N.L. Central Offseason – Team by Team

Chicago Cubs

Dec. 31:  Cubs sign Marlon Byrd to a three-year contract worth $15 MM.

The thinking here is that Byrd can be their starting center fielder.

Let’s take a look at Marlon Byrd’s recent history first:

YEAR	PA	HR	AVG	OBP	SLG
2007	454	10	307	355	459
2008	462	10	298	380	462
2009	599	20	283	329	479

Not bad for a center fielder.  But Byrd was playing for Texas those seasons – in hitter-friendly Ameriquest Field (or whatever the hell it’s called now).
Here’s what My Darlin’ Marlon did on the road those years:

YEAR	PA	HR	AVG	OBP	SLG
2007	230	6	259	304	410
2008	224	3	297	362	411
2009	292	6	285	322	419

I believe the word I’m looking for is … erp!  (Byrd is a career 272/322/393 hitter on the road.  Double erp!)

NL Central Preview: Can the Cubs Three-Peat?

My Prediction:
1 – Chicago Cubs
2 – St. Louis Cardinals
3 – Milwaukee Brewers
4 – Cincinnati Reds
5 – Houston Astros
6 – Pittsburgh Pirates

Chicago Cubs
The Cubs are strong favorites in the NL Central once again. They’ve kept together most of the key players from 2008, while other teams in the division are either taking a step back or just struggling to stay in place.
The team is returning its top four starters in Ryan Dempster, Carlos Zambrano, Ted Lilly and Rich Harden. It’s a strong group, although there are concerns about Harden’s ability to make 20 starts, let alone 30. The team also took a big step back at closer, losing Kerry Wood to free agency and replacing him with trade acquisition Kevin Gregg. The Cubs have clearly overrated Gregg, due to his status as a Proven Closer. They’ve still got a great safety net in Carlos Marmol, but the Cubs will see a big difference between Gregg and the departed Wood.
Chicago has a unique depth to their offense.

2008 NL Central in Review

Chicago Cubs

W-L: 97-64 (1st in NL Central)

pW-pL: 98-63
Payroll: $118,345,833 (3rd in NL)

R/G: 5.31 (1st in NL)

ERA: 3.87 (T-2nd in NL)

DER: .703 (1st in NL)

Team MVPs: Ryan Dempster, Aramis Ramirez, Geovany Soto

A Drag on the Payroll: Kosuke Fukudome (257/359/379, $6 MM), Jason Marquis (4.53 ERA in 167 IP, $6.4 MM), Bobby Howry (5.35 ERA in 70.2 IP, $4 MM)

What Went Right:

NL Central Preview

CHICAGO CUBS
2007 W-L Record: 85-77
2007 pW-pL Record: 87-75
Strengths: Strong Offense, Solid Pitching
Weaknesses: OBP, Depth
Biggest Change from '07: Fukudome and his .400+ OBP

One Reason:
One reason the Cubs will win in '08 is that the best is set low in the NL Central. The Cubs won the division last year, have managed to improve over the offseason (without spending $1 billion), and aren't facing any rivals presenting serious challenges. They're not absolutely safe from Milwaukee or even possibly Cincinnati, but they're easy favorites.
One reason the Cubs will lose in '08 is that a lot of their production is precarious. The best-case scenario for their lineup is good, but if Fukudome struggles in his first U.S. season, or if Aramis Ramirez and/or Alfonso Soriano take a step back to mediocrity, the Cubs will be hard-pressed to replace them. There aren't a lot of backup plans for the lineup, and the same could be said for the rotation, where an inordinate amount of pressure rests on Carlos Zambrano and Ted Lilly. The Cubs do have some backups here in Jon Lieber and Sean Marshall, but neither of them can replace an injured or ineffective Zambrano.

Notes:

Short takes

Well, so far, the NLDS is making me look like a complete fool. I picked the Phillies to win, and now the Rockies have taken a 2-0 lead heading into Coors Field. It looks like Colorado will win the first postseason series in franchise history. Here's a trivia question: Name the 2 other MLB teams that have never won a postseason series? (Answer at the bottom).
And out in Arizona, the D-Backs not only won behind Brandon Webb in Game 1(which was understandable), they've taken an 8-4 lead, knocking Ted Lilly out of the game in Game 2. The Cubs at least will be heading back to Wrigley for the next two games, but still you never want to be down 0-2 in a playoff series. And if they do lose Game 2 (which is in the 6th now), they'll be up a creek, because they'll have to beat Brandon Webb again in Game 5 even if they do win both games in Chicago.
I must admit that I'm amazed at the second-guessing that ensued after Lou Pineilla pulled Carlos Zambrano from Game 1. This is just insanity and misplaced anger; baseball fans should learn to accept a loss without finding people to blame (and boy, is Lou getting roasted).
The move didn't work out, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Zambrano hasn't thrown a lot of pitches, but he is Carlos Freakin' Zambrano; you never know when he's going to lose it and give up some walks and homers (he led the league in bases on balls). Carlos Marmol has been brilliant this year, and he's a guy you can rely on.
I gained a great deal of respect for Lou when I read this snippet of conversation, taken from Rob Neyer's blog:

State of the Baseball Union: NL Central

Milwaukee Brewers (62-57)
My Prediction: 83-79, 2nd place

At Current Pace: 84-78

The Brewers have experienced their fair share of ups and downs so far this season. They got off to a great start and then slowed down, allowing the Cubs to catch up with them. They've really stumbled as of late, but fortunately for them so have the Cubs (who've lost 7 of 10). The Brewers now possess a 1.5 game lead in the NL Central, and it's become a real neck-and-neck race with Chicago.

