Really nice move.

Would've preferred him with the Tribe, but the West Coast has been the destination of choice this year, it seems.

exciting two-team race.

Which of the A's, Mariners or Rangers aren't a contender?

Mariners and Rangers.

If the Rangers sign Clemens that changes obviously.

However, the M's are more than an inner circle HOFer away or two from contending in 2006.

The two teams with lousy pitching

Well, the Rangers project to score 900 and allow 800. That's a contender.

Yep, the Rangers are definite contenders, especially given that the Angels and Athletics aren't all that overwhelming. The Mariners have a good chance at 80 wins, and thus have an outside chance of sneaking in if the other three teams have major problems. But I'm giving these chances:

Angels 38%
Athletics 34%
Rangers 24%
Mariners 4%

Or something like that. But the Mariners are only so low not because they're that much worse than the other three, but because there are three teams that are better than them in their division. That stacks the odds pretty badly against you.

Weaver probably pushed the Angels up a few percentage points, from a dead-heat with Oakland. The Angels are not going to give up many runs this year; if Kotchman and McPherson develop, they could win the division by 10 games.

There's a substantial difference between "the Rangers project" and "I project the Rangers" ...

do they even project to score more runs than they allow?

It seems to me that Oakland has a much better chance to win the division than anyone else. In fact, I'd put Los Anaheim closer to Texas than to Oakland.

The big thing is still the A's getting Crosby and Harden back healthy for a full season. That, Dan Johnson for a full year, Swisher healed from his thumb injury, and no Dotel giving up walkoffs to Kevin Millar push the A's at least even with the Angels. The Big Hurt, Bradley and Loiaza give them exceptional depth and push them well past the Angels. If any team is likely to win the division by more than 10 games, it's the A's.

A quick look at the respective rosters makes me think the A's will have trouble scoring runs and are a bit thin in the bullpen, neither is something that could be said of the Angels. It looks like a one team race, absent a big mid season steal. For those of you who think the Big Hurt has something left, forget it. If he did, someone else would have paid for him.

A quick look at the respective rosters makes me think the A's will have trouble scoring runs and are a bit thin in the bullpen, neither is something that could be said of the Angels.

You don't think the Angels will have trouble scoring runs?

A quick look at the respective rosters makes me think the A's will have trouble scoring runs and are a bit thin in the bullpen, neither is something that could be said of the Angels. It looks like a one team race, absent a big mid season steal. For those of you who think the Big Hurt has something left, forget it. If he did, someone else would have paid for him.

The A's aren't likely to have trouble scoring runs; not for the 100-ish games that Frank Thomas and/ or Milton Bradley will be in the Lineup, at least (and for the rest of the season, they'd be around league-average). The Angels, on the other hand, will have some significant difficulties being league-average or better, as the only really good hitters projected to be in the Lineup everyday are Chone Figgins.

And both teams will likely have around borderline Top-5 bullpens or better in the AL; as will the Mariners. All three were last 4-5-6 year, and all three have gotten better in the offseason.

Argh...

<corrected>The Angels, on the other hand, will have some significant difficulties being league-average or better, as the only really good hitters projected to be in the Lineup everyday are Vlad and Chone Figgins.</corrected>

How exactly does Figgins project to be a better hitter than Adam Kennedy, Garret Anderson, Casey Kotchman, or Juan RIvera? He might end up edging out Kennedy, Garret, and Rivera, but each of those guys should be right around average at worst. Kotchman should be a bit better than that ...

"How exactly does Figgins project to be a better hitter than Adam Kennedy, Garret Anderson, Casey Kotchman, or Juan RIvera?"

Figgins is, IMO, very likely to outproduce Anderson, at least when his steals are factored in (in other words, EQA, which I have a hard on for).

Is Rivera going to be starting this year? That's gonna be cool, I've wanted to see what he can do with a starting job for like 4 years now.

"The Angels will have trouble scoring runs." The Angels won the division last year "having trouble scoring runs". Of course, the pitching was great last year and the division is stronger in 2006 .. but so are the Angels.

1. Kotchman is going to be a massive upgrade over Erstad. I'll be shocked if Kotch doesn't hit more than 20 HRs and hits below .280.

2. Erstad - while not the most productive Angel - is a massive upgrade over 2005 Steve Finley. (Then again, an inanimate carbon rod might be an upgrade over 2005 Finley.)

3. You still have Figgins at the top of the line-up & Vlad in the 3 hole. You've also got Kennedy - who probably isn't going to hit below .270 and may be the best #9 hitter in baseball. And you've got The OC - who will probably have a better offensive season than he did last year.

4. There's also the fact that Rivera will likely be an everyday guy and McPherson may be a major player in the DH/3B role. I'll gladly accept 15 HRs and a .280 average from GA, if you've got Rivera, Kotch and D-Mac banging out 22 HRs each.

You've also got Kennedy - who probably isn't going to hit below .270 and may be the best #9 hitter in baseball.

You say that as though suboptimal lineup construction were a mark in their favor.