Is a .500 record that big a fantasy next year?

Is Rob really arguing that no sub .500 team should have any expensive players?

When weighing FA signings, of course a front office should take into account the team's place in the success cycle. But you can't refuse to sign anyone when you're near the bottom and have a big flurry when you're near the top. Accurately forecasting "one player away" times is fraught with peril.

Now, the argument that has been made is that while Meche might not push the Royals into contention all by himself, signing him “showed the Royals are serious” and would thus attract both fans and free agents.

While accurate on its face, I call "strawman" here. This isn't the sole argument in favor of the Meche signing. It's not even the best one, IMO.

I agree with Rob overall here, but with this qualification: if the Royals are still holding onto him two years from now, never having sniffed .500 with him in the rotation, then the dollars were wasted. If they flip him for useful stuff (as Neyer says later in the blog post), I think the contract will be justified or more.

Even if they flip him for useful stuff, they will have paid a terribly high price: as of today, $22 million and counting. It'll have to be some really useful stuff. -rob

Alas, I can't access Rob's article from work so maybe he answers some of the following questions but ...

I think I'll even go further than Erik. Even if the Royals never flip him, so what? Even if they never sniff 500, so what? What else were they going to do with that $12 M? What other moves that would push them closer to being a good team were they going to make? Were there major draft picks they didn't sign (or didn't draft) because of this contract? Would $11 M invested in more scouting or different FO personnel or Latin American academies or whatever have really produced talent greater than Meche? Enough talent to make the Royals competitive?

Seems to me the worst-case scenario in the case of Meche is that the money ended up in Meche's pocket instead of David Glass's pocket. Either way, the Royals were going to stink.

Now, spending that kind of money on Jose Guillen was a bad idea. Or if you want to argue that the Meche contract turning out well for the Royals is likely a stroke of luck (i.e. on average this sort of pitcher doesn't pay off, etc.) then I might agree. That both the "big" Royals contracts seemed to have pretty much everyone in the baseball world (saber or traditionalist) scratching their heads is probably cause to worry about Moore's ability to read the market and/or his talent evaluation.

But unless I missed the two star hitters and one star pitcher who were available for $11 M, I fail to see what the Royals were going to spend this money on that would have made enough of a difference.

I suppose you could argue the Royals could have put this money in the bank and saved it up until they were competitive ... but I don't know that any team has ever done that. And they'd probably have lost it all in the market anyway. :-)

I guess I don't see the big deal. The money isn't keeping them from doing other things. They just spent a record amount of money on the draft. I suppose they could spend a bit more in Latin America, but $11 million a year? They could lock up young players, but who? Alex Gordon doesn't look like a sure thing anymore and it seems like Greinke is reluctant to commit to KC. So what would have been a better use for the money?

Edit: What Walt said.

Fans? The Royals finished last in attendance this year, next-to-last the year before. Free agents? The only notable free agent they’ve signed since Meche came aboard is Jose Guillen (about whom the less said, the better).

The Royals aren't competing against other teams for attendance, they're competing against other forms of entertainment in the area. A team that never shells out money for star or semi-star players is likely to struggle to attract fans. Do you think a 40-120 team would draw the same 1.6 million that they are drawing now? I don't. I think the Royals, and every other team, has to spend enough to make their team at least marginally interesting or risk completely tanking in ticket sales, TV revenue, etc.

with a .500 record still just a fantasy

Not to harp on this too much, but didn't Rob just write a week or two ago with the Crisp trade that the Royals were moving from 75 wins to 78 wins? Would a team predicted to win 78 games really have such a small chance of reaching .500 that it would be a "fantasy"?

I guess I just don't really see a team in the AL Central that looks that dominant. You get a Royals team to project close to .500, get a few lucky bounces, some guys that exceed expectations, who knows? I don't think its likely, but its certainly not as long a shot as I think Rob makes it out to be. So long as the money isn't being taken from development, which it doesn't appear to be, I don't have a problem with the Royals going after good free agents (not dreck like Jose Guillen) even if they project to be a 75-78 win team. As much as we like to tout projection systems, there is still quite a bit of variance to actual performance, and to write off teams as having no chance at competing because our projections show them to win around 75-78 games would be extremely short-sighted.

