With Liturgical Renewal and the simple fact that Holy Week is not what it used to be, Palm Sunday is a fast fading tradition in the church today. It is quickly being supplanted with what we refer to as "Passion Sunday" which as one can imagine changes the focus of the service from Christ's entry into Jerusalem to Christ's Passion (suffering and death). The standard practice is quickly becoming to begin with a Palm Sunday gospel reading, process into the church waving palms to "All Glory, Laud, and Honor" and then essentially transitioning to the Passion narrative.
One thought is this is the way it should be. Passion Sunday properly puts Palm Sunday in its place, as a set up for what happens in Jerusalem. This kind of order puts the cries of "Hosanna" in contrast to the cries of "Crucify Him!" There is something to be said for the power of that, and the way it does resist a triumphalism about the entry into Jerusalem. This system also allows the lectionary to give you "two passions", namely a passion according to whatever synoptic Gospel you are on for that year (this year it is Luke) and then the reading of John's Passion on Good Friday. Of note here is that John takes a particularly different approach to the passion story than Matthew, Mark, or Luke.
Along with theological and liturgical reasoning for the transition, comes simply the practical argument which is what I said before, "Holy Week is not what it used to be." And there is certainly truth to this. I'm too young to have seen this, but it was still not all that long ago when businesses would close down from 12-3 on Good Friday, so one could go to church. Contrast this with a memory of mine from high school when at our Good Friday early service, the choir outnumbered the rest of the congregation! And this is not some large choir, we're only talking about 8-10 people outnumbering the rest of the congregation. Maundy Thursday can be even worse. Some churches and traditions do not even do services on it, electing to bunch it in with Friday. And if you are only going to pick one service during Holy Week, Maundy Thursday ain't gonna be it, not unless your church has marked it with something special that has a particular attraction to it (first communion, seder meals, foot washing - although the latter might even scare a few off). With attendance to midweek worship services dwindling, with Holy Week not being what it used to be to so many church goers, the practical cry for a Passion Sunday is perhaps the most relevant. Because of whatever liturgical, theological, and practical perks there are to putting Palm and Passion Sunday together, they do not compare to the liturgical, theological, and therefore practical issue of going from Palm Sunday to Easter Sunday with nothing in between. The lackluster attendance for Maundy Thursday and Good Friday means a great number, in fact perhaps a majority of members are missing the Passion story from their worship! It really undoes much of the work of the liturgical calendar and lectionary (particularly from Christmas to Easter) and if one is afraid of triumphalism and churches avoiding anything close to theology of the cross, going from Hosanna to Alleluia with no Crucify Him is a good way to do it. And so perhaps the best argument truly is the practical one, that is, Passion Sunday makes sure we aren't skipping the passion in the life of our church.
But now we must stop so that I may object. I hold that there is certainly great concern here, but I hold that the hijacking of Palm Sunday is not the answer. Quite frankly, the move to turn Palm Sunday into Passion Sunday fails to truly recognize that Palm Sunday is in itself a key and essential moment in the Jesus narrative. It is one of only a handful of events recorded in all four gospels, which should be the first hint that from the beginning, this stood out in Christ's ministry. It's connection to the Old Testament and Messianic fulfillment also are of particular note in the gospels. If we take Luke's Gospel as a mere example, Luke notes particularly throughout the Gospel that Christ is moving towards Jerusalem, and when we get to the Palm Sunday text he gives us nearly a play by play. The story slows downs significantly for this event, doesn't anyone think we should pay attention to that theologically and liturgically? Of all of the Gospel readings we do through the year, in what way does the Palm Sunday Gospel, which the authors of the Gospel intentionally slow down to speak about, why is that Gospel reading not worthy or worth its own Sunday? The liturgy and lectionary tend towards far more obscure and Passionless moments in the Gospel yet see some big issue in the dramatic unfolding of the story in letting Palm Sunday be Palm Sunday, and in doing so, it gets significantly undercut.
Furthermore, if we were to speak "practically", it is impractical to give us a "processional Gospel" along with a two-chapter Passion story (not counting the Old Testament, Psalm, and Epistle Reading) and expect there to be time for a good sermon on either. What I usually hear is no sermon, or a brief sermon, or a few words trying to tie the Palm story to the Passion story. If you are worried about triumphalism, or some Palm Sunday experience that is without serious reflection on the entry in relation to the cross, then don't bloat the readings to the point that one has no time to really preach on it. Dare I say, that if all these other obscure moments in the gospel are either ok to be read on their own, or we truly trust that our preaching will use that to proclaim none other than Christ and him crucified then why don't we have the same trust over Palm Sunday preaching? Why are we tending towards scriptural overkill (which dare I say may take away from reading any of it) in place of solid preaching. The other significant issue is this much content in readings can also really take away the details. Not only is the pastor on time constraints, but pastor has such a vast narrative to cover that reaching into the rich details of texts (especially ones that lie uniquely in this Gospel or that Gospel) also often disappears.
Let me also get picky as to how this is bad for Holy Week itself. The first argument is that it enables missing Maundy Thursday and Good Friday. I tend to disagree here. That is, attending those services are still quite different from Passion Sunday. Perhaps a case can be made that those who never attend midweek services do not realize this, so the fact that Good Friday tenebrae services or seven last words or adoration of the cross, or whatever else Good Friday tradition you can think of, maybe those folks don't realize how different that is from Passion Sunday, so Passion Sunday will do for them. But that stands true in a Palm or Passion Sunday world. Simply put, if you don't go to church in a Palm Sunday tradition, you're not going to go in a Passion Sunday tradition. I'm not sure enabling is the proper term. Accommodating? Yes, perhaps. But one could call accommodating the same as preaching. That is, in the name of its mission the church has historically tried to find ways to be flexible, that is, to get the message to the people. Passion Sunday can make that argument, it gets the passion to the people who don't get there midweek, even though the midweek services still have their own integrity and uniqueness. However, our current lectionary is rather flawed in the way it uses Passion Sunday. Part of this is a consequence of the pure stupidity of being a three year instead of four year lectionary. At this critical juncture in the story (same with Easter season), it really jumbles up the journey through a single Gospel. Yes there are already times in the lectionary that we make an occasional foray into John, but the general mode of the Revised Common Lectionary has been to really work through a single gospel at a time, allowing one to work from its unique witness, and hear the story (somewhat) as that author intended, let God speak from a single Gospel rather than past movements at Gospel harmonization, which cared more about making it seem like an interchangable story than God's Word intending on and utilizing different emphases and narratives for a reason. In Holy Week however, this principle falls to the wayside. You get the entire Luke Passion put on Passion Sunday to assure you that you won't preach on the unique details of Luke's Passion (or the unique details of Luke's entry into Jerusalem). When the rest of the year you essentially labor through one Gospel and focus on that, we crash course that entire account of the Passion (even though it is the main focus and longest account of the Gospels) in a single day and we spend Maundy Thursday and Good Friday in John's Gospel, even though John records no Last Supper (so we turn to Corinthians) and John's understanding of the Passion is quite different from the Synoptics. This is what Passion Sunday and the lectionary using it do to Holy Week, it takes us away from really honoring the narrative journey we have been going through and defaults back to harmonization mode that wants to place the last supper into John.
