Doubts about the Phillies?

[Backtobanks]

In today's Tribune, Phil Rogers (yeah, I know) expresses his opinion that the Phillies may not even win the the NL East because of their aging and declining hitters. I guess he doesn't remember what the no offense/great pitching Giants did last year. Compared to the 2010 Giants, the Phillies offense looks like the 1927 Yankees. Short of some major injuries, I can't see how you can't pick the Phillies to rule the East.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/sc-spt-0306-notes-rogers-baseball--20110305,0,7811217.column

[Sammy Sofa]

Eh, it's baseball; a lot can happen. Wouldn't surprise me at all if the Phillies got hit with a couple key injuries that knocked them back.

[Backtobanks]

Eh, it's baseball; a lot can happen. Wouldn't surprise me at all if the Phillies got hit with a couple key injuries that knocked them back.

 

Of course a lot can happen, especially injuries. My point is that I can't see anybody not picking the Phillies in the NL East at this point. If Halladay and/or Lee gets seriously injured, then obviously I might reconsider.

[CubColtPacer]

As bearish as I am on the Phillies long-term, I still think they have to be a favorite this year. The offense is declining fast but it should be good enough to win a lot this year with that pitching staff.

[Sammy Sofa]

Eh, it's baseball; a lot can happen. Wouldn't surprise me at all if the Phillies got hit with a couple key injuries that knocked them back.

 

Of course a lot can happen, especially injuries. My point is that I can't see anybody not picking the Phillies in the NL East at this point. If Halladay and/or Lee gets seriously injured, then obviously I might reconsider.

 

So why did you link to that editorial? He was just saying the Phillies weren't a lock.

[NewUserName]

I think Cliff Lee is going to be a mild disappointment and the Phillies will still be very good.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Eh, it's baseball; a lot can happen. Wouldn't surprise me at all if the Phillies got hit with a couple key injuries that knocked them back.

 

Of course a lot can happen, especially injuries. My point is that I can't see anybody not picking the Phillies in the NL East at this point. If Halladay and/or Lee gets seriously injured, then obviously I might reconsider.

 

Thats pretty much true with any team, take out one of their pitchers, and it hurts their chances, IE The Cardinals and Wainright.

 

Besides, if there was such a thing as a lock or a sure thing in baseball, wed be looking at the 2004, 2008 and 2009 World Champion Chicago Cubs.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

Besides, if there was such a thing as a lock or a sure thing in baseball, wed be looking at the 2004, 2008 and 2009 World Champion Chicago Cubs.

 

Uhhhh

[Sammy Sofa]

Hey, his baseball analysis is as spotty as his yacht analysis.

[Soul]

What's the point of this? It's not OK to even doubt the Phillies or something?

 

Perhaps every writer should just line up and spit out the status quo. That makes for entertaining reading.

 

Frankly I don't want to hear from any of these bozos unless they can come up with a reason why the Phillies might not win the East, or the NL. Anything that just states the obvious pick is a waste of my time.

[Little Slide Rooter]

 

Besides, if there was such a thing as a lock or a sure thing in baseball, wed be looking at the 2004, 2008 and 2009 World Champion Chicago Cubs.

 

Uhhhh

 

They sure as hell looked like the best team on paper each of those years. If healthy, 2004 would have looked like an all star team. In '08 and '09, they were certainly the best team in the NL on paper.

[Backtobanks]

My point in posting this is that Rogers hinted that he wasn't going to pick the Phillies when he makes his predictions. I totally understand how injuries and/or age can affect a team, but until either one shows up the Phillies are the best team in the NL East.

[Sammy Sofa]

My point in posting this is that Rogers hinted that he wasn't going to pick the Phillies when he makes his predictions. I totally understand how injuries and/or age can affect a team, but until either one shows up the Phillies are the best team in the NL East.

 

Rogers was explaining why he thinks the Phillies aren't a lock to win the East. He may very well not pick them, but you're stretching things using that article to complain that people aren't picking the Phillies when they should. Besides, it's ridiculous to act like someone is "wrong" if they don't pick the Phillies. Do you expect everyone to pick who makes the playoffs solely based on the teams on paper without weighing other factors like age and regression and injury?

[Sammy Sofa]

 

Besides, if there was such a thing as a lock or a sure thing in baseball, wed be looking at the 2004, 2008 and 2009 World Champion Chicago Cubs.

 

Uhhhh

 

They sure as hell looked like the best team on paper each of those years. If healthy, 2004 would have looked like an all star team. In '08 and '09, they were certainly the best team in the NL on paper.

 

What?

 

The '08 team certainly had an impressive season, but they weren't all that exceptional going into the season on paper. A good team, sure, but the "best team in the NL?" Same with '09.

[Sammy Sofa]

 

Besides, if there was such a thing as a lock or a sure thing in baseball, wed be looking at the 2004, 2008 and 2009 World Champion Chicago Cubs.

 

Uhhhh

 

They sure as hell looked like the best team on paper each of those years. If healthy, 2004 would have looked like an all star team. In '08 and '09, they were certainly the best team in the NL on paper.

