Just for Sport

1. Everybody has an agenda, including Barry himself, about Barry Bonds.

I usually have a Tuesday night class, so tonight was the first time I was able to catch “Bonds on Bonds.” I wasn’t impressed. There are two things you have to say when talking about this show: (1) like any controversial issue, everybody, myself included, has a preconceived notion about it. More on this below. (2) Barry Bonds has complete creative control over the project, which means that every single second, from Barry comparing himself to Mohammed Ali to Mark Grace sticking up for an old friend, has been through the spin cycle. It’s like the SportsCenter commercial where Dwyane Wade gets to edit his own highlights. “Can we add a couple more defenders in right here and make it look better?” I have to admit that I turned on the show expecting to be cynical because I have already convicted Bonds in my mind. The fact that he is trying to cover up and suck up to the media and the fans after years of being a jerk makes it that much worse. To some extent this isn’t fair. I have certainly made my share of missteps, and it would be completely justifiable for some people to get on a blog and rip into me. The difference is that I haven’t betrayed the trust of a nation. There’s a scene in “The Great Gatsby” where Jay Gatsby introduces Nick Carraway to Meyer Wolfsheim, the gambler who fixed the 1919 World Series. Carraway narrates the following reaction:

The idea staggered me. I remembered, of course, that the World Series had been fixed in 1919, but if I had thought of it at all I would have thought of it as a thing that merely happened, the end of some inevitable chain. It never occured to me that one man could start to play with the faith of fifty million people - with the single-mindedness of a burglar blowing a safe.
“How did he happen to do that?” I asked after a minute.
“He just saw the opportunity.”

I’m about two-thirds of the way through “Game of Shadows,” and though Fainawaru-Wada and Williams have a pile of hard, incriminating facts, it’s evident that there’s a touch of bias as well. There’s nothing wrong with that; we all have it. I guess I’m just trying to say that I’m not sure what to do about Barry Bonds just yet, but I am convinced that it’s important. I do know that you can’t trust “Bonds on Bonds” at face value though, and that’s my point at the moment.

2. The Houston Texans made the right choice by taking Mario Williams over Reggie Bush.

Tonight ESPN aired a draft wrap-up show, and the talking heads had Texans owner Bob McNair on to ask him some pointed questions. First of all, let me say that anybody who is aware of the media circus surrounding the NFL draft knows that any team that passed on Reggie Bush was begging to be crucified. (self-plug: I told you so.) That’s why I admire the pick of Mario Williams even more. McNair made three legitimate points about why they did what they did: (1) Last year, the Texans led at halftime 8 times (4 times going into the 4th quarter), and they lost every single one of those games. That’s not the offense’s fault; it’s the defense’s. They already have a 1,000 yard rusher in Domanick Davis; if Reggie even gets close to the hype and gets 1,500 it still wouldn’t have made a difference. The Texans need a playmaker on defense, not a guy who might be an upgrade over the one they already have. (2) The rest of the NFL has figured out that the way to beat Peyton Manning is to put pressure on him. Just ask the Steelers. The Texans have to play the Colts twice every year, and this pick gives them a legitimate chance to compete on the same field. (3) Barry Sanders only won one playoff game. To this day, the Detroit Lions continue to draft offense, and it hasn’t helped them yet. In the NFL, you have to be able to play on both sides of the ball. Ron Jaworski disputes this fact, but Jaworski has evidently forgotten two things: (1) he’s not dealing with his Arena team, where players play both ways, and (2) he has continually ripped the Indianapolis Colts for being all offense and no defense. For all of the talking heads, I have a prediction of my own: 2006 is the year that fans stop taking the “draft experts” seriously because Reggie Bush will be a big-time bust, and New Orleans will continue to be irrelevant.