If you see no problem in this system, remember again how big details can be. Only Matthew's Gospel utilizes those key words in the Words of Institution "for the forgiveness of sins", but how likely will that get preached on, seriously preached on, when it is only ever read as part of the massive Passion Sunday reading and not a part of Maundy Thursday when we truly pause and focus on the Last Supper and institution of the Lord's Supper. And dare I say we do our midweek worshipers a disservice by them only getting John then regularly for those midweek services, it actually limits what Holy Week can be. Additionally, it also means that while we give our non-midweek worshipers a crash course on the Passion with Passion Sunday, it means they will not hear John's account of the Passion, which is different. Thus Passion Sunday not only affects how our church celebrates, understands, and preaches Palm Sunday, but it affects how it celebrates Holy Week.
One of these problems goes to a bigger problem of having a three rather than four year lectionary, and thus is not entirely the fault of Passion Sunday, however the utilization of Passion Sunday fuels this problem. The greater one is the problem with our ability to truly understand the Passion as more than something to breeze through and pack into a single event, including not just the integrity of those various parts: supper, garden, trial, crucifixion. But also the entry into Jerusalem itself. By being seen as part of Holy Week, even though the act is often separated by other "in Jerusalem" content between the entry and passover and crucifixion accounts (such as cleansing the temple in the synoptic gospels), it is nonetheless clear that the entry is itself seen as a part of this narrative. It is seen as crucial in the gospels themselves. It deserves as much as Maundy Thursday and Good Friday, and Transfiguration, and Baptism of Jesus, and Christmas, and Pentecost, and feeding of the 5000, and parable of sower, it deserves as much as all of these its own day and its own sermon, and the liturgical aim and focus being on this event, because like all of these, it is part of the story of Christ's passion. The gospels are about the cross and telling that story. And we ought to see the importance of each day tending towards that. I think we can clearly and without having to read the entire passion in one sitting still look at the entry into Jerusalem as more than just some triumphant glory parade, we are able to do that effectively with other messianic texts.
Now what shall we do? If I were a part of conversations of the next liturgical renewal, I would make Palm Sunday about Palm Sunday. I would also make a four year lectionary to start, so we can get a year to each Gospel's unique telling of the Passion. I would see Palm Sunday as part of the Palm Sunday - Maundy Thursday - Good Friday - Easter liturgical "drama" if you will. Each one letting us focus and really work through the story as it unfolds and is given. Holy Week still has its merit. It gives us a real time line, it immerses us, breaks up the story. But part of that merit only happens if one day is Hosanna and the next is you will betray me and the next is crucify him and then it is he is risen. Passion Sunday interrupts and downplays that experience and that intentional day by day transition. It also kind of treats the listeners like idiots, or newcomers to the story. As if those who jump from Hosanna one Sunday to Alleluia the next have no real idea what happened in between. That is, it acts like this is the only way we talk about his death or experience his death. And yet at the same time take away from that experience by interrupting the Holy Week movement.
The other real limitation here, which the liturgical calendar somewhat does, is it binds us so strictly to the Holy Week movement that we act like the story of the passion can occur nowhere else within the life of the church. The passion is essential to our life, it is the central story of the Gospels, and maybe with a four year lectionary (removing John from its places here and there where we insert it into another Gospel's year) one could have plenty of other opportunities to preach it and read its parts in church. Maybe instead of Lent being so oriented towards the journey to Jerusalem and the cross, being so Holy Week heavy, if Holy Week is falling out of regular practice for many instead of trying to jam the Passion into one Sunday to accommodate that absence of Holy Week attendees more of Lent should be about really focusing on the Passion itself. Imagine for example if that season was largely dedicated to the Passion only, reading it little bit by little bit, really focusing on it and dwelling in it. That would do more justice and orient the church more to the Passion and then the Easter joy than any Palm to Passion Sunday extravaganza would ever do. If the message of Lent is the centrality of Holy Week, perhaps we should show that by spending more of our Sunday actually in Holy Week rather than "preparing" for it. Or if that doesn't float your boat, you like the preparation and drawing out towards the great Holy Week Drama, well then again you shouldn't like Passion Sunday because it kinda really lets down on that drama. It doesn't give it the real time Lent suggests it deserves. But again we should come to liturgy and liturgical calendars and lectionaries being to help our preaching of the cross, not hinder it. Then have a passion Sunday some other time. Maybe instead of random sermon series in the summer (when so many churches abandon the lectionary anyways) spending a summer going through the passion. Other readings repeat themselves at different times in the year, repeating the passion, or parts of it, elsewhere is certainly appropriate. This already happens somewhat with Christ the King Sunday at the end of the liturgical year. One year Christ is on the cross, another he is on trial. It should show us how the Passion narrative need not be locked into Holy Week.
This should show us that the real problem here is some need to box the Passion into Holy Week, and then the struggle to do that when half our members are not attending Holy Week services during the week. But the solution damages what is actually done and the purposes/journey of Holy Week, and it encourages this concept that the Passion story somehow only belongs this week. But it doesn't, because it is something we as the baptized are called to be drawn into daily. By washing and renewal, by dying to sin and rising to new life. If the cross and resurrection is the center of our story and so much of our worship, faith, and theology hinges on it, then getting so caught up in the Lent to Holy Week drama that we limit the passion to Holy Week ignores or in some way acts against our confession of faith. I think Holy Week is good. I think the step by step yet still in one week immersing in that narrative is powerful, and the sense of time is important. But that must not be the end of the cross for us as a church, and thus it need not be the end of it for our reading and preaching on Sundays. I simply think it is better to give Holy Week, as well as Sunday readings of the Passion more credit than what we do. I don't think accommodation for proclamation needs to be done in a way that takes away from that. I think it is good to let Palm Sunday be about Hosanna. I find it funny that for how much our lectionary can jump between gospels, readings, and pericopes, that we have such a get up on going from Palm Sunday to Easter Sunday, as if that is the most outrageous jump liturgically. As if preaching that day will be cross-less. I find it interesting that we spend an entire season about approaching the passion and then think rushing through it is an acceptable accommodation and alternative when people aren't coming on Maundy Thursday - Good Friday.
In my new parish, I asked the worship and music committee "do we do Palm or Passion Sunday here", there was a bit of confusion as to what I meant. So I explained, and the overwhelming response was "We do Palm". Now I'm not sure if they have never done Passion, I'm guessing they have, if for no other reason simply because the worship planning resource they use does a Palm to Passion transition. Consider this, that the Palm part stood out. That they wanted this Sunday to be about Palm Sunday. That if the Passion was getting read there on that Sunday, it did not have the same hold or impact, or meaning as simply the beginning "processional Gospel" and waving the branches in the air as we sing "All Glory, Laud, and Honor". The first seven minutes of the service had more hold than the next 50 in terms of how they defined and understood this Sunday. People want to live into Palm Sunday, and I don't think it has to do with trying to escape the cross. I think it has to do with the power of Holy Week when done in parts. They remember them more. They get to liturgically live them. They get to hold the Palm Branch and wave it, and that sticks out more than two chapters of the Gospel of Luke and a three to five minute sermon.
