Fish Dynasty

Isn't this the same exact argument that other guy made in the thread with the poll? I think the majority had spoken on that one. Anyway, I don't think the defense argument is that legitimate under the circumstances. It's something being conjured up by the stat snobs who refuse to look at the situation in context. Chris Coghlan is not a natural outfielder. In fact, he had not played the outfield since little league. He was called up because his team desperately needed his bat after Cameron Maybin proved that he needed more work and Jeremy Hermida was stinking up the joint. There is also the complicated Emilio Bonifacio saga but that's not important. The bottom line is that the Marlins needed an outfield bat badly and Coghlan was hitting extremely well in AAA so he got the call. I think he should be getting credit for playing left field as well as he did considering the circumstances. He probably won't be playing left field very much in the future, either. Of course these bloggers never see things this way. Statistics are nice but they only work if you apply common sense. Wasn't there an Albert Einstein quote about this? Tell me, how did Coghlan not being a natural outfielder increase his value this past season? He was brought into a situation that was unfamiliar to him, and he failed (defensively, at least), like one would expect. Does the fact that he played second base in college and throughout his minor league career have any impact on what he brought to the team this past season? He spent a grand total of 7 innings at second base, and spent all 1,039 of his other innings in left field. If someone is valuable in a certain area, but you don't use him for that specific cause, then his value decreases. Coghlan's value doesn't increase because of the situation the Marlins were in and what position they were in need of.

Two more pre-season games until the season opener on the 28th. Any predictions for the season?

USF lost to Cincy. Again. All the "signature I-A wins" in the world won't matter if you don't make it out of your conference. :mischief What "signature 1-A wins"?

Is there a schedule anywhere for the 30 for 30? Some of the docs seem pretty interesting and I'd love to see them. http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/08/27/fall-2009-slate-and-schedule-announced-for-espn-films%E2%80%99-%E2%80%9C30-for-30%E2%80%9D/25503 That's what they have so far.

Is the luckiest team in MLB really going to make it to the world series twice? ugh seriously, i hope the dodgers can win this time so tired of arrogant hillbillies getting excited over a few years of relevance. Lucky?

Sunday, October 18 Cleveland at Pittsburgh (1:00 PM) Carolina at Tampa Bay (1:00 PM) St. Louis at Jacksonville (1:00 PM) N.Y. Giants at New Orleans (1:00 PM) Baltimore at Minnesota (1:00 PM) Kansas City at Washington (1:00 PM) Houston at Cincinnati (1:00 PM) Detroit at Green Bay (1:00 PM) Philadelphia at Oakland (4:05 PM) Arizona at Seattle (4:05 PM) Buffalo at N.Y. Jets (4:15 PM) Tennessee at New England (4:15 PM) Chicago at Atlanta (8:20 PM) Monday, October 19 Denver at San Diego (8:20 PM) 9-5

You still need to go in and manually adjust the results from last week. Rab needs 1 more loss and I need 1 more win. Done.

Sorry, didn't realize that it would change scores from prior weeks. Fixed it.

I'm speechless after yesterday's game.

I think it is wrong that several of the league scoring categories have just been changed. Wait until the end of the year to change these sort of things as doing it midway through the season has a huge effect on most players teams. Namely categories such as now not getting any points whatsoever for extra points for the kickers. Part of the reason you choose a kicker some weeks is because they play a weak defense and so should score lots of fantasy points through a combination of FG and XP. The only thing I mainly adjusted were the defensive categories, since people were complaining about those earlier. I adjusted it to make the higher ranked positions the most valuable, like decreasing punter points.

I don't even want to talk about FSU at this point. The team is a mess from the management down to the on-field play. We're almost certainly going to lose this weekend, barring some kind of miraculous collapse by Georgia Tech. Just be thankful that they aren't a passing offense.