3. Kobe Bryant is way over-hyped.

Today I sat around with some people and talked, in a positive manner, about Kobe Bryant. For those of you who know me and the people I associate with, this should be a surprise. I have never liked him, and it’s not just because he’s a veteran or has swagger. The main knock on Kobe has always been that he’s selfish. Whether or not you believe that he ran Shaq out of Los Angeles, it is an irrefutable fact that he hoists up way too many shots every game. Recently, however, he has been getting his teammates involved, which is an even bigger accomplishment when you consider his teammates. One of the talking heads on ESPN recently called him “the Mariano Rivera of basketball,” implying that he has an exceptional ability to close games. This is ironic if you consider that espn.com recently ran an article about clutch shooting. Much has been made of the Nike commercial where Michael Jordan states that he has let his teammates down 24 times. The fact is, Kobe has done the same thing many more times than that. In fact, with less than 24 seconds left and his team down by three points or less, Kobe has one of the lowest shooting percentages in the NBA. In a recent poll, 58.4% of fans said that Kobe had been the top performer of the first round of the playoffs. However, on the same page, there’s a link to a page that shows each player’s Player Efficiency Rating, or PER. PER is a statistic developed by John Hollinger to measure each player’s per-minute performance. 15.0 is supposed to be the standard average. For the 2004-05 season, Bryant finished a respectable 8th in PER with a 23.28. However, in this year’s playoffs, he is 39th with a 16.52, less than half of first-place Dirk Nowitzki’s 33.69. Supposed “slouch” teammate Lamar Odom is ranked 22nd with a 19.5. The only way the Lakers will continue to win is if Kobe continues the surprising trend of being a member of a team and doesn’t jack up 35 shots a game. Otherwise, the Los Angeles Kobes will lose to the team that plays in the Staples Center.

As a baseball fan, I have something at stake in this whole steroids thing. I’ve always felt that. For the last two or three years, it seems that every time I turn on the TV, somebody’s giving their take. I hate it. Stop talking about steroids, I’ll say, and talk about the games. I know I’m probably not alone in this. But all along the way, I’ve always known that something was at stake; I just didn’t know what.

That probably explains my recent intrigue about the subject. Whenever my friends and I get together and watch baseball, the topic always comes to Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmeiro, Jose Canseco, and the rest of the alleged steroid users. Some of us are more consistent than others. I usually end up saying that all of those people need asterisks next to whatever records they have, or more preferably, that they be removed completely. My friend Jeremiah openly boos Canseco, but pledges his blind allegiance to Bonds based on the fact that A) he plays for the Giants, B) he had Lasik surgery, C) he was good before, so what does it matter?, and D) Ty Cobb is in the Hall of Fame, so obviously integrity doesn’t matter anyway. I would refute all four of these arguments, but I digress.

The point is that as a baseball fan, you have to deal with Barry Bonds (and all the other alleged steroid users) on some level. There are several reasons for this. One is that Bonds currently holds the single season home run record, which for a long time was widely considered the most sacred record in the American sports world, and certainly in baseball. He’s also, at this writing, 45 home runs from tying Hank Aaron for the career record. There’s always the Hall of Fame thing, but HOF voters will likely set a precedent in a year or two when Mark McGwire’s name comes up for consideration. Finally, how you deal with Barry Bonds will dictate how you deal with steroids on the whole. My friend Reno says we should require steroids use in baseball so that the entertainment value will be higher, but obviously this is a perversion. The appeal of baseball (and all sports) is that there are humans like you and me performing these acts of talent, skill, and strength.

On some level, you have to agree that the use of steroids is bad for baseball, and I think most people do. The variable is the response people have to their apparent abuse. Several sportswriters I have read want to take the easy way out and label certain years as “The Steroid Era.” That way, even if there’s no asterisk, fans and others will know that certain records are basically illegitimate because they were achieved during a certain time period, sort of how basketball has created its own set of records that coincide with “The Shot Clock Era.” I have several problems with this. My initial reaction is that such a moniker would take away from baseball what other sports don’t have: meaningful statistics and records. Baseball doesn’t need asterisks, real or understood. When Maris passed Ruth in ’61, there was a huge debate because Maris got to play in more games than Ruth did. The general consensus was that you have to have consistency in the record book. A record is a record is a record. That’s why attempts to label eras (e.g. “The Dead Ball Era,” etc.) has never really caught on with baseball fans, and it’s also why baseball has a reputation for being the only sport with meaningful records. The so-called Steroids Era threatens all of that. Not only does it threaten the unique-ness of the sport, it throws a blanket over all of the players that never did steroids, which is why you can’t go around calling all the records that took place in a certain time period illegitimate. The cases have to be treated individually. That’s what makes Bonds’ case so sticky. He has polarized people. There are those that believe the media is too hard on him, and there are those that believe he manipulates the media and cries foul against them to gain sympathy. He’s always been a jerk and treated baseball as a business rather than a game, which won’t gain any favor with baseball purists. The opinions on him are so wide and varied that it seems that 98% of what you hear about him is suspect. This is why I have decided to read the book, “Game of Shadows,” by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams. Jeremiah told me without reading it that it’s trash because it’s written by journalists from the San Francisco Chronicle, which he believes to be notorious for ripping Bonds. I happen to hold investigative journalism in high regard, however, so I have to admit that I’m going to be more likely to believe what it says. As a matter of fact, I’d rather read a book written by reporters from San Francisco than from across the country. The fact remains that Bonds is a god to San Francisco fans, so it’s not like these guys have something to gain from their constituency by contrivances.

