Is Moore just a kid in a candy store...

by KC Chris on Mar 27, 2008 10:58 AM EDT

Is Moore just a kid in a candy store who's going to have a huge belly ache soon?

With the flurry of moves, and the general gutting of the team of non-essential players, it feels to me like Moore has been collecting a lot of AAA/AAAA guys (some of whom are out of options) and getting rid of younger guys to get them. It feels like we're having a strange minor league fire sale, but were not clearing any money, just getting different players. Is he just making moves to make moves? "We're terrible, so I need to trade somebody... let's see... eeny, meeny, miny, moe {pointing at roster with other hand over eyes}... Dang! I really like Greinke. Oh well, he's gotta go! Somebody get me Wren on the phone!!!"

I understand we've been a terrible franchise for a while, the minor league system was terrible, and we needed a change. But it makes me nervous to have so much organizational turnover, even if it is non-core players. If there aren't results in a rather short amount of time, I fear Glass will revert to a more hands on ownership. This makes really nervous about the first 20-30 games of the season.

With that said, Moore has shown a propensity for finding good, youngish pitchers. But it raises some questions, in my mind at least:

Has he gotten too big a head? "I can find a guy anywhere. I'm a Golden God! HAHAHAHA!"
Does he think McClure can fix everyone, so it doesn't matter who he picks up off the scrap heap? "Mac'll fix him. You know... that land on the ball not the heel thing..."
Is Peralta or Nunez the next PTBNL? (I think both have more trade value than that)
Is he making trades all willy nilly?
Am I off my rocker? (Please don't answer this one...)

Back to reality...

I am sort of blowing this out of proportion as the players who have been traded have been fairly inconsequential to the Royals recent results. But it seems like some of those guys could have been contributors. What do you guys think: Is Moore making strides, or just paddling upstream with different oars?

Tweet Comment 54 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Need to preface that

with the fact that I started writing it before thinking about the actual players too much...

by KC Chris on Mar 27, 2008 10:59 AM EDT reply actions

GMDM operates with these key factors in mind:

Pitching is the currency of baseball
You need roster depth, including depth not on your 25 man roster.

To this end, this means you should not look at the Royals pitching staff as a 12 man staff, but rather as an 18-20 man staff. At any given time, 6-8 of your guys will have to be in the minors, but also have to be capable of performing at only a slight dropoff from the 1-12 level guys.

Same goes for the position players.

If you look at it in this context, I think every move he has made makes sense. He is trying to make his team less vulnerable to injuries, which inevitably will occur to any organization given the demanding baseball schedule. In general, he has traded from his few areas of surplus to improve his areas of need.

Huber (1B, OF) was an area of surplus.
Callaso (middle IF) was an area of organizational need.

It is a bit overwhelming, considering GMDM is unabashed in his willingness to restructure the roster, especially as compared to his predecessor, but ask yourself this key question:

Are the Royals better positioned for both the present and the future than they were prior to GMDM taking over?

I think the answer to that question is an EMPHATIC "Yes".

by loyal2s dad on Mar 27, 2008 11:10 AM EDT reply actions

Agreed on the last rhetorical question

But, keep in mind, the best "players of the future," -- Gordon, Butler, Greinke, all were drafted before Moore came.

(I'm assuming you aren't one of those well-meant people who think that Pena, Jr. and Gathright are key to the future of the Royals)

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 27, 2008 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions

definitely

I definitely agree that we are in a better position now. I'm not so worried about the trades as the FA pickups, and how they are affecting roster space. And to be honest, I'm really not all that concerned about that either. This diary was more of a "Holy Crap we're moving a lot of dudes, and I hope that Glass doesn't expect too much out of it!" than anything.

by KC Chris on Mar 27, 2008 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions

I think its pretty normal

Roster shuffling this time of year. Other teams are doing it too. Lots of players are available right now due to roster crunches. Makes sense to grab guys with potential you think can help the team while trimming the fat off the organization.

I don't think its that many trades. He's made two trades, both PTBNL trades of little consequence.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mar 27, 2008 11:31 AM EDT reply actions

yes, fairly normal

by Freneau on Mar 27, 2008 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions

three PTBNL deals...

Salmon, Ramirez, and Huber

I agree, I'm just concerned about how Glass is viewing all of this.

by KC Chris on Mar 27, 2008 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions

It's nothing to worry about

In fact, getting anything for Huber is a plus because you don't have to DFA him. De La Rosa had his chances. It was really time to move on. German may be the next to go since we really only need one super utility guy and Callaspo has a better glove. I see Nunez as gone in a trade as well. His small frame and rough mechanics make him a prime candidate for an arm injury. These are the guys Moore tends to stay away from.

by royaldaddy on Mar 27, 2008 11:44 AM EDT reply actions

who is our super utiltiy guy when Grudz gets hurt?