Sunday, October 11 Minnesota at St. Louis (1:00 PM) Oakland at N.Y. Giants (1:00 PM) Pittsburgh at Detroit (1:00 PM) Cincinnati at Baltimore (1:00 PM) Cleveland at Buffalo (1:00 PM) Tampa Bay at Philadelphia (1:00 PM) Dallas at Kansas City (1:00 PM) Washington at Carolina (1:00 PM) Atlanta at San Francisco (4:05 PM) New England at Denver (4:15 PM) Houston at Arizona (4:15 PM) Jacksonville at Seattle (4:15 PM) Indianapolis at Tennessee (8:20 PM) Monday, October 12 N.Y. Jets at Miami (8:20 PM) 9-5

Ok, so you're saying setting lineups, pinch hitting, and managing the bullpen only had an affect on a couple of games max ???? You can't be serious, right. What if Fredi put Coghlan 7th, and Hanley leadoff? What if he kept Boner in there batting second the whole season instead of Baker or Nick Johnson? What if he left Hermida in there, or Maybin when he was struggling mightely. Fredi realized Coghlan was a legitimate leadoff man when most of us doubted him. Remember when he was hitting .250 and had an OBP around .320. IF Hanley led off, he would have had 50 RBI's instead of 100. If you think tweaks like these would only factor in a couple of games, you're crazy. Fredi had to manage the bullpen everyday. Like I said, we set the MLB record for games without a complete game. Why don't you try managing a bullpen for 4+ innings a game. Fredi, for the most part made very intelligent decisions, it just came down to the players not getting their job done. So automatically Fredi is the scapegoat ??? Not fair. And what about Fredi managing the starting rotation ?? Volstad, Nolasco, and Miller were all sent down to the minors at some point. He had to call up guys like Vandenhurk, Sean West, Badenhop, etc. You're telling me that Fredi had nothing to do with that ? And little things like pinch hitting, pinch running, calling hit and runs can have a significant impact on a game. It could be the difference between a win or a loss. Yeah the front office built the team and yeah the individual players have to perform, but the manager has a huge impact on the game everyday. Why are managers constantly fired in baseball if they had nothing to do with the success of a team? Exactly. Not batting Hanley first and Coghlan seventh isn't being a good manager, it's called common sense. No manager in the game would be stupid enough to bat Coghlan seventh with his OBP, and no manager would also bat Bonifacio second over Johnson. As for Coghlan's start, it really didn't last that long, and he didn't have many other options to bat leadoff. You're simply listing things Fredi did that only a person with an IQ below 70 wouldn't have done. Since you said he was "extremely effective", I want to know what he did that really stood out, which most MLB managers wouldn't have done. If Fredi decides to use Pinto instead of Kiko or any other better relievers in a key situation, and Pinto fails, that's not a case of Pinto not getting the job done, it's a case of poor bullpen management by Fredi, which occurred plenty of times. If you remember, during the middle of the season when our bullpen was just getting hammered nearly every signle night, we were constantly sending relievers up and down to have a fresh bullpen (Martinez, Wood, Leroux, etc.) The thing is, for some reason, Fredi would use those releivers in crucial situations, even if a guy like Kiko had two or three days rest. Then the next night, when we're up by six runs, he would use Kiko then. There are ways to handle the bullpen even if you have to use them for four innings per night, and Fredi did not do his job effectively. Things like pinch hitting and pinch running barely have an impact on the game, as long as you put them in at the right time, which just depends on a pitcher's pitch count/tiredness. I mean, what did he really have to decide, whether to use Gload or Helms? Hit-and-runs can have an impact on the game, but only to a certain extent, and it's hard to decide if they were actually the right decisions, and if they were effective. If you want to talk about the other little things, I don't remember Fredi having much success there, especially if you remember the Werth-Bako situation. Managers in baseball get fired because of their record for the same reason sabermetricians don't get hired by front offices often. Ignorance. An owner wants to win ballgames, and he usually needs someone to put the blame on for not having a winning team, A.K.A., the manager. But it's not common sense. You remember when Hanley was struggling in the 3rd spot for quite some time? Hanley his whole career was comfortable batting leadoff but Gonzo had to make a decision on if he should keep him in the 3rd spot or move him back to leadoff. He kept him in there, despite his struggles, and look at Hanley now, he's the NL batting champ. As for Coghlan, initially he wasn't your prototypical leadoff guy. He didn't have great speed, at the time, he wasn't hitting for average and his OBP was mediocre at best, definitely not leadoff material. But Fredi stuck with him and not only did it pan out, it looks like Coghlan will win ROY. And we as fans have short term memories. The obvious glaring mistakes stick out, but when good decisions are made, we just look at it as 'eh' and move on. I remember numerous times when Pinto was called in on key situations and got the job done. Like I said, when managers make good decisions in key times, they go unnoticed, and two days later we're oblivious. But when Pinto doesn't get the job done, we remember it for a month and start calling for Fredi's head. We're always trying to find a scapegoat, and Fredi is the first choice. And there's so much more that goes into pinch hitting and pinch running. You have to factor in how many guys you have left, what inning it is, what the score is, whether a player in game can move to a different position during a double switch. If he pinch runs, he has to make sure he has a replacement, like the numerous times he used Emilio to pinch run for Paulino. You look at it in the most simplest way possible when in reality there's so much to take into consideration before a decision is made. And at the end of the day, we have no idea what goes on in the clubhouse and in that dugout and bullpen. All those times he used Pinto or another reliever instead of Calero or someone with so called "better numbers," you write it off as a bad move. What if Calero didn't have his stuff warming up, or didn't have control. What if the 2 guys he was coming in to pitch to had great numbers against him. What if a pitcher wasn't available for a reason we don't know of but Fredi and the clubhouse did. You see, we as fans look at baseball on a very basic level when in reality, it is so much more complicated, and unless we're part of the team, we'll never know why decisions are made. But there's a reason behind everything. I have a feeling most managers would have put Hanley third, knowing that he was probably the second best power threat on the team, plus he was a great contact hitter. And even if he Fredi did bat him first throughout the entire season though, how much of an impact would that really have had? Probably not more than a couple games. For all we know, it could have even been better having a Hanley/Coghlan/Cantu/Uggla/Ross lineup. Managers are hired to make good decisions. When Fredi made a good decision, he was doing his job the way he was supposed to, and when he made a move like the Werth/Bako one, he failed miserably. No matter if Pinto got the job done or not, it would have nearly always been a better decision to bring in a guy like Kiko, as long as he was healthy. Kiko got the job done many more times than Pinto did last season, and when you know that one reliever is better than another, you use the better reliever in key situations. I notice, as many other fans do, when he makes good decisions, but nearly all of his decisions should be good decisions, because that's what makes a good manager. Unfortunately, this past season, that wasn't the case. You're really making Fredi's job seem harder than it really is. Sorry, but I'm not buying the "inside information" excuse. And even if Fredi did have access to more specific numbers, like a pithcer/hitter matchup, the end result still usually turned out to be negative. Granted, there could be some things that are kept within the dugout that us fans never know about, but I judge someone based off of what I see and what I know, I don't just assume that there's a secret reason for a decision that Fredi makes.