In any case, these are my pre-conceived notions that I have before reading the book. Hopefully reading it will help me gain more insight and a better idea of how to treat the entire situation. I will report back when I’m done.

Note: This post originally appeared on October 3, 2005.

The Designated Hitter. I hate it. I don’t understand it. I don’t understand the average baseball fan’s reaction to it, either. I found the following two questions in separate polls on espn.com tonight:

Which would you rather see in person?
A batter hit four home runs in one game.
A pitcher throw a no-hitter.

What should baseball do with the DH?
Keep things the way they are
Get rid of it in the AL
Add it for the NL

The responses are as follows:
88.8% of those polled said that they would rather see a pitcher throw a no-hitter than a batter hit four home runs in one game. However, 47.5% said that the DH situation should stay the way it is. A full 18.8% said that it should be added in the National League, leaving only 33.3% of us who would abolish this abomination in the American League. If so many people want to see good pitching, why is the designated hitter suddenly okay? Is it because we’re sentimental and like seeing guys like Frank Thomas continue to play? If you can’t play in the field, you shouldn’t be in the batter’s box. If I were an American League manager, I’d make my pitcher hit anyway.

I could rant about this for a while, but to keep it short, I choose to quote Ray Romano: “The designated hitter is baaaad for baseball. Nine guys field, nine guys bat; that’s the way it is.” Bud Selig has pulled many stunts in recent years to try and leave his mark on the game as the commissioner. I can think of no better way to accomplish this than by abolishing the worst rule in all of sports.

I leave you with this link for your enjoyment.

Note: This post originally appeared on April 6, 2005.

I hate the Yankees for the following reasons:

10. 1996 - The Yankees ruin the only legitimate shot the Rangers have ever had at a pennant in the Division Series by winning games 3-5. Texas’ bullpen is really to blame, but the thought still deepens my hatred for the Yankees.
9. Jason Giambi. Okay, he’s a great guy, but look at him. The entire man is artificial, and he shouldn’t be allowed to play.
8. Bud Selig. You know it’s a problem. SALARY CAP.
7. 1998 - Before steroid allegations, was widely considered the “magical summer” when McGwire and Sosa hit 70 and 66 home runs, respectively. Then the Yankees win the World Series and ruin it for everybody.
6. Grooming regulations. You’re telling me that to be “a Yankee kind of guy” you can’t have long hair or facial hair? They totally ruined Randy Johnson’s look.
5. Roger Maris. Actually, it’s not Maris, but the way the fans and the media treated him. It’s ironic that Billy Crystal, an avid Yankees fan, directed the movie 61*, because I don’t know how you can see that movie and cheer for New York.
4. Roger Clemens. Does anybody really think that it was okay for him to throw the bat at Mike Piazza - much less drill him in the head? There is no excuse.
3. Alex Rodriguez. He set the Rangers franchise back years by tying up contract and playing GM. The icing on the cake? “I feel like it’s me and 24 kids.” This guy has the biggest ego in the Major Leagues, and I wish someone would shut him up.
2. George Steinbrenner. Contrary to popular belief, he’s not that great of an owner. He just has money. Yeah, if I were friends with Donald Trump, I’d buy superstars too, and apparently that would make me a genius, especially if I run my organization like a fascist.
1. East-coast bias. I used to laugh in the face of people who claimed East-coast bias, but I watched Tony Kornheiser on PTI yesterday say that everybody in America should care about what goes on in New York because it’s more important than whatever else goes on in the country. NYC is great, but it is NOT the center of Western Civilization, or the United States for that matter. Personally, I hope that either the Yankees or the Red Sox drop off the face of the earth so we don’t have to put up with the ridiculous overstatement that has become the rivalry between these two teams. There are plenty of other just as legitimate rivalries in professional sports, and I’m tired of America being expected to pay attention to what goes on in New England. I will continue to cheer for the Red Sox and any other team who plays against the Yankees, but that is where my loyalty stops. Baseball needs a salary cap (to reduce the unfair advantage that each team - yes, the Red Sox too - has before the season even starts. Luxury taxes are not enough. Additionally, New Yorkers need to shut up. John Rocker may have been wrong about various minorities, but he was right about New York. I imagine that I may be persecuted for my beliefs, but I’m sick and tired of the Sox-Yanks thing. Both teams have engaged in childish rhetoric in the media, and the fans of each team boo so much that I can’t decide if they’re actually enjoying the game that they’re watching. I’m watching the game on ESPN right now, and Yankees fans just booed because Kevin Millar got injured and they stopped the game to look at him. Let’s be reasonable. Will I continue to watch the Red Sox and Yankees when they play? Probably. I like good baseball, and it would be foolish to admit that the two teams don’t have good games against each other. Just don’t expect me to rearrange my schedule to watch two teams that I don’t particularly care for. For today though, go Red Sox. Please beat the Yankees. It’s the right thing to do.