Permalink in case it rolls away forever....

Even if they flip him for useful stuff, they will have paid a terribly high price: as of today, $22 million and counting. It'll have to be some really useful stuff. -rob

Two things, though...

First, of course, it's David Glass's money - so I can't see anyone being especially concerned with how it is spent besides Mr. Glass unless -

Second, that $22 million prevented the Royals from spending the money on something more valuable. Since the Meche signing, have the Royals been forced to trade any (useful) players or balked at any significant potential draftees solely because they didn't have money to keep/draft them?

I'm not saying I think the Meche signing was a good move, just that I don't see what damage it did...

...unless this is Glass's Jeff Loria masterstroke -- make a "big" FA splash, then use the lack of a winner to soak up revenue sharing.

Your 2006 Royals starters:


Player Ag G ERA W L SV GS GF CG SHO IP H R ER HR BB SO BFP WP HBP BK IBB ERA+
---+-------------------+--+---+------+---+---+--+---+---+---+---+------+----+----+----+---+----+----+----+---+---+--+---+---+
SP *Mark Redman 32 29 5.71 11 10 0 29 0 2 1 167.0 202 110 106 19 63 76 740 12 8 2 1 82
SP Runelvys Hernandez 28 21 6.48 6 10 0 21 0 1 1 109.7 145 87 79 22 48 50 508 3 6 2 0 73
SP Scott Elarton 30 20 5.34 4 9 0 20 0 0 0 114.7 117 73 68 26 52 49 501 3 6 0 1 88
SP Luke Hudson 29 26 5.12 7 6 0 15 1 0 0 102.0 109 62 58 7 38 64 440 6 4 0 1 92
SP *Odalis Perez 29 12 5.64 2 4 0 12 0 0 0 67.0 80 44 42 9 18 48 298 2 1 1 1 83
SP *Jorge de la Rosa 25 10 5.18 3 4 0 10 0 0 0 48.7 49 29 28 10 32 36 221 2 1 1 0 91
SP Brandon Duckworth 30 10 6.11 1 5 0 8 0 0 0 45.7 62 36 31 3 24 27 216 4 2 0 4 77
SP Denny Bautista 25 8 5.66 0 2 0 7 0 0 0 35.0 38 24 22 5 17 22 161 5 4 0 0 83
SP Bobby Keppel 24 8 5.50 0 4 0 6 0 0 0 34.3 45 21 21 6 15 20 157 0 1 0 2 85
SP Joe Mays 30 6 10.27 0 4 0 6 0 0 0 23.7 38 33 27 7 14 9 120 3 0 0 0 46


Can you look at that staff and say that what it needs is some cheap stopgaps? Every man on that staff is a cheap stopgap. The leader in innings is Mark Redman (All Star!) with 167. The leader in ERA+ is Luke Hudson at 92. You can say they need young, cheap, talented starters, but who's fantasizing now?

I look at that staff and say they need quality innings -- as many as they can get, from whatever source they can find. Gil Meche supplied 216 innings of 128 ERA+ in 2007, and 207.3 innings of 107 ERA+ in 2008. He gave them exactly what they needed, at a fair contract that could be easily traded for value at any time. With mistakes like that, who needs success?

Thanks, jwb.

Rob doesn't have to fork over $2,000 a year for season tickets and doesn't have to listen to the Royals on radio lose 100 games every year. So he can afford to watch from afar and worry about wasted money to field a somewhat competitive team. To him, there isn't much of a difference between 60 wins and 75 wins in the grand scheme of things.

For those of us who haven't jumped ship and are still fans, however, we see the difference.

To be fair, Shibal, no one "has to" fork over two grand each year for tix. Although Lenny Dyskstra could easily afford that.

