The Rays Are Now Better Than the Royals

by royalsreview on Nov 30, 2007 11:41 AM EST in News Comment 46 comments

(Hat tip to Lookout Landing for the premise, which probably applies even more strongly to the Royals.)

Understanding that there are still many moves, small and medium, left to be made, I think its fairly clear that the Rays will be better than the Royals in 2008.

Lets start with the rotations, since the Matt Garza deal was the occasion for this piece. The Rays go Kazmir, Shields, Garza, 1-2-3, with the usual assortment of random flotsam at the back of the rotation. Between Edwin Jackson's potential and J.P. Howell's genericness, and accounting for someone else possibly stepping up and or being merely adequate, thats a decent rotation. The front end has the potential to be excellent. The Royals counter with Meche, Bannister, Greinke, then some mix of Kyle Davies, de la Rosa and possibly Hochevar and a few other randoms. Did you know that the Rays led the AL in strikeouts last season? They did, recording 1194 Ks, a full two hundred more than our Royals managed (who finished 13th in the AL). I like the combination of Meche, Banny and Greinke, but lets face it: its very National League, consisting of three guys who pitch smart but don't really have a consistent out pitch and rely on a number of interlocking factors to post clean innings. Unfortunately, the Royals don't play in the NL.

The point can be conceded that the Royals might have a better bullpen than the Rays, but with all the year-to-year flux in individual performances and roster turnover, I don't know how major an issue it is. All we really know is that Soria is good and Yabuta is Japanese. Nevertheless, I don't think the Royals bullpen will be substantively better than Tampa's in 2008.

Which brings us to the lineups. Tampa outscored the Royals 782 to 706 last season, and like the Royals there's lots of room for personal improvement on their roster. In the outfield the Rays go Crawford-Upton-Baldelli, against a Royal offering of XXXXX-DeJesus-Teahen. I love David and Mark, but they posted OPSs of .723 and .763 respectively last year. In the infield the Rays go Iwamura-Bartlett-Wilson-Pena with Navarro catching. The Royals have an advantage at third, but in 2008 it may not be as large as we'd like. Iwamura hit .285/.359/.411 last season, and is heading into his age 28 season. Other than that, the Royals biggest advantage is at second base, as Grudz is probably a much better bet than Josh Wilson (.238/.290/.333) at second base. Then again, Grudz is 58 years old and Wilson will be 27 in 2008. When you factor in Grudz's inevitable injury and/or midseason trade, this is another small victory for our Royals. Finally, at DH/1B/COF the Rays have Carlos Pena and Gomes, who seem superior options at this point than whatever Shealyfied monster the Royals employ in 2008. And sure, John Buck might be a tick better than Dioneer Navarro (.227/.286/.356), but would you bet your life that he'll post an OPS .050 points higher in 2008? I also fear that Buck is a bad April and a failed bunt or two away from getting into Hillman's doghouse.

Last year the Rays posted a run differential of -162, good for a pythag of 67-95. The Royals, thanks to an inspired performance from the pitching staff, posted a differential of -72, good for a pythag of 74-88. For the purposes of 2008, does the addition of Garza and Bartlett (minus Young) make up that seven game gap? Its not a given, especially since Baldelli is injury prone and Pena will certainly not be as good. But it is a possibility.

0 recs | Comment 46 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

btw, i'll be expanding this post shortly...

by royalsreview on Nov 30, 2007 11:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Mmm, nah.

The Rays have worse uniforms by far. :P

I'm sorry for my sporadic posting, by the way, I am really bogged down with work recently. :(

"True friends stab you in the front."-Oscar Wilde.

by NHZ on Nov 30, 2007 11:49 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

You're kidding, right?

I'll be interested to read your argument.

by loyal2s dad on Nov 30, 2007 12:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Wait...

As a franchise or as a team for the 2008 season? I'm confused.

