Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Posnanski: The Royals might actually know what they are doing

In a small way, the Royals are back-to-back World Champs.

I And so, more or less from the start, the Royals became a more professional operation under Moore. He hired some excellent people to work with him. He dazzled people inside baseball with the team’s commitment to building a farm system. And, in short order, the Royals were not the joke of baseball. The Royals lost 100 games four times between 2002 and 2006. They have not lost 100 since.

That, though, is not exactly something you brag about on your resume, and while Moore made the Royals slightly more respectable, he and his staff could not do much more. They continued to make horrendous blunders on the Major League roster. Moore hired Trey Hillman to be the manager. He signed Jose Guillen and Gil Meche to team-record contracts. The Royals talked a better game but continued to feature an allotment of aging Jason Kendalls and Ross Gloads and Miguel Olivos and Scott Podsedniks, while mixing in relatively-young versions of Yuniesky Betancourt and Kyle Davies and Luke Hochevar. The results were, in their own way, as depressing as ever…..

In 2011, there were signs that Moore’s work was having an impact. That was the year I wrote my Sports Illustrated story about the Royals’ future dynasty, and the year various people around the sport began gushing about their minor league system. Then, last season, the Royals won 86 games, their most since the strike – a season so promising that even Moore’s ill-advised “In a small way, I feel like we’ve won the World Series” quote at the end did not tarnish the optimism.

And … it is working. Shields has been the good pitcher the Royals expected. And the Royals’ rotation has been altered. Last year, the Royals led the American League in ERA. This year, they have five pitchers who are on pace to throw 170 innings and win 10-plus games. I’m no fan of the pitcher-win statistic, but it is telling that the last time the Royals had five pitchers with 10 wins was, yep, 1985….

And what makes all of this so satisfying for Royals fans because most never saw it coming. They were the same old Royals until, suddenly, they weren’t. They were defined by their blunders until, suddenly, some of their plans actually worked.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 20, 2014 at 03:37 PM | 109 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: dayton moore, joe posnanski, royals

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. DL from MN Posted: August 20, 2014 at 04:51 PM (#4775658)
Shouldn't a below average GM be able to build a contender once every 10 years, especially in the AL Central?
   2. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 20, 2014 at 04:53 PM (#4775662)
So you're saying Dayton is two years ahead of schedule?
   3. Rickey!'s people were colonized by wankers Posted: August 20, 2014 at 05:05 PM (#4775672)
I think some consideration should be given to the possibility that Moore and the Royals' 1980's "hit for contact and play defense" approach might be better suited to success in today's offensive environment than it was in the 1990s and 2000s.
   4. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: August 20, 2014 at 05:10 PM (#4775678)
Wade Davis has been ridiculously good this year. I know it's early, but so far that trade has worked out pretty well for the Royals.
   5. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 20, 2014 at 05:16 PM (#4775686)
I think some consideration should be given to the possibility that Moore and the Royals' 1980's "hit for contact and play defense" approach might be better suited to success in today's offensive environment than it was in the 1990s and 2000s.

The top five AL teams in Total Zone fielding runs above average are Baltimore, Seattle, Oakland, Kansas City and the Angels. That's even more correlated to a team's winning percentage than FIP or OPS+.
   6. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 20, 2014 at 05:26 PM (#4775695)
Step 1) Collect free money for 15 years
Step 2) Who the hell cares, I'm rich!
   7. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: August 20, 2014 at 05:32 PM (#4775700)
Sure, that works for the Yankees with their TV contracts and whatnot, but the Royals have a tougher task.
   8. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 20, 2014 at 05:36 PM (#4775701)

I think some consideration should be given to the possibility that Moore and the Royals' 1980's "hit for contact and play defense" approach might be better suited to success in today's offensive environment than it was in the 1990s and 2000s.


I mean its certainly more possible now than ten years ago, but I don't know if its much of a recipe for success, even today. The Royals still have a below-average offense. They've really been lucky to even score as many runs as they have because of their clutch hitting. Their pythag is 66-59. If the Tigers were as good as we thought they would be, I don't know that we'd be talking much about the Royals other than "hey, the Royasl don't suck anymore, isn't that nice?"
   9. Walt Davis Posted: August 20, 2014 at 05:40 PM (#4775703)
As noted in the other Royals thread, it's not so much that the Royals are playing better this year as it is the Tigers are playing worse. They are on pace for about 86 pythag wins and 90 real wins ... last year those numbers were 87 and 86.

It's also interesting that the vaunted Moore farm system hasn't had much to do with the success. Perez might be one of his, Duffy and Ventura I think are his.

He ended up getting good value out of the Greinke trade and if they realized how good Cain's defense was when they made that trade then he deserves extra credit. The Shields-Myers trade has worked out exactly as planned although, if they're so smart, why didn't they leave Davis in the pen last year? (Note, I think trying Davis in the rotation last year was perfectly sensible, I'm just suggesting Moore doesn't deserve credit for insight on the decision to move him back to the pen.)

But the main thing is Detroit starting to fall apart.
   10. Jeltzandini Posted: August 20, 2014 at 05:54 PM (#4775714)
This organizational assessment feels like an abrupt 180 based on a hot month and a half.
   11. Curse of the Andino Posted: August 20, 2014 at 05:58 PM (#4775716)
I think some consideration should be given to the possibility that Moore and the Royals' 1980's "hit for contact and play defense" approach might be better suited to success in today's offensive environment than it was in the 1990s and 2000s.


Could be, and the Orioles' philosophy of "pitch to contact and play defense" was likely extremely well-suited to the '70s more than those two largely lost decades. Though the club does not have the same sort of OBP edge those Earl Weaver squads were rumored to have.

/Of course, during the sad times, the O's didn't really pitch to contact or play defense for the most part.
   12. madvillain Posted: August 20, 2014 at 06:11 PM (#4775730)
This organizational assessment feels like an abrupt 180 based on a hot month and a half.


The whole excerpt is silly and way below Poz's standards. Here are the Royals under Moore:

62
69
75
65
67
71
86
TBD

The average age of this "contender" is the oldest of any of his teams, at 28.2 on the position player side and 29.0 on the pitching side.

Basically he has assembled a decent team centered around veterans. I have zero idea how this changes him from a decidely bad GM to a good one. You don't change that opinion based on a hot 3 weeks in his 8th (!!!) season at the helm.
   13. Rickey!'s people were colonized by wankers Posted: August 20, 2014 at 06:23 PM (#4775741)
The Royals still have a below-average offense. They've really been lucky to even score as many runs as they have because of their clutch hitting. Their pythag is 66-59.