Or when he no longer ends up being productive?

That's almost certain to happen this season or next at the very latest.

While I appreciate Callaspo makes for a fine utility player, I think we really want him to start or be ready to start when Grudz goes down. Then that means we have one of Smith, Berroa, or Aviles as the utility infielder. I don't see how that helps the team. And if both Grudz and Pena get hurt, we're in a whole lot of trouble if we don't have German.

If we get Meloan for German, it would be worth it. But we already seem to have a surplus of relievers -- perhaps to the point where we strangely may end up with one of our better ones not on the squad.

This space intentionally left blank.

by marbotty on Mar 27, 2008 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Utility infielders

On most teams are guys the equivalent of Jason Smith. I don't think its a bad thing. If utility infielders were good, they'd be starters.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mar 27, 2008 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions

good point

Ideally, I'd like to see German at 2B and Callaspo at SS.

That might murder our infield defense, but it would make a lot of sense when someone like Greinke is pitching. (cuz he gives up the flyballs)

This space intentionally left blank.

by marbotty on Mar 27, 2008 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions

it is especially nice

to have one with some "pop off the bench"...

Success is counted sweetest by those who ne'er succeed. - Emily Dickinson

by buddyball on Mar 27, 2008 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions

I'd like the supersub to be

Teahen.

by KC Chris on Mar 27, 2008 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions

I thought I heard Moore say

That the Rockies had 5 guys they were scouting for the PTBNL in that trade, and any of the five were acceptable to the Royals. It's not like Moore's opening up the store to unrealistic offers. Rodriguez is like Huber--a guy who held promise but ran out of time and space in his organization. If his arm is in 2006 shape, he should be a benefit, as he proved, at least that year while healthy, he can pitch effectively at the MLB level. To trade off one maybe-prospect for that is not a bad deal.

by CentralChamps2009 on Mar 27, 2008 11:53 AM EDT reply actions

I think Rodriguez might actually

hold more value for us than Huber did. If Rodriguez returns to his 2006 form, and you adjust for the move out of Colorado it he could be come a better than league average reliver...that's valuable to any organization.

I'd rather be watching baseball.

by Sisquatch Kids on Mar 27, 2008 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions

BTW

Its "Ramirez", not "Rodriguez" ;)

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mar 27, 2008 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions

sorry...the smoke from my crack pipe

was getting in my eyes while I was typing that.

I'd rather be watching baseball.

by Sisquatch Kids on Mar 27, 2008 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions

he does, unless Shealy and Gload both suck

Which is a very real possibility.

Although I guess you can fix that with Teahen/Butler at 1B/DH, and Gathright starting in the outfield.

This space intentionally left blank.

by marbotty on Mar 27, 2008 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions

Even if Shealy and Gload both suck

There is a good chance that Huber sucks as well. Also, while Shealy and Huber are big unknowns, Gload is not. He doesn't suck. He's not particularly good, but he doesn't suck. He's very mediocre.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Mar 27, 2008 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions

Much ado about nothing

Minor trades involving minor players. As others have stated in this thread that is what happens in late March for every team. You move some guys around who are out of options, losing some and maybe acquiring one. No big deal. I don't even know if I want to touch on the concerns in the original post. No, Moore doesn't have a big head. He's acquiring pitching talent. That's a good thing. There is room for both Peralta and Nunez on this team and, indeed, they will both be on the team after Olivo's suspension is up. No, he's not making trades "willy nilly." He's making sound and very minor little trades. It is hard to find fault with any of them, unless you know something about these guys that I don't. Are you off your rocker? No, but you are overreacting and there really isn't anything here to be concerned about.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Mar 27, 2008 2:47 PM EDT reply actions

Thanks for bringing some commonsense

to this post.

I'd rather be watching baseball.

by Sisquatch Kids on Mar 27, 2008 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions

+1

When you consider the talent of Ramon Ramirez, Justin Huber and Brad Salmon, we are talking guys who shift the balance of power. They won't be confused with Josh Beckett or Miguel Cabrera. They are 10th pitchers, utility types and the like. The PTBNL will be a minor leaguer or another utility type.

There are building block players like Greinke, Gordon and Butler and then there is fill in the blank types like Salmon or the other AAAA - you can name them. Duckworth, Braun, etc.

Much ado about nothing. It gives us something to write about before the meaningful games start.

by daveyork on Mar 27, 2008 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Exactly...

It gives us something to write about before the meaningful games start.

by KC Chris on Mar 27, 2008 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions

I guess I needed to be a little clearer

The last paragraph was what I was really wanting some response to...

