Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Friday, January 08, 2010

Royals - Signed Scott of the Pod People

Kansas City Royals - Signed OF Scott Podsednik, pending physical of Podsednik and Dayton Moore’s competency hearing.

image

Dan Szymborski Posted: January 08, 2010 at 04:27 PM | 92 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

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. Cris E Posted: January 08, 2010 at 04:38 PM (#3431790)
Dan, you're making me appreciate art more every time you do one of these.

Regarding the signing, I was hoping the "fast outfielder" was Willie Gault. (Hey, it worked for the Bears, so maybe the Royals get lucky.) As it turned out, however, I'm not nearly as confident this will go well.
   2. Zoppity Zoop Posted: January 08, 2010 at 04:39 PM (#3431792)
Billy accidentally writing 1 after exclamation points is a great touch.
   3. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 08, 2010 at 04:44 PM (#3431796)
This is the most inevitable signing of the offseason, isn't it? That said, Pods wasn't bad last year. I'll wait until I hear terms and what the Royals' plans for him are before I unleash the mockery.
   4. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 08, 2010 at 04:44 PM (#3431797)
Give him some credit -- he didn't trade Billy Butler for Felix Pie (as I'd hoped).
   5. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: January 08, 2010 at 04:54 PM (#3431806)
I'll wait until I hear terms and what the Royals' plans for him are before I unleash the mockery.

Same here.

Podsednik was actually somewhat cromulent last year (not that I expect that to continue into 2010). If it's for multiple years or for more than $5 million, then it's worthy of mockery. But if it's, say, 1 year/$3 million, then it's pretty much "meh".
   6. Greg K Posted: January 08, 2010 at 05:04 PM (#3431813)
I look forward to the OED entry for "cromulent" in the year 2080.

I bet most people will be surprised that such a prevalent word had such an odd beginning.
   7. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: January 08, 2010 at 05:07 PM (#3431818)
"Cromulent" is used here all the time but I've never seen it elsewhere, and certainly not with a straight face.
   8. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 08, 2010 at 05:11 PM (#3431823)
I've heard its not more than $2 mill and is closer to $1 mill.

Still, what is wrong with Mitch Maier? He's young, cheap, and just as crappy offensively as Pods with better defense.

Oh, but he doesn't steal bases!
   9. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: January 08, 2010 at 05:24 PM (#3431832)
"Cromulent" is used here all the time but I've never seen it elsewhere,

Then perhaps you need to embiggen the number of places you look for it.
   10. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: January 08, 2010 at 05:34 PM (#3431839)
The problem I have with the Royals signing Podsednik is that I don't see that he does them any good. Compare this to the signing of Coco Crisp by the A's. If you accept that Coco is a plus defender adding a guy like that can help a young pitching staff develop. I just don't see how Podsednik, even at a bargain basement price, helps the Royals. He doesn't seem like a guy who would have much value in a mentoring role, he's not a particularly good defensive player, all he is is a guy who if he stumbles into a .290+ batting average doesn't kill you.
   11. DCA Posted: January 08, 2010 at 05:53 PM (#3431861)
I don't see the distinction. Crisp isn't much better than Pods and the Royals *do* need warm bodies who might not be awful in the OF.

If anything, Crisp to the A's is a worse deal ... the A's had no need for OF defense. Davis is a fine defender in CF, and if he turns into a pumpkin or gets hurt or needs a day off, both Sweeney and Hairston can hack it, and it's worth finding out if Patterson can. If you really need super glovey insurance for the sake of the pitching staff, go find a Gathright type (good D, AAA bat, not a prospect anymore) to stash in the minors at 1/10 the cost and not stealing PT from the youngsters.
   12. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: January 08, 2010 at 05:54 PM (#3431863)
Just wanted to broadcast my new handle, which is at least a little relevant to the current discussion.
   13. Greg K Posted: January 08, 2010 at 05:56 PM (#3431867)
I stand by my claim that cromulent will be in the OED by 2080.