So what chance do the Brewers have of making their first postseason in 25 years? I'll give them the edge over the Cubs, but it's such a small edge that it may prove irrelevant over the 7 weeks left in the season.

Offensively, the Brewers have scored 568 runs, tops in the Central and 5th in the NL. I think they can keep up this pace; they've got good depth offensively and have several players due to bounce back from a slow first half. They'll be getting full-time play from Rookie of the Year-to-be Ryan Braun (348/392/666), as well as Corey Hart (276/340/505) and J.J. Hardy (274/326/468). They should also get better production from Rickie Weeks, who struggled mightily in the first half (209/336/358). And then, of course, there's Prince Fielder (289/383/614), who isn't going anywhere.

I'd be more concerned with the pitching staff. The team's 4.42 ERA is 9th in the league, and is notably worse than the Cubs (4.01). The Cubs are also working with a stronger defense (.710 DER to the Brewers' .687, which ranks 13th in the NL).

Milwaukee's bullpen is actually doing fine. Francisco Cordero is still doing fine as closer, and the Brewers have gotten good work out of Derrick Turnbow, Brian Shouse, Matt Wise, and trade acquisition Scott Linebrink. Each of those five has an ERA above the league average.

No, the Brewer's big problem is their rotation. They've gotten great work from ace Ben Sheets, but injuries have again limited his performance to just 119.1 IP. He's on the DL now, but should be coming off soon. The sooner the better, because the Brewers' best starter after him has been young Yovani Gallardo (4.20 ERA in 8 starts). Gallardo, the team's top prospect, has been a godsend even though he's not been as dominant as hoped. Because after Sheets and Gallardo, here are the pitchers who have started the most games for Milwaukee:

Jeff Suppan: 25 starts, 4.90 ERA, 54:80 BB:K ratio in 150.2 IP

Dave Bush: 22 starts, 5.07 ERA, 136.2 IP, 33:102 BB:K ratio but 19 HR allowed

Claudio Vargas: 21 starts, 4.87 ERA, 118.1 IP

Chris Capuano: 21 starts, 4.96 ERA, 114.1 IP, 46:99 BB:K ratio



Without Sheets, the Brewers are in serious trouble, even if their offense is good. The best-case scenario is that Sheets comes back and pitches well, Gallardo improves, and Capuano starts pitching m0re like his previous self (4.33 career ERA). If they can do that, then they can survive the low-end garbage pitching of Suppan and Vargas at the back of the rotation.

It's a tough call to make, but I'm going to go out on a limb and pick the Brewers to hold on and win the Central. They've got their share of problems, yes, but then so do the Cubs . . .



Chicago Cubs (60-58)
My Prediction: 78-84

At Current Pace: 82-80

The Cubs, after a first half that saw everything go wrong, are starting to turn things around and play to their potential. It's really surprising how many things are going right for the Cubs. Although, as you can see from my prediction, I was pessimistic about their chances to begin with.

But really, who could have predicted such strong work from all these people:



Mark DeRosa: 288/363/418

Mike Fontenot: (297/347/443)

Ted Lilly: 3.51 ERA, 41:124 BB:K ratio, 151.1 IP

Rich Hill: 3.85 ER, 140.1 IP, 48 BB:K ratio

Carlos Marmol: 1.83 ERA, 22:61 BB:K ratio in 44.1 IP

Jason Marquis: 4.18 ERA, 140 IP (although Marquis' numbers are really a great start followed by a few months of pitching like ... well, himself.)

The Cubs have also gotten strong production from several different relievers (Angel Guzman, Michael Wuertz, etc.), which is one of the biggest improvements in this year's squad, to my mind. Give Lou Pineilla credit for getting creative with job descriptions in the bullpen. He's taken the talent available to him and done a fine job deploying it, with the success of Marmol the best example.

If only the offense were nearly as successful. You'll notice that the only real surprises on the offensive side of the ledger were Mark DeRosa -- who's played more outfield than infield -- and Mike Fontenot, who isn't really that good. Sure, the Cubs have gotten the usual great work from Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez, but here's a short list of their offensive disappointments:

Alfonso Soriano: 297/336/511 (no, that's not bad, but it's very disappointing considering his salary and the expectation that he would hit like an MVP at Wrigley)
Ryan Theriot (286/348/367): Theriot's a great guy to have on your roster and is a good emergency fill-in at second, but there's no reason for him to come to bat more than 400 times (416 PAs and counting)
Cliff Floyd (290/366/382): Say goodbye to power. The Cubs entered the season with too many corner outfielders on the roster; why then did they end up moving their second baseman (DeRosa) to right field? It's because Floyd and Jacque Jones (see below) couldn't keep their jobs.
Jacque Jones (265/326/375): This guy shouldn't even be on the club anymore. He should have been traded in the offseason while he still had some value. As it is, he's just dead weight on the roster.
Matt Murton (263/335/391): The good news (relatively speaking) is that Murton is much better than this. And he's also much cheaper than Jones and Floyd.

Cesar Izturis (246/298/304): Thank God the club finally left the Dusty Baker era once and for all. Izturis is horrible, and he's now right where he belongs: Pittsburgh.

The Cubs' inactivity at the trade deadline may seriously come back to haunt them. They've got plenty of players on the roster, yes, and many of them are expensive. But that's doesn't mean that they actually have someone to play catcher or shortstop, and they're still short two outfielders.
As much as things have gone right for the Cubs' pitching staff so far, their lineup has been pretty disappointing. The best plan now would probably be to release Jacque, move Soriano to left, and install Felix Pie in center. Pie hasn't hit well so far this year, but he's not much worse than Floyd and Jones and is at least much cheaper and a good defender. It would also be a good move for the future to get him more at bats at the big-league level.

