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, June 18, 2014

Royals win 9th straight to take over 1st place

Alex Gordon and Mike Moustakas homered as part of a seven-run second inning, and the Royals displaced the Detroit Tigers atop the AL Central on Tuesday night with an 11-4 victory, their ninth in a row.

Sure they laughed when the Royals launched their 30 year plan to return to the playoffs after a disappointing flameout in ‘86.  But who’s laughing now that it’s coming home a few years early.

Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: June 18, 2014 at 03:48 AM | 90 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hell freezing over, 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.

   1. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: June 18, 2014 at 06:36 AM (#4729047)
With the last 5 wins coming on the road. Good for them.

The dream playoff scenario for the AL: Toronto, KC, and Oakland win their divisions; Cleveland and Baltimore play for the wild card. Hopefully whoever comes out of that plays Milwaukee in the World Series. Fox would hate it, which is reason enough to hope it comes to pass.
   2. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: June 18, 2014 at 06:49 AM (#4729050)
It would be a "dream" scenario, all right: it would put everyone to sleep.
   3. Rants Mulliniks Posted: June 18, 2014 at 08:34 AM (#4729067)
....despite the best efforts of Ned Yost.
   4. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: June 18, 2014 at 08:39 AM (#4729068)
Detroit was looking like world beaters a little more than a month ago, but man, have the wheels fallen off. Right now, I don't know what you hang your hat on if you're a Tigers fan other than it's a long season, and there's still plenty of time left. Even then, the team is a real mess right now. It's like they've forgotten how to do anything well. Verlander is either hurt or he's fallen off a cliff. Joe Nathan looks toast. There aren't many inspiring arms in the pen. The infield defense doesn't seem much better with Prince gone and Miggy at first, mostly because Iglesias isn't there, either.

I still think they're the team to beat in that division, but it's no longer the laugher of a "race."
   5. Davo Dozier Posted: June 18, 2014 at 08:43 AM (#4729072)
FanGraphs still gives the Tigers a 67% chance of winning the division (Royals at 18%, Indians at 13%).

Those figures don't seem too difficult to accept.
   6. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: June 18, 2014 at 08:58 AM (#4729084)
Their worst starting pitcher right now is Jeremy Guthrie, who is merely league average. Alex Gordon will probably always hit, and Sal Perez is a darn good catcher. Moose Tacos is hitting the snot out of the ball lately. If he's finally for real that will help wonders but Eric Hosmer and Billy Butler have OPS+ of under 90. Many people predicted a stacked offense by now, and they're in first place because of their pitching. What a weird team.
   7. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 08:59 AM (#4729085)
I don't know what to do with my hands. Hit them together? What is the opposite of booing? What is this feeling? Pride? No, not that. Less shame? Yea.
   8. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: June 18, 2014 at 09:00 AM (#4729086)
It would be a "dream" scenario, all right: it would put everyone to sleep.

Why? The A's and Blue Jays are a lot of fun right now and the Royals would have that Cinderella factor. The O's and Indian...meh. I hate to say it but the Angels would be more compelling than either of them. (I mean, #### the Angels, but I won't lie).
   9. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: June 18, 2014 at 09:02 AM (#4729089)
I don't know what to do with my hands. Hit them together? What is the opposite of booing? What is this feeling? Pride? No, not that. Less shame? Yea.

Typical. Already more arrogant than a Yankee or Red Sox fan.
   10. zonk Posted: June 18, 2014 at 09:16 AM (#4729098)
I'm so tired of the media focusing on media beltway teams like the Royals.
   11. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 09:17 AM (#4729100)
I don't know what to do with my hands.


When in doubt, Option J.
   12. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 18, 2014 at 09:22 AM (#4729102)
glad for the royals and their fans

winning is fun
   13. Every Inge Counts Posted: June 18, 2014 at 09:30 AM (#4729109)
The funny thing was that the Royals were winning despite not being exactly world-beaters with the bats...and they beat the hell out of the Tigers the last 2 nights.

It is a long season I tell myself.
   14. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 09:39 AM (#4729116)
I wonder if the Royals finally, finally told Moustakas, "you know what, forget all that crap about shortening your stroke and going the other way we've been cramming down your throat the last two years. Just hit the way you hit and everything will be fine."

....naaaaaahhhh.
   15. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 09:45 AM (#4729122)
What's going on with Austin Jackson?

His FB rate is through the roof, and his BABIP has predictably cratered. Does he think he's some kind of HR hitter all of a sudden?
   16. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 18, 2014 at 09:46 AM (#4729123)
I wonder if the Royals finally, finally told Moustakas...