Ironically, this also speaks of the value of our midweek worship, which people are seeing as less and less important. Maybe part of resurrecting that is making it the way you get the cross in holy week, and letting people experience each service as its part of the drama. If Palm Sunday has that great, different, and memorable feel to it, then Maundy Thursday and Good Friday have that too more than Passion Sunday. Then Easter has that too, the special Easter cries, the resurrecting the word "Alleluia" the Lillies and dresses, the white paraments. We live into these days in a special way, and that integrity still matters.
Passion Sunday also presents us with a real issue to consider as a church: namely, sporadic attendance. If we are so concerned about missing midweek worship, perhaps we should consider that regular attendance in general is getting less common. If we are so outraged at our regulars/semi-regulars going from Hosanna to Alleluia how about all those folks who go from "Gloria" (Christmas) to "Alleluia" (Easter), or those who go from Christmas Eve to Second Sunday after Epiphany, or miss the summer, or are harvesting in the fall. Is it illusion or is it a liturgical dramatization that is so fragile that we panic when part of the story is missed? Granted it is a central part of the story, but again then we should ask ourselves why we read it only one week a year anyways. And if we are so concerned about folks missing the story, then we ought to think about reading the whole Passion on Easter morning. Then we can connect crucify him to he is risen.
...oh wait, but that would take away from Easter. My point exactly.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Blessings of a Pope
Generally speaking, no non-Catholic has anything positive to say about the papacy. This is especially true in our modern times when we are weary of having a hierarchy with one man on top. We are all about "democracy" as if that equals godliness (take for example how in the Minnesota senate the words 'the voice of the people is the voice of God' are upon the wall in Latin). So it may be odd for a Lutheran to see value in it.
Theologically speaking it has lots of problems. No doubt it is true that a bad pope can really make the whole idea of a pope seem like a bad idea. And I know many people, Catholic and otherwise, who were quite critical of the last pope, perhaps increasing the negative view of the pope.
But the current deliberation reminds me of the immense blessing that the Catholic church has in the papal system. The pope in many ways defines the direction of the church, the pope can promote or quench a theology like no one else in the Christian church. That is not to say this is always a good thing, see Pope Leo X. Nor does it mean that what happens on the top always equals what is going on in all the congregations and with all the theologians. But it does make it a lot easier to rein in the church or to push it where it has never been.
Proponents of liberation theology which has mostly been suppressed in the same church where it began could witness it become a central staple in the church were a pope to arise who believes in it. Following John XXIII who initiated Vatican II, the church stayed the direction with John Paul II. So we can see how the church can stay the course on a theological direction. The last pope shows how the church can transform (this time conservatively) and change its direction. Those critical of the pope should realize how the papacy allows that critique to perhaps end with each pope. The Catholic church, unlike any other body has a much better system of checking itself, reforming itself, and changing itself as much as it has the ability to stay the course they are on. No doubt politics and what not are in play in electing popes as in any human system, but the cardinals now can totally evaluate their church and the ministry of the Catholic church. They can try to discern what the church needs now. And they can act. They can think of what kind of leader their church needs, similar to congregational call committees considering what they are looking for in their next pastor.
Some will say the cardinals will never go this or that route, but the difference just between the last two popes should show how much they can change direction, and a willingness to try new things or dare go back to old things. In the protestant church, we are typically speaking plagued with schism over against reform (in the sense of reforming old wrongs and new wrongs). To where liberal bodies can only reform with new liberal ideas never returning to previous ones or discerning a recent direction as unwise, and conservative bodies too often are only reforming by purging itself of the new, digging in deeper to certain ways, spending countless energy quelling current trends in theology. Any attempt to reform in the "wrong direction" usually leads to schism. Both these types of reforms have merits, but too often the issues of constant reform in only one direction raises issues (and therefore: schism). The Catholic church is blessed with a system that can allow conservative and liberal reform.
If you are upset with the Catholic church, or weary of bad popes, you should be praying all the more for those cardinals, to pick a wise pope, to reform the church again. Because they are in the position we protestants should appreciate and see as a blessing. The Catholic church can continue in conservative reform, go in a more liberal one, perhaps ecumenically as JP II was or in some other direction, but they can do it. And whoever they pick can steer a ship like no one in our churches can. So we should be very interested in who they pick, and pray hard for their discernment, and for the ministry ahead for the Catholic church. All our "bible only" (or sola scripura for you churches of the Reformation) churches ought then pray for a pope who will take the bible so seriously it will drive new reforms. Pray for someone with good interpretation of scripture. Pray for Christ to lead this church through his word, and that will happen by the pope they pick, the way the Spirit captivates this pope to the word. And so this is a matter of deep prayer for them.
Whatever we say about the papacy, I seriously wonder if the word could work faster through any church system, than through one where God only has to get his word to one heart to see it preached and working on the lives of so many. Yeah I disagree with papal theology, but I see how God could captivate that church. Philip Melanchthon, beside his signature to Luther's Smalcald Articles was willing to give a grounds in which he would accept the papacy. He signed:
I, Philip Melanchthon, also regard the above articles as right and Christian. But regarding the Pope I hold that, if he would allow the Gospel, his superiority over the bishops which he has otherwise, is conceded to him by human right also by us, for the sake of peace and general unity of those Christians who are also under him, and may be under him hereafter.
Now Melanchthon is sort of difficult to appreciate at times among Lutherans, but what he saw was that would the Pope allow the gospel, the full preaching of the gospel, and only claim human authority for his position, it would be a good thing to have a pope. Perhaps he saw the value in a single voice guiding the church. With all the theological issues is the awesome way an evangelical pope could lead the church. So the pope is worth praying for, the system can be a blessing to allow them to test the spirit in a way few other churches are good at or able. May God bless the Catholic church in their discernment. I'm a little jealous.
Theologically speaking it has lots of problems. No doubt it is true that a bad pope can really make the whole idea of a pope seem like a bad idea. And I know many people, Catholic and otherwise, who were quite critical of the last pope, perhaps increasing the negative view of the pope.
But the current deliberation reminds me of the immense blessing that the Catholic church has in the papal system. The pope in many ways defines the direction of the church, the pope can promote or quench a theology like no one else in the Christian church. That is not to say this is always a good thing, see Pope Leo X. Nor does it mean that what happens on the top always equals what is going on in all the congregations and with all the theologians. But it does make it a lot easier to rein in the church or to push it where it has never been.
