Our analyst does another terrific job in scoping out the upcoming season. Check out his picks for the AL East, including his hot players, then have your say here.

CITT, I love your views on baseball, but I have to say we'll never be in a slapfight over who the cutest players are. You think Ted Lilly is a cutie?? He looks like a schoolboy who's about to burst into tears at any minute. On a team with pitchers who look like like Pettitte, Clemens and Mussina you pick Ted Lilly?? My God, was David Wells too waif-like for you?

BTW, contrary to rumors, Luis Sojo did NOT retire to prepare for an eventual run for President of Venezuela. He is back in training camp, hitting .380, and seems a sure thing to make the roster.

BTW, you did redeem yourself a bit with your choice of Joe Kennedy (can we change his last name?)of Tampa Bay. SA - WOON !!! That boy is gorgeous!!

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Munson Man ]

Joe Kennedy is a real cutie for the Rays, with that blue-collar attitude/ethic that this former Pittsburgher loves. But....the hottie of hotties on that young team is catcher Toby Hall. Now, regarding the IMPORTANT stuff:

"Upside: ...It's a measure of Commissioner Bud's utter ineptitude that he and Carl Pohlad conspired to contract away the tradition-rich Minnesota Twins while this incompetent and unloved franchise was not even threatened. At least there's hot and talented players, albeit still raw and unharnessed, to give fans a reason to go to the rightfully maligned Tropicana Dome."

You make some really unwarranted statements here. Not that I want to see the Twins contracted, but to call them "tradition-rich" is a joke. They're only "loved" when they're winning. Otherwise, the Metrodome is a ghost town. I've been a Rays season ticket holder since Day 1. There is nothing -- repeat NOTHING -- wrong with Tropicana FIELD as a baseball venue that having a few fans in there wouldn't cure. This area, especially the Tampa side of the Bay, has an unnatural love of the Yankees, and until that is overcome, the Rays will be criticized as unloved. Incompetent...possibly. Owner Vince Naimoli is a megalomaniacal moron (I know, I worked for him years ago). The less involved he is, the better this franchise will get.

"Downside: If Tampa's starters are not absolutely stellar, the season could get ugly."

Absolutely true. Tanyon Sturtze has been awesome in spring training and will be the #1 guy in the rotation. Wilson Alvarez, after years of collecing seven-figure salaries and throwing only a handful of pitches, may be the biggest surprise. Kennedy is still a bit raw, and unfortunately, Nick Bierbrodt (another cutie) who looked so good last season has contracted Ankeil-itis and will be working out his problems in the minors. Jesus Colome has HOT STUFF in his hands, but needs some work before he can take over the closer's spot from Esteban "serve-it-up" Yan.

"Meanwhile, the outfield is a train wreck. Explain to me Ben Grieve: how does a skinny kid end up being that slow? Hopefully, D-Rays management will bring up superstar-in-waiting Josh Hamilton and let him play."

Grieve got really skinny (and more morose, if that's possible) after going on a virutal vegetarian diet. His production fell way off and I don't know what he'll do this year. Josh Hamilton is supposed to be the upcoming franchise player, but his back is as fragile as crystal and I think he'll end up being a bust. The Rays need to dump Greg Vaughn as soon as they can...that will help clarify the outfield with Jason Tyner, Randy Winn, Grieve, and/or Troy O'Leary.

Watch out for 1B Steve Cox (yet another cutie), who no longer has to play behind over-rated Fred McGriff. Expect great things from him.

Biggest question marks for the Rays: 3B (Jared Sandberg is the proposed starter, but his bat is weak, weak, weak) and SS (Chris Gomez is adequate, but hardly a Vizquel or Gonzalez).

Overall, I think 3rd in the AL East is generous. The Jays will be better than you think. But anything better than last is a big improvement for the Rays.

The Rays' young roster:
Of the Rays' 40-man roster: 21 have less than a year in the major leagues, 30 have less than three years, 34 are under 30 years of age, only 4 have more than 4 years in the majors, only 4 were expansion draft picks.
Of the 20 pitchers on the roster: 17 have 3 years or less in the major leagues.
Of the 28 pitchers in camp: only 1 has more than 5 years in the majors (Wilson Alvarez).

