Closing the Book on Buddy Bell
Its been a bizarre twenty four hours on planet Royal. Since Tuesday morning we've witnessed the trade deadline, the Bell resignation announcement and now, the postponement of Thursday's game with the Twins. Because of the utterly stunning bridge collapse in Minnesota, tonight's game with the Twins was one of the odder baseball games I've ever followed. As Royals fans we're used to irrelevant games, but tonight's in-an-alternative-universe-it-was-thrilling 5-3 Royal victory is in a class by itself. Not surprisingly, we barely had anyone commenting during the game thread.
Adding to the irrelevance of tonight's game was the certain fatigue we're all feeling following the annual trade deadline drama, a holiday of sorts which produces a kind of madness that induces 400+ comment debates about the relative merits of Hiram Kyle Davies. Davies is, I'm sure, a delightful young man, but at this stage he's the John Freeman to Mac Suzuki's Wordsworth. Of course, this site owes its very existence to our evidently insatiable need to ponder baseball minutiae, but that doesn't mean we should do so without self-awareness.
Which brings us, obliquely, to the curious timing behind Bell's announcement that this season will be his final tour of duty with the Royals. Bell's non-urgent resignation seems odd alongside the trade deadline hyperactivity and, totally accidentally, the horror of the random chaos which unfolded just outside the Metrodome shortly before tonight's game. For his motivation, Bell gave what has become our society's de facto answer: he wants to spend time with his family, although in this case, he seems sincere. Why make the announcement now? According to the man himself it was a matter of honesty, a need to set the record straight with his players about his intentions, lest he appear, retroactively, a hypocrite. Again, fair enough.
![]() |
Still, the speculation will be that Moore played some role in this decision, either as a backroom initiator or as a passive non-beggar for Buddy's return. Buddy was someone else's hire, and, to tell the truth, a fairly uninspired, is not nonsensical one at that. Presiding over a wildly varied collection of parts, Bell is over 70 games below .500 as the manager of the Royals.
As I thought about Bell tonight, it occurred to me that Buddy Bell was the first baseball player I hated seeing in the lineup. Growing up in Graham, Texas, my first baseball love was the late-80s Texas Rangers. In 1989 the Rangers brought in Buddy Bell for what would become his final season. In my memory he was ancient, but looking back his stats he was "only" 37. Nevertheless, he had absolutely nothing left, hitting .183/.247/.232 in 89 plate appearances. That doesn't sound like much, but from the end of April through Jun 17th Bobby Valentine played Buddy just about every day at third base. The Rangers went 17-5 in April that year, and spent most of May and June as a relevant team in the old AL West. Still, their worst month of the season was a 10-17 May. During that month Buddy played in 19 games and hit .152/.235/.196, which was absolutely killer.
In my young mind, it was criminally stupid that the Rangers were wasting good at bats with Buddy Bell. At bats that could more properly be utilized with some combination of Steve Buechele, Jeff Kunkel, Scott Coolbaugh (Mike's brother) and Mike Stanley. In hindsight this is both inaccurate and embarrassing: the best of the bunch, Buechele, was actually finding his way into the lineup in a myriad of ways, and while Mike Stanley had his moments (187 career HRs and a lifetime .458 SLG while being nominally capable of catching) it wasn't as if George Brett was losing playing time.
As such, looking back on it, this was the baseball wiseguy blogger equivalent of thinking back to those female cartoon characters you found pretty as a kid. Watching Robin Hood in college I was stunned to realize that not only was Maid Marian an anthropomorphic fox, she also looked identical to Robin himself. You can put this memory in that category.
Nevertheless, its strangely fitting because Buddy's slow march to oblivion in 1989 was the exact scenario he repeatedly reenacted as a manager. Just in his brief time with us, Buddy has managed to be the last Major League skipper to give Terrence Long, Doug Mientkiewicz and Jason LaRue, to name a few, regular playing time. Worse still, while Buddy Bell was actually a helluva player at one point, the Royals have consistently chased the past's not-even-glory with the Elartons and Berroas of the world. In 2005, Terrence Long went to plate 485 times for absolutely no reason.
