Alex Gordon's #1 Fan Posted: December 05, 2006 at 10:43 PM (#2252398)

There is a substantiated rumor that the Royals have all but closed a deal to ship Ambriorix Burgos to the Mets for Brian Bannister (son of former Royals Floyd Bannister).

I like the deal. Burgos has great talent, but I don't think he'll ever be more than a solid middle reliever, and he has control issues, and I think rushing him to the big leagues may have hurt his development.

Bannister is a bit old to be a prospect, but has posted very good minor league numbers and is immediately a better candidate for the rotation than the likes of Jorge de la Rosa and even Luke Hudson.

There are also unsubstantiated rumors the Royals are talking to the O's about a Reggie Sanders-Rodrigo Lopez swap.

There are also substantiated rumors they had made offers to Gil Meche and Miguel Batista (3 years $24 million). Can't say I approve too much to either of those moves.

Ozzie's gay friend Posted: December 06, 2006 at 12:12 AM (#2252471)

I like Moore a whole lot, but all his moves so far are ridiculously even-handed.

Howell-Gathright
Gotay-Keppinger
Murphey-$
Batista/Affeldt-Shealy
Burgos-Bannister

kinda odd mostly challenge trades.
He must really have hated the system he inherited.
I'd like more swindles, even if it means he strikes out on some deals.

Alex Gordon's #1 Fan Posted: December 06, 2006 at 09:31 AM (#2252710)

I think Shealy for Bautaista-Affeldt was a swindle.

When you're an organization as bad as the Royals, challenge trades are appropriate. Just clean house and get new blood in.

When you're an organization as bad as the Royals, challenge trades are appropriate. Just clean house and get new blood in.

True, but I'm not thrilled with Moore adding to the logjam on the left side of the Royals defensive spectrum.
As in; might Shealy be a tad redundant with Teahen, Huber, Maier, Butler et al fighting for 1B/DH/OF spots?
I don't mind moving the prospects, I'm just not thrilled with moving them for low-upside pitchers and sluggers who block young bats.

I'm coming off as more critical than I actually feel.
You'd half expecta bad, low-revenue team with a baren-system would be trading the potential #4's for the risky 10% sucess rate upsider.
Still, this team has been terrible with pitchers these last 5 years and I see how a mediocre, unspectacular staff would be a much better starting point.

Royals keep rocking the boat...

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6247654

In a winter meetings stunner, free agent RHP Gil Meche is close to signing with Royals, FOXSports.com has learned.

Meche, 28, has chosen the Royals over the Cubs and Blue Jays.

The Royals had made Meche a 3-year, $24 million offer. But the final terms are expected to be for more years and more money.

The Blue Jays were shut out on both Meche and free agent left Ted Lilly, increasing the possibility they will explore trades for CF Vernon Wells.

I suppose Miggy Batista is heading elsewhere...

I don't know where to ask this but could some Royals' fan tell me what they think of Ruben Gotay's defense at second?

I don't know where to ask this but could some Royals' fan tell me what they think of Ruben Gotay's defense at second?

Michaelangelo's "David" comes to mind.

That's alright. Brendan Harris is available. Go get him, Omar!

Michaelangelo's "David" comes to mind.

Made of unmovable material?

Michaelangelo's "David" comes to mind.
Statuesque?

Michaelangelo's "David" comes to mind.
Statuesque?

Nah, I think Gordon is saying that his artistry is so breath-taking that it forces the fan to contemplate the multi-faceted nature of human existence - man-in-thought vs. man-in-action, heroic man juxtaposed with man-in-doubt, mortal man and immortal divinity.

Either that, or he's unimpressive in the shween department.

Either that, or he's unimpressive in the shween department

That reminds me of a seminar class in Art Humanities that I took back in college. The topic was Michelangelo's David. The professor began with an introduction on Michelangelo. She continued on relating Michelangelo to preceding artists, placed the ideals of the High Renaissance within the historical timeframe, discussed the various stages of Michelangelo work's (early, middle, late), and discussed other issues relevant towards understanding the work. When she finished, the students started commenting on what they noticed about the sculpture, what it meant to them, usually in serious tone and with technical artistic terms, obviously trying to impress the teacher. Three comments in, a student raises his hand and goes -

"You know what I think of David? I think he's got a small package."

The look on the professor's face was priceless.