PDA

View Full Version : Lets Talk AL CENTRAL.


Jerksticks
01-04-2007, 11:24 AM
There is probably little argument that the AL Central is now the toughest division, and alot of you are scared that we didn't do enough to stay in contention. But seriously, who really scares you?

We are gonna maul over KC.
Tribe isn't really scary. They overachieved 2nd half '05. Same team as '06.
Minnesota lost Liriano for the year and Radke retired. Worse than '06.
That leaves Detroit who we personally owned last year. Plus Shef.

Question: Do any of these teams really scare you and why?

$Rank Offenses, SP, Bullpens, and finally where you see each finishing 1-5.$

lakeviewsoxfan
01-04-2007, 11:34 AM
There is probably little argument that the AL Central is now the toughest division, and alot of you are scared that we didn't do enough to stay in contention. But seriously, who really scares you?

We are gonna maul over KC.
Tribe isn't really scary. They overachieved 2nd half '05. Same team as '06.
Minnesota lost Liriano for the year and Radke retired. Worse than '06.
That leaves Detroit who we personally owned last year. Plus Shef.

Question: Do any of these teams really scare you and why?

$Rank Offenses, SP, Bullpens, and finally where you see each finishing 1-5.$

First KC is a pretty good offensive club please do not underestimate the Royals. KC played the Sox very tough last year. Anyteam with Grady Sizemore and Travis Hafner in their lineup to go along with New comers like Josh Barfield and the Choo kid from Seattle is going to be competitive. Minny even though the loss of Liriano will hurt has the best system in baseball and then there is the Tigers who I believe will be the biggest dissapointment in baseball next year.

Offense:
1.CWS
2.CLE
3.DET
4.KC
5.MINNY

SP
1. CWS
2.DET
3.MINNY
4.CLE
5.KC

BP
1.DET
2.CWS
3.MINNY
4.CLE
5.KC

Order of finish
1. CWS 96-66
2. CLE 88-74
3. DET 84-78
4. MINNY 81-81
5. KC 72-90

Jerksticks
01-04-2007, 11:37 AM
Fine I'll start.

Offensively i see
1 Sox- Hands Down! I mean just look at us
2 Tribe- Hafner is just a beast
3 Tigs- They should be a little better, not much
4 Twins- Morneau and Mauer will get better but overall not good
5 Royals- Horrible

SP
1 Sox- MB, JC, JG, JV
2 Tigs- JV, KR, NR, JB
3 Twins- JS, BB, MG, CS
4 Tribe- CCS, JW, JS, CL, PB
5 KC- GM, ZG, who cares

Bullpen
I think ours is sick nasty compared to detroits or the twins

Therefore, CWS=2007 AL Central champs. so relax!

Corlose 15
01-04-2007, 11:37 AM
You have Cleveland twice in those standings.

Jerksticks
01-04-2007, 11:40 AM
Order of finish
1. CWS 96-66
2. CLE 88-74
3. DET 84-78
4. CLE 81-81
5. KC 72-90

Exactly. I agree we are gonna run away with it this year. Around 100 wins. Welcome back playoffs.

chisoxfanatic
01-04-2007, 11:41 AM
None of these teams scare the Sox. Unfortunately, they play 143 of their games against OTHER teams, and look at how the Tigers did in those 143 games. Here's hoping the Royals can take care of business against those guys much more than they did this year (as well as taking it easier on our guys--I know utopian world). I really think that, if we took care of business more against the Royals and the Tigers didn't completely have their way with the Royals, we might've won the Wild Card this past season.

caulfield12
01-04-2007, 11:47 AM
I'll believe it when I see it as far as the Twins finishing .500 again. Four of the last five years, the Twins have been VERY tough. You can NEVER underestimate them IMO.

The Indians SHOULD be better, and the Tigers should be about the same or maybe a slight dropoff.

chisoxmike
01-04-2007, 11:49 AM
I really think that, if we took care of business more against the Royals and the Tigers didn't completely have their way with the Royals, we might've won the Wild Card this past season.

No, if our pitching didn't blow a total of 12 games in the 7th inning or later we would have won the Wild Card.

NEVER, NEVER count out the Twins...

AuroraSoxFan
01-04-2007, 11:57 AM
DET had excellent numbers in terms of SP and bullpen in 06. As we have all seen 1st hand, that is hard as hell to repeat 2 years in a row. I expect some of them to tail off. They will still have a solid pitching staff, but not as dominant as they were in 06. Offensively, they should have a pretty tough lineup.

KC and CLE should be improved but not enough to be 90 plus game winners.

MN's SP will be worse with Liriano being out and Radke retiring. but they still have a good pen, Cy young starter and an annoying lineup that seems to find ways to come up with clutch hits. you can never count them out. But I still think losing 2 key starters will be a bit much for them to counter. Prediction:

1. SOX - 96-66
2. DET - 92-70
3. MN - 84-78
4. KC - 77-85
5. CLE - 75-87

I know CLE finishing last is not too likely, just had to put a spin on it.

tstrike2000
01-04-2007, 11:57 AM
Ok, I'll play devil's advocate here for a second. The Sox have looked great on paper so many years but have been a disappointment most of those years. The '06 had the best paper starting 5 some people thought they had ever seen.

Again this year, the talent level is there for the Sox to win the division. The pitching moves, while curious on one hand, on the other hand is good because stockpiling young pitching with potential studs is always a good thing. Spring training will at least give us a little perspective. Seeing how Vazquez lasts in a game, possibly Floyd as a 5th starter, our front 3, not to mention Sisco and Haeger. Will Pods return more to 1st half '05 form, Anderson not bat a buck-80 through the first half, Uribe's average vs his weight to mention just a few things offensively. Will Danks or even Gio make an impact this year?

A lot of big question marks, but that also leads to a lot of anticipation as to what this club can do in what has arguably become baseball's best division.

AuroraSoxFan
01-04-2007, 12:02 PM
Ok, I'll play devil's advocate here for a second. The Sox have great on paper so many years but have been a disappointment most of those years. The '06 had the best paper starting 5 some people thought they had ever seen.

Again this year, the talent level is there for the Sox to win the division. The pitching moves, while curious on one hand, on the other hand is good because stockpiling young pitching with potential studs is always a good thing. Spring training will at least give us a little perspective. Seeing how Vazquez lasts in a game, possibly Floyd as a 5th starter, our front 3, not to mention Sisco and Haeger. Will Pods return more to 1st half '05 form, Anderson not bat a buck-80 through the first half, Uribe's average vs his weight to mention just a few things offensively. Will Danks or even Gio make an impact this year?

A lot of big question marks, but that also leads to a lot of anticipation as to what this club can do in what has arguably become baseball's best division.

I agree with all of your concerns. Good issues to have if you ask me. Only part I didn't get was when you said the AL Central is agruably the best division in the game. since it is arguable which other division do you think could put up an argument?

spiffie
01-04-2007, 12:05 PM
I cannot see this Sox team not running away with division in historic style. Right now I see it as:
Offense: Sox have the best in baseball. Then come the Indians, Tigers, Twins, Royals.
Starters: Can you name a rotation you would rather have? Not a single spot that isn't capable of winning 17 games or more. Four aces and a fifth spot that will end up being filled by one of our young studs ready to step up. Then comes Tigers, Twins, Indians, Royals.
Bullpen: 6 insanely powerful arms ready to blow the opposition away in late innings. Follwed up by Twins, Tigers, Indians, Royals.

Projected finishes:
Sox: 109-53
Twins: 88-74
Indians: 84-78
Tigers: 80-82
Royals: 69-93

1917
01-04-2007, 12:05 PM
Although making predictions are fun, I learned that nobody knows what will happen in MLB....Who could have thought the Sox would win the WS in 2005? How about DET in 2006 winning the AL pennant....or CLE going from Fav's to 4th place in 2006...or Minn stunning comeback in 2006....It's going to be a wild race....especially in the AL Central, it is the most hardest divison to predict in ALL baseball.

lakeviewsoxfan
01-04-2007, 12:05 PM
I agree with all of your concerns. Good issues to have if you ask me. Only part I didn't get was when you said the AL Central is agruably the best division in the game. since it is arguable which other division do you think could put up an argument?

NL Central

AuroraSoxFan
01-04-2007, 12:08 PM
I cannot see this Sox team not running away with division in historic style. Right now I see it as:
Offense: Sox have the best in baseball. Then come the Indians, Tigers, Twins, Royals.
Starters: Can you name a rotation you would rather have? Not a single spot that isn't capable of winning 17 games or more. Four aces and a fifth spot that will end up being filled by one of our young studs ready to step up. Then comes Tigers, Twins, Indians, Royals.
Bullpen: 6 insanely powerful arms ready to blow the opposition away in late innings. Follwed up by Twins, Tigers, Indians, Royals.

Projected finishes:
Sox: 109-53
Twins: 88-74
Indians: 84-78
Tigers: 80-82
Royals: 69-93

WOW! Love the optomism. Would really love to win the div by 21 games. I actually could see winning about that many games IF the chips fall for us. Just can't see that huge of a gap between us and MN/DET.

chisoxmike
01-04-2007, 12:09 PM
I cannot see this Sox team not running away with division in historic style. Right now I see it as:
Offense: Sox have the best in baseball. Then come the Indians, Tigers, Twins, Royals.
Starters: Can you name a rotation you would rather have? Not a single spot that isn't capable of winning 17 games or more. Four aces and a fifth spot that will end up being filled by one of our young studs ready to step up. Then comes Tigers, Twins, Indians, Royals.
Bullpen: 6 insanely powerful arms ready to blow the opposition away in late innings. Follwed up by Twins, Tigers, Indians, Royals.

Projected finishes:
Sox: 109-53
Twins: 88-74
Indians: 84-78
Tigers: 80-82
Royals: 69-93

Whatever you're on, I want.

spiffie
01-04-2007, 12:15 PM
Whatever you're on, I want.
It's all about faith. I have seen the light of optimism and refusal to believe anything negative about this team for the rest of the winter. All that pessimism and attempting to analyze the Sox for weaknesses or discussing what players might not be very good can do is bring everybody down, and no one wants to be brought down except for a few ornery propellerheads and a couple of lingering dark clouds. Instead I say its the time for FAITH. None of us know what tomorrow will hold, and I know I love my White Sox and going to Sox games, so I am going to simply assume that everything is going to work out perfectly, and if it doesn't it isn't like I could change anything about it by saying anything negative about it.

If you're not going to love the Sox unconditionally, and give your full and complete faith over to Kenny Williams, the man who brought us a World Series, then what's the point? After all, how could I possibly know enough to ever disagree with him? I don't have a giant scouting apparatus, resources to examine every player he has acquired, decades of experience picking apart the smallest aspects of a player's mechanics, or most importantly his keen eye for the game and the men who play it. And having walked too long in the dark lands of negativity and trusted in numbers and spreadsheets instead of using my eyes and heart to understand the game, I say it is time to stand in the light of truth and hope.

2007 will bring a White Sox World Series Winner to us all again!

thomas35forever
01-04-2007, 12:22 PM
Based on what you've said, I'll say:

1) Detroit (have a steady rotation and bullpen)
2) Sox (have a good bullpen)
3) Minnesota (could win if they overcome pitching woes)
4) Cleveland (no chance)
5) Kansas City (no chance in Hell)

kittle42
01-04-2007, 12:39 PM
Based on what you've said, I'll say:

1) Detroit (have a steady rotation and bullpen)
2) Sox (have a good bullpen)
3) Minnesota (could win if they overcome pitching woes)
4) Cleveland (no chance)
5) Kansas City (no chance in Hell)

This is the most realistic projection I've seen on this thread. Where has Detroit weakened? Don't the Sox still have the same question marks they had at the end of last year? The Twins' pitching will weaken. Cleveland and KC did nothing to improve.

Step back from your fandom and analyze the division in light of last season and the offseason up to now, and Detroit is still the favorite.

Baby Fisk
01-04-2007, 12:47 PM
It's all about faith. I have seen the light of optimism and refusal to believe anything negative about this team for the rest of the winter. All that pessimism and attempting to analyze the Sox for weaknesses or discussing what players might not be very good can do is bring everybody down, and no one wants to be brought down except for a few ornery propellerheads and a couple of lingering dark clouds. Instead I say its the time for FAITH. None of us know what tomorrow will hold, and I know I love my White Sox and going to Sox games, so I am going to simply assume that everything is going to work out perfectly, and if it doesn't it isn't like I could change anything about it by saying anything negative about it.

If you're not going to love the Sox unconditionally, and give your full and complete faith over to Kenny Williams, the man who brought us a World Series, then what's the point? After all, how could I possibly know enough to ever disagree with him? I don't have a giant scouting apparatus, resources to examine every player he has acquired, decades of experience picking apart the smallest aspects of a player's mechanics, or most importantly his keen eye for the game and the men who play it. And having walked too long in the dark lands of negativity and trusted in numbers and spreadsheets instead of using my eyes and heart to understand the game, I say it is time to stand in the light of truth and hope.