And I'd be willing to put a lot of money on that!
   14. DCW3 Posted: January 08, 2010 at 05:57 PM (#3431868)
Can we get a ZiPS projection for SpongeBob? I think he'd slot in pretty well at cleanup for the Royals.
   15. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 08, 2010 at 06:00 PM (#3431871)
I stand by my claim that cromulent will be in the OED by 2080.


I doubt it will take that long, aren't "crunk" and "jiggy" already enshrined?
   16. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: January 08, 2010 at 06:02 PM (#3431874)
I stand by my claim that cromulent will be in the OED by 2080.


Oddly Dictionary.com already has it.
   17. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 08, 2010 at 06:07 PM (#3431883)
If anything, Crisp to the A's is a worse deal ... the A's had no need for OF defense. Davis is a fine defender in CF, and if he turns into a pumpkin or gets hurt or needs a day off, both Sweeney and Hairston can hack it, and it's worth finding out if Patterson can. If you really need super glovey insurance for the sake of the pitching staff, go find a Gathright type (good D, AAA bat, not a prospect anymore) to stash in the minors at 1/10 the cost and not stealing PT from the youngsters.

I agree. I find Beane's moves puzzling. Why get Crisp when you have a hundred OFs? Why sign Cust when you already have Fox, Barton, Carter, etc.?
   18. Mr. Imperial Posted: January 08, 2010 at 06:08 PM (#3431885)
God bless you, Billy.
   19. adamadkins Posted: January 08, 2010 at 06:12 PM (#3431892)
I <3 Trans Oracle
   20. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: January 08, 2010 at 06:16 PM (#3431903)
I don't see the distinction. Crisp isn't much better than Pods and the Royals *do* need warm bodies who might not be awful in the OF.

This. It's not like the Royals are going to give Scott Podsednik a crippling contract, that will prevent them from doing other things. Given that, it's not a stupid signing, it's just a sort of boring one.
   21. Famous Original Joe C Posted: January 08, 2010 at 06:22 PM (#3431911)
Dewey, Local Boy and Soupuss

Soupuss?
   22. Bad Doctor Posted: January 08, 2010 at 06:23 PM (#3431914)
Dan, you'd better be careful with your artistic ventures ... this seemed innocent enough at the time, but once it got into the wrong hands (Marty Noble) ...
   23. The elusive Robert Denby Posted: January 08, 2010 at 06:24 PM (#3431917)
And there's still time to sign a mediocre 1B/DH to keep Kila in AAA again!
   24. base ball chick Posted: January 08, 2010 at 06:30 PM (#3431921)
dan

boy ah LUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVVVVVV yew!!!!!

i laughed so hard i cried

appreciate your reminding me that even though my astros are teh sukc, they are not THE mostest absolutest sukccc

what is the program that let you draw like that because fer SHER i would LUUUUVVVV to post entries like these
   25. zenbitz Posted: January 08, 2010 at 06:34 PM (#3431923)
Somewhere, Brian Sabean is cursing the fact that solid OFs would rather play in KC than SF.
   26. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: January 08, 2010 at 06:49 PM (#3431940)
I would like to see Transaction Oracle Billy teach Family Circus Billy how to draw funny stuff rather than lame stuff.

Great work, Dan.
   27. The District Attorney Posted: January 08, 2010 at 06:52 PM (#3431946)
I look forward to the OED entry for "cromulent" in the year 2080.
Who needs the OED; it's already in Webster's.
   28. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: January 08, 2010 at 07:40 PM (#3431993)
Who needs the OED; it's already in Webster's.


Lest my handle seem incorrect, it's not at M-W.com.
   29. Sexy Lizard Posted: January 08, 2010 at 07:43 PM (#3431999)
"Cromulent" will go the way of all words: in the descriptive Webster's very quickly and in the semi-prescriptive American Heritage much later. When it gets into the generally descriptive OED depends on their revision and publication schedule more than anything else.