"I am sort of blowing this out of proportion as the players who have been traded have been fairly inconsequential to the Royals recent results. But it seems like some of those guys could have been contributors. What do you guys think: Is Moore making strides, or just paddling upstream with different oars?"

by KC Chris on Mar 27, 2008 3:15 PM EDT reply actions

Ok

But it seems like some of those guys could have been contributors

Let's look at these guys:

Huber: There was no room for him. He's out of options and has Shealy and Gload ahead of him. So of course he had to be traded. This wasn't a "willy nilly" trade. It was moving a mediocre prospect who was out of options. The chance that he could have been a significant contributor to this team is low.

De La Rosa: He has very good stuff and very poor control. I would have been fine with keeping him on the team. But they had an opportunity to add Ramirez and from everything I've read, Ramirez is younger and better. So they basically had to choose between Ramirez or DLR. Moore chose wisely.

Blake Johnson: He's a mediocre prospect at best. Very mediocre stuff and pretty good control. Hard to say if he projects as a major league pitcher at all. Maybe a 7th reliever or 5th starter. Maybe. If you see a reliever who you like better who you think can help the team in the next year or two, I have no problem with trading him.

Is Moore making strides, or just paddling upstream with different oars?"

He's making minor moves here which move the team forward and make us at least a little better.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Mar 27, 2008 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions

Blake Johnson

There's still no evidence that he has been dealt. I have no idea how that rumor got started.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mar 27, 2008 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions

An oft-repeated rumor

But just a rumor, nonetheless. I wouldn't be surprised if it was him. And I wouldn't mind a bit. It will likely be a prospect of about his quality.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Mar 27, 2008 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions

like i said

I was blowing that all out of proportion. I didn't really think any of those guys were going to make the team, but if they did, they could have contributed. I should have clarified that to say "contribute like a Shane Costa". Yeah, we'd get some semi-solid play out of him, he might hit a double here and there, and he won't make too many errors, but he's never going to be more than that. And I don't think Johnson will ever spend much time in the big leagues. Maybe he will, but not for a while. In fact, I defended getting Salmon for Johnson (if that's who it does turn out to be) in the previous diary about that.

To be absolutely clear: I have no problems with any of the trades Moore has made. We're not disagreeing on this!

I was just curious if everybody felt like the moves will turn out to help, and how so. Some of the guys on here are stats hounds, so I thought maybe someone would conjure up some comparison as to why a Ramirez is better than a DLR, or if maybe they thought it was the worst move in history becuase his ERA+ or K/9 rate or whatever... Anyway, I guess I'll just drop it because I know how I feel about it.

btw, how do you do the bold and italics and what not? That would add some clarification to when I'm being sarcastic in a diary/comment...

by KC Chris on Mar 27, 2008 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions

Ramirez is better than DLR

At least that's my read, from both scouting reports and stats. I've put some of that in a new diary on Ramirez.

When you want to italicize put underscores (underlines) immediately before and immediately after what you want to italicize. For bold, use asterisks before and after (don't have a space between the underscore or asterisk and the text).

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Mar 27, 2008 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions

I"ll check it out

thanks for the info

by KC Chris on Mar 27, 2008 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions

Heh,

at least I learned something today!

by loyal2s dad on Mar 27, 2008 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions

From now on, all of your posts should be

...either italicized or bolded. You can also underline, but I don't know how to do that.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Mar 27, 2008 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Don't forget to add

TONS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS AND ALL CAPS!!!!!!!!111!

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 28, 2008 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions

blake johnson

It's absolutely, 100%, not Johnson that's going to the Reds.

Calling his stuff mediocre is short selling him...his curve is the best in the organization and it's not like he's a soft tosser (88-93).

by doublestix on Mar 27, 2008 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions

Do you know someone in the Royals front office?

Unless you have some inside information, then you're just guessing. He's a very mediocre prospect and he's just the kind of guy who gets dealt in a trade like this.

Blake Johnson's stuff is very mediocre. His fastball is merely average and his curveball is definitely not the best in the organization. Cortes's curve is better. I don't know if Blake Johnson's fastball is even in the organization's top 3.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Mar 27, 2008 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions

oook...

http://royals.scout.com/a.z?s=281&p=9&c=2&cid=740271&nid=3664239&fhn=1

Short sell him if you like, I guess.

by doublestix on Mar 27, 2008 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions

You had it right when you said...

...that his curveball is "among the best in the system. Baseball America recognizes that Cortes's curve is the best in the system. Blake Johnson is a very mediocre pitching prospect. Considering the failure rate of pitching prospects and his mediocre stuff, I'd be surprised if he ever became a decent MLB pitcher.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Mar 27, 2008 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions

I disagree a bit

I think most of the time PTBNL for no-namers like Salmon are usually (a) former good minor leaguers coming off major injury; (b) former good minor leaguers coming off a disastrous season; (c) organizational filler.