2007 will bring a White Sox World Series Winner to us all again!

http://www.filminamerica.com/Movies/Pollyanna/pollyanna-poster3.jpg
"Oh my! Mr. Spiffie is my new favourite person in the whole wide world including the Orient! Won't you come over for some bumbleberry tea, and we'll have some snacky tarts and talk about how absolutely wonderful Kenny Williams is. Oh I love making new friends tee hee! LET'S GO YOU ****ING WHITE SOX!"

Grzegorz
01-04-2007, 12:56 PM
I like the chances of the Chicago White Sox winning the AL Central in 2007. I do not see the offense as potent as last year with age being the primary reason. I do believe that the starting and relief pitching will improve. That is as far as I'll go.

To dismiss the Royals, Tribe, Tigers, and above all the Twins is not an example of unconditional love for the Chicago White Sox but one of sheer fanaticism.

I'll wait to see how the new pitching acquisitions, Brian Anderson, Scott Podsednik, and the other question marks perform in spring training before I take a solid position.

maurice
01-04-2007, 01:08 PM
For all the talk about the Sox question marks, every other team in the divsion probably has more.

For example, we're counting on a young pitcher to step up and claim the #5 spot in our rotation. Yet, the Twins rotation consists of baseball Jesus, two fat guys who suck, and a bunch of "unproven kids." Everybody realizes that a couple of the young Twins might step up and help them back to the playoffs, but few are willing to acknowledge that even 1 of the Sox 47 strong candidates for the #5 spot might be able to pull off a .500 season (an outstanding performance for a #5 starter).

I guess the grass is always greener.

seventyseven
01-04-2007, 01:16 PM
I agree with all of your concerns. Good issues to have if you ask me. Only part I didn't get was when you said the AL Central is agruably the best division in the game. since it is arguable which other division do you think could put up an argument?

Arguably the NL East. Obviously, the Mets are solid, and the Braves, Phillies, and Marlins are tough.

jcw218
01-04-2007, 01:29 PM
For all the talk about the Sox question marks, every other team in the divsion probably has more.

For example, we're counting on a young pitcher to step up and claim the #5 spot in our rotation. Yet, the Twins rotation consists of baseball Jesus, two fat guys who suck, and a bunch of "unproven kids." Everybody realizes that a couple of the young Twins might step up and help them back to the playoffs, but few are willing to acknowledge that even 1 of the Sox 47 strong candidates for the #5 spot might be able to pull off a .500 season (an outstanding performance for a #5 starter).

I guess the grass is always greener.

It's just that the Twins have demonstrated in the past that the kids that they throw into their line-up always seem to get the job done relatively well fairly quickly. When the Sox have tried to plug kids into the line-up, the kids seemingly struggle. Will this year be any different, who knows. But based on past performances, the kids that the Twins run out there this year should perform around the league average for their particular position.

Hitmen77
01-04-2007, 01:31 PM
Isn't pitching still a big question mark for the Indians? After Sabathia and Cliff Lee, who in their rotation is impressive? I'll stick with the old adage that good pitching beats good hitting - which means I pick DET, MIN, and the Sox over the Tribe and KC.

Regarding the Twins, they'll miss Liriano and Radke for sure. But, they always seem to find a way to fill in those holes. Morneau and Mauer will be studs again, but I hope they'll come back down to earth a little after a monster year. Memo to Ozzie: stop giving them nicknames that only serve to fire them up and create a rallying cry.:angry:

The Tigers have a great team. Maybe Kenny Rogers will finally start to show his age (42). The Tigers also came back down to earth quite a bit in the 2nd half. Don't get me wrong, they were still good enough to win the pennant and they earned it. But, perhaps it won't be so easy for them to repeat their outstanding 1st half from last year.

Again, as has been the case for much of this decade, the Sox have the talent in place to win this division. As we have learned, this doesn't necessarily mean squat. I think KW has given Ozzie a team that can win it all. Now it's up to Ozzie and the boys to do it.

UserNameBlank
01-04-2007, 01:33 PM
Offense:
1. Sox
2. Cleveland
3. Detroit
4. KC
5. Minnesota

SP:
1. Detroit
2. Sox
3. Cleveland
4. Minnesota
5. KC

BP:
1. Minnesota
2. Sox
3. Cleveland
4. Detroit
5. KC

Bench:
1. Sox
2. Detroit
3. KC
4. Cleveland
5. Minnesota

Defense:
1. Sox
2. Detroit
3. KC
4. Minnesota
5. Cleveland

Finish:
1. Sox 96-66
2. Detroit 95-67
3. Cleveland 88-74
4. KC 80-82
5. Minnesota 77-86

I'm probably going to be the only one to (a) pick Minny to finish last and (b) pick KC to finish higher than dead last, but I think the Twins are going to tank big time and ship out Hunter and Castillo before the break. I think their bullpen will still be very solid but they don't have the offense to pull out a late lead and they don't have the starting pitching to keep the opposing teams in check. That said, Santana still wins 17 games.

I also think the Royals are going to be a decent team this year, or at least they would be in another division. I expect possible breakouts from Teahen and Shealy to go along with an improved bullpen (still without a real closer though) and an improved starting staff.

Rockabilly
01-04-2007, 01:40 PM
My predictions are

Sox 97-65
Detroit 93-69
Cleveland 88-74
Minnesota 86-76
KC 62-100

champagne030
01-04-2007, 01:51 PM
For all the talk about the Sox question marks, every other team in the divsion probably has more.

For example, we're counting on a young pitcher to step up and claim the #5 spot in our rotation. Yet, the Twins rotation consists of baseball Jesus, two fat guys who suck, and a bunch of "unproven kids." Everybody realizes that a couple of the young Twins might step up and help them back to the playoffs, but few are willing to acknowledge that even 1 of the Sox 47 strong candidates for the #5 spot might be able to pull off a .500 season (an outstanding performance for a #5 starter).

I guess the grass is always greener.

I wouldn't say that about Detroit.

UserNameBlank
01-04-2007, 01:53 PM
This is the most realistic projection I've seen on this thread. Where has Detroit weakened? Don't the Sox still have the same question marks they had at the end of last year? The Twins' pitching will weaken. Cleveland and KC did nothing to improve.

Step back from your fandom and analyze the division in light of last season and the offseason up to now, and Detroit is still the favorite.

KC and Cleveland both took fliers on Riske, Dotel, Borowski, Foulke, and Hernandez. Both bullpens should be improved as any one of those guys could have a real decent year.

The Tribe are starting Garko, Marte, and Barfield instead of Broussard, Boone, and Belliard. That alone may improve them quite a bit as hopefully (for them anyway) that means less clutch strikeouts and a change to the way their offense can attack.

KC didn't improve leaps and bounds with the Meche signing, but they have the makings of a halfway decent rotation. With Meche, De La Rosa, Bannister, Elarton, Greinke, Hudson, and Odalis Perez they have some depth there. Meche, Elarton, and Perez are veterans while Greinke, Bannister, and De La Rosa all have potential. Hudson was a career minor leaguer but he looked good against the Sox as many soft-tossers do, so at least the Royals have someone to go to should a pitcher go down. He's like the Royals version of Glendon Rusch, only a little bit better.

I don't know if the Sox have gotten weaker or stronger, ad the same thing with the Tigers. Yes they added Sheffield, but I'm not sold on Zumaya as far as health is concerned. If he goes down I think Rodney would suck ass as a closer, and those two are basically the whole key to their pen. Their starting staff almost HAS to regress IMO. But they could continue to do what they did last year. I don't know, IMO they will be contenders no matter what but if I had to bet on it I'd say that they will be weaker than last year, although still better than most teams.

tstrike2000
01-04-2007, 01:56 PM
Since it is arguable which other division do you think could put up an argument?

I think the AL Central is the toughest, but some might say the NL East could make a run or dare I say it, the AL East. NY, Redcubs, and Toronto could battle for that division.

Who would've guessed that Minnesota would finish 71-33 over their last 104 games with pretty much only 1 starter during much of the 2nd half. I can't count them out even though I really, really want to. I think the Sox will come out and reclaim it's stake atop the Central, but it'll be a dogfight. The Royals played tough though they're not there yet, Cleveland is improving it's bullpen, and Detroit will play more down to Earth during the first half but will still compete with their pitching. That's just one of the things that makes baseball great. So much happens over 162 games.

maurice
01-04-2007, 02:23 PM
I wouldn't say that about Detroit.

The Tigers have the same #5 starter issue we do, plus numerous candidates for dropoff due to injury (Maggs, Sheff, Guillen, Polanco), age (Sheff, IRoid, Rogers, Jones), overwork (Verlander), and lack of sustained track record (Granderson, Inge, Shelton, half of the pitching staff).

Many of these guys already started slipping / getting hurt by the end of 2006, but they gave the team a huge boost in early 2006. Without these early performances, the Sox probably would have finished ahead of Detroit.

rowand33
01-04-2007, 02:29 PM
Going from the bottom to the top (and based on gut feelings just as much as statistics and baseball knowledge):

The Royals are going to win about 10 more games this year. Those wins come from somewhere, and a couple of them are going to come from us. Are they a playoff team? No. But they're going to steal one or two wins more than last year, so don't just write them off as a non-factor. And I wouldn't be surprised if they surge at the start of the year for a week or two before falling to the division's basement. They actually have a decent lineup.

DeJesus
Grudzielanek
Teahen (who's going to rise to superstar status next year)
Sweeney
Sheely
Buck
Sanders
Berroa
Gathright

who knows if Dotel will be a decent closer or not? and their top three SP (Meche, Greinke, and Perez) could start the season strong.

Are they a playoff team? God no. Are they a last place team? Probably. But for the first time since 03, the Royals are a major league team. They're not a 100 loss team anymore.

Projection: 72-90, 5th place

Cleveland:

the bullpen is significantly better; one of the aging guys (Foulke, Borowski, Hernandez) they have will be good at closer for a year. the starters are... fine, but unspectacular. All will have ERAs over 4 except for Sabathia. Hafner, Sizemore, and Martinez are awesome. Will Marte and Peralta be good? Who knows. Barfield has some upside. Blake and Delucci will do what they always do.

The Indians could be awesome and could be terrible. There are so many question marks on that team. I'm inclined to think the latter though because I hate their starting pitchers.

Projection: 81-81, 4th place

Twins:

The Twins... who the hell knows? They have three great players in their lineup in Morneau, Cuddyer, and Mauer. Hunter knocked out 30 last year. Bartlett shuold get better. Punto won't hit .290 again. They have no DH.

Their starting pitching sucks behind Santana. No Liriano? No Radke? Who's their #2? Silva? They got hot at the right time last year, but if you look at the back end of their 2006 rotation's ERAs... they don't impress.

I'm not scared of the Twins. Then again, I'm never afraid of the Twins going into a season, then they find bums that are awesome. Who the hell knows with them?

Projection: 86-76, 3rd place

Tigers:

Their offense will be better, no doubt. Granderson is a year older, they have a full year of Sean Casey, and Sheffield. I'd probably say that they have a better offense than we do. They don't really have any liabilities, and depending on what Sox fan you talk to, we may have up to three (Pods, Uribe, and Anderson. Just Pods, IMO though).

Their bullpen should be solid, especially if Zumaya becomes closer. But their pitching should go through the same problems the 2006 sox staff did. For the young guys, that's a lot more wear and tear on their arms. And Kenny Rogers... well, he just keeps on getting older. Maybe the WC if the rest of the AL ****s itself, but I think the 07 Tigers will be a lot like the 06 Sox.

Projection: 92-70, 2nd place.

White Sox:

Ah the White Sox... We have a lot of questions going intot he year.

Again, if the Sox play to their potential, we're a world series caliber club. But there are a ton of questions..

1) Will the top three (Contreras, Buehrle, Garland) return to form?
2) Will Vazquez even pitch decently?
3) Who will the 5th starter be?
4) Will Scott Podsednik continue to suck?
5) Will Anderson mature at the plate?
6) Will the bullpen be good?

I don't see Juan Uribe as a question mark because, despite the fact that he had the lowest OBP of all players with at least 400 at bats (yeah... awful), you know exactly what Juan will do year in, year out. He'll hit for a ****ty average, knock out around 20 homers, have around 70 RBI, and play awesome D. I can live with that if that's your worst player.

My opinions on the questions for our team:
the top 3 starters will return to form
Vazquez will continue to suck
the 5th starter will be Floyd at the beginning of the year but he'll be awful and Haeger will replace him.
Pods will continue to suck.
Anderson will hit .290 and will make sox fans happy. No power though.
The bullpen will be good.

Sox finish first at 95-57

So that makes the AL Central break down:

White Sox 95-57
Tigers 92-70
Twins 86-76
Indians 81-81
Royals 72-90

Offense:
Tigers
Sox
Indians
Twins
Royals

Starters:
Sox
Tigers
Indians
Twins
Royals

Bullpen:
Twins
Sox
Tigers
Indians
Royals

God, April can't come soon enough.