Podsednik is a perfectly acceptably warm-body outfielder. The problem occurs when he plays all of the time because you don't have three guys who are better (White Sox '09) or because your manager is a bit goofy, but that's not Podsednik's fault.
   30. PreservedFish Posted: January 08, 2010 at 07:49 PM (#3432008)
"Cromulent" will go the way of all words: in the descriptive Webster's very quickly and in the semi-prescriptive American Heritage much later. When it gets into the generally descriptive OED depends on their revision and publication schedule more than anything else.


I wonder if cromulent catches on and, in a few generations, loses its sense of irony or sarcasm. According to the linked article Webster's merely defines it as "fine or acceptable."
   31. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 08, 2010 at 07:51 PM (#3432016)
This. It's not like the Royals are going to give Scott Podsednik a crippling contract, that will prevent them from doing other things. Given that, it's not a stupid signing, it's just a sort of boring one.

Well, they could play Mitch Maier for the minimum and thow the extra $1M at an int'l FA, or towards draft bonuses. So, to the extent they have a budget (which I assume they must as a "small market" club) then, yes, this is preventing them from doing something.

The money wasted on Jacobs/Farnsworth/Bloomquist/Ho Ram/Betancourt/Kendall (something north of $30M) could have bought them Michael Inoa and Aroldis Chapman, and not cost them a single win on the field. Or, if you think Chapman is too risky, Inoa and the best int'l FA for each of the next 5 years (at $5M a pop).
   32. villageidiom Posted: January 08, 2010 at 08:14 PM (#3432043)
what is the program that let you draw like that because fer SHER i would LUUUUVVVV to post entries like these
Looks like Microsoft Paint. The smoke over the fire looks like the airbrush therein.
   33. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 08, 2010 at 08:19 PM (#3432046)
Opportunity Cost.

Podsednik doesn't fulfill any win-now or even sort-of-win-now needs. He doesn't fulfill any future needs. He doesn't answer any questions about the team.

At league minimum, having Podsednik is a terrible idea for the Royals We're not even talking a case like Delgado-to-Baltimore that I would be against, because Delgado might actually be a good player and the other options are at least inferior there.

Here,
   34. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 08, 2010 at 08:21 PM (#3432050)
Yup, MS Paint, freehand mouse (except for the smoke).

Sadly, my actual drawing isn't that much better and my handwriting might be less readable (though my spelling is better than Billy's).
   35. Greg K Posted: January 08, 2010 at 08:25 PM (#3432054)
I wonder if cromulent catches on and, in a few generations, loses its sense of irony or sarcasm. According to the linked article Webster's merely defines it as "fine or acceptable."

I've been trying to figure out "peruse" in this sense. The way most people I know use it (as in to take a casual glance over something) seems to be the opposite of its literal meaning. How did that get started?
   36. base ball chick Posted: January 08, 2010 at 08:27 PM (#3432055)
dan

is the program hard to learn - do you have to type it in code or do you just draw?
   37. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 08, 2010 at 08:31 PM (#3432059)
It's super easy! Just open it up and you should see pretty quickly what to do.
   38. Johnny Tuttle Posted: January 08, 2010 at 08:43 PM (#3432067)
What's the story on cromulent for someone who only occassionally comes 'round here instead of all day every day like I used to?
   39. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 08, 2010 at 08:47 PM (#3432076)
What's the story on cromulent for someone who only occassionally comes 'round here instead of all day every day like I used to?

