Is Seven Enough?

Warning, seven weeks ago, I got a new assignment at work. And, along with that, I’ve developed a nasty case of Boomtown Rats-itis. So, this just might be the Monday Morning Crank in me speaking - and I’m sure that the windchill of 7 this AM doesn’t help - but, here goes.

Lately, when I think of the 2006 Yankees, I see:

Suspect pitching, below average defense, and a weak bench.

And, I wonder, is seven very good hitters enough to offset all that?

I’m not so sure these days.

February 27, 2006 | Filed Under Possible Bad News

Comments

9 Responses to “Is Seven Enough?”

Raf on February 27th, 2006 11:57 am

I suspect we’ll find out.

This season is going to be interesting. I’ll pick the Yanks until they give me a reason not to. But this season is going to be interesting…
MJ on February 27th, 2006 12:19 pm

Is the pitching and/or defense any worse than last year? Because if it isn’t, then we’ll make the playoffs. Last year some things just didn’t go our way. If we catch a couple of breaks this year, those “shoddy” 95 wins will be bumped up a bit, don’t you think?

I agree, we’re by no means a World Series shoo-in, but I think we’re as good as we were last year going into the season.
Steve Lombardi on February 27th, 2006 12:46 pm

I hope, with Damon in CF, and with the new pen-men, that it’s slightly better there - but, with the SP, I think it might be worse this year.
MJ on February 27th, 2006 1:44 pm

I just wonder how the starters could be worse than last year. 3 of our 5 starters (Pavano, Wright, Brown) were dead and buried by June. As long as that doesn’t happen again, we’ll better than 2005. I know it’s an if but I have to believe that last year was one of those aberrations, kind of like Jaret Wright getting hit with balls and bats 3 straight starts in a row.
Steve Lombardi on February 27th, 2006 3:22 pm

If the magic of Chacon, Small, and Wang does not repeat this year, the starters will be worse.
James Varghese on February 27th, 2006 4:02 pm

Steve, by the same line of thinking, we will be without repeat performances of:
-73.3 innings of 6.50 ERA from Kevin Brown,
-hopefully better than 63.7 innings of 6.03 ERA ball from Jaret Wright,
-62.3 innings of 5.49 ERA ball from Al Leiter,
-hopefully better than 100 innings of 4.77 ERA ball from Carl Pavano.
-not to mention 30 innings from F-Rod and about 100 from from guys like Embree, Franklin, Groom, Stanton & Quantrill.

That’s about 430 innings right there that should improve. Now, obviously this is just a quick though and I’m not sure how much improvement to expect from Pavano & Wright but still, if you’re going to discount the good, you have to discount the bad.
Steve Lombardi on February 27th, 2006 4:37 pm

But, do we know that those 430 IP will be replaced with better pitchers this year?
James Varghese on February 27th, 2006 4:52 pm

That’s what I mean - we don’t know. We can assume though. Here’s my view on it - 2005 was certainly a year of peaks and valleys - big winning streaks, big losing streaks - great pitching runs…Brown, Wright & Leiter. At the end, it evened out. I think that in 2006, steps have been taken to try to even out those highs and lows (as much as is possible).

And to answer your question: yes, while the full 430 might not be replaced with better pitchers, I do believe that the bulk of that will be. The team is def. top heavy with talent still but in terms of pitching this year, there’s more depth available than was there last year, which should mitigate the need to scamble for a Leiter or Groom, etc.

It can’t be worse…can it?
Steve Lombardi on February 27th, 2006 8:45 pm

Well, less than 95 wins would be worse. Not at least tying for 1st would be worse. So, it can be worse.