Royals Insider: Ryan Shealy
Editor's note: Since we debated in Buck's commentary whether to pursue the Gload or Shealy route, I've chosen both. Apologies if anyone feels I've cluttered the diary section with these endless rants! :) ~ RN
Today in Royals Insider, we proceed to our next first baseman, the frustratingly ambiguous Ryan Shealy. Perhaps the "unknown factor" is higher for Shealy than any other member of our 40-man roster. Why, you ask? Well, after showing years of promise in Colorado's Minor League system and for two months in late 2006, Shealy's offensive production plummeted dramatically last year, leading many Royals fans to seriously question why we should keep him and implement him in a similar fashion next season. Perhaps some of his drop was due to injury, but I digress. Like our previous four articles, we must begin with (where else?) the beginning of Shealy's career.
In 1998, the Colorado Rockies originally selected six-foot-five first baseman Ryan Shealy out of Cardinal Gibbons High School, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida in the fifth round of the amateur entry draft. However, Shealy never signed with the Rox, deciding instead to attend the University of Florida in his home state. By his junior year at UFL, Shealy had developed into a bonafide power hitter, drilling 23 home runs and 80 RBI's in 65 games. That was enough to catch the attention of new Rockies General Manager Dan O'Dowd, who selected the six-foot-five first baseman in the eleventh round of the 2002 draft in June.
In his first half season with Casper, the Rockies Rookie League affiliate, Shealy hit .368/.497/.714 in 231 at-bats. After getting promoted to the Visalia Oaks in 2003, the statistics regressed somewhat (.299/.391/.519) but then surged ahead once again in AA Tulsa (.318/.411/.584). Shealy had demonstrated fantastic plate discipline, power, and surprisingly good fielding at first base before being promoted to the Colorado Springs Sky Sox in 2005. After hitting a robust .328/.393/.601 (artificially inflated by the thin Colorado air, mind you), Shealy appeared more than Major League ready. In fact, the Rockies held every reason to believe Shealy could contribute as a true force at the big league level. However, one slight problem arose for Ryan Shealy: Todd Helton. Yes, Shealy had indeed become a victim of circumstances in Denver, getting stuck behind perennial All-Star and "face of the franchise" Todd Helton at first base in the organizational depth chart.
"I've never seen a ball come off the bat the way it does with his," says Bill Geivett, the Rockies Director of Player Personnel, who has seen a lot of power hitters. "Ryan has tremendous power and at 6-5, 230, he can absolutely crush. I would definitely keep an eye on him."
Unsure of where to allocate their talent, the Rockies temporarily experimented with Ryan Shealy in the outfield in Spring Training 2006, playing alongside equally talented and newly established stars Brad Hawpe and Matt Holliday. Manager Clint Hurdle said Shealy would play primarily in right field at Coors if left-handed hitting Brad Hawpe was not in the lineup. However, an elbow injury - which would eventually suggest further sinister instances - emerged, forced the Rockies to sideline the 27-year old and move him back to first base.
"Shealy is a career .324 AVG,.417 OBP,.594 SLG hitter in the minors. Those are highly impressive numbers, but keep in mind the generally hitter-friendly Rockies system. Shealy will crush fastballs in the majors, but it's not certain how he'll handle advanced breaking stuff. Also, note the age."
Shealy would then spend most of early 2006 in AAA Colorado Springs, predictably raking for the Sky Sox (.919 OPS in 58 games).

Where art thou, Ryan Shealy?
Then, seeing that the promising young power hitter would likely never receive a chance in Colorado, new Royals General Manager Dayton Moore proposed a trade offer that enlightened many Royals fans. The Royals would trade declining (and consistently whiny) left-hander Jeremy Affeldt and talented but brittle righty Denny Bautista to Colorado for Ryan Shealy on July 31. Royals fans overwhelmingly applauded the trade, and Shealy would proceed to produce respectably in a Royals uniform in the final two months of 2006, hitting for a .789 OPS in 51 games for Kansas City.