Pythags work off of run differentials, which tend to underestimate teams with great bullpens. I suspect they might also underestimate great defense. In Pos's take on this "up is down, black is white, the Royals are winning, dogs and cats living together!" meme he wrote a throwaway line about how KC is built more "like it's 1914 than 2014." The thing is, I think 2014 may be closer to 1914 than 2004 when it comes to offensive environment, and I think the strategies of "deadball" might be better suited to winning in that environment than they were in the Sillyball era.
   14. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: August 20, 2014 at 06:30 PM (#4775745)
I'm no fan of the way the Royals have put their team together, in the sense that there isn't a lot of credit due to Moore, as far as I am concerned. They have exactly one guy in the starting lineup with an OPS+ above 99 (Alex Gordon), but I guess they have done a decent job in 2014 of plugging in veterans to take some glaring holes in the lineup, and make them just slightly below average. For guys like Aoki and Infante, though, that is damning with faint praise.

They have an excellent top three bullpen guys. They have a very durable group of above-average starting pitchers. And James Shields is - once again - proving that being a well-above-average starter that never misses a start, always gives you 200 innings, and pitches at a high level is crazy valuable. If you want that, you have to pay for it. They gave up a premium prospect (Myers), and another solid prospect (Odorizzi), to get a guy like Shields for two years at affordable money.

That trade has been mocked by many here, but at what point can we say that it was - at least - a decent trade for KC? Shields has been awesome, and his workhorse performance likely helps the bullpen excel by taking pressure off of them. He is averaging almost seven innings per start, and the team has been competitive in both of his seasons. Myers has been hurt most of the year. Davis and Odorizzi have both been valuable in their respective roles.

Look what the A's just gave up for starting pitching - two premium prospects for Samardzija for 2-plus years, and Jason Hammel (ugh). Samardzija has been pretty good, but who would you rather have: the 2013-2014 Shields, or the 2015-2016 Samardzija (who is going to make a lot of money in arbitration)? I would much rather have Shields. And is giving up McKinney and Russell that much less than giving up Myers and Odorizzi? I don't see people lambasting Beane for trading prospects for Samardzija...just sayin'.

   15. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: August 20, 2014 at 06:34 PM (#4775751)
The orioles are basically doing the same thing, except that their offense is a lot better and their starters aren't as good.
   16. madvillain Posted: August 20, 2014 at 06:35 PM (#4775752)
Pythags work off of run differentials, which tend to underestimate teams with great bullpens. I suspect they might also underestimate great defense. In Pos's take on this "up is down, black is white, the Royals are winning, dogs and cats living together!" meme he wrote a throwaway line about how KC is built more "like it's 1914 than 2014." The thing is, I think 2014 may be closer to 1914 than 2004 when it comes to offensive environment, and I think the strategies of "deadball" might be better suited to winning in that environment than they were in the Sillyball era.


Their 3rd order winning percentage is .497. Good enough for 10th in the AL. It's a mediocre team getting lucky and/or "hot" at the right time. There is literally nothing here. That Poz has somehow latched onto this as something tangible is further evidence of the soft bias of low expectations.
   17. Rickey!'s people were colonized by wankers Posted: August 20, 2014 at 06:49 PM (#4775762)
At 13 I was actually referencing Rany, not Pos.
   18. The District Attorney Posted: August 20, 2014 at 06:57 PM (#4775769)
That trade has been mocked by many here, but at what point can we say that it was - at least - a decent trade for KC?
I think most people think that, if KC makes the playoffs thanks to Shields and if Myers doesn't go all Jeff Bagwell, it is "at least a decent trade." I read Jazayerli, for one, as having consistently maintained that. Admittedly, there are all sorts of other factors one could reasonably throw in there (exactly how good Myers turns out, the inclusion of Odorizzi and Wade Davis, the fact that the trade meant KC had to play Francoeur last year, etc.) But I think most people would sign on to that general notion.

I don't see people lambasting Beane for trading prospects for Samardzija...just sayin'.
I might! I mean, we'll see what Russell does, so it'd be premature to "lambast" anyone for anything yet. But when they had a perfectly acceptable back of the rotation in Chavez/Milone/Pomeranz¹, I don't understand why Beane prioritized getting further rotation depth to begin with. I think it would have made more sense to trade Russell for Price or Lester. (They probably even get something else back if it's Lester, given that it's only two months of him.)

Re: the possibility that contact hitting & defense have become more valuable: The theory that defense is the new market inefficiency would have made a ton of sense to me a few years ago², but not now. We now have a much better understanding of how to measure fielding. This has led, for instance, to lots of teams playing a CF-quality outfielder in a corner, something you rarely saw before unless a team had an extreme roster glut (which was then usually quickly "solved" by a roster move.) Of course, fielding stats are not perfect (although it's entirely possible that the teams have proprietary stats that we don't have.) But as long as they're at least more right than wrong, they should result in better fielders getting on the field, and I think that's what happened.

So that part, I doubt. I do think there is a potential inefficiency in contact hitting. But I don't think this is really what the Royals are doing. As mentioned, they are not scoring all that many runs, or, even taking power hitting out of it, getting on base all that much. Nellie Fox would be very valuable right now -- a guy with a heavy bat and slow swing who just tries to poke it the opposite way and get on base, knowing that the other eight guys in the lineup all hit homeruns. Nori Aoki, on the other hand, still is not much of a hitter, despite avoiding strikeouts.

¹ I realize Pomeranz was hurt, but it didn't look season-threatening and, indeed, it wasn't.
² And I think the A's and Mariners both actually pulled it off, at that time.
   19. The Duke Posted: August 20, 2014 at 07:07 PM (#4775781)
Moore was not lambasted for Shields trade because of the absolute value of the players he had to give up. He was lambasted for taking an 81 win team to an 85 win team which really isn't worth giving up great prospects. Beane was trying to bulk up for a once in a blue moon WS run so giving up Russell makes sense if you want to give yourself the very best chance of making the Series.
   20. PreservedFish Posted: August 20, 2014 at 07:28 PM (#4775809)
Moore was not lambasted for Shields trade because of the absolute value of the players he had to give up. He was lambasted for taking an 81 win team to an 85 win team which really isn't worth giving up great prospects. Beane was trying to bulk up for a once in a blue moon WS run so giving up Russell makes sense if you want to give yourself the very best chance of making the Series.


I disagree with this.

I think that Moore overpaid for Shields but the general idea of the trade made and makes much more sense to me than Beane's did. The Royals were a .500 team, but a .500 team bursting with young talent. That's exactly the type of team that comes out of nowhere and storms into the playoffs. Adding a solid veteran starter at that time was a perfectly good idea. What you see as "taking an 81 team to an 85 win team" I see as adding potentially crucial wins to a team on the cusp of playoff contention.

Beane's move is way dicier. He had a team that was already terrific and already had two terrific starters at the top of the rotation. He lost his top 10 prospect mostly to upgrade his #3 playoff starter. I listen to Bay Area sports radio and Beane is being lauded for finally going for the jugular. Of course it's more complex than that because he has Shark for next year too, and has the ability to deal him. But that's the narrative. Giving up a great prospect to go for the October kill.