As for catcher, the best thing would have been to keep Michael Barrett, but I can understand that there were some personality issues there (how extreme they were depends on whom you ask). Without Barrett, they should have just promoted Geovany Soto. He's not great, but he's not bad either (Koyie Hill is bad) and he's cheap. Instead the Cubs made a trade -- premeditated, I assume -- to get one of the worst players in baseball, who also comes with a pretty big salary. Jason Kendall has hit well for the Cubs so far, but don't count on that lasting very long.

If the Cubs do lose the NL Central to the Brewers, it will mainly be their own fault. They've done a very poor job of maximizing production from their lineup, although to be fair, a lot of that is due to the large amount of inefficient dollars being spent on otherwise useless players.

If the Cubs do win the NL Central, it won't be because of Alfonso Soriano, Mark DeRosa, Jason Marquis or even Ted Lilly. It will be thanks to Lou Pineilla (for removing the shackles of ignorance from the pitching staff's deployment) and the guys who were here to begin with: Lee, Ramirez, Hill, Marmol, and others. If you could find a measure for dollars spent compared to positive effect on the team, this year's Cubs would have to rank as one of the worst ever. The team has improved, yes, but not nearly in proportion to the money spent, and most of the improvement came not from the new players acquired but from a better understanding of the talent they already had.

So even if the Cubs do win the division, it may not exactly be something to be proud of. Because they'll be winning it in spite of the hundreds of millions of dollars they spent this offseason.

St. Louis Cardinals (56-60)
My Prediction: 86-76

On Current Pace: 78-84

The Cardinals are fooling themselves if they think they're going to get back into contention this year. They're slowly working their way back to .500 -- and bully for them -- but I can't see them making it past the Cubs and Brewers. The Cardinals just aren't that good.
Their offense is especially weak. The glory years of Pujols/Rolen/Edmonds are over, and the Cards need to get to work about replacing the latter 2/3 of that troika. Rolen and Edmonds are still falling far sheet of even their career averages. And considering their respective salaries, this is very bad for the organization.
After Pujols and Chris Duncan (276/371/522), the Cards haven't gotten consistently good production from anyone. They've gotten some promising work from some part-timers, and this might lead some to believe that the Cards just need to put it all together to succeed. But I'm very dubious.
Assuming that Pujols (1B), Rolen (3B), Duncan (LF) and Edmonds (CF) are in the lineup, who's filling in elsewhere? In the outfield, the Cardinals have gotten decent work from Juan Encarnacion (290/330/440), but even that modest production is above what we'd expect from him. There's also been some promising work done by Brendan Ryan, Ryan Ludwick, Skip Schumaker and, most recently, Rick Ankiel. But what the Cardinals have here is a small group of very good bench players but no one to step up with significant offense, the kind of offense that's needed for a batting order with so many holes.
In the middle infield, the Cards have deployed David Eckstein and Adam Kennedy. Eckstein has been fair, as usual (295/342/358), but Kennedy has been the worst player on the team this year, hitting 219/282/290 in 306 plate appearances! If they'd replaced Kennedy with a halfway decent guy, they'd already be above .500.
And catching is Yadier Molina, whose defense is so good that it almost makes up for his dreadful offense (268/337/318).
The Cardinals' batting order isn't getting any better. I know Cardinals fans are optimists, and there's a lot to get excited about with the promotion of Rick Ankiel to the majors. They rank 11th in the NL in runs scored, and are a lot closer to last than they are to first.

Throughout this whole entry, I haven't even mentioned the St. Louis pitching. That's because they rank 14th in the NL in ERA, behind only Houston and Cincinnati (who hit in more hitter-friendly parks). And they'd be even worse than that if it weren't for the fact that their mediocre bullpen somewhat makes up for their catastrophic starting rotation.
Sorry, but the Cards aren't going anywhere this year, and in any other division, they wouldn't be going anywhere next year either.

Houston Astros (54-65)
My Prediction: 75-87
On Current Pace: 74-88
Carlos Lee is a good hitter, and he's done a wonderful job so far this year (302/356/536). But if there's ever been a free agent signing more irrelevant to a team's postseason chances, I can't think of one. The Astros are a team barren, barren of talent. They're very top-heavy, with legitimate stars like Lance Berkman, Roy Oswalt, Hunter Pence, and Lee, but no mid-level players to fill in the gaps. Instead, it's a long drop from the stars to the rest of the roster, which is 5th-place material, easily. By the time the Astros are able to rebuild their roster into something of a contender, Lee will be much older and no longer justifying his salary. That's the real waste of his contract; the fact that it's money that won't mean a damn thing to the team's long-term interests and would have been better off invested in draft picks and scouting.
As it is, the Astros are lucky to have Berkman, Pence, and Lee backed up with unlikely slugger Luke Scott (255/355/507) and Mike Lamb (296/375/478). That means they only have four gaping holes in the lineup (well, five, now that Pence is on the DL).
In the middle infield, the Astros have defensive expert Adam Everett at shortstop, but he's also the team's worst hitter (228/275/316), and that's saying something. At second base, the Astros will be lucky to rid themselves of Craig Biggio (248/285/396); the future Hall-of-Famer is no longer justifying a spot in the lineup, which was evident last year, but oh well. His replacement-in-waiting, Chris Burke, hasn't fared any better (224/304/360).
The Astros still have Brad Ausmus behind the plate, and we can only hope that they've finally run out of sentimental reasons to keep this millstone (233/313/319) around their necks.
Next to Lee and Pence, the Astros need someone else in the outfield. They haven't much luck so far, as they've given over 250 at bats to the dreadful duo of Orlando Palmeiro and Jason Lane.