Zisk77
01-04-2007, 02:48 PM
we could win 109 games if the following happens:

Pods steals about 100 bases.
Beurhle and Contreras return to form.
Garland wins 20 maybe a cy young.
Vazquez scraps the curve and reaches potential )and the 8th inning on occasion).
Someone emerges as a solid 5th starter winning at least 12 games.
B.A. hit .315. with 20 hrs.
Konerko, Thome, and then Dye continue to stay healthy and mash.
Crede's back is sound.
The Bullpen piches as nasty as the quality of arms it possesses.
We play the Cubs for about 50 games this year.

I'll go 93 wins and a division title.:) and pour me a double shot of the 109 win black & silver kool-aid :gulp:

White_Sock
01-04-2007, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by lakeviewsoxfan
SP
1. CWS
2.DET
3.MINNY
4.CLE
5.KC

Originally posted by Jerksticks
SP
1 Sox- MB, JC, JG, JV
2 Tigs- JV, KR, NR, JB
3 Twins- JS, BB, MG, CS
4 Tribe- CCS, JW, JS, CL, PB
5 KC- GM, ZG, who cares



What happens when the Tribe gets Mark Mulder?

champagne030
01-04-2007, 03:30 PM
The Tigers have the same #5 starter issue we do, plus numerous candidates for dropoff due to injury (Maggs, Sheff, Guillen, Polanco), age (Sheff, IRoid, Rogers, Jones), overwork (Verlander), and lack of sustained track record (Granderson, Inge, Shelton, half of the pitching staff).

Many of these guys already started slipping / getting hurt by the end of 2006, but they gave the team a huge boost in early 2006. Without these early performances, the Sox probably would have finished ahead of Detroit.

No, they most certainly do not! They're not counting on Andrew Miller to be the 5th starter.

CHISOXFAN13
01-04-2007, 03:32 PM
What happens when the Tribe gets Mark Mulder?

I don't know. Maybe you should ask that question in July when he's actually able to head to the mound again.

Anyone counting on MM to win a division crown this season is in trouble.

champagne030
01-04-2007, 03:35 PM
What happens when the Tribe gets Mark Mulder?

They could trade a pitcher - see Byrd, Paul. If Captain Cheeseburger could contain himself to only pulling fat once a season, they have a pretty decent rotation. There's a lot of teams running out 5th starters worse than Byrd (that's a scary thought) and unless we make a move the Sox look to be one of them.

Dolanski
01-04-2007, 03:49 PM
I have no fear of Detroit. History teaches us that returning the same team as the year before rarely brings the same results (duh, see 06 White Sox). Adding Sheff increases their offense, but their pitching, anchored by a 50 year old gambler isn't going to do as well. I see them faltering badly.

KC is still a baseball-like substance. Minnesota lost Ace number 2 (Liriano) and a reliable starter (Radke), which will totally cripple them (Sidney Ponson anyone?).

Which leaves us with the Indians. I see them as our biggest competition. Indians have a slew of young and talented hitters (Blake, Sizemore, Martinez, Peralta, Hafner), 3 solid starters (Sabathia, Westbrook and Lee) and a rebuilt pen. They missed their chance in 05, stumbled badly in 06, and I think 07 is the year they make a big noise. Very young, very good, and very dangerous.

chisoxmike
01-04-2007, 03:53 PM
Which leaves us with the Indians. I see them as our biggest competition. Indians have a slew of young and talented hitters (Blake, Sizemore, Martinez, Peralta, Hafner), 3 solid starters (Sabathia, Westbrook and Lee) and a rebuilt pen. They missed their chance in 05, stumbled badly in 06, and I think 07 is the year they make a big noise. Very young, very good, and very dangerous.

I think oeo pointed out that the Indians have played three good months of baseball in two years. Lee sucks, Westbrook is so so, the Sox tend to make him look like Cy Young. Sabathia owns us and the bullpen is slightly improved but I don't know about Foulke.

White_Sock
01-04-2007, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by champagne030
There's a lot of teams running out 5th starters worse than Byrd (that's a scary thought)

Let's not forget who handed the 2005 Sox their only loss of the post-season.

caulfield12
01-04-2007, 04:03 PM
Going from the bottom to the top (and based on gut feelings just as much as statistics and baseball knowledge):

The Royals are going to win about 10 more games this year. Those wins come from somewhere, and a couple of them are going to come from us. Are they a playoff team? No. But they're going to steal one or two wins more than last year, so don't just write them off as a non-factor. And I wouldn't be surprised if they surge at the start of the year for a week or two before falling to the division's basement. They actually have a decent lineup.

DeJesus
Grudzielanek
Teahen (who's going to rise to superstar status next year)
Sweeney
Sheely
Buck
Sanders
Berroa
Gathright

who knows if Dotel will be a decent closer or not? and their top three SP (Meche, Greinke, and Perez) could start the season strong.

Are they a playoff team? God no. Are they a last place team? Probably. But for the first time since 03, the Royals are a major league team. They're not a 100 loss team anymore.

Projection: 72-90, 5th place

Cleveland:

the bullpen is significantly better; one of the aging guys (Foulke, Borowski, Hernandez) they have will be good at closer for a year. the starters are... fine, but unspectacular. All will have ERAs over 4 except for Sabathia. Hafner, Sizemore, and Martinez are awesome. Will Marte and Peralta be good? Who knows. Barfield has some upside. Blake and Delucci will do what they always do.

The Indians could be awesome and could be terrible. There are so many question marks on that team. I'm inclined to think the latter though because I hate their starting pitchers.

Projection: 81-81, 4th place

Twins:

The Twins... who the hell knows? They have three great players in their lineup in Morneau, Cuddyer, and Mauer. Hunter knocked out 30 last year. Bartlett shuold get better. Punto won't hit .290 again. They have no DH.

Their starting pitching sucks behind Santana. No Liriano? No Radke? Who's their #2? Silva? They got hot at the right time last year, but if you look at the back end of their 2006 rotation's ERAs... they don't impress.

I'm not scared of the Twins. Then again, I'm never afraid of the Twins going into a season, then they find bums that are awesome. Who the hell knows with them?

Projection: 86-76, 3rd place

Tigers:

Their offense will be better, no doubt. Granderson is a year older, they have a full year of Sean Casey, and Sheffield. I'd probably say that they have a better offense than we do. They don't really have any liabilities, and depending on what Sox fan you talk to, we may have up to three (Pods, Uribe, and Anderson. Just Pods, IMO though).

Their bullpen should be solid, especially if Zumaya becomes closer. But their pitching should go through the same problems the 2006 sox staff did. For the young guys, that's a lot more wear and tear on their arms. And Kenny Rogers... well, he just keeps on getting older. Maybe the WC if the rest of the AL ****s itself, but I think the 07 Tigers will be a lot like the 06 Sox.

Projection: 92-70, 2nd place.

White Sox:

Ah the White Sox... We have a lot of questions going intot he year.

Again, if the Sox play to their potential, we're a world series caliber club. But there are a ton of questions..

1) Will the top three (Contreras, Buehrle, Garland) return to form?
2) Will Vazquez even pitch decently?
3) Who will the 5th starter be?
4) Will Scott Podsednik continue to suck?
5) Will Anderson mature at the plate?
6) Will the bullpen be good?

I don't see Juan Uribe as a question mark because, despite the fact that he had the lowest OBP of all players with at least 400 at bats (yeah... awful), you know exactly what Juan will do year in, year out. He'll hit for a ****ty average, knock out around 20 homers, have around 70 RBI, and play awesome D. I can live with that if that's your worst player.

My opinions on the questions for our team:
the top 3 starters will return to form
Vazquez will continue to suck
the 5th starter will be Floyd at the beginning of the year but he'll be awful and Haeger will replace him.
Pods will continue to suck.
Anderson will hit .290 and will make sox fans happy. No power though.
The bullpen will be good.

Sox finish first at 95-57

So that makes the AL Central break down:

White Sox 95-57
Tigers 92-70
Twins 86-76
Indians 81-81
Royals 72-90

Offense:
Tigers
Sox
Indians
Twins
Royals

Starters:
Sox
Tigers
Indians
Twins
Royals

Bullpen:
Twins
Sox
Tigers
Indians
Royals

God, April can't come soon enough.


There's a 50/50 chance Gordon will be the starter and they will have to move Teahen to the OF, taking Gathright's spot. I think he's going to end up closer to Joe Randa/Dean Palmer than a superstar, but he's a very solid player without HUGE power, I think he'll average 18-24 homers per season over the next five seasons.

I doubt that Berroa will end up starting more than half the games, they have to improve that position significantly.

Greinke is far from a certain thing for the rotation at this point...for them to get to .500, he does need to get 12-15 wins.

Dolanski
01-04-2007, 04:07 PM
I think oeo pointed out that the Indians have played three good months of baseball in two years. Lee sucks, Westbrook is so so, the Sox tend to make him look like Cy Young. Sabathia owns us and the bullpen is slightly improved but I don't know about Foulke.

I would give them a bit more than 3 months, but last season they were definitely terrible. Still, that lineup is really good. Sizemore is a stud. So is Hafner.

Cliff Lee has some dynamite stuff and is still young, just inconsistent. When he is on, he can be really nasty.

I really think they will have a good year this season. Most of their lineup is entering their prime years and have shown either some serious talent or inklings that they will be good. And after two seasons of disappointment, I just see their ship getting righted this season. If they do pick up Mulder as someone posted, then we might be in some serious trouble (That does of course assume Mulder still has something in the tank).

Don't mistake me for an Indian lover. You can take Chief Wahoo and stick him where the sun don't shine. I just think they are going to be the biggest competition for us next season.

maurice
01-04-2007, 04:09 PM
No, they most certainly do not! They're not counting on Andrew Miller to be the 5th starter.

Okay, help me out here. Who am I missing? Their rotation last year was:
Verlander
Rogers
Bonderman
Robertson
Pray for rain

Miner started 16 games and posted an ERA around 5 as a 24 year old rookie.
Maroth started 9 games and spent 3 months on the DL. He's also a 5-ish ERA guy.
IIRC, they plan to keep Ledezma in the pen, since he performs much better in that role.

If Oblong or any of the other Detroit guys are looking at this thead, please chime in. In any event, my other points about the ??? on the Tigers roster still stand.

Jerksticks
01-04-2007, 04:11 PM
plus jeremy sowers is supposed to be really good. I don't know much about him though. any info?

caulfield12
01-04-2007, 04:12 PM
I would give them a bit more than 3 months, but last season they were definitely terrible. Still, that lineup is really good. Sizemore is a stud. So is Hafner.

Cliff Lee has some dynamite stuff and is still young, just inconsistent. When he is on, he can be really nasty.

I really think they will have a good year this season. Most of their lineup is entering their prime years and have shown either some serious talent or inklings that they will be good. And after two seasons of disappointment, I just see their ship getting righted this season. If they do pick up Mulder as someone posted, then we might be in some serious trouble (That does of course assume Mulder still has something in the tank).

Don't mistake me for an Indian lover. You can take Chief Wahoo and stick him where the sun don't shine. I just think they are going to be the biggest competition for us next season.

I'm not 100% certain Shoo or Choo or whatever his name is will be so scary, but their late season 1B replacement really tore us apart.

A lot depends on the likes of Peralta and Marte playing up to their potential, as well as holding the fort defensively.

They still have a HUGE issue with Victor Martinez. He's a great offensive catcher, but close to Piazza defensively, and slightly better than average as a DH/1B.

Sowers really needs to come through for them to have a great season, and the veteran bullpen arms all need to pitch well and not be injured throughout the season.

maurice
01-04-2007, 04:15 PM
I don't expect Mulder to do much in 2007. Before going on the DL for late-season shoulder surgery, Mulder was 6-7 with a 7.14 ERA in 2006. Shoulder surgery is terrible news for a pitcher.

areilly
01-04-2007, 04:17 PM
Starters: Can you name a rotation you would rather have? Not a single spot that isn't capable of winning 17 games or more. Four aces and a fifth spot that will end up being filled by one of our young studs ready to step up.

I don't buy this for a second, and after last season's performance I'm not sure the Sox have even one ace.

santo=dorf
01-04-2007, 04:18 PM
Let's not forget who handed the 2005 Sox their only loss of the post-season.
....and besides that flukely loss the Sox tattooed Byrd in the 2005 ALCS and 2006 season.

Besides, this isn't the 2005 team anymore.

One other thing: Cliff Lee sucks.

spiffie
01-04-2007, 04:28 PM
I don't buy this for a second, and after last season's performance I'm not sure the Sox have even one ace.
Tired arms from 2005, and, I admit, perhaps a bit of complacence. With Cooper working on Vazquez (note every Sox starter tends to improve in Year Two under Coop), a healthy Contreras, and a challenged and motivated Buehrle, I see no reason they can't match or top their 2005 performances, or in Javy's case return to his Montreal form.

champagne030
01-04-2007, 04:41 PM
Okay, help me out here. Who am I missing? Their rotation last year was:
Verlander
Rogers
Bonderman
Robertson
Pray for rain

Miner started 16 games and posted an ERA around 5 as a 24 year old rookie.
Maroth started 9 games and spent 3 months on the DL. He's also a 5-ish ERA guy.
IIRC, they plan to keep Ledezma in the pen, since he performs much better in that role.

If Oblong or any of the other Detroit guys are looking at this thead, please chime in. In any event, my other points about the ??? on the Tigers roster still stand.

Maroth is not a 5-ish ERA guy. He'll throw 200+ innings with about a 4.4 ERA. He is healthy and is a lot better than anything we'll trot out there every 5th day.

I don't necessarily disagree with your questions about their lineup, but the Sox have just as many. If you're going to count Polanco, Guillen, Sheffield as injury risks then throw Thome, Crede, Konerko, Dye into that same group. Getting older, well same story. My main issue with your post was that they have at least one fewer question in their rotation and it's a huge one for us.

kittle42
01-04-2007, 04:43 PM
I don't buy this for a second, and after last season's performance I'm not sure the Sox have even one ace.

Whaddya talkin' about? Just because Buehrle has never been more than a very solid #2, Garland and Contreras have never put together more than one-half a season at a time of phenomenal work, and Vazquez has stunk for years, they're not all aces?

sox1970
01-04-2007, 05:02 PM
I'm not going to rank every categoiry of baseball. I'll just say it's going to be a 4-team dogfight with the Sox, Indians, Tigers, and Twins. It'll come down to getting hot at the right time. The Sox play 1/3 of their divison schedule in September. That would not be the time to play bad baseball. I think we're in store for a very interesting season. I could see any combination 1 thru 4.

maurice
01-04-2007, 05:08 PM
Maroth is not a 5-ish ERA guy.

Sure he is. His career numbers are 45-60 with a 4.78 ERA. In his last full season (2005), he was 14-14 with a 4.74 ERA. That's much closer to 5 than it is to good.

He'll throw 200+ innings with about a 4.4 ERA. He is healthy and is a lot better than anything we'll trot out there every 5th day.

You assumption that Maroth is a sure thing and can't possibly considered a ? is a classic example of "the grass is always greener." He had only 53.2 IP in 2006 and was on the DL for 3 months. Nobody knows how much or how well he'll pitch in 2007. Heck, he's been known to suck even when healthy.

If you're going to count Polanco, Guillen, Sheffield as injury risks then throw Thome, Crede, Konerko, Dye into that same group.

I agree about Thome and Crede. However, the Tiger injury risks are more severe, IMO. The Tigers have been injured more often, more severely, and/or more recently. Konerko is only 30 and has been generally healthy. Dye essentially has been healthy since missing most of 2003. Can't say that about Polanco, Guillen, Sheffield, etc. Guillen and Polanco get hurt all the time, including last year. Sheff is 38 and only played 39 games last year. Lord knows what the story is with Maggs' knee.

PennStater98r
01-04-2007, 05:20 PM
Tired arms from 2005, and, I admit, perhaps a bit of complacence. With Cooper working on Vazquez (note every Sox starter tends to improve in Year Two under Coop), a healthy Contreras, and a challenged and motivated Buehrle, I see no reason they can't match or top their 2005 performances, or in Javy's case return to his Montreal form.

Nope - I don't think this is a good excuse. Good pitchers in a five man rotation should be back and ready for April. We never heard this kind of discussion about any of the Braves pitchers in the 90s, or the any Yankee pitchers over the last 12 years.

I'd buy hiding an injury before tired arm.

That said, I would agree that pitchers tend to get better in year 2 of working with Cooper, and the evidence seems to point toward Javy getting better. I'm not worried about our fifth starter - because only the Tigers can march out a better 5th starter than what we'll have in our division.

Pitcher for pitcher, given trends and potential, our guys are better 1-5:

Minnesota - Santana - Bonser - Silva - Garza - Baker
Detroit - Rogers - Bonderman - Verlander - Robertson - Miner
Cleveland - Sabathia - Westbrook - Byrd - Lee - Sowers
Kansas City - Meche - Perez - Hudson - DeLaRosa - Bannister
Chicago - Buehrle - Contreras - Garland - Vazquez - Floyd/Haeger

OK, other than Santana - who'd be better than pretty much any other team's #1 starter, not one pitcher on any other AL Central team is better than what we can match against them - except Miner.

After Santana, Minnesota's pitching staff is just horrible. Sure, Silva does not walk anyone, but how many hits does he give up? Bonser, Garza and Baker - they all smell like Joe Mays to me... in the league a couple of years and gone shortly after mediocrity.

Detroit has a guy that won't have poo-poo on his hand every game - because not every manager is going to be as nice as Tony LaRussa was to Leyland. Let's see Rogers try to come into Chicago with **** on his hand and pitch - Ozzie will demand a full body cavity search on him. We all know that - in fact - I'm kinda hoping he tries to pull that with the Sox. That's not to mention the guy will start drawing Social Security any day now. From there, I like Detroit. Though I'd rather have Garland and Vazquez than Bonderman and Robertson. Verlander is really the diamond in the diamond on their staff. You already know how I feel about Miner - great to have as a #5 guy.

Cleveland does not rock in this scenario. Speaking of Drew Carey - er C.C. - that weight problem is going to haunt him. Speaking as a guy that dropped 70 lbs in the last 18 months, I'll say this, you can not play professional sports as a starting pitcher and go out there every fifth day year after year if you're 270 lbs. Your back, your knees, your blood pressure, your blood sugar, etc all start to work against you. Exercise is a good thing - if you're working on your diet with it. However, exercise without the right diet (and by right I mean not eating the wrong things like french fries and fried chicken all the time) you're not going to stay healthy enough to pitch all year. Westbrook is a good fourth or fifth starter that could do what Meche did a couple of years ago for Seattle and run off 6-10 games where everything is working, but he's not a #2 guy. I'll take Contreras or Buehrle over him any day. Cliff Lee sucks. Byrd is not all that and --- Sowers. /shrug

I don't think I need to waste the time or the energy talking about K.C. Brian Bannister could be something great - like Johnson and Ryan and Koufax before him - he could be a diamond in the rough that needs to get some control... but what are the chances of that? More importantly, how long did it take for Johnson and Ryan and Koufax to become dominant? If Bannister does end up being "that good," it won't be until he learns a bit more about pitching...

caulfield12
01-04-2007, 06:15 PM
Nope - I don't think this is a good excuse. Good pitchers in a five man rotation should be back and ready for April. We never heard this kind of discussion about any of the Braves pitchers in the 90s, or the any Yankee pitchers over the last 12 years.

I'd buy hiding an injury before tired arm.

That said, I would agree that pitchers tend to get better in year 2 of working with Cooper, and the evidence seems to point toward Javy getting better. I'm not worried about our fifth starter - because only the Tigers can march out a better 5th starter than what we'll have in our division.

Pitcher for pitcher, given trends and potential, our guys are better 1-5:

Minnesota - Santana - Bonser - Silva - Garza - Baker
Detroit - Rogers - Bonderman - Verlander - Robertson - Miner
Cleveland - Sabathia - Westbrook - Byrd - Lee - Sowers
Kansas City - Meche - Perez - Hudson - DeLaRosa - Bannister
Chicago - Buehrle - Contreras - Garland - Vazquez - Floyd/Haeger

OK, other than Santana - who'd be better than pretty much any other team's #1 starter, not one pitcher on any other AL Central team is better than what we can match against them - except Miner.

After Santana, Minnesota's pitching staff is just horrible. Sure, Silva does not walk anyone, but how many hits does he give up? Bonser, Garza and Baker - they all smell like Joe Mays to me... in the league a couple of years and gone shortly after mediocrity.

Detroit has a guy that won't have poo-poo on his hand every game - because not every manager is going to be as nice as Tony LaRussa was to Leyland. Let's see Rogers try to come into Chicago with **** on his hand and pitch - Ozzie will demand a full body cavity search on him. We all know that - in fact - I'm kinda hoping he tries to pull that with the Sox. That's not to mention the guy will start drawing Social Security any day now. From there, I like Detroit. Though I'd rather have Garland and Vazquez than Bonderman and Robertson. Verlander is really the diamond in the diamond on their staff. You already know how I feel about Miner - great to have as a #5 guy.

Cleveland does not rock in this scenario. Speaking of Drew Carey - er C.C. - that weight problem is going to haunt him. Speaking as a guy that dropped 70 lbs in the last 18 months, I'll say this, you can not play professional sports as a starting pitcher and go out there every fifth day year after year if you're 270 lbs. Your back, your knees, your blood pressure, your blood sugar, etc all start to work against you. Exercise is a good thing - if you're working on your diet with it. However, exercise without the right diet (and by right I mean not eating the wrong things like french fries and fried chicken all the time) you're not going to stay healthy enough to pitch all year. Westbrook is a good fourth or fifth starter that could do what Meche did a couple of years ago for Seattle and run off 6-10 games where everything is working, but he's not a #2 guy. I'll take Contreras or Buehrle over him any day. Cliff Lee sucks. Byrd is not all that and --- Sowers. /shrug

I don't think I need to waste the time or the energy talking about K.C. Brian Bannister could be something great - like Johnson and Ryan and Koufax before him - he could be a diamond in the rough that needs to get some control... but what are the chances of that? More importantly, how long did it take for Johnson and Ryan and Koufax to become dominant? If Bannister does end up being "that good," it won't be until he learns a bit more about pitching...


Miner was pulled from the rotation at the end of the season.

It's much more likely Maroth, Colon or even Grilli will be the 5th starter than Zach...

He was a very good band-aid and pitched admirably, but he doesn't have the kind of dominating stuff that DD likes...he was the throw-in to the Farnsworth deal.

Verlander-Rogers-Bonderman-Robertson....although you can flip Rogers and Bonderman if you'd like.

champagne030
01-04-2007, 07:05 PM
Sure he is. His career numbers are 45-60 with a 4.78 ERA. In his last full season (2005), he was 14-14 with a 4.74 ERA. That's much closer to 5 than it is to good.

Then I guess Javy is a "5'ish" ERA guy too since he's much closer to that while pitching in the AL.


You assumption that Maroth is a sure thing and can't possibly considered a ? is a classic example of "the grass is always greener." He had only 53.2 IP in 2006 and was on the DL for 3 months. Nobody knows how much or how well he'll pitch in 2007. Heck, he's been known to suck even when healthy.

Then I guess Contreras is a question since he was on the DL last season. Nobody knows how much JG, MB or JV will pitch this season. He had non-structural surgery last season and came back to the mound 3 months later. There's no rational reason to think Maroth won't go back to pitching like 2004 and 2005. That's just plan silly thinking. There's no hope of a rational debate about these two starting staffs if you wouldn't MUCH rather have Mike Maroth as our 5th starter for 2007 than anything we currently have on our roster.

caulfield12
01-04-2007, 07:15 PM
Then I guess Javy is a "5'ish" ERA guy too since he's much closer to that while pitching in the AL.




Then I guess Contreras is a question since he was on the DL last season. Nobody knows how much JG, MB or JV will pitch this season. He had non-structural surgery last season and came back to the mound 3 months later. There's no rational reason to think Maroth won't go back to pitching like 2004 and 2005. That's just plan silly thinking. There's no hope of a rational debate about these two starting staffs if you wouldn't MUCH rather have Mike Maroth as our 5th starter for 2007 than anything we currently have on our roster.

Everyone in baseball would take Danks or even Gonzalez over Maroth long-term, the only question is whether our 5th starter puts up better stats than Maroth THIS season.

It would be interesting to have seen, had we signed someone like Joel Pineiro for one season instead, if his stats would have been better than what our 5th spot does this year as well.

Oblong
01-04-2007, 07:18 PM
Okay, help me out here. Who am I missing? Their rotation last year was:
Verlander
Rogers
Bonderman
Robertson
Pray for rain

Miner started 16 games and posted an ERA around 5 as a 24 year old rookie.
Maroth started 9 games and spent 3 months on the DL. He's also a 5-ish ERA guy.
IIRC, they plan to keep Ledezma in the pen, since he performs much better in that role.

If Oblong or any of the other Detroit guys are looking at this thead, please chime in. In any event, my other points about the ??? on the Tigers roster still stand.


I haven't studied up on the other teams that much so I can only speak to Detroit.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a drop off with Rogers since he's a year older.
Verlander pitched a lot last year and if he's got a 4.00 ERA in 2007 I'll be happy. Those two are legitimate question marks in terms of uncertaintly.

I see Robertson and Bonderman having very solid years. Robertson pitched very well last year but didn't get run support. Leyland sounded adamant about Bonderman finally working on his changeup. If he gets that going I think he'll be the best right hander in the AL.

Maroth pitched very well until he got hurt. I'm not sure if he'll be ready or if he'll even be back to where he was. One thing that shouldn't be overlooked when checking out his stats is this: last year Kenny Rogers advised him in spring training to pitch more from the third base side of the rubber. In his first 8 starts before getting hurt he was 5-2 with a 2.42 ERA. Obviously it's only 8 starts but he did make a change in his pitching mechanics and did well in those before hurting his arm. Just something to think about in your analysis.

They didn't lose very much and added Sheffield. Does that mean they'll be better? I think the 2006 White Sox and Jim Thome know the answer to that.

champagne030
01-04-2007, 07:38 PM
Everyone in baseball would take Danks or even Gonzalez over Maroth long-term, the only question is whether our 5th starter puts up better stats than Maroth THIS season.

It would be interesting to have seen, had we signed someone like Joel Pineiro for one season instead, if his stats would have been better than what our 5th spot does this year as well.

Don't get me wrong - I've never come close to making that statement. It's all been about 2007.

Broadway, Gio and Danks are not ready. Masset and Sisco will be in the bullpen or learning how to be starters in Charlotte. Floyd is a major project. He has a pedestrian fastball (not overpowering and lacks movement), a plus curve that he tends to hang a handfull of times a game and nothing else offspeed to speak of. That's a lot to fix. Our only hope is for Haegar. That seems like a major gamble, IMO. I don't think it's out of the question that he could come in and put up a 4.8 ERA, but I don't think it's likely.

ChiSoxLifer
01-04-2007, 08:01 PM
It's all about faith. I have seen the light of optimism and refusal to believe anything negative about this team for the rest of the winter. All that pessimism and attempting to analyze the Sox for weaknesses or discussing what players might not be very good can do is bring everybody down, and no one wants to be brought down except for a few ornery propellerheads and a couple of lingering dark clouds. Instead I say its the time for FAITH. None of us know what tomorrow will hold, and I know I love my White Sox and going to Sox games, so I am going to simply assume that everything is going to work out perfectly, and if it doesn't it isn't like I could change anything about it by saying anything negative about it.

If you're not going to love the Sox unconditionally, and give your full and complete faith over to Kenny Williams, the man who brought us a World Series, then what's the point? After all, how could I possibly know enough to ever disagree with him? I don't have a giant scouting apparatus, resources to examine every player he has acquired, decades of experience picking apart the smallest aspects of a player's mechanics, or most importantly his keen eye for the game and the men who play it. And having walked too long in the dark lands of negativity and trusted in numbers and spreadsheets instead of using my eyes and heart to understand the game, I say it is time to stand in the light of truth and hope.

2007 will bring a White Sox World Series Winner to us all again!

You sound like a cubs fan. :D:

ode to veeck
01-04-2007, 08:07 PM
I cannot see this Sox team not running away with division in historic style. Right now I see it as:
Offense: Sox have the best in baseball. Then come the Indians, Tigers, Twins, Royals.
Starters: Can you name a rotation you would rather have? Not a single spot that isn't capable of winning 17 games or more. Four aces and a fifth spot that will end up being filled by one of our young studs ready to step up. Then comes Tigers, Twins, Indians, Royals.
Bullpen: 6 insanely powerful arms ready to blow the opposition away in late innings. Follwed up by Twins, Tigers, Indians, Royals.

Projected finishes:
Sox: 109-53
Twins: 88-74
Indians: 84-78
Tigers: 80-82
Royals: 69-93

109 Ws!?, LMAO, but I like the optimism at this point in the season (vs intermittent dark clouds which float in with the bad weather from time to time)

caulfield12
01-04-2007, 08:13 PM
Don't get me wrong - I've never come close to making that statement. It's all been about 2007.

Broadway, Gio and Danks are not ready. Masset and Sisco will be in the bullpen or learning how to be starters in Charlotte. Floyd is a major project. He has a pedestrian fastball (not overpowering and lacks movement), a plus curve that he tends to hang a handfull of times a game and nothing else offspeed to speak of. That's a lot to fix. Our only hope is for Haegar. That seems like a major gamble, IMO. I don't think it's out of the question that he could come in and put up a 4.8 ERA, but I don't think it's likely.

But did anyone feel that Verlander, Zumaya or Liriano would have the impact they did last year? Anything is possible with talent. Don't count Danks out yet.

ode to veeck
01-04-2007, 08:13 PM
I don't know if the Sox have gotten weaker or stronger, ad the same thing with the Tigers. Yes they added Sheffield, but I'm not sold on Zumaya as far as health is concerned. If he goes down I think Rodney would suck ass as a closer, and those two are basically the whole key to their pen. Their starting staff almost HAS to regress IMO. But they could continue to do what they did last year. I don't know, IMO they will be contenders no matter what but if I had to bet on it I'd say that they will be weaker than last year, although still better than most teams.

I think the Kittens will be back in spite of Rogers' age. They've got much younger good starters who should be as good in 07 as they were as rookies in 06, but their pen will be the critical fulcum point for them, healthy and holding or missing a piece or two (like we were last year). If their pen holds up or gets needed help they should be tough again.

champagne030
01-04-2007, 08:21 PM
But did anyone feel that Verlander, Zumaya or Liriano would have the impact they did last year? Anything is possible with talent. Don't count Danks out yet.

I don't know if I thought they would be as dominating, at times, as they were, but hell yes. All three of them were much closer and ready to pitch at the MLB level last season than Danks is this season. Danks may be Verlander in '08.

caulfield12
01-04-2007, 08:22 PM
Okay, but Garza, Bonser and Baker aren't/weren't remarkably more experienced or polished than any of the young White Sox hurlers and they did "okay" last year, enough to hold the fort.

champagne030
01-04-2007, 08:29 PM
Okay, but Garza, Bonser and Baker aren't/weren't remarkably more experienced or polished than any of the young White Sox hurlers and they did "okay" last year, enough to hold the fort.

Yes, they were. Danks isn't far from where they were, but I'd still rank the guys you mentioned ahead in their development heading into last season than Danks will be in April-07. And nobody else we have comes close....Other than the wildcard of Haegar's pitch.

Grzegorz
01-04-2007, 08:31 PM
Anyone counting on MM to win a division crown this season is in trouble.

And what could be said for anyone counting the Twins out of the playoffs? :D:

The Twins do more with less than any other team in recent memory.

Terry Ryan; who Billy Beane can only dream to emulate...

maurice
01-04-2007, 08:46 PM
Then I guess Javy is a "5'ish" ERA guy too since he's much closer to that while pitching in the AL.

Pretty much. KW and Coop think that he will improve in 2007, and he certainly has the potential to improve. We'll see. OTOH, at least Vazquez is a horse and did not spend 3 months on the DL last year after having surgery on his pitching arm.

Then I guess Contreras is a question since he was on the DL last season.

He's more of a concern because of his age, like Rogers. His DL stint is not really analogous to 3 months on the DL + surgery on his pitching arm. Contreras still pitched almost 200 innings last year and, given his history, is likely to do so again. Verlander, OTOH, is likely to be extremely tired.

Nobody knows how much JG, MB or JV will pitch this season.

Again, this is a terrible analogy. Every one of these guys is a proven horse who did not recently experience 3 months on the DL + surgery on their pitching arm. Maroth rushed back because the Tigers needed him and experienced pain in his elbow after returning. Oblong (who knows more about his team than either of us) says: "I'm not sure if he'll be ready or if he'll even be back to where he was." That certainly qualifies as a huge ? , even though the grass is always greener. Oblong also identified other concerns about the Tigers rotation and reasons why certain pitchers might regress. IMO, it's possible but unlikely that any of the Sox top 4 will perform worse this year than they did in 2006. OTOH, there's a good chance that some of them will pitch better.

maurice
01-04-2007, 09:04 PM
Okay, but Garza, Bonser and Baker aren't/weren't remarkably more experienced or polished than any of the young White Sox hurlers and they did "okay" last year, enough to hold the fort.

Yes, they were.

No, they weren't. Coming into the 2006 season:
- Garza was 23 and never pitched above A-ball.
- Bonser was 24 and was coming off a 3.99 ERA season in AAA; the previous year he had a 4.37 ERA at AA.
- Baker was 24 and was solid in only 9 MLB starts; he had mixed results in 31 AAA starts.

So, Baker had slightly more quality MLB experience than the Sox candidates, but Bonser and Garza never did jack. Heck, despite his palpable greatness, even Lirano had only 4 MLB starts coming into 2006.

Oblong
01-04-2007, 09:05 PM
I believe the company line on Maroth is that he'll be the fifth starter and ready on time but I'm not convinced of that. I think any pitcher coming back from basically a year's rehab on the throwing arm is a question mark.

It seems to me that the overall conventional wisdom on predictions going into a year is wrong. Where did people pick Chicago in 05? Where did they pick Cleveland in 06? Everybody had their kneepads out for Cleveland last year and are doing it again this year.

I didn' address Detroit's position players. Guillen is this team's MVP and if he's not healthy then it's a big hole. Rodriquez is going to be 35. He's in the final year of his original 4 year deal but there's a club option for 2008. Who knows how his head will take it. It's for $10 million and I think that's good enough for his age but he's a prima donna. I'm not a fan of his because he disresected my idol in 2005. If Sheffield's DHing the whole time then he should meet his career averages. His injury last year isn't worrisome to me. It was a fluke thing. Supposedly Maggs is working out hard this off season to bulk up. Always an adventure out there with him. I was hoping he'd become the team's DH this year but with Sheffield's 3 year deal that's not likely. Everybody else should do about what they did last year.

BTW, I'm not this negative about the Tigers in real life. It's just fun to vent on the stuff that bugs me. I'm a total homer. But what I say here is what I think. I'm just trying to be as objective as I can.

champagne030
01-04-2007, 09:08 PM
Pretty much. KW and Coop think that he will improve in 2007, and he certainly has the potential to improve. We'll see. OTOH, at least Vazquez is a horse and did not spend 3 months on the DL last year after having surgery on his pitching arm.

So another question mark for the Sox rotation?



He's more of a concern because of his age. His DL stint is not really anaogous to 3 months on the DL + surgery on his pitching arm. Contreras still pitched almost 200 innings last year and, given his history, is likely to do so again.

Concern or ??



Again, this is a terrible analogy. Every one of these guys is a proven horse who did not recently experience 3 months on the DL + surgery on their pitching arm. Maroth rushed back because the Tigers needed him and experienced pain in his elbow after returning. Oblong (who knows more about his team than either of us) says: "I'm not sure if he'll be ready or if he'll even be back to where he was." That certainly qualifies as a huge ? , even though the grass is always greener. Oblong also identified other concerns about the Tigers rotation and reasons why certain pitchers might regress. IMO, it's unlikely that any of the Sox top 4 will perform worse this year than they did in 2006. OTOH, there's a good chance that some of them will pitcher better.

I'll grant a possible falling back in production from a couple of the Tigers' starters. I'd also expect improvement from two, as Oblong suggested. And I'd still feel a LOT better if we had Maroth as our 5th starter than anything we can currently put on the mound every 5th day (at least for 2007). I don't feel that the grass is greener because we haven't seen Floyd rocked at the Cell.

FWIW, IMO - I'd expect improvement from a couple of our staters too. All four? No, I don't feel that. Bottom line for me is that I'd rather have their pitching staff in '07 than ours. We may have a better lineup, but pitching trumps hitting as 2005 proved and there's just as many questions about our lineup as Detroit.

champagne030
01-04-2007, 09:11 PM
No, they weren't. Coming into the 2006 season:
- Garza was 23 and never pitched above A-ball.
- Bonser was 24 and was coming off a 3.99 ERA season in AAA; the previous year he had a 4.37 ERA at AA.
- Baker was 24 and was solid in only 9 MLB starts; he had mixed results in 31 AAA starts.

So, Baker had slightly more quality MLB experience than the Sox candidates, but Bonser and Garza never did jack. Heck, despite his palpable greatness, even Lirano had only 4 MLB starts coming into 2006.

And who from our tryout list has that resume?

cbotnyse
01-04-2007, 09:15 PM
I believe the company line on Maroth is that he'll be the fifth starter and ready on time but I'm not convinced of that. I think any pitcher coming back from basically a year's rehab on the throwing arm is a question mark.

It seems to me that the overall conventional wisdom on predictions going into a year is wrong. Where did people pick Chicago in 05? Where did they pick Cleveland in 06? Everybody had their kneepads out for Cleveland last year and are doing it again this year.

I didn' address Detroit's position players. Guillen is this team's MVP and if he's not healthy then it's a big hole. Rodriquez is going to be 35. He's in the final year of his original 4 year deal but there's a club option for 2008. Who knows how his head will take it. It's for $10 million and I think that's good enough for his age but he's a prima donna. I'm not a fan of his because he disresected my idol in 2005. If Sheffield's DHing the whole time then he should meet his career averages. His injury last year isn't worrisome to me. It was a fluke thing. Supposedly Maggs is working out hard this off season to bulk up. Always an adventure out there with him. I was hoping he'd become the team's DH this year but with Sheffield's 3 year deal that's not likely. Everybody else should do about what they did last year.

BTW, I'm this negative about the Tigers in real life. It's just fun to vent on the stuff that bugs me. I'm a total homer. But what I say here is what I think. I'm just trying to be as objective as I can.
I havent been really paying attention much this offseaon to the Tigers, but is all of your pitching coming back? What are your feelings on your arms next year?

caulfield12
01-04-2007, 09:15 PM
Danks is more highly touted than any of those guys.

Garza was picked after Broadway. He's nothing but a fastball pitcher.

maurice
01-04-2007, 09:29 PM
Call them concerns or questions or whatever you want, every team has plenty of them in January. Some are more serious than others, and nothing in this thread indicates that we have more of them than anybody else in the AL Central.

Danks is more highly touted than any of those guys.
Garza was picked after Broadway. He's nothing but a fastball pitcher.

Pretty much everybody on our extended "tryout list" has a better resume than Bonser and Garza had coming into 2006. Our guys have more MLB experience, more success at AAA and AA, and/or are "more highly touted."

Oblong
01-04-2007, 09:36 PM
I havent been really paying attention much this offseaon to the Tigers, but is all of your pitching coming back? What are your feelings on your arms next year?


Yep. Only changes are Jamie Walker went to Baltimore and we picked up a rule 5 guy to try replace him, Edward Campusano from the Flubs, whom Dombrowski said they wanted the whole off season. They actually traded cash to the Brewers who selected him and sent him to Detroit. He had decent numbers in A and AA last year. 2-1 record, 1.46 earned-run average, 81 strikeouts and 17 walks in 55 1/3 innings. He was a 4 year minor league guy so was eligible.

So barring any trades or collapses in spring training, it'll be the same staff, except the LH relief spot.

champagne030
01-04-2007, 09:44 PM
Call them concerns or questions or whatever you want, every team has plenty of them in January. Some are more serious than others, and nothing in this thread indicates that we have more of them than anybody else in the AL Central.



Pretty much everybody on our extended "tryout list" has a better resume than Bonser and Garza had coming into 2006. Our guys have more MLB experience, more success at AAA and AA, and/or are "more highly touted."

Excuse me if I'll pass on Floyd's MLB experience (or AAA experience for that matter). Am I'm that impressed that Haegar got out AAA batters with a knuckleball? Sure, he's a wildcard, but not what I hoped to bank on as our 5th starter. Bonser and Garza both have far better stuff than Broadway, Heath, et al. Better than Gio or Danks, not IMO, but had much more command of what they threw than either of those two.

And I'll repeat what started my posting in this thread, the Tigers have less questions than we do heading into 2007.

santo=dorf
01-04-2007, 09:47 PM
Yep. Only changes are Jamie Walker went to Baltimore and we picked up a rule 5 guy to try replace him, Edward Campusano from the Flubs, whom Dombrowski said they wanted the whole off season. They actually traded cash to the Brewers who selected him and sent him to Detroit. He had decent numbers in A and AA last year. 2-1 record, 1.46 earned-run average, 81 strikeouts and 17 walks in 55 1/3 innings. He was a 4 year minor league guy so was eligible.

So barring any trades or collapses in spring training, it'll be the same staff, except the LH relief spot.
Don't forget about Joe Table

PaleHoseGeorge
01-04-2007, 09:51 PM
And I'll repeat what started my posting in this thread, the Tigers have less questions than we do heading into 2007.

I see. Would you agree the '06 Sox had fewer questions than the eventual A.L. champion Tigers?

Or are you willing to admit that "questions" simply aren't reliable predictors of the future?

Oblong
01-04-2007, 10:01 PM
and my thoughts on the staff is that I think we'll see some regression from Rogers and Verlander, improvement from Bonderman and Robertson. I think the bullpen will be fine. Jones doesn't have great stuff but he got people out. It was a mystery to me. He gets the ground balls and pop ups when he needs to. I was a huge Jones critic, to the point of hatred, but he got the outs and I can't argue against it anymore without sounding like an idiot. I actually wouldn't be surprised if Rodney's the closer by year's end. Zumaya is the best pitcher of the 3 and I think he'll continue to be used like he was in 2006. He wasn't the closer but if it was the 6th inning or later and you needed outs because guys were on base, then he was out there. The pitching question for the Tigers will if Rogers can keep up at his age, whether Verlander can adjust to his second full year after throwing a lot of innings, and if Maroth is healthy.

I said elsewhere that if the 07 Tigers can have a year like the 06 Sox, I'd be very content. It would mean a second year in a row of being an elite team and a good sign that the organization has turned it around long term.

As for predictions you'll see in the media. I think many people nationally will look at the 06 standings and see the Sox as a third place team. They won't remember that for much of the year the Sox were right on Detroit's tail. Some big streaks, winning and losing, by the Twins and Tigers skewed the results in my opinion. As a result, I think the predictions will be a bit flawed. I think they'll underestimate Chicago.

Oblong
01-04-2007, 10:02 PM
Don't forget about Joe Table


Doh! freudian slip I think. I'd like to forget.

champagne030
01-04-2007, 10:11 PM
I see. Would you agree the '06 Sox had fewer questions than the eventual A.L. champion Tigers?

Or are you willing to admit that "questions" simply aren't reliable predictors of the future?

I would agree that we had less questions heading into last season than Detroit has this season.

That doesn't mean that I go into this season thinking that Meche wins Cy Young and Dotel is Rolaids relief man of the year. Yeah, that's a little over the top, but my point is that you need to go by something if you're trying to think about the future of the team.

Heck, Garland could blow out his elbow in ST or Santana too. That doesn't mean we cannot have reasonable expectations of what to expect from the upcoming season. Gavin Floyd could be World Series MVP of the White Sox, but that doesn't mean it's likely.

maurice
01-04-2007, 10:16 PM
Bonser and Garza both have far better stuff than . . . .

You asked about resumes. "Stuff" is not a resume. Lots of guys with great stuff flame out in A-ball.

The point is that Minnesota needed 62 starts by guys who never held down a MLB rotation slot in their lives (the 4 main guys, plus 1 start apiece by Matt Smith and Matt Guerrier). Santana was Santana and Radke pitched okay in his 28 starts, but the rest of their rotation was 2 veterans who sucked (Silva and sometimes Lohse) and a bunch of "unproven kids." Even if you choose to exclude Liriano and Baker, the other 4 guys made a total of 30 starts, including a playoff start.

We have multiple guys with better resumes than Bonser and Garza had, and only have one hole to fill. We're not filling multiple slots or looking for a guy to be a top 3 starter in the playoffs. We just need one of them to pitch good enough to be an adequate #5 starter during the regular season.

This is not an unusual dilemma. What's unusual is the sheer number of young candidates with relatively strong resumes.

Gavin Floyd could be World Series MVP of the White Sox, but that doesn't mean it's likely.

Nobody is suggesting that it's "likely." The Sox #5 starter doesn't have to be Cy Young. The Sox #5 starter doesn't even have to be Gavin Floyd. If the Sox #5 starter has 31 starts and a 5.94 ERA in 2007, he'll be just as good as the guy who started the 2nd most games for the Twins in 2006.

champagne030
01-04-2007, 10:20 PM
We have multiple guys with better resumes than Bonser and Garza had, and only have one hole to fill.

Name them and why?

champagne030
01-04-2007, 10:23 PM
Nobody is suggesting that it's "likely." The Sox #5 starter doesn't have to be Cy Young. The Sox #5 starter doesn't even have to be Gavin Floyd.

No, but the #5 guy needs to be part of a staff that produces 22 more wins than last season. The 17 to replace Freddy and the 5 or so to get to 95.

caulfield12
01-04-2007, 10:31 PM
Name them and why?

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/B/Boof-Bonser.shtml

Bonser had an "okay" track record, nothing special. Before last year, he was more famous for his name and being a high draft pick. He should be in the big leagues by age 25. Garland had already pitched half a decade at that point.

Garza had a great season last year, but so did Jon Rauch in 1999 or 2000. It takes more than one great season with a couple of dominating minor league stops to make a career. Garza really struggled with his secondary pitches last year, when he got ahead with the fastball, he could be nasty, but, more often that not, he had to throw a ton of pitches to get there was knocked out by the 4th or 5th inning.

He has a long ways to go. So does Baker, who was highly though of coming out of Oklahoma State but hasn't exactly wowed anyone yet. Another pitcher with very good stuff but marginal results to go with it.

champagne030
01-04-2007, 10:35 PM
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/B/Boof-Bonser.shtml

Bonser had an "okay" track record, nothing special. Before last year, he was more famous for his name and being a high draft pick. He should be in the big leagues by age 25. Garland had already pitched half a decade at that point.

Garza had a great season last year, but so did Jon Rauch in 1999 or 2000. It takes more than one great season with a couple of dominating minor league stops to make a career. Garza really struggled with his secondary pitches last year, when he got ahead with the fastball, he could be nasty, but, more often that not, he had to throw a ton of pitches to get there was knocked out by the 4th or 5th inning.

He has a long ways to go. So does Baker, who was highly though of coming out of Oklahoma State but hasn't exactly wowed anyone yet. Another pitcher with very good stuff but marginal results to go with it.

Who from our list of candidates for 2007 looks does that remind you of? I'm drawing a blank too.

maurice
01-04-2007, 10:37 PM
Name them and why?

They've been named repeatedly in this thread and elsewhere. Suffice it to say that it wasn't too difficult to find several guys in the now deep Sox org. who have better resumes than a guy who never pitched above A ball (Garza) and a guy who spent the previous 2 years putting up a 4 ERA in AAA and AA (Bonser).

the #5 guy needs to be part of a staff that produces 22 more wins than last season. The 17 to replace Freddy and the 5 or so to get to 95.

That's daft. "The staff" does not "produce wins." A team produces wins. The starting rotaion is maybe 40% of the equation. (The rest is offense and defense, which is essentially identical.) A single starter is maybe 8% of the equation. You concede that some of the other 4 starters should perform better. None of them should perform significantly worse, though that's possible. The bullpen should be better. It's unlikely that the bullpen will be worse, though that's possible. It's also possible that Floyd will be the team MVP.
:rolleyes:

maurice
01-04-2007, 10:42 PM
The point is that Minnesota needed 62 starts by guys who never held down a MLB rotation slot in their lives

Expanding on this point, Detroit won the pennant relying on 54 starts by guys who never held down a MLB rotation slot in their lives, including 4 playoff starts.

Detroit also had a number of "unproven young" bullpen guys with great stuff but a limted track record. Minnesota reworks its bullpen in this manner annually.

champagne030
01-04-2007, 10:43 PM
They've been named repeatedly in this thread and elsewhere. Suffice it to say that it wasn't too difficult to find several guys in the now deep Sox org. who have better resumes than a guy who never pitched above A ball (Garza) and a guy who spent the previous 2 years putting up a 4 ERA in AAA and AA (Bonser).


Like who? Broadway? Floyd? Gio? Danks? Haegar?

champagne030
01-04-2007, 10:45 PM
Expanding on this point, Detroit won the pennant relying on 54 starts by guys who never held down a MLB rotation slot in their lives, including 4 playoff starts.

Detroit also had a number of "unproven young" bullpen guys with great stuff but a limted track record. Minnesota reworks its bullpen in this manner annually.

Do not try to include Verlander's ability in '06 to anything we currently have going into '07.

maurice
01-04-2007, 11:06 PM
Do not try to include Verlander's ability in '06 to anything we currently have going into '07.

You didn't ask about "ability." You asked about "resume."

Hindsight is 20/20. Coming into 2006, Verlander had 2 MLB starts with poor results, zero AAA starts, and only 7 AA starts. The previous year, he had a 7-6 record with a 3.49 ERA in college.

But you protest: he was highly touted and had a high draft status. A few of our guys are highly touted and they all have more experience in the high minors than Verlander did. Your least favorite option (Floyd) was the #4 overall pick. Thats only 2 spots lower than Verlander. Jon Rauch was the #1 prospect in baseball! Joe Borchard was supposed to be the next Mantle!

Oh, wait. I forgot that this crap only applies to people in the Sox org, because the grass is alway greener.

Finally, Verlander did not make all 54 of the starts, and he didn't pitch out of the bullpen.

- - -

I'm sick of looking this stuff up for you. Next time, please do the research before you ask the questions. I'm going to bed.

caulfield12
01-04-2007, 11:27 PM
I think it will be interesting to see if Mr. Andrew Miller has anything like the impact Verlander had on the Tigers last season.

I was not as impressed as I expected to be with him last year out of the pen, but he was only a couple of months removed from college. He doesn't have "electric" stuff, but maybe his arm was just tired or dead.

champagne030
01-05-2007, 05:36 AM
You didn't ask about "ability." You asked about "resume."

Hindsight is 20/20. Coming into 2006, Verlander had 2 MLB starts with poor results, zero AAA starts, and only 7 AA starts. The previous year, he had a 7-6 record with a 3.49 ERA in college.

But you protest: he was highly touted and had a high draft status. A few of our guys are highly touted and they all have more experience in the high minors than Verlander did. Your least favorite option (Floyd) was the #4 overall pick. Thats only 2 spots lower than Verlander. Jon Rauch was the #1 prospect in baseball! Joe Borchard was supposed to be the next Mantle!

Oh, wait. I forgot that this crap only applies to people in the Sox org, because the grass is alway greener.

Finally, Verlander did not make all 54 of the starts, and he didn't pitch out of the bullpen.

- - -

I'm sick of looking this stuff up for you. Next time, please do the research before you ask the questions. I'm going to bed.

I suppose a bad choice of words on my part. Verlander was a much better pitcher with a better resume coming into '06 than we have in our system to pitch in '07.

When the player is currently better then I don't care what color the grass is - the player is better. Nice research, but you still haven't named a player and why?

Either answer the question or get off the pot.

champagne030
01-05-2007, 05:37 AM
I think it will be interesting to see if Mr. Andrew Miller has anything like the impact Verlander had on the Tigers last season.

I was not as impressed as I expected to be with him last year out of the pen, but he was only a couple of months removed from college. He doesn't have "electric" stuff, but maybe his arm was just tired or dead.

He did not look like he was as nearly as polished as Verlander was at this point last season.

caulfield12
01-05-2007, 05:43 AM
He did not look like he was as nearly as polished as Verlander was at this point last season.


Actually, he almost looked like another Andy out there, this one Sisco. Pretty similar in the size department.

Both have something of an akward, "cross the body" slinging style of motion. He looked like a lot of "parts" but I wasn't thinking we should trade Matt Thornton for him.

Of course, every scout in baseball would love to have Miller, we'll just have to wait and see how he develops. (And I always though Jeremy Affeldt could be a great pitcher, so what do I know, lol). In fact, I felt the same way about Dan Reichert, and neither one of them every put it together despite great arms.

Jerksticks
01-05-2007, 11:08 AM
I suppose a bad choice of words on my part. Verlander was a much better pitcher with a better resume coming into '06 than we have in our system to pitch in '07.

So what if there is a rookie pitchin in the 5 slot. who cares? Everyone has to break into the bigs at some point. we have a great team.

i think the 5 hole will be definitively won by one of the rookies in ST, and will win mucho games.

I got a good feeling. Anybody else wanna sac up and get excited about '07?

IronFisk
01-05-2007, 01:06 PM
I hate predicting anything. Being said...

1) Sox 98-64
2) Twins 89-73
3) Tiggers 85-77
4) Injuns 82-80
5) Royals 69-93

Book it :redneck

caulfield12
01-05-2007, 01:15 PM
I hate predicting anything. Being said...

1) Sox 98-64
2) Twins 89-73
3) Tiggers 85-77
4) Injuns 82-80
5) Royals 69-93

Book it :redneck

I feel a lot more confident predicting 92-95 than anything more than that.

Every team in the division will be either better or the same, with the possible exception of the Twins, and the Twins ALWAYS play us tough, with the exception of 2005. But they've won nearly every season series with us since 2000....so five of the last six seasons.

Juice16
01-05-2007, 01:23 PM
Fine I'll start.

Offensively i see
1 Sox- Hands Down! I mean just look at us
2 Tribe- Hafner is just a beast
3 Tigs- They should be a little better, not much
4 Twins- Morneau and Mauer will get better but overall not good
5 Royals- Horrible

SP
1 Sox- MB, JC, JG, JV
2 Tigs- JV, KR, NR, JB
3 Twins- JS, BB, MG, CS
4 Tribe- CCS, JW, JS, CL, PB
5 KC- GM, ZG, who cares

Bullpen
I think ours is sick nasty compared to detroits or the twins

Therefore, CWS=2007 AL Central champs. so relax!

I can't believe someone just called our bullpen sick nasty.

caulfield12
01-05-2007, 01:37 PM
I can't believe someone just called our bullpen sick nasty.


On paper....heck, with Burgos, Affeldt, Sisco and MacDougal coming into last season, you could make the same argument about the Royals as well.

You don't have to be "sick nasty," you simply have to perform like we did in 2005...I'll take an effective Hermanson/Takatsu/Wunsch over lit up like a Christmas Tree Alan Embree (with the Sox) any day of the week.

Jerksticks
01-05-2007, 06:28 PM
Sick

Jerksticks
01-05-2007, 06:29 PM
Tasty

Jerksticks
01-05-2007, 06:30 PM
n Nasssty.

whitesox901
01-08-2007, 06:08 AM
im thinkin its gonna be

SOX
DET
KC
MIN
CLE

i like KC's young offense, vetran leadership and we'll have to see how the roation fairs, but i think the sox can win 100 games, detroit is a one year wonder flash in the pan

caulfield12
01-08-2007, 07:02 AM
im thinkin its gonna be

SOX
DET
KC
MIN
CLE

i like KC's young offense, vetran leadership and we'll have to see how the roation fairs, but i think the sox can win 100 games, detroit is a one year wonder flash in the pan

You can't be serious. KC (and I've lived here 10 years) is not ready to pass both Cleveland and Minnesota. It's going to be a huge challenge for them to get out of last place, and they are vastly improved, but there are simply too many questions in their rotation and bullpen.

Almost a great offensive line-up, minus a couple of outfield positions, Berroa and Buck's okay at C.

robinohio2
01-09-2007, 09:13 PM
Some of these posts reflect a pretty good understanding of the other ballcubs where some of them at least with respect to Cleveland have no idea what they are talking about.

Offense: The Indians had the second best offense in all of baseball last year. Period. We had Boone in there and he was awful. Peralta had a down year. Jason Micheals didn't impress anyone. Cleveland still scored the second most runs in baseball. Marte will be at least as good as Boone and Garko can hit. Sizemore, Hafner, Matinez are all studs.

Starting Pitching: Sabathia is an ace. Sowers had the lowest ERA in baseball the second half of the season. Maybe that will change as batters adjust to him. He's a lot better than Jason Johnson. This is a deep set of pitchers.

Sabathia's ERA: 3.22 12 wins 6 CG 2 shutouts
Sowers: 3.57 7 wins 2 CG shutouts
Westbrook: 4.17 15 wins 3 CG 2 shutouts
Lee: 4.40 14 wins 1 CG
Byrd: 4.88 10 wins 1 CG

The only pitcher on that list whose ERA isn't better then all of your starters from last year is Byrd and Contreras edges Lee. Obviously changes have been made to your roster but ours is still the same and they are better than you guys are giving them credit for. I would argue that they are hands down better then the White Sox, Twins, Royals and probably Detroit.

White Sox pitching threw 5 CG with 2 shutouts last year. Cleveland relied on their starters more because of last years bullpen.

Defense: The Tribe struggled here with Martinez at catcher, Belliard at 2B, and Peralta at SS. Barfield is a huge upgrade defensively at 2B. Peralta and Martinez will have to make improvements and both are important to the Tribe's 2007 year.

Bullpen: in 2005 the bullpen had the lowest ERA in at least the AL. In 2006, they were terrible. Carmona had a very low ERA when he pitched in the 8th inning and they tried him at closer and he mentally wasn't ready. Boston killed him. Borowski 36/43 saves for Florida and Foulke give the Tribe two guys who can help the youthful bullpen while providing stability in the 9th inning. Those guys are signed to one year deals because Shapiro knows the youthfull bullpen can pitch. They just need experience.

This is a more accurate assessment of the Tribe.

santo=dorf
01-09-2007, 09:24 PM
Sabathia is not an ace, except against the Sox.

The "best" offense isn't just the team that scores the most runs. Cleveland padded their overall run totals by running up the score against KC. (11 runs in the first and still swinging for the fences?)

I also like how you write off Jhonny's 2006 as just "a down year" yet you don't apply that to any of our starters who have a much better track record than J-Ho.

The Tribe's bullpen is composed of a bunch of ex-chicago closers who are either old, recovering from injury, and/or coming off a decent season in the NL.
http://www.davidrichardphoto.com/guillen.jpg

caulfield12
01-09-2007, 09:24 PM
Martinez and Peralta need to figure out what they're doing defensively. Marte is also a key part of the equation. And Choo or Shoo or whatever his name it, he looked good against the Sox but there are doubts whether he or Michaels are anything more than 4th outfielders.

When you rely on veterans in the bullpen, it could be a positive (like the White Sox with Hermanson or Politte) or it can go the other direction, especially with the age and injury history of some of those guys.

I liked Garko a lot, but it doesn't seem like he has a position if they intend to play Martinez at 1B....or are they moving him back to C?

Shapiro really made a mistake thinking Jason Johnson could come in a replace that spot in the rotation Millwood vacated. The bullpen really can't get any worse, and, as mentioned they will be more experienced and confident.

ma-gaga
01-10-2007, 10:00 AM
The only pitcher on that list whose ERA isn't better then all of your starters from last year is
...
White Sox pitching threw 5 CG with 2 shutouts last year. Cleveland relied on their starters more because of last years bullpen.


The only nitpicking I have is the reliance on ERA and CG's. ERA can be somewhat of a misleading stat based on the ballpark that the team plays in. Cleveland played as a "pitching park" last year, and Chicago played as a "hitting park". The difference isn't great, something like 4%, but it virtually equalizes the pitching staffs of Cleveland (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CLE/2006.shtml) and Chicago (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/2006.shtml). Both had an ERA+ of 101.

Maybe Cleveland's ready to dominate. But I haven't seen it yet.

FWIW. I subtracted out Liriano and Radke from the Twins rotation, and their teams gross ERA is 4.08 w/o those two contributions from last year. That was a 'sick and nasty' bullpen, and some major innings from Santana. And for completion's sake, the Twins ERA+ was 113, and Detroits was 117.

IMO, Detroit is the team to beat. :angry:

oeo
01-10-2007, 10:09 AM
Some of these posts reflect a pretty good understanding of the other ballcubs where some of them at least with respect to Cleveland have no idea what they are talking about.

Offense: ...


The Sox offense was very comparable to the Indians. And that was with a terrible year from Pods, a bad rookie season for Anderson, and a bad season by Uribe.

Starting Pitching: ...

I think you're overrating your starting rotation...just a bit. The rotation for the Sox was a weak point of last year, but that can be partially to blame by pitching throughout October 2005 and the WBC.

Defense: ...

I'll take the Sox defense over every other team in the Central.

Bullpen: ...

Borowski did a good job in the NL...I doubt he's as good in the AL. He's going to have his troubles. If Foulke comes back to form (and stay healthy), he can be a solid reliever, otherwise, there will be trouble.

And again, the Indians have only showed their "potential" for about three months over the last two years, so what the hell are we supposed to think? They haven't proven anything yet.

maurice
01-10-2007, 12:25 PM
Thanks for the detailed report, Rob.

The Indians had the second best offense in all of baseball last year. Period.

Actually, it's a lot more complicated than that. As Santo pointed out, total runs scored is not as important as run distribution.

Garko can hit. Sizemore, Hafner, Matinez are all studs.

I agree that these guys form the basis of a potentially dangeous offense, but it looks like Marte might never live up the all the hype he's received over the years. Peralta is unpredictable, IMO. It would be nice to have a good leadoff hitter, so that Sizemore could move down to a more apropriate spot in the order, which could help your run distibution.

Sabathia is an ace.

That remains to be seen. He's an extremely talented guy who may be eating his way out of baseball. He may be the only pitcher in the history of baseball who went on the DL with a case of pulled pork (erroneously reported as a "pulled muscle"). Byrd, Borowski, and Foulke also are strong candidates to miss time and/or play poorly because of injury.

Sowers had the lowest ERA in baseball the second half of the season. . . . The only pitcher on that list whose ERA isn't better then all of your starters . . . .

You're only looking at single-season and half-season ERAs, and assuming that these accurately predict these pitchers' performances in 2007. That's daft, particularly when you just finished saying things like "Peralta had a down year." You also have to consider that the Sox starters probably will be more durable than the Jndjan starters and that the Sox also have more credible, young options to fill in for an injured starter.

Those [veteran bullpen guys] are signed to one year deals because Shapiro knows the youthfull bullpen can pitch. They just need experience.

Or they can't pitch and no amount of experience will help. Only time will tell. In all likelihood, some will make it and some will fail. In the battle of young, talented bullpen arms, I'm quite happy with the guys we have, some of whom already have had success at the MLB level.

Defense: The Tribe struggled here with Martinez at catcher, Belliard at 2B, and Peralta at SS. Barfield is a huge upgrade defensively at 2B. Peralta and Martinez will have to make improvements and both are important to the Tribe's 2007 year.


I agree with this, except that I see no reason to believe that Peralta and Martinez will ever improve if the Jndjans continue to play them out of position at SS and C. Have they committed to permanent position changes? Where will they go, since most of the other spots already are filled? Who will replace them?

Dolanski
01-10-2007, 05:31 PM
Since the Indians have been discussed as having Mulder on the team, it should be noted that he signed to day with the Cards. 2 years 13 mill. Good news if you ask me.

Jerksticks
01-10-2007, 05:55 PM
Since the Indians have been discussed as having Mulder on the team, it should be noted that he signed to day with the Cards. 2 years 13 mill. Good news if you ask me.

Totally. The last thing anyone wants is a wildcard like Mulder impacting a playoff race. Well, a playoff race NOT involving the Indians. If you like the Indians- I hate you. That is all.

Domeshot17
01-10-2007, 06:01 PM
Some of these posts reflect a pretty good understanding of the other ballcubs where some of them at least with respect to Cleveland have no idea what they are talking about.


Offense: The Indians had the second best offense in all of baseball last year. Period. We had Boone in there and he was awful. Peralta had a down year. Jason Micheals didn't impress anyone. Cleveland still scored the second most runs in baseball. Marte will be at least as good as Boone and Garko can hit. Sizemore, Hafner, Matinez are all studs.

Starting Pitching: Sabathia is an ace. Sowers had the lowest ERA in baseball the second half of the season. Maybe that will change as batters adjust to him. He's a lot better than Jason Johnson. This is a deep set of pitchers.

Sabathia's ERA: 3.22 12 wins 6 CG 2 shutouts
Sowers: 3.57 7 wins 2 CG shutouts
Westbrook: 4.17 15 wins 3 CG 2 shutouts
Lee: 4.40 14 wins 1 CG
Byrd: 4.88 10 wins 1 CG

The only pitcher on that list whose ERA isn't better then all of your starters from last year is Byrd and Contreras edges Lee. Obviously changes have been made to your roster but ours is still the same and they are better than you guys are giving them credit for. I would argue that they are hands down better then the White Sox, Twins, Royals and probably Detroit.

White Sox pitching threw 5 CG with 2 shutouts last year. Cleveland relied on their starters more because of last years bullpen.

Defense: The Tribe struggled here with Martinez at catcher, Belliard at 2B, and Peralta at SS. Barfield is a huge upgrade defensively at 2B. Peralta and Martinez will have to make improvements and both are important to the Tribe's 2007 year.

Bullpen: in 2005 the bullpen had the lowest ERA in at least the AL. In 2006, they were terrible. Carmona had a very low ERA when he pitched in the 8th inning and they tried him at closer and he mentally wasn't ready. Boston killed him. Borowski 36/43 saves for Florida and Foulke give the Tribe two guys who can help the youthful bullpen while providing stability in the 9th inning. Those guys are signed to one year deals because Shapiro knows the youthfull bullpen can pitch. They just need experience.

This is a more accurate assessment of the Tribe.


Well, your view about the Tribe is about as much of a homer review you can get. The pitching is thin. The pen is terrible. Your biggest hole is defense. You guys need to move Peralta to 3rd and Victor to 1st so you can have a chance. Until then, you have a major glaring defensive hole at 2 of the 3 most crucial defensive positions in the game (C-SS-CF).

I think you guys have the potential to score a ton of runs. But you will give up a ton of runs also, and a lot will be unearned.

chisoxmike
01-10-2007, 06:22 PM
Some of these posts reflect a pretty good understanding of the other ballcubs where some of them at least with respect to Cleveland have no idea what they are talking about.


Offense: The Indians had the second best offense in all of baseball last year. Period. We had Boone in there and he was awful. Peralta had a down year. Jason Micheals didn't impress anyone. Cleveland still scored the second most runs in baseball. Marte will be at least as good as Boone and Garko can hit. Sizemore, Hafner, Matinez are all studs.

Starting Pitching: Sabathia is an ace. Sowers had the lowest ERA in baseball the second half of the season. Maybe that will change as batters adjust to him. He's a lot better than Jason Johnson. This is a deep set of pitchers.

Sabathia's ERA: 3.22 12 wins 6 CG 2 shutouts
Sowers: 3.57 7 wins 2 CG shutouts
Westbrook: 4.17 15 wins 3 CG 2 shutouts
Lee: 4.40 14 wins 1 CG
Byrd: 4.88 10 wins 1 CG

The only pitcher on that list whose ERA isn't better then all of your starters from last year is Byrd and Contreras edges Lee. Obviously changes have been made to your roster but ours is still the same and they are better than you guys are giving them credit for. I would argue that they are hands down better then the White Sox, Twins, Royals and probably Detroit.

White Sox pitching threw 5 CG with 2 shutouts last year. Cleveland relied on their starters more because of last years bullpen.

Defense: The Tribe struggled here with Martinez at catcher, Belliard at 2B, and Peralta at SS. Barfield is a huge upgrade defensively at 2B. Peralta and Martinez will have to make improvements and both are important to the Tribe's 2007 year.

Bullpen: in 2005 the bullpen had the lowest ERA in at least the AL. In 2006, they were terrible. Carmona had a very low ERA when he pitched in the 8th inning and they tried him at closer and he mentally wasn't ready. Boston killed him. Borowski 36/43 saves for Florida and Foulke give the Tribe two guys who can help the youthful bullpen while providing stability in the 9th inning. Those guys are signed to one year deals because Shapiro knows the youthfull bullpen can pitch. They just need experience.

This is a more accurate assessment of the Tribe.



rut-oh :o:

Corlose 15
01-10-2007, 09:39 PM
Since the Indians have been discussed as having Mulder on the team, it should be noted that he signed to day with the Cards. 2 years 13 mill. Good news if you ask me.

What is it with Walt Jockety being able to sign people to reasonable contracts? He's done a nice job with Carpenter and Mulder now.

areilly
01-10-2007, 10:36 PM
I'll avoid the team-by-team speculation, but I don't think it's healthy to assume that everyone in the ALC is going to return to their 2005 form. Maybe the Sox' clicking that year was the abberation, and 2006 was the return to normal.

robinohio2
01-11-2007, 10:24 AM
Hey guys, I didn't write this to flame or talk smack. I was curious as to the White Sox fans views of the rest of the Central. It is a really strong division. What I read was surprising. Not many fans were giving the Tribe much respect and I just thought some more information might garner new thoughts on the matter.

My personal homer thoughts:
Detroit: Any White Sox fan will tell you its hard to do it twice in a row.
White Sox: Jim Thome carried this team through dark alleys, how is his health?
Twins: 2 S Pitchers gone, is there offense there?
Kansas City: Will things ever click?
Cleveland: Apparently called that tv show thinking that chick was available as a closer.

Offense Last Year: Between the White Sox and the Tribe this is a push. You can list either team 1-2. Why?

BA: Tribe 4th White Sox 5th
RBI: Tribe 3rd White Sox 2nd
Hits: Tribe 5th White Sox 4th
OBP: Tribe 3rd White Sox 8th
HR: Tribe 5th(i think) White Sox 1st

This definitely shows that both teams can hit. Those rankings are for all of baseball not just the American League. We also had several terrible offensive players such as Boone and Michaels last year. Peralta's bat sucked.

Pitching: I don't think you can deny that statistically the Indians have a stronger rotation. Does that mean 2007 will be stronger, no. But it does mean that Cleveland's SP was better last year. The CG info was thrown in there to give you an idea how hard they working because of the crappy bullpen. It wasn't a bash on Chicago, it was evidence of an unreliable Cleveland bullpen. Also evidence that our starters are strong. Westbrook and Lee are both ground ball pitchers and Cleveland's defense was terrible last year, do we give them a break for that? Nopers.

Most Tribe fans feel that Marte at 3B, Garko or Blake at 1B, Choo in Right, Delluci or Micheals in LF is much better then Boone, Broussard, Blake, and the random right fielder. We used to call those guys the killer b's because they killed any chance we had of winning. Blake is still around but as a utility guy if Garko plays well.

caulfield12
01-11-2007, 11:11 AM
Hey guys, I didn't write this to flame or talk smack. I was curious as to the White Sox fans views of the rest of the Central. It is a really strong division. What I read was surprising. Not many fans were giving the Tribe much respect and I just thought some more information might garner new thoughts on the matter.

My personal homer thoughts:
Detroit: Any White Sox fan will tell you its hard to do it twice in a row.
White Sox: Jim Thome carried this team through dark alleys, how is his health?
Twins: 2 S Pitchers gone, is there offense there?
Kansas City: Will things ever click?
Cleveland: Apparently called that tv show thinking that chick was available as a closer.

Offense Last Year: Between the White Sox and the Tribe this is a push. You can list either team 1-2. Why?

BA: Tribe 4th White Sox 5th
RBI: Tribe 3rd White Sox 2nd
Hits: Tribe 5th White Sox 4th
OBP: Tribe 3rd White Sox 8th
HR: Tribe 5th(i think) White Sox 1st

This definitely shows that both teams can hit. Those rankings are for all of baseball not just the American League. We also had several terrible offensive players such as Boone and Michaels last year. Peralta's bat sucked.

Pitching: I don't think you can deny that statistically the Indians have a stronger rotation. Does that mean 2007 will be stronger, no. But it does mean that Cleveland's SP was better last year. The CG info was thrown in there to give you an idea how hard they working because of the crappy bullpen. It wasn't a bash on Chicago, it was evidence of an unreliable Cleveland bullpen. Also evidence that our starters are strong. Westbrook and Lee are both ground ball pitchers and Cleveland's defense was terrible last year, do we give them a break for that? Nopers.

Most Tribe fans feel that Marte at 3B, Garko or Blake at 1B, Choo in Right, Delluci or Micheals in LF is much better then Boone, Broussard, Blake, and the random right fielder. We used to call those guys the killer b's because they killed any chance we had of winning. Blake is still around but as a utility guy if Garko plays well.

Right there, you have four weak spots in the batting order. I'm not sure Garko can hit for enough power to play 1B everyday.

The White Sox have three question marks, Anderson, Uribe and Podsednik.

SABRSox
01-11-2007, 11:32 AM
There are way too many questions with the Indians bullpen for me to see them doing anything like challenging for the AL Central title. I love Hafner and Sizemore, but the rest of that offense isn't scaring me at all. Sabathia is still Sabathia, and Sowers impresses me, but it doesn't matter with that bullpen of re-treads.

As for Detroit, they won't pitch as well next season. Too many innings, too much pine tar. We'll probably end up seeing what happened to the 2006 White Sox happen to the 2007 Tigers. I really like our chances to win the division this year. I feel this new bullpen is really going to make a difference, and with Buehrle rebounding and hopefully one of our plethora of young arms stepping up, we'll see some great things on the South Side this season.

maurice
01-11-2007, 12:36 PM
I don't think it's healthy to assume that everyone in the ALC is going to return to their 2005 form. Maybe the Sox' clicking that year was the abberation, and 2006 was the return to normal.

Yet, when you look at the rosters on a player-by-player basis, 2006 wasn't "normal" and 2005 really wasn't abnormally good.

In particular, the Sox rotation was abnormally bad in 2006, and it will be very hard for both the Tigers and the Twins to duplicate the performance of their 2006 starting rotations for the reasons already contained in this thread.

If normal is somewhere between the 2006 Sox and the 2005 Sox, the 2007 Sox will win 91-98 games.

#11
01-16-2007, 09:35 PM
I stick by what I wrote several weeks ago. Detroit's pitching returns to earth a bit, especially since several starters threw career-high innings. Rogers fades with age. Sheffield helps, but not enough to offset the pitching fade.

Buehrle is better in 07 than 06, Garland, Contreras & Vasquez unchanged. The rookie starter, whoever he is, will win 10-12. The offence will be slightly improved as Anderson gets his feet on ground, Pods stops pressing quite so much, Crede has a career year, and others stay the same. In the end, it all comes down to the bullpen, and there are too many unproven newcomers to predict that. It may be successful, or more growing pains.

The twinkies can't survive the loss of Radke and Liriano, although I admire their organization a lot.

Cleveland underachieved last year, but doesn't have the rotation to do it. They're the dark horse in this race, though, so I could be wrong.

KC isn't there. Way too many holes.

Prediction:

Neck-and-neck finish between the Sox and Tigers (94 wins). Cleveland third and perhaps close to the Sox/Tigers (89 wins, but could surprise). Minnehaha 82 wins, KC wins no more than 70, if that.

All of this subject to revision depending on who has a major injury. Look at what losing Derrick Lee did to the Cubbie-wubbies.

11

ondafarm
01-17-2007, 06:28 PM
I stick by what I wrote several weeks ago. Detroit's pitching returns to earth a bit, especially since several starters threw career-high innings. Rogers fades with age. Sheffield helps, but not enough to offset the pitching fade.

Buehrle is better in 07 than 06, Garland, Contreras & Vasquez unchanged. The rookie starter, whoever he is, will win 10-12. The offence will be slightly improved as Anderson gets his feet on ground, Pods stops pressing quite so much, Crede has a career year, and others stay the same. In the end, it all comes down to the bullpen, and there are too many unproven newcomers to predict that. It may be successful, or more growing pains.

The twinkies can't survive the loss of Radke and Liriano, although I admire their organization a lot.

Cleveland underachieved last year, but doesn't have the rotation to do it. They're the dark horse in this race, though, so I could be wrong.

KC isn't there. Way too many holes.

Prediction:

Neck-and-neck finish between the Sox and Tigers (94 wins). Cleveland third and perhaps close to the Sox/Tigers (89 wins, but could surprise). Minnehaha 82 wins, KC wins no more than 70, if that.

All of this subject to revision depending on who has a major injury. Look at what losing Derrick Lee did to the Cubbie-wubbies.

11

Good call. I think you are a little too optimistic on the Tigers, although my saying thye will have 5 fewer wins (89) is hardly a major difference. My prediction for the Twins (81 wins) has drawn scorn from all over.

I think the Sox bullpen will surprise, pleasantly and I pick the Sox for 96 wins and another world series trip.