Still, theres something to be said for all managers having a weak spot for players like themselves, but its possible that in Buddy's case, the inverse is also true. Quietly, he's turned into an able manager of the pitching staff, a staff thats been one of the best in the American League for the last three months. Buddy's rarely left his weaker starters (especially Perez) in the game for too long and has diligently protected the workloads of Bannister and Gil Meche. Under Buddy's watch the Royals have enjoyed two adequate seasons of relief work from Jimmy Gobble, while inching closer to developing a 1970s style stopper/long-man in Zack Greinke. While Moore certainly deserves some credit, the Royals have gone from having one of the worst pitching staffs of all-time (no hyperbole) to having a team ERA right in the middle of the pack in the AL. As mentioned above, in June and July, the Royals were one of the best run prevention teams in the AL.
The bottom line is that the Royals have been playing good baseball with Bell as their manager. In a sport without plays or the ability to funnel at-bats to the same player over and over again, the manager is never more than a marginal part of the team's performance. Nevertheless, the Royals followed a 15-12 June with a 13-12 July. Even during the miraculous 2003 season, the Royals only managed to post three winning months, so don't take consecutive successes too lightly.
So while Buddy's tortured us with way too much LaRue and perhaps too much Ross Gload, he's also stayed patient with Alex Gordon and Mark Teahen, while finding ways to get Esteban German into the lineup as regularly as possible (although, admittedly, this took awhile). By most accounts his players like working with him and his reputation as a "good baseball man" remained intact even as he repeatedly lost in Detroit, Colorado and Kansas City. Moreover, as Rany Jazayerli pointed out in this year's BP, Bell's handling of last year's Greinke situation was both gentle and compassionate.
I don't think a good case can be made that Bell would have been the right man to lead this team as its talent matures and the real, honest to God, goal becomes winning now (or, winning then, as it were). Nevertheless, while I would have been positively thrilled to hear that Bell was leaving for the first 200 games of his tenure, I must admit I feel a touch of sadness now. Retirement is a kind of death rehearsal in our capitalist culture, even for the most anonymous of jobs, and there's certainly something chilly about the fact that Bell's diagnosis is the spur here. Moreover, we don't know -- and likely won't know for a very long time -- who Buddy's successor will be. Do you trust Alex Gordon's pre-arbitration years to Terry Pendleton anymore than you did Buddy? What about Joe Girardi?
The central fact remains the same as it was the day Dayton Moore was hired: it is not guaranteed that baseball in Kansas City can survive another decade of losing. If the Alex Gordon/Billy Butler era turns out like the Johnny Damon/Jermaine Dye or Mike Sweeney/Carlos Beltran era's it is not certain that the Royals can recover. The Royals have the smallest population base to work with in the game, and thats not going to change.
The next three years is the franchise's most critical period since the mid-70s. Under the pax Seliga there is no rest until all possible public monies are exhausted. Should a better stadium deal appear in Portland or Charlotte or wherever, the Royals, with their non-super-deluxe renovated K will not be immune to relocation. Even if the Royals stay in KC and stay the Royals, this might be their last chance to actually build a cost-effective contender.
Lets hope the next man is the right man for the job.
For now, its a final summer with Buddy, weirdly a pleasure trip, chance for appreciation and a dirge.
------
Related: Unpacking the Bell Hire (posted on May 31, 2005)
0 recs |
99 comments
Comments
Tangental
by jscape2000 on Aug 2, 2007 7:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Great writing....
I am like a kid a Christmas when the presents first show up under the tree. I can't wait to rip into them and find out what is there. The new managerial hunt leaves me feeling that way again. So for the remainder of the season I will focus on the team and try to ignore the fumbling managerial style of one Buddy Bell.
Good bye Buddy, don't let the door it you in the ass.
by grudz69 on Aug 2, 2007 8:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
hit not it... it is too early in the morning...
by grudz69 on Aug 2, 2007 8:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice piece Will,
I do like Buddy Bell and he has been a part of my life since 1984 when he was traded back to his hometown Reds. I was a student at Moeller High School at the time. Moeller was also Buddy's alma mater. On the day of the trade the school put a sign up, "Welcome Home Buddy!"
Buddy was not much of a player for the Reds during his two years with the club and I grew tired of seeing his name in the line-up as well. But he was always popular for his plus defense and his "scrappy" type of old-school approach to the game.
