan 18, 2006 1:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

St Louis gtting older?

The outfeild: Gone are the 38 yo Sanders and Walker. In are a 28 yo J-Rod, L-big and a 30 year old Juan'cion.

In the infeild the birds replaced Grudz (36yo) with Spivey(31yo).

I don't see older.

-Zubin

by Zubin on Jan 18, 2006 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Cards may be getting younger, but...

not necessarily better. I don't see Rodriguez and Encarnacion as likely to be as productive as were Sanders and Walker when they were able to play last year, and Spivey is probably at this stage about the same as Grudzielanek.

Mike Emeigh http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/minor_key/

by MikeE on Jan 19, 2006 11:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Reds

The offense, actually, should be better. Replacing Casey with Kearns should add runs; Encarnacion and Lopez should continue to improve. The key, as always, is Jr.'s health.
The pitching can't be any worse. Milton, while not a #1, isn't nearly as bad as he was last year. Not having Ortiz around should be a considerable upgrade.
The defense is still ugly, but getting Dunn out of the outfield, and Kearns in it every day, will help. Also, Encarnacion made great strides as the year progressed. That up the middle defense? Oof. At least Freel looks like he's playing hard (when he's sober).

by sidnancy on Jan 18, 2006 3:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs