3 Questions: New York Mets

The Common Man kept putting it off and putting it off, but it’s finally time to finish our 3 Questions series with a look at the New York Mets (you can find links to all of our 3 questions series here). Really, TCM just kept waiting for the Mets to do something…anything…but it never happened. And with the big transition in the front office, there are a lot of questions that loom for the Mets. Here are the three biggest:

3 Questions: Seattle Mariners

By Bill

OK, so I was one of those people who thought the Mariners were in really, really good shape at about this time last year. Every single move they made made sense, at least in isolation. And in retrospect, they certainly needed to do more -- in particular, a first baseman who could do more than play defense would have helped -- but I still think it should have been pretty good. I never picked them to win the division (or at least I don't think I did...please don't look it up), but I certainly didn't see 61-101 coming, and I think anyone who says he or she did is a liar. Any reason to hope for anything more this year?

1. Have they improved at all?
Last year, Jack Zduriencik was the busiest GM of the offseason, pretty much from start to finish. This offseason, you barely heard anything from the M's at all...which is what tends to happen with 100-loss teams who don't have a superstar to sell off. Moves were made, though. Jack Cust is in, Russell Branyan is out. Jose Lopez is gone, with Brendan Ryan, however temporarily, taking his place.

So that's not much, but on the other hand, there are a lot of guys who really can't be as bad as they were in 2010. Figgins, in particular (assuming he isn't traded), isn't the near-MVP candidate he was in 2009, but he had the worst year of his career in 2010, and he's not that guy either. Ryan certainly isn't quite the offensive zero he was in 2010, it's unlikely Milton Bradley has completely forgotten to hit, and so on. If the M's hadn't done anything at all, they'd very likely be better, just through regression and better luck.

And it's not just the dreadful offense that sunk them last year. The defense took a big step back, too, from close to the best in the game in 2009 to something like the middle of the pack in '10. Moving Figgins from second back to third, where he seems to perform much better, a healthy Jack Wilson, and plugging in the excellent Ryan for the plodding Lopez should all help. People will tell you that they need offense, not defense, to win. I don't buy it; until the point where their defense and pitching combine to allow 0.0 runs per game, permitting fewer runs will help them win roughly as much as scoring more runs will.

Baseball Prospectus' AL West preview went up yesterday, and PECOTA sees the Mariners going 68-94 (with some really dryly funny commentary from Mr. Wyers). For the second post in a row, I just can't buy that. That's a seven-game improvement over 2010 (and a nine-game improvement over their 2010 Pythagorean record), but between their being better and the Rangers and Angels being worse, 75 or so wins seems to me like a better bet.

3 Questions: Baltimore Orioles

By Bill

The Orioles are our second-to-last AL team to be questioned. They've made a bunch of fairly big moves this offseason, which you think would make them one of the more fun ones to talk about. You'd be wrong, though. Like, really wrong.


1. Is a good last-place team better than a bad last-place team?
Maybe that's not fair. PECOTA, after all, likes them to finish fourth, six games ahead of the Blue Jays. I just can't see it; the Jays have probably gotten a bit worse and the Orioles have gotten a bit better, but not to the tune of a 25-game swing from 2010.

The point, though, is that even that very rosy projection has the Orioles at 82-80 -- ten games out of first, nine out of a playoff spot, and stuck behind probably the three best teams in the league. So what are they doing acquiring three players -- Derrek Lee, Vladimir Guerrero and J.J. Hardy -- who will be free agents after this season? With those three guys, they've spent $21 million for, basically, a chance to move from a distant fifth place to a distant fourth.

And this is fun: a few days ago, GM Andy MacPhail was speaking to some law students when he said that Alex Rodriguez's huge 2001 contract with the Rangers was "the worst signing in the history of baseball in my view." And why? Because "the needle didn't move at all. The team didn't improve. Attendance didn't go up." MacPhail hasn't spent anywhere near A-Rod money this offseason, but it's hard to imagine these moves turning out any differently.

2. How Good Is Matt Wieters?
And speaking of PECOTA: in 2009, before he'd played a game in the big leagues, the system saw Wieters as putting up one of the greatest seasons a catcher has ever had: .311/.395/.544, with 31 home runs. Of course, that didn't happen, though he was about an average hitter in 2009, which in itself is impressive enough for a 23 year old catcher. But then he took a step back in 2010.

Wieters is still the same guy who was taken fifth overall in the draft, was the #1 prospect entering 2009, and hit an incredible .343/.438/.576 in his minor league career. We're still a couple years from being able to say he won't be a star in the major leagues. I get the sense people are writing him off already, but if you're going to bet on somebody to come up with a huge year out of nowhere this year (and its coming "out of nowhere" pretty much means you shouldn't bet on it, or whatever), Wieters would seem to be a pretty good choice.