I like 'em young.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: raysnjays ]

It would be nice to see the D Rays grab third ahead of the Blue Jays. But I don't think its very likely. And I think the Yanks will win the division by at least 5 games.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by raysnjays:
[QB]
You make some really unwarranted statements here. Not that I want to see the Twins contracted, but to call them "tradition-rich" is a joke. They're only "loved" when they're winning. Otherwise, the Metrodome is a ghost town. [QB][QUOTE]

Well somebody's gotta defend the little guys, so pardon the rant!

While they are not the Yankees or Red Sox, calling the Twins "tradition rich" is not a joke. They've played in 3 World Series since moving to Minnesota, winning two. Those two are arguably among the greatest World Series ever played!

The list of teams that haven't even been to the World Series once in that time reads as follows: Astros, Expos, Cubs, White Sox, Angels, Rangers and Mariners. I won't count the Rockies and Devil Rays yet. Teams such as the Indians, Brewers and Padres have only been once.

Hall of Famers include Kirby Puckett, Rod Carew and Harmon Killebrew, along with other borderline HOFers Tony Oliva and Bert Blyleven.

The Twins team has always been loved. The reason for low attendance is the ownership. Would you pay $10 to go to a movie if you knew going in the screen would just be blank for two hours? Twins fans support the Twins not only when the team is winning, but when they are competitive. Pohlad should be forced to sell to an owner who will get into the free agent market and open up the pocketbook. And this season they are a legitimate contender certainly for the division title and possibly for the AL crown.

Hmm... nice preview. Good info, well done... but have to disagree with one thing:

1) The Devil Dogs? Third place? Really??? I would be so, so surprised. Way surprised. Did I mention surprised? You mention that they were better at the end of last season. True, but I wouldn't make too much of that. The Bengals are constantly a good second-half squad, aren't they?

Breaking down this team, I have severe concerns. There are some good young players: Toby Hall, Brent Abernathy, Jason Tyner... Ben Grieve could come back and be a great player again. But even if those four play at their highest level, this team will struggle Royally (read: like the Royals) to score runs this year. Greg Vaughn is a good candidate to be traded soon, and his .240 average won't scare anyone if he isn't. So do we look to the rotation? Tanyon Sturtze and Paul Wilson? Not exactly the guys you'd hang playoff hopes on. So how do they approach .500???

I think the Blue Jays may be underrated here. Mondesi, Cruz Jr., Shannon Stewart and Vernon Wells make up one of the finest outfields in baseball, and then there's Carlos Delgado.

If Tampa Bay finishes above Toronto this year, I will streak naked through the streets of Bristol, Conn.

BTW: Nice call on the Orioles. Truly a brutal team. I saw that a Washington Post writer is calling it a conspiracy, saying Peter Angelos is systematically getting rid of any reason to come to Camden Yards so that the fan base thins so much that the league won't think to add another team to the D.C. area. Food for thought...

Bill

Okay I thought the Devil Rays third was kind of cute and offbeat. But the Marlins to win the NL East? I don't know.

I see the Braves, Mets, Marlins, Phillies and Expos in that order.

I think CITT gave us the NL East for 2003 by mistake.

Nah, last year, CITT, predicted the Marlins would win the pennant...


NL EAST 2002

METS

Braves

Phillies

Marlins

Expos

GOOOOOOOOOO METS!!!!!!!!!

On the AL East:

No, I don't think Tampa Bay will beat out Toronto, but really none of the bottom three teams are very impressive. Tampa Bay's young, but none of their regular lineup strikes me as terribly exciting prospects. The Jays have more upside potential (I think Lopez and Vernon Wells will be better than any of TB's youngsters), though I agree that their pitching is likely to continue to suck. And Shannon Stewart their sexiest player? Really? I much prefer Jose Cruz and Carlos Delgado. As to Baltimore--their best hitters are 35-year olds who were never stars, even in their prime (Segui and Conine). That's frightening.

