Cards/ White Sox was Sports Illustrated's prediction. What do you all think? I would like to see the Cards in it, but not sure it will happen. I think the Sox are overrated a little. They seriously overachieved last year. I don't think they do it again, and I also think they're in for a letdown thinking they'll get much out of Thome. If I had to choose, I'd guess someone out of the AL West will represent the AL this year (I just can't figure out which team, probably the Angels).

I don't think the cards will be there...

Did you see Baseball Weekly this week? They're calling for the sixth-straight surprise team to win it and their pick is Philly.

Philly might be able to do it, I would more likely think the Mets. Does Philly have any pitching at all?

From the AL, I would guess someone like Oakland (I like their pitching).

I see the Brewers being an awfully good team this year. Especially if Koskie bounces back at 3B.

I'm picking Anaheim, Cleveland, Boston, New York to make AL playoffs.

Indians winning World Series. Mark it.

Oakland, New York, Cleveland, Boston
Los Angeles, St. Louis, New York, Atlanta

Oakland, Cleveland
St. Louis, New York

Oakland
New York

Oakland

I'm a Chicagoan, but I think Cleveland wins the AL Central and goes to the WS against the Cardinals. The NL is so much weaker than the AL.

Word. I'm not sure that ANY NL team could make the playoffs this year in the AL..not even the Cardinals. Of course it is a long season and a lot can happen...but the NL just looks weak right now. Lots of up-and-coming promising teams in the NL..especially in the Central....so I could see that changinin in 2007.

Koop, u seriously just became my favorite FCP poster.

Cleveland is cursed, but the curses seem to be finally lifting, hopefully cleveland's is next.

Uh...Cleveland is cursed???........they haven't been that bad lately.......have they??

The whole curse thing is out of hand. LA fans think the Dodgers are cursed because they haven't won a playoff series since 1988. It has been something like 60 years since Cleveland has won, but that doesn't mean it's a curse.

The Royals are suffering from the "Wal-Mart Curse," right!?!?!?

the city of cleveland have not won any sports championships in over 40 years...definately cursed...

cursed with...

bad luck

bad owners

bad GMs

bad players

bad weather

the mistake on the lake

"the shot"(jordan over ehlo, y'all have seen it, it haunts my dreams, lol)

"the drive"(Elway takes broncos 99 yard in under 4 minutes to tie the 1986 AFC championship, Browns lose in OT)

"the fumble"(Ernest Byner fumbles going into the endzone to what would have been the game tying TD in the 1987 AFC championship game, Browns lose AGAIN)

Art Modell moves Browns to Baltimore(hopefully Modell burns in hell)

Jose Mesa(Game 7, 1997 world series 9th inning, indians up one, Craig council Sac Fly ties game, CRAIG FREAKING COUNCIL

I could go on, but it would hurt to much

Cubs win it all and Harry Carey comes back from the dead to lead the parade.



Hey, you have the rock and roll hall of fame.

and Drew Carey

Born and raised in cleveland - i'll take all your cleveland money - no way are they winning it

I predict the St Louis Cardinals will finish 142-20 and lose in the first round of the playoffs to the 80-82 san diego padres

Is that just the fans that live in LA??? Because I didnt get that memo

I only know about the fans that live in LA. That started calling it the curse of Mickey Hatcher or something stupid like that.

i think cleveland has a good argument just because every time they get close something funky happens and they look stupid

the red sox thing started obviously with the mookie debacle

usually the real curse in no cash and bad management

I doubt the Padres will even make the playoffs. Los Angeles is MUCH improved, and I think the Wild Card will come out of the Central or East. Watch out for Joel Guzman of the Dodgers this year.

shhhhhhhhh

Umm, White Sox pwn Cleveland. Sabathia went down early last night as well. Not a good start to the season for the Tribe.

The White Sox have the best rotation in the bigs. By like a brazillion miles. No one is even close to being as deep as they are.

Oakland's is pretty damn good too. Chicago's is better...but the gap isn't THATTT wide. J. Vazquez hasn't been been that good the past two years....and Jon Garland had three just okay years before having one real good year last year...and same with Contreras and Garcia. Basically...they all had great years last year at the exact same time, which is great and they are a great rotation...but let's not get too ahead of ourselves here......a lot can happen over the course of the year. Not out of the question that Garland and others don't have nearly as good of years this year.

I totally agree. Even with Zito getting knocked around tonight.

Damn, did he look bad tonight though...chalk it up to early sesason jitters.

Yeah, Oakland is great 1-2, but after that... not so much. Haren is scary and Loaiza has really come back to Earth after that one great season in 2003. Are they going to have a steady no. 5 guy?

I totally agree. I think only Buerhle and Garcia are as good as they pitched last year. I still think they're a good team, just not as strong as most people think.

Yeah...Loaiza did come back to earth...but he is still fairly good. Also...you would think that some Chicago fans would have learned from Loaiza's one good year to not over-value Garland's one good year...but clearly a lot of those fans think that he is a great pitcher too now. I think Garland will be "coming back down to Earth" as well. So, yes, I agree that right now Chicago's staff is the best...I just think that the gap isn't as wide as you think it is. They all pretty much had career years last year (or at least very very good years)...and you just can't expect that every year.

Yes, Garland and Contreras had the best seasons they've had to date, but I don't think you can compare Garland to Loaiza. Here's the big difference: Loaiza was 32 and had spent 8 mediocre seasons in the bigs before having his one great fluke year. Garland, on the other hand was only 25, and had pitched essentially 200 innings in 3 straight seasons prior to his breakout year. If Loazia was gonna be a stud, he would've realized his potential before he turned 32. I think there's still plenty of room for Garland to prove he can be a stud in the long term. He's always had good stuff, he just needed to mature and learn to work out of jams. I'm not saying I think he's gonna win 18 games again this year, but I think he'll be a consistent 15 game winner.

I'm not saying that Garland has no chance of being a stud in his career...all I am saying is that Garland has only had one real good year...and the rest have just been decent....thus, it takes more than one good year to be a stud. That's all.