3. Can Mark Reynolds Hit (in the AL East)?
I've written about Reynolds several times already (here and here and here), because he's fascinating. The point was basically that while strikeouts by hitters are overemphasized, it is really, really hard to remain a productive player while striking out as ridiculously often as Reynolds does. And he went a long way toward proving that last year, going .198/.320/.433. I think he's an amazingly talented hitter and there's a good chance he turns it around, but I also think that in a division with Sabathia and Burnett and Lester and Beckett and Price, he could strike out 250 times. I'm going to forget all that and just hope that proximity to his alma mater (and mine, sort of), the University of Virginia, helps him somehow.

3 Questions: Washington Nationals

By The Common Man

With Stephen Strasburg on the DL for what should be all of 2011, the Nationals could have been forgiven for sitting out much of this offseason. Instead, they went all in and signed free agent Jayson Werth to a huge contract, and were allegedly players for guys like Cliff Lee, Javier Vazquez, and Carl Pavano as well. They’ve got an eye toward being competitive in 2012 and 2013, but it will be an uphill climb and there are still many questions that need answering. Here are three of them. (As always, you can click here to find more 3 questions previews for your favorite MLB teams.)

3 Questions: Kansas City Royals

By Bill

Let's get this out of the way: the 2011 Kansas City Royals are going to be bad. Really, really bad. They've currently got Major League-quality starting ballplayers at designated hitter, and possibly first base, shortstop and left field; they've got a couple number four or five starters and a quality closer. And that's pretty much it. They managed not to be the worst team in the AL last year -- they were third-worst ahead of Baltimore and Seattle, the final two stops on my half of the 3 Questions series -- but it'll be awfully hard for them to repeat that, er, accomplishment again in 2011.

So there's really no question about that. What are some questions we can talk about?

3 Questions: Florida Marlins

By The Common Man

The Marlins won 80 games last year despite trading or waiving two members of their starting lineup, having four rookies play major roles for the club, enduring a down year by the club’s superstar SS, and getting almost nothing out of the catcher and centerfield spots. Plus, they contended with below replacement level seasons by Emilio Bonafacio and Wes Helms, both of whom got more than 200 PAs. That’s pretty impressive. But in true Fish form, Jeffrey Loria’s Marlins seemed to shoot themselves in the foot this offseason and left themselves with several questions to start 2011. Here are three of them. (As always, you can click here to find a complete list of The Platoon Advantage's 3 Questions series.)

3 Questions: Cleveland Indians

By Bill

I've been going through the AL in order of 2010 record, best to worst. So far, every team I've covered has been above or right around .500. Wins in the AL went like this: 96, 95, 94, 90, 89, 88, 85, 81, 81, 80,
.
.
69, 67, 66, 61.

Yeah, so we've just hit the wrong end of that big ol' gap. The Angels were OK, and have gotten at least a bit worse; Cleveland was already really stinky, and hasn't really done anything to get less stinky.

1. Who is Grady Sizemore now?
Two years ago, Sizemore was coming off a third straight All-Star season, with two Gold Gloves, a Silver Slugger and a bunch of down-ballot MVP votes. From 2006-08, he averaged 160 games played with 28 homers and 31 steals, hitting .279/.380/.499. In the two seasons since, he's played only a total of 139 games, hitting .239/.328/.410 with just 18 homers and 17 steals (in 27 tries).

A knee surgery sidelined him for most of 2010, and it's unlikely that he'll ever have the speed he used to (and the team won't miss the steals, but it's potentially kind of a problem for a center fielder). But he's still just entering his age-28 season, and the bat, at least, certainly could bounce back.

It's hard to pretend he's a key to the future success of this team, really; his contract ends after either 2011 or 2012 (it's a player option), so if he's still around to help the next contending Cleveland team, it'll be under a whole new contract. But the current team is a lot more interesting when Sizemore is healthy and good.

2. Is Carlos Santana feeling better?
That's a really obscure and terribly unclever reference to an obscure single by an artist I don't know anything about. Thanks Wikipedia! Anyway.

This is the other big injury question, and it is one that has big implications for the team's future, because if he's healthy, they could well have a superstar for basically no money for about the next five years. Santana was stolen from the Dodgers back in 2008, and the first 42 games of his MLB career, in 2010, were pretty fantastic: .260/.401/.467, with 2.2 WAR (something close to an MVP pace). It remains to be seen, of course, whether Santana can actually keep that pace up over a full season even if healthy, but between that sample and his minor league performance, it's pretty clear that they've got a very good hitting catcher on their hands. Santana badly injured his knee in a collision at home plate in August. He's reportedly doing great right now, but that's the kind of thing you hear a lot of in January. This doesn't figure to be a terribly exciting year for Cleveland, but it'll be an awfully important one for their future.