I do think that if the names of the GMs were reversed the reactions in this community would have been different.
   21. madvillain Posted: August 20, 2014 at 07:33 PM (#4775817)
I do think that if the names of the GMs were reversed the reactions in this community would have been very different.


Well sure. It's a results business and some GMs are better than others and have a track record. As an appeal to authority I'd take Beane over Moore.
   22. Walt Davis Posted: August 20, 2014 at 07:42 PM (#4775824)
Seems to me the consensus here was that Beane did give up too much for Samardzija. I'd say there's also a rather big gap between Myers' prospect status and Russell's -- both highly rated but Myers was supposed to totally rake while it seems Russell is more a Jimmy Rollins-type upside. McKinney is also a long way away.

But yes, the Shields trade has worked out exactly as planned -- trading future value for present value and Shields has delivered the present value. Moore was gambling on making the playoffs in at least one of those years and he's got a decent shot at it -- and that will probably lead to a contract extension for Moore. If he's further lucky, Duffy and Ventura will mean that he can let Shields go without a substantial drop in their 2015+ pitching performance.

As KTPA correctly points out, giving the benefit of getting Francoeur out of the lineup, Myers might well have delivered as much or more value to the Royals last year than Shields did (and almost certainly more than Shields and Davis given Davis -2 WAR). They got Aoki to solve that problem but he's been replacement level this year (apparently with below-average defense even).

The Royals vaunted defense is interesting. It's all Gordon (+20), Cain/Dyson (+35 in about a full season between them) and Perez (+8). The rest of the team is seriously below average by Rfield. If they run into a contact, GB team like themselves, they could get eaten alive.

All that said, Moore wouldn't be the first GM to suck for his first 5 years but learn some lessons along the way and straighten things out, so it's possible. But, no, a hot streak doesn't change my mind.
   23. Walt Davis Posted: August 20, 2014 at 07:46 PM (#4775827)
And not to raise other bete noires but it's slightly reminiscent of the Cabrera-Trout debate of 2012. One of the supposedly big factors was that Cabrera led his team to the playoffs while Trout didn't. But of course the Angels actually won one game more than the Tigers that year. This extra value of Cabrera's was purely due to crappy competition in his division. (Which of course isn't to say that he didn't have a great season and he was awesome in Sept that year.)

And here we have Moore getting praise for putting out essentially the same team as last year so the praise is due to the lack of competition, not the Royals' success.
   24. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 20, 2014 at 07:49 PM (#4775832)
It confuses me to read two of the best baseball writers around for my money, Posnanski and Jazayerli, both writing long pieces on the theme of "Hey, maybe the Royals are SMART to avoid power and walks like the plague and build around making contact and running, with scoring so far down!" mere weeks after justifiably tearing into the Moore Administration, based entirely on a hot few weeks.

Yeah, maybe they're right. Or maybe, y'know, just throwing this out there, maybe the Royals are a goodish team playing at right about their expected level.
   25. McCoy Posted: August 20, 2014 at 08:12 PM (#4775862)
Considering Russell is probably not going to amount to much I don't think Beane gave up much to get what he got.
   26. PreservedFish Posted: August 20, 2014 at 08:13 PM (#4775863)
"Hey, maybe the Royals are SMART to avoid power and walks like the plague and build around making contact and running, with scoring so far down!"


I don't see Poz saying this in the article. He's just saying that Moore's 5 year plan or 8 year plan or whatever it was looks like it's actually developing the way he hoped it would.
   27. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 20, 2014 at 08:27 PM (#4775873)
To the extent Moore was hoping to still be employed eight years down the road and in line for another contract extension, yeah, it's worked out splendidly.
   28. McCoy Posted: August 20, 2014 at 08:41 PM (#4775883)
I don't see Poz saying this in the article. He's just saying that Moore's 5 year plan or 8 year plan or whatever it was looks like it's actually developing the way he hoped it would.

How? The way this team has been constructed they should have been at this point by year 3 or so of Moore's tenure. Moore has basically squandered away years of high draft picks and built himself a team that looks like it most definitely isn't built for the long haul.
   29. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: August 20, 2014 at 08:49 PM (#4775891)
As KTPA correctly points out, giving the benefit of getting Francoeur out of the lineup, Myers might well have delivered as much or more value to the Royals last year than Shields did (and almost certainly more than Shields and Davis given Davis -2 WAR). They got Aoki to solve that problem but he's been replacement level this year


As KTPA conveniently leaves out, if you believe you some WAR the Royals actually got more value out of Frenchy's replacement than the Rays got out of Myers last year. Playing Frenchy was the problem, but it didn't have anything to do with Myers absence.

   30. McCoy Posted: August 20, 2014 at 08:54 PM (#4775894)
Moore inherited a franchise that was probably in better shape than the Cubs team that Theo inherited. Moore had a young David DeJesus and Zach Greinke on the major league roster as well as some sort-of decent trade chits he could have flipped for some mid range prospects. Down on the farm he inherited Alex Gordon and Dee Gordon, plus he had the #1 draft pick in his first's year. A draft class that featured Evan Longoria, Clayton Kershaw, Tim Linecum, and Max Scherzer has high draft picks. He took all that and basically squandered it for close to 7 years.
   31. madvillain Posted: August 20, 2014 at 08:59 PM (#4775903)
I'm with you McCoy anything other than "Moore is a bad gm" is crazy talk. He inherited some decent parts and hasn't done jack #### in a division that for the most part isn't any good. As I pointed out, by average age, this is his oldest team. This is an older, .500 team enjoying a hot stretch in the GM's 8th year. If they manage to stay over .500 the GM will now have achieved that glorious winning record twice out of 8 seasons. 1 time out of 4.
   32. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 20, 2014 at 09:15 PM (#4775918)
Sure, that works for the Yankees with their TV contracts and whatnot, but the Royals have a tougher task.


Apparently the idea of finding a willing buyer for a desirable product wasn't taught in your class on Das Kapitalism. The Royals task is as tough as showing up at the post office and collecting a welfare check. I'd like it think it's one of those oversized Publishers Clearinghouse ones. A windfall is a windfall.
   33. McCoy Posted: August 20, 2014 at 09:29 PM (#4775930)
As a postscript I don't know how I wrote Dee Gordon when I meant Billy Butler.
   34. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: August 20, 2014 at 09:35 PM (#4775934)
As a postscript I don't know how I wrote Dee Gordon when I meant Billy Butler.


Perfectly understandable. Those two are always getting confused for one another.
   35. Sweatpants Posted: August 20, 2014 at 10:07 PM (#4775958)
plus he had the #1 draft pick in his first's year.
This is sort of true, but Moore wasn't the one who got to make the pick. As Joe Posnanski loves to recall, Moore accepted the offer to become the team's GM before the draft but didn't actually take the post until afterwards. The Royals did not have a general manager when they drafted Hochevar.
   36. Walt Davis Posted: August 20, 2014 at 10:10 PM (#4775962)
He's just saying that Moore's 5 year plan or 8 year plan or whatever it was looks like it's actually developing the way he hoped it would.