Or maybe he finally stopped listening to them or maybe we should wait to see if he can stay hot for longer than a week.

Lineup is still pretty anemic, but there isn't a hole anyhwere to be found in the rotation or pen
   17. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 10:26 AM (#4729160)
What's going on with Austin Jackson?


What's going on with Justin Verlander? His last couple of starts have been disasters.


Lineup is still pretty anemic, but there isn't a hole anyhwere to be found in the rotation or pen


And the defense is just amazing. I still expect some regression from the pitching staff, probably Guthrie and Vargas and maybe even Duffy, who has way outperformed his FIP. But the Royals are in first place despite pretty much no production from 1B, DH, RF, and 3B, and that's pretty amazing. You'd expect at least a few of those guys to start hitting their true talent level and/or a trade to help things out.
   18. bfan Posted: June 18, 2014 at 10:35 AM (#4729169)
17 posts, and this name has not been mentioned yet, so I must: Dayton Moore. What would happen if "the plan" actually came together?
   19. Esoteric Posted: June 18, 2014 at 10:46 AM (#4729179)
17 posts, and this name has not been mentioned yet, so I must: Dayton Moore. What would happen if "the plan" actually came together?
Remember how people were forced to say not-hateful things about Brian Sabean after the Giants won a World Series? Well, imagine that times 1,000.
   20. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 18, 2014 at 10:50 AM (#4729182)
Dayton Moore. What would happen if "the plan" actually came together?


I would assume that I was being trolled by the gods of baseball and quit following baseball.
   21. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: June 18, 2014 at 10:51 AM (#4729184)
Imagine if they still had Wil Myers! He's hit almost as well as Alcides Escobar this year, and if he was still on the Royals he probably wouldn't have fractured his wrist crashing into a teammate.
   22. Nasty Nate Posted: June 18, 2014 at 10:56 AM (#4729190)
Oddly enough, Wade Davis has been the most valuable party involved in that trade this year.
   23. zonk Posted: June 18, 2014 at 11:00 AM (#4729197)
Dayton Moore. What would happen if "the plan" actually came together?


Then clearly, the HBO series Silicon Valley has found its quirky replacement for the Christopher Welch/Peter Gregory character...
   24. Davo Dozier Posted: June 18, 2014 at 11:07 AM (#4729204)
Tigers' relievers have the highest ERA in baseball this year--4.67. Even higher than the Astros'!
   25. Davo Dozier Posted: June 18, 2014 at 11:14 AM (#4729218)
No one on the Royals is really playing a lot better than you'd expect them to--Jason Vargas is getting a little lucky, but a 3.25 ERA is nothing impossible.

Meanwhile, they have a few players who are doing a lot WORSE than you'd expect--their two best hitters last year (Hosmer and Butler) are both slugging under .380, and Omar Infante has a .249 batting average.

They could very easily be better going forward than they've been so far.
   26. valuearbitrageur Posted: June 18, 2014 at 11:21 AM (#4729227)
17 posts, and this name has not been mentioned yet, so I must: Dayton Moore. What would happen if "the plan" actually came together?


If the plan was to win this year, and tank next year, kudos to Mr. Moore.
   27. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 11:36 AM (#4729250)
No one on the Royals is really playing a lot better than you'd expect them to

Except for their entire bullpen.
   28. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 11:45 AM (#4729270)
The Royals having a great bullpen is nothing new, though.
   29. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 11:49 AM (#4729274)
Except for their entire bullpen.


Escobar's 2014 OPS+ is 25 points above his career average. Some people might consider that a lot.
   30. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 11:52 AM (#4729279)
The Royals having a great bullpen is nothing new, though.

Sure, but ERA+ of 350, 308, 177 and 140 from your 4 best RPs is more than a little bit beyond "great"
   31. cardsfanboy Posted: June 18, 2014 at 12:06 PM (#4729298)
It would be a "dream" scenario, all right: it would put everyone to sleep.


It would be pretty awesome. Putting someone to sleep would be any combination of Yankees, Red Sox or Mets(not going to happen of course) with their 4 1/2 hour games as every batter fiddles in the batters box for 25 seconds.

If the Cardinals aren't in the World Series, I'm rooting for the NL representative to be the Brewers. In the AL, every year I pick the A's, every year they screw me in the post season, so let's go Royals (I can't get myself to root for a team named after Native Americans or from Ohio)

FanGraphs still gives the Tigers a 67% chance of winning the division (Royals at 18%, Indians at 13%)


Is there anything actually backing up these type of "odds"? When a team goes from 90% to 70% in a week or so, it's just so much hokum. Any system that doesn't assume a 7 game losing/winning streak in the remaining part of the season, is bogus.