3. Is the next really good Cleveland team already in the system?
The big club has Santana, Matt LaPorta, Asdrubal Cabrera, Michael Brantley, and maybe the most underrated player in baseball (I'd probably still put him second to Chase Utley), Shin-Soo Choo. The minor leagues have Jason Kipnis and Lonnie Chisenhall, future star infielders who could be in the majors for good before the end of the season, and Drew Pomerantz, the 2010 first-round pick and left-handed pitcher with a chance to turn into a superstar. The system doesn't have nearly the talent of the Royals', but it's got some high-quality pieces, and coupled with the young talent already in the majors, they could be a pretty excellent squad in a couple years. Following those guys' progress promises to be a lot more fun than paying attention to the team's wins and losses this year.

3 Questions: Chicago Cubs

By The Common Man

TCM had a big back yard perfect for playing “baseball” one-on-one in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Given that his friends always wanted to be the Twins, TCM was forced to have a fallback option, and so he chose the Cubs. And he grew to love the Cubbies for a short time. TCM spent the summer of 1990 hitting like Jerome Walton in Little League. He thought he had the cannon arm of Shawon Dunston. And he felt certain that Mike Bielecki was just as good a pitcher as Greg Maddux.

Oh, how the times have changed. Walton hit .269/.333/.376 for his career in just 1760 plate appearances. Dunston had a career OBP of .296 and was actually a pretty terrible defensive shortstop. Bielecki would go 40-47 over the next 8 years, while Maddux would go 310-189 over the next 19. And the Cubs would go on to be one of the most frustrating free spenders in Major League Baseball, losing almost all of their charm in the process.

So now, disillusioned, what questions could The Common Man possibly want to ask the Cubs? Here are three of them.  (Reminder, to see a list of our other entries in the 3 Questions series, click here)

Question 1: How good is Starlin Castro?

Castro started 121 games last year as a 20 year old, and hit .300/.347/.408, good for a 97 OPS+. Since 1950, only eight players have gotten more than 400 plate appearances as a SS at 20 years old. Here’s the list:

Name	Year	OPS+	Runs Created
Alex Rodriguez	1996	160	157
Edgar Renteria	1996	103	63
Starlin Castro	2010	97	62
Robin Yount	1975	90	64
Alan Trammell	1978	89	52
Elvis Andrus	2009	82	65
Gary Sheffield	1989	82	39
Edgar Renteria	1997	80	69
Robin Yount	1976	76	55
Jack Heidemann	1970	51	35

As you can see, Castro’s in some pretty elite company, and has outperformed Hall of Fame caliber players in Alan Trammell, Robin Yount, and Gary Sheffield, which bodes extremely well for Castro’s potential offensive development. Even Edgar Renteria has had a fantastic career.

The only hesitation Cubs fans should have about Castro’s future is regarding his defense, about which Fangraphs and Baseball Reference disagree vehemently. BR.com claims that Castro was 1.2 wins below replacement in the field, and the worst fielding shortstop in the National League according to Total Zone. Meanwhile Fangraphs rates Castro in the middle of the pack defensively, according to Ultimate Zone Rating, probably due to his high error total (27 errors in 1073 innings). It made a huge difference in the final analysis, as BR.com calculated that Castro was worth just 0.4 WAR because of his alleged awful defense. Fangraphs, meanwhile, rated him at 2.0 Wins Above Replacement.

But even if you accept BR.com’s poor rankings, prospect mavens have been bullish on his defensive potential as well. In 2010, Baseball America wrote that Castro “excels defensively…with range to both sides, body control and arm strength to make any play. Managers rated him the best defensive shortstop in the Florida State League. The Cubs also like his instincts, charisma, and work ethic. Castro just needs to time to fill out and polish his game. He made 39 errors last season, which isn't a high number for a young shortstop, but shows that he needs to play more under control.” Kevin Goldstein was also high on him, writing “His defensive fundamentals are outstanding for both his level and his age, with smooth actions, soft hands, a quick transfer, and a plus arm.” Either way, Castro looks to be a strong building block for the Cubs going forward, perhaps a future MVP candidate, and easily a championship-caliber player.  At any rate, he's not going the way of Jerome Walton and Dwight Smith.

Question 2: Is Mike Quade the right man to lead this team?

When Mike Quade took over for the distracted and uninspired Lou Piniella last year, the Cubs were 51-74. Under Quade, for the last month and a half of the season, the club played strong and finished 24-13. Since then, Quade has survived the official hiring process and gotten the “interim” label removed from his job title, at the expense of Cubs legend Ryne Sandberg. But was that 24-13 a fluke? Or was Quade really the inspiration the Bear Cubs needed?