Make up word from the Simpsons. Means fine or acceptable.
   40. Greg K Posted: January 08, 2010 at 08:48 PM (#3432078)
It's the Simpsons, from the one where Lisa unearths the truth about Jebediah Springfield

Edna K: Embiggens? I never heard that word before I moved to Springfield
Ms.Hoover: I don't know why. It's a perfectly cromulent word.
   41. Randy Jones Posted: January 08, 2010 at 08:48 PM (#3432080)
   42. base ball chick Posted: January 08, 2010 at 08:52 PM (#3432087)
dan

you know i been going over all my old entries and cleaning them up (because i have had to do a LOT of cutting and pasting from the old site) and back then i was so young and happy and believing in my team and i wrote a LOT of kewl stuff (if i do say so myself)

and here i am almost 30 years old and i mean OLD and i have turned into billy

sigh

might could it be because the astros have turned into the royals?
   43. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: January 08, 2010 at 08:57 PM (#3432093)
At league minimum, having Podsednik is a terrible idea for the Royals

Why? It's not like he's blocking someone who might be good. And no, I don't agree with the notion that the Royals should just throw a bunch of AAAA crap at the wall to see if anything sticks. That's a really good road to 55 wins.

At some level, the Royals have to field a team in 2010. At worst, they're no worse off than they were before they signed Podsednik.
   44. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 08, 2010 at 09:03 PM (#3432104)
And no, I don't agree with the notion that the Royals should just throw a bunch of AAAA crap at the wall to see if anything sticks.

Ummm, Podsednik is AAAA crap. He's posted a positive WAR only once since 2006. Signing him is just a waste of whatever you pay him over the minimum.

He's worse than Mitch Maier.
   45. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 08, 2010 at 09:04 PM (#3432107)
And no, I don't agree with the notion that the Royals should just throw a bunch of AAAA crap at the wall to see if anything sticks. That's a really good road to 55 wins.

Scott Podsednik is AAAA crap.
   46. zonk Posted: January 08, 2010 at 09:09 PM (#3432111)
I believe cromulent was actually intended to be on the lower end of acceptable/fine, rather than being purely synonomous.
   47. Sheer Tim Foli Posted: January 08, 2010 at 09:10 PM (#3432112)
My brother (a primate who lurks here) managed to get "embiggen" into his wedding by having an unsuspecting minister use it. She actually approached me before the wedding and asked me to help pronounce the word.

Not to be outdone our friend who got married shortly thereafter actually had his minister use the phrase "in richness and in poorness - and poorness is underlined".

Nothing is sacred anymore.
   48. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 08, 2010 at 09:11 PM (#3432114)
He's posted a positive WAR only once since 2006.

Yeah, but that was last year. Pods was AAAA crap from 2006-2008, but he was pretty decent in 2009. Whether he can sustain that performance in 2010 is an open question, but spending $1-2M to find out is far from a terrible idea.
   49. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 08, 2010 at 09:12 PM (#3432119)
I believe cromulent was actually intended to be on the lower end of acceptable/fine, rather than being purely synonomous.

Well aren't "acceptable" and "fine" already there? They're the borderland between "good" and "unacceptable" or "poor".
   50. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 08, 2010 at 09:15 PM (#3432121)
Yeah, but that was last year. Pods was AAAA crap from 2006-2008, but he was pretty decent in 2009. Whether he can sustain that performance in 2010 is an open question, but spending $1-2M to find out is far from a terrible idea.

To what end? Say Podsenik repeats 2009 and puts up a 1.7 WAR replacing PT in which Maier/assorted AAAA crap would have put up a 1.0-1.2 WAR.

Is that 0.5 WAR really worth $1-2M to the Royals? Isn't that money much better spent on a prospect who has some long-term upside?
   51. zonk Posted: January 08, 2010 at 09:16 PM (#3432125)
Yeah, but that was last year. Pods was AAAA crap from 2006-2008, but he was pretty decent in 2009. Whether he can sustain that performance in 2010 is an open question, but spending $1-2M to find out is far from a terrible idea.


Sure - but why spend millions to find out? Instead - spend the minimum to find the AAAA Pods that's been toiling in the PCL for 10 years.
   52. JMPH Posted: January 08, 2010 at 09:16 PM (#3432127)
Not to be outdone our friend who got married shortly thereafter actually had his minister use the phrase "in richness and in poorness - and poorness is underlined".