Shealy suffered nagging hamstring injuries in 2007, which limited him to 86 games, split between Kansas City and AAA Omaha. In Omaha, Shealy would show glimpses of the power he possessed for the Colorado organization, but overall, fans became increasingly frustrated with his depleted run production. Although he was still acceptable (and actually quite good, considering his range factor) at first base, Shealy hit a meager .221/.286/.308, striking out a soulcrushing 53 times in 172 at-bats. For a player one year into the prime of his career, those numbers represent how far Shealy's star had fallen.
Throughout his Major League career, Shealy has shown an uncanny ability to hit right-handed pitching (.305/.361/.461, 2007 included), but has never hit lefties (.153/.248/.229 is unacceptable even for a player of his talent). Shealy's a swing-and-miss hitter with enough plate discipline but not enough stamina and ability to stay healthy (injuries have ravaged his career not once but twice). He demonstrates a fine ability to hit finesse pitching (.322/.378/.481) and groundball pitchers (.296/.356/.452), but his future organizations will definitely want to refrain from starting him against notable power (.195/.266/.299) and fly ball pitchers (.186/.264/.335).
Here are my predictions for ol' Sheals in '08:
GS/G: 45/47
AB: 197
H: 50
BA: .254
OBP: .310
SLG: .399
HR: 4
RBI: 17
R: 18
1B: 37
2B: 9
3B: 0
R: 20
BB: 8
K: 42
SB: 0
CS: 0
OPS+: 83
ASSETS:
Repeats 2007 form, with nagging injuries: 45%
Slight improvement from 2007: 30%
Numbers significantly improved from 2007: 20%
Breakout season: 5%
Injury contingency:
Injured for 15 days or more: 55%
Whereabouts:
Chances traded/dropped before Opening Day: 25%
Chances traded at 2008 Trade Deadline: 20%
Chances released mid-season: 30%
Job allocation:
Plays entire season at first base: 35%
Platoons with Ryan Shealy: 15%
Injuries hamper him and force him between Omaha, K.C., and D.L. all season: 45%
Bench duty/reserve in K.C.: 5%
Unfortunately, I have been down the road of Ryan Shealy before. It seems the Royals have acquired promising young pitchers and hitters all too many teams over the previous umpteen years who have plummeted due to their routine inability to stay healthy (Dan Reichert, Mark "Kung-Fu" Quinn, the previously mentioned Bautista, among seemingly dozens of others). Yes, perhaps it's unfair to hold the misdoings of two previous administrations squarely on the shoulders of "GMDM" but I will consider anything beyond a repeat of Shealy's dismal 2007 performance gravy, in the most extreme of fashions. Shealy is now in his peak season, true, but a season in which players on the upswing peak, not players who merely begin their upswing. I hope Ryan Shealy reads this column and, in turn, becomes motivated enough to get in the best shape of his life, and turns his spiraling career around. However, I will honestly say that it doesn't appear likely.
I'm predicting not only a repeat of Shealy's 2007 performance, but a possible midseason release. I'm afraid K.C. fans are stuck with another season of Ross Gload at first base, with that promising but ambiguous young(?) first baseman waiting helplessly in the wings.
37 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well, your glass of Shealy is obviously half empty
A shot of Shealy

by RoyalsFanInMarinerTown on Jan 4, 2008 3:26 PM EST reply actions
Whoops...
Ok. That one should be a link to the full pic.
by RoyalsFanInMarinerTown on Jan 4, 2008 3:28 PM EST up reply actions
That is ultra-pessimistic
Shealy v. Huber
Shealy's minor league stats - .315/.404/.584
Huber's minor league stats - .288/.383/.495
At face value, Shealy's numbers are better. However, he played his minor league career exclusively in hitter friendly, high-altitude launching pad leagues and venues (Casper in the Pioneer League, Visalia in the California League, Tulsa in the Texas League, and Colorado Springs in the PCL). Huber, meanwhile, toiled in the low minors in the not so hitter-friendly Sally League and FSL before being traded to the Royals organization, where perhaps expectedly, he exploded in AA Wichita to the tune of .343/.432/.570.
Huber's also three years younger than Shealy, who next year at age 29 is looking at a make or break season. All signs last year pointed to a Shealy regression at the plate - painfully slow bat speed, a complete inability to hit off-speed pitches, and nagging injuries (possibly due to his body type).
Don't get me wrong, Shealy could bounce back, and he has better power potential than Huber. But all of that is far from certain. If Shealy tanks I think Huber definitely deserves a shot.
Shealy vs. Huber
And with regard to Shealy's tools, did he have very slow bat speed and a complete inability to hit off-speed pitches in 2006? That isn't what I saw. He looked different in 2007. We know he was injured throughout the season. It is much more likely that his tools drop-off in 2007 was due to injury than naturally diminishing skills (that doesn't happen at 28 very often).
Overall, I just think the Huber fetish among many Royals fans is pretty silly. Lots of marginal prospects have good minor league numbers. Shane Costa had great AAA numbers last year and he, quite frankly, stinks. And they point to Huber's minor league numbers and say how great he is, but then ignore Shealy's minor league numbers which were better and say he's obviously awful.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 4, 2008 4:27 PM EST up reply actions
Shealy v. Huber
I understand that Huber is an organizational guy, been here for a while now and every one of us knows about him. But I just don't understand where everyone is getting their opinions on him from. If you watched him play the majority of his games as well as Shealy, and you say that Huber is better then fine, I'll trust you. But if you are just looking at stats, which I'm guessing is all anyone here really has on Huber, please give me a better argument than park factors.
by MileHighKCfan on Jan 4, 2008 4:52 PM EST up reply actions
The lure of the unknown
by Scott McKinney on Jan 4, 2008 4:56 PM EST up reply actions
Shealy v. Huber part 2
Second, I am not writing off Shealy in favor of Huber, nor am I calling Shealy awful and hailing Huber as the second coming of George Brett, nor do I believe that Huber is better than Shealy. Call me guarded and skeptical about Shealy's prospects of future success, but I acknowleged that he could bounce back. Shealy has solid power potential and always has. Huber has shown the ability to hit for average and high OBP at and always has. If anything, the tone of the responses to my initial post indicate to me that the respondees are writing off Huber's potential in favor of Shealy, which seems somewhat hypocritical to the critique of my post I am writing off Shealy entirely.
Neither option should be written off or cast aside. Options and depth at positions build solid ballclubs. In reality, however, both Huber and Shealy carry substantial risk in 2008 just for different reasons - Huber because he is an unknown due to his lack of PA's at the MLB level, and Shealy because he fell off the face of the planet in 2007 physically and in terms of his production at the plate.
If one fails, shouldn't the other be given a chance to succeed? That's all I am trying to say.
DCRoyal
Second, I do not believe you are writing off Shealy entirely and I am not writing off Huber. To make it simple, I am just stating that I do not see any evidence in the numbers to prove that Huber will be just as good or better than Shealy in the majors. For one, he hasn't been given the opportunity, I think we all know and agree about that. So without that opportunity, we have nothing to go by but minor league stats. And from what I see, there is no evidence pointing toward Huber being as good or better than Shealy.
And yes, if one fails the other should be given a chance to succeed. But it seems that a lot of people feel that Shealy has already failed. THAT I disagree with. Maybe he proves me wrong in the first half of the season, and if so, then so be it....give Huber a shot.
by MileHighKCfan on Jan 4, 2008 5:45 PM EST up reply actions
Huber fetish silly?
Huber was traded for, then hyped up by the organization, rated as a decent prospect by neutral parties such as Baseball America, and then given anything but a fair shot at the Major League level.
Considering all of the above, a reasonable expectation would be that he be given a chance to fail or succeed in the bigs, and he was not given that chance at all!
Again, not saying he would succeed or fail - just that you can't expect fans to accept the Huber treatment by the org, especially considering all the hype that came with him from the very same org!
If that resulted in an irrational defense of Huber by fans, it sure seems understandable to me.
by loyal2s dad on Jan 4, 2008 4:55 PM EST reply actions
Should be given a shot
I don't mind people saying he should be given a shot. I do mind people saying that the organization is shooting itself in the foot because they aren't giving a great prospect like Huber a chance. I also mind people predicting that he'd do well in the majors, while Shealy should be expect to fail. If their minor league stats tell you anything, they say that Huber should likely do worse than Shealy.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 4, 2008 4:59 PM EST up reply actions
It is like the Pickering and Brazell fetishes
Good Old Boys Club
by RoyalsFanInMarinerTown on Jan 4, 2008 5:11 PM EST up reply actions
What's your point?
by Scott McKinney on Jan 4, 2008 5:23 PM EST up reply actions
difference between Pickering and Brazell
Pickering had a great track record in the minors, followed by a 2004 season in which he was third on the team in OPS (behind Beltran and Sweeney). He was then given a mere 27 at bats the next season to prove himself. Considering the Royals were off to one of the worst starts ever, Baird panicked and sent him back down to AAA, where Pickering ended up mashing again.
Why did nobody pick up Pickering? I'd venture it had to do with three factors:
- He's fat. Sadly, it's difficult for some teams to see past this -- there's several managers out there who will discriminate against guys that don't fit the profile of a ballplayer. This is the same sort of rationale that has teams targetting guys like Colt Griffin with his 6-4 frame and huge arm and then balking at guys like Tim Lincecum because of his build.
- The stigma of being dropped by the Royals. Even though maybe some GM's recognized that Baird was not particularly effective when it came to player evaluation, there still is a natural aversion to picking up the castoffs from a last place team. I'm sure your average GM looks at the situation and thinks to himself: "If a player wasn't good enough to play for a team that lost 100 games, why would we have any interest in him?"
- Other teams already had a decent DH/1B playing for them. The Royals, sadly did not. Sweeney fell off a cliff in '05, and Harvey never OPS'd better than .759 in any season he played, so it's not like there wasn't a spot on the team for Pickering.
Evidence
by Scott McKinney on Jan 6, 2008 2:25 PM EST up reply actions
Not sure if I agree with #2
Yankees
by Scott McKinney on Jan 7, 2008 12:28 AM EST up reply actions
What Is Brazell's
by philofthenorth on Jan 7, 2008 12:48 AM EST up reply actions
are you suggesting
Just look at how well Pickering did there, too:
http://www.koreabaseball.com/record/player.asp
(Now, I wasn't actually able to look him up or understand the statistics posted, on account of my not being able to read Korean, but I think we can both agree that he probably dominated the league. My guess: .358/.490/.820 with 20 SBs)
Huber, smuber....
But, then again this is just my opinion... feel free to disagree....
by grudz69 on Jan 4, 2008 5:10 PM EST reply actions
picked up.... these old fingers just aren't
by grudz69 on Jan 4, 2008 5:12 PM EST up reply actions
I think you all know my
Huber
i agree
It's like being stuck with a can of spam and then telling Monty Hall that you don't want to go for what's behind Curtain Number 2. Hey, you might not get anything more than a can of Dinty Moore stew, but if there's even the slightest chance that there's a Brand New Car! waiting behind there, you'd be a fool not to make the change.
This is what's been most frustrating to me as a Royals fan over the last few seasons. We've had some players who clearly were outmatched in the pros, and we've stuck with them even when there appeared to be a viable candidate waiting in the wings in AAA or elsewhere on the roster.
The most egregious example was Elarton in 2007. Why did he get 9 starts when it was obvious he was done after 5 or 6? There were so many other candidates (Nunez, Greinke, Gobble, Wright, Hendrickson? Or even Hochevar/Buckner, if you didn't care about rushing them?) that could have been tried there, but for some reason Bell/Moore were reluctant to make the change. How could the team have been worse off trying something new?
If we're trying to maximize our wins, that's not a strategy we should be employing, and I hope that if our season is clearly a lost one next year, that Hillman will not be afraid to turn to someone else if there's a player who evidently isn't able to perform at a reasonable level.
Shealy
by bheikoop @ Royals Review on Jan 6, 2008 12:21 PM EST reply actions
yea, and don't forget...
gag
I Was Right
by philofthenorth on Jan 7, 2008 12:23 AM EST up reply actions
The Gilmeister will be around 4.35
by grudz69 on Jan 7, 2008 1:19 PM EST up reply actions
what lies between half-full and half-empty?
Perhaps it's half-half. Or a "Baby Bear" prediction?
The scotch bottle is half full thats all I know.
by grudz69 on Jan 9, 2008 12:00 AM EST up reply actions
you would be the one
At least I don't blind airplane pilots with
by grudz69 on Jan 10, 2008 2:24 PM EST up reply actions

by 