Note: This post originally appeared on April 2, 2006.

Well, the Indians and White Sox are only in the fourth inning (on a rain delay), and in the three and half innings since the season started, every sportswriter’s second favorite “sleeper” pick has already lost their ace (Sabathia) to injury. So much for predictions. I have a few of my own, and I hope to add to them. First I’ll react to some of the things I’ve seen on espn.com and in The Mag, then make some more predictions. Ready? Let’s roll.

ESPN The Magazine released their top-to-bottom division predictions, and I believe that they’re all over the map. For starters, they predicted the Athletics to win the AL West and in the same paragraph, mentioned the idea that Billy Beane might be trying to move Barry Zito. The back half of their rotation is bad enough; they can’t afford to lose their ace. More reactions:

- Nobody at ESPN can write about the Rangers without mentioning the amount of home runs at Ameriquest. Nothing wrong with that, but they rarely ever mention that 65.6% of them were hit by the Rangers. They have power, and nobody gives them credit because there’s a stigma about the ballpark.

- Harold Reynolds, John Kruk, Peter Gammons, and Steve Phillips all picked the Cardinals to win the pennant on Baseball Tonight earlier. Tim Kurkjian picked them to win the division in The Mag. I think they just assume that they will win because they have in the past, but this offseason they lost Reggie Sanders, Larry Walker, Matt Morris, and Mark Grudzielanek and did virtually nothing to replace them. People seem to forget the 6.21 ERA that Ponson put up last year, not to mention the horrible demeanor that can wreck what is usually a professional clubhouse. I’m also not buying that Scott Rolen is back until I see it. The only thing that gives them a shot is Pujols.

- I can’t believe people think the Astros will succeed again. They added absolutely nobody to help their putrid offense, and Biggio isn’t getting any younger. At some point his aggressive play will catch up with him in the form of injury. It’s a shame, but it’s reality. The only way they break .500 is if Clemens comes back. It will be justice for the way they treated Bagwell.

- Everybody’s favorite sleeper is the Brewers. Again, this is based on a late run they made last season. But, Overbay’s not there anymore and Ben Sheets is injured. They have a bunch of rookies, no bullpen (except Turnbow, but somebody’s got to get him the ball) or bench, and only three legit starters. This is going to be a huge bust.

- Okay, call me a homer (I am), but nobody’s giving the Cubbies a chance because Wood and Prior are on the DL again. I saw an interview with Mark Prior recently, and he’s got the exact right attitude for someone who has to come back and prove himself all over again. And he’s not injury-prone - they’ve all been freak occurrences. As for Wood…I don’t know. Maybe he can be effective from the bullpen again. The bottom line is that nobody’s talking about the addition of Juan Pierre and Jacque Jones, and that Ronnie Cedeno is poised to break out. They’ve got a platoon of infielders that can be effective off the bench or traded. I see things looking up for them, not in fourth of fifth place in the Central like everybody’s saying.

- I’m tired of people picking the Braves “because I picked against them last year and got burned.” They have a total of two pitchers - bullpen included. You might be able to convince me of Chris Reitsma, but not yet. I love Francoeur and all those guys, but it’s not happening. The Mets have done too much.

