"The Next Rays"

by R.J. Anderson on Feb 4, 2009 7:59 PM EST

Two weeks ago I had a post ready to go about how much I dislike this new topic. A few reasons stopped me from posting it, the biggest: everyone else is writing about this idea. Naturally, I see two more have popped up, including:

Sports Illustrated, February 3: 1. Detroit Tigers. The most expensive last-place team in history ($137 million) is bound to be better. The Tigers ranked 12th in the AL in runs allowed last season. Starting pitchers Justin Verlander, Nate Robertson and Jeremy Bonderman gave them 21 wins, 441 innings and a 5.33 ERA, vastly worse than the 38 wins, 553 2/3 innings and 4.44 they provided the previous season. Detroit's defense didn't help, either. Only the Rangers, Mariners and Yankees were worse among AL teams at turning batted balls into outs as manager Jim Leyland desperately sought the right combination of players in the right spots. Stellar defensive shortstop Adam Everett, the Tigers' version of Jason Bartlett, will help, as should the return of Brandon Inge to third base and Gerald Laird taking over the catching spot. Still, the season will turn on the rotation, and whether Verlander and Bonderman can return to form and whether Armando Galarraga and former Ray Edwin Jackson can build on their 2008 breakouts. With an improved defense and healthier starters, the Tigers will make a huge jump in run prevention.

Italics are mine, he lost me there. Then there's this one, where the writer compares the Arizona Cardinals and Rays -- a total slap in the Rays face -- to give the Mariners hope. That seems odd, given how well managed the Mariners have been thus far in the Jack Zduriencik era, but okay, fine.

The worst part is everyone is missing the "real" choice for "next Rays":

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

It should be reworded

Something more like “expect the Tigers to underachieve less this year.” It’s not like half the world wasn’t picking the Tigers to win it all going into last season.

I take it they’re not even mentioning Dontrelle Willis at this point? I find it oddly appropriate that the Tigers are stuck with this generation’s Mark Fidrych.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Feb 4, 2009 8:11 PM EST reply actions

McLouth needs to get out of CF

for the Pirates sake

by BrendanHarrisLives on Feb 5, 2009 1:00 AM EST reply actions

At least superficially there's a comparison

between the Cardinals and Rays. You know, longtime also rans, suddenly make it to the big dance but lose in the 1st crack at it. Don’t see why that would bug you so.

And why do you pick the Pirates? Is it a pirate thing – you guys having the Bucs and all. Or a long losing streak. I’m a closet Pirate fan – they’re my NL underdogs, have been for years. But I don’t really see the comp, unless it’s an org one and you like their new guys. But their system is still quite weak, and while they’re building the young base, still lots of holes. But maybe things will come together quickly if their starting pitchers approach their better performances of the past, some players that have wallowed a bit (the Laroches, Sanchez) come around, the breakthroughs (McLouth, Doumit) keep it up, Wilson hits, McCutchen blossoms, and Moss keeps improving. Pen after Capps and Grabow is a patch job, but maybe good things can happen. If nobody gets hurt much. Need some of those ex-Yankees to do something.

by nyyfaninlaaland on Feb 5, 2009 2:44 AM EST reply actions

Because it's easier for the Cardinals to win 9 than the Rays to win 97.

And it’s easier for the Cards to win 9 when they play six games against weak opponents. The Rays were in a division that had four of the five best teams in the American League.

Quick reasons on the Pirates:
- Old FO was incompetent, new FO seems more competent.
- Building on young talent by using their financial resources to lock them up
- Doesn’t give in to cliches or myths.
- Unafraid to strike a deal or sell high (which they did on Nady)

by R.J. Anderson on Feb 5, 2009 10:17 AM EST up reply actions

They don't have anyone close to Longo, Upton, Price, Kazmir, Shields, etc. though.

They have what like 2 possible future stars on that team? I’m unsure about Alvarez, and McCutchen doesn’t have close to the ceiling of Upton. They may be run similar to the Rays, but they are nowhere close in terms of becoming a top 10, let alone top 5, team.

It wasn’t just the savvy GM moves; this team also has a ton of young top-flight talent. There aren’t many teams that can compare in that department.

by rglass44 on Feb 5, 2009 11:16 AM EST up reply actions

They have a ton of young pitching.

by R.J. Anderson on Feb 5, 2009 11:26 AM EST up reply actions

KLaw disagrees

22. Pittsburgh Pirates: Improving, and, no, the two kids from India don’t really count. Jose Tabata’s return to form, if it’s real, gives the Pirates three potential impact guys (Andrew McCutchen and Pedro Alvarez are the other two), but they’re extremely light on pitching. Their willingness to spend money in the draft is a welcome change from the past 15 years of toeing the line.

by rglass44 on Feb 5, 2009 11:40 AM EST up reply actions

In the majors all ready...

Snell/Maholm, Lincoln’s recovering, and there’s always the guys they got from New York.

by R.J. Anderson on Feb 5, 2009 11:50 AM EST up reply actions

None o9f those guys are that good, though...

Snell has never had a sub-4 FIP. Maholm hasn’t either (other then in 41 IP his rookie year). Zach Duke is in about the same boat. None are particularly young, and none seem to have the top-end potential. They may be decent 3-5s, but none are close to our guys in potential (or results except for Price).

I just don’t think they are the candidate for “next Rays.” If anyone, I’d say the Rangers. They have what like 4 studs on the big league squad, and arguably the best farm in baseball.

by rglass44 on Feb 5, 2009 11:59 AM EST up reply actions