Proponents of liberation theology which has mostly been suppressed in the same church where it began could witness it become a central staple in the church were a pope to arise who believes in it. Following John XXIII who initiated Vatican II, the church stayed the direction with John Paul II. So we can see how the church can stay the course on a theological direction. The last pope shows how the church can transform (this time conservatively) and change its direction. Those critical of the pope should realize how the papacy allows that critique to perhaps end with each pope. The Catholic church, unlike any other body has a much better system of checking itself, reforming itself, and changing itself as much as it has the ability to stay the course they are on. No doubt politics and what not are in play in electing popes as in any human system, but the cardinals now can totally evaluate their church and the ministry of the Catholic church. They can try to discern what the church needs now. And they can act. They can think of what kind of leader their church needs, similar to congregational call committees considering what they are looking for in their next pastor.
Some will say the cardinals will never go this or that route, but the difference just between the last two popes should show how much they can change direction, and a willingness to try new things or dare go back to old things. In the protestant church, we are typically speaking plagued with schism over against reform (in the sense of reforming old wrongs and new wrongs). To where liberal bodies can only reform with new liberal ideas never returning to previous ones or discerning a recent direction as unwise, and conservative bodies too often are only reforming by purging itself of the new, digging in deeper to certain ways, spending countless energy quelling current trends in theology. Any attempt to reform in the "wrong direction" usually leads to schism. Both these types of reforms have merits, but too often the issues of constant reform in only one direction raises issues (and therefore: schism). The Catholic church is blessed with a system that can allow conservative and liberal reform.
If you are upset with the Catholic church, or weary of bad popes, you should be praying all the more for those cardinals, to pick a wise pope, to reform the church again. Because they are in the position we protestants should appreciate and see as a blessing. The Catholic church can continue in conservative reform, go in a more liberal one, perhaps ecumenically as JP II was or in some other direction, but they can do it. And whoever they pick can steer a ship like no one in our churches can. So we should be very interested in who they pick, and pray hard for their discernment, and for the ministry ahead for the Catholic church. All our "bible only" (or sola scripura for you churches of the Reformation) churches ought then pray for a pope who will take the bible so seriously it will drive new reforms. Pray for someone with good interpretation of scripture. Pray for Christ to lead this church through his word, and that will happen by the pope they pick, the way the Spirit captivates this pope to the word. And so this is a matter of deep prayer for them.
Whatever we say about the papacy, I seriously wonder if the word could work faster through any church system, than through one where God only has to get his word to one heart to see it preached and working on the lives of so many. Yeah I disagree with papal theology, but I see how God could captivate that church. Philip Melanchthon, beside his signature to Luther's Smalcald Articles was willing to give a grounds in which he would accept the papacy. He signed:
I, Philip Melanchthon, also regard the above articles as right and Christian. But regarding the Pope I hold that, if he would allow the Gospel, his superiority over the bishops which he has otherwise, is conceded to him by human right also by us, for the sake of peace and general unity of those Christians who are also under him, and may be under him hereafter.
Now Melanchthon is sort of difficult to appreciate at times among Lutherans, but what he saw was that would the Pope allow the gospel, the full preaching of the gospel, and only claim human authority for his position, it would be a good thing to have a pope. Perhaps he saw the value in a single voice guiding the church. With all the theological issues is the awesome way an evangelical pope could lead the church. So the pope is worth praying for, the system can be a blessing to allow them to test the spirit in a way few other churches are good at or able. May God bless the Catholic church in their discernment. I'm a little jealous.
Friday, March 1, 2013
2013 MLB Predictions
Been a while since I posted folks. Since my last post I've moved back to Wisconsin and started a new call at two churches. So things are a bit busy. But I thought today I would just throw out my early predictions for this year in baseball. The problem with predictions are they are always wrong because there is always a team that surprises and always a team that flops. But predicting is still lots of fun, especially when you try to anticipate who will flop and who will surprise. So, without further ado, here is my 2013 MLB predictions:
National League:
NL WEST
1. SF Giants
2. LA Dodgers
3. SD Padres
4. ARZ Diamondbacks
5. COL Rockies
This feels like a two tiered division where it will be the Giants and Dodgers duking it out for first while the other three are a ways behind. While the Dodgers have all of the sudden begun to outspend the Yankees, that doesn't convince me of anything. Not only did great spending only yield for the Yankees 1 World Series title in the last decade, but as we saw with the 2011-2012 Red Sox, big names to big contracts does not equal big success. And half the big names to big contracts the Dodgers took on came straight from that Red Sox team. If any team in the National League is poised to disappoint, it is probably the Dodgers. The Giants on the other hand are defending World Series champs (their second such title in a few years) and they did it with an uncharacteristic season from Tim Lincecum. They also have the reigning NL MVP (no matter what I may think of the BWAA vote) who at his age could easily be better in 2013. Although the biggest surprise here might be picking the Padres for third. If you want to anticipate surprises in 2013, I think this is a good one to anticipate. This team is better than we give it credit for, particularly if Headley builds off of his monster second half in 2012 and the likes of Grandal and Cabrera can continue to produce while avoiding PED suspensions. The biggest factor for this team could be 1B Alonso. He was a key piece in the Latos trade, and then convinced this team to trade another young slugger (Rizzo) to Chicago. The Diamondbacks could easily surprise too, but to me they did not really get better this year. They picked up an aging closer/set-up man from Florida, sent away two-thirds of their outfield, over payed for Cody Ross when they didn't need him in their outfield, traded away a guy who finished top 5 in MVP two years ago (Upton), and dealt one of their young pitchers away for a shortstop we know little about and who may not be MLB ready. The have a good enough team to surprise with their pitching (Cahill, Hudson, Kennedy) and some of their key hitters (Kubel, Goldschmidt, Hill, Prado), but I'm not anticipating it. Their GM is one of the hardest to grade in baseball, half the time looking the dumbest and half perhaps the most brilliant. Not much needs to be said for Colorado. They have two hitting stars in Tulo and Car-Go assuming they can stay healthy. But given the cast and especially pitching around them they seem more likely to be traded than lead this team to a World Series.
