Poll: Has the mood become too negative?

very strange cover

The Wrestler made me think about it for some reason

by royalsreview on Jan 12, 2009 1:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Positivity is a good thing

FYI:

baseballreference.com has marquis grissom and lenny dykstra as comparables to coco crisp at the same age and tino martinez for mike jacobs.

just food for thought . . . . . .

by royalstern05 on Jan 11, 2009 10:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Jacobs has a way to go to catch Tino. If Jacobs develops into anything close to Mr. M. then that might not be that bad of a pickup. Even if he just hits the same amount of home runs in 2009 as he did in 2008 I will be happy.

Negativity … I think as was said when we wanted to lynch Buddy Bell or his cardboard cutout that we were going overboard then just as some people are now. It could be like a kid at Christmas. You are so excited for the day to get here so you can unwrap the presents that you get upset at Santa. Some could be so anxious for the season to start that their patience is wearing a bit thin and they are getting a little on edge with every non important move that the Royals make. Willie who???? The glass is half full and the sun will come up in Surprise, Az. tommorrow morning.

by grudz96 on Jan 11, 2009 10:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

i loved Marquis grissom back in his expos days

by royalsreview on Jan 11, 2009 10:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He was good, once.

by grudz96 on Jan 11, 2009 10:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

those early 90s expos teams...

good stuff. Larry Walker was awesome, even though I never really liked him for some reason. Grissom and Delino DeSheilds — underrated guys up the middle with speed and good OBPs.

Of course, that was right before the emergence of the Great Rondell.

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 11, 2009 11:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't forget Grudz!

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Jan 11, 2009 11:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

another underrated guy

I wonder how many player who got the label “injury prone” had knee and back problems that originated on the concrete “turf” and the Big O?

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 11, 2009 11:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i think more people are having negative reactions

but the positive people are more upset about the negativity

by royalsreview on Jan 11, 2009 10:41 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

indeed

then again, we shouldn’t be surprised. I’ve heard Farns has kids all over the place…

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 11, 2009 10:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm a pessimist by nature.

and as a pessimist, I get the benefit of either being correct or pleasantly surprised.

by mdeeter on Jan 11, 2009 10:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I voted negative

Sorry. I love the discussion and there hasn’t been much to be positive about. It’s just that any time someone comments about a chance a player could be good, they get shot down repeatedly.

Seems like it’s about time to turn the page. It’s not all sunshine and rainbows, but we do still have Mexicutions to look forward to, Baconators, Alex Gordon improving, and other things.

by Warden11 on Jan 11, 2009 10:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

mmmmmmm Baconators....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igwOa7rohJ4

by Fernando Vina School of Linguistics on Jan 11, 2009 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hey It's an internet fan site! We're supposed to whine & cry!

There’s been some “negativity” but I think most of the complaints have actually been constructive. The complainers here I think share a common ground: We want the Royals to be as good as possible and get upset when we think the management team is wandering offtrack.

by hunter s. royal on Jan 11, 2009 11:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The mood here has become ridiculously negative.

I have read too many rash things said about Dayton Moore over the last 2 weeks.

The Nation at large.

by Royals Nation on Jan 11, 2009 11:38 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

Don't worry, I've got a love letter to the Glass Family coming out that will melt your heart

too many rash things said about them!

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 11, 2009 11:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ridiculous?

Only ridiculous if one wears rose colored glass. Or Royal blue colored glasses.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 4:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Spoken by the primary...

…perpetrator of negativity, the Emperor/Darth Vader of Royals Review. – TL

[In 2008] Kila Ka’aihue had the best on-base percentage of any hitter in the minor leagues. - Joe Posnanski, 11/9/2008 ... Ergo, let's give him a shot at first base in KC in 2009.

by timlacy on Jan 12, 2009 10:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

When I'm positive, I'm called a "pollyanna". When I'm negative, I'm called the primary perpetrator of negativity, and/or Darth Vader

BTW, you can shorten that to PPN if you like, or just “Darth.”