The sad part isn't how bad the Houston lineup is, it's how predictably bad it was going into the season. Not to mention the fact that it should be worse; Lamb and Scott aren't usually this good.

On the pitching side of the equation, things are equally depressing. Only the Reds and Marlins have allowed more runs and, just like with the offense, this eventuality was not only thoroughly predictable, it's going to be their reality for the near future. Top pitching prospects Jason Hirsh and Taylor Buchholz were traded to the Rockies for Jason Jennings, who's been so awful (6.15 ERA in 16 starts) that the Astros couldn't even trade him away.
Roy Oswalt has been one of the NL's best pitchers (3.32 ERA in 172.2 IP), as advertised. But here's the rest of their rotation:

Jason Jennings: 6.15 ERA, see above
Woody Williams: 5.09 ERA, 41:78 BB:K ratio
Wandy Rodriguez: 4.34 ERA in 139 IP; 41:120 BB:K ratio
Matt Albers: 6.20 ERA in 9 starts

Neither Jennings nor Albers are really this bad, but that's small consolation. Williams is indeed this bad, and league-average pitching is the best you're going to get out of Wandy.
In the bullpen, the story is the continuing yo-yo act by Brad Lidge. Lidge sports a 3.26 ERA, with a 20:66 BB:K ratio in 49.2 IP. Considering their future prospects, it's insane that the Astros haven't traded Lidge by now, especially given the fact that every contending team is always looking for bullpen help. The 'Stros did trade Dan Wheeler, but they didn't get prospects in return; they got a mediocre 29-year-old corner infielder (Ty Wigginton).

The Astros aren't going to be doing much winning this year or next. They do have some hope in prospects such as Pence, but they've let so many positions on the field go to pot that they're now left facing a complete overhaul if they want to compete. It's doubtful that the team will trade big-money guys like Lee or Oswalt (at least not yet), so we're probably left with a couple more years of the team acting like contenders even though we all know they aren't. That's a depressing prospect, especially for a franchise that's been one of the league's best for over ten years now.

Cincinnati Reds: (51-67)
My Prediction: 78-84
On Current Pace: 70-92
The Reds are doing worse than even I predicted. Wow.
Some local sources are still in denial; the Cincinnati weekly Citybeat actually ran a cover story claiming (once again) that all the Reds needed were some relievers. I should point out that Citybeat ran a baseball story with the same gist four years ago, and I wrote back saying that they were deluding themselves (my response was published). It would seem that time had proven me right, but learning from past mistakes isn't high on the list of requirements for sportswriters.
The Reds rank 7th in the NL in runs scored right now, with 553. Considering their ballpark, that's a travesty, and it demolishes the Citybeat argument. The Reds' best hitters have been Ken Griffey, Jr., Adam Dunn, and Scott Hatteberg, all of whom will be gone sooner rather than later. Fotunately, the Reds do have some A-level hitting prospects, such as Jay Bruce and Joey Votto, but unless they can hold onto Dunn or find some way to replace these guys, it will all just come out even.
The rest of the Reds' order is full of qualified successes. Brandon Phillips has done well (271/317/460), but he's not the All-Star many Cincinnati fans see him as. His unlikely career after failing in Cleveland's farm system is inspiring, just not quite historic. He's done a good job on defense, but he's not the sort of player you can build a franchise around, especially not with that OBP.
Josh Hamilton has been a great success (278/369/541), and there's really not much I can say about him except that he's still probably too good to be true. That's not to say that he won't stick around as a very useful player, but we can't assume that the first 241 plate appearances of his pro career are going to be a representative sample.
Ryan Freel is a heck of a utility player and has become an institution in the Queen City, but I hate to burst your bubble, he's not good enough to start everyday. He can be a great help filling the super-utility role, but he'll be 32 next year and hasn't learned to stop running into walls. As a result, he's played in just 75 games this year and hit an awful 245/308/347.
Edwin Encarnacion has had a terrible year (261/336/371). I've predicted big things for Edwin (well, big as in he'll be a quality everyday player), and it may just be a rationalization, but I wonder if the Reds' total ambivalence toward Edwin and the silly minor league stints aren't hurting him. This is a lot like what happened to Austin Kearns, where the Reds were far too focused on a player's faults and just wouldn't let them do what they do best. And for Edwin, that's (usually) hitting. He's also the only guy on the current lineup who can reliably be expected to be around the next time Cincinnati contends.
The Reds need offense; they especially need offense that they can rely on for the foreseeable future. Combining Bruce and Votto with (hopefully) Encarnacion and Dunn would be a good start, but considering the upper management, I really don't think the Reds are able to accurately determine their problems and issues.

The Reds have one of the worst pitching staffs in all of baseball; their team ERA of 4.83 is the worst in the NL, and their DER of .677 ranks them 15th in the league in defense (just ahead of Florida).
That ain't good.
The Reds do have a good 1-2-3 starting rotation projected for the near future in Bailey-Harang-Arroyo. The problem this year is that Bailey wasnt quite ready for the majors after all, and Bronson Arroyo fell off a cliff. Arroyo isn't as good as he was last year, when he was one of the best in the league, but I think he's a solid #3, and let's hope (for the Reds' sake) that he is. After that, the Reds need help. Matt Belisle's move to the rotation has worked out about as well as you'd expect (5.40 ERA in 23 starts), and while Bobby Livingston has done well so far, he's not apt to keep it up. But still, in the scheme of things, having three good starting pitchers for the foreseeable future is a victory for the Reds. And let's not forget Aaron Harang, who is indeed better than people think.
The Reds' bullpen has been a big problem, yes, and luckily this year Wayne Krivsky didn't try to solve it by driving a dump truck out to the Relief Pitchers' Landfill and loading up. The Reds have shown patience with their in-house pitchers and, while things have gone horribly, they haven't yet panicked and made things worked like I expected them to. I wouldn't be averse to seeing them sign a mid-level innings eater to a free agent deal, but they need to avoid the Baltimore Solution of buying out every free agent reliever. And considering this administration's track record with relief pitchers and impatience, that may be exactly what they do. And can you blame them? It would be Citybeat off their backs.

