There's still a lot of offseason left, so these odds will change. And remember that odds are different than projections. Anyway, the latest World Series odds from Bovada.lv:
Chicago Cubs -- 6/1
San Francisco Giants -- 6/1
Boston Red Sox -- 9/1
Kansas City Royals -- 14/1
New York Mets -- 14/1
Los Angeles Dodgers -- 16/1
St. Louis Cardinals -- 16/1
Toronto Blue Jays -- 16/1
Houston Astros -- 18/1
Pittsburgh Pirates -- 18/1
Washington Nationals -- 18/1
Arizona Diamondbacks -- 20/1
Texas Rangers -- 20/1
Cleveland Indians -- 25/1
Detroit Tigers -- 25/1
Los Angeles Angels -- 25/1
New York Yankees -- 25/1
Seattle Mariners -- 33/1
Baltimore Orioles -- 50/1
Chicago White Sox -- 50/1
Minnesota Twins -- 50/1
Miami Marlins -- 66/1
Tampa Bay Rays -- 66/1
Milwaukee Brewers -- 75/1
Oakland Athletics -- 75/1
Atlanta Braves -- 100/1
Cincinnati Reds -- 100/1
Colorado Rockies -- 100/1
Philadelphia Phillies -- 100/1
San Diego Padres -- 100/1
A few things that stand out to me:
-- The Giants have much better odds than the Dodgers. I get that the Giants have made two big signings in Johnny Cueto and Jeff Samardzija and the Dodgers lost Zack Greinke, but I think the teams are close on paper, with the Dodgers perhaps the slight favorite in the division ... and you know the Dodgers have moves still to come. The Giants, meanwhile, are currently going with an outfield of 33-year-old Hunter Pence coming off an injury-plagued season; 34-year-old Angel Pagan, who can't really play center field anymore; and 32-year-old Gregor Blanco.
-- The Red Sox have better odds than the Blue Jays. That could simply be a result of who's making the bets: There are probably more Red Sox fans betting than Blue Jays fans, thus lowering their odds. I do wonder about the Red Sox's rotation: David Price is great, but Clay Buchholz is injury-prone and Rick Porcello is coming off a terrible season; the others are basically unproven or should be shifted to the bullpen (Joe Kelly). It could be a very good rotation, but it could also be Price trying to carry a bunch of Nos. 4 and 5 starters.
-- The Padres have the same odds as the rest of the National League sludge. Not that I expect the Padres to do much, but they're more likely to run into a lucky season than the Braves, Phillies, Reds, Brewers or Rockies.
That gets to the main takeaway from this list: The bottom five teams are all in the NL and I'd argue the Brewers are worse than the A's, giving the NL the six worst teams, maybe the bottom seven depending on how the Marlins do. This is what happened in 2015, when six NL teams lost 90-plus games and only the A's did so in the AL. I can't find the link, but I read something on Bill James Online a few weeks ago that (I believe) said the 2015 American League was the most balanced league ever. The Royals won 95 games; the A's won 68. The Royals and Blue Jays were the only teams to win 90 and every team except the A's won at least 74, so 12 of the 15 teams were bunched between 74 and 88 wins. Right now, it looks like more of the same for 2016.
As for all the 90-loss teams, we had eight 90-loss teams in 2012, but it was spread out with four in each league, and we had nine 90-loss teams in 2011, but again split with five in the NL and four in the AL. The 2015 NL became the first league of the division era (since 1969) with six 90-loss teams.
With the Phillies and Braves in full tank mode and now joined by the Reds and Brewers (I'm not exactly sure what the Rockies are up to), the NL will once again be a league of haves and have-nots.
The bigger question: Is this good for the game? Back when I used to edit Bill Simmons on Page 2, he railed against the NBA lottery system that basically encouraged tanking. His argument: Why should bad teams be rewarded? MLB teams have discovered the benefits of this and now teams believe they can replicate the Cubs/Astros model, hitting rock bottom to secure high draft picks to help the rebuilding process with premium prospects.
More on that in a later blog. I do have issues with a system that encourages teams trying to lose. I'm not saying teams shouldn't do this; if you're going to win only 75 games it makes sense to aim even lower and get a higher draft pick. I'd create a system that uses a cumulative three-year record to determine draft order. That way, if you want that No. 1 pick you have to earn it over a period of years.
For the 2016 draft, that would mean the Houston Astros -- even though they made the playoffs in 2015 -- would be drafting No. 1. Doesn't seem fair? Keep in mind the Astros wouldn't have had the first pick after their first really awful season, since they had been OK in previous years. This concept would help a team like the Rockies: They'd be drafting second instead of fourth, which is more fair given their perpetual 90-loss status than a team like the Braves drafting second after winning 96 games as recently as 2013. The Braves would be drafting 13th instead of second. I like that. You want to tank? Fine, but you're not going to immediately shoot up the draft.
The point: Competition is good. We have one league in which theoretically all 15 teams have a chance at the postseason. And we have another league in which nearly half the games played will be between a bunch of crappy teams that will be out of the playoff race by July.