   32. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 12:10 PM (#4729303)
17 posts, and this name has not been mentioned yet, so I must: Dayton Moore.


Watch it. Say it two more times and he'll appear.
   33. JE (Jason) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 12:18 PM (#4729313)
17 posts, and this name has not been mentioned yet, so I must: Dayton Moore. What would happen if "the plan" actually came together?

Let's not piss in each other's pants just yet. A .543 winning percentage in the AL Central 40 percent into the season is worthy of polite applause but hardly anything special.
   34. Nasty Nate Posted: June 18, 2014 at 12:25 PM (#4729333)
When a team goes from 90% to 70% in a week or so, it's just so much hokum.


I don't think this makes much sense. A week or so shouldn't change the projections going forward that much, but it can sure as hell drastically change the standings base onto which the future wins/losses are added.
   35. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 12:33 PM (#4729350)
I don't think this makes much sense. A week or so shouldn't change the projections going forward that much, but it can sure as hell drastically change the standings base onto which the future wins/losses are added.

Concur. If the team chasing you rips off 9 straight wins, your odds are going to plummet.
   36. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: June 18, 2014 at 12:38 PM (#4729357)
Right. As Joe Sheehan says when he's not ranting nonsensically, those 9 wins are banked.
   37. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 12:39 PM (#4729358)
FanGraphs still gives the Tigers a 67% chance of winning the division (Royals at 18%, Indians at 13%)


I'm not real clear on the difference, but if you go to "season to date stats mode" the Royals edge the Tigers in odds 37-31 (Indians at 16%)
   38. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 12:42 PM (#4729361)
I'm not real clear on the difference, but if you go to "season to date stats mode" the Royals edge the Tigers in odds 37-31 (Indians at 16%)

I assume that's using only 2014 stats to evaluate team quality, rather than incorporating projection systems.
   39. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 12:44 PM (#4729369)
Putting someone to sleep would be any combination of Yankees, Red Sox or Mets(not going to happen of course) with their 4 1/2 hour games as every batter fiddles in the batters box for 25 seconds.


Teams so boring and unpopular they're forced to subsidize half the league.
   40. Tom Nawrocki Posted: June 18, 2014 at 12:48 PM (#4729377)
The Mets can't even afford to subsidize themselves.
   41. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 12:53 PM (#4729387)
They probably could if they weren't having enormous sums diverted into Bud's Billionaire Wefare scheme. Bud is like one of those shady churches that keeps demanding a tithe even when you're unemployed and flat broke.
   42. villageidiom Posted: June 18, 2014 at 12:58 PM (#4729394)
Teams so boring and unpopular they're forced to subsidize half the league.
They have options that involve not subsidizing half the league. I realize they feel the need to maintain a high payroll in order to assure they don't slip in their defense of 4th place in the division, but spending enough to require subsidization of other teams is a choice they have made.
   43. Topher Posted: June 18, 2014 at 01:02 PM (#4729399)
There probably is another team or two that rivals the Royals in this regard, but I wouldn't be shocked if the Royals are more contingent on team health keeping them above .500 than any other team in baseball. The starting rotation is cromulent and combined with a very good defensive makes the team good at run prevention. But if a starter goes down, the team has Bruce Chen and then nothing much else. The only backup infielder the team has is Danny Valencia (currently on the DL) and the team doesn't have a MLB quality backup catcher in case something happens to Perez.

The team pretty much has nothing in the high minors to supplement the team. So the team better hope the athletic trainers know what they are doing.
   44. WSPanic Posted: June 18, 2014 at 02:13 PM (#4729510)

Sure, but ERA+ of 350, 308, 177 and 140 from your 4 best RPs is more than a little bit beyond "great"


Last year, Holland and Hochevar were 342 and 215 respectively for the entire year. Coleman's ERA+ was astronomical - and Wil Smith/JC Guiterrez/Collins/Crow/Chen all contributed with good/decent numbers out of the pen. They were pretty ridiculous.
   45. Davo Dozier Posted: June 18, 2014 at 02:29 PM (#4729538)
#43--
There probably is another team or two that rivals the Royals in this regard, but I wouldn't be shocked if the Royals are more contingent on team health keeping them above .500 than any other team in baseball. The starting rotation is cromulent and combined with a very good defensive makes the team good at run prevention. But if a starter goes down, the team has Bruce Chen and then nothing much else. The only backup infielder the team has is Danny Valencia (currently on the DL) and the team doesn't have a MLB quality backup catcher in case something happens to Perez.

