"Chatter from the Bleachers" is a weekly meeting place for the Baseball Digest Daily writers, where they can debate baseball topics and present this discussion to you.

Enjoy!
Question 1: BP's PECOTA system has projected the Yankees to win 97 games without any moves. And it's projected Boston to win 90.  Yet, most people believe the Red Sox are the clear favorite, to the point that one ESPN.com writer this winter suggested that the 2008 Boston Red Sox may go down as the best team in history. What's really going to happen in the AL East in 2008, and why?


John Brattain: P's PECOTA system has projected the Yankees to win 97 games without any moves. And it's projected Boston to win 90. Yet most people believe the Red Sox are the clear favorite, to the point that one ESPN.com writer this winter suggested that the 2008 Boston Red Sox may go down as the best team in history.

What's really going to happen in the AL East in 2008, and why? Well, the AL East is going to extraordinarily tough this season; the Red Sox are defending champs, the Yankees--while they have holes--will address some of them before the season is out. The Toronto Blue Jays will be a lot better than most people think if healthy and the Rays--while not contenders this year will make life miserable for Boston, New York and Toronto. Considering that the Red Sox/Yankees/Jays will be playing almost 60 games against each other (and Tampa Bay) due to the unbalanced schedule that I have difficulty seeing any of those clubs topping 92-95 wins yet alone approaching 97+. Besides the division, the Tigers and Indians will be very tough to beat, as will the Angels.

While many dismiss the Mariners as unlikely contenders, they will likely feature a rotation of Felix Hernandez (14-7, 110 ERA+ in 190.1 IP), Jarrod Washburn (10-15, 100 ERA+ in 193.2 IP), Miguel Batista (16-11, 101 ERA+ in 193 IP), Carlos Silva (13-14, 103 ERA+ in 202 IP) and Erik Bedard (13-5, 146 ERA+ in 182 IP). All are at least league average both in 2007, career wise and will give the Mariners lots of quality innings. Any team facing them in a four-game series will have their work cut out for them. I'm going to make a bold prediction about the AL in 2008--no club will top 92 wins. As to the Red Sox per se … best team in history?

Right now, Josh Beckett and Curt Schilling are on the disabled list. Manny Ramirez and Mike Lowell are a year older, David Ortiz has improved his OPS+ every year over the last eight … it would be a reach for him to make it nine-in-a-row. They're going to work in two rookies in Jacoby Ellsbury and Clay Buchholz and have question marks in Julio Lugo and J.D. Drew. I can't see this being the greatest team in history. They're rightfully the favourites in the American League but they're facing their stiffest competition in the AL in quite some time.

Voros McCracken: I think projecting anybody to 97 wins is a little excessive. If I could come up with a team that I thought I could project to 97 wins, it wouldn't be this season's Yankees. It wouldn't be this season's Red Sox either though. Losing 97 games seems to be a lot easier than winning them. I would probably pencil in the Yankees as the slimmest of possible favorites; it's a toss up. I'd love to see one the other three teams make a serious run at those two for once, but I don't think this is the year. maybe 2010 the Rays and or Blue Jays will be in position to make a run.

Brandon Heikoop: I am probably entirely on my own on this one but I am thinking the AL East is as follows: - Baltimore Orioles: A distant 5th with the beginnings of a nice core. - Boston Red Sox: Two of the top 22 most abused pitchers in the majors from 2007. One is already injury prone. This is an old roster that went essentially injury free in 2007. I find it tough to believe that all the stars align once again. - New York Yankees: It is ridiculous to think that a team with this little pitching can patch together another playoff caliber season. The hitters are old and I expect a great deal of regression. - Toronto Blue Jays: Terribly unlucky in 2007 with far too many under-performances.

Even a marginal amount of luck in their direction and some misfortune to the other teams in the division and the Jays are fighting for the playoffs. - Tampa Bay Rays: There is too much potential and there are too many breakout candidates. The Scott Kazmir injury worries me, but I feel as though the incredible defensive improvements will pay major dividends for this club in 2008. This is an outstanding division and all but the Orioles are capable of winning 90 games. I'm banking on age and lack of depth catching up to the Yankees and Red Sox and a lot improvements and breaking out from the Jays and Rays.

Gordon Berger: There has been very little shift in the balance of power in the AL East.  The Yankees again head into the season without a reliable and experienced starting rotation.  History has proven that offense alone will not propel them into the World Series.  No other team in the division has improved to the level that they can compete on level with the Yankees and the Red Sox.  Clearly, Baltimore has already conceded that it's a rebuilding year by trading Erik Bedard.