One of the worst ways to judge a manager is to judge him by his record. People seem to think that since we won 87 games, and we "overachieved", Fredi deserves the credit. Great post. Like I said, it depends on the circumstances. Just look what Fredi was given to work with. He had one consistent starter all year, the rest of the 4 guys were up and down in the minors. We didn't have a consistent closer. Factor that all in with us having the lowest payroll in baseball, I think the record alone should be very telling on the job Fredi did this year. We won every single season series against the NL East, including the Phillies with that potent offense and the Braves with that great pitching. Yeah if Boston or New York won 90 games, you cannot just look at the record and say they had a good year, b/c they're big market teams with enormous amounts of talent each year. The Marlins don't have that luxury. None of what you just said though had anything to do with what Fredi actually did, it was what he had to work with. 80-85 (probably closer to 85) of the wins the Marlins had should be credited to the players and the front office for putting the team together. A manager may decide a few games at max. If we had a worse team, but still had a payroll in the same area as we did this past year, and we ended the season with 75 wins, would you be saying that Fredi did a worse job as a manager? Would it be Fredi's fault that the front office put out a lower quality team? There are only so many things that a manager has an affect on. Setting lineups, pinch-hitting/running, and bullpen use are the three major ones that come to mind. The first two also don't have nearly the importance as the third one. So when you look at the most important decision a manager has to make (how to handle a bullpen), you ask yourself how did Fredi handle that job, and probably the majority would say that he was poor in that area. How many wins did he actually cause us to win/lose? Nobody knows for sure, but the manager isn't the one who decides the outcome of ballgames, and he shouldn't be the one getting credit for winning 87 games. Ok, so you're saying setting lineups, pinch hitting, and managing the bullpen only had an affect on a couple of games max ???? You can't be serious, right. What if Fredi put Coghlan 7th, and Hanley leadoff? What if he kept Boner in there batting second the whole season instead of Baker or Nick Johnson? What if he left Hermida in there, or Maybin when he was struggling mightely. Fredi realized Coghlan was a legitimate leadoff man when most of us doubted him. Remember when he was hitting .250 and had an OBP around .320. IF Hanley led off, he would have had 50 RBI's instead of 100. If you think tweaks like these would only factor in a couple of games, you're crazy. Fredi had to manage the bullpen everyday. Like I said, we set the MLB record for games without a complete game. Why don't you try managing a bullpen for 4+ innings a game. Fredi, for the most part made very intelligent decisions, it just came down to the players not getting their job done. So automatically Fredi is the scapegoat ??? Not fair. And what about Fredi managing the starting rotation ?? Volstad, Nolasco, and Miller were all sent down to the minors at some point. He had to call up guys like Vandenhurk, Sean West, Badenhop, etc. You're telling me that Fredi had nothing to do with that ? And little things like pinch hitting, pinch running, calling hit and runs can have a significant impact on a game. It could be the difference between a win or a loss. Yeah the front office built the team and yeah the individual players have to perform, but the manager has a huge impact on the game everyday. Why are managers constantly fired in baseball if they had nothing to do with the success of a team? Exactly. Not batting Hanley first and Coghlan seventh isn't being a good manager, it's called common sense. No manager in the game would be stupid enough to bat Coghlan seventh with his OBP, and no manager would also bat Bonifacio second over Johnson. As for Coghlan's start, it really didn't last that long, and he didn't have many other options to bat leadoff. You're simply listing things Fredi did that only a person with an IQ below 70 wouldn't have done. Since you said he was "extremely effective", I want to know what he did that really stood out, which most MLB managers wouldn't have done. If Fredi decides to use Pinto instead of Kiko or any other better relievers in a key situation, and Pinto fails, that's not a case of Pinto not getting the job done, it's a case of poor bullpen management by Fredi, which occurred plenty of times. If you remember, during the middle of the season when our bullpen was just getting hammered nearly every signle night, we were constantly sending relievers up and down to have a fresh bullpen (Martinez, Wood, Leroux, etc.) The thing is, for some reason, Fredi would use those releivers in crucial situations, even if a guy like Kiko had two or three days rest. Then the next night, when we're up by six runs, he would use Kiko then. There are ways to handle the bullpen even if you have to use them for four innings per night, and Fredi did not do his job effectively. Things like pinch hitting and pinch running barely have an impact on the game, as long as you put them in at the right time, which just depends on a pitcher's pitch count/tiredness. I mean, what did he really have to decide, whether to use Gload or Helms? Hit-and-runs can have an impact on the game, but only to a certain extent, and it's hard to decide if they were actually the right decisions, and if they were effective. If you want to talk about the other little things, I don't remember Fredi having much success there, especially if you remember the Werth-Bako situation. Managers in baseball get fired because of their record for the same reason sabermetricians don't get hired by front offices often. Ignorance. An owner wants to win ballgames, and he usually needs someone to put the blame on for not having a winning team, A.K.A., the manager.