The Reds have some good pieces to put together a contender and may actually be in better shape, long-term, than Houston or even St. Louis. But that requires that the front office uses what talent they have well and does a good job of targeting areas for improvement.

Which likely means that Krivsky & Co. will screw it all up again and get fired. Let's just hope (as Reds fans) that those rumors about Walt Jocketty are true . . .

Pittsburgh Pirates (49-68)
My Prediction: 69-93
On Current Pace: 68-94
I pledged in these entries to discuss major league baseball teams. I've already discussed the 5 major league teams in the NL Central, so I don't see any need to discuss the Pirates.

Have a nice day.

Hancock and alcohol

Last Sunday night, Cardinals relief pitcher Josh Hancock was killed in a car accident, when his SUV slammed into the back of a tow truck stopped on the interstate. The Cardinals cancelled their next game, and all of baseball mourned the loss of someone who seemed to be a really nice guy. It was especially hurtful that the accident hit the Cardinals, who still feel the pain of Darryl Kile's sudden death in 2002.
However, from the beginning there were questions as to whether or not Hancock may have been drinking that night. Lab reports came back that Hancock was indeed drunk at the time of the accident, his blood alcohol of .157 level twice the legal limit of .08. The police also reported the following details:

2007 NL Central Predictions

• I thought I should tell you that Blogger is now offering a "widget" to anyone who upgrades to Blogger Beta. I've e-mailed the company, and hopefully that will be the end of this indecency.

To recap:

NL CENTRAL:
St. Louis Cardinals (86-76) 84-88 win range
Milwaukee Brewers (83-79) 81-85 win range
Chicago Cubs (78-84) 76-80 win range
Cincinnati Reds (78-84) 76-80 win range
Houston Astros (75-87) 73-77 win range
Pittsburgh Pirates (69-93) 67-71 win range

ST. LOUIS CARDINALS
2006 W-L Record: 83-78 (1st)
2006 pW-pL Record: 82-79
2007 Projection: 86-76
Strengths: Core contributors still best in league; good management team
Weaknesses: Injuries; back of rotation, corner outfield, middle infield
Biggest Change from 2006: Nothing really; Jeff Suppan's loss isn't that big
One Reason:
One reason the Cardinals will win in '07 is that they've got arguably the best hitter (Albert Pujols) and the best pitcher (Chris Carpenter) in the league. They've also got Scott Rolen and Jim Edmonds, hopefully still in one piece. Add in two promising young starters (Anthony Reyes and Adam Wainwright), and you've got hope in a winnable division. Okay, that's not one reason, but it's one series of reasons.
One reason the Cardinals will lose in '07 is that their depth has disappeared. Beyond their superstars (who are all injury risks), there's a steep dropoff to the next level of players: capable, unspectacular sorts like David Eckstein and Adam Kennedy. The same is true of the rotation, where the Cards really need Reyes and Wainwright to contribute to fill out the five spots. I would say that a lack of depth means the Cards won't be winning the World Series, but I won't make that mistake again. Let's just say that it really won't happen two years in a row.
Notes:
The Cards have, in my opinion, the best team and the best-run organization in the NL Central. They won the division (and -- gulp -- the World Series) last year despite some dreadful shortcomings. While the Cards haven't gotten a lot better, neither has anyone else in the division. I think the Cards can expect some improvement over last year, and while it's possible that the Brewers can get it together in time to catch them, I wouldn't bet on it.

MILWAUKEE BREWERS
2006 W-L Record: 75-87 (4th)
2006 pW-pL Record: 71-91
2007 Projection: 83-79
Strengths: Good, young offense; Depth across the diamond
Weaknesses: Pitching in general; Ben Sheets' health
Biggest Change from '06: If the Brewers are lucky, a healthy Ben Sheets. If not . . . well, maybe the ushers will start wearing different vests.
One Reason:
One Reason the Brewers will win in '07 is they've already got the talent to do it. I have no doubt that the Brewers are capable of winning the NL Central (getting there is, of course, a different story). But the Brewers have a strong offense, and while their pitching staff is a bit patchy, it will be a lot better off if we see a healthy Ben Sheets.
One Reason the Brewers will lose in '07 is that everything I just said was also true last year, and it didn't stop them from finishing 71-91. The Brewers need to keep all their stars healthy and productive (Sheets, J.J. Hardy) and will need their rookies to step it up (Fielder and Weeks especially were good, but not that good).
Notes:
As I said before, Milwaukee has the roster to win a very winnable division. But it's like herding cats getting all these kids on the field and productive. I'm usually a big fan of GM Doug Melvin, but I don't think he's done the best of jobs this past year. The Carlos Lee trade wasn't particularly helpful, and neither was the Johnny Estrada trade with Arizona. There should be reason for optimism in Milwaukee, but not enough to cancel that October cruise.

