Name That Team: Los Metropolianos de Nueva York

The Mets were good last year. Really good. They built a huge lead early on in the NL East and coasted after the break. Unfortunately for the Mets, they were unlucky in terms of injuries and were just not able to beat a hot Cardinals team in the playoffs. The Mets were clearly the best team in the National League last year during the regular season, but baseball doesn't give a trophy for what you do in the regular season.

Still, despite what Jimmy Rollins has to say, the Mets are the team to beat in the NL East, if not the entire National League.

Let's start with the good: the line up. I mean, damn. Reyes, Lo Duca, Beltran, Delgado, Wright, Alou, Green and Valentin is a frightening 1-8. Maybe the best in baseball. Well, okay, it isn't even the best line up in New York, but still. It's good. And Reyes and Wright are 23 (will be 24 in June) and 24 respectively. We're talking about a probable hall of fame left side of the infield for years to come. Let there be no doubt, this team will score runs.

Now the bad: the rotation. Here's what it looks like when healthy (which it isn't right now): Tito Puente, Wilford Brimley, Fidel Castro... oh wait, I was only looking at the birthdays. Sorry. It's Pedro Martinez (still effective when healthy, but he isn't Pedro anymore), Tom Glavine and Orlando Hernandez (possibly even older than Julio Franco, who I believe is 104). The point is, in addition to the aforementioned geezers, the Mets need two of these 3 guys to step up and be effective starters if they want to return to the NLCS or beyond: John Maine (good last year, but still very inexperienced), Oliver Perez (2004 might have been the fluke, not the past 2 years) and Chan Ho Park (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... heh, sorry, but you get the idea).

Even if Maine and Park pitch well, the X factor is still Perez. If he pitches like he did in 2004 (12-10, 2.98, 239 Ks) this team could be scary once again. But Perez had an ERA above 5 in 2003 and in 2005, so I wouldn't hold my breath. The kid (he'll be 26 in August) still has great stuff and plenty of time to refine it, but he might not have the mental make up for long-term success. And yes, I know, he was good in the postseason last year, but that is a very small sample. Was he worth the gamble last year? Absolutely. The Mets didn't need Xavier Nady. But he's still a gamble. Over-under wins: 92.

Not-so-random-side-note/rant: Billy Wagner, you are a piece of shit. The Phillies aren't committed to winning? Really? In September 2005 you blew BACK TO BACK games to the Astros, the team that finished ONE GAME ahead of the Phillies in the wild card race that year. If you do your job 50% of the time that weekend, guess who makes the playoffs? Oh My Fucking God, it's the Phillies! Not comitted to winning? I think the fact that they didn't resign your horsefucking self is proof that they are indeed committed to winning. I hate you. I hope J.D. Drew gives you AIDS. Shithead.