Blown Save

by BlownSave on Nov 30, 2007 12:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don't think the Rays are better

They have a very young, albeit very good, pitching staff with no real veteran anchoring it (Curt Schilling would have been perfect in this role). Their infield is shaky. Pena came out of nowhere and I don't think it would shock many people if he disappeared again after getting his payday. Iwamura is solid, but he didn't really do as well as he was expected to last year. Picking up Barlett was a nice move. Their situation with Longoria is the same as our situation with Gordon last year. Is he ready? In the outfield they have two exceptional talents. Upton is a nice hitter with power and speed. Crawford is a good hitter with a ton of speed and a great glove. But, I think they're going to be counting on Baldelli to fill the other spot. That guy makes Sweeney look like Cal Ripken Jr. They're ripe with young talent due to a nice farm system, but in that division, placing third is the best they could ever hope for.

by royaldaddy on Nov 30, 2007 12:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Or, an alternative question,

What team would you most hate to have to be a fan of? Imagine you had to relocate and somehow learn to love a new team. Which would be the hardest to adopt?

Some of my candidates:
Baltimore Orioles - Old franchise with a good history, but this team has been so badly managed for so long. It would just seem so hopeless. So upsetting. It would just crush me. It would be like the Baird/Glass regime with less of a plan and more money.

Tampa Bay - What is there to love? Horrible management. Never competitive. Worst stadium in baseball. Team full of felonies. I bet not a single player on the team owns rather than rents.

Chicago White Sox - I'd just drive north to Wrigley. It would be like knowing a really interesting and loveable woman and dating her deformed and hateful sister.

Florida - Why love a team that plays with you every few years. Plus why love a team that squeals about wanting to be anywhere but Miami every year? So directionless. It is like this team is not sure it wants to exist much less have a plan.

Arizona - If I had to listen to Mark Grace call a game every night for a week I would become a hockey fan. The man is militant about being an obnoxious jackass.

I could find a way to love the Pirates, the Nationals, even the Giants more quickly than the list above.

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Nov 30, 2007 1:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Baltimore by far

Their owner is an idiot, their management is clueless, their farm system is barren, their fan base is eroding due to Washington's team, and they have to play in the same division as Boston and New York. That franchise is hopeless.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Nov 30, 2007 1:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yea, baltimore

toronto would also suck

by royalsreview on Nov 30, 2007 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Word association: AL East

New York Yankees - Entitlement Complex
Boston Red Sox - Narcissism
Toronto - Persecution Complex
Baltimore - Masochism
Tampa Bay - Clinical Depression

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Nov 30, 2007 6:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think

Tampa and Baltimore should be encouraged by the new FO guys that have come in recently, though I have a problem finding fault with your word associations. :P

"True friends stab you in the front."-Oscar Wilde.

by NHZ on Dec 1, 2007 10:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

tampa has new management

LaMar is gone

Hillman, you're on notice.

by FireBell on Nov 30, 2007 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In a year or two they will be

But I don't think they'll put up a better record in 2008.

Here's a rendering of their cool new stadium proposal.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Nov 30, 2007 1:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

BTW-

That post didn't turn out as good as I imagined at 10 AM this morning. If anyone wants to throw some projections around for the Rays/Royals or call out my blatant mistakes, feel free...

by royalsreview on Nov 30, 2007 1:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

No (at least not right now)

The Rays have a slight edge on offense simply based upon the enormous talent of two players. Elite young boppers Crawford and Upton are both more skilled and toolsy than anyone the Royals have to offer. In addition, their power hitting first baseman Carlos Pena has a huge edge over the Royals offensively challenged options of Gload and Shealy (I wish GMDM would have had the foresight to take a flier on Pena last spring). I wouldn't count on Pena hitting 48 home runs again in 2008 though. He could definitely flame out.

Comparing the rest of the offense, though, is a wash at best. Jason Bartlett may provide slightly better offense than TPJ at short but on defense I would take TPJ any day. Both are no more than short-term fillers at their positions. Advantage Grudzielanek at second. The Rays do not have a second baseman, at least until Evan Longoria is called up to play third and they move Aki Iwamura there. In either case, I'd take Gordo long term. Baldelli in right field is an overrated, oft-injured talent, although many non-Royals fans I know say the same about Teahen. I still think Teahen is better. Butler is a much better option than Gomes at DH. Ditto at catcher in John Buck vs. Dioner Navarro.