Except of course Moore's 5-year plan conveniently became a "7-year plan all along" sometime around year 4 ... and it's still not going according to plan -- i.e. the win total might be where he wanted it, but he hasn't gotten there through uber-prospects producing and, as noted by somebody above, this doesn't necessarily look like a team built for the long haul.

As KTPA conveniently leaves out, if you believe you some WAR the Royals actually got more value out of Frenchy's replacement than the Rays got out of Myers last year.

I assume this is a reference to David Lough. Except of course the Royals could have had both Lough and Myers and no Frenchy -- 708 PA between the two of them. Point still stands.

The only argument is that Moore was only going to waste 200 PA on Frenchy even if he had Myers around -- which is probably true but doesn't speak well of Moore's acumen.

It's 20/20 hindsight but no matter how you slice it, it was 1.9 WAR for Myers (plus .3 for Odorizzi) vs. 1.1 WAR for Frenchy, Shields, Davis. Year 2 of the trade has of course worked out heavily in Moore's favor.
   37. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: August 20, 2014 at 10:17 PM (#4775969)
I assume this is a reference to David Lough. Except of course the Royals could have had both Lough and Myers and no Frenchy -- 708 PA between the two of them. Point still stands.


They didn't have a place for both of them.

The Royals could have started either guy in RF on Opening Day, but only one of them would they have had an incentive for keeping down in the minors - and it wasn't the one they kept.

They didn't get much from the trade last year, but valuearb's insistence that it seriously damaged their playoff aspirations was simply off the mark. There's no reason to think Myers would have been more valuable to the Royals than the player who filled the exact same role he would handled (replacement for Frenchy once Francouer was clearly good and done).
   38. McCoy Posted: August 20, 2014 at 10:27 PM (#4775986)
How did they not have a place for both of them? How does a team that had lost 90 games the year before and had losing seasons in 18 of their last 19 seasons not have room on their roster for one of the best prospects in the game and a cheap minor leaguer that looked to be a usable bench guy? Lough played all three OF positions in the minor leagues and he has done the same thing at the major league level.
   39. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: August 20, 2014 at 11:28 PM (#4776039)
How did they not have a place for both of them? How does a team that had lost 90 games the year before and had losing seasons 18 of their last 19 seasons not have room on their roster for one of the best prospects in the game and a cheap minor leaguer that looked to be a usable bench guy? Lough played all three OF positions in the minor leagues and he has done the same thing at the major league level.


They had a place for both of them on the roster, but they didn't really have a place for both of them in the lineup, which is really what matters here. I suppose they could have played Lough for Cain, but it wouldn't have amounted to much of a gain, if any. The point is, the only real hole in the outfield was the one Lough ended up filling (as would have Myers, when they brought him up).

The problem was giving Frenchy as many starts as they did (more than 1). But that wasn't a problem caused by their Myerslessness, since they had a perfectly acceptable replacement for him already in the organization (and a guy with no arb clock issues, so they could have had him in the lineup on Day 1 without the organizational downside starting Myers would have created).
   40. Walt Davis Posted: August 21, 2014 at 01:57 AM (#4776100)
Like I said, the best that can be claimed is that Moore was going to be dumb enough to play Frenchy for the first 2 months regardless of who else was available -- which is not an argument in Moore's favor.

And folks do realize they are touting David Lough who put up a line of 275/317/420 as a 26-year-old in AAA in 2012 and carries an 85 OPS+ in his MLB career. He is above average by WAR due to ridiculously good defense (+24 in just 560 PA) but still a guy with 8 starts in the O's last 61 games.
   41. Walt Davis Posted: August 21, 2014 at 02:09 AM (#4776102)
They had a place for both of them on the roster, but they didn't really have a place for both of them in the lineup,

Of course they did. Frenchy got 193 PA, Lough got 335, Myers got 373. Lough and Myers are one full-time OF. Or give Myers his 373 and Lough 155 and that's the same number of PA as Lough and Frenchy but, roughly, 3 WAR rather than the 1.6 they got out of Frenchy and Lough. That makes the comparison 3 WAR (Lough and Myers in 528 PA) vs. 3.6 WAR (Frenchy plus Lough plus Shields plus Davis) which makes it a small improvement for the Royals at the cost of, what, $16 M or something? It still doesn't work.

So sure, if Moore was going to be stupid enough to let Frenchy harm his team, the trade didn't change that. But given one of the criticisms of the trade from day one was "this makes Frenchy the starting RF" that's no defense.

   42. JoeC Posted: August 21, 2014 at 02:20 AM (#4776107)
   43. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 21, 2014 at 08:29 AM (#4776144)

The Royals vaunted defense is interesting. It's all Gordon (+20), Cain/Dyson (+35 in about a full season between them) and Perez (+8). The rest of the team is seriously below average by Rfield. If they run into a contact, GB team like themselves, they could get eaten alive.


For whatever reason, the metrics don't like Alcides Escobar, but by the eye test, he is one of the best defensive shortstops in the league. Mike Moustakas looks like an above average defensive third baseman (the metrics like him a lot IIRC). And the book is still out on Hosmer (some think he is good, some think he is overrated, the metrics are mixed), but he did win a Gold Glove FWIW.
   44. vivaelpujols Posted: August 21, 2014 at 09:03 AM (#4776156)
Poznanski's really kind of a moron isn't he?
   45. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 21, 2014 at 09:19 AM (#4776167)

plus he had the #1 draft pick in his first's year.

This is sort of true, but Moore wasn't the one who got to make the pick. As Joe Posnanski loves to recall, Moore accepted the offer to become the team's GM before the draft but didn't actually take the post until afterwards. The Royals did not have a general manager when they drafted Hochevar.


FWIW, Dayton admitted in an interview that the club asked him his opinion on the two guys they were considering - Luke Hochevar or Andrew Miller. Dayton gave his opinion because the Braves wouldn't have a shot at either of those guys. He chose Hochevar.

He had nothing to do with the rest of that draft, which was a disaster, other than the very last pick they had - Jarrod Dyson.
   46. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: August 21, 2014 at 09:24 AM (#4776174)
Poznanski's really kind of a moron isn't he?


Let the pearl-clutching commence.
   47. Bug Selig Posted: August 21, 2014 at 09:53 AM (#4776194)
Step 1) Collect free money for 15 years
Step 2) Who the hell cares, I'm rich!

Step 3) Non-sequitur whining from Johnny One-Note
   48. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 21, 2014 at 09:59 AM (#4776203)
Step 1) Collect free money for 15 years
Step 2) Who the hell cares, I'm rich!