In quiet solitude or blasting across the alkali flats in a jet-powered, monkey navigated... and it goes on like this.
   53. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 08, 2010 at 09:17 PM (#3432129)
I'm not saying this is a particularly good move, just that it's not terrible. It's meh. That money could be better spent on the draft or something, but it's not enough to get worked up about IMO.
   54. zonk Posted: January 08, 2010 at 09:19 PM (#3432131)
Well aren't "acceptable" and "fine" already there? They're the borderland between "good" and "unacceptable" or "poor".


Well, as society develops, we've developed greater and finer level of distinctions!
   55. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 08, 2010 at 09:27 PM (#3432145)

Yeah, but that was last year. Pods was AAAA crap from 2006-2008, but he was pretty decent in 2009.


I would argue that 2009 was Pods AAAA crap year - his offensive numbers were only decent if he can play centerfield. 2006-2008 were AA.5 crap years.
   56. Chris Needham Posted: January 08, 2010 at 09:38 PM (#3432153)
I actually used the word "cromulent" in a report I did for work. My boss underlined it, and asked me what it meant. I was shocked when I found out it wasn't a real word. Contextually, given the sounds of it, it's absolutely perfect.
   57. PreservedFish Posted: January 08, 2010 at 09:40 PM (#3432155)
I believe cromulent was actually intended to be on the lower end of acceptable/fine, rather than being purely synonomous.


It was never intended to mean this but perhaps it is moving in that direction.

The way that Skinner and Krabappel use it does not at all suggest that it is on the lower end of acceptable. If anything, it is better than satisfactory, given that Skinner praises Homer for his "cromulent" performance as town cryer. Most uses that I've come across have preserved this definition but used it sarcastically.

Making it "barely acceptable" is sort of splitting the difference between using the word sincerely and sarcastically. Maybe it's best that way, because it does seem useful.
   58. Willie Mayspedester Posted: January 08, 2010 at 09:41 PM (#3432156)
Love the art but unfortunately.

Your drawing would get a D I think
   59. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 08, 2010 at 09:42 PM (#3432157)
I actually used the word "cromulent" in a report I did for work. My boss underlined it, and asked me what it meant. I was shocked when I found out it wasn't a real word. Contextually, given the sounds of it, it's absolutely perfect.

I once tried to intentionally sneak "pwned" into a an article for a newspaper. Sadly, it was caught and this message was sent to me:

Nice try,

Roget
   60. JPWF13 Posted: January 08, 2010 at 09:43 PM (#3432158)
He'll be 34
He's not really a CF anymore

Hey Gathright hit .325/.381/.370 in AAA last year and he can play CF too!

Seriously, my fave team just gave a 2 year contract to Alex Cora, I will NEVER understand GM moves like that
   61. Stately, Plump Buck Mulligan Posted: January 08, 2010 at 09:43 PM (#3432160)
I would argue that 2009 was Pods AAAA crap year - his offensive numbers were only decent if he can play centerfield.


You're completely ignoring the context. The White Sox best hitter goes down with injury, the team signs Pods to a minor league deal, they pay him the minimum, and he steps in and posts a .304/.353/.412 line (98 OPS+). That's a AAAA crap year?
   62. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: January 08, 2010 at 09:47 PM (#3432164)
Isn't that money much better spent on a prospect who has some long-term upside?

Where? Who?

If Podsednik is blocking someone, then signing him is a bad idea. If Podsednik is at all expensive, then signing him is a bad idea. If not, then who cares? Precisely which opportunity are the Royals passing up on by signing him?

If you want to talk about how the Royals shouldn't be in a position where Scott Podsednik is an acceptable option, then I won't disagree. But right now, in January 2010, it's just a mediocre move.
   63. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 08, 2010 at 09:50 PM (#3432168)
That's a AAAA crap year?

For a left-fielder, pretty much. AAAA crap (not my term) has its uses, but he was a below-average player at his position.