One of the worst ways to judge a manager is to judge him by his record. People seem to think that since we won 87 games, and we "overachieved", Fredi deserves the credit. Great post. Like I said, it depends on the circumstances. Just look what Fredi was given to work with. He had one consistent starter all year, the rest of the 4 guys were up and down in the minors. We didn't have a consistent closer. Factor that all in with us having the lowest payroll in baseball, I think the record alone should be very telling on the job Fredi did this year. We won every single season series against the NL East, including the Phillies with that potent offense and the Braves with that great pitching. Yeah if Boston or New York won 90 games, you cannot just look at the record and say they had a good year, b/c they're big market teams with enormous amounts of talent each year. The Marlins don't have that luxury. None of what you just said though had anything to do with what Fredi actually did, it was what he had to work with. 80-85 (probably closer to 85) of the wins the Marlins had should be credited to the players and the front office for putting the team together. A manager may decide a few games at max. If we had a worse team, but still had a payroll in the same area as we did this past year, and we ended the season with 75 wins, would you be saying that Fredi did a worse job as a manager? Would it be Fredi's fault that the front office put out a lower quality team? There are only so many things that a manager has an affect on. Setting lineups, pinch-hitting/running, and bullpen use are the three major ones that come to mind. The first two also don't have nearly the importance as the third one. So when you look at the most important decision a manager has to make (how to handle a bullpen), you ask yourself how did Fredi handle that job, and probably the majority would say that he was poor in that area. How many wins did he actually cause us to win/lose? Nobody knows for sure, but the manager isn't the one who decides the outcome of ballgames, and he shouldn't be the one getting credit for winning 87 games.