I do think the Red Sox will be a genuinely good team this year (at least 90 wins), but I think the Yankees should still finish ahead of them. The lineup isn't really that old (only Williams & Ventura are over 31), and Giambi will be a HUGE improvement over Martinez offensively. If White is healthy (a very big if) and Nick Johnson pans out as expected, this could be the best offense in the AL. The pitching I'm less sold on--I'd rather see them using Ted Lilly than Sterling Hitchcock and David Wells at this point in their careers. And the bullpen looks thin beyond Rivera. But I think there's still enough material for another division championship.

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: JC ]

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
I think CITT gave us the NL East for 2003 by mistake.

---

Has anyone checked to see how his 2001 predictions turned out? I mean, all of last year he kept talking about how the Phillies would drop completely out of the race and it never happened. And considering his continuing gratuitous shots at Philadelphia in general, I take anything he writes with a grain of salt...no, scratch that. Make that a whole damn bag of rock salt.

Edited to add: Oh, and don't underestimate the Phillies. I think Pat Burrell is gonna have a MONSTER year and make people forget all about Scott Rolen.

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

I have to disagree with CITT. Even tough I respect his views (he is one of the more intelligent posters on this board), the Marlins still need another year. And they need to do a better job hunting down some free agents. Though their pitching staff will be great some day, they are just not "there" yet.
The much improved Mets offense will best the marlins. Even the aging Braves have a better squad. And the first-half 2001 Phillies team was not a fluke, IMHO.
I do see this as a 4 team race up til the All-Star break. And though the Marlins will be a part of that fray, they do not have enough pieces assembled...yet. Now I have to qualify this. If they make a blockbuster trade a month before the trade deadline, then I might reconsider.
I'm still sticking by my original projection:
Braves...92 wins (Chipper kills Mets...again. Sheffield surprises everyone. Smoltz becomes NL closer of the year)
Mets...91 wins (Mo Vaughn proves too sporadic)
Phillies...86 wins (Rolen dazzles. Lack of pitching kills them down the stretch)
Marlins...79 wins (no significant power hitters)
Expos...does anyone care?

Twins first in the AL Central! I agree. I just hope the "Charlie in the Trees" jinx isn't as powerful as the Sports Illustrated jinx!

Charlie's tour continues with the AL West, where he says this year's World Champs will be found.

Predicted for the Marlins on the NL East page

[quote]2002 prediction: 88-78

---

This isn't possible under current baseball rules.

In addition, the total won-lost records don't add up. Since in every game there is a team that wins and a team that loses, if you add up all the won-lost records, there should be an equal number of wins and losses. But the AL teams' combined total is 14 games OVER .500, while the NL teams' total is either 10 or 18 games UNDER .500 (depending on whether the Marlins are given an 88-74 or an 84-78 record...see above, the 88-78 isn't possible).

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:
In addition, the total won-lost records don't add up. Since in every game there is a team that wins and a team that loses, if you add up all the won-lost records, there should be an equal number of wins and losses. But the AL teams' combined total is 14 games OVER .500, while the NL teams' total is either 10 or 18 games UNDER .500 (depending on whether the Marlins are given an 88-74 or an 84-78 record...see above, the 88-78 isn't possible).

---

Geez. And I thought I was anal.

The 88-78 is obviously a typo. No team plays 166 games. The Marlins prediction should read 88-74. Run the numbers and it's obvious the error lies in the loss column.

Assuming all games are played in a 162-game schedule, the combined final records of all 30 (or so) teams will be 2430-2430. If you add up my predictions as published (which two of us have done), with the four extra Marlin losses, you get a combined record of 2430-2434. The win total is right where it should be. The loss column is high by four, which is precisely the extra number of games in the Marlins prediction.

The AL was predicted to be 14 games over .500. Take away the four extra losses and that makes the NL 14 games under .500 (down from -18, which was the number with the typo). If one league is up by 14 games, the other will be down by that amount. I think the AL is the superior league right now - top to bottom - and I think that's about right for the edge they will have in inter-league play (notwithstanding the presence of the Orioles and Royals in the AL).

First off, thanks CITT for the great effort with your baseball forcast. While I may not agree with some of your choices, it sure was a fun read. Now here are my predictions.

AL East
Yankees
Red Sox
Blue Jays
Orioles
Devil Rays

AL Central
Twins
White Sox
Indians
Tigers
Royals

AL West
Mariners
A's (WC)
Angels
Rangers

NL East
Mets
Braves
Marlins
Phillies
Expos

NL Central
Cardinals
Cubs (WC)
Astros
Reds
Pirates
Brewers

NL West
Dodgers
Diamondbacks
Giants
Padres (oops!)
Rockies

Playoffs
Twins over A's
Yankees over Mariners

Mets over Cubs
Cardinals over Dodgers

Twins over Yankees (probably more wishful thinking than realistic, but a guy can dream!)

Cardinals over Mets

Twins over Cardinals in 7!

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: George_vikingfan ]

[quote]Originally posted by George_vikingfan:
Twins over Cardinals in 7!

---

I assume you're predicting another Twins' thrilling "home team wins every World Series game" series ... the AL does have home advantage in 2002.

More importantly: YOU CONTRACTED AWAY THE PADRES!
Granted, they're having trouble getting that new downtown stadium built, but do you really think Bud Selig is going to contract them away DURING the season?? It's possible, but that's low for Bud even.

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

I changed the Marlins record to 162-0.

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:
Predicted for the Marlins on the NL East page
This isn't possible under current baseball rules.

---

Sure it is ... If Bud Spite can loan Jeffrey Loria $138 M to take the Marlins off of Johhny-Boy Henry's hands, why not throw in four extra wins???

Yankees in the AL again (ugh!) and the Cardinals in the NL. Thw WS will be too close to call. But with Rivera, the Yanks should win it. And that is the problem with baseball in general. Not only do the Yankees have the best farm system in MLB, but the rest of the league acts as a farm system for the Yankees. It's disgusting.

I do think my D-backs have a shot at repeating (no one's giving them a chance), but they aren't getting any younger and need more offense. And how bout AZ getting a non-sidearm closer for a change. Mike Myers is good, but once you figure out sidearmers, it's games 4 and 5 in NY all over again!

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:


Geez. And I thought I was anal.

The 88-78 is obviously a typo.

---

I didn't even notice it until I went back to add up the figures. Unfortunately, my math error caused the other 4-game difference in my calculations.

The reason I undertook the exercise to begin with is that I think you're a tad overrated as the designated "expert" on baseball. Unlike others who will bow down before you, I won't.

So with that in mind, the Outsports baseball preview page says: "Score how Charlie In The Trees projected the 2001 Major League season." Okay, let's!

AL East: CITT picked the Yanks with 89 wins...not bad, though they had 95. But Boston finished 2nd instead of Toronto, and Baltimore finished 4th instead of Tampa, who finished with only 62 wins instead of the predicted 76.

AL Central: Right on the button with Cleveland's 91 wins. But Minnesota finished 2nd with 85 wins, not 66. And the predicted 3rd-place Royals won only 65 games, coming nowhere near the .500 mark as guessed.

AL West: Oakland the World Series champs? Ooops! They didn't even finish in first, as predicted. Perhaps it wouldn't be too fair to place blame, though...while the A's ended up winning 102 instead of CITT's guess of 94, Seattle ended up winning 116. That's a whopping 27 games more than predicted. On the other hand, he is an expert, so maybe he should've known!

NL East: The Braves did finish first, as predicted. But what happened to the 2nd-place Marlins? They ended up in 4th! Oh wait, I remember, Charlie kept announcing that the Phillies would collapse and they did, all the way to 86 wins. Not quite a Seattle-esque failure, as CITT was only off by 21 games.

NL Central: Not only did the Cards not win the NL title, but they didn't even finish first. That honor went to Houston, the predicted 3rd place finisher. And the Reds were 5th, not 2nd, while the Cubs were 3rd, not 6th.

NL West: CITT had the Giants for 91 wins and they got 90. Unfortunately for them, he had the D-Backs with 76 wins and they ended up winning 92, and going on to win the World Series. And the predicted NL Wild Card, the Rockies, finished a dismal 5th.

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:
The reason I undertook the exercise to begin with is that I think you're a tad overrated as the designated "expert" on baseball. Unlike others who will bow down before you, I won't.

---

If you think folks are bowing down in front of me, then obviously someone else is getting the oral sex that should be going to me.

As far as the faith I myself have in my predictions, let the record reflect that I live in Las Vegas -- the sports betting capital of the universe -- and I have never bet even one dime on any sports outcome I've predicted. If thought this was an exact science, I'd be betting the mortgage money on the Mariners to win the World Series this year. (And the odds for each non-Yankee team to win the World Series are very favorable right now at the sports books.)

That said: I stand behind my 2001 predictions. Six of eight playoff teams correctly forecasted, including all four in the AL. That included picking Seattle to make the playoffs when the entire media was predicting they'd be flat on their backs without A-Rod. It also included picking the Mets to go belly up when everyone else thought they would likely get back to the Series.

As far as Oakland winning the World Series ... if Jeter's not horribly out of position, but in the absolute perfect spot to intercept the wobbly throw from ... who was it? Shane Spencer? ... and if Jeremy Giambi does what every other major leaguer would have done and slid into home ... Oakland wins the ALDS and my pre-season World Series prediction would still have been on track.

Of course, I muffed it big time with the eventual World Series winner, the Arizona Diamondbacks, making the maximum error permitted by law on that one. (My prediction: last place.) And I totally missed the resurgence of the Cubs, Phillies and Twins.

As far as thinking the 2001 KC Royals would be a competitive .500 team ... man, what was I smoking? If I ever predict another team managed by Tony Muser to do anything other than stink worse than a chicken factory on a summer afternoon, just kill me. I'd already be clinically brain dead, so just go ahead and bury the corpse.

Hey, CITT, don't sweat it - I always enjoy your baseball musings, even if I don't always agree with them. As you said, it's not an exact science; nobody can get every pick right. Of course, if you talked about my Yankees the way you talk about Joe's Phillies, I probably wouldn't be as thrilled with you, either.

Well CITT - I like your previews - I really enjoy baseball but since I actually know very little except who's hot on the field I take your word as baseball gospel. I go to work & spout your opinions - I sound like i know what I'm talkin a bout!

Geez way to suck the fun right out of this topic! So CITT misses some picks. Show me a single prognosticator from last season who picked the Twins and Phillies to be contenders. Or the DBacks to win the Series. Or that the Mariners would win 116 games. I can tell you from running the NFL Pick 'Em game and the NCAA tournament brackets that there are very few people threatening Ms. Cleo's job security

Predicting baseball standings in March is only slightly more scientific than palmistry, especially when July trades and season- ending injuries are utterly unknowable. (You can bet that KC and Pittsburgh aren't going to be among those bidding for Pudge and Rolen, of course.)

I admire CITT for being willing to put his "brass balls" on the line, win totals and all. I can't for the life of me figure out the NL West -- every team except perhaps Colorado seems worse to me -- and I appreciated CITT saying the Rockies could finish first (my pick) or last (his).

Won't it be a dull year if all the "favorites" repeat again? Hope someone (even the Cubs?) upsets the applecart...

Love him or hate him CITT offers thoughtful (and fun) commentary on a game we all love. As far as predictions go, CITT has done far better than most!

As for the race I watch most closely - I think CITT overrated the Marlins and that the Braves/Mets rivalry will be closer than ever this year - edge to the Braves who have just enough added spark this year (Furcal is back, more pop at the plate with Sheffield) to pull it off.

I don't have CITT's balls so I won't make any other public predictions for the season!