Peter Gammons has his picks for individual awards out, and I can’t say I’m impressed. Here’s what he picked:

AL MVP: Bobby Crosby
This has to be an April Fool’s joke. I know that the media loves him and he plays hard, but he’s not an MVP. Steve Phillips points to the A’s record last year with and without him while he was injured, but being a good clubhouse presence doesn’t win you the MVP. Last year he played 84 games and had 9 HRs and 38 RBIs. If you were generous in your calculations, you would discover that he was on pace for 20 HRs and 80 RBIs. A look at his ‘04 stats confirm that this is not atypical (22 & 64). These aren’t even Moneyball numbers. Even Pujols had to wait until his fifth year in the league to win, (Crosby’s in his fourth) and Bobby is not even in Pujols’ league. Peter should have gone with Teixeira or A-Rod. He should also remove Grady Sizemore from his list.

NL MVP: Albert Pujols
You can’t argue with this. What you can dispute is Chipper Jones on the runner-up list with Derrek Lee conspicuously absent. Chipper hit his prime…maybe 10 years ago? Not happening.

AL Cy Young: Josh Beckett
Unfortunately for Beckett, the Red Sox won’t be scoring as many runs this year. I just don’t see anybody who goes on the DL at least once every year for a blister contending. Santana or Halladay would have been better picks. You can’t really expect Gammons to write a column without predicting something outrageous for the Red Sox, though.

NL Cy Young: Jake Peavy
Nice sleeper pick.

Okay, hopefully the rain delay will end soon. My picks for individual awards:
MVP: Mark Teixeira (AL), Albert Pujols (NL)
Cy Young: Bartolo Colon (AL), Carlos Zambrano (NL)
Reliever of the Year: BJ Ryan (AL), Chad Cordero (NL)
Rookie of the Year: Kenji Johjima (AL), Matt Murton (NL)
Rookie Pitcher of the Year: I just looked over a list of eligible players and recognized maybe three names. No prediction. Here’s hoping for Edison Volquez and Angel Guzman.
Comeback Player of the Year (Position Player): Magglio Ordonez (AL), Barry Bonds (NL)
Comeback Player of the Year (Pitcher): Zack Greinke (AL), Mark Prior (NL)

Playoff Picks Revisted:
Here are my playoff teams that I picked a couple of months ago:

Mets
Cubs
Dodgers
Cardinals (WC)

Yankees
Indians
Rangers
Athletics (WC)

I reserve the right to change my picks, because it’s my blog and I was able to catch a few spring training games on TV. I’m going to leave the NL alone, but my AL picks get an overhaul. I have become increasingly less convinced about the Indians and more convinced about the Blue Jays. I’ve got the Blue Jays in the East, the White Sox in the Central (I was skeptical about Jim Thome, but it looks like it really was Philly that was the problem), and the West stays the same.

Ten Bold Predictions for 2006:
I was 1/2 for 10 last year (still an outside shot that Bonds retires at 715. Griffey almost made the season). They’re supposed to be bold, so no backing down.

1. David Wright will finish in the top 5 in MVP balloting. Oh yeah, bold…okay, top 3.
2. Roger Clemens will wait until the end of May to make his decision, making everybody think Astros…but he ends up with the Rangers.
3. Manny Ramirez will get injured messing around in the outfield, forcing David Ortiz to play in the field, effectively ending MVP conversations about him.
4. Nomar Garciaparra will end up playing second base for the Yankees.
5. Carl Crawford will demand a trade and end up in…Kansas City. The Royals will subsequently pass the Tigers for fourth place in the AL Central.
6. Dontrelle Willis will lead the NL in ERA but struggle to stay above .500. 12 wins for D-Train.
7. Tony LaRussa will retire after this season.
8. Bobby Jenks gets roughed up sometime early in the season, loses the closer role, and slips into anonymity as his weight approaches 350 pounds.
9. League leaders in home runs: Paul Konerko and Cliff Floyd.
10. This year’s big name to get nailed for steroids: Milton Bradley.

Rain delay’s still not over, so…there’s still a chance that prediction number 8 comes true tonight. Happy baseball!

Note: This post appeared as part of a larger post on February 10, 2006.

Sportscenter opened with the Mavericks last night, not only because Mark Cuban claimed ownership of Phil Jackson, but because they’re on a 13-game winning streak and playing defense. Anybody that knows anything about the Mavericks knows that defense has always been their Achille’s Heel, so it’s fun to see that the Little General has them whipped into shape. Even Dirk is playing defense! The franchise record for wins in a row is 14, when they started the season that way a couple of years ago. They go for the tie tonight against Denver, and a cupcake schedule for the week or so after that should allow the Mavs to keep on rolling. I can’t wait to see how they stack up against the Spurs on March 2. They’ve split the season series so far, and the way things are going, one game might make the difference between the 1 and 2 seed. Even more than that, I’m looking forward to March 28’s matchup with the Pistons. The first time they met at the beginning of the season, Dallas won 119-82. They also won both preseason matchups. Detroit has played out of their mind up until last week, but I believe they’re just a little overrated. We’ll see soon enough; for now I’m enjoying the streak and some awesome team defense.