Of managers who took over in midseason (and managed at least 20 games), Quade finishes tied in winning percentage with Phil Garner of the 2004 Astros for 10th all time with a .649 mark. Here’s the list of those managers, and how they did in subsequent seasons:

Year	Team	Manager	Winning Percentage	Overall year 1 WP	Year 2 WP
1912	Indians	Joe Birmingham	.750	.490	.566
1924	Giants	Hughie Jennings	.727	.608	DNM
1927	Giants	Rogers Hornsby	.688	.597	DNM
1932	Cubs	Charlie Grimm	.673	.584	.558
1950	Red Sox	Steve O’Neill	.663	.610	.565
1938	Tigers	Del Baker	.661	.545	.526
1925	Giants	Hughie Jennings	.656	.566	DNM
1919	Indians	Tris Speaker	.656	.604	636
1999	Angels	Joe Maddon	.655	.432	DNM
2004	Astros	Phil Garner	.649	.568	.549

First, the good news: Every manager on the above list finished the following season with a record above .500, which bodes well for the Cubs in a weak NL Central. But here’s the bad news: First, none of them actually improved on their performance under these managers in year one. It’s pretty easy to understand why, as few teams could actually sustain a winning percentage of around .650 over the course of a season, as that’s the equivalent of a 105 win team. However, it’s also worth noting that four of the six managers saw their club’s overall winning percentage fall in year two, with only Joe Birmingham in 1913 and Tris Speaker in 1920 heading teams that were better than the previous year’s overall performance. The historical upshot for Quade is that there is little evidence that the enthusiasm factor for a new manager carries over into a second year at the helm. So while the Cubs players may have been lobbying for their interim skipper in 2010, they may change their tune if Quade can’t pilot the club to a better mark in 2011.

Question 3: So can the Cubs compete for the NL Central in 2011?

Sure, why not? They’ve upgraded their pitching (a very strong move in acquiring Matt Garza, and a good cheap pickup in Kerry Wood), and picked up a good buy-low candidate to man 1B. Zambrano looked like he was back on track at the end of 2010. They’ll have Castro for a full season. Aramis Ramirez can’t put up another .294 OBP again, can he? He had a .245 BABIP last year, but looked to still have his power, so he’s a decent candidate to rebound. Alfonso Soriano is never going to play to his contract, but he seems to have recovered at least some of his productivity (particularly on defense, if Fangraphs is to be believed).

The Brewers are still poised to be the favorite in 2011, and the Reds are the defending champs. But Milwaukee has absolutely no depth in case of injury and Cincinnati’s young pitching is suspect. The Cubs could easily sneak in, assuming they aren’t bit by the injury bug themselves.

3 Questions: Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

It wasn't a very long time ago that you could sit there on March 31 and just pencil the Angels in for the AL West division title. But they've taken a step back over the last year or so, while at least two of their division-mates have taken large steps forward. This winter, they seem to have taken the "wait and see wait and wait and wait" approach to improving the ballclub. What will it mean for 2011?

1. What on earth are they doing?
Well, I suppose "nothing" is the answer, but the question is: why?  Coming into this offseason, the Angels were fringe contenders in a very winnable division who appeared to have the most resources in the division.  They were favorites to land Carl Crawford, then Adrian Beltre, and have been linked now and again to a number of other big names.  But as The Common Man noted in ranking their offseason 30th out of 30, none of that happened.  They've added nothing at all except two relief pitchers (only one of them any good) who aren't likely to have a whole lot of leads to protect.  They do presumably get Kendry Morales back for a full season, and that's good, but that's it. In the end, Arte Moreno, once one of the fan favorites among owners (not that that's saying a lot), and Tony Reagins and company end up looking like overconfident tightwards who were way, way behind the curve of the new, apparently post-recession baseball economy. 

This is a team that wasn't as good as the A's or Rangers last year, and that sat back and simply got older while those two teams got better.  This is a team of guys in their late twenties to mid thirties that, if there's a reason for its being constructed this way at all, was built to win now, not to wait for Mike Trout to come around a year or two or three down the line. And they're just not very well set up to do that.

3 Questions: Pittsburgh Pirates

By The Common Man

In an evil way, The Common Man kind of digs looking at these teams (like the Astros and Diamondbacks) who are poised to be bad. It certainly makes TCM feel better about the Twins. But there is little joy in looking at the Pirates, who have not had a winning season since 1992 and had their worst squad since 1952 on the field last year. As TCM used to work for the Pirates in a roundabout fashion, he still feels a small connection to the Buccos, and watching them flopping about the National League like a fish out of water and trying to hold a baseball bat is a bit painful. But given that he’s committed to do the whole of the National League in this 3 Questions series, here are the biggest questions facing the Pirates. As always, you can read our previous 3 Questions entries here.

Question 1: Have they hit bottom yet?

How do you know if you’ve hit rock bottom? TCM would have figured that the Bucs had hit bottom in 2009, when they traded long-time starters Freddie Sanchez and Jack Wilson (after trading Jason Bay the previous summer), along with Nyjer Morgan and Nate McLouth. Sure the team was going to play badly, but they picked up good young prospects in the deals and a fresh start would probably help the roster a little. But then, like Lindsey Lohan, they continued to stumble and fall further from relevancy.