One of the worst ways to judge a manager is to judge him by his record. People seem to think that since we won 87 games, and we "overachieved", Fredi deserves the credit.

That Win was for all the haters, naysayers and Non Believers. It's All about the U and the U Swag is back. Congratulations. You guys beat a team who was missing the best QB and the best TE in the country. Thank You! And Congratulations you lost to Boston College who isn't even ranked which brings you to what 1-3 now? Yeah, safe to say at this point that our season is over. I'm just waiting for the old guy to finally leave.

No, your post did not have any impact on me, simply because I already thought McCutchen should win ROY. The problem is, is that 90% of the people on this board have no idea what you're saying, and, being ignorant, they just call you an idiot for picking someone other than Coghlan. Sorry, you're really just wasting your time here.

That Win was for all the haters, naysayers and Non Believers. It's All about the U and the U Swag is back. Congratulations. You guys beat a team who was missing the best QB and the best TE in the country.

The IF defense regressed from the the time he became the IF coach in '07. Who are you talking about, specifically?

Big dilemna for me whether I go with Admin Johnson against the Giants or Mendenhall against the Chargers as it seems he will be taking over from the injuried Willie Parker this week. Isn't there a chance that Mendenhall might sit out again since he doesn't know the playbook?

Uggla and Hermdia are gone, we already knew that. Maybe we might be able to package them together to get a great prospect in return. You mean like how we packaged Hammer and Olsen to get the all-time shwag package featuring one Emilio Bonerface? We'd be lucky to get a Leo Nunez for Uggla at this point. Uggla's slugging dipped over fifty points from last year, from 514 to 460. Yes, he'll wind up with about as many HRs as his best season, 2008, but he'll wind up with 10 fewer doubles than last year, and a BA around 240. More and more, Uggla's looking like the poster boy for the old adage that a hitter peaks at 27 years old and then starts declining. Not saying that I won't miss him. What I'm saying is don't hold your breath for some amazing bounty for Uggla. You don't think that Uggla is worth more than Mike Jacobs? Sorry, but a low-mid .800 OPS second baseman who plays average defense is worth more than a high .700 OPS DH. At worst, we will probably get a very good prospect (B, B+), with maybe one or two decent ones. Uggla hasn't been declining, so I don't know what you're talking about there. I also still find it funny every time someone says Bonifacio was the centerpiece of the Willingham-Olsen trade.

Starters- This is where I see a huge upgrade over this season. We're probably keeping all of our pitchers from this year, and with all of them either still very young or at least relatively young, we should see them all improve. The two which I expect to see performing much better are Nolasco and Volstad, since they have been very unlucky this year. Amazingly, Volstad has the highest HR/FB% in the MLB, and Nolasco is .003 points away from having the highest BABIP in the MLB. Needless to say, I expect solid season from both of them next year, with Nolasco's ERA falling somewhere in between 3.5-4, and Volstad with an ERA from 4-4.5, with both having the ability to be even better than that. Johnson should continue to dominate, while whoever the other two starters are (Sanchez, West?) should at least be decent in 2010, if not better. Relievers- This is the hardest part to predict, since a bullpen can change dramatically every season. If we can put together just an average bullpen, then we would be in the same area as we were in 2009. To recap: Upgrades- Left, Right, SP Same- Catcher, Second, Third, Short, RP Downgrades- First Unknown- Center Which means that we should be a better team, in my opinion. I'd put our starters under "Unknown" as well. We could've said the same thing at the beginning of this year about how Volstad would be good and that is not what he's shown. And what makes you think Anibal will be better? You just don't know what to expect from these guys. Nolasco looks legit but even he has faltered. Our rotation is JJ, Nolasco, hopeforthebest, hopeforthebest, hopeforthebest Closer is non existent. If we don't keep JJ we're gonna be hurting. I never said that our starters were unknown, I said our releivers were unknown. Our rotation can be one of the better ones, maybe even a top five rotation in the NL next season. I don't think any realistic people thought that Volstad would come in and have that sub-3 ERA he had last season. A 3.9 HR/FB% is nearly impossible to maintain, so we knew that was going to come up. It just came up a lot higher than most people would have expected it to. Anibal, assuming that he remains healthy throughout 2010 (which is a big IF), should make a decent back-end of the rotation starter. Our rotation is far from just two starters. If we can get another 3-ERA season from JJ, around a 3.5 from Nolasco, ERAs in the high-threes from Volstad, and low-mid fours from both Sanchez/West/whoever the last two starters are, then we will be in very good shape, pending that there are no major injuries.