CHICAGO CUBS
2006 W-L Record: 66-96 (6th)
2006 pW-pL Record: 70-92
2007 Projection: 78-84
Strengths: Hitting Prospects; Corner Infield
Weaknesses: Starting Pitching; Middle Infield
Biggest Change from '06: The Tribune Co.'s wallet now weighs as much as David Eckstein
One Reason:
One Reason the Cubs will win in '07 is that everything went wrong last year; that can't happen two years in a row. But just so you know -- I said the same thing last spring and was really proven wrong.
One Reason the Cubs will lose in '07 is that they've spent a gi-normous amount of money without really solving most of their problems. They've got a glut of players in the outfield, only half of whom are worth having, they've got far too many middle infielders than they can play, but then they probably shouldn't be playing that much either. They brought in two pitchers (Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis) that improve their starting rotation somewhat, but not nearly proportional to their cut of the payroll. Barring a trade, they've completely blocked most of their major-league ready prospects for the foreseeable future. They tried to fix a low-OBP, strikeout-heavy offense by bringing in the patron saint of poor plate discipline, Alfonso Soriano.
Only in a really unlikely scenario do the Cubs make it to October.
Notes:
I guess I vented my spleen there in the last comment.
But everyone thinks the Cubs have really improved this offseason. I think they've improved, too, but I'm not about to list them as contenders, as others have done. I've even heard some say that the Cubs are "favorites" in the NL Central. I've already dispensed with the notion that the Cubs have gotten a lot better. I think that this misplaced euphoria is the product of two things: One, that the only thing stronger than a sportswriter's cynicism is his blinding optimism concern his team, and two, that people have a really over-inflated opinion of Alfonso Soriano.
The Cubs will be lucky -- very lucky -- to win 80 games.

CINCINNATI REDS
2006 W-L Record: 80-82 (3rd)
2006 pW-pL Record: 76-86
2007 Projection: 78-84
Strengths: 1-2 starters; Adam Dunn, Edwin Encarnacion & Homer Bailey
Weaknesses: Back of rotation; bullpen; infield; upper management
Biggest Change from '06: Very little has changed, except that Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez are gone
One Reason:
One Reason that the Reds will win in '07 is . . . they have magic powers?
One Reason that the Reds will lose in '07 is that there's just not enough here to cobble together more than 82 wins, even with a good front office. All things considered, the Reds will be lucky to scrape their way up to .500
Notes:
The Reds are basically the same team they were last year, except that Ken Griffey, Jr. (and all their relievers) are a year older and nearing retirement. They also won't have Kearns & Lopez for the few months they had them last year. And the odds that Bronson Arroyo will pitch like a Cy Young contender again is remote.
With all these players declining, who's going to be the one to help the Reds break even, let alone improve? Homer Bailey is a big hope. The problem is that because the Reds are so bad and Bailey is so good, they're starting to prepare for his arrival like he's the Messiah. That never ends well, for either the fans or the player, especially.

HOUSTON ASTROS
2006 W-L Record: 82-80 (2nd)
2006 pW-pL Record: 83-79
2007 Projection: 75-87
Strengths: Infield Corners, Roy Oswalt
Weaknesses: Gaping holes in lineup; hapless back of the rotation
Biggest Change from '06: Willy Taveras and Andy Pettite weren't great, but an 80-win team still can't afford to lose them
One Reason:
One reason that the Astros will win in '07 is that maybe they can fool the umpires by giving Lance Berkman a bunch of wigs and letting him take up 6 spots in the order.
One reason that the Astros will lose in '07 is that their only strong weapon was their pitching, and it's just not anymore there like it was.
Notes:
The Astros are another one of those teams whose win range is really about 20 wins wide. But the realistic guess is that they'll end up at the bottom of that estimation. Their offense was terrible before they traded Willy Taveras. They've got about half a dozen holes in a 9-man lineup. Lance Berkman, Carlos Lee, and Morgan Ensberg are each very good hitters. But if surrounded by 6 clones of Rafael Belliard, they're not too threatening.
Now take into account that their starting pitching is significantly worse than it was two years ago, or even last year. Getting 3 months of Roger Clemens at 6 innings a pop won't solve that problem.

PITTSBURGH PIRATES
2006 W-L Record: 67-95 (5th)
2006 pW-pL Record: 70-92
2007 Projection: 69-93
Strengths: Ummm . . . let's see . . . their logo is cool?
Weakness: Gross Incompetence . . . and their lineup sucks, too
Biggest Change from '06: Adam LaRoche, plus more seasoning for their young starters
One Reason:
One reason the Pirates will win in '07 is that we'll enter a parallel universe where a loss is really a win.
One reason the Pirates will lose in '07 is that they're the Pirates, man.
Notes:
I know I've said it before, but the Pirates are the sort of team who will just coast to 70 wins every year so long as they can find some sort of semi-exciting event in the offseason to sell season tickets. They're boring and that's a lot worse than just being bad.

Back tomorrow with the NL West.