Despite playing in a neutral park, the pitchers sported a 5.00 ERA and allowed a full run/game more than the league average. Likewise, the team featured the worst offense in the National League, scoring just 3.62 runs/game thanks, in large part, to a .304 team OBP. They lost 105 games and based on the runs they scored and those they allowed, they should have lost 109. Is any of this likely to improve in 2011? Frankly, it’s hard to see how it could get worse?

Question 2: Where are they better?

Ryan Doumit is going to give way to Chris Snyder full time, which is a step back offensively, but a defensive upgrade. If Snyder’s healthy, he’ll probably be an improvement. Former catcher Neil Walker is going to get in a full season at 2B, as is Pedro Alvarez at 3B, meaning that massive disappointments Andy LaRoche and Delwyn Young won’t be dragging down the rest of the offense. Jose Tabata had an underappreciated rookie campaign and sounds ready to build on that over a full campaign, and Andrew McCutchen remains one of the best young players in the league. Lyle Overbay has put up acceptable offensive numbers in the AL East, and may thrive in a move to the NL Central and to PNC Park, though his arrival moves Garrett Jones to RF, where the Bucs will take a defensive hit.

The pitching will be improved simply because of some subtraction. Zach Duke is out, and James McDonald is in for a full season. Charlie Morton simply can’t pitch any worse than he did. And the team’s signings of Scott Olsen, Kevin Correia, Wil Ledezma, and Brian Burres certainly can’t hurt. But the team’s nemesis has been its defense and it’s hard to see that they’ve improved that. Garrett Jones is huge defensive drop in RF. Alvarez is a defensive disaster that will have to be moved to 1B soon. Every defensive metric absolutely hates Neil Walker and Ronny Cedeno (despite his reputation as a glove man) up the middle. Even McCutchen, with his great speed, gets poor marks in CF. Last year, according to xFIP, the defense cost the Pirates about half a run on top of the pitchers’ ERA. It could be even worse in 2011, given the expanded roles for Walker and Alvarez. So, from a run-prevention standpoint, at least, there isn’t a lot of room for improvement in 2011.

Question 3: But are they at least on the right track?

You know, for as bad as they’re likely to be again (probably 95 losses), they still seem to be moving in the right direction. They are not over-committing to veteran mediocrities, instead bringing in Overbay on a one-year deal to plug a hole. They are letting the prospects play, giving them plenty of opportunity to develop (with the exception of Lastings Milledge, but every team seems to give up on him so there’s probably a good reason). Their handling of Ryan Doumit has been strange, to say the least, but he could still end up being useful to the Pirates or another team, if they can build up his value enough to trade him. And they’re dealing productive veterans for additional young players. They’ve got a lot of good young pitchers on the farm, and a nice young catcher in Tony Sanchez coming up.

This is a team that, like the Royals, has a chance to be frisky in 2012 and might break .500 in 2013. That’s hard to say to Pirates right now, given Pittsburgh’s historic run of futility, but TCM is hopeful that the Pirates are on the verge of turning things around. Maybe he still has that luxury, though, because he can watch from a distance. Sorry, Pirates fans.  For what it's worth, you still have the best damn logo in the league.

3 Questions: Detroit Tigers

Determined to jump back into things in 2011 after dropping from first to third in 2010, the Tigers have gone out and spent a ton of money in the last couple months.  They've added while the Twins have subtracted.  But, of course, the White Sox are out there too.

1. What did they buy with all that money?
They've resigned Magglio Ordonez, Jhonny Peralta and Brandon Inge to pretty nice deals, but this is about the new guys, two players to whom they've committed $66.5 million dollars (not all this year, though, that would be a record).

Victor Martinez, who just turned 32 before Christmas, signed a deal that will pay him either $12 or $13 million for each of the next four years.  He's been an eerily consistent, very good hitter over his last six healthy seasons, posting wRC+es of 121, 129, 126, 130, 130, and 126.  And for at least the next year or two, there's no reason to expect him not to just keep doing that.

3 Questions: Houston Astros

By The Common Mn

Boy, it's a bad week for the Astros and their fans.  First, Jeff Bagwell gets totally jobbed in the Hall of Fame voting, and now their in our crosshairs.  As always, you can find  complete list of the 3 Questions series, including your favorite team, here.

The Astros finally took a hint in 2010, and realized that they needed to tear the team down in order to build their franchise back up. Gone are longtime stars Roy Oswalt and Lance Berkman. And the team has refrained from making any long-term commitments that will cripple the team. Even the extension they handed out to Brett Myers is just two years and an option. So given the team is in a definite rebuilding mode, here are three related questions for the Astros.

3 Questions: Oakland Athletics

By Bill

I've been away for about ten days, mostly on vacation with the family.  Hope everybody had good holidays and such.


It's always a bit hard to get back into the swing, and having to start with the 2011 Oakland Athletics...doesn't make it any easier. (For why, see #3 below.)