While I expect Coghlans BABIP to drop, I still expect him to be a .800 OPS AB. So, we lose out on power, but gain OBP. Which is why I said that he could be nearly as good as Uggla has been for us the past few years, providing that he at least plays average defense at second.

I only have two problems with this article... Firstly, our 11-1 start gets shat on again because of who we played. So what? If the Yankees went 11-1 to start the year against Baltimore and Kansas City, nobody would complain. We got lucky to have an "easy" schedule to start? Not our fault and we should be commended for taking advantage of it. Thank you very much. And lastly, the rest of the recap was accurate except that they predict for us to not contend in 2010. I completely disagree. 2009 showed that we are *this* close...we make the improvements we need (such as bullpen and a reliable rotation) and we are definitely contenders in 2010. 2009 was a success overall and we are definitely setup to make a better run in 2010 with the right upgrades. The main reason they think that we are going to move backwards in 2010 is because Uggla's gone, N. Johnson might be gone, we still have no closer, and we also might lose another bat, possibly. In summary the article is also correct that we didn't do better because of the following reasons: -Inconsistent starting pitching -No true closer -Bonifacio taking up so many ABs with that INCREDIBLE .299 OBP, which is just horrible. Those are pretty much what killed us this year. Otherwise we are in the playoffs now. I disagree. I think there's a good chance that we're a 90-win team next year. Catcher- Baker is all but guaranteed to be back next season, and I think Paulino also has a good chance of sticking around for 2010. Considering we get a mid-high .700 OPS between the two, we're in pretty good shape there. First- The position is still a question mark for next season. Yeah, we'll be without NJ, but he only played 32 games for us this season, so him not being here at all next year won't be that much of a difference. If we have, let's say, Gaby Sanchez playing first, then the offense that Sanchez brings will be a downgrade, but if he can play league average defense, that will be an improvement over what NJ has done this season, so he could be almost as good. We could also see Morrison up during the middle of the season. Second- Coghlan's BABIP will drop, which means his OPS will drop, but if he can still maintain at least a high-700 OPS with average defense at second base, he would probably be a slightly worse Dan Uggla. In fact, he may even be better than that considering he is a much better contact hitter than Uggla. Third- If I had to guess, and for the sake of argument, I'll put Cantu at third for 2010. He should put up around another .800 OPS season, so no upgrade, but no downgrade there. Short- Hanley's numbers could decrease, but if they do, it probably won't be by that much. He also has room for improvement on defense. Left- Cody has a good chance of playing LF next year. He can put up an OPS somewhat near Coghlan's 2009 OPS. He also brings much better defense though, so if anything, it will be an improvement in LF. Center- Maybin is a player that is really too hard to project. He can be both great and terrible offensively, and the same can be said for his defense. He could be worse than Cody was this year, or he could be better, I really just don't know. Right- Carroll would be my best guess to play RF in '10. Hermida might be better on offense than Carroll, but the defensive upgrade would be HUGE. It's never a bad thing to have one of the best defensive right fielders in the game playing for your team, even if the offense is below average. Regardless, he will probably be an upgrade over Hermida. Starters- This is where I see a huge upgrade over this season. We're probably keeping all of our pitchers from this year, and with all of them either still very young or at least relatively young, we should see them all improve. The two which I expect to see performing much better are Nolasco and Volstad, since they have been very unlucky this year. Amazingly, Volstad has the highest HR/FB% in the MLB, and Nolasco is .003 points away from having the highest BABIP in the MLB. Needless to say, I expect solid season from both of them next year, with Nolasco's ERA falling somewhere in between 3.5-4, and Volstad with an ERA from 4-4.5, with both having the ability to be even better than that. Johnson should continue to dominate, while whoever the other two starters are (Sanchez, West?) should at least be decent in 2010, if not better. Relievers- This is the hardest part to predict, since a bullpen can change dramatically every season. If we can put together just an average bullpen, then we would be in the same area as we were in 2009. To recap: Upgrades- Left, Right, SP Same- Catcher, Second, Third, Short, RP Downgrades- First Unknown- Center Which means that we should be a better team, in my opinion.