I got back to the States a couple of days ago and am starting to get back in the swing of things. The Royals did amazingly well during my two months away. You were out of town most of that period as well. Maybe we are part of the problem?
by James Quinn on Aug 2, 2007 8:59 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
agreed
when i got back i even started hitting ESPN.com regularly for awhile
by royalsreview on Aug 2, 2007 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Timezones
The only other baseball fan I met while I was in France was another grad student from CUNY. She was a Yankees fan. What is worse, having no one to talk baseball with, or having only a Yankees fan to keep you company?
by James Quinn on Aug 3, 2007 9:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great writing RR
On to baseball, it's bittersweet to see Buddy go, but at least he's leaving on his own terms and not being canned. It will be interesting to see who the Royals pick, because I really believe the next manager they choose is the one that will lead us back to the playoffs. I think GMDM has made the right decisions so far for this franchise, and I just hope the new manager will receive more support from the fanbase than Buddy did. It'll be a fun offseason to see what happens to build our next winner.
by lordbyronk on Aug 2, 2007 9:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i'll admit it
by FireBell on Aug 2, 2007 10:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely fabulous article.
by RTC Fan on Aug 2, 2007 10:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Great job
SB should be up later today. It took waaaaaaaay too long because I looked at too many trades. Sorry in advance.
by NHZ on Aug 2, 2007 11:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
it'll be interesting to hear
by royalsreview on Aug 2, 2007 11:24 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
drip, drip...Girardi...drip, drip.... Pendleton...
by grudz69 on Aug 2, 2007 11:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Our last 162 games
by RoyalsRetro on Aug 2, 2007 11:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe we should actually give some thought
And I keep hearing Pendleton's name come up. He's on the list for obvious reasons. But does anyone think he'd make a good manager? He might, but I know nothing about his baseball philosophy or managerial style. Do anyone of you know something about him that I don't? If so, please share.
If anyone has a favorite candidate, can you tell me why you think he'd be a good manager. Hopefully something more than "he was a good player".
by NYRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 11:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Pendleton
by lordbyronk on Aug 2, 2007 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Question on Pendleton
I am skeptical that any hitting coach has much effect on his team's offense. I'm also concerned that a hitting coach might not necessarily know how to handle a pitching staff, which I think is an extremely important element of a manager's job. I'd rather have someone who knows pitching better, like Leo Mazzone.
by NYRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Pendleton
by lordbyronk on Aug 2, 2007 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good endorsement
.218/.319/.425
by RoyalsRetro on Aug 2, 2007 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point
by lordbyronk on Aug 2, 2007 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair point
Plus, I really don't think hitting coaches deserve a lot of credit or blame. JS and company brought in a lot of good talent. It is no surprise that they have hit well. I really can't say it was because of Pendleton's coaching. Most player development happens in the majors. Did he really "fix" a lot of Braves hitters? Maybe, but I'm skeptical.
by NYRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
pitching coach
by nkkc on Aug 2, 2007 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
TP
One guy I like initially is Trey Hillman. He managed in the Yankees minor league system and was a "big inning" kind of manager. He then took a job in Japan. He learned that the game there is much different and learned to adapt to small ball.
I'm not a small ball guy, but I like a guy who is willing to adapt his philosophy to the situation he is in. I have read that Hillman thinks outside of the box, and he's a former pitcher, so he could help out our pitchers.
I don't know a lot about him, but what I've read thus far I like.
by RoyalsRetro on Aug 2, 2007 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Aggressive"
by NYRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
right there with you NY
please
by FlintHillsRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No Girardi!
Saberhagen for life!
by dejackso on Aug 2, 2007 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why?
by dejackso on Aug 2, 2007 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
George Brett could be his bench coach
Of course, I don't have any reason to believe they would be good at those jobs, but it would be fun for a few weeks.
by NYRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I may be wrong...
by dejackso on Aug 2, 2007 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW
I did find this disturbing entry:
In 2006, Saberhagen was named to the 2007 ballot for the Baseball Hall of Fame. He stated if he were voted in, he would not attend the ceremony because he believes Pete Rose should be inducted.
egads
by NYRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought
by lordbyronk on Aug 2, 2007 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He is coaching...sorta.
by dejackso on Aug 2, 2007 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think I'm ready
by NYRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was actually thinking...
by dejackso on Aug 2, 2007 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
McClure to manager?