The A's finished 81-81 last year.  They finished in second place in the weak West, though a full nine games back of the eventual league champion Rangers. They've added a few pretty decent hitters, and the Rangers have lost a key piece or two.  Is that enough?

1. Can Brett Anderson stay healthy?
It's not all that often that a pitcher feels like the one real key to a potentially contending team's season, even less often that that pitcher isn't yet 23 and hasn't yet thrown 200 innings in a season or been selected to an All-Star team.  But when healthy, Anderson is the real deal. Alone among A's pitchers, he's good at both striking guys out and not walking them, and his ability to keep runs off the board isn't completely at the mercy of the defense (and he gets ground balls and keeps the ball in the park, too).  He may have been the best rookie in the AL in 2009 -- his excellent pitching was obscured by his 4.09 ERA and .500 "won-loss record" -- and coming back in 2010, driven mostly by an improved defense behind him and better luck, the results were starting to match the effort.  But arm injuries kept him out for most of the late spring and early-mid summer, and he ended with just nineteen starts and 112 innings (but a sparkling 2.80 ERA).

Anderson was healthy and absolutely on fire in September and October, putting up a 2.09 ERA in his final seven starts.  That's obviously encouraging, and if he stays healthy he has to be somewhere close to the top of the list of Cy Young candidates for 2011.  But again, it's a pitcher with a pitching-arm injury, so you've got to be a bit nervous.
 
2. Can you win games in the AL West without ever scoring any runs at all?
On the SweetSpot Network's A's blog Baseballin' on a Budget, Dan did an interesting post using his own projections for the 2011 team.  And while the results seem pretty good -- 85 wins, which sounds totally reasonable given last year's 81 wins and the changes that have been made -- it's worth noting that there are only three players who really project as better than average hitters.  That would be new additions Hideki Matsui and Josh Willingham, and 2010 breakthrough Daric Barton, and it's not as though any of these guys are world-beaters.  He doesn't have anybody with more than 20 homers, and not a whole lot of doubles, either.  Contrary to popular belief, OBP alone can score runs, much better than power alone does...but they don't have a ton of that, either, once you get past the three named above (and only Barton is a real standout in that area).

This is a better offense than they had in 2010 -- good new additions in the two above and David DeJesus, and no one who figures to drop off too much, plus two in Kurt Suzuki and Kevin Kouzmanoff who figure to do considerably better -- so I'm confident that, yeah, they can win with that offense.  But it's pretty awful, and it's kind of hard to see how the team manages to get it done.  It would be a lot easier to take them seriously if (in addition to Suzuki and Kouzmanoff coming back) Barton suddenly started showing some power (that's never been part of his game in the majors or minors, but at 6'0", 225 and as a former top prospect at first base, you have to think he has it in him somewhere), but other than that, there's just not much upside here.  This team isn't going to score any runs, and they're going to be at least okay anyway.

3. Seriously, has there ever been a more boring pretty good team, ever?
The funny thing about this is that in the old Moneyball days, people would complain about how boring the A's were.  They hit for low averages and plodded around, and just walked a lot and hit home runs and pitched brilliantly (in front of mostly terrible defenses) and won baseball games.  But can you really tell me that those teams were more boring than this one?  They're still going to hit for low averages, and they're still going to depend on the walk (they just won't do it as well as they used to). They'll steal some bases and play good defense, which the other guys didn't.  But they'll hit almost no homers, and their pitchers, behind Anderson and in front of Andrew Bailey, are really just mediocre-to-pretty-good throwers who simply let the other team put the ball in play, figuring the ballpark will keep it in and the defense will get an out out of it.  Maybe it's just me, but I'd much rather watch two walks and a three-run homer, backed by good pitching, than a walk and two singles backed by okay pitching and good defense.  If you're not already a fan, it's just kind of hard to watch.

I don't mean to insult the A's.  I generally like and root for the team.  Huge Billy Beane fan.  And I think they've got a pretty decent chance at winning the division (you've still got to favor the Rangers, but they're not that far apart).  And there are some fun things about this team.  There's Anderson, and it's not like good defense isn't fun to watch in its own way, and then the five or six times Adam Rosales goes deep this year might be the five or six most enthralling moments of the season (seriously, check out #3).  And I'd think most people would rather watch them play than the Pirates or Royals.  But for a team that's likely to win something between 80 and 90 games this season, by and large, this is a really dull squad.  Mark Ellis and Cliff Pennington might be the best middle infield combo in the league, but that's not going to make anybody really want to watch them.  Right?

3 Questions: St. Louis Cardinals

By The Common Man

Just landed back in America's Frozen Heartland after a little less than a week in the desert of Scottsdale (soon to be rename Klawtonia).  Lots of stuff burning in TCM's bloggy brain, but he owes the St. Louis Cardinals answers to these questions three.

The Cards remain a team driven by a few, exceptionally strong, personalities and focused around a small number of, incredibly important questions. The future of the franchise seems to hang in the balance of the answers to these questions far more than other teams. As always, you can read previous 3 Questions entries here.

