Alright, even though it would be really easy to leave them as I copy-and-pasted them, in alphabetical order, I'll organize the teams into their proper divisions:

AL East:

New York Yankees Over 96.5 (-115)    
  Under 96.5 (-115)
Boston Red Sox Over 91 (-125)    
  Under 91 (-105)
Toronto Blue Jays Over 86.5 (-110)    
  Under 86.5 (-120)
Baltimore Orioles Over 73 (-115)    
  Under 73 (-115)
Tampa Bay Devil Rays Over 67 (-130)    
  Under 67 (Even)

AL Central:

Chicago White Sox Over 87.5 (-115)    
  Under 87.5 (-115)
Detroit Tigers Over 87.5 (-130)    
  Under 87.5 (Even)
Cleveland Indians Over 85.5 (-115)    
  Under 85.5 (-115)
Minnesota Twins Over 84 (-115)    
  Under 84 (-115)
Kansas City Royals Over 67 (-125)    
  Under 67 (-105)

AL West

Los Angeles Angels Over 88.5 (-125)    
  Under 88.5 (-105)
Oakland Athletics Over 85.5 (-110)    
  Under 85.5 (-120)
Texas Rangers Over 80.5 (-130)    
  Under 80.5 (Even)
Seattle Mariners Over 77.5 (-115)    
  Under 77.5 (-115)

NL East:

New York Mets Over 89 (-130)    
  Under 89 (Even)
Philadelphia Phillies Over 88.5 (-115)    
  Under 88.5 (-115)
Atlanta Braves Over 82 (-115)    
  Under 82 (-115)
Florida Marlins Over 77.5 (-125)    
  Under 77.5 (-105)
Washington Nationals Over 66.5 (-105)    
  Under 66.5 (-125)

NL Central:

St Louis Cardinals Over 85.5 (-110)    
  Under 85.5 (-120)
Chicago Cubs Over 83.5 (-115)    
  Under 83.5 (-115)
Milwaukee Brewers Over 80.5 (-125)    
  Under 80.5 (-105)
Houston Astros Over 78 (-135)    
  Under 78 (+105)
Cincinnati Reds Over 76.5 (-125)    
  Under 76.5 (-105)
Pittsburgh Pirates Over 72 (Even)    
  Under 72 (-130)

NL West:

Los Angeles Dodgers Over 88 (-130)    
  Under 88 (Even)
San Diego Padres Over 83.5 (-125)    
  Under 83.5 (-105)
San Francisco Giants Over 80.5 (-115)    
  Under 80.5 (-115)
Arizona Diamondbacks Over 78.5 (-115)    
  Under 78.5 (-115)    
Colorado Rockies Over 75 (-125)    
  Under 75 (-105)
 
With a sterling 2-0 record from 2006 W/L O/U totals giving me some serious credibility here (I took the over on a similar total for Minnesota...83, maybe, and the under for ~75 wins for Pittsburgh...both bets were relatively secure by the beginning of August), I offer the following best bets for this year:

NL:
Way more good-looking bets here than in the AL.  I'll start with the East:

Philly: under 88.5.  This is a perpetually overrated, perpetually mediocre team.  Their longtime star has been wearing pinstripes since last July.  The heart of the order is still strong, and in their primes (all 4 of them), but the rest of the team is decidedly underwhelming.  I think Atlanta's better.  Which leads me to...

Atlanta: over 82.  I'm going to abruptly stop commentary here.  

Central:

Cincinnati: under 76.5.  I don't think Saarloos is going to be a #3 caliber starter for this team.

West:

LA: Under 88

Arizona: Over 78.5

AL:

None.  If I had to bet here, I'd go with over for Boston and Detroit, under for Seattle, but I don't like any of these all that much.

I'd like to see how certain projections match up to these over/unders.  That would be a useful betting tool, a nice supplement to instinct/gut feeling/hunches/whatever else you and I are using.  Ideally, you want to find a particularly reliable simulation, PECOTA, DiamondMind, whatever, and exploit the inefficiencies you see above.  

Another useful approach is to compare these to the odds of winning the division, and look for any glaring inconsistencies.  Take the AL West, for example:

Anaheim Angels 5-8    
Oakland Athletics 3-1  
Texas Rangers 5-1
Seattle Mariners 8-1

Given the win total over-unders, should the A's odds really be that much worse than the Angels' here?  Of course, you have to take into account some sort of contrived Likelihood to Deviate Significantly From Projection...in other words, some teams with the same win projections could be higher risk/reward teams than others.  The Cubs and Padres at 83.5 come to mind...it might be a good mean win total for both, but of the two, which team could you possibly see winning 93 games?  The Cubbies, right?  How about winning 73 games?  Eh, once again, the Cubs.  A team like that, controlling for everything else, would be a better pick to win the division.