NL CENTRAL
1. CIN Reds
2. STL Cardinals
3. PIT Pirates
4. CHI Cubs
5. MIL Brewers
In this NL Central, anything could go differently. If the Pirates can finish out a season strong instead of playing a great 80-120 games and petering out they could perhaps win this division. We know they have the talent. They have an MVP caliber star to go with a solid cast of players, some better pitching than years past, and most importantly some great pitching prospects on the verge of being difference makers. The Cardinals I hate to admit as a Brewer's fan just never seem to go away. They've basically been good for the last decade. Even last year when they lost their highly successful jerk of a manager and the best hitter to ever put on a red bird jersey they still managed to be good. And they have a strong system. But I think the Reds might do it this year for the Central. They have good (although not as good as some think) starting pitching, a strong bullpen (not too mention Chapman who will be a difference maker as a closer or starter), they got elite bats in Votto and Bruce to go with strong ones in Phillips and Choo, and Ryan Ludwick thrives in this stadium. Barring a major injury, particularly to Votto this team should be the one to beat. But any setbacks and the Cardinals could step up. In fact I first pegged the Cardinals to win because of how strong this team is, but with Carpenter down, me not being convinced Wainright is the ace he once was, Lohse walking, and guys like Beltran and Furcal getting older and annually injured I expect some regression. They are still a strong team, but I don't expect Beltran to hit like he did in 2012, and that alone mixed with some pitching questions (although this team better than any in baseball seems to solve pitching questions) makes me think they will be in second place, perhaps a wild card winner this year. It was hard to pick the Brewers last, but with the steroid investigation in Miami where Braun is linked he might be suspended, but even if he isn't they are without Hart for the start of the season, Gamel is gone another year, and Aramis Ramirez ain't getting younger. Add to it the new look bullpen (which should be better than last year but is hard to predict) and the decision to give the rotation spots to some of Milwaukee's many young pitchers I expect it might be a rough year. Last year was sort of a real middle ground season, where you could say had the bullpen not blown up they would have been in the post-season which is true, but also short of their great late season surge they would have been a below average team and had a losing record, also true. But really the deciding factor is that the division has gotten tougher. The Astros are no longer around and that impact will be big on all the NL Central teams numbers this year. But also the other teams all seem better (except for maybe the Cardinals, but they are still in much better shape as a franchise than Milwaukee). The Cubs may actually in my book win most improved club this year, which is why I think they won't finish last. Epstein has quietly had a great offseason, and this team is on the rise. They are not winners yet, but will be moving in the right direction.
NL EAST
1. WAS Nationals
2. ATL Braves
3. PHI Phillies
4. NY Mets
5. MIA Marlins
Funny part is the hardest part of predicting this division is who would finish last between New York and Miami. Ultimately Miami has more potential to be awful it seemed. The Mets on the other hand lost their Cy Young winner, that's a lot of wins to make up. But they have a few more proven players and a healthy Johan Santana could always turn in a good year. Miami requires a lot of prospects to succeed. Now those who remember when they rebuilt in the past they had immediate success from names such as Hanley Ramirez and Dan Uggla, but I am not counting on it. That and the Mets also added some fine prospects from Toronto's system as well. The Phillies could be better than the Braves. It is hard to tell which will have a tougher impact: the loss of Braves' star Chipper Jones or Phillies' stars another year older. Who will be a less productive 2B in 2013: Uggla or Utley? The difference between these teams I think is the Braves did a bit better retooling this winter, adding the Upton brothers to the outfield. But no matter how much better or how worse these teams end up, the Nationals are the team to beat. They have a strong team, a good core, and some depth. Hard to imagine this team being much worse in 2012.
NL MVP: Joey Votto
Well, Braun won't win anytime soon and Votto can put up better numbers than Posey, especially considering their ballparks (the argument used that Posey's ballpark handicapped his numbers against Braun would not likely be used for Votto since BWAA and general public have no issues with him). Votto is the star of his team, and if the Reds win the division as I claimed it will almost certainly include a great year from him. If Votto does not win I imagine either McCutchen held on for a whole year or Headley really broke out. McCutchen might even be a safer pick in that he plays a tougher position excellently and steals bases, but Votto has won before. I'm giving it to him.
NL Cy Young: Clayton Kershaw
This guy is the best pitcher in perhaps baseball right now. He's a winner and his team is better, which means he should be all the more successful this year. The guy is also wicked young. My sleeper is Lincecum who in a contract year is likely poised for a major comeback season. He's won two Cy Youngs before, I would not rule out a third. The third best option I would say might be a Braves pitcher. I keep it generic because they have several arms (Medlan and Beachy) that need to be healthy and successful over a whole season but in their limited time were pretty amazing pitchers.
NL Rolaids Relief Pitcher of the Year: Ardolis Chapman
So long as Cincinnati keeps Chapman as a closer he will dominate. His stuff is filthy and his numbers last year were absurd.
NL Rookie of the Year: Wily Peralta
It seems odd to pick someone not even on most top 100 prospect lists, but because the Brewers are committing to going with their young starters, it means their young starters have the best shot at a full season of work. Peralta has been a top Brewers prospect and had a great showing last year up in the majors. The one catch is that Rogers being out of options and Fiers after his strong start last year likely will be on the roster, if one of them (or Narveson) is not sent to the pen, Peralta may begin in the minors. But he is really the best of those young arms, so hopefully he gets his shot, because he could turn in a strong 2013.
NL Champions: Nationals.
This is the best team on paper. Last year they showed they are not just an on paper team. I fully expect them to succeed and make it to the World Series. They are in a good position to get there.
AMERICAN LEAGUE
AL WEST
1. ANA Angels
2. OAK A's
3. TEX Rangers
4. SEA Mariners
5. HOU Astros
Yes they are still the Anaheim Angels to me. Sometimes I'm real slow to change, although fans of advanced metrics already know this as I have given my lack of support particularly to everyone's favorite statistic (WAR). But anyways, the top of this division will be hard to tell. Three teams were in it last year, and the Mariners have been quietly improving the last couple years and with some added offense and a not so spacious outfield, they figure to improve again. The Angels though missed out on a big pitcher and so added a big hitter, already having Trout and Pujols and their rotation not being bad they seem the best positioned team to me. Deciding between Oakland and Texas though for second in the division is tough. The Rangers have been a playoff team for several straight years, but they got eliminated in the Wild Card game last year, and had perhaps the worst offseason of any team (at least of any contender). They lost their star bat (Hamilton) to the competition, and failed to replace him with an offseason stalemate in Justin Upton trade rumors. They failed also to get Greinke or any top starter for their rotation. And they dealt away Michael Young for a little saving, but put that savings nowhere. Lance Berkman was their big pickup. He may do well as their DH in that stadium, but he probably shouldn't be counted on for a full season anymore with his age and injury history. Perhaps they are waiting for a better free agent market, but it means this will not be as good a year. Oakland, while I think they played a bit above their heads last year, did improve this offseason, so I think they will still remain in contention. This whole division though will benefit by the addition of Houston who will look like a ragtag of players akin to the Major League movies, except hating their owner won't make them better.