Step 3) Non-sequitur whining from Johnny One-Note


Aw, sorry comrade, I didn't mean to disparage Glorious 15 Year Plan.
   49. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 21, 2014 at 10:00 AM (#4776204)
i don't know how much credit the royals get for gordon being a tremendous defensive left fielder. they stuck him in left hoping his bat would recover since he failed at third base and the position change was successful. but did the royals believe or know that gordon would be great as an outfielder? doubtful

and as for cain again lorenzo was included for his offensive work, not his defense. lorenzo had been solid in the minors but nobody was raving about his glovework.

so i am GLAD for the royals that things panned out. but i struggle to give anyone in management credit.

   50. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: August 21, 2014 at 10:43 AM (#4776241)
So sure, if Moore was going to be stupid enough to let Frenchy harm his team, the trade didn't change that.


And that's the entire point. Frenchy was going to be his starting rightfielder. The trade didn't change that. If Myers was in KC last year, he would have been down on the farm (for probably as long as Tampa left him there, as they would have had the same arb concerns).

I'm not defending Moore's decision to go into 2013 with Frenchy as his rightfielder. I've merely corrected valuearb's oft-stated assertion (and your piggybacking of it above) that the trade harmed the Royals in 2013. It would be foolish to think that Myers in KC in 2013 was going to provide more value than they ultimately received from the people who were there.

It's not a defense of the trade, or a vote of confidence for Moore's acumen. It's just a more accurate representation of reality.
   51. McCoy Posted: August 21, 2014 at 11:00 AM (#4776262)
But it appears that the reason for the trade not harming the Royals is because of Moore's incompetence and that doesn't really seem like a good defense.
   52. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: August 21, 2014 at 11:05 AM (#4776269)
But it appears that the reason for the trade not harming the Royals is because of Moore's incompetence and that doesn't really seem like a good defense.


I thought that part where I said it wasn't a defense of Moore, on two occasions, covered that.
   53. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 21, 2014 at 11:06 AM (#4776270)
Poznanski's really kind of a moron isn't he?


No, he is not.

I don't think it's disputable that Moore viewed Wil Myers as expendable because he viewed Jeff Francoeur as his right fielder.
   54. McCoy Posted: August 21, 2014 at 11:11 AM (#4776275)
I thought that part where I said it wasn't a defense of Moore, on two occasions, covered that.

Covered what? You say you're correcting valuearb's assertion and it appears your correction is to say that Moore is incompetent. That isn't really correcting valuearb. Not having Myers on the team last year did cost the Royals. Just like having Moore be the GM cost the Royals.
   55. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: August 21, 2014 at 11:23 AM (#4776284)
Not having Myers on the team last year did cost the Royals.


No it didn't. If Myers was on the roster last year, the Royals would have gotten the same level of production out of their outfield that they otherwise did. Myers would have started the season in the minors (for arb reasons and for Frenchy-fondness ones), and when it became clear enough even for the Royals that Frenchy wasn't going to regain his 2011 form, Myers would have been called up to take over in rightfield, whereby he would have given them similar production from what they got from Lough.

Of course, that team doesn't have Shields, which makes them worse.

And if you want to give Frenchy his walking papers before 2013 instead of two months in, nothing changes. Lough starts the season on Day 1 (probably in both cases, due to the aforementioned arb concerns).

Wasting almost 200 PA on Francouer was the problem, but it was a problem that would have existed with or without the trade.

I'm not crediting Moore's special acumen (if he had that, he would have jettisoned Frenchy before 2013 began). He most definitely lucked into what he got, but what he got, production wise last year, was better than the alternate world where Myers remained in Royals blue.
   56. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 21, 2014 at 11:44 AM (#4776302)

Of course, that team doesn't have Shields, which makes them worse.


They also don't have Wade Davis, who was below replacement level last year, FWIW.
   57. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: August 21, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4776307)
They also don't have Wade Davis, who was below replacement level last year, FWIW.


Not to the extent Shields was above. And they didn't have to keep running Wade out there.
   58. Bug Selig Posted: August 21, 2014 at 12:04 PM (#4776324)
Aw, sorry comrade, I didn't mean to disparage Glorious 15 Year Plan.


The first 37,491 times you made your point were probably sufficient. Anybody who is going to believe that being located in a very large city is a skill worthy of genuflection already believe it.
   59. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 21, 2014 at 12:05 PM (#4776328)
Nobody expects the pilotfish to genuflect to the shark.
   60. McCoy Posted: August 21, 2014 at 12:34 PM (#4776361)
Again though, you're letting Moore off the hook because of his incompetence. Why would a competent team leave Myer down in the minors and play Frenchy to start the season? Moore believed his team was a fringe playoff contender and at that level every win counts. Why would a team like the Royals care about the service clock when it won't matter for 6 years? If the window is now you maximize now. You don't sacrifice now for some unknown future event. Moore had in house readily available options that would have made the trade unnecessary. He ignored those and cost his team wins. Furthermore his own incompetence put him in the position that caused him to have to trade his best positional prospect for Shields.

Making the trade caused Moore to play Frenchy and Davis which means the three of them netted the Royals a grand total of 1 win above replacement. Playing Wil Myers all season long would have netted the Royals 4 wins.
   61. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: August 21, 2014 at 12:53 PM (#4776378)
Again though, you're letting Moore off the hook because of his incompetence.


I'm doing no such thing. His incompetence has been noted. His continued employment of Frenchy was evidence of it, and it cost them real wins. But that cost would have been incurred with or without the trade, and could have been avoided with or without the trade.

Why would a competent team leave Myer down in the minors and play Frenchy to start the season? Moore believed his team was a fringe playoff contender and at that level every win counts. Why would a team like the Royals care about the service clock when it won't matter for 6 years?


The Rays let him percolate in the minors while playing inferior options, and they not only had playoff aspirations, they met them.

Making the trade caused Moore to play Frenchy and Davis which means the three of them netted the Royals a grand total of 1 win above replacement. Playing Wil Myers all season long would have netted the Royals 4 wins.


Making the trade did no such thing. Making poor decisions on resource deployment did.

If Ned Yost had started David Lough on Day 1, they would have gotten the same production they would have received by starting Myers on Day 1 (assuming both men performed at the level they did throughout 2013, which is obviously not a terribly strong assumption, but it's the best we can do. And it works both ways. Lough has been better than Myers this year, for instance).

Turning Wade Davis from failed starter to good reliever much earlier would have also helped them.

Neither of those things was caused by the trade.
   62. McCoy Posted: August 21, 2014 at 12:58 PM (#4776383)
If Moore doesn't have Frenchy he doesn't trade Myers. Frenchy's presence needs to be part of the trade discussion.

The Rays let him percolate in the minors while playing inferior options, and they not only had playoff aspirations, they met them.



That somebody else makes a stupid decision doesn't mean making the same stupid decision is ok.

Making the trade did no such thing. Making poor decisions on resource deployment did.



The trade was a poor resource deployment decision.
   63. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: August 21, 2014 at 01:10 PM (#4776393)
If Moore doesn't have Frenchy he doesn't trade Myers.