The team pretty much has nothing in the high minors to supplement the team. So the team better hope the athletic trainers know what they are doing.


Yep, agree 100%. As I pointed out ad nauseam in the off-season, this is a team that let Emilio Bonifacio and George Kottaras go for nothing this winter--cut them both just to save a few bucks.

Granted, we're just talking about Emilio Bonifacio and George Kottaras. But when your alternatives are Pedro Ciriaco and Brett Hayes, those first two look like Hall of Famers!
   46. valuearbitrageur Posted: June 18, 2014 at 02:53 PM (#4729572)
Sean Forman, god bless his nerdy soul, never stops working on that site. They now have wins above average by position on the league page.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2014.shtml

KC is about a .500 team this year in terms of WAA. It's still June and it sure looks like Fangraph's odds are closer to right than wrong.

Big overachievers
Vargas
Dyson

Big underachievers
Shields

Their best pitcher, even if this is an off season for him, I think we can agree is Shields. He's a free agent, and unless he's hurt this year, will probably command a substantial wage increase next year.

Wade Davis, as usual, has been a great reliever and terrible starter. He's due $7M/$8M/$10M on his next 3 team options. Can KC afford to pay that much to a middle reliever/setup guy, or is he about to become a free agent?

Greg Holland is fantastic, but already makes nearly $5M. What does he get in arbitration this offseason?

Guthrie has been decent, but owed $19M for next two years of his age 36-37 seasons. Not unreasonable, but should a low payroll team lock up that big a percentage of payroll in an old back end starter?

Vargas is a mediocre backend starter having a dream season. He's 31 and they have him locked up at $8M per for 3 seasons, so relatively cheap control. But can they still count on him producing at substantially better than what he did during his age 26-30 years?

Dyson is setting up for a big arbitration award this off-season.

Infante has been terrible, & they've got him locked up for 4 more years.

Butler has been terrible, & has a $12.5M option for next year. Can they afford to exercise it for a DH having a terrible year? Can they afford to let their best hitter of last 5 years walk?

On the plus side of the assets, Ventura looks like the real deal every day, super young and cheap and super good so far. Better walk rate in MLB than minors, but nothing unreasonable. Escobar has been a fantastic pickup, as has Cain.

A small plus about Hosmer sucking this year is that his arb award will be impacted by it in offseason.

Nothing about this season changes any of the criticism of Dayton Moore. He runs a small payroll team and has totally mis-spent his available payroll and his only asset, a surplus of young talent. He created a team that is on it's second long shot run at a playoffs, and faded badly in it's first attempt. He can't afford to keep this team together even for next year unless ownership steps up to a significantly higher payroll.

Going back to "the trade", it doesn't look any less dumb now. On the surface it looks better for Moore only because Myers sucked for 2 months and is out for 2 months more, while Odorizzi has a 2-7 record and 4.73 ERA. But 24 year old Odorizzi has been far better than his ERA, his peripherals are great and FIP 3.36. And no one expects Myers to come back as anything other than a very good MLB right fielder, he's established that performance expectation not just last year but in all of his minor league performances at a very young age and is still only 23 years old. It still looks very likely both will provide the Rays with nearly a dozen cheap control years as two average to above average MLB starters.

And surprisingly, one of the lottery tickets has taken a big step forward, after 3 years of suckitude Mike Montgomery has been very good in AAA, not only do his peripherals support his results, but he's still only 24. So the Rays have a better than even chance of getting another useful cost controlled MLB pitcher out of the deal.

Spending the Shields/Davis $30M in the free agent market instead of making this trade could have made KC a better team last year, wouldn't have made it a much worse, and wouldn't have hurt this years team that badly, and would have given Dayton 2-3 more minimum wage starters/contributors for next year to continue building this team. That's huge. Instead they could have locked up a decent long term free agent pitcher with the Shields/Davis money and have two starting positions locked down for the next five years at virtually no cost, and maybe a third if Montgomery really has returned to form. Instead of a payroll crunch during the offseason they'd have money to spend to continue to improve the team while the core remains young.

Now they have to cash this season in with not just a playoff appearance, but an actual playoff run or all the hard choices they'll have this offseason will make the last two years for naught. Had they gone the other way they could have been competitive every year starting from last year till 2019 relying on a cheap young core.
   47. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 03:01 PM (#4729585)
The only backup infielder the team has is Danny Valencia (currently on the DL) and the team doesn't have a MLB quality backup catcher in case something happens to Perez.


