Haven't quite finalized all of my 2008 predictions, but here are five teams that I believe will post fewer victories than they did last year:
1) Phillies (89-73 in 2007). It won't be because of Cole Hamels, pictured to the left, who is awesome. And if you don't believe me, read this. It's because of who's behind Hamels and Brett Myers in the starting rotation.
Maybe Jamie Moyer, now baseball's oldest active player at 45, can survive for yet another year, although he displayed signs of slippage last year. Perhaps Kyle Kendrick wasn't a rookie fluke, but his rough spring training doesn't bode well. Adam Eaton? Yeesh.
You've got to respect the lineup, particularly reigning NL MVP Jimmy Rollins, Chase Utley and Ryan Howard. But last year felt magical, and it will be difficult to duplicate that magic.
2) Rockies (90-73). What general manager Dan O'Dowd has built here is real, the proverbial "player development machine" that all organizations aspire to be. They should hang around in contention for the bulk of the year. I'm going to peg this dropoff _ not a significant one, but a dropoff nonetheless _ on the belief that the Diamondbacks and Dodgers will be tougher in the NL West, and that even the post-Bonds Giants will be a feistier group, and that some of the Rockes' pitchers are bound to feel the physical effects of last year's October run.
3) Angels (94-68). The early injuries to top starting pitchers John Lackey and Kelvim Escobar don't bode well. And while I, like the rest of the human race, am a big Torii Hunter fan, Hunter isn't really the big-time hitter that Mike Scioscia uncharacteristically, publicly (albeit somewhat subtly) requested (near the bottom of the story) last October, following the Angels' playoff loss to the Red Sox. The Angels really should've gone harder after Alex Rodriguez last November.
4) Padres (89-74). They could use Barry Bonds more than anyone, as their outfield (Scott Hairston, Jim Edmonds and Brian Giles, from leftfield to rightfield) isn't going to scare anyone. Their pitching staff has the potential to be great, but that's only if Randy Wolf and Mark Prior (who's not ready yet) get and stay healthy. And the offense could be brutal.
5. Twins (79-83). The easiest call of all. I still say that, if the Twins had retained Johan Santana, with Francisco Liriano back as a second ace and Delmon Young, Mike Lamb and Adam Everett aboard as interesting additions to the lineup, they might have been able to hang tough with the Indians and Tigers. Now? It's all about the future.
Comments (6)
The Phillies should be interesting. I like Hamels and Myers too (actually, I kind of like them better than Santana and Pedro). But it's tough having the rest of the staff be so bad in such a hitter-friendly ballpark. Having that insanely small ballpark means J.Ro and Utley can hit their 20/30, and Howard can hit his 50/60, but it also leaves their pitchers exposed too. (It's actually a beautiful ballpark and I go there a few times a year, but I think I could lie on my back at home plate and throw a ball over the right-field scoreboard.)
The Giants look like a really awful team this year -- even though Cain and Lincecum will be good. I really have no ill-will toward San Fran, but I hope this team reaches its 100-loss potential just so Chris Russo can cry himself to sleep at night. If anyone deserves a putrid favorite team, it's him -- especially since he hates every NY team and finds great joy in their failing.
John Kruk was spouting his usual nonsense yesterday on ESPN. Since it's part of your contract to bash the Yankees on there, he said, "When the Yankees are in third place in July behind the Sox and the Blue Jays, Hank Steinbrenner is going to bring in Barry Bonds!" He is as bloated as he is illogical -- I could literally walk down the street and grab a random guy and he could talk more cogently and realistically about baseball.
Kruk has brass balls - or at least one.
I'm not with you on the Padres and a reversion to a .500 record. They will probably win 50 plus at home and be able to outpitch clubs in bandboxes. They get no credit for winning the division twice and being a Hoffman pitch away from moving into the playoffs last year.
Ken, how much is Bonds asking? If he wanted $1 million or so, would he be signed? Does he still want 10 million or so?
I think Bonds can definitely help a team, if he's willing to sign for less and not bring all his divanous with him.
Richie, I believe that Bonds has not even progressed to the point where he named his price for a team. That's how little interest there is in him.
Ken, are you buying the collusion idea? (How does that work, anyway? Do the GMs have a super-secret meeting in the side of a mountain and fiendishly twirl their mustaches as they agree not to sign people?)
Since Bonds has no interest from teams, and almost seems to be begging for a job, doesn't this finally put a team in a position of power with him? Can't they give him an incentive-laden contract and tell him he can't own half the locker room and he can't bring his people around and blah, blah, blah? Tell him, "We want you, but not your BS, so either agree to this or good-bye"?
I think it would be interesting to see what sort of numbers Bonds put up as a DH in the American League.
baileywalk, that's pretty much how collusion happened in the mid-to-late '80s (although rmt is more qualified than I am to discuss the specifics of that time).
You're right - Bonds is completely at the mercy of the market. But it speaks to Bonds' negatives that no team has even gone to him with the approach that you're suggesting. No team wants to deal with the headache of employing Bonds, even though, like you said, he could put up some good numbers in the AL (or the NL).
Is part of the headache negative feedback from Selig? Yes, I think so. But even if you threw out the Selig factor, I still think Bonds would have zero suitors.