Question 2:  What is your opinion on costly closers and relievers? Is it worth it? How would you, as a GM, handle your pitching staff when it comes to signing them? Would you invest elsewhere and rely on your farm system? Explain.

John Brattain: I think it depends on where your team is at development-wise. If you're rebuilding, then see what you can develop from within the organization. Generally though, if I'm a G.M. I'm grooming every pitcher as a starter. The ones that are talented but cannot cut it due to lacking arm strength/stamina or concentration to pitch 200+ innings a year or can only master two pitches become my relief prospects. Regardless of a pitcher's role--he has to learn how to pitch. The era of the developed closer is fairly new. For the most part, historically great relief pitchers were starters who could not handle the grind of rotation work--Goose Gossage, Dennis Eckersley, Hoyt Wilhelm, Rollie Fingers, Firpo Marberry, Elroy Face etc. Think of John Smoltz--Hall of Fame pitcher IMHO … excelled as a starter, then a closer, then back to starting. The Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera's are a fairly new phenomenon. The best way to learn how to pitch is by pitching as many innings as the arm can allow. I think the only time to really splurge on a reliever/closer is when you're in the success cycle and legitimately thinking October baseball and there is a glaring need in the bullpen and no help in the organization. A good pitcher is a good pitcher--a big game pitcher is a big game pitcher regardless of his role. If you can find a live arm and teach him how to pitch then he can be an effective reliever. If a guy cannot pitch an effective inning every other day (or so) then chances are he's just not a good pitcher. If you have a good pitcher--then you have a potential closer.

Voros McCracken: I'm kind of a curmudgeon old schooler on "relievers." To me a pitcher is a pitcher, and I think most of the greatest closers ever would have also been very good starting pitchers given the opportunity. To limit one of your best pitchers to a third of his potential innings just to rack up saves is one of the silliest things I think teams still do. If that's what the guy _wants_ to do that's one thing, and if you're doing it to keep him healthy that's another. But if you're doing it because you think a guy pitching 65 innings can be more valuable than one pitching 200, I just don't see how, leveraged innings or no.

Brandon Heikoop: I believe there is a price and value to every position and do not agree with the belief that teams should intentionally avoid spending money on relievers. I do, however, question why anyone would spend money on middle of the road talent, especially for a team that is far from a contender. That said, I would overpay for a stud (Billy Wagner, Mariano Rivera, Francisco Rodriguez) and fill out the remaining 6 or 7 spots of my bullpen with veterans on minor league level contracts. I also like the idea of moving excess youngsters from the rotation to the bullpen rather then having them throw meaningless innings in the minors.

Gordon Berger: This is similar to the question of which is more valuable, a superstar position player or number 1 starting pitcher?  The superstar will play in 150+ games while the starting pitcher will start about 30 times, which means he will be a factor in about 1/5th less games.  With the delegation of situational specialist and closers, it is just as important to get into the 7th inning with a reliable bullpen.  Most starters don't go the distance more than once or twice a season, so that lefty specialist out of the bullpen is key, as is the long reliever who can pitch four days in a row without losing any effectiveness.  Taking the term "costly" as meaning "high-priced", a closer who can convert on 90% of his save situations is worth every penny.  The market has dictated what the cost of having such a closer is, so that's simply a function of current baseball economics.

At the same time, since most closers rarely pitch more than an inning, having the reliable situational reliever or specialist is necessary.  As I said, most teams are lucky to get 6+ innings from the bulk of the rotation, so getting to the 9th is as important as ever.  My philosophy on pay scale for the middle relievers and specialists is that they are not the mop up guys of yesteryear, but they don't command the big bucks either.  There's no glory in being a middle reliever.  I view this role as one for young, developing arms or for veterans that have lost their durability and are only effective for a few innings at a time.  This is an area where I would look to save money.  You can find the $750,000 to $1,000,000 reliever.  There are a number of them, particularly lefties, as there always seems to be a shortage of them.

That having been said, there is no substitute for savvy drafting and development of homegrown talent.  I would take a shot at having 2-3 young pitchers to round out the staff, possibly even one as the 5th starter.  Further, have a well-stocked farm system allows you the option of getting value for a veteran having a career year down the stretch or for a player in his walk year.  You can trade for additional prospects or veterans to fill holes in other areas if you have a young pitching phenom waiting down in the farm.  That in turn could free money in the off season for a marquis free agent acquisition.

Let me also say that I'm a firm believer in the adage that you can never have enough pitching, so if you can budget your big league staff and stock the farm with good young pitching prospects, you will never go wrong.  With baseball economics, most teams are going to trade marginal pitchers when they become arbitration or free agent eligible, so having the farm call up to replace the player makes sense.