Any News on Sweeney?

by kcdoc85 on Jan 13, 2008 1:21 AM EST Comment 23 comments

Have you heard any recent news or rumors on Mike Sweeney? Is there any chance at all that the Royals might still make an effort to resign him? Other teams do not appear to be showing much interest in him.

I know, based on his performance the last few years, you would think he was pushing 40, but the guy is only 34! There is no doubt he can hit, WHEN HE IS HEALTHY.

Why doesn't DM resign him, simply to pinch hit. We could use somebody with some pop to come in off the bench. We don't really have that kind of a player on our bench. Just picture it, Sween-dog stepping into the on-deck circle in the late innings, with runners on and the game on the line at the K. The old franchise player and fan favorite. The crowd would love it. Give him that opportunity. Let him finish his career as a Royal.

He can still hit. He won't have regular playing time, but that might keep him healthy. He'd be an excellent pinch hitter. Think of the drama! Come on Dayton, make it happen.

0 recs | Comment 23 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Rapidly declining

I'm not inclined to think Sweeney could serve as an offensive threat, per se, in any situation, even pinch-hitting. His OPS the last 3 years has gone from 864 to 821 to 719. I think injuries have finally started to take a toll on his actual production, when healthy.

Would he remain captain, even as a bench player? I have a difficult time envisioning a scenario of a captain-less Sweeney in a Royals uniform.

Also, what position would he play? Or which position would he play effectively? I find it difficult believing he would serve as an upgrade to either Shealy or Gload. And Sweeney simply doesn't provide the power those two have. And what if Shealy faltered again? Sweeney would again probably start most of the time. I'm not going to attempt to predict what Hillman will do, but most MLB managers would refuse to use Sweeney strictly off the bench. Sweeney would somehow, someway, find his way into the starting lineup most games. Why? Because he's Mike Sweeney.

I, for one, envisioned an offseason where retaining Sweeney would only serve a last-minute desperate scenario: an "icing on the cake", so to speak, to an otherwise horrifically unsuccessful offseason. I really don't want that to happen.

It seems the retain Sweeney crowd base their opinions more on feelings than statistical projections/trends/etc. I'm not necessarily singling you out, KCDoc85, but that's just what I've read. I think Sweeney's days as a productive big-league player are essentially gone. Maybe an American League team with an overflow of cash to spend can spend $1MM on a .260/.310/.400 bench player, but I'm afraid that isn't really us.

Perhaps I'm bias because Sweeney sort of symbolically represents miserable franchise under miserable franchise. I'm ready to let him, and his "baggage", sail away. Then, we can begin focusing on the future 'captain' of this franchise, or drastically better yet....'franchise player(s).'

Visit my Royals blog: The Royal Treatment!

by Royals Nation on Jan 13, 2008 1:47 AM EST reply actions

I'd like to see him get an invite to spring

training and a fair shot at earning a spot. I know it doesn't make sense in the big picture, but I, like most Royals fans, like Sweeney. So just as a fan, I'd like him to be on the team and given a chance to beat the odds and revive his career. Having a team I like to cheer for counts for something.

If Sweeney had a good spring and made the club, the cost would probably be under a million dollars and the temporary setting aside of two of these three - Costa, Huber or Gathright (do all these guys still have options?)

Anyway, that seems like a manageable blow to give Mike one more shot to get right. Imagine how bad it would be to Royals Nation if Mike went to Oakland or Detroit and put together a good year.

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Jan 13, 2008 11:13 AM EST up reply actions

Also, what position would he play?

Bench?

Or which position would he play effectively?

Um... pinch bench?

by marbotty on Jan 13, 2008 2:05 AM EST reply actions

Unfortunately

there are too many players just like him with limited defensive homes and not enough roster spots. So even if the money is right (around the minimum), it just does not justify taking the spot away from someone younger and better (Butler, Shealy, Gload).

by lordbyronk on Jan 13, 2008 7:51 AM EST reply actions

Which player does he knock off the roster?

If there are 5 bench spots, which player would you knock off the 25-man roster in favor of Sweeney?