I don't know if McClure is a manager. I guess I don't know that he isn't either. And I also don't know about Saberhagen. I know all about him as a pitcher, but would he make a good coach? What is his pitching philosophy? Is he one of these guys who really "knows pitching"? Just because one was a great pitcher, doesn't mean one was a great student of the game, or even of pitching.
Nostalgia says he'd be a great choice. But I'd like to know more about him.
by NYRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm in the camp...
He is very much an unknown (that is true), but McClure is still there if something bad happens. Further, he has acknowledged the value of not-overworking a pitcher...which to me is the main thing of importance for a manager/coach. See Dusty Baker.
However, I totally get what you are saying...but I like him better than who I have heard so far. I'm rooting that we go for someone fresh.
by dejackso on Aug 2, 2007 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds reasonable
by NYRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm worried
by RoyalsFanInMarinerTown on Aug 2, 2007 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ZING!
by RoyalsRetro on Aug 2, 2007 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ken Macha is my man
by royaldaddy on Aug 2, 2007 11:59 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Macha
by lordbyronk on Aug 2, 2007 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't like Macha
That small market team didn't succeed because of Macha. It succeeded because of the talent Alderson and Beane brought into the organization.
Macha is a traditionalist manager who would make a lot of Buddy Bell-like moves, including sacrificing bunting and bringing the infield in in the second inning.
by NYRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
dont ever say that name.
by wildthang on Aug 2, 2007 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Btw, great write-up RR
by royaldaddy on Aug 2, 2007 12:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Remember Starting Lineup?
I also got George Brett, but his arm fell off.
by RoyalsRetro on Aug 2, 2007 12:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I still have some of mine...
by dejackso on Aug 2, 2007 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've got....
by RoyalsFanInMarinerTown on Aug 3, 2007 2:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some crtiticism too harsh.
Gordon - Yes.
Butler - Yes.
Teahen - Yes.
Greinke - Likely.
Buck - Yes.
Soria - Yes.
That's what matters. It's not important whether or not Terrence Long got too many at bats in 2005...or if Jason Larue has recieved 40 more at-bats than some would've preferred. The important point, is that every player (other than maybe Burgos) with so-called potential improved in the last two seasons under Bell and are primed to be contributors for a long time. I'm not even counting a guy like Tony Pena who looks like he could be an unexpected keeper. Other managers would've looked at Pena's physical limitations in spring training, and suggested more Angel Berroa.
I'm just not sure what more anyone could've asked for from Buddy. Did he make some odd in-game tactical moves? Probably. But his job wasn't to ALWAYS make the best move to win on any given day...his job was to develop players and get this team to where they can consider competing again. There hasn't even been 5 minutes since he got there that contending was a legitimate possibility for this club. Casey Stengel wouldn't have won 70 games with the kinds of rotations that he had to work with in 2005 and 2006. They were historic in their awfulness.
Did Buddy ever lose control of the personalities on this club? Not at all.
Does this team bust their butt every night? Yes, without exception.
Did he ever embarrass the franchise with his comments or behavior? Not that I know of.
Here are a couple of other facts when considering Buddy's awful managerial record...since it constantly gets used as evidence against him.
Colorado was over .500 in 2000 which was Buddy's first year, and hasn't had a .500 season since he was fired in 2002.
Detroit hadn't had a .500 season until winning the American League last year after Buddy's departure in 1998.
The Royals haven't been to the postseason since 1985.
I think you can see my point. He managed franchises who spent a long time being bad years before, and years after his tenure. It's not fair of those who make a "results oriented argument" against him, without conisdering all of the facts involved.
by bsp1973 on Aug 2, 2007 12:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not to be negative...
Did the team bust its butt? I might say they they haven't...I don't think either of us are right.
by dejackso on Aug 2, 2007 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough...
Not to imply that their minor league time had nothing to do with preparing them for what appears to be successful careers...but Buddy's done a nice job of keeping these guys on track.
by bsp1973 on Aug 2, 2007 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trending upwards in the last 60?