To get to the real point though, the reason the Royals are better than the Devil Rays is because the D-Rays staff is very weak after you get past their big 3 of Kazmir, Shields and Garza. Those three are very talented, perhaps more so overall than the Royals top three of Meche, Greinke and Bannister, but the gap is not tremendous. 4th and 5th starters are somewhat of a wash, but I still prefer the potential of Davies and De La Rosa over Edwin Jackson and Andy Sonnanstine. Moving on, quite simply the D-Rays bullpen is ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE. Al Reyes is their closer. He can't even compare to Soria. The Rays depended on Royals cast-offs like Scott Dohmann and Shawn Camp to get them out of the 7th and 8th innings. That's not good. The Rays are obviously trying to get better in the pen by signing Troy Percival, but he's a prime candidate to break down. The Royals meanwhile, already have pieces set for a very good bullpen in Gobble, Bale, Nunez, Peralta and possibly a young swingman out of the pool of Buckner and Hochevar.

Who knows though? Once the offseason moves end and spring rosters are set in place, the Rays may collectively have more talent than the Royals. But right now, the Royals are a better team from top to bottom.

"I'm tired of all these stupid a$$ questions every day. Why the f**k would I hit Brett for Miller?" The rest is history.

by DC Royal on Nov 30, 2007 1:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Rays pen

Has Troy Percival as closer now. Dan Wheeler and Al Reyes will setup which isn't awful. They still have a lack of depth though. The 5-7 innings will be rough (and Reyes isn't all that good) and if there are injuries (likely with Percival) they will have problems.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Nov 30, 2007 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I've been reading about the Rays promise for years

...and I haven't seen it come to fruition. Lots of good prospects; lots of mediocre results. The Royals have been better than the Rays for years. The Rays are going to have actually start showing something on the field before I pronounce them better than the Royals.

BTW, the contention that they are so good is based on the production of a lot of prospects. Will all of those prospects succeed? Prospects usually don't. It will be interesting to see how many succeed and how many fail, for both teams.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Nov 30, 2007 1:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

yea... true true

I just wonder how much of their progress is hidden by their pitching staff, especially the bully and the back end, getting absolutely clobbered by the Red Yankees for 50 games or whatever it is a season...

by royalsreview on Nov 30, 2007 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Offense hasn't been too impressive either

Over the last several years, their offense has ranged from mediocre (8th in the AL in RS in 2007) to just plain awful (last in the AL in RS in 2006). So they really haven't fulfilled much of any of their great potential.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Nov 30, 2007 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So

they went from last to middle in the pack in RS in a year? Couldn't that be improvement from a young team adding good young pieces like Upton?

by CentralChamps2009 on Nov 30, 2007 1:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In part

But they need continued development from multiple players with little if any regression, and they subtracted one of their best young players.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Nov 30, 2007 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hm

The problem with the Rays is that their payroll is so small they get rid of people before they can field a competent team.

by BlueEyesAustin on Nov 30, 2007 1:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Next year's a reach

But the potential is amazing. The Rays have done what the Royals failed to do with their years of losing--use the draft and trades to load up on MLB-caliber young talent. Even sending Young along, they've got young major leaguers Kazmir (who seemingly has been there forever and will still be just 24), Shields, Upton, and Gomes (who's a spare part with an .800 OPS), and prospects David Price, Longoria, Reid Brignac, Jeff Niemann, and to a lesser extent pitchers Jacob McGee and Wade Davis. By 2010, without any further additions, they could have a rotation of Kazmir, Price, Neimann, Shields, and Garza, which could very well be the best in baseball at that point. Plus, they get the first pick this year too. If they could ever harness that talent (and figure out a way to win more regularly in their 40 games against the Yanks and Sox each year), they could be incredible.

by CentralChamps2009 on Nov 30, 2007 1:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I still don't buy it

I'd still take the 2008 Royals over the 2008 Rays in a seven game series. Maybe I'm being stubborn, but in my mind there is little question that the Royals are better.