Possibly. It's irrelevant as to whether the trade actually hurt the Royals in 2013, which is the question.

That somebody else makes a stupid decision doesn't mean making the same stupid decision is ok.


Lower-revenue teams manipulating arb clocks is by no means a stupid decision.

The trade was a poor resource deployment decision.


I wouldn't disagree. It just so happened that the trade itself didn't hurt the Royals on the field in 2013. Poor decisions don't always result in poor outcomes, as I'm sure you've mentioned a time or two about your favorite ex-Cub manager.

   64. madvillain Posted: August 21, 2014 at 01:12 PM (#4776397)
Goodness talk about missing the forest for the trees. You guys are playing 20/20 hindsight Pinata on one move when you should be considering his entire body of work.
   65. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: August 21, 2014 at 01:18 PM (#4776401)

Goodness talk about missing the forest for the trees. You guys are playing 20/20 hindsight Pinata on one move when you should be considering his entire body of work.


That Dayton's been largely ineffective? Understood and agreed with by pretty much everyone at Primer. I suppose we could just hang out amusing ourselves by finding different ways to snarkily say Dayton's an idiot, but my interest in that particular conversation wanes very quickly. Sorry.
   66. McCoy Posted: August 21, 2014 at 02:39 PM (#4776469)
Lower-revenue teams manipulating arb clocks is by no means a stupid decision.

In general, yes. In the case of the Royals it was extremely stupid. If you're a team that has a tight budget* and you can project your team to win roughly 90 to 92 games without player X playing the full season then by all means take the risk of keeping player X down to save some bucks. If you're a team that you project to win 60 games then by all means keep him down. If you think you're going to win somewhere roughly between 80 to 90 wins without him up then screw the service clock gimmickry and bring him up from the start. The Royals playing service time games is just an absolutely stupid decision to make. They should be maximizing wins now not saving up for some future that might never come and probably will never come.

It just so happened that the trade itself didn't hurt the Royals on the field in 2013

But it did. Moore went with Frenchy from the start, gave Davis starts, and didn't have Myers to play. Making the trade cost the Royals at least 2 wins last year and losing those 2 wins cost them about 11 million dollars.


*And you're a team that one can somewhat confidently assume will be good 3 years down the road as well as 4, 5, 6. . .
   67. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 21, 2014 at 02:45 PM (#4776476)
The Rays let him percolate in the minors while playing inferior options, and they not only had playoff aspirations, they met them.


That somebody else makes a stupid decision doesn't mean making the same stupid decision is ok.

Given that the Rays made the playoffs, and advanced in the "play-in" game, it's hard to call their decision stupid.

They got to eat their cake and have it too.
   68. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: August 21, 2014 at 02:57 PM (#4776488)
But it did. Moore went with Frenchy from the start, gave Davis starts, and didn't have Myers to play. Making the trade cost the Royals at least 2 wins last year and losing those 2 wins cost them about 11 million dollars.


No it didn't. They had a perfectly good substitute Myers on the roster from Day 1 that they could have employed in his stead, had they quit their Frenchy crush earlier. They didn't have a spare James Shields around without the trade. Ignoring it doesn't get you around it.

In general, yes. In the case of the Royals it was extremely stupid. If you're a team that has a tight budget* and you can project your team to win roughly 90 to 92 games without player X playing the full season then by all means take the risk of keeping player X down to save some bucks. If you're a team that you project to win 60 games then by all means keep him down. If you think you're going to win somewhere roughly between 80 to 90 wins without him up then screw the service clock gimmickry and bring him up from the start. The Royals playing service time games is just an absolutely stupid decision to make. They should be maximizing wins now not saving up for some future that might never come and probably will never come.


And yet, a team in pretty much an identical situation with a reputation for intelligence, did just that. It's a balancing act at all times.

In fact, if Myers was on the roster in 2013, the best plan would have been to start Lough from Day 1, then bring up Myers later in the year to give them a nice four-person OF.



   69. madvillain Posted: August 21, 2014 at 03:38 PM (#4776517)
That Dayton's been largely ineffective? Understood and agreed with by pretty much everyone at Primer. I suppose we could just hang out amusing ourselves by finding different ways to snarkily say Dayton's an idiot, but my interest in that particular conversation wanes very quickly. Sorry.


Personally I found the back and forth on the Myers/Frenchy stuff pedantic and boring. I'd rather heap scorn upon a laughable GM.
   70. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: August 21, 2014 at 03:58 PM (#4776536)
I'd rather heap scorn upon a laughable GM.


Knock yourself out.
   71. Bug Selig Posted: August 21, 2014 at 04:41 PM (#4776571)
Nobody expects the pilotfish to genuflect to the shark.


Well, not with the shark 9.5 out.
   72. Shibal Posted: August 21, 2014 at 04:42 PM (#4776572)
Madvillain is a genuis, too smart for this place. I can only imagine the beer league softball team he puts together.
   73. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: August 21, 2014 at 05:04 PM (#4776590)
This is disappointing. I clicked on this thread expecting a long Walt Davis post on Wade Davis.

   74. McCoy Posted: August 21, 2014 at 06:01 PM (#4776645)

No it didn't. They had a perfectly good substitute Myers on the roster from Day 1 that they could have employed in his stead, had they quit their Frenchy crush earlier.


They had a substitute that nobody knew was a perfectly good substitute at the time and what's more having Myers didn't make that substitute null and void. Lough could still have been up with Myers on the roster.


They didn't have a spare James Shields around without the trade. Ignoring it doesn't get you around it.


They also didn't have Wade Davis around without the trade which cuts into the value of Shields. Hell, Myers and Lough playing the full year would have given the Royals more wins than what they ended up doing.

And yet, a team in pretty much an identical situation with a reputation for intelligence, did just that. It's a balancing act at all times

Again, the fact that somebody else makes a mistake doesn't mean it is ok for you to make the same mistake. Your defense of keeping him down is kind of like some manager's defense of putting some .290 OBP batter at leadoff because he plays SS and is speedy. Just because 10 other teams do it as well doesn't mean it is the right move.
   75. Shibal Posted: August 21, 2014 at 07:13 PM (#4776687)
They also didn't have Wade Davis around without the trade which cuts into the value of Shields. Hell, Myers and Lough playing the full year would have given the Royals more wins than what they ended up doing.


Was the Guthrie signing a good move? Was the Escobar trade a good one?

Kind of strange how you guys are ignoring the other moves Moore made at the time that resulted in the Royals going from 746 runs allowed in 2012 to 601 Runs Allowed in 2013.

   76. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 21, 2014 at 07:34 PM (#4776705)
Nobody expects the pilotfish to genuflect to the shark.

Well, not with the shark 9.5 out.


Well, without the shark the pilot fish would be just another dead fish, helpless, unable to provide for itself, a truly pathetic example of evolution perverted. Ask any pilot fish, they know it's true.

