Ok, I know that spring brings with it renewed hopes and high expectations, but you've got to be kidding me with this one. SFGate's NL West preview (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/29/SPGMLORI9Q1.DTL&feed=rss.giants) includes the following quote about San Francisco's team this year:
"Zito, Matt Cain and Russ Ortiz having the makings of a solid top three in the rotation, even if they are not slotted that way."
Russ Ortiz of the 8.14 ERA in 2006 and the 6.89 ERA in 2005. I'm fine with the first two, but Russ Ortiz?!?!?! Solid?!?!? Top?!?!? Rotation?!?!? I don't think I would use any of those words to describe Russ Ortiz, unless it is followed by a pejorative term, like "top crappy pitcher", or "solidly awful". Now I don't have anything against Russ Ortiz, I'm sure he is a nice person and tries hard, not to mention probably helps old ladies across the street when he can. But how can this writer (who I assume gets paid to write) actually float this garbage out there as truth.
I guess Ortiz is fine as a fifth starter, (especially considering what we are rolling out there every fifth day) but to mention him as being an asset to a rotation is just lunacy.
I guess my flawed premise is that baseball writers have to know something about baseball in order to write about it.