How bad will the Nats be?

GatewaySnayke · Post by **GatewaySnayke** » March 14 07, 11:20 am

People are expecting them to be "historically" bad this season, along the lines of the '62 Mets. Anyone forsee them breaking 43 wins?

JohtoVillage · Post by **JohtoVillage** » March 14 07, 11:24 am

When your number two pitcher projects to be Tim Redding, then yeah, I think we are talking historically bad. Also their best hitter just went down in Nick Johnson, which means that Ryan Zimmerman won't approach 100 rbi's again. It's possible that they lose 110 plus games. But the odds are obviously against that.

BW23 · Post by **BW23** » March 14 07, 11:30 am

There certainly isn't much to like there. But I usually feel that way about Jim Bowden teams.

And Johnson makes J.D. Drew look like Cal Ripken.

I'd probably take Kearns over Encarnacion and Cordero over Izzy, but that's it in looking at position by position.

Hungary Jack · Post by **Hungary Jack** » March 14 07, 11:32 am

I don' t think the Mets record of futility is in danger. They look like a 65-win team to me. They have some good/decent players:

Zimmerman
Kearns
Church
Lopez
Schneider
Cordero

A lot is riding on the rotation, but they aren't the only team in the NL with pitching questions.

JL21 · Post by **JL21** » March 14 07, 11:34 am

Hungary Jack wrote:I don' t think the Mets record of futility is in danger. They look like a 65-win team to me. They have some good/decent players:

Zimmerman
Kearns
Church
Lopez
Schneider
Cordero

A lot is riding on the rotation, but they aren't the only team in the NL with pitching questions.

I'm with you. Plus, the NL is so weak that really bad teams appear better (i.e. get higher win totals feasting on equally bad teams).

Keep in mind that the same things were being said about the Marlins last year.

BW23 · Post by **BW23** » March 14 07, 11:50 am

I don't think the NL is that bad. Not as bad as last year. And the Nats could really struggle in the East. I think the Braves and Marlins will be a little better than last year, and the Phils and Mets should dominate them. They could compete with the Giants, Reds and Pirates.

JohtoVillage · Post by **JohtoVillage** » March 14 07, 12:34 pm

Keep in mind that the same things were being said about the Marlins last year.

That's what I was thinking, but the difference is the Marlins had a great farm system. The Nationals farm system is pitiful. And if John Patterson isn't healthy (they will be lucky to get 25 starts out of him) then Tim Redding slots in as their number one. He's not even good enough to be the fifth starter on any other team in the majors.

Ok, he's probably better than Marquis. But so am I.

Post by **heyzeus** » March 14 07, 1:27 pm

If it weren't for that trade for Kearns and Lopez last year, think how cosmically bad the Nats would be right now. With a core of those two, Zimmerman, Schneider, and (someday) Nick Johnson, they won't lose more than, say, 105.

So yeah. They'll be pretty awful.

Leroy · Post by **Leroy** » March 14 07, 1:29 pm

They'll still beat us in every day game against us, and night games featuring a soft tossin' lefty.

jim · Post by **jim** » March 14 07, 1:47 pm

According to my DMB simulations, a 75 win team better than the Pirates and Marlins.

http://gatewayredbirds.com/forum/viewto ... 88&start=0