If one takes a look at their young pitching staff and re-amped farm system it`s a sure shot.
2007-01-16 07:59:51 · 24 answers · asked by Brock L 1 in Sports ➔ Baseball
He sounds like a bitter Yankee fan to me. lol. Bub.
2007-01-16 08:05:09 · update #1
doesn't a team generally have to win a couple to even begin to talk about a Dynasty? The Cardinals have had a killer batting order for quite a few years and they have only won one recently, there are numerous other examples including great young pitching staffs. I guess you could call the Braves a dynasty, but they only won 1 world series out of all that, so were they really a dynasty?
The last dynasty was the New York Yankees in the late 90's, and before that you have to go back to probably the A's of the 70's, maybe the Reds.
I don't think Detroit will be a dynasty
2007-01-16 08:05:24 · answer #1 · answered by btpage0630 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't stick the dynasty tag on any team just yet.
Lots of teams have a really good year and then come back down to earth real fast.
The Tigers made a good move bringing in Sheffield, but also gave up some top-flight farm-hands in the process.
Any of the young starters could regress this season and both your staff ace and your closer are another year older.
The team was comprised of a lot of "no-namers" (no disrespect intended) who had career years. It's very possible the Tigers could be a third or fourth place team again in 2007.
Let's see if they can repeat the same success a few years in a row AND win the World Series a time or two...then and only then can we start using the word dynasty.
2007-01-16 08:06:40 · answer #2 · answered by tkatt00 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not sure what your definition of dynasty is there dude, but going to the the world series after not winning it in 23 years and losing to the cardinals none the less do not make a dynasty it might make you ok for a season but dynasty no. Next time you start thinking about a dynasty maybe you should check out the Big Red Machine buddy. Not some lame team that was ok for a year. But hey at least they re not the Detroit Lions
2007-01-16 08:06:22 · answer #3 · answered by pintoguinness37 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They have the potential and are a good team but before any team starts talking about dynasty you need to win a couple of World Series in a row or like 4 in 5 years or something to be considered a dynasty.
2007-01-16 13:06:29 · answer #4 · answered by toughguy2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on your definition of dynasty. Multiple championships for multiple years in a row...I'm not sure if Detroit will have that, that's extremely hard to do in this age of sports with trades, contracts and free agents. But I think they'll be good, competitive and at least near the top of the AL Central as long as Leyland is there.
One team with somewhat of a dynasty right now is the St. Louis Cardinals. They've been consistently in the race since 2000. Been to two World Series, won one. Been to 5 (I believe) NL Championship Series.
I think the Cards at least deserve a mention in "mini-dynasty" talk.
2007-01-17 03:19:23 · answer #5 · answered by Js_5 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Tigers have a lot of young talent, and are an excellent team. No one with their head on their shoulders will argue that. But to label a team as a "dynasty" before they have won even one World Series title is just a bit premature.
2007-01-17 12:01:06 · answer #6 · answered by frenchy62 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They could quite possibly have a good shot @ it. But the AL is a strong division as a whole with both Soxs, Yanks, Twins, A's, Angels etc. Now that teams have seen the young arms actually pitch to them more than from scouting reports, I think that teams will start to hit them better and I am thinking they will compete next year but not win.
2007-01-16 08:49:09 · answer #7 · answered by jshawver3 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dynasty? No.
The AL Central has many good teams. The White Sox and Twins can build good ballclubs, the Indians will probably be better this year, as well. They've got way too much competition in their own divison to run away with it year after year.
2007-01-16 08:09:34 · answer #8 · answered by JenJen 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is the free agency era, bub. Unless they're willing to shell out big bucks and longterm contracts (like the Yankees), those young pitchers will be gone in a couple of years, if not sooner.
2007-01-16 08:02:55 · answer #9 · answered by bodinibold 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
YEAH THEY ARE!!!! IM 100% TIGER BABY AND THEY ARE THE BST OF THE REST AND YES THE REST MEANS YOU YANKEES AND TWINS AND WHITE SOX!!!!!! TIGERS ARE THE BOMB AND CANT BE BEAT!!!!!!! sorry just a little amped after this season lol
â¥
100% Tiger Fan!
2007-01-16 09:53:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