I think the right way to look at this contract is in context, either with other Royals moves of this era or of other baseball pitching moves of this era.

So let's take the first one first - what free agents have the Royals signed that are better than the Meche contract? I can't think of any David Ortiz-like moves that ended up with the Royals having All-Star production on a budget.

What pitcher deals across MLB have been better? The year before Meche, we have a market of Jaret Wright, Carl Pavano, Pedro Martinez, and Matt Clement among others. The Meche contract is better than any of these by any measurable stick.

To be fair, Shibal, no one "has to" fork over two grand each year for tix.

And that's why their crowds are so thin. Mandatory Royals Attendance Now!

For those of us who haven't jumped ship and are still fans, however, we see the difference.

And that, obviously, is a bunch of bs. The guy doesn't have to defend his fandom to you. Go somewhere else with that crap.

Nope, Mandatory Attendance Now, Royals Attendance Mandatory. Your average baseball fan needs things repeated and put into acronyms he or she can remember.

I would re-state Rob's point as follows. The timing of the Meche signing was wrong, because the Royals had no realistic chance of competing for at least the first two years of the contract. In fairness to the Royals, at this point, the remainder of Meche's contract is under market and there was no way of projecting two years ago that the team would assuredly be uncompetitive for this long, although most analysts expected that they did have a long road in front of them.

I think it was easy enough to predict the Royals would be uncompetitive through 2008. I just disagree about the means by which they should become competitive. The Royals of 2006 are not a team that should be building from within. They didn't have enough good players. Moore did a great job building a staff by selling off his bullpen to the highest bidders, signing Meche, and lucking out when Greinke returned to form.

big contracts don’t make sense for losing teams

Wasn't this posed by some as a reason why the Godawful Tigers shouldn't sign Pudge Rodriguez (just for example)? Sometimes bad teams sign enough good players and win pennants. Rob doesn't mean "losing" teams so much as "completely hopeless teams," I think.

In general I'm a big believer of the "success cycle", and that you shouldn't shell out big money to go from bad to poor.

But, this is an odd contract to pick on. Meche did not block anyone internally, has pitched better than expected, and is now a significant trade asset. KC did good on this one, whether out of luck, or by seeing something in Meche others missed.

The poster child for Neyer's argument is Guillen.

Wasn't this posed by some as a reason why the Godawful Tigers shouldn't sign Pudge Rodriguez (just for example)? Sometimes bad teams sign enough good players and win pennants. Rob doesn't mean "losing" teams so much as "completely hopeless teams," I think.

I might be making your point for you, Bob, but I wanted to mention that the pre-Pudge Tigers were 43-119, while the pre-Gil Royals were 62-100. I'd have a really hard time calling those Royals "hopeless" and not those Tigers.

Yes, that's what I was thinking, Erik. By "hopeless" I guess I mean the Homer Simpson definition: "can't win, don't try." :)

Catchers are a bit different. The argument that I made at the time of the Rodriguez signing is that it might work because he could assist in the development of the young pitchers then in the upper reaches of the Tiger system. The Tigers were also in a somewhat different situation at the time of the Rodriguez signing than the Royals at the time of the Meche signing because they had just moved into a new ballpark and needed to sell seats fast.

Yes, that's what I was thinking, Erik. By "hopeless" I guess I mean the Homer Simpson definition: "can't win, don't try." :)

I'm thinking Rob's approach is similar to the one espoused by Doug McKenzie in Strange Brew. "Breaks are gone, no point steering."

The Royals should fire all their players, and pick 25 random fans from the stands to play everyday. Works great in both ways. They save money from paying their players, AND they attract fans who want to face real MLB competition.

It would really suck to be picked as the backup catcher or long reliever and not get in the game, though.

It would really suck to be picked as the backup catcher or long reliever and not get in the game, though.

Really? Coz I would totally dig the seat upgrade.