"I'm tired of all these stupid a$$ questions every day. Why the f**k would I hit Brett for Miller?" The rest is history.

by DC Royal on Nov 30, 2007 2:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

A few additional factors favor the Rays

First, top prospect Evan Longoria is likely to start at 3B for the Rays, with Iwamura moving to 2B and becoming a huge upgrade over Wilson. Thus, the likely TB infield is Longoria/Bartlett/Iwamura/Pena. Even with solid improvement from Gordon and Butler, the infield favors the Rays.

More importantly, the Rays' defense was historically bad last year, as they played several players out of position just to get their bats into the lineup and help with their development. Brendon Harris (SS), BJ Upton (2B), Ty Wigginton (2B), Elijah Dukes (CF), and Delmon Young (CF & RF) were among the worst (if not the worst) defensive players in the league at their respective positions. The Rays replaced Harris with one of the best defensive SS in the AL last year (Bartlett), moved Upton to CF where he projects as adequate, moved Iwamura to 2B, and dumped Wigginton and Young. The defensive improvement is huge.

The horrible defense last year also masked how well the Rays' pitchers performed. Using FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching) to subtract the Ray's defense from the equation (which also provides some indication of how well a pitcher can be expected to perform in the future), the Rays staff pitched pretty well:

Kazmir 3.58
Shields 4.00
Garza 4.18 (with Twins)
Sonnanstine 4.35
Howell 4.91
Jackson 4.98

In comparison, the Royals do not fare as well, especially in terms of depth:

Greinke 3.76 (primarily as reliever)
Meche 4.14
Bannister 4.52
De la Rosa 5.27
Davies 6.06

(In the rotation, Greinke will not be able to throw at maximum effort every pitch and get as many strikeouts as he did as a reliever, so his FIP should be adjusted downward, probably into the 4.25 range).

The Rays also have a stable of high upside, near major league ready starting prospects in McGee, Davis, Price, and Niemann who could force their way into the rotation by year's end.

The Rays took a huge step toward becoming a competive team with the Garza/Bartlett trade.

by Gopherballs on Nov 30, 2007 3:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Greinke

Actually, Greinke has attributed his success as a starter late last season to learning that he needs to throw at more of a maximum effort for every pitch as opposed to trying and save himself. Which as we all saw before, saving his effort did not fare well for him the first go-round as a starter.

by MileHighKCfan on Nov 30, 2007 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Greinke

I do not doubt that throwing harder as a starter than in the past helped him, but throwing at "more of" a maximum effort is still not quite the same as throwing at maximum effort like he did in the pen. Last year, as a reliever, Greinke's fastball sat 94-96 MPH, touching 97 MPH. As a starter, he lost a couple MPH, usually sitting 93-94. He still touched 96-97 as a starter, but on a lower percentage of pitches.

The difference is reflected in K/9 rate. Overall, Greinke posted a K/9 rate of 8.1. But as a starter, it was only 6.7, compared to 9.3 as a reliever. K/9 rate affects FIP, so a lower K/9 rate as a starter would result in a higher FIP.

It is not just Greinke. Just about every pitcher picks up a little velocity (and strikeouts) when pitching in short relief.

by Gopherballs on Nov 30, 2007 4:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

K/9

Was 8.21 during his rotation stint at the end of the year. Using his early numbers for looking at the future really isn't fair when he doesn't pitch like that anymore.

by doublestix on Nov 30, 2007 5:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Excellent point

He said that he really figured something out while he was in the bullpen and his stats definitely reflect that. Even when he went back into the rotation, he continued to dominate because he was pitching differently from how he had pitched when he started the season in the rotation.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Nov 30, 2007 5:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's certainly a positive

that he pitched better in his second stint in the rotation, but with a sample size that small (7 GS, 34 IP), his one fantastic, 10-strikeout start skews the results. Over that stretch, he did not even average 5 IP per start (4.9 IPpGS). If you take out his best and worst outings during that stretch (the 10-K game v. Chi and 1-K game v. NY), the rate is only 5.7 K/9.

by Gopherballs on Nov 30, 2007 5:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If those 34 are an insufficient sample size