Which incidentally makes the team likely to overuse him and get him hurt. See Kendall, Jason.
   48. Jeff R., P***y Mainlander Posted: June 18, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4729590)
They have options that involve not subsidizing half the league. I realize they feel the need to maintain a high payroll in order to assure they don't slip in their defense of 4th place in the division, but spending enough to require subsidization of other teams is a choice they have made.


From Forbes.com:

Even after kicking in $95 million towards the league’s 34% local revenue sharing pool and their $64 million PILOT bond payments for Yankee Stadium last season, the Bronx Bombers led the league in revenue ($461 million).


Yeah, that revenue sharing is just killing the Yankees' ability to compete.
   49. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: June 18, 2014 at 03:28 PM (#4729644)
As I pointed out ad nauseam in the off-season, this is a team that let Emilio Bonifacio and George Kottaras go for nothing this winter--cut them both just to save a few bucks.

Granted, we're just talking about Emilio Bonifacio and George Kottaras. But when your alternatives are Pedro Ciriaco and Brett Hayes, those first two look like Hall of Famers!


I've never understood why Kottaras doesn't get locked up as a team's 2nd catcher. Is his defense horrible? He bats lefty with a career 747 OPS.
   50. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 03:37 PM (#4729658)
Teams so boring and unpopular they're forced to subsidize half the league.

They have options that involve not subsidizing half the league.


Really? What are they?
   51. theboyqueen Posted: June 18, 2014 at 03:47 PM (#4729683)
Sean Forman, god bless his nerdy soul, never stops working on that site. They now have wins above average by position on the league page.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2014.shtml


What I learned from that is that the A's have gotten 0.8 WAR from their pinch hitters this year. Which seems absolutely incredible. Especially for an AL team.
   52. Davo Dozier Posted: June 18, 2014 at 04:00 PM (#4729709)
#49--Yeah, his defense is lousy. But still! A catcher with a 100 career OPS+! When you're trying to make the postseason, you don't drop guys like that to save $500,000! (Especially when the cupboard is bare!)
   53. cardsfanboy Posted: June 18, 2014 at 04:14 PM (#4729742)
Really? What are they?


Spending less.
   54. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 04:21 PM (#4729756)

The team pretty much has nothing in the high minors to supplement the team. So the team better hope the athletic trainers know what they are doing.


Yes, they're a VERY thin team.

Now they have to cash this season in with not just a playoff appearance, but an actual playoff run or all the hard choices they'll have this offseason will make the last two years for naught. Had they gone the other way they could have been competitive every year starting from last year till 2019 relying on a cheap young core.


From what I understand, if Shields walks and they decline Butler, they still have $80 in salary obligations, with about a $90-95 million budget at most. Davis or Holland is certainly getting dealt I would think.
   55. Nasty Nate Posted: June 18, 2014 at 05:09 PM (#4729846)
Davis or Holland is certainly getting dealt I would think.


It would make sense. Unless something changes before the offseason, both would have positive trade value.
   56. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: June 18, 2014 at 05:17 PM (#4729855)
#49--Yeah, his defense is lousy. But still! A catcher with a 100 career OPS+! When you're trying to make the postseason, you don't drop guys like that to save $500,000! (Especially when the cupboard is bare!)

Was it simply lousy? All the advanced statistics give him positive value from it. It'd seem to need to be TERRIBLE to make him a player that teams passed around so much.

It just doesn't seem to add up.
   57. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 05:31 PM (#4729874)
Kottaras must be a big time towel-snapper in the lockerroom. There is no other explanation.
   58. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 05:34 PM (#4729879)
Really? What are they?

Spending less.


They could spend zero and it wouldn't impact the extent to which they are forced to subsidize the league's freeloaders.
   59. bfan Posted: June 18, 2014 at 05:56 PM (#4729917)
Kottaras must be a big time towel-snapper in the lockerroom. There is no other explanation.


Back-up catcher is one of those positions where you are immediatley suspect, if you can hit, and beloved for your [pick any intangibles], if you cannot. How else do we explain Corky Miller getting an MLB back-up catcher gig, after a 5-60 year (yes, that is an .083 BA) with an extra base hit, and 5 walks.
   60. Davo Dozier Posted: June 18, 2014 at 06:01 PM (#4729924)
I remember I had this super-clever plan six months ago, on how I could fix the Royals and get them to the playoffs. A big part of my plan involved trading Billy Butler, reasoning that they could easily replace his value with a Justin Maxwell/George Kottaras platoon at DH.