AL CENTRAL
1. DET Tigers
2. CLE Indians
3. KC Royals
4. CHI White Sox
5. MIN Twins
It is going to be an interesting year in the Central. Mainly because Cleveland and Kansas City have made significant improvements. The Tigers are still the easy favorites. They added a good team player and solid outfielder in Torii Hunter and retained Anibal Sanchez to keep their rotation strong. They have the reigning MVP along with Prince Fielder to give the team a great middle order threat. And Fielder seems to have monster seasons every other year, so this year ya gotta watch out. Victor Martinez also returns to join the line-up. The only real issue I think will be the back end of the bullpen as there is no experienced closer there. Say what you want about how overhyped the closer role is, the bottom line is teams without a good solid one rarely make the playoffs. But this team is aggressive enough that if their rookie closer does not pan out I'm sure they'll find someone. Cleveland gets credit for making several upgrades this offseason. They turned one year of Choo into an excellent young pitcher, which is important as their rotation is very shaky. They also used patience and shrunken markets to get Nick Swisher and Michael Bourn at a discounted price. This also gives them a slight surplus in outfielders so if they wanted to make a trade they could (or at least they will have depth in case of injuries). As they are in the weakest division in baseball and have made these improvements I think they ought go out and sign Kyle Lohse or trade for Chris Capuano. The team has already forfeit two draft picks, so they will not be losing a top pick for Lohse at this point, and should make the move if they want a real chance at the division or playoffs. The Royals have also finally decided it is time to try to climb the division, beefing up their rotation most notably with pitcher James Shields. The Royals have two years of Shields and need to make the most of it. We'll see how the team shapes up this year, but I would not be surprised by a big signing or extension next offseason, especially if this team gets over the .500 mark. The Sox played over their heads last year and faded late. If they could not beat teams like the Royals last season it will be harder this year. Besides, Rios has to be horrible every other year right? And Konerko and Dunn ain't getting younger. The Twins are rebuilding. They dealt their two center fielders. A strong first half will likely mean the loss of Morneau maybe (though far less likely) even Mauer. They can thank the Astros' arrival for preventing them from being the American League's worst team.
AL EAST
1. NY Yankees
2. TOR Blue Jays
3. TB Rays
4. BOS Red Sox
5. BAL Orioles
What has been the most consistent and predictable division in baseball has all of the sudden become the most difficult to predict. Every team in this division has an argument of being a playoff team. And I imagine one if not both of the Wild Cards will come from here. The decision to put the Yankees first is because while there is real argument for them being a worse team this year, they are so consistently good, only missing the playoffs once since the mid 90's I think Cashman deserves the benefit of the doubt here. That and while they will be less powerful, they may be a more balanced team in 2013. If well managed, and barring major regression/injuries from some of their vets this team can still win the division. The Jays are another all in team that deserves credit for trying to take their team to the next level. Much like the Dodgers, I think with all the buzz is more potential to flop. But when you have hitters like Bautista, Encarnacion (assuming he can do 75% percent of what he did last year), Lawrie, Arencibia, Reyes, and Bonifacio that is a solid team. Add in a rotation including Johnson, Dickey, Romero, Morrow, and Buehrle...that is pretty strong. The only real issue for me is injury concerns which several of those named carry. The Rays are just a well run franchise, and figure to be good still, although losing guys like Upton and Shields makes me wonder if they will be playoff bound this year. Boston I picked fourth because I think this team has to be better than they've been. They are a pretty different team, we will see how it plays out, but I think they will come back solid. Baltimore goes last because they cannot count on a repeat of last year's success. You just should not expect your bullpen to be historically good again. But the team had one of the quieter offseasons and did little to improve. They have the talent, especially if some of those many young pitchers step up to be all the way atop this division, they are more where they are because the division is well balanced, some teams got tougher and they did little to improve when I think they needed to.
AL MVP: Mike Trout
With a full season, even with a sophomore slump Mike Trout will almost certainly have the numbers to win MVP. Since no one is likely winning the triple crown this year and the Angels I have pegged for division champs, it seems inevitable. Not too mention the sympathy votes he will get for not winning this year, since baseball voting is ridiculous like that. But even so, I think he'll deserve it. When Albert Pujols and Josh Hamilton take back seats to your stardom it is impressive. But if it were not Trout, I would have to guess either Prince Fielder who like I say is due for another big season or Robinson Cano who is on a walk year.
AL Cy Young: Felix Hernandez
King Felix is one of baseball's best, so much so that he has won Cy Young on peripheral stats over wins - a rare feat. Well now he should get some wins with a better offense around him. So long as the walls in Safeco moving in does not increase his numbers much I think he will pick up his second Cy Young this year. Otherwise Justin Verlander is always a threat, or guys like Weaver and Price are in the running each year it seems.
AL Rolaids Relief Pitcher of the Year: Mariano Rivera
Not only is he consistently good enough to win, but several factors this year may increase his chance of winning: the first is that the team may need his saves more, as the Yankees' offense is different and may mean more closer games. Also, because voters are so sentimental, and this may be his final year. If the all-time saves leader cannot nail down one more award, it probably goes to maybe Santos from the Jays, Johnson of the Orioles, or maybe Ryan Madson makes a strong return with the Angels.
AL Rookie of the Year: Manny Machado
I would pick Profar from TEX but they have 3 middle infielders in Profar, Andrus, and Kinsler and so I'm unsure how regular his playing time will be this year. Machado on the other hand seems the Orioles' best 3B option, at least for while Hardy is still their SS. Their weakness at 3B and really at 2B also makes me think he'll get more starts and therefore sport the better numbers. But if Profar gets the ABs he could easily win it, I would also keep an eye on if Minnesota lets Aaron Hicks take over in their CF vacancy, or if one of the Mariners' many young pitchers breaks camp.
AL Champions: Angels
They have three big name hitters, solid pitching, and an owner hungry for a championship ring. If they can win the division, they can go far in the playoffs. Otherwise I really think the Yankees are in a better position as a playoff team. Power is hard to rely on in the postseason, so their more balanced lineup in relation to contact and power may help them, so long as it can get them to the playoffs.
National League:
NL WEST
1. SF Giants
2. LA Dodgers
3. SD Padres
4. ARZ Diamondbacks
5. COL Rockies
This feels like a two tiered division where it will be the Giants and Dodgers duking it out for first while the other three are a ways behind. While the Dodgers have all of the sudden begun to outspend the Yankees, that doesn't convince me of anything. Not only did great spending only yield for the Yankees 1 World Series title in the last decade, but as we saw with the 2011-2012 Red Sox, big names to big contracts does not equal big success. And half the big names to big contracts the Dodgers took on came straight from that Red Sox team. If any team in the National League is poised to disappoint, it is probably the Dodgers. The Giants on the other hand are defending World Series champs (their second such title in a few years) and they did it with an uncharacteristic season from Tim Lincecum. They also have the reigning NL MVP (no matter what I may think of the BWAA vote) who at his age could easily be better in 2013. Although the biggest surprise here might be picking the Padres for third. If you want to anticipate surprises in 2013, I think this is a good one to anticipate. This team is better than we give it credit for, particularly if Headley builds off of his monster second half in 2012 and the likes of Grandal and Cabrera can continue to produce while avoiding PED suspensions. The biggest factor for this team could be 1B Alonso. He was a key piece in the Latos trade, and then convinced this team to trade another young slugger (Rizzo) to Chicago. The Diamondbacks could easily surprise too, but to me they did not really get better this year. They picked up an aging closer/set-up man from Florida, sent away two-thirds of their outfield, over payed for Cody Ross when they didn't need him in their outfield, traded away a guy who finished top 5 in MVP two years ago (Upton), and dealt one of their young pitchers away for a shortstop we know little about and who may not be MLB ready. The have a good enough team to surprise with their pitching (Cahill, Hudson, Kennedy) and some of their key hitters (Kubel, Goldschmidt, Hill, Prado), but I'm not anticipating it. Their GM is one of the hardest to grade in baseball, half the time looking the dumbest and half perhaps the most brilliant. Not much needs to be said for Colorado. They have two hitting stars in Tulo and Car-Go assuming they can stay healthy. But given the cast and especially pitching around them they seem more likely to be traded than lead this team to a World Series.