15 years of shameless sponging and bottom feeding and now you crow. Welfare fans defy parody.
   77. madvillain Posted: August 21, 2014 at 08:41 PM (#4776747)
Madvillain is a genuis, too smart for this place. I can only imagine the beer league softball team he puts together.


Thankfully this place is both relatively free of the silly 20/20 hindsight debates this thread got bogged down in and the worthless trolling snark you posted.
   78. Spahn Insane Posted: August 21, 2014 at 08:58 PM (#4776766)
Look what the A's just gave up for starting pitching - two premium prospects for Samardzija for 2-plus years, and Jason Hammel (ugh).

1-plus. Samardzija's a free agent after next year.
   79. Spahn Insane Posted: August 21, 2014 at 09:00 PM (#4776770)
Considering Russell is probably not going to amount to much I don't think Beane gave up much to get what he got.

?

Now you're just being negative for the sake of it. Sure, Russell might not pan out, but that's true of any prospect; what more would you want in a shortstop prospect than what Russell brings to the table (leaving McKinney, who looks to be a pretty good prospect himself, out of the equation)?
   80. McCoy Posted: August 21, 2014 at 09:14 PM (#4776780)
Well, I don't want a SS prospect.
   81. Spahn Insane Posted: August 21, 2014 at 11:47 PM (#4776841)
All righty then. That seems rather a different point to make than "Russell probably won't amount to anything."
   82. Shibal Posted: August 22, 2014 at 12:45 AM (#4776858)
Thankfully this place is both relatively free of the silly 20/20 hindsight debates this thread got bogged down in and the worthless trolling snark you posted.


Meanwhile, all you have done is spout out the standard worthless snark about Dayton Moore. Moore has made some outstanding moves the past two seasons that get ignored by all the smarter-than-thou group-think clones on here who focus on Wil Myers like he is Mike Trout's twin brother. 20 months ago, going into November 2012, the Royals were staring at another 90 loss season with a starting rotation consisting of Luke Hochevar, Bruce Chen, Luis Mendoza, Chris Volstad, and Will Smith.

And now look at rotation and the team. Horrible job, Dayton.
   83. Bug Selig Posted: August 22, 2014 at 01:16 PM (#4777193)
Well, without the shark the pilot fish would be just another dead fish, helpless, unable to provide for itself, a truly pathetic example of evolution perverted. Ask any pilot fish, they know it's true.

15 years of shameless sponging and bottom feeding and now you crow. Welfare fans defy parody.


But isn't it true in your somewhat tortured metaphor that the shark would also die without the existence of prey? Never mind the times that the prey goes all David on the predator.

As fun as the banter can be (and I mean that), I think you are arguing a case that you neither believe nor do the Yankees truly want. The league has revenue-sharing because it's members perceive that competitive balance is good for the group in the aggregate. As one who sees the world through pinstripe-colored eyes, you scream foul! Thievery! Bolshevism! But, do you honestly disagree with any of the following statements:
1. The Yankees benefit from having a league to play in.
2. The Yankees, in fact, have benefitted the most from the status quo.
3. The Yankees would be the single most harmed entity if the league became free-for-all. It is, after all, that silly, meddling league that is keeping 28 other teams from having access to the largest market in the world.

In other words, are you advocating actual ruthless competition or ruthless competition as long as your team gets to keep its huge unearned advantage?
   84. McCoy Posted: August 22, 2014 at 01:44 PM (#4777224)
Well, he still won't do much either
   85. Ron J2 Posted: August 22, 2014 at 01:54 PM (#4777241)
#83 (and earlier posts) what's kind of interesting is that the Yankees got Wally Pipp a century ago because Ban Johnson argued that a basket case New York team was bad for the league.

Don't have the exact quote handy, but Johnson argued something like a little socialism for the good of the league.
   86. McCoy Posted: August 22, 2014 at 01:56 PM (#4777243)
20 months ago, going into November 2012, the Royals were staring at another 90 loss season with a starting rotation consisting of Luke Hochevar, Bruce Chen, Luis Mendoza, Chris Volstad, and Will Smith.

And now look at rotation and the team. Horrible job, Dayton.


Did Moore take over the GM job in November of 2012?

So what did Moore do?

Signed Santana at the end of October.

He signed Brandon Wood and Guthrie. Ho-hum.

Traded for James Shield and Wade Davis

Signed Miguel Tejada

Picked up Kottaras

And what else did he do to make 2013 better?

Shields was an improvement but Davis hurt them and losing Myers and keeping Frenchy hurt them. Hitting didn't improve over 2012.

What exactly are supposed to talk about besides the Myers trade. There was only two really important moves he made that offseason. Picking up Santana and Myers trade.
   87. Shibal Posted: August 22, 2014 at 03:41 PM (#4777345)
Who is defending Dayton Moore's decision making in the six years prior to this trade? Not me.

Long learning curve or just plain voodoo, Moore hasn't made many mistakes since. He went into the 2013 off-season determined to be aggressive and take chances to rebuild the rotation. It worked. He picked the right pitcher. He didn't sign Marcum. Or Edwin Jackson. Or Dan Haran. Or deal Ventura/Bonafacio and other prospects for RA Dickey, as Rany suggested. He kept Ventura in the rotation. They handled Duffy correctly. Moved failed starting pitchers like Davis and Hochavar to the bullpen where they thrived.

So tell me McCoy...how many games would the Royals have won in 2013 had they not made this trade?
   88. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 22, 2014 at 04:16 PM (#4777374)
15 years of shameless sponging and bottom feeding and now you crow. Welfare fans defy parody.
Tell us again how the Junior Steinbrenners deserve all those taxpayer dollars?
   89. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 22, 2014 at 04:39 PM (#4777395)
going into November 2012, the Royals were staring at another 90 loss season with a starting rotation consisting of Luke Hochevar, Bruce Chen, Luis Mendoza, Chris Volstad, and Will Smith.

And now look at rotation and the team. Horrible job, Dayton.


Very good pitching staff
good team defense
weak offense

Shields came in on the Myers deal
Guthrie came in for Jonathan Sanchez (Guthrie's the weak link this year, but KC won that deal going away, Sanchez was flakier than Ollie Perez)
Vargas was an FA
Ventura is a young guy who throws very hard :-) signed as an amateur FA in 2008
Duffy is a 3rd rounder from 2007

Pythag % is the same as last year, team isn't going to get any better than that unless Moore fixes the lineup, but then again they are good enough to make the playoffs, question is how long can Moore keep the window of contention open.

   90. McCoy Posted: August 22, 2014 at 04:41 PM (#4777397)
Who is defending Dayton Moore's decision making in the six years prior to this trade? Not me.

Long learning curve or just plain voodoo, Moore hasn't made many mistakes since. He went into the 2013 off-season determined to be aggressive and take chances to rebuild the rotation. It worked. He picked the right pitcher. He didn't sign Marcum. Or Edwin Jackson. Or Dan Haran. Or deal Ventura/Bonafacio and other prospects for RA Dickey, as Rany suggested. He kept Ventura in the rotation. They handled Duffy correctly. Moved failed starting pitchers like Davis and Hochavar to the bullpen where they thrived.


Aggressive? He made two moves and that was that. He also thought Frenchy was his starting right fielder.

So tell me McCoy...how many games would the Royals have won in 2013 had they not made this trade?

With Moore running the team? Probably less.

Are the Royals likely to win 90 games next year? If so how?
   91. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 22, 2014 at 05:07 PM (#4777418)
15 years of shameless sponging and bottom feeding and now you crow. Welfare fans defy parody.

Tell us again how the Junior Steinbrenners deserve all those taxpayer dollars?


The taxpayers and their elected representatives wanted to give it to them.

Naturally as a man of constant principle I'd much rather the Yankees, and every other professional sports team in America, paid for the whole shebang out of their own pocket. Given that they're forced to subsidize half the league to the tune of over a billion dollars over the past decade, of course, I can understand their willingness to accept the same boodle that the poormouth teams demand themselves. I say we get rid of taxpayer graft for sports teams and confiscatory revenue stealing all in one fell swoop - are you with me?
   92. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 22, 2014 at 05:25 PM (#4777430)
I say we get rid of taxpayer graft for sports teams and confiscatory revenue stealing all in one fell swoop - are you with me?
Sure. I assume this also means the Yankees no longer get to deny other franchises the ability to base themselves in New York. After all, if we're going to get rid of competitive advantages, let's start with the most obvious one first.
   93. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 22, 2014 at 06:07 PM (#4777457)
Sure, New York already had two teams flee for greener pastures in the 20th century, the idea that the most popular and successful franchise in all of sports needs to fear some welfare team moving in to the most competitive entertainment market in the country isn't one to be seriously considered. In fact, I think the incoming commissioner should schedule a vote to completely eliminate all territorial rights immediately upon assuming office. Oh maybe the Yankees and the Mets might balk at the idea, but surely every other franchise would jump at the opportunity to leave their private walled fiefdoms and have some real competition!
   94. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 22, 2014 at 06:10 PM (#4777459)
Oh maybe the Yankees and the Mets might balk at the idea, but surely every other franchise would jump at the opportunity to leave their private walled fiefdoms and have some real competition!
Yeah, they're right. You really are Johnny One-Note.

But you make me laugh, so that's okay.
   95. cmd600 Posted: August 22, 2014 at 06:13 PM (#4777463)
Sure, New York already had two teams flee for greener pastures in the 20th century,


Sure, suggesting that 1958 is comparable to today and that markets like San Francisco and Los Angeles are available makes a lot of sense.
   96. Shibal Posted: August 22, 2014 at 06:18 PM (#4777469)
Aggressive? He made two moves and that was that. He also thought Frenchy was his starting right fielder.


Ah, so dealing your #1 prospect isn't aggressive in your book? Bringing in four new starting pitchers isn't aggressive? And it was three moves to revamp the rotation; Guthrie was a free agent at the end of 2012.

Me thinks your definition of "aggressive" is a little off. In your mind, what trades this year would qualify as aggressive ?


Are the Royals likely to win 90 games next year? If so how?


Doubt it. Winning 90 games isn't easy. What teams will likely win 90 games in the AL next year? Be specific please.

In any case, they will still likely be contenders next year despite losing Shields and possibly Butler.
   97. Bug Selig Posted: August 22, 2014 at 06:46 PM (#4777486)
Sure, New York already had two teams flee for greener pastures in the 20th century, the idea that the most popular and successful franchise in all of sports needs to fear some welfare team moving in to the most competitive entertainment market in the country isn't one to be seriously considered.


Leaving Brooklyn because Los Angeles is available isn't remotely similar to being stuck in Kansas City, and I'm pretty sure you know it.

EDIT - Coke to #95.
   98. The District Attorney Posted: August 22, 2014 at 07:00 PM (#4777493)
BTW, I vigorously disagree with Poz's implication that the enthusiasm of Royals fans either is, or should be, based on whether the front office "knows what it's doing."

If your team is going 25-5 or whatever, and is poised to make the playoffs for the first time in decades, you as a fan are obligated to be losing your ####### mind, whether or not you think the success is sustainable.
   99. McCoy Posted: August 22, 2014 at 11:14 PM (#4777579)
Guthrie? He of the 1.1 WAR last year and .5 WAR so far this year? That is a major aggressive move?

How about this, do you expect the Royals to have a winning record next year? If so, why?

I would expect 4 to 5 teams in the AL East to have a winning record. I would expect the A's and Angels to be good next year.
   100. Shibal Posted: August 23, 2014 at 01:12 AM (#4777610)
Guthrie? He of the 1.1 WAR last year and .5 WAR so far this year? That is a major aggressive move?


I didn't say signing Guthrie was an aggressive move. Try to learn some reading comprehension...here's my quote:

Ah, so dealing your #1 prospect isn't aggressive in your book? Bringing in four new starting pitchers isn't aggressive?

And yes, the Royals most likely will have a winning record next year. Do you disagree?

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harry Balsagne, anti-Centaur hate crime division
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogDave Kreiger: New Baseball Hall of Fame voting rules
(36 - 3:16am, Sep 16)
Last: MelOtt4

NewsblogBowman: A year’s worth of struggles leads reason to wonder what changes are in store for the Braves
(14 - 2:47am, Sep 16)
Last: zachtoma

NewsblogSteven Matz, other top minor league Mets to be honored at Citi Field on Monday
(5 - 2:28am, Sep 16)
Last: Win Big Stein's Money

NewsblogPapelbon blows lead, gets ejected for crotch-grabbing at fans
(61 - 1:32am, Sep 16)
Last: Dog on the sidewalk

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(2508 - 1:24am, Sep 16)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogA’s lose Triple-A Sacramento affiliate
(16 - 1:18am, Sep 16)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(813 - 12:15am, Sep 16)
Last: Win Big Stein's Money

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-15-2014
(78 - 11:46pm, Sep 15)
Last: RollingWave

NewsblogHeyman: Mariners have decided not to retain the ice-cream buying scout
(4 - 11:45pm, Sep 15)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogSports Bog: Fans Switch From Skins to Nats
(62 - 11:41pm, Sep 15)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogCalcaterra: Derek Jeter got a bucket of crabs and a captain’s hat from the Orioles
(12 - 11:41pm, Sep 15)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(219 - 10:43pm, Sep 15)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(161 - 10:11pm, Sep 15)
Last: NJ in DC (Now with temporary employment!)

Newsblog10 Degrees: Why WAR doesn’t always add up
(340 - 9:46pm, Sep 15)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: September 2014 College Football thread
(245 - 9:20pm, Sep 15)
Last: spike

Page rendered in 1.0560 seconds
53 querie(s) executed