Olivo
German
Callaspo
Shealy/Gload (whichever is not starting)
Gathright

I'd take any of those players over Sweeney (in part because many of them have some upside potential while Sweeney has none) and they can all play a position in the field, while Sweeney really can't.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 13, 2008 9:47 AM EST reply actions

I think you are picking the wrong targets.

Olivo is a lock as the 2nd catcher. Callaspo is a lock as backup infielder and shiny new acquisition. If he has an option left he might spend a bit of time in Omaha if the roster gets squeezed to tightly. German could still lose his job, but that would be a surprise and he could be dealt instead of DFAed. Does Shealy still have options? If not, he is like German. No way is he DFAed in favor of Sweeney. The worst case scenario is putting him back on the DL or trading him. Gload has no options left, but no way would they DFA him in favor of Sweeney.

I think the only players who might have their positions on the team threatened by Sweeny in the spring are Gathright, Huber and Costa.

Plus, the Royals might carry 12 pitchers in April given the off days. This would give them a bit more flexibility early.

I think the Royals might be able to give Sweeney a look without doing any long-term damage to the team this April.

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Jan 13, 2008 11:26 AM EST up reply actions

Wrong targets?

I'm not sure I know what you mean by that. The players I listed are the players most likely to make the Royals bench, are they not? If Sweeney makes the team, it would be at the expense of one of those players. I'd rather have them than Sweeney.

Someone said Shealy still has an option. But what good is it to have him in Omaha? This is the year we need to find out if he's any good or if he's a bust. In order to find that out, he has to be playing in KC. It is more important to find out if Shealy is any good for the Royals future than to waste a roster spot on Sweeney for the sake of sentimentality.

Plus, the Royals might carry 12 pitchers in April given the off days.

I don't understand the logic here. Wouldn't the existence of extra off days mean that you need a 12th pitcher even less? That gives more rest for your pitchers, so it is less likely that you'd need a 7th reliever. Also, extra off days means you don't need a 5th starter every time through the rotation, so that starter can be used as a reliever.

I can't see a good argument for having Sweeney on the team over any of those bench players. The fact that he'd be blocking a player which might have a future with the team is a great argument to not have him on the team.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 13, 2008 2:31 PM EST up reply actions

I'd probably rather see Sweeney playing

over Shealy

irrational and dumb, but Shealy just looked so awful last year...