Teahen is down from last year where he improved over his previous stats (which coincided with being away from Buddy)
Gordon's a wash...he'd have to improve if he's as talented as we all thought he was...
Soria was an unknown...so maybe he didn't improve...maybe that's just how good he was...
by dejackso on Aug 2, 2007 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, but...
I really don't know how you attribute none of Teahen's rebound from last April & May to Buddy and his staff. I'm puzzled as to how others get all of the credit. Teahen has turned into a very servicable outfielder...which had nothing to do with the minor league instruction.
Bottom line, none of these guys are giving any indication for serious concern. They're maturing, and for the most part, doing it without a lot of back and forth between KC and Omaha. If you look at other teams that have been in the midst of total rebuilding with high draft picks (Tampa Bay, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh) it's not working out quite so well for them. The Royals appear to be doing something right, and I'm not sure how the manager escapes kudos altogether from as many as he does around here.
by bsp1973 on Aug 2, 2007 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey
by lordbyronk on Aug 2, 2007 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Kruk says anything
by RoyalsRetro on Aug 2, 2007 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Credit and blame
Those who point to Bell's career winning percentage and attempt to show this as proof that he's a bad manager need to go a little more than one millimeter deep in their analysis. I think the talent on those teams had a lot to do with the wins and losses.
by NYRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you on the short term...
by dejackso on Aug 2, 2007 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not good not bad
We have to trust that baseball (multiple organizations) have seen something in him that says he's a legit major league manager. He keeps getting hired.
by NYRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I may be wrong...
I think that most (if not all) of those non-talented teams still finished below their Pythagorean win totals. As was mentioned above in another comment, the Royals 2005 finished 56-106 (PR 59-103), but the 2006 finished 62-100 (PR 61-101) which is a net result of -2 wins. Not a huge, stinging slap...but still, we should be happy he's gone.
by dejackso on Aug 2, 2007 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What does the manager have to do with that?
by NYRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Out-managed?
I'm a reader of both Baseball and Football Prospectus and in the latter, a record that is different from the Pythagorean win expectancies is often used as a measure of coaching skill. So, I was just sort of extrapolating here.
by dejackso on Aug 2, 2007 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Never seen it used like that
by NYRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again...
My argument is less about calling Bell a bad manager based on the Pyth Expectancies and more about how we can't call him a good or average manager when the only stats that we have suggest otherwise.
by dejackso on Aug 2, 2007 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think that stat tells us about him
Bell looked very average to me. Some good, some bad, lots of traditional, by-the-book managing. That is, of course, completely subjective. But in the absence of any meaningful stats (and so far, I see no evidence that Pyth win totals tell me anything about the manager), subjectivity is all we have.
by NYRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My counter argument about that...
That being said, I agree with you that there are really no true stats to judge manager quality...but subjectively...he seems a bit below average to me (not horrible, but not replacement level either) and the one stat we do have (good or bad) seems to agree with me.
by dejackso on Aug 2, 2007 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our win total being below expectation
I expect the correlation to "having a good bullpen" is that teams with good bullpens seldom lose the really big game, as they are able to recover and bail out a starter that gives up early runs on a consistent basis.
Think back. We've won a bunch of games 17-3, 10-1, etc. But we haven't lost a similar number of games by big margins. That skews our RS/RA, meaning the formula expects us to have won more games than we did. Now, if we could only store up some of those runs for the close games, we'd hit our Pyth expectation.
by Big Guy on Aug 2, 2007 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's only true this year...
by dejackso on Aug 3, 2007 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My argument for Teahen...
by dejackso on Aug 2, 2007 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Small quibble
2005 - .246/.309/.376
2007 - .280/.351/.398
by NYRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was a thoughtful and well reasoned
by NYRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have to agree
by lordbyronk on Aug 2, 2007 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not when
by cmkeller on Aug 2, 2007 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently it built up his trade value
Actually, I'm half joking. I don't know if that helped his trade value. But it's not like the Royals had good, legitimate closer options. Bell had a bunch of poor pitchers to choose from.
by NYRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He had a bullpen full of relievers
I don't blame him for initially making Burgos the closer in Macdougal's absence. His 2005 seemed decent. But how many save situations does one pitcher need to blow before you realize he can't be trusted with a lead ar a tie?