NL CENTRAL
1. CIN Reds
2. STL Cardinals
3. PIT Pirates
4. CHI Cubs
5. MIL Brewers
In this NL Central, anything could go differently. If the Pirates can finish out a season strong instead of playing a great 80-120 games and petering out they could perhaps win this division. We know they have the talent. They have an MVP caliber star to go with a solid cast of players, some better pitching than years past, and most importantly some great pitching prospects on the verge of being difference makers. The Cardinals I hate to admit as a Brewer's fan just never seem to go away. They've basically been good for the last decade. Even last year when they lost their highly successful jerk of a manager and the best hitter to ever put on a red bird jersey they still managed to be good. And they have a strong system. But I think the Reds might do it this year for the Central. They have good (although not as good as some think) starting pitching, a strong bullpen (not too mention Chapman who will be a difference maker as a closer or starter), they got elite bats in Votto and Bruce to go with strong ones in Phillips and Choo, and Ryan Ludwick thrives in this stadium. Barring a major injury, particularly to Votto this team should be the one to beat. But any setbacks and the Cardinals could step up. In fact I first pegged the Cardinals to win because of how strong this team is, but with Carpenter down, me not being convinced Wainright is the ace he once was, Lohse walking, and guys like Beltran and Furcal getting older and annually injured I expect some regression. They are still a strong team, but I don't expect Beltran to hit like he did in 2012, and that alone mixed with some pitching questions (although this team better than any in baseball seems to solve pitching questions) makes me think they will be in second place, perhaps a wild card winner this year. It was hard to pick the Brewers last, but with the steroid investigation in Miami where Braun is linked he might be suspended, but even if he isn't they are without Hart for the start of the season, Gamel is gone another year, and Aramis Ramirez ain't getting younger. Add to it the new look bullpen (which should be better than last year but is hard to predict) and the decision to give the rotation spots to some of Milwaukee's many young pitchers I expect it might be a rough year. Last year was sort of a real middle ground season, where you could say had the bullpen not blown up they would have been in the post-season which is true, but also short of their great late season surge they would have been a below average team and had a losing record, also true. But really the deciding factor is that the division has gotten tougher. The Astros are no longer around and that impact will be big on all the NL Central teams numbers this year. But also the other teams all seem better (except for maybe the Cardinals, but they are still in much better shape as a franchise than Milwaukee). The Cubs may actually in my book win most improved club this year, which is why I think they won't finish last. Epstein has quietly had a great offseason, and this team is on the rise. They are not winners yet, but will be moving in the right direction.
NL EAST
1. WAS Nationals
2. ATL Braves
3. PHI Phillies
4. NY Mets
5. MIA Marlins
Funny part is the hardest part of predicting this division is who would finish last between New York and Miami. Ultimately Miami has more potential to be awful it seemed. The Mets on the other hand lost their Cy Young winner, that's a lot of wins to make up. But they have a few more proven players and a healthy Johan Santana could always turn in a good year. Miami requires a lot of prospects to succeed. Now those who remember when they rebuilt in the past they had immediate success from names such as Hanley Ramirez and Dan Uggla, but I am not counting on it. That and the Mets also added some fine prospects from Toronto's system as well. The Phillies could be better than the Braves. It is hard to tell which will have a tougher impact: the loss of Braves' star Chipper Jones or Phillies' stars another year older. Who will be a less productive 2B in 2013: Uggla or Utley? The difference between these teams I think is the Braves did a bit better retooling this winter, adding the Upton brothers to the outfield. But no matter how much better or how worse these teams end up, the Nationals are the team to beat. They have a strong team, a good core, and some depth. Hard to imagine this team being much worse in 2012.
NL MVP: Joey Votto
Well, Braun won't win anytime soon and Votto can put up better numbers than Posey, especially considering their ballparks (the argument used that Posey's ballpark handicapped his numbers against Braun would not likely be used for Votto since BWAA and general public have no issues with him). Votto is the star of his team, and if the Reds win the division as I claimed it will almost certainly include a great year from him. If Votto does not win I imagine either McCutchen held on for a whole year or Headley really broke out. McCutchen might even be a safer pick in that he plays a tougher position excellently and steals bases, but Votto has won before. I'm giving it to him.
NL Cy Young: Clayton Kershaw
This guy is the best pitcher in perhaps baseball right now. He's a winner and his team is better, which means he should be all the more successful this year. The guy is also wicked young. My sleeper is Lincecum who in a contract year is likely poised for a major comeback season. He's won two Cy Youngs before, I would not rule out a third. The third best option I would say might be a Braves pitcher. I keep it generic because they have several arms (Medlan and Beachy) that need to be healthy and successful over a whole season but in their limited time were pretty amazing pitchers.
NL Rolaids Relief Pitcher of the Year: Ardolis Chapman
So long as Cincinnati keeps Chapman as a closer he will dominate. His stuff is filthy and his numbers last year were absurd.
NL Rookie of the Year: Wily Peralta
It seems odd to pick someone not even on most top 100 prospect lists, but because the Brewers are committing to going with their young starters, it means their young starters have the best shot at a full season of work. Peralta has been a top Brewers prospect and had a great showing last year up in the majors. The one catch is that Rogers being out of options and Fiers after his strong start last year likely will be on the roster, if one of them (or Narveson) is not sent to the pen, Peralta may begin in the minors. But he is really the best of those young arms, so hopefully he gets his shot, because he could turn in a strong 2013.
NL Champions: Nationals.
This is the best team on paper. Last year they showed they are not just an on paper team. I fully expect them to succeed and make it to the World Series. They are in a good position to get there.