Question 1: Will Albert Pujols sign a contract extension?

Albert Pujols, who is already (at just 30 years old) one of the three best first basemen of all time, is going to make just $16 million in 2011 and is one of the biggest values in baseball. That won’t be the case next season, as Pujols is currently on track to become a free agent. To keep their superstar, the Cardinals are going to have to pony up with some big money. As in A-Rod money. And that’s probably just a starting point (in a world where Jason Werth can get $126 million over 7 years). Though Pujols has had nagging injuries to his shoulder and heel (though he’s averaged 156 games per season), he has posted an OPS below 1.000 just twice in his 10 seasons, in 2007 and 2002, and has never had an OPS+ below 150. He has a Rookie of the Year trophy, six Silver Sluggers, two gold gloves, three MVP awards, and (perhaps most amazingly) has never finished out of the top 10 in MVP voting. And, again, he’s only 30. He is, in short, a dynamo.

Retaining their franchise player is the Cardinals number one priority for the next year. Albert has set a deadline to get a deal done at the start of Spring Training. Chances are that it happens.  For one thing, the Cards are already huddling with Pujols' agent.  (can you picture Pujols going elsewhere? TCM can’t), and if not GM John Mozeliak is sure to be seeking employment elsewhere before long. If you had to pick one player to be worth an eight or nine year deal at this point, isn’t Pujols that guy? However, the length and cost of Pujols’ new deal will have ramifications across the St. Louis organization as they try to compete in coming years with less money for supporting players.

Question 2: Can Tony LaRussa and Cody Rasmus co-exist and does Tony LaRussa have a problem with young players?

These are related questions, so TCM will fold them together.

At the tail end of his tenure in Minnesota, long time manager Tom Kelly was hurting his team as much as his experience helped it. Perhaps even moreso. Handed veteran rosters to start his managerial career, Kelly never really seemed to warm up to young players, and found innumerable ways to tear down rookies. He hated Todd Walker’s defense. He wanted Marty Cordova to stop pulling the ball. He exiled David Ortiz, Torii Hunter, and Doug Mientkiewicz to the minors for more almost a full season each. Meanwhile, he made sure that mediocrities like Ron Coomer, Denny Hocking, and Pat Meares had plenty of playing time. In the end, Kelly seemed to realize that his own predispositions were holding back the Twins and he stepped aside in favor of Ron Gardenhire, under whom the Twins have flourished.

Is something similar happening in St. Louis? It’s hard to say. LaRussa placed a lot of trust in 23 year old Jaime Garcia in 2010, and showed a ridiculous amount of faith in 25 year old rookie Jon Jay despite a choppy minor league track record. But TLR’s relationship with 23 year old phenom Cody Rasmus seems to be poisonous. Last year, LaRussa may or may not have been benching Rasmus. LaRussa definitely seemed to have problems with his young centerfielder seeking advice from his father on his hitting. And Rasmus definitely felt so persecuted by his manager that he requested a trade. Whether or not Rasmus’ feelings were justified is certainly debatable. He’s earning a reputation as uncoachable and a bad teammate (and his dad isn't helping matters), such that even Prince Albert wanted him shipped out of town last year.

The Cardinals need cheap young talent like Rasmus to build around big stars like Pujols (especially as his price tag soars), Holliday, Carpenter, and Wainwright. Perhaps no other team in baseball boasts a big four that big. But four players won’t win a World Championship if that’s all a team can afford to pay.

Question 3: How will the big switch from defense to offense go over?

The Cardinals have made a big show this offseason of deemphasizing defense on their team, despite what their GM thinks. Slick-fielding SS Brendan Ryan is gone, making way for the adequate, but unspectacular, Ryan Theriot. And Lance Berkman, who TCM previously assumed had been set in concrete around the first base area, is allegedly going to “patrol” leftfield (presumably like the US “patrols” the Canadian border, by staying in booths along major roadways).

This is particularly odd, given the probable payroll restrictions the team is likely to have moving forward. Offense, after all, is still expensive to acquire in free agency (how else does Lance Berkman get $8 million guaranteed?) and in arbitration. Meanwhile, defense is still relatively inexpensive. If the team continues down this road, look for victories to get more and more expensive, and thus harder and harder to come by for the Redbirds, especially if they continue to compromise infield defense in front of a very groundball heavy pitching staff.

3 Questions: Toronto Blue Jays

By Bill

Continuing to go in order of 2010 record from top to bottom, we've come to the last AL team that finished above .500 in 2010.  Gone are first baseman Lyle Overbay, starting pitcher Shaun Marcum, catcher John Buck and reliever Scott Downs. Coming in to replace them is...well, nobody, basically. Pretty much every spot figures to be filled from within.  How's that gonna work in the toughest division in baseball?