The Royals should fire all their players, and pick 25 random fans from the stands to play everyday. Works great in both ways. They save money from paying their players, AND they attract fans who want to face real MLB competition.

First pitcher to record an out gets a free order of nachos!

First hitter to make contact gets a big foam hand!

First pitcher to record an out gets a free order of nachos!

Isn't this their strategy to lock up Greinke?

First pitcher to record an out gets a free order of nachos!

Isn't this their strategy to lock up Greinke?

Probably work better with CC.

But, this is an odd contract to pick on. Meche did not block anyone internally, has pitched better than expected, and is now a significant trade asset. KC did good on this one, whether out of luck, or by seeing something in Meche others missed.

The poster child for Neyer's argument is Guillen.

Guillen would be a bad contract no matter where he signed, and Meche, surprisingly, a good one. Maybe the Royals should consider trading Meche for prospects, depending on how other teams see him and what they would be willing to trade. If they could get a Dan Haren type haul, they should go for it.

Saying a bad team shouldn't sign any high priced players doesn't make sense to me. Would you rather have them be a 60-65 win team on a 30 million payroll that takes in more than that in revenue sharing? When I see teams doing that I feel much is wrong with baseball. Teams should do their best to put the best product on the field, and that means finding value wherever they can, be it free agent market, the draft, or trades.

Can you look at that staff and say that what it needs is some cheap stopgaps? Every man on that staff is a cheap stopgap. The leader in innings is Mark Redman (All Star!) with 167. The leader in ERA+ is Luke Hudson at 92. You can say they need young, cheap, talented starters, but who's fantasizing now?

I look at that staff and say they need quality innings -- as many as they can get, from whatever source they can find.

I look at that staff and say they need prospects -- as many as they can get, from whatever source they can find, pitching as many innings as possible.

KC did good on this one, whether out of luck, or by seeing something in Meche others missed.

From what I remember, there were actually multiple teams chasing Meche that offseason, and that he signed with KC largely becuase they ponied up the largest bucket of cash. It caused JP to throw a gigantic fit, as the Jays were one of the other teams chasing him. While KC was successful in signing him, and have reaped the benefits of the signing, it's not like they were the only ones who saw something that they liked.

I look at that staff and say they need prospects -- as many as they can get, from whatever source they can find, pitching as many innings as possible.

And signing Meche doesn't hurt your ability to find prospects, and may help your ability through either trading him or getting draft picks when he leaves.

I think we all agree the Royals success hinges on their ability to develop players, not sign free agents. But developing players and signing free agents is not mutually exclusive.

Saying a bad team shouldn't sign any high priced players doesn't make sense to me. Would you rather have them be a 60-65 win team on a 30 million payroll that takes in more than that in revenue sharing? When I see teams doing that I feel much is wrong with baseball. Teams should do their best to put the best product on the field, and that means finding value wherever they can, be it free agent market, the draft, or trades.

The key to this is that the bad team shouldn't sign contracts that prohibit them spending money elsewhere (drafts, Latin America, locking up you're own pre-arb guys).

Good thing Rob has never had to run a business in his life.

I look at that staff and say they need prospects -- as many as they can get, from whatever source they can find, pitching as many innings as possible.

Why prospects, specifically? That staff isn't amazingly old or particularly expensive, it's just extremely ineffective. You need five starters, which means you should start with 15 prospects -- three years ago.

I just read the article and the Sabathia post is on top. Quick reality check - does anyone actually believe CC only weighs 290? If he's really 6'7", he's closer to 350 than 290.

The key to this is that the bad team shouldn't sign contracts that prohibit them spending money elsewhere (drafts, Latin America, locking up you're own pre-arb guys).

And there doesn't appear to be any evidence that Meche prohibited the Royals from spending money elsewhere. The just spent a record amount of money on the draft, they were somewhat aggressive in Latin America, and there weren't any pre-arbitration guys in 2006 worth signing long-term.