Deal or No Deal Redux

• After discussing it for over a week, the Red Sox have finalized a deal with J.D. Drew for 5 years and $70 million. Drew is a better player than overrated guys like Carlos Lee and Alfonso Soriano and, despite the fact that he's pretty much the same age (31), he only got a 5-year deal for less money per year than both of the above. Drew's deal seems to me to be much wiser than the Soriano deal and better even than the commitment to Carlos Lee.
  But the aspect of J.D. Drew that could make this deal a mistake is durability. Despite having a great deal of talent (career 286/393/512 hitter with good defense), Drew has only topped 110 games four times in his 9-year career. J.D. Drew for 150 games is a big bargain at $14 million; but if he plays less than 120 games, he's not at all.
  There's been a lot of doubt surrounding the Drew deal, and while some of it is totally justified, I'm going to come down in favor of the deal. It's not ideal to give J.D. Drew a contract stretching into his age 35 season, but it's much more realistic when you consider the going rate for offense in this market. And I'm not quite as pessimistic about Drew's durability as others. Two of Drew's last three seasons have been his most productive; 2004 with Atlanta (305/436/569) and 2006 with the Dodgers (283/393/498). His 2005 in L.A. only saw him play 72 games, but that was mainly due to a broken wrist rather than nagging injuries.
  Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but it seems to me that too much has been made of Drew's lack of durability. It's an issue, but I think it was much more of a problem early in his career rather than in recent years. Yes, he's not going to get any healthier as he ages, but his profile -- an athletic player with good defense and a good batting average -- is a much better bet to age gracefully than the likes of Carlos Lee. Drew is a very patient hitter who should fit in very well in Boston. He'll also have the added benefit of the Designated Hitter, a luxury which he's never had before. That position is currently occupied by David Ortiz, but it would certainly be feasible for the Sox to sacrifice some defense and put Ortiz at first if Drew was day-to-day and couldn't play the field.
  The J.D. Drew deal isn't ideal, and there is the possibility that the Red Sox will regret it, but it makes much more fiscal sense than most of the deals being signed this offseason, including the deal the Sox will eventually reach with Daisuke Matsuzaka.
• It now looks more and more like Manny Ramirez won't be traded. I know -- a couple weeks ago it was supposed to be inevitable, but now it seems totally evitable. The Sox seem to be asking a high price for Manny -- understandable -- and few teams seem willing to meet it. One of the sticking points seems to be Manny's desire for a contract extension. The Sox assure people that Manny won't make any demands if he's traded, but can we really be sure? Manny's contract is only guaranteed for two years and $38 million; not too shabby for an MVP-level hitter in this year's market. But the contract does have club options for 2009 and 2010 at $20 mil. per. No club in their right mind will exercise them, but many clubs fear that Manny will make a stink if they don't. They also fear that Manny may want a big-time contract extension before he agrees to any trade. The Red Sox are providing assurances that this is not the case, and Manny does seem willing to leave Boston by any means, but you can understand a team's hesitation.
  As for me, I've already gone on record that the Sox should keep Manny. The change in economic climate makes his contract almost seem reasonable, and they shouldn't trade him away unless they're getting a big return. They were rumored to be asking the Dodgers for young reliever Jonothan Broxton (one of the best relief prospects in baseball) along with Matt Kemp and either Andy LaRoche or James Loney. This would be a good deal for Boston and a terrible one for L.A. The Dodgers have balked at giving up so much, which surprises me, given that GM Ned Colletti seems to value young talent as nothing more than a Plinko chip on The Price is Right.
• The Red Sox also signed shortstop Julio Lugo to a 4-year, $36 million deal. I've always been a Lugo fan, and have pressed teams for a long time to get him on the cheap from the Devil Rays. Well, apparently, the market has finally agreed with my evaluation of Lugo, despite a very disappointing finish to 2006 with the Dodgers (219/278/267, after hitting 308/373/498 in TB). Lugo is 31 years old, and while this is more money than I would have given him, it's not so bad given the context. The Sox may regret that fourth year, but I think Lugo will keep them happy for three years. He's a strong defender with excellent range, and he hits well for a shortstop. He's a career 277/340/402 hitter, although it should be noted that he's done much better in recent years. He's also a fairly efficient basestealer, going 24/33 (73%) last year.
• The Barry Zito sweepstakes continue, with almost half the teams in baseball expressing interest in one form or another. The only thing we know for sure is that Zito is going to be obscenely wealthy after teh deal is signed. The Mets still look like a good possibility, although the Rangers sound like they're threatening to trump everyone by offering a mega-deal (which worked so well with A-Rod). We don't know anything for sure, and it may be a while yet before Zito (read: Scott Boras) decides.
  There's a real split opinion about Zito among the statheads. I've heard him referred to dismissively as a #3 or #4 starter, which seems harsh, even to me. I've always thought Zito was overrated, since he took home an ill-gotten Cy Young Award in 2003. But I also think he's one of the 10-15 best pitchers in the AL, which sounds more like a #2 than a #4 starter. He won't deserve the contract he gets, and he'll probably be overpaid by as much as $4-5 million per year. He's not the ace that people think he is, but he's not as bad as some think. A lot depends on what you think of his durability (which has been great, but then he's logged a lot of innings on his still-young arm) and which ballpark he ends up in. Arlington would be terrible for Zito, who allows a lot of walks and a lot of home runs. He should be pushing hard for San Diego or New York, somewhere with distant fences and preferably solid defense behind him. It would make a big difference in his ERA.
• The Padres have signed Greg Maddux to a one-year, $10 million deal. In a world where Adam Eaton gets $8 million a year, Greg Maddux is easily worth $10 million, especially when limited to one-year. Petco Park is a great place for Maddux, as he's been giving up more balls in play as he gets older. Home runs plagued him in Chicago, but he looked much better in Dodger Stadium in the last half of 2006. He should provide stability and some league-average innings-munching to San Diego, who could use it behind Jake Peavy, Chris Young, and Clay Hensley. And if some of his brilliant baseball wisdom happens to rub off on the young 'uns, so much the better.