AMERICAN LEAGUE
AL WEST
1. ANA Angels
2. OAK A's
3. TEX Rangers
4. SEA Mariners
5. HOU Astros
Yes they are still the Anaheim Angels to me. Sometimes I'm real slow to change, although fans of advanced metrics already know this as I have given my lack of support particularly to everyone's favorite statistic (WAR). But anyways, the top of this division will be hard to tell. Three teams were in it last year, and the Mariners have been quietly improving the last couple years and with some added offense and a not so spacious outfield, they figure to improve again. The Angels though missed out on a big pitcher and so added a big hitter, already having Trout and Pujols and their rotation not being bad they seem the best positioned team to me. Deciding between Oakland and Texas though for second in the division is tough. The Rangers have been a playoff team for several straight years, but they got eliminated in the Wild Card game last year, and had perhaps the worst offseason of any team (at least of any contender). They lost their star bat (Hamilton) to the competition, and failed to replace him with an offseason stalemate in Justin Upton trade rumors. They failed also to get Greinke or any top starter for their rotation. And they dealt away Michael Young for a little saving, but put that savings nowhere. Lance Berkman was their big pickup. He may do well as their DH in that stadium, but he probably shouldn't be counted on for a full season anymore with his age and injury history. Perhaps they are waiting for a better free agent market, but it means this will not be as good a year. Oakland, while I think they played a bit above their heads last year, did improve this offseason, so I think they will still remain in contention. This whole division though will benefit by the addition of Houston who will look like a ragtag of players akin to the Major League movies, except hating their owner won't make them better.
AL CENTRAL
1. DET Tigers
2. CLE Indians
3. KC Royals
4. CHI White Sox
5. MIN Twins
It is going to be an interesting year in the Central. Mainly because Cleveland and Kansas City have made significant improvements. The Tigers are still the easy favorites. They added a good team player and solid outfielder in Torii Hunter and retained Anibal Sanchez to keep their rotation strong. They have the reigning MVP along with Prince Fielder to give the team a great middle order threat. And Fielder seems to have monster seasons every other year, so this year ya gotta watch out. Victor Martinez also returns to join the line-up. The only real issue I think will be the back end of the bullpen as there is no experienced closer there. Say what you want about how overhyped the closer role is, the bottom line is teams without a good solid one rarely make the playoffs. But this team is aggressive enough that if their rookie closer does not pan out I'm sure they'll find someone. Cleveland gets credit for making several upgrades this offseason. They turned one year of Choo into an excellent young pitcher, which is important as their rotation is very shaky. They also used patience and shrunken markets to get Nick Swisher and Michael Bourn at a discounted price. This also gives them a slight surplus in outfielders so if they wanted to make a trade they could (or at least they will have depth in case of injuries). As they are in the weakest division in baseball and have made these improvements I think they ought go out and sign Kyle Lohse or trade for Chris Capuano. The team has already forfeit two draft picks, so they will not be losing a top pick for Lohse at this point, and should make the move if they want a real chance at the division or playoffs. The Royals have also finally decided it is time to try to climb the division, beefing up their rotation most notably with pitcher James Shields. The Royals have two years of Shields and need to make the most of it. We'll see how the team shapes up this year, but I would not be surprised by a big signing or extension next offseason, especially if this team gets over the .500 mark. The Sox played over their heads last year and faded late. If they could not beat teams like the Royals last season it will be harder this year. Besides, Rios has to be horrible every other year right? And Konerko and Dunn ain't getting younger. The Twins are rebuilding. They dealt their two center fielders. A strong first half will likely mean the loss of Morneau maybe (though far less likely) even Mauer. They can thank the Astros' arrival for preventing them from being the American League's worst team.
AL EAST
1. NY Yankees
2. TOR Blue Jays
3. TB Rays
4. BOS Red Sox
5. BAL Orioles
What has been the most consistent and predictable division in baseball has all of the sudden become the most difficult to predict. Every team in this division has an argument of being a playoff team. And I imagine one if not both of the Wild Cards will come from here. The decision to put the Yankees first is because while there is real argument for them being a worse team this year, they are so consistently good, only missing the playoffs once since the mid 90's I think Cashman deserves the benefit of the doubt here. That and while they will be less powerful, they may be a more balanced team in 2013. If well managed, and barring major regression/injuries from some of their vets this team can still win the division. The Jays are another all in team that deserves credit for trying to take their team to the next level. Much like the Dodgers, I think with all the buzz is more potential to flop. But when you have hitters like Bautista, Encarnacion (assuming he can do 75% percent of what he did last year), Lawrie, Arencibia, Reyes, and Bonifacio that is a solid team. Add in a rotation including Johnson, Dickey, Romero, Morrow, and Buehrle...that is pretty strong. The only real issue for me is injury concerns which several of those named carry. The Rays are just a well run franchise, and figure to be good still, although losing guys like Upton and Shields makes me wonder if they will be playoff bound this year. Boston I picked fourth because I think this team has to be better than they've been. They are a pretty different team, we will see how it plays out, but I think they will come back solid. Baltimore goes last because they cannot count on a repeat of last year's success. You just should not expect your bullpen to be historically good again. But the team had one of the quieter offseasons and did little to improve. They have the talent, especially if some of those many young pitchers step up to be all the way atop this division, they are more where they are because the division is well balanced, some teams got tougher and they did little to improve when I think they needed to.
AL MVP: Mike Trout
With a full season, even with a sophomore slump Mike Trout will almost certainly have the numbers to win MVP. Since no one is likely winning the triple crown this year and the Angels I have pegged for division champs, it seems inevitable. Not too mention the sympathy votes he will get for not winning this year, since baseball voting is ridiculous like that. But even so, I think he'll deserve it. When Albert Pujols and Josh Hamilton take back seats to your stardom it is impressive. But if it were not Trout, I would have to guess either Prince Fielder who like I say is due for another big season or Robinson Cano who is on a walk year.
AL Cy Young: Felix Hernandez
King Felix is one of baseball's best, so much so that he has won Cy Young on peripheral stats over wins - a rare feat. Well now he should get some wins with a better offense around him. So long as the walls in Safeco moving in does not increase his numbers much I think he will pick up his second Cy Young this year. Otherwise Justin Verlander is always a threat, or guys like Weaver and Price are in the running each year it seems.
AL Rolaids Relief Pitcher of the Year: Mariano Rivera
Not only is he consistently good enough to win, but several factors this year may increase his chance of winning: the first is that the team may need his saves more, as the Yankees' offense is different and may mean more closer games. Also, because voters are so sentimental, and this may be his final year. If the all-time saves leader cannot nail down one more award, it probably goes to maybe Santos from the Jays, Johnson of the Orioles, or maybe Ryan Madson makes a strong return with the Angels.
AL Rookie of the Year: Manny Machado
I would pick Profar from TEX but they have 3 middle infielders in Profar, Andrus, and Kinsler and so I'm unsure how regular his playing time will be this year. Machado on the other hand seems the Orioles' best 3B option, at least for while Hardy is still their SS. Their weakness at 3B and really at 2B also makes me think he'll get more starts and therefore sport the better numbers. But if Profar gets the ABs he could easily win it, I would also keep an eye on if Minnesota lets Aaron Hicks take over in their CF vacancy, or if one of the Mariners' many young pitchers breaks camp.
AL Champions: Angels
They have three big name hitters, solid pitching, and an owner hungry for a championship ring. If they can win the division, they can go far in the playoffs. Otherwise I really think the Yankees are in a better position as a playoff team. Power is hard to rely on in the postseason, so their more balanced lineup in relation to contact and power may help them, so long as it can get them to the playoffs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)