I look at that staff and say they need prospects -- as many as they can get, from whatever source they can find, pitching as many innings as possible.

This is the same argument we had about the Orioles last year. One person says the Orioles have a bunch of random young guys in the minors who have at least an 0.1% chance of being okay in the majors, so they should cycle through them until they find someone who isn't worthless. The other person says this is a recipe for a 40-win season and total fan apathy in the face of zero recognizable names and a zero percent chance the team will win in the foreseeable future. Then the first person responds by saying "STEVE TRACHSEL? REALLY? STEVE TRACHSEL IS BETTER THAN A RANDOM AAA GUY?" And the other person says, well, they probably have some reason for putting him out there, and my suspicion is that they think their semi-prospects are better off in the minors than the majors right now, and at least Trachsel is a pro and won't embarrass himself.

The issue is really whether we see any difference between one type of losing season and another.

I have no proof of this, but I believe that a 95+ loss team is a terrible environment for developing prospects. The team is constantly losing, all of the good players are trying to leave, the coaches get fired yearly, and there's tremendous pressure to promote prospects too early and keep them in the majors even when they're floundering.

This is the same argument we had about the Orioles last year.

I'd like to see the Orioles try something new. No more random 5000 AAA guys - that's been ugly. But no Trachsel either. Get some real pitchers for a change.

Part of the Steve Trachsel backlash might be because he isn't better than a random AAA guy, semi-prospect, non-prospect, or otherwise.

I think it's because he's particularly infuriating to watch.

And there doesn't appear to be any evidence that Meche prohibited the Royals from spending money elsewhere. The just spent a record amount of money on the draft, they were somewhat aggressive in Latin America, and there weren't any pre-arbitration guys in 2006 worth signing long-term.

I agree, I have been defending the Meche signing, just cautioning that some teams play the "let's improve incrementally through FA" game so much, they find themselves constrained. KC does not seem to have done this. Baltimore a few years ago, or Houston is probably a good example of this phenomenon.

"I'd like to see the Orioles try something new. No more random 5000 AAA guys - that's been ugly. But no Trachsel either. Get some real pitchers for a change."

When they're ready to bring up Wieters, that is absolutely the right thing to do. If they plan on bringing up Wieters early in 2009 (and perhaps signing him long-term a la Longoria), they'd be best off to have some real pitchers there waiting for him.

Although I appreciate the validity of dealing one above-average player to get a bunch of young prospects, I'm not sure I quite get the whole "bad teams shouldn't have good players" mentality. It seems to me that it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Say a "bad" team finds itself with a few good players, but gets rid of them (because bad teams shouldn't have good players). Then they get some more good players, but the team still isn't really ready to be "good" yet, so they get rid of them too. And so it goes, on and on and on...At what point can they decide they are a "good" team and therefore can keep their good players? When does it end?

It ends when the prospects you've developed mature and you have the core of a contender. Then you move from a seller to a buyer, and seek to acquire veterans on the trade and FA markets. See the Rays last offseason, or Oakland this one.

I'm not sure I quite get the whole "bad teams shouldn't have good players" mentality.

The mentality is not that bad teams shouldn't have good players, it's that bad teams shouldn't have expensive players, unless they're young enough to still be productive when the team is projected to contend.

There's no team in baseball that can't be a contender in three years.

The mentality is not that bad teams shouldn't have good players, it's that bad teams shouldn't have expensive players, unless they're young enough to still be productive when the team is projected to contend.

Yup, thankfully the Twins took that to heart or they might have won the world series last year. Or Whitesox on 2005. Almost every year a team makes the playoffs or nearly makes the playoffs we don't expect. I don't believe in the success cycle accept in the most extreme cases, because I believe the error bars around our projections are very large.

It ends when the prospects you've developed mature and you have the core of a contender.

That's the absolute best case scenario, when everybody develops at the same time and you don't have any holes on the rest of the team. It's just as likely that some players mature earlier than others and are looking at free agency by the time the later players are any good.