The Stars won last night as well. Kapanen had a hat trick, and they scored three power play goals, which has been their Achille’s Heel recently. Hedberg did a great job as the backup, and a team that looked like a 4 or 5 seed at the beginning of the season might actually contend for the President’s Trophy. I’m really worried that the Olympics are going to hurt their momentum, but they have enough veteran leadership to get through it.

Finally, pitchers and catchers report soon (although that’s going to be kind of weird with the World Baseball Classic coming up next month). There’s no precedent for how the WBC will affect players (with unforeseen injuries, fatigue in the later months of the season, etc.), so I’m going to make my preseason predictions with complete disregard for all of that, since I have no idea what to make of it all. Here’s how I think each division will go down:

NL East
The New York Mets have done a lot to help themselves this offseason, so it’s tempting to give in and predict them to win. There’s always a danger in betting against history, though, as the Atlanta Braves have won 15 straight titles. They did trade away some of their prospects, and they have no closer at this moment. I think the Mets actually benefit from the loss of Piazza, as they can actually throw runners out now. It’s also tempting to put the Marlins in last based on their fire sale, but I think getting rid of Thome makes the Phillies implode.

NY Mets
Washington
Atlanta
Florida
Philadelphia

NL Central
My Cubbies have improved this offseason, getting some help in the bullpen and in the outfield. Juan Pierre gives them a leadoff hitter, and an overflowing infield allows them to make a deadline deal to make a title push. The Astros probably won’t have Roger Clemens, and they haven’t done anything to improve their poor hitting (except force Jeff Bagwell out?). The Cardinals will have a dropoff also, although the continued emergence of Albert Pujols will make things interesting. Milwaukee is in position to be good in a couple of years, but not yet.

Chicago Cubs
St. Louis - Wild Card
Milwaukee
Cincinnatti
Houston
Pittsburgh

NL West
The league’s worst division probably won’t be much better, although the Dodgers are trying to separate themselves from the pack. San Diego won’t get anywhere without Adam Eaton (and Chris Young’s not ready yet), and one or more of the San Francisco Giants might die of old age on the field. The Dodgers will win a close one, but with the league’s 7th or 8th best record.

Los Angeles
San Francisco
San Diego
Arizona
Colorado

AL East
Hooray! My least favorite division. There are two teams that ruin the financial balance of baseball with their overspending (Boston and NY Yankees), one that’s trying to do the same thing (Toronto), one with the whiniest owner in baseball (Baltimore), and the worst team in the league (Tampa Bay). Unlike previous years, the Wild Card will not come out of this division, simply because the rest of the AL has gotten stronger and the top three in the East will beat up on each other. I don’t think there will be much of a change top to bottom here from last year, but the Blue Jays will make it closer than in years past.

New York Yankees
Boston
Toronto
Baltimore
Tampa Bay

AL Central
Lots of people are picking the White Sox to repeat, but I’m not sure they know how to play under pressure. The last Chicago team to be a favorite imploded. Here’s a simple rule I like to live by: Never expect a team to overachieve two years in a row, especially not in baseball, where the schedule is 162 games long. Minnesota has been due for a stellar year for awhile now, but they won’t be as good as the other elite teams in the league because they lack depth. Cleveland will have a breakout year if they can pull off a major deadline deal. I’m banking on that.

Cleveland
Minnesota
Chicago White Sox
Detroit
Kansas City

AL West
This will be interesting, since the A’s and Rangers have both improved during the offseason. Most people are picking Oakland to win, but I’m going to stick by my prediction that they won’t win the division again as long as Billy Beane is the GM. The Rangers actually have a rotation this year, and they have the extra players to make the all-important deadline trade. Even if they don’t deal, they have the depth to overcome injury and an extended season because of the WBC (Okay, just one!). Phil Rogers seems to think that Michael Young is ready to break out, and if he does, the Rangers have a shot to hit 100. The Angels will fall off this year, as they have lost 2/5 of their rotation. Washburn and Byrd were essential parts of Anaheim’s run last year, and they won’t be able to find help. Seattle will improve, but not that much.

Texas
Oakland - Wild Card
Seattle
Anaheim