A player that has to have one of the best years of his career to be below-average is hardly the guy to bring out the OMG He's Teh Proven! Trope.

Even if we accept that he was valuable last year (I don't), the fact remains is that the it was also at the top of his ability. The Royals are hardly guaranteed to even get the below-average play that Pods eked out last season.

Spending $1000 on a stock that you picked by throwing a dart isn't a great investment strategy. But spending on yesterday's losing lottery tickets is a worse one. The "payoff" of signing Podsednik is that he's a 34-year-old below-average player who nobody will trade for. The downside is that he's worse.

Mitch Maier's offensive projections are slightly worse, but he can actually play centerfield, has little service time, and is the better part of a decade longer. He's not getting any better now with yet more AAA play and unlike Pods, there's actually a chance that he can be an actual useful player.
   64. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 08, 2010 at 09:57 PM (#3432180)
Below average play has a fair amount of value. Again, if it's only a million or so, who cares?
   65. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 08, 2010 at 09:59 PM (#3432188)
If Podsednik is blocking someone, then signing him is a bad idea. If Podsednik is at all expensive, then signing him is a bad idea. If not, then who cares? Precisely which opportunity are the Royals passing up on by signing him?

The opportunity to play Mitch Maier, a superior player to Podsednik and years younger.

Below average play has a fair amount of value. Again, if it's only a million or so, who cares?

That's below-average play is the upside. The Royals are as likely to get ROFL play from Podsednik.
   66. The District Attorney Posted: January 08, 2010 at 10:07 PM (#3432198)
Yeah, it'd be a different story if Dr. Robotnik were an adequate defensive CF, but it doesn't seem like he is. (I'm not sure DeJesus isn't an adequate defensive CF himself, but KC clearly feels he is not and will not go that route. So.)
   67. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 08, 2010 at 11:13 PM (#3432288)
Isn't that money much better spent on a prospect who has some long-term upside?

Where? Who?


Some 16 y.o. hotshot in Latin America. Or a hard-sign that falls to the 3rd round in next year's draft.
   68. Dan Posted: January 08, 2010 at 11:16 PM (#3432295)
According to Rotoworld:

Royals signed OF Scott Podsednik to a one-year, $1.75 million contract with a $2 million club option for 2011.


They don't have a source linked yet, but if those terms are true then this is pretty awful. Like Szym said, Maier is about an equal player that they already have on their roster, who has possibly even a little upside. Podsednik is a proven mediocrity. $1.75M doesn't seem like a lot in terms of payroll, but it certainly adds up. Take the money given to Podsednik and Kendall and you could probably have signed someone who is more than just roster filler, nevermind the additional money thrown to other flotsam and jetsam like Farnsworth, Bloomquist, and Betancort. Add it all up and you could actually sign a decent player.
   69. The elusive Robert Denby Posted: January 08, 2010 at 11:19 PM (#3432298)
If Podsednik is blocking someone, then signing him is a bad idea. If Podsednik is at all expensive, then signing him is a bad idea. If not, then who cares? Precisely which opportunity are the Royals passing up on by signing him?

Pods' signing should add just enough veteran goodness to keep Kila from getting a roster spot. Another outfielder increases Guillen's percentage of at-bats at DH. Moore has talked about Fields playing the outfield and first base in addition to third. Plus you'll have Brian Anderson and Maier battling for the 25th roster spot, as well as a returning Mike Aviles.

I realize that I overvalue Kila. But I'd really like to see the Royals give him a chance to fail, rather than let him rot in AAA, trying to see if he can make it three seasons with 100 walks.

Rosenthal is tweeting one year at $1.75 million, with incentives to $2 mil. $2 mil option for 2011, voided if he gets 525 plate appearances.
   70. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 08, 2010 at 11:22 PM (#3432300)
Rosenthal is tweeting one year at $1.75 million, with incentives to $2 mil. $2 mil option for 2011, voided if he gets 525 plate appearances.

Horrendous signing. If by some miracle he's actually productive, they have to worry about PT voiding his option.

This is a small market team, right? Don't they have something useful to do with $1.35M?
   71. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: January 08, 2010 at 11:34 PM (#3432317)
The opportunity to play Mitch Maier, a superior player to Podsednik and years younger.

Yeah, my reaction is still "who cares?".

There are bad moves and there are bad moves. The Gary Matthews deal is worthy of mockery. The Carlos Silva deal is worth of mockery. This is a blip; giving minor one-year deals to roster fodder isn't going to kill the Royals. It wouldn't even prevent the Royals from releasing Podsednik if he's "ROFL bad".
   72. I am Ted F'ing Williams Posted: January 08, 2010 at 11:40 PM (#3432322)
Pods, Fields, Anderson, Getz... do the Royals think they are going to do any better than the White Sox did with these players?
   73. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 08, 2010 at 11:41 PM (#3432325)
The Royals aren't in a position where they can do bad things just because it won't kill them.

A friend getting piss drunk and crashing on your couch isn't a big deal. A friend with liver disease from alcoholism getting piss drunk and crashing on your couch isn't.

At some point, the chain of dumb has to end. At least with Matthews and Silva, those are players that had some kind of conceivable upside for teams that had conceivable upsides. Podsednik has no upside that's useful to the Royals. They could get as much of a return from paying $1.75 million for a Marty Bystrom rookie card.

With a lot of these types of signings, we're at least talking about someone who can at least hotshot the team a few wins. That's not Podsednik.

As has been coined at Royals Review, this is Daytonomics. 10 idiotic investments > 1 good one.
   74. Something Other Posted: January 08, 2010 at 11:49 PM (#3432332)
You have to assume the Royals don't know what BABIP is. Pods' was 340 last year against a career number of around 320. What are they actually expecting him to produce? Is there any chance at all they know he's the player he was from 2006 through 2008, and are hoping to get lucky?
   75. My guest will be Jermaine Allensworth Posted: January 09, 2010 at 12:25 AM (#3432372)
Pods did alter his approach last year, pretty significantly. It was a nice story, and although I don't think this'll end well, I'm pulling for him.
   76.     Hey Gurl Posted: January 09, 2010 at 12:58 AM (#3432399)
Poood people pooood people, hits like crap, talks like people
   77. Kirby Kyle Posted: January 09, 2010 at 01:10 AM (#3432406)
I find comical the idea that a guy signed for one year at $1.75M can block other, more deserving players. If Pods is sub-Mendoza in May, the Royals will be forced to put him out there game after game because they've got all that money invested in him.
   78. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: January 09, 2010 at 01:22 AM (#3432413)
No kidding.

I actually see this signing as evidence of how far organizations have progressed in terms of evaluating talent. Ten years ago, Podsednik's most recent season would have gotten him 4 years and $30 million.
   79. danielj Posted: January 09, 2010 at 01:26 AM (#3432418)
And to think the signing happens on Joe Posnanski's birthday.
   80. Johnny Tuttle Posted: January 09, 2010 at 02:47 AM (#3432460)
Dewey, you have a point.

This signing recalls the Jays offseason when they signed Schoenweiss and a couple of other low end guys, and the guys and I at battersbox.ca howled. JP had read that site until he saw those comments and actually took us to task.

The disappointment then from us is relevant here: it's not that depth doesn't have its value, as Pods himself did manage to almost show last year. It's that plans b and c should be cheap, not come at the cost of a 40 man spot pre-season, and not be presented as a healthy offseason.

Roster spots & even 40 man spots should be for demonstrable talent, even something as limited as a prooven LOOGY, or for upside, even as limited as that Maier guy people mention here. If a guy doesn't have much talent or upside, what are you doing?
   81. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: January 09, 2010 at 03:41 AM (#3432476)
The one difference between the A's and the Royals is that you can envision a scenario where the A's make the playoffs. It's difficult to come up with one for the Royals.