Johnson doesn't fit (a) or (b) and I think he's more than organizational filler. The likelihood of him making the majors is not great, but I think he has more value than a Brad Salmon.

I don't think its Blake Johnson at all, like I said, I don't know where that came from. Johnson would be a more suitable PTBNL for Ramirez, but not an organizational filler guy like Brad Salmon.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mar 27, 2008 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions

I disagree

Salmon has more value to the organization right now than Blake Johnson does. Does that mean he will never be better than Brad Salmon? No. But right now, Salmon is 2-3 years ahead of Johnson as far as contributing to hte Royals.

by KC Chris on Mar 27, 2008 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes

Mediocre prospects like Blake Johnson are often the return for a pitcher like Salmon.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Mar 27, 2008 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree

I think Colorado is going to get someone farther along in development than Johnson for Ramirez. Why would CR trade a guy who's had minor success in the bigs for an A+ pitcher?

by KC Chris on Mar 27, 2008 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions

Haven't seen him pitch but

His stat line looks decent
Inn 131.2 hits 119 BB 33 GO/AO 1.4
Started year as 21 yr old in High A. Had 4 out of 5 real quality starts to finish year. Have you seen this guy pitch NYR? You seem pretty positive that he's mediocre, but he looks like he has some upside here.

Yoda

by Yoda @ Royals Review on Mar 27, 2008 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Haven't seen him pitch

I'm not a scout and I don't pretend to be. I'm not much interested in the opinions of amateur scouts and what they think of a pitcher. I don't intend that as an insult to anyone. With regard to scouting, we are all amateurs. That's why I value the scouting reports one can find at Baseball America, Baseball Prospectus, Scouts.com and from guys like Sickels. They have access to scouts and front office personnel throughout baseball. In addition to their own professional or semi-professional scouting observations, they distill the opinions and comments of scouts into their scouting reports.

What I've read about Blake Johnson isn't overly impressive. He's got one good pitch and it isn't his fastball. It's hard for a guy with stuff like that to make it in the majors. Few do.

I'm not saying he stinks. I'm not saying he's worthless. But the vast majority of pitching prospects fail. A small percentage become decent major league pitchers. Do I think that Blake Johnson has what it takes to be in that small group? No.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Mar 27, 2008 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Definitely making strides

I think the moves he made this week are on the periphery, they're not really organization-progressing moves. But they're also a huge improvement on Baird. No doubt our collection or talent and depths has improved leaps and bounds. To wit, check out this collection of moves.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mar 27, 2008 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions

I have to admit

I threw up in my mouth a little while glancing through that list!

by KC Chris on Mar 27, 2008 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions

We Had A

Guy named Gookie, so at least he accomplished that.

I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Mar 27, 2008 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions

yikes

That's cringe-inducing. Oh, and did they misspell Calvin Pickering's name, or did we really have a Casey Pickering playing for us, too?

This space intentionally left blank.

by marbotty on Mar 27, 2008 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions

Very

Happy with Dayton Moore's work.. we all know you cant make every trade perfect things have to pan out. He first got here and did the Gathright trade which I liked because we didnt have speed then or now. Then Bannister for Burgos - WOW. and someone correct me if im wrong but was it Sisco for Gload ? if it was again - WOW. Buckner for Callaspo I think everyone will begin to see in a few years just how good that trade was, the guy never strikes out and I love the way he hits. I consider him a poor mans Placido Polanco with a little more power and im not sure about Callaspo's defense because i have never seen a lot of it. Meche - who saw that coming, i know, Dayton did. And lets not forget this winter he aggresively went after Torii Hunter, Andruw Jones, Hiroki Kuroda, and possibly Kosuke Fukudome. Its a shame we had to settle for Guillen although he could turn out well. Not a big fan of the Tomko pickup either but as someone said its just a fill-in for Hochevar. But I must say Hillman acquisation looks very good, i love hillman's work so far. And not to mention, how long has it been since we have had this much depth in our minor leagues especially in the pitching rotation

I love life. Life = Royals

by focs on Mar 27, 2008 3:30 PM EDT reply actions

Indeed

I love the direction we're going.

by KC Chris on Mar 27, 2008 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions

And

He is making Low-Risk Moves for us that could benefit us a lot

I love life. Life = Royals

by focs on Mar 27, 2008 3:34 PM EDT reply actions

I suppose Moore

could trade his incoming PTBNL to satisfy one of his outgoing PTBNLs, in a round about way.

That would be weird, but not as weird as what I read happened one time - a PTBNL was once traded for himself! That is, the acquiring team simply returned the player they acquired for a PTBNL back to the trading team after a period of time.

by loyal2s dad on Mar 27, 2008 5:24 PM EDT reply actions