• Vicente Padilla agreed to a 3-year, $34-million contract with the Texas Rangers. He's overpaid, etc. etc., but I think he's overpaid even considering the context. The 29-year-old Padilla has only been a starting pitcher for 5 years, and yet he's only had three healthy seasons. He was productive in Philadelphia in 2002 and 2003, then suffered through two injury-plagued seasons before somewhat rebounding in Texas last year (200 IP, 4.50 ERA). The 4.50 ERA isn't too far off from Padilla's level of real ability (his career ERA is 4.06, compiled mostly in the NL), but the 200 innings is a big leap of faith. It's very arguable that Padilla is worth this much money even if he throws 200 innings of roughly league-average ball, but there's no indication that he'll throw 600 innings over the life of the deal. Padilla's hasn't demonstrated an ability to stay healthy beyond last year, and he has some self-destructive issues. On the field, he allows too many walks and is one of the most hot-headed pitchers in baseball (even Ozzie "Attilla" Guillen called him a headhunter). Off the field, Padilla has a rumored drinking problem that is certainly cause for concern.
  Perhaps I'm making too much of this. It's nice that the Rangers limited his contract to just 3 years, when Ted Lilly and Gil Meche (?!) might get four years. But the Rangers don't have any room for speculation in their pitching staff, and they shouldn't be signing contracts like they're contenders.
• The Cardinals have signed Chris Carpenter to a contract extension/reconstruction that will amount to 5 years and $63.5 million. The money isn't really a problem. Carpenter has proven that he can stay healthy after coming back from Tommy John surgery and withstanding heavy workloads, and if you can get one of the best pitchers in baseball under contract for about $13 mil. per, then you're some kind of miracle worker.
  But Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus put forth an argument that makes sense. Carpenter wasn't due to become a free agent for two more years. The Cardinals were in no rush to sign him up for the 2009-2011 seasons. In fact, considering that Carpenter will be 32 next season and is shouldering a heavy workload, it would seem to be much more prudent for the Cardinals to wait and see what Carpenter looks like in the years to come. It's not the dollars that trouble me -- it's that the Cardinals are playing weather forecaster into the far-too-distant future.
• A small trade was consummated yesterday, with the New York Mets sending young starter Brian Bannister to Kansas City for closer Ambiorix Burgos. I don't really get this from the Mets' point of view. Bannister is young and cheap, and while he's no Cy Young, the Mets need everyone they have to fill out their starting rotation. They don't need a closer; they have Billy Wagner. They could use a young middle reliever with good upside, yes, but I think they need stability in the rotation even more.
  This is a good deal for the Royals, who get a young option for their barren starting rotation. Burgos will be a loss at closer, but it's more of a loss in potential; Burgos was rushed so fast through the minor league system that he still hasn't gotten used to the big leagues (5.52 ERA in '06 along with 16!! HR allowed in just 73.1 IP).
• With Ryan Howard taking home the NL MVP award, Albert Pujols was quoted as saying that the MVP should come from a contending team. One could infer that he was referring to himself. It was an uncharacteristic remark from the usually classy Pujols, and he's since offered an apology to Howard. But the event has gotten a lot of play in the media. This happens every time someone in sports says anything challenging -- it will be mentioned and discussed on hundreds of TV and radio shows within 24 hours. Regardless of what opinion the talking heads (or headless voices) put forth, the quote itself will catch fire and take off regardless of the extent of the remark itself.
  This is silly, and it reminds us how we take sports far too seriously. Pujols got mad (justifiably so, I think) and popped off, making a stupid remark that he shouldn't have said. It was a bad move, but he has at least apologized. Luckily, the rest of us don't have a microphone shoved into our faces when we're in the foulest of moods.
• I heard a rumor that the Reds had offered Mark Loretta a two-year free agent contract. We're talking about the Reds, so we have to step Through the Looking Glass to examine their "logic." Coming into the season, the Reds had Brandon Phillips and Ryan Freel as middle infielders. Since then, they've signed Alex Gonzalez and Juan Castro to be their shortstops (why you need two backup shortstops is beyond me; I'll ask the White Knight). And now they want to bring in another second baseman? As if Phillips and Freel weren't enough?
  But I read somewhere that the justification was that the Reds wanted Loretta to platoon at first base with Scott Hatteberg.
  Do what?
  I know that the Reds think that they need 18 middle relievers and 15 middle infielders, and maybe Humpty Dumpty has assured them of the logic behind that. But I assure you that there is no good reason in this or any reality to make Mark Loretta (285/345/361 in '06, 68 career HR) your first baseman.
  I have to quote a section from Will Carroll's column on Baseball Prospectus here.
  So far, [Cincinnati GM] Wayne Krivsky's not making friends. "He's signing guys no one wants and pushing the bar up." I can't print the rest of the quote from an NL official.
  Thank you, Wayne, for carrying on the proud Cincinnati tradition of Jim Bowden and Dan O'Brien. Somewhere, Marge Schott is smiling.
• Finally, the fate of Barry Bonds, the best hitter available this offseason, is still up in the air. With the Oakland A's going after Mike Piazza as their DH, it looks more and more likely that Bonds' only real home is in San Francisco. Apparently, his agent is throwing around figures like $18 million for a one-year contract. Even Giants' GM Brian Sabean isn't that crazy. Nobody else is interested in Bonds, and everyone knows it.
  It is odd that no one else is (apparently) willing to take a flyer on what will likely be the best bargain of the offseason. The more paranoid observers might conclude that there's a conspiracy to keep Bonds from breaking Aaron's record. That might be a part of the issue, but I don't think it's an organized conspiracy so much as a personal dislike for Bonds and the hoopla he generates. I myself would sign Bonds for my team, but then I've never met the man, nor have I had to deal with his s***. And we've seen many times before that, in sports, self-interest often overcomes personal dislike. For instance, when pitcher Andy Messersmith filed the arbitration case that eventually led to free agency, the owners wanted to blackball him from the game. But Messersmith was still a good pitcher, and Ted Turner spoiled the owners' machinations by signing Messersmith to play for the Braves (Ted was like that).
  An oft-ignored issue was mentioned by Nate Silver at Baseball Prospectus. He put forth the reasonable fear among baseball executives that Barry Bonds may be going to jail. We must remember that there is still a grand jury investigation pending into Bonds' activities, and it's a big possibility that Bonds might be indicted in the near future. There is certainly, as well know, plenty of evidence against him, be it perjury, tax evasion, what have you. And there would be no recompense for an owner who spends $10 million on Bonds only to see him playing for the California Penal League.