Applying this very unscientifically and subjectively to the case of the AL West, I don't see the A's deviating much from this win total...in my mind, that magic number of 83.5 would probably be a perfect O/U for them, too (not a significant enough difference for me to want to bet the under against them, though...and c'mon, I'd never bet the under on my favorite team...I might sell my soul for 30 pieces of silver in a different way, but not like that.)  Still, the odds are good enough where, weighing the win totals and Expected...Projection, I would probably like a bet on the A's here.

Doing that for the other divisions...

AL Central:

Detroit Tigers 9-5
Chicago White Sox 2-1    
Cleveland Indians 3-1    
Minnesota Twins 3-1
Kansas City Royals 75-1

Cue Layne Staley (by the time this night's over, I hope to refer to all 4 of the big Seattle bands...2 down, 2 to go (see the WLD for a rather extended Nirvana reference): "I stay away..."...this division is not one to mess with.  I guess I can reach and get my Soundgarden reference out of the way by saying "I'm looking California (Oakland), but [not] feeling Minnesota."  Not this year, anyway.  

I'll save the band I've seen in person four times (Pearl Jam; I wish I could say that about the others, especially Alice In Chains) for last.  

AL East:

New York Yankees 1-2
Boston Red Sox 9-5
Toronto Blue Jays 6-1
Baltimore Orioles 100-1    
Tampa Bay Devil Rays 100-1    

In a random diary where I rattled off a string of posts related to the divisional odds, I strongly advocated betting on Boston (then sporting 2-1 odds; Epstein being the friend of Eddie Vedder that he is, not to mention the fandom of glorified Red Sox reporter Peter Gammons, I should probably include a PJ reference here, but I won't) AND Toronto (6-1 then, as now) to win, because I think these odds are predictably skewed in the Yankees' favor.  Based on the differing criteria of the season win totals + deviation pseudo-formula I'm focusing on here, however, I don't think there's much basis to act on anything here...though the Orioles' 100-1 is looking a little better than the D-Rays' 100-1 if you're in the mood to take a serious flyer, heh.  Hope that Balt can rekindle the karma from the first couple months of 2005 and keep that going for an entire season....

NL West (I changed the order from the O/U's, didn't I...eh, I'll go track down an editor moonlighting as a taxi driver in a few minutes):

Los Angeles Dodgers 10-11
San Diego Padres 11-4
San Francisco Giants 4-1  
Arizona Diamondbacks 7-1    
Colorado Rockies 15-1  

Ok, here's where I can integrate some shit.  Given the Dodgers' near 1-1 odds, you're looking at an opportunity to bet on LA or bet on the field.  If you think LA has a better than 50% chance to win the West, by all means, bet on them, maybe their odds will decrease to 5-6 and San Diego's will increase to 3-1 or something.  If you think that LA has a less than 50% chance to win, bet the field.  I'll brainwash you right now: the Los Angeles Dodgers of Los Angeles, barring a trade for Alex Rodriguez and Carlos Zambrano, are in no way this much of a favorite to win the division.  So bet on every team besides them.  This is an AL East-style bet, plus it incorporates a discrepancy from the win totals, in that it presupposes an under 88 bet on LA and an over 78 bet on Arizona.  In other words, you're/I'm already inclined to think that this division's win total O/U's are skewed a bit; making this bet is the logical extension of making the two bets above.  Hence me initially saying this was an "integration" of concepts...I guess.

Note: you have to make your bets mathematically correct.  Flat-betting $100 on each team besides LA is not the best method...you'd lose $125 if San Diego won, and you'd only get your money back if SF won.  Bet so that you expect to win a little, percentage-wise anyway, rather than hoping to win a lot...if you bet $100 on SF (start there because of the easy 4-1 odds with 4 teams), then you'd want to bet $150 on San Diego, ~$75 on Arizona, and $25 on Colorado.  This way, betting $350 total, you'd make $45.50 if SD won, $50 if SF won, you'd lose $50 if Arizona won, and $250 if Colorado won.  That was mental math, so I can't offer percentages there.  Do away with the $25 on Colorado, increase the bet on AZ until you'd get your money back in the case that they won, and you're basically winning if 2 of the 4 realistic contenders in the NL West win, getting your money back for one, and losing for another.  If you like Arizona in 2009 but not in 2007, bet accordingly.  Just bet against LA in the way that would best maximize your return, basically.

NL Central:

St Louis Cardinals 3-2
Chicago Cubs 3-2    
Milwaukee Brewers 5-1
Houston Astros 7-1
Cincinnati Reds 15-1    
Pittsburgh Pirates 40-1    

No comment.  No bet.

NL East:

New York Mets 5-7
Philadelphia Phillies 8-5
Atlanta Braves 9-2    
Florida Marlins 10-1  
Washington Nationals 100-1  

No bet.  I exerted too much energy, not to mention blowing my entire fictional bankroll, on the AL West, AL East, NL West...there's nothing here, anyway.  Bet on the Mets if you finally want a favorite to take.