I mean, thank God for Dayton Moore, right?
   61. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 06:01 PM (#4729926)
Kottaras hits well enough that if anyone thought he could play defense and/or exist in the locker room without pissing everyone off, he would be a starting catcher. That he's been discarded by so many organizations--including both reputedly progressive ones like Boston and Oakland and, well, Kansas City--despite hitting well almost everywhere he's been strongly suggests there is something seriously wrong with his makeup. Or at least baseball men uniformly think so.
   62. dr. scott Posted: June 18, 2014 at 06:19 PM (#4729951)
They have options that involve not subsidizing half the league. I realize they feel the need to maintain a high payroll in order to assure they don't slip in their defense of 4th place in the division, but spending enough to require subsidization of other teams is a choice they have made.


I think there is revenue sharing in addition to luxury tax stuff correct?

They could spend zero and it wouldn't impact the extent to which they are forced to subsidize the league's freeloaders.


Well if they were under the tax they would pay less though...

   63. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 06:34 PM (#4729964)
They could spend zero and it wouldn't impact the extent to which they are forced to subsidize the league's freeloaders.

Well if they were under the tax they would pay less though...


If they were under the punitive Yankee Tax they would still be forced to subsidize the league's freeloader contingent to the exact same extent as they do today. I'm just doing my part as a good citizen to debunk the sneering disinformation offered up in #42.
   64. Greg K Posted: June 18, 2014 at 06:35 PM (#4729967)
Kottaras must be a big time towel-snapper in the lockerroom. There is no other explanation.

Anti-Scarborough bias. I've been living with it my entire life. Joey Votto and I, both born in Toronto, both born in the same year. We're essentially the same person. But he's from Etobicoke in the west of the city, so he gets the millions. A crime.
   65. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 07:06 PM (#4730001)

I remember I had this super-clever plan six months ago, on how I could fix the Royals and get them to the playoffs. A big part of my plan involved trading Billy Butler, reasoning that they could easily replace his value with a Justin Maxwell/George Kottaras platoon at DH.

I mean, thank God for Dayton Moore, right?


From what I have heard, they did try very hard to deal him this winter and had a deal nixed by Toronto at the last second.
   66. Walt Davis Posted: June 18, 2014 at 07:10 PM (#4730004)
Not to encourage the loons but ...

lux tax money does not go to the teams, it goes into Bud's secret slush fund. God only knows what he does with all that money. And YR is essentially correct that this has been a Yanks tax. The Red Sox have tipped slightly over a couple of times and I assume this will now also be a regular Dodgers tax, but through 2012, I think something like 90-95% of lux tax payments over the years came from the Yanks.

Revenue sharing is completely different. The only way the Yanks can avoid revenue sharing would be to, ohh, reduce ticket prices to $1 and give away their broadcast rights.
   67. cardsfanboy Posted: June 18, 2014 at 07:11 PM (#4730006)
If they were under the punitive Yankee Tax they would still be forced to subsidize the league's freeloader contingent to the exact same extent as they do today. I'm just doing my part as a good citizen to debunk the sneering disinformation offered up in #42.


In which way. EVERY team has revenue sharing as part of attendance/TV package. So I'm not sure what the heck you are talking about when you go on your insane rants.
   68. dr. scott Posted: June 18, 2014 at 07:17 PM (#4730009)
Thanks Walt... I assumed lux tax was divided up between the teams.
   69. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 08:23 PM (#4730062)
If they were under the punitive Yankee Tax they would still be forced to subsidize the league's freeloader contingent to the exact same extent as they do today. I'm just doing my part as a good citizen to debunk the sneering disinformation offered up in #42.

In which way. EVERY team has revenue sharing as part of attendance/TV package. So I'm not sure what the heck you are talking about when you go on your insane rants.


You'd know exactly what I was talking about if you only made the effort to read the very specific post I was replying to in #50, and cited by number in #63. I'll save you the effort of scrolling your mouse wheel and offer you a recap:

YR, Post 39: "Teams so boring and unpopular they're forced to subsidize half the league."

Some guy, Post 42: "They have options that involve not subsidizing half the league."

YR, Post 50: "Really? What are they?"

So now you know what the heck I am talking about. So maybe you have an answer hidden behind your bluster?
   70. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 08:25 PM (#4730063)
lux tax money does not go to the teams, it goes into Bud's secret slush fund. God only knows what he does with all that money.


He bribes criminals and purchases purloined records.

