Historically bad watch

[thegreycat]

As I survey the MLB landscape this year, it's disappointing to not see a team that has an obvious chance to be Historically Bad. Last year's Nationals had that potential, and while they were truly awful, they were far from the '03 Tigers. The only team that scares me, if I were a fan, is the Pittsburgh Pirates. They were positively abysmal after

Comments

[vaticanplum]

There is NO WAY the Reds have a winning record. None.

I'm on point with a lot of the rest of your predictions, though, except for the AL Central. Geez, I expect KC to get better, but not THAT much better. I think I'd say Cleveland, Minnesota, Chicago, KC, Detroit.

The AL West is baaaaaaaaaad.

[thegreycat]

I think there's going to be a lot of parity in baseball this year outside of the AL East. I think baseball's three best teams are Boston, the Yanks, and the Rays. I'm wondering if I've over-ranked the Reds because I adore you, Annie. But....Arroyo and Harang will be much better. The kids will get better. They could be over .500.

[stalwartkumquat]

ach, it's taken me far too long to respond to this. in my defense, though, i didn't think any of us were still posting. :)

i really enjoy these predictions. two thingies in particular to say:

1) the A's. did you see the ESPN article about how they may well be a threat to be reckoned with? thoughts/counterances?

2) the Yanks. i agree with their place within the standings (well, mostly; I think they'll squeak by Tampa Bay for the wild card), but not with your A-Rod statement. i think the Yanks are a more focused, looser, maybe even more cohesive team without A-Rod there. (like the Rangers were.)

also,

[stalwartkumquat]

if the mets do lose by one game yet again this year, i expect you to be a character witness in my defense at my murder trial.

though i appreciate you giving them the wild card. this was kind of you.