but I would be stunned if the Royals bring him back

~~~~~~

I thought he might sign with the Angels, but it looks like they might be more interested in Konerko.

by Will McDonald on Jan 13, 2008 4:42 PM EST up reply actions

I could see Sweeney

in Oakland or Minnesota. I'd hate to see him on the Twins as much as we play them, but he seems like their type of player.

by lordbyronk on Jan 13, 2008 7:39 PM EST up reply actions

I'd love to see him in Minnesota

...blocking young players who need MLB playing time, being a sub-mediocre player, and of course spending most of his time on the DL. As a Twin, Sweeney would, in a small way, help the Royals top the Twins in 2008.

I liked Sweeney. He was a good hitter and a great guy. He's one of the best men in baseball. He's just not valuable as a baseball player anymore. It's not a good idea to waste a roster spot on a sub-mediocre veteran who is declining when that roster spot could go to a younger player who could genuinely help the team in the future. The Royals need to use roster spots to both increase wins and develop players. We don't need to waste a roster spot on a mascot, team chaplain or "positive clubhouse presence."

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 13, 2008 7:48 PM EST up reply actions

wow

you are an evil guy NY

Hillman, you're on notice.

by FireBell on Jan 13, 2008 7:54 PM EST up reply actions

I just want the Royals to build a winner

If that means recognizing when Sweeney's useful days as a Royal are over and moving on without him, then so be it.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 13, 2008 8:52 PM EST up reply actions

Evil?

There really is nothing evil about this. I think we all appreciate Mike Sweeney for the class that he has shown and the loyalty to the Royals that he has shown. But just because he is "lovable" Mike doesn't mean he should be playing for the Royals next year. It's not evil, it's common sense!

by MileHighKCfan on Jan 14, 2008 10:47 AM EST up reply actions

I'm sorry, that should have read 11 pitchers,

instead of 12. The Royals may carry one less pitcher for the first few weeks of the season whihc might give Sweeney a bit more of an opportunity to make the club out of spring training.

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Jan 13, 2008 9:24 PM EST up reply actions

Rebuilding

This is not a pure rebuilding year, but it we shouldn't make every move simply on whether it might win the Royals one more game. Shealy vs. Sweeney is just such a case. It is far from clear that Sweeney would perform better than Shealy, but let's say he'd hit a little better for the sake of argument. Shealy could still become a decent player. He had a good partial season, followed by an injury-riddled season. We don't know what we have in him. We need to find out. We'll only find out by playing him. So why waste a roster spot on a declining, always injured Sweeney and end the season still not knowing if Shealy is any good?

Making roster decisions based on sentimentality is no way to build a winning team. I'm pretty sure Moore is smarter than that is not hampered by emotions with regard to Sweeney.

But wait, Sweeney is a born again Christian. Moore must love him, right?

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 13, 2008 5:36 PM EST reply actions

these guys are more sentimental than you think

not so much in religious matters, as getting all worked up over clubhouse chemistert and leadership

happens every day

however, i dont think Sweeney has the rep as a clubhouse leader at this point

Hillman, you're on notice.

by FireBell on Jan 13, 2008 6:39 PM EST up reply actions

Emotional decision making

I don't know how much Moore lets emotions influence his decision making, but, as I said, I don't think Moore is overly sentimental about Sweeney. Moore didn't sign Sweeney; he inherited him. Moore has had ample opportunity to sign Sweeney and hasn't done so. I don't think there's much interest in Sweeney MLB-wide. I think just about anyone could have him for $500K. The fact that no one has signed him tells me a lot. No one should be surprised that there isn't much interest in a 34 yo DH-only usually injured player with rapidly deteriorating skills. Is that worth even league minimum? It's worth a minor league contract and an NRI to spring training. That's about it.

By the way, my religious comment was a joke. The whole religious issue with regard to Moore and his decisions is a joke.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 13, 2008 7:06 PM EST up reply actions

GMDM Said...

That they were leaning away from re-signing him due to a lack of roster space, and that it would basically be an insult to Non-roster invite him. I heard that on the radio Thursday or Friday. Sorry if somebody already posted this and I missed it.

by Skirra on Jan 13, 2008 8:10 PM EST reply actions

Thanks for the update

I hadn't heard this and it is good to find this out. It certainly sounds right. There really is no room for him on the roster.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 13, 2008 8:54 PM EST up reply actions

I'll admit that I am a Sweeney fan...

I think he is a good person, but I also think he is still a good ball player. I know he's been made of glass and unreliable the past few years. But look at his numbers from 1999-2005, they are still pretty darn good. 34 is not that old. I'm not ready to say that his career is over and he can't hit anymore. Compare his stats (99-05) to other players of his age. I'd bet he stacks up pretty well. He's the perfect pinch-hitter/team captain/bench coach....whatever.

I'd rather have him do that, then go to the damn White Sox and suddenly rake all season, pounding line drives off the wall for league minimum.

no outs to go!

by kcdoc85 on Jan 13, 2008 8:57 PM EST reply actions

Bench Coach

You got it, finally we know what to offer him. Make him the bench coach.

by MileHighKCfan on Jan 14, 2008 10:50 AM EST up reply actions

All for it

I've been suggesting for months that we offer Sweeney the job of hitting coach, hitting instructor or whatever kind of coaching position he's interested in.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 14, 2008 12:56 PM EST up reply actions

Just say no!!!

We have no need for Sweeney - he can't play the field and we don't have the roster space. Its time for him to move on and try to resurrect his career elsewhere. Let's just enjoy the memories we have of him and prepare for inducting him into the Royals HOF.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jan 14, 2008 9:58 AM EST reply actions