And YR is essentially correct that this has been a Yanks tax. The Red Sox have tipped slightly over a couple of times


And their owner made a public apology to Beloved Bud for crossing the threshold once. He didn't want his patron to think he wasn't as good as his word.
   71. cardsfanboy Posted: June 18, 2014 at 09:33 PM (#4730089)
YR, Post 50: "Really? What are they?


and I responded by not having such a high salary.

Every team puts 34% Of tv revenue into revenue sharing, so every team contributes, Every team shares stadium revenue, so again, every team contributes.

So if the Yankees don't spend a ton on payroll(the Yankee tax) then they contribute to revenue sharing at the same percentage as their brethren. Not seeing the issue here.
   72. Mendo Posted: June 18, 2014 at 10:01 PM (#4730104)
How else do we explain Corky Miller getting an MLB back-up catcher gig, after a 5-60 year (yes, that is an .083 BA) with an extra base hit, and 5 walks.


It's the facial hair. Is there really a question about this?
   73. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: June 18, 2014 at 10:51 PM (#4730128)
Another frigid day in hell as the Royals win their tenth straight.
   74. Walt Davis Posted: June 19, 2014 at 03:36 AM (#4730203)
Every team puts 34% Of tv revenue into revenue sharing, so every team contributes, Every team shares stadium revenue, so again, every team contributes.

And some teams get back everything they put in and a whole lot more; others get back much less than they put in. The fact that the money takes a detour on the way to the lower-revenue teams seems irrelevant.

Then there's this odd, seemingly pointless bit (except the bit about lux tax teams receiving smaller refunds):

By 2016, the fifteen teams in the largest markets in baseball will be disqualified from receiving revenue sharing. This feature is being phased in over the coming years. The disqualified clubs will receive a refund for the amount that they would have received in revenue sharing, although teams that have exceeded the Luxury Tax threshold in recent years will not receive a full refund.
   75. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 19, 2014 at 09:07 AM (#4730261)
YR, Post 50: "Really? What are they?

and I responded by not having such a high salary.


And you're wrong. I was hoping for a response that might have some value.

So if the Yankees don't spend a ton on payroll(the Yankee tax) then they contribute to revenue sharing at the same percentage as their brethren. Not seeing the issue here.


To quote physicist Wolfgang Pauli, that's not even wrong.
   76. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: June 19, 2014 at 11:47 AM (#4730424)

And some teams get back everything they put in and a whole lot more; others get back much less than they put in. The fact that the money takes a detour on the way to the lower-revenue teams seems irrelevant.


Since the TV revenue depends 100% on the Yankees and Red Sox having opponents, giving money to the revenue sharing pool isn't 'subsidizing' the lower-revenue teams, it's giving them their cut of the money.
   77. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 19, 2014 at 11:52 AM (#4730427)
Since the TV revenue depends 100% on the Yankees and Red Sox having opponents, giving money to the revenue sharing pool isn't 'subsidizing' the lower-revenue teams, it's giving them their cut of the money.

True to an extent, but the Yankees and Red Sox would make just as must local revenue if they had 22 other opponents, rather than 28.

The other teams are absolutely subsidizing the 6 smallest markets, and it's pretty clear that the other 24 teams would be better off economically if the 6 smallest markets went away.
   78. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 19, 2014 at 11:59 AM (#4730442)
Since the TV revenue depends 100% on the Yankees and Red Sox having opponents,


What do the poormouth welfare teams rely on for TV revenue?
   79. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: June 19, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4730672)
The other teams are absolutely subsidizing the 6 smallest markets, and it's pretty clear that the other 24 teams would be better off economically if the 6 smallest markets went away.


If this were true, then I feel like MLB wouldn't have expanded beyond 24 teams in the first place.
   80. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: June 19, 2014 at 03:10 PM (#4730700)
In fairness, it's possible they might have dramatically expanded, mostly into markets that don't care about baseball and never will, and only realized a few years after the fact that it was a horrible mistake.

Not that the Commissioner of any other sport has ever orchestrated such a thing.
   81. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 19, 2014 at 03:25 PM (#4730729)
Since the TV revenue depends 100% on the Yankees and Red Sox having opponents, giving money to the revenue sharing pool isn't 'subsidizing' the lower-revenue teams, it's giving them their cut of the money.


That is pretty obviously true to everyone but some Yankee fans...
   82. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 19, 2014 at 03:53 PM (#4730795)
Since the TV revenue depends 100% on the Yankees and Red Sox having opponents, giving money to the revenue sharing pool isn't 'subsidizing' the lower-revenue teams, it's giving them their cut of the money.

That is pretty obviously true to everyone but some Yankee fans...


Oh, so the free money gets dolled out based on how many times the Yankees play each welfare team? Is that how it works, comrades?

Since the Yankees are the most popular team in baseball and generate the most fan-interest nationwide, their contributions to the ratings and revenues of the poormouth welfare teams are already baked in the crust based on how often those teams are fortunate enough to host the Yankees. Note that Colorado Rockies owner laid this bare when he openly admitted that losing one series each with the Yankees and Red Sox costs him nearly $4 million.

What the Budshoviks want is double-dipping, where they get the torrents of free money for hosting the league's most popular team while being protected from the depressive effect they have on the interest and ratings of other, more popular teams. If the Yankees come to town and draw a sold-out crowd at inflated prices they stuff their pockets. When they come to New York with their sad sack routines and uninteresting presence that sends New Yorkers scurrying away to any of the thousands of other outstanding entertainment options in the most entertainment-packed city in America, that's just tough titty.

I'm still waiting to hear a whit of support for the baseless claims offered in 42 but of course it always ends up with the usual "Ode to the Noble Remora" from the usual suspects.
   83. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 19, 2014 at 03:53 PM (#4730796)
If this were true, then I feel like MLB wouldn't have expanded beyond 24 teams in the first place.

Well, the problem is that a lot of the smallest markets were good markets at one time, but shifting demographics and economic changes have eroded them: e.g. Pittsburgh, Cleveland, KC, Milwaukee. Then you have the two Florida markets which look like they should be good, but aren't.

Expansion is always more attractive than relocation because of expansion fees, and you don't piss anybody off. So, it's perfectly plausible that MLB expanded too far, and should have simply relocated struggling teams.

Imagine if instead of the Browns/Orioles, Dodgers, Giants, Braves, and A's decamping from their multi-team cities, MLB had added 4-6 expansion teams in the 50's. You would likely have some real weak sister teams in major markets.
   84. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 19, 2014 at 04:01 PM (#4730814)
Well, the problem is that a lot of the smallest markets were good markets at one time, but shifting demographics and economic changes have eroded them: e.g. Pittsburgh, Cleveland, KC, Milwaukee


Yea, this ain't the 90s anymore, when Cleveland was considered a big spending large market club.
   85. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: June 19, 2014 at 05:03 PM (#4730951)
The other teams are absolutely subsidizing the 6 smallest markets, and it's pretty clear that the other 24 teams would be better off economically if the 6 smallest markets went away.

Fine. Allow MLB teams to move wherever they want, let the markets decide it. MLB would be very successful with five NYC teams.
   86. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 19, 2014 at 05:09 PM (#4730962)

Fine. Allow MLB teams to move wherever they want, let the markets decide it. MLB would be very successful with five NYC teams.


Four, if the Mets were relegated.
   87. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 19, 2014 at 05:13 PM (#4730972)
Fine. Allow MLB teams to move wherever they want, let the markets decide it. MLB would be very successful with five NYC teams.

I'm perfectly fine with that.
   88. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: June 19, 2014 at 05:13 PM (#4730973)

What do the poormouth welfare teams rely on for TV revenue?


They give the Yankees and Red Sox their cut as well, so it's even.
   89. Davo Dozier Posted: June 19, 2014 at 05:15 PM (#4730975)
Well, they didn't have it today. But we did get something even rarer than a victor: A Billy Butler extra base hit!
   90. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 19, 2014 at 05:38 PM (#4730995)
Fine. Allow MLB teams to move wherever they want, let the markets decide it. MLB would be very successful with five NYC teams.

I'm perfectly fine with that.


Me too. The idea that these poormouth plutocrats who say they can't survive in their own private fiefdom without annual influxes of free money will just waltz into the most competitive entertainment market in America and teach the Yankees how to run a ballclub is hilarious.

If the Budshoviks really wanted to end territorial rights they'd just do it. They haven't even proposed it. Instead they keep coming up with scheme after scheme to screw the Yankees instead. Hmmmmm.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Francis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBowman: A year’s worth of struggles leads reason to wonder what changes are in store for the Braves
(16 - 5:13am, Sep 16)
Last: bigglou115

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(2509 - 3:53am, Sep 16)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

NewsblogA’s lose Triple-A Sacramento affiliate
(17 - 3:46am, Sep 16)
Last: still hunting for a halo-red october (in Delphi)

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

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: 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 0.9829 seconds
52 querie(s) executed