The Indians game last year - you all know the one I'm talking about - our pen was insanely leaky, and I don't think anyone did a good job - but it wasn't until he brought in Burgos in the 9th that I said, "forget it, the Indians are going to win it." And what do you know, it happened.
by cmkeller on Aug 2, 2007 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does this team
Emil Brown = exception.
by howserfan on Aug 2, 2007 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent points
by jbrocato on Aug 2, 2007 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One question though
just weird
by FlintHillsRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 12:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He didn't want to keep lying to his players
by NYRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he couldnt just tell them privately
by FlintHillsRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why keep it private?
by NYRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
too much negative in this entry
by kcisbetterthanstlateverything on Aug 2, 2007 1:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
agreed RR got a little out of control at the end
by FlintHillsRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That last bit smacked of alarmism
by NYRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rob Neyer's ESPN column
by cmkeller on Aug 2, 2007 3:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He posted on Baseball Primer
by RoyalsRetro on Aug 2, 2007 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is that what he wrote for ESPN?
by cmkeller on Aug 2, 2007 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good riddance Bell/Sanders at it again
How come no one here is commenting on Reggie Sanders' latest "injury?" The Royals should've released Sanders a long time ago and played Gathright instead of playing of Sanders the last month or so.
Now that Sanders is out for the season, we're stuck with his contract anyway.
Last year and this year, Sanders always got "hurt" when the trade deadline came around. Last July, he got hurt and then he got hurt again in August.
Now he gets hurt again at the trade deadline. What a crap free-agent signing he was. Another reason why I'm glad that Allard Baird is gone.
Worst free-agent signings in Royals history? Let's see: Juan Gonzalez, Chuck Knoblauch, Benito Santiago, Scott Elarton, and Reggie Sanders. Who signed all these guys? You got it-Allard Baird.
by royalsfan on Aug 2, 2007 4:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree
BTW, the Royals would have been responsible for his salary if they had released him as well.
by cmkeller on Aug 2, 2007 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Santiago was not a bad signing
Santiago was the last Royals catcher I did not dread watching bat.
by jbrocato on Aug 2, 2007 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I prefer Buck...but yeah
by dejackso on Aug 3, 2007 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Forgot Mark Davis
I know that the Royals would've been responsible for his salary if they had released him. That's what I meant when I said that they have to pay his salary anyway. I had a feeling that he would get hurt again, so releasing him and cutting their losses would've been better than keeping him and playing him while Gathright rots away in Omaha.
If the Royals thought that there were going to be any takers for Sanders, they're more delusional than I thought. Thinking that anyone would be dumb enough to trade for Sanders is dumber than thinking that Buddy Bell would take this team anywhere but down.
by royalsfan on Aug 2, 2007 5:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
In an article on the royals website...
I hate long goodbyes and I hate people that give eight weeks notice in leaving a job when a week or nothing would have done. Just say goodbye and leave. What are you doing taking a sympathy lap just for old timesake.
I for one wish Buddo would have gone the Hargrove route and left after the last homestand.
by grudz69 on Aug 2, 2007 5:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It is good to give notice when you quit
by NYRoyal on Aug 2, 2007 5:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I hope they hire Girardi so we can
by grudz69 on Aug 2, 2007 8:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
As always Grudz
by NYRoyal on Aug 3, 2007 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think jbrocato makes a GREAT point
And the roster really didn't change until GMDM came in and turned it over and gave Bell some pieces to work with. Retro's 73-89 in the last 162 is probably the most telling of Buddy's work with this team if you ask me. And given how young a lot of his key talent is, i'd say that's not terrible. And probably indicates his ability to be an average manager....nothing more, nothing less.
But for me, even though he was probably only an average manager, his previous background in Player Development was important given the young core the Royals are trying to develop and win with. Who knows if he would have been the right guy in 2009 when we're ready to chase a pennant, but right now, I think there would have been a lot worse options out there than Bell.
by powderblue on Aug 3, 2007 9:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The Royals were a complete
by dejackso on Aug 3, 2007 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 
