 

What?

 

The '08 team certainly had an impressive season, but they weren't all that exceptional going into the season on paper. A good team, sure, but the "best team in the NL?" They were even less impressive going into '09, especially given who they were relying on and how old the team was.

[Backtobanks]

My point in posting this is that Rogers hinted that he wasn't going to pick the Phillies when he makes his predictions. I totally understand how injuries and/or age can affect a team, but until either one shows up the Phillies are the best team in the NL East.

 

Rogers was explaining why he thinks the Phillies aren't a lock to win the East. He may very well not pick them, but you're stretching things using that article to complain that people aren't picking the Phillies when they should. Besides, it's ridiculous to act like someone is "wrong" if they don't pick the Phillies. Do you expect everyone to pick who makes the playoffs solely based on the teams on paper without weighing other factors like age and regression and injury?

 

I didn't "stretch things" to complain that people aren't picking the Phillies when they should. This was strictly about Rogers having doubts about the Phillies and not picking them in the NL East. To answer your question, yes I would expect everyone to pick the best teams on paper at this point (preseason) since age, regression, and injuries (except Wainwright) haven't appeared yet.

[Sammy Sofa]

That's ridiculous.

[Soul]

Writers like this are being paid to come up with interesting things to say.

 

Regurgitating the common pick for the 10,000th time is most definitely not interesting.

[TruffleShuffle]

i like how the 2004 cubs have been turned into the 1927 yankees in some people's minds. the reason everyone was so high on them was because they had great starting pitching and people associate that with winning in the playoffs. in reality, the 2004 cubs had a mediocre offense with not enough OBP capability and a bullpen that repeatedly blew close games (which they played a lot of, because their offense didn't score enough runs)

[Little Slide Rooter]

 

Besides, if there was such a thing as a lock or a sure thing in baseball, wed be looking at the 2004, 2008 and 2009 World Champion Chicago Cubs.

 

Uhhhh

 

They sure as hell looked like the best team on paper each of those years. If healthy, 2004 would have looked like an all star team. In '08 and '09, they were certainly the best team in the NL on paper.

 

What?

 

The '08 team certainly had an impressive season, but they weren't all that exceptional going into the season on paper. A good team, sure, but the "best team in the NL?" They were even less impressive going into '09, especially given who they were relying on and how old the team was.

 

Ill give you 2008, but all of the 2009 pre season had the NL Central, and possibliy the NL as The Cubs and everyone else. Theyd just come off an amazing season, and had supposedly found that one missing puzzle piece, and "got more left handed".

[Sammy Sofa]

Ill give you 2008, but all of the 2009 pre season had the NL Central, and possibliy the NL as The Cubs and everyone else. Theyd just come off an amazing season, and had supposedly found that one missing puzzle piece, and "got more left handed".

 

It was an amazing season propped up performances that weren't likely to either be repeated or sustained, and few people (even those that were optimistic about how he would do) saw Bradley as the "missing piece of the puzzle." Just because they were picked to likely win a crappy division if they stayed healthy is still pretty [expletive] far from what you initially said.

[Little Slide Rooter]

i like how the 2004 cubs have been turned into the 1927 yankees in some people's minds. the reason everyone was so high on them was because they had great starting pitching and people associate that with winning in the playoffs. in reality, the 2004 cubs had a mediocre offense with not enough OBP capability and a bullpen that repeatedly blew close games (which they played a lot of, because their offense didn't score enough runs)

 

This discussion is geared toward what they were projected to be, not what they actually were, and when you took the rotation that should have been and a lineup boasting Sammy Sosa, Moises Alou, Aramis Ramirez, Derrek Lee, and future star Corey Patterson, it was hard to imagine that team missing out on the playoffs.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Ill give you 2008, but all of the 2009 pre season had the NL Central, and possibliy the NL as The Cubs and everyone else. Theyd just come off an amazing season, and had supposedly found that one missing puzzle piece, and "got more left handed".

 

It was an amazing season propped up performances that weren't likely to either be repeated or sustained, and few people (even those that were optimistic about how he would do) saw Bradley as the "missing piece of the puzzle." Just because they were picked to likely win a crappy division if they stayed healthy is still pretty [expletive] far from what you initially said.

 

They were picked to take the NL and run with it, and there really wasnt much competiton in the NL period. The Phillies had the offense, but they didnt have the pitching. With CC and Sheets gone, the Brewers werent likely to be a threat, and the Cards had Pujols and Wainright and that was about it. The NL should have been the Cubs for the taking.

[Sammy Sofa]

No. By and large they were predicted to be a very solid team that should have been in the mix at the top of the NL so long as they stayed healthy. A couple people talking about them "running away with it" is just awful, awful analysis and was not the general prediction.

[17 Seconds]

I think Cliff Lee is going to be a mild disappointment and the Phillies will still be very good.

 

any reason? i know he isn't going to a friendly ballpark, but he was still a beast in arlington and that's about as bad as it gets