...then so is the sampes from when he was a starter early in the season and the sample from when he was a reliever. So apparently none of the data is reliable.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Nov 30, 2007 7:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Larger sample size = better results

The sample size for his entire season as a starter is double (68.2 IP v. 34 IP), and his relief innings are close to that (53.1 IP). 34 IP is basically one month of starts. But as noted above, when you break those 34 innings down, the K/9 is driven by one great outing -- an 8 inning, 10 strike out gem (against a lousy White Sox lineup). Out of his 14 starts, it was the only one in which he matched or exceeded his relief K/9 rate (he even exceed that by 2 full Ks).

So if your proposition is that Greinke should expect to post the same K/9 rate (or a tick below) as starter as he did as reliever, one start (despite how great it was) is pretty flimsy support.

by Gopherballs on Nov 30, 2007 8:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Do a significance test

...of the sample size of 34 ip, 53 ip and 68 ip and you'll find that 1) they are each very small sample sizes from which one cannot expect to draw reliable meaning, and 2) none of those sample sizes is significantly more reliable than the other.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Nov 30, 2007 11:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Look at a larger sample size

The sample size for Greinke as a starter is not limited to just this year. In 396.2 IP as a starter in the major leagues, Greinke's K/9 is 6.0 (up from 5.9 K/9 entering this season). His 6.7 K/9 as starter this year is certainly in line with his career, yet still reflects the significant improvement in his pitching this year. On the other hand, there is no real support for an expectation that he can maintain his 9.3 K/9 in relief (or even 8.2 K/9) as a starter.

The points that a sample size is more reliable when it doubles in size, or that an outlier like the 10 strikeout game can significantly skew the results in a limited data set where it represents 25% of the sample, really should not be that controversial. Considering your most recent position that 34 IP is meaningless contradicts your initial point that Greinke's 8.2 K/9 in only 34 IP was an "excellent point," I guess you are simply arguing for argument's sake at this point.

But again, the intent is not to slag on Greinke, only to note why, just like with any pitcher, his FIP should be expected to rise somewhat if he returns to starting fulltime. A 4.25 FIP for an AL starter is quite good, somewhere around 20th best in the league.

by Gopherballs on Dec 1, 2007 2:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And

You talk about his 396.2 ip without any recognition of the fact that 1) he is a young developing player and such players stats should (and almost always do change) as they develop. Typically, they improve. And 2) Greinke himself said that he learned a new way to pitch this year while he was in the bullpen. He said that before then he had thought that his stuff wasn't good enough to challenge hitters, so he had to get by with pinpoint control, making every pitch perfect on the corner. Once he learned to just reach back and throw it hard and not worry about pinpoint control, everything fell into place. So it seems like something really has changed.

On the other hand, there is no real support for an expectation that he can maintain his 9.3 K/9 in relief (or even 8.2 K/9) as a starter.

Oh, there's support, but it is statistically insignificant, just as is your statistical sample. I'm not saying that he will necessarily maintain an 8.2 k/9 in 2008. But I don't think we should expect 6.7 either. 1) He has changed his pitching style and that improved his K-rate. 2) Do pitchers his age usually improve their stats from year-to-year? Yes. He's at a point on the developmental curve where significant improvement is common.

It isn't controversial. But if you are going to bring sample size into the discussion (and you did), then you should realize that while 68 ip is a larger sample size than 34 ip, both are an insignificantly small sample. And, if the mean is 8.2 in a data set, then can 10 actually be called an outlier? It is less than one stadard deviation away.

Considering your most recent position that 34 IP is meaningless contradicts your initial point that Greinke's 8.2 K/9 in only 34 IP was an "excellent point," I guess you are simply arguing for argument's sake at this point.