And so even if the A's are longshots, I think it's still different than "no shots" like the Royals.

I also think Podsednik's agent overplayed his hand. I'm guessing if this was a deal he wanted to take in the first place, he'd still be on the White Sox.
   82. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 09, 2010 at 04:23 AM (#3432492)
and here i am almost 30 years old and i mean OLD and i have turned into billy


What you talkin' about - old? My daughter's your age, and I'm young enough to be Harveys' son.

-- MWE
   83. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: January 09, 2010 at 04:40 AM (#3432497)
'Cause if you say 30 years young, then you are old.
   84. Greg Franklin Posted: January 09, 2010 at 05:43 AM (#3432527)
Szym, I am very happy Billy got off his Chuck LaMar addiction. But I am worried about his attraction to scouty Braves management rejects. Very troubling.

He's 8 or 9 now, so why are his spelling and penmanship still so bad?
   85. BrianBrianson Posted: January 09, 2010 at 01:00 PM (#3432689)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Poor teams just shouldn't pay good money for bad players.
   86. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 09, 2010 at 11:42 PM (#3432969)
Szym, I am very happy Billy got off his Chuck LaMar addiction. But I am worried about his attraction to scouty Braves management rejects. Very troubling.


I talked to Billy's foster mother and Billy liked the Rays because he likes undersea adventures, but he heard that LaMar was fired, which made LaMar very sad, so Billy couldn't root for the team.

However, Billy's real mom took Billy to Burger King (this was before Billy's mom went to jail) for his birthday and because of his good memories of that day, Billy roots for the Royals. In search of a stable father figure, Billy latches onto General Managers as role models.


He's 8 or 9 now, so why are his spelling and penmanship still so bad?


He's behind developmentally, I'm sorry to say.
   87. rombuu Posted: January 10, 2010 at 01:16 AM (#3433016)
He's behind developmentally, I'm sorry to say.


Kind of like the Royals....sigh....
   88. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: January 11, 2010 at 10:27 AM (#3433749)
To me the problem with the Podsednik signing is that there's no chance to improve the base of talent you have available to deal to other teams.

If you instead play some AAA All-Star there's a chance he does a Garret Jones on you and has an abnormally great year. Now you have something that somebody else might actually want in a deal, and you can flip him for a prospect.

The Royals are currently paying eight figures for a guy who was given an outright release when he was 26. If they have any chance at all, the Royals need to take risks on players other teams don't have the leeway to take risks on. But lately they seem to be on the other end of the curve.

I read in a Horse Racing handicapping book once that "if you're late to the wedding, don't show up for the funeral." The Royals seem to be going to a lot of funerals...
   89. jwb Posted: January 11, 2010 at 03:59 PM (#3433837)
Dan, Can we have a Szym-Art-Ski tag? I remember you had a greatest hits post some time ago but I can't find it. We all need something to laugh at when a team we root for does something really stupid!
   90. William K. Posted: January 22, 2010 at 07:33 AM (#3443837)
Royals apparently signed Ankiel to a one year $3.25 million deal
   91. Tripon Posted: January 22, 2010 at 07:35 AM (#3443838)
With a $6 million mutual option.

God, I want another Billy drawing.
   92. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: January 22, 2010 at 09:11 AM (#3443856)
I kinda like Ankiel as a signing. Wrong team as it really doesn't help the Royals long term unless he really rebounds. But Ankiel's hit in the recent past and can defend and has a few genuine excuses for the poor year last year. You could even make the argument that the standard age curves for a hitter might not apply considering the odd path Ankiel took to get to here.

Running it through my old projection system it spits out .255/.318/.450 with a tame platoon split, which is pretty much a league average hitter, with average Defense in CF and plus Defense in the corners. Seems like a decent signing for $3.25 mil.

Of course now the Podsednik signing doesn't make any sense at all as he's surplus goods.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Tuque
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.4450 seconds
47 querie(s) executed