1. Can Jose Bautista Really Do That?
One of the stories of the year in 2010, Bautista -- who came into 2009 age 29 and the proud owner of a .238/.329/.400 line, mostly in the weaker of the leagues, with a career high of 16 homers and an average of 19 per 660-plate-appearance full season -- went absolutely nuts, at least tying (and usually smashing) his career bests in literally every positive offensive category.  Including, of course, those majors-leading 54 home runs (which helped Toronto lead the majors in home runs too, with 257 to second-place Boston's 211).

So this is kind of Bautista's "prove it" year.  Nobody would expect fifty-four homers again, but it'll be really interesting to see whether he keeps producing at an elite level or turns back into a pumpkin.  And for the Blue Jays' season, it'll be a lot more "necessary" than "interesting."

3 Questions: Milwaukee Brewers

By The Common Man

TCM’s done with the NL West, which means it’s time to move on in our 3 Questions series. And given the events of this past weekend, it’s pretty clear who should be in the crosshairs next, isn’t it?  (As always, you can find the rest of the 3 Questions series here)

Question 1: Have they fixed their rotation issues?

Come on. This is the old question. Let’s update it, in light of Doug Melvin’s exciting moves this offseason:

3 Questions: Arizona Diamondbacks

By The Common Man

Four years ago, the Diamondbacks were a surprising 90 win playoff team, whose young talent all came together at the right time for a postseason run. Chris Snyder, Conor Jackson, Stephen Drew, Mark Reynolds, Chris Young, and Carlos Quentin were all under 27 and considered building blocks. Alberto Callaspo (24) couldn’t crack the starting lineup. And Miguel Montero (23) and Justin Upton (19) were seen as major prospects and potential franchise players on the way up.

But then a funny thing happened. The team stagnated. They won 82 in 2008, finishing two games out in the NL West. Then came dispiriting 92 and 97 loss campaigns in 2009 and 2010 respectively. The D-Backs were headed in the wrong direction and their bright young talent was not developing as expected. And as their offense remained mediocre, the team’s pitching collapsed.

There were questions about how much control young GM Josh Byrnes had over his team, and how much ownership was interfering. There were questions about his hand-picked manager, AJ Hinch. Now, both are gone, replaced by former Padres guru Kevin Towers and World Series hero Kirk Gibson. But the questions remain for a team that has frustratingly refused to live up to its potential.

3 Questions: Chicago White Sox

By Bill

I was a bit surprised to note that, going backwards by 2010 win total, the White Sox (at 88) are the next team on the list.  They just didn't seem nearly that good.  And in fact, part of that is because, after losing eight in a row and ten out of twelve at the end of September and ending their season, they won nine of their last eleven, meaningless games.  Still, they were a good team, and have gotten even better in the last couple weeks.  Here are your questions:

1. Will Jake Peavy...anything?
The former Cy Young winner was already injured when the Sox acquired him in 2009, and had been relatively ineffective with the Padres when he was healthy enough to pitch, so the team had to know that they didn't really know what they were getting.  And he finally did put together three very effective starts to end 2009, then started out just OK in 2010 (though he was better than he looked, with a 4.01 FIP compared to his 4.63 ERA) before shutting down with another injury.  In a year and a couple months, Peavy's logged 127 innings with a 4.11 ERA, though he's continued striking out around eight batters per nine innings and keeping his walks down, essentially maintaining the same fastball velocity he had in his peak years.

At this writing, Peavy's status for the start of 2011 is very much up in the air.  The shoulder injury Peavy suffered is quite serious and quite rare, and there aren't a lot of pitchers (if any) who have ever had to try to come back from it.  Peavy has been told that he should be able to "go full-bore" in February, but the team won't really know what (if anything) they can expect from him until then, and even if he's completely healthy then, you have to figure they'll be holding their breath every time he takes the mound.

A rotation of Mark Buehrle, John Danks, Gavin Floyd and Edwin Jackson is really good.  That same rotation with vintage Peavy at the top might rival the Red Sox' for the best in the AL.

3 Questions: Los Angeles Dodgers

By The Common Man

The National League has 16 teams to the AL’s 14, so rather than waiting for Bill to post the next installment of 3 Questions, TCM’s going to jump ahead of him here to look at the LA Dodgers (as always, click here to see other entries in the 3 Questions series). Of course, the danger of rolling these out over several weeks is that your initial questions may get answered, such as whether the divorce between Frank and Jamie McCourt will hamper the Dodgers’ ability to spend. Indeed, Frank has opened up his wallet this winter to re-sign Hiroki Koruda, and pick up free agents Juan Uribe and Jon Garland, amongst others. So here are the new and improved questions while we wait to see what the long term ramifications will be of the Dodger Divorce.

3 Question: Colorado Rockies

By The Common Man

Each year, the Rockies manage to surprise everyone and field a competitive squad. We won’t get fooled again. Colorado is in the crosshairs today with 3 questions.  As always, you can find previous installments of 3 Questions here.