No, I'm merely dealing with the sample size argument which you raised. Don't make a point if you can't handle it being challenged. If we are willing to look at subsets of Greinke's stats, even though we are dealing with insignificantly small sample sizes (which are you clearly willing to do), then one must take into account Greinke's stats after he changed his pitching style and how they differ from before that point. But, of course, given the sample sizes, none of this is dispositive in and of itself.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Dec 1, 2007 9:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Innings

The reason his innings per game start were so low, was the Royals had him on a strict pitch count to try and build up his stamina and get him back used to starting, if it weren't for that he may well have had more K's and been even more impressive nimbers in his second go round as a starter

...or he could have fallen on his face, its hard to tell now, but I have a feeling that come ST the Grienke we saw at the end of the year will be the Grienke we see fairly consistently

I may be drunk, but tomorrow I will be sober and you, ma'am, will still be ugly. - Winston Churchill

by fats on Nov 30, 2007 9:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

maybe we need to do some horrible challenge bet

with the rays fans?

Hillman, you're on notice.

by FireBell on Nov 30, 2007 3:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

rays are def better

maybe not directly in 2008, but overall, yes

by LeoBloom on Nov 30, 2007 10:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

A Modest Proposal

I'm a Rays fan, brought over by Draysbay.com's link. I just have to ask, even if you are better than us, or we are better than you, who cares? Both of us are still the under-funded "scrappy" teams in our division. We get to beat up on the Orioles, and you get to beat up on the Chi-Sox. The big difference is that the top 2 teams in your division are somewhat likeable, and the top 2 teams in our division are the incarnation of Evil on Earth.

I think the only thing that makes sense is to send us Alex Gordon, Gil Meche, David DeJesus, and Lastings Millage (if you ever get him, HE'S OURS HE HAD SEX WITH A 15 YEAR OLD IN OUR AREA DAMMIT) and together we can perhaps prevent the Yankees or the Red Sox from making the post-season with some late season spoiler wins.

by Top Gun Numba 1 on Dec 1, 2007 4:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

A Note:

If you were wondering why I included DeJesus, it's because I freaking love triples.

by Top Gun Numba 1 on Dec 1, 2007 4:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If you like triples ...

Can we interest you in Tony Pena Jr.? He was leading the league at one point!

by Moose Tacos on Dec 1, 2007 8:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wish the Rays well

I hope to hell the Rays realize their potential and become a force in the A.L. East, routinely beating the shit out of the Yankees and Red Sox.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Dec 1, 2007 9:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I just don't see it

I think the Royals will be around .500 if they land a new hitter and starter.

by marbotty on Dec 1, 2007 5:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree

But will the Royals pick up a significant bat and a starting pitcher? I think their interest in Guillen, Fukudome, Kuroda, Silva and others is genuine, but I don't know if they'll do whatever it takes to get both a big bat and a SP. I think they'll take a serious run at it, but in the end they may not be able to land two sizeable fish.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Dec 1, 2007 5:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

very possible

It does look like the cash is there to land both a Kuroda and a Guillen, but who knows how aggressive the other teams will be in negotiations with those guys.

by marbotty on Dec 2, 2007 2:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I just cannot find myself engaging this

Rays vs. Royals question. Many reasons, but the biggest one is that if I concede that the Rays are better than the Royals then I might as well just give up on 2008 right here and now on December 1st.

Now if the debate was between the Twins and the Royals I might be sucked into that one.

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Dec 2, 2007 3:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

These 2 teams look pretty equal now, but...

...I think that GMDM is really going to have do a great job to stay close. I looked at this year's issue of Baseball America which lists their top 20 prospects for each minor league (PCL, Texas League, South Atlantic, whatever), and these are how the 2 organizations stacked up.

Rays Royals
Niemann #9 AAA Butler #3 AAA
Hammel #17 AAA Hochevar #10 AAA
Buckner #17 AAA
Longoria #2 AA
Brignac #6 AA

McGee #3 A Cortes #11 A
Davis #4 Pimentel #19
Morlan #18
Jennings #1
Hellickson #8
Royster #9

The Royals actually showed a lot better than I thought they would.

The significant point for me is that Price (who isn't listed) McGee and Davis are probably going to be consensus top 30 prospects, which means they are potential #1 starters in a rotation. No pitchers in the Royals org are going to be ranked that close, IMO.

Yoda

by Yoda on Dec 2, 2007 6:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs