Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Kentucky Football: Tee Martin Reportedly Leaving for USC

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.

Source:

"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.

According to a 2006 report:

"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:

  • Respectable plate discipline (+.89 split in MiLB; +65 split in MLB)
  • Lack of mobility on the field have not affected his first base play (career RF a well above average 8.47 and three career errors at 1B).
  • Hits fastballs and fastball-pitchers well
  • FLAWS:
  • Inability to hit left-handed pitching (.153/.248/.229 career)
  • Recurring injuries have affected his development in his prime (shoulder in 2005; hamstring in 2007)
  • Inability to hit off-speed pitches (especially curveballs)
  • On-field performance:
    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.

    Comment 37 comments  |  0 recs  | 

    Do you like this story?

    Comments

    Display:

    Well, your glass of Shealy is obviously half empty
    Sadly, so is mine I'm afraid.  I don't expect a whole lot out of Shealy next year either, but I hope he proves me wrong.
    "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 Jan 4, 2008 3:26 PM EST reply actions  

    A shot of Shealy
    Not that it has any bearing here, but I took this pic of Shealy and Ichiro on April 27th this year. I thought 'Slow Bat' vs. 'Quick Legs' Rd 1.

    David Howard was just the beginning. Hopefully TPJ is the end.

    by RoyalsFanInMarinerTown on Jan 4, 2008 3:26 PM EST reply actions  

    Whoops...
    Meant to post the whole pic, not the thumbnail with no link.

    Ok. That one should be a link to the full pic.

    David Howard was just the beginning. Hopefully TPJ is the end.

    by RoyalsFanInMarinerTown on Jan 4, 2008 3:28 PM EST up reply actions  

    That is ultra-pessimistic
    Shealy can and will do better than that.  It amazes me that many Royals fans think Huber would do better in the majors than Shealy will even though Shealy was decent in the majors in 2006 and Shealy hit much better than Huber in the minors.
    I probably disagree with you.

    by Scott McKinney on Jan 4, 2008 3:46 PM EST reply actions  

    Shealy v. Huber
    I don't think you can say that Shealy hit that much better than Huber in the minors.

    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.  

    "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 Jan 4, 2008 4:10 PM EST up reply actions  

    Shealy vs. Huber
    Texas League and PCL are both quite hitter friendly leagues as well.  Even if one could normalize their stats for park and league, I still think Shealy's numbers would be better.  And, if one is going by stats (and that's really all we have with regard to Huber), there is no reason to expect or predict that Huber would do better than Shealy.

    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.

    I probably disagree with you.

    by Scott McKinney on Jan 4, 2008 4:27 PM EST up reply actions  

    Shealy v. Huber
    Okay, I understand the ballpark differences between the two. But how much can you reduce Shealy's numbers to consider it even. If you take 25 points off of Shealy's line, which is quite a bit, you get .290/.379/.559. I'd still take that over Huber's line.

    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
    Huber is loved because he's got good minor league numbers and hasn't had the chance to show his likely sub-mediocrity at the major league level yet.  If Huber actually came up and got 100 at bats and hit .230/.275/.375, the vast majority of Huber-fetishists would be done with him forever.  I wish the Royals would call him up so he can fail and this Huber whining can be over with.
    I probably disagree with you.

    by Scott McKinney on Jan 4, 2008 4:56 PM EST up reply actions  

    Shealy v. Huber part 2
    First off, you're right NYRoyal, the Texas League and the PCL are great hitters leagues, which is why I pointed out that Shealy played extensively both for Tulsa in the former and Colorado Springs in the latter.

    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.

    "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 Jan 4, 2008 5:12 PM EST up reply actions  

    DCRoyal
    First off, the biggest problem with communication over the internet is that "tone" is not easily determined. If I were having this discussion with you face to face I can assure you that my tone of voice would not be anything but normal for a discussion among baseball fans.

    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?
    NY, not necessarily disagreeing with your Huber vs Shealy points, but I think it's fair to point out the reason you may perceive a "fetish" among fans:

    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
    Should he have been given a shot?  Yes.  Is he a great prospect?  No.  Is he a good prospect?  I don't think so.  He's an ok hitting prospect but only plays positions where you need to hit genuinely well in order to survive in the majors.  And his defense at every position stinks.

    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.

    I probably disagree with you.

    by Scott McKinney on Jan 4, 2008 4:59 PM EST up reply actions  

    It is like the Pickering and Brazell fetishes
    There was lots of whining about how the Royals should give Cal and Brazell more of a shot in the majors.  But when the Royals cut them loose, not a single major league team was interested in them.  They were so good and so ready to break out in the majors that no one in the majors was the least bit interested in them.  Now Brazell is in Japan and Cal is a T-Bone.
    I probably disagree with you.

    by Scott McKinney on Jan 4, 2008 5:03 PM EST reply actions  

    Good Old Boys Club
    You know there is a lot of Good Ole' Boys Crap flying around MLB. It is the whole reason that the only real 'new' names you see in Baseball other than players are the agents. All the GMs and VPs, and whoever else are old baseball blood.
    David Howard was just the beginning. Hopefully TPJ is the end.

    by RoyalsFanInMarinerTown on Jan 4, 2008 5:11 PM EST up reply actions  

    What's your point?
    That Brazell and Pickering were actually good and no one in the "good old boys club" could see it?  If every single major league team passes on you, then there is about a .001% chance that the player could be a decent major leaguer.
    I probably disagree with you.

    by Scott McKinney on Jan 4, 2008 5:23 PM EST up reply actions  

    difference between Pickering and Brazell
    Brazell had only one great year in the minors, preceded by a bunch of pretty average ones.  There's no reason to think that his great year was anything but a fluke.

    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:

    1. 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.  
    2. 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?"
    3. 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.  
    All that aside, it's safe to say that every team can pass on a player and the player can still be a decent major leaguer.  Aaron Guiel, Jose Lima, Emil Brown all had at least one good year with the team and all were basically unwanted.  (But perhaps it's a stretch to call any of them decent major leaguers?)

    by marbotty on Jan 6, 2008 5:24 AM EST up reply actions  

    Evidence
    There is no question that GM's and front offices make mistakes.  But I find it hard to believe that every single organization screwed up and mis-evaluated Pickering.  Every team can use a guy who can hit.  And Pickering isn't just not on a 25-man roster; no organization is even willing to give him a minor league deal?  What does that tell you?  Every organization, including those who value "analysis" and are progressive and follow sabermetric principles (including but not necessarily limited to Oakland, Boston and Toronto) passed on him.  That is great evidence to support the contention that Pickering wasn't very good and never would be.  What are the odds that all of those organizations and GM's were wrong and some of us baseball fans were right?
    I probably disagree with you.

    by Scott McKinney on Jan 6, 2008 2:25 PM EST up reply actions  

    Not sure if I agree with #2
    Teams like the Royals, Pirates, and NL Central Team (well that's not true, but that's just a BAD division) have to take flyers on more players.  It worked out with guys like Lime, Ibanez, and to a lesser extent Guiel.  A good GM is not going to write-off a player because a last place team didn't want them.  They simply have better players on their team and don't have to take a flyer.  Plus..if you were a GM would you trust the talent evaluation of a last place team's front office or your own?  Matt Diaz is the best example of this.  It still irks me that the Braves have found a use for him and the Royals could not.

    by Stook on Jan 7, 2008 12:13 AM EST up reply actions  

    Yankees
    Just off the top of my head, the Yankees have picked up and given major league time to Royals castoffs including Guiel and Kris Wilson.  If major league GM's see major league talent in a player, they'll pick him up regardless of who gave up on them.  I'm sure many GM's love the thought that they saw something in a player that other, "lesser" GM's couldn't see.  If any other GM saw MLB talent in Brazell or Pickering, they would have been signed by someone.  They weren't.
    I probably disagree with you.

    by Scott McKinney on Jan 7, 2008 12:28 AM EST up reply actions  

    What Is Brazell's
    Japanese contract? I saw $900,000/year; how many years? Is Moore giving Brazell a good look while he earns a good paycheck? What role do Moore's Japanese connections play in this? Is Moore stashing Brazell outside the confines of MLB regs? Did he do all this on a grassy knoll and from a book repository at the same time with a single bullet?
    I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

    by philofthenorth on Jan 7, 2008 12:48 AM EST up reply actions  

    are you suggesting
    that the SK Wyverns of the Korean league aren't a real team?  

    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)

    by marbotty on Jan 7, 2008 9:55 AM EST up reply actions  

    Huber, smuber....
    We got sold a bill of goods when we traded for Shea.  I will be shocked if he makes the team out of camp.  Why???  Because, I don't think GMDM is done yet with the moves.  I think that he will sign a good bat and decent glove at 1B either from a pickedp DFAed or a  AAAA quality player that is healthier and has more upside than Shea.  He is 28. That is even older than RR.

    But, then again this is just my opinion... feel free to disagree....

    by grudz69 on Jan 4, 2008 5:10 PM EST reply actions  

    I think you all know my
    feelings on this subject. Billy Butler should be our everyday firstbaseman. I know some say his defense is subpar. This is true, but firstbase is not a position where you need to be Frank White with the glove. Butler is 100% part of this club's future. With Shealy or Huber, none of us know for sure. Shealy could come out and destroy everything thrown to him or he could go up to the plate every time and look like he has no business being a major leaguer. Huber is the same way. So, how do we solve this problem. Butler is at first. Huber and Shealy battle for the DH spot in ST and the loser goes home. I wouldn't bet my money on either of them becoming world beaters, but I would lay some scratch down for Boom Boom. Go with the sure thing at first. Let the maybes sort themselves out.

    by royaldaddy on Jan 4, 2008 9:12 PM EST reply actions  

    Huber
    I think the fascination with Huber, in part, comes from the head-scratching avoidance of him by the Budster last fall.  Why was he called up, and then never inserted into the line-up?  He's mysterious at the major league level.  Still, I hope he gets a fair shot in spring ball.  My gut feeling is the Shealy is on a long, slippery slope downward and won't play a significant role in the Royals plans.  No data, just a hunch.
    Success is counted sweetest by those who ne'er succeed. - Emily Dickinson

    by buddyball on Jan 4, 2008 9:51 PM EST reply actions  

    i agree
    There was also a fascination with Huber because it was evident our incumbent first baseman wasn't going to produce last season, so why not give someone else a shot, especially when the season was essentially over?

    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.

    by marbotty on Jan 6, 2008 5:57 AM EST up reply actions  

    Shealy
    I was aw-struck when they made the deal for him and anticipated a core of him, Gordon and Butler to be a killer middle of the order.  I'm also a HUGE Gathright fan!  I saw him play a handful of times against the Bisons, and his speed is incredible, game changing.

    by bheikoop @ Royals Review on Jan 6, 2008 12:21 PM EST reply actions  

    yea, and don't forget...
    I was the guy who told USA Today that Shealy was GMDM's best picup and a guaranteed 25 HR guy...

    gag

    by Freneau on Jan 6, 2008 3:17 PM EST reply actions  

    I Was Right
    There with you; I doubt that is any comfort, but then, there it is.
    I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

    by philofthenorth on Jan 7, 2008 12:23 AM EST up reply actions  

    did you also have Meche down for a 5.00+ ERA?
    Because that was my bad offseason prediction...

    by marbotty on Jan 7, 2008 10:02 AM EST up reply actions  

    The Gilmeister will be around 4.35
    next season.  That is my off season "half full" prediction.

    by grudz69 on Jan 7, 2008 1:19 PM EST up reply actions  

    what lies between half-full and half-empty?
    Whatever it is, I think your prediction would be there -- it seems neither too optimistic nor too pessimistic.  

    Perhaps it's half-half.  Or a "Baby Bear" prediction?

    by marbotty on Jan 8, 2008 4:32 PM EST up reply actions  

    The scotch bottle is half full thats all I know.
    But, that leads me to the age old question. Do baby bears shit in the woods?

    by grudz69 on Jan 9, 2008 12:00 AM EST up reply actions  

    you would be the one
    to know the "age old questions" - you old fart
    Success is counted sweetest by those who ne'er succeed. - Emily Dickinson

    by buddyball on Jan 9, 2008 11:54 PM EST up reply actions  

    At least I don't blind airplane pilots with
    the sun glinting off my bald head.  

    by grudz69 on Jan 10, 2008 2:24 PM EST up reply actions  

    '09 Free Agents
    Off topic, I know, but I found a cool list of free agents for next offseason...

    http://mlbfleecefactor.com/09-free-agents/

    by ET90210 on Jan 6, 2008 6:56 PM EST reply actions  

    Comments For This Post Are Closed


    User Tools

    Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Kansas City Royals.

    Managers

    Cimg0036_small Freneau

    Editors

    Dayton_small Jeff Zimmerman

    Authors

    Royalsretro_small RoyalsRetro

    Headshot_small Old Man Duggan