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 10:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I feel like there has been one blatantly stupid move

And that was Farnsworth. You have in the past talked about not knowing what opportunities were in front of Dayton and therefore not judging moves because we don’t know all factors. That seems to apply to most every other move this offseason.

by Bornin85 on Jan 12, 2009 12:17 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

We know who the available FA's were (and are)

And we know how much many of them signed for. Of course the Royals would have had to pay more. But there’s no reason to believe that none of them were available to the Royals. And it’s not like Moore waited to see if he could sign some of these better players, couldn’t and then went with plan B’s. He very quickly jumped at the trades and Farnsy/HoRam signings.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 2:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

True.

Then that would mean he needs to learn patience and negotiating. But does it mean he can’t evaluate talent? That seems like a false conclusion.

by Bornin85 on Jan 12, 2009 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It sure looks like he and his people can't evaluate position player talent very well

Let’s look at what he’s done with regard to position players in the majors:

Signed Guillen
Signed Olivo
Re-signed Olivo
Traded for Callaspo
Extended Gload
Re-signed Grudz (twice)
Traded for Crisp
Traded for Jacobs

Of those eight moves, I see only two as moderately positive net moves (Crisp and Callaspo acqusitions). Perhaps Grudz as he performed well, but I think both re-signings were short-sighted given the Royals alternatives. So we’ve got two or three kind of ok moves and the rest were genuinely bad. So there has to be poor talent evaluation there.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Actually

Although I’m with you overall, the Gload resigning isn’t horrible. I haven’t looked at the numbers, but you could make an argument that during Moore’s time in KC, Grudz performed the best out of all those guys.

Of course, when Mark Grudzas;lkjasdf;kj is the best position player you’ve signed or traded for…

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 12, 2009 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

When you said "Gload" in that first line, did you mean Grudz?

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes

yikes

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 12, 2009 3:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is why it was short-sighted:

It was clear to everyone that Grudz wouldn’t be around by the time the Royals were in contention. So, do you pay him $4M+ per year as a placeholder when you’re a rebuilding team? In a vacuum, I say probably not. Given the Royals particular situation, I say definitely not. Both times Moore re-signed Grudz, German was with the team, ready to step in and be the starting 2B. Was he as good as Grudz? No. But he was pretty good and had a shot to be the Royals 2B into the contention period. I thought it made more sense at the time to see what German looks like over a full season or two as a starting 2B and use the $4M per year that the Royals would save to add to the pool of money from which they could sign one or more genuinely good FA’s.

Grudz earned his money. But I don’t think he was the right man for the Royals the last two years.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 3:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yea yea

I just wanted to get the “if Grudz is the best player…” thing

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 12, 2009 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, that's a pretty low ceiling for a GM to hit

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

although on grudz...

there may have been some merit to signing him merely to trade him

which of course never happened

by royalsreview on Jan 12, 2009 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How does...

…veteran leadership (i.e. setting an example via work ethic, professionalism, responsibility) factor into some of these signings? Guillen is obviously out here, but what of Grudz, Gload, Olivo (maybe?)? – TL

by timlacy on Jan 12, 2009 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Olivo was a good signing.

by jbrocato on Jan 13, 2009 8:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The first Olivo signing was ok...meh

The second was really stupid.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 13, 2009 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I will say one thing

You got railed this summer for being positive during the season when this board was going through a real negative time (one of the losing streaks, I believe). These things change every few months.

by I need more Esteban on Jan 12, 2009 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not to be negative or anything

But if you can pay Pat Burrell 2 years, $16M and we pay out more than that to crap relievers and players who are have more grit than sandpaper, it gets really frustrating. It’s like all the other baseball GMs are doing better jobs than DM. I guess we’ll see who was justified after this season plays out. If anything, I think we aren’t being negative enough.

What’s most frustrating about this whole process is that I believe the Royals will win between 80 and 85 games this year (based on improvements from Gordon, Butler, and Kila if he plays), and the moves GMDM has made do not add to the win total for the most part. With a Burrell, Dunn, Sheets, etc. we could have significantly improved at least 1 position and filled with our other stuff. In fact, these all feel like lateral moves, not contending moves. We are treading water, and you can only do that for so long before your legs give out and you drown.

I agree though, everyone could have a breakout year, the Royals could win the World Series, and monkeys could colonize Mars.

by AxDxMx on Jan 12, 2009 10:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They're actually working on that monkeys-to-Mars thing

So I guess anything really is possible.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 10:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Farnsworth might be just fine,

and since he has closed before maybe Moore will give more consideration to the idea of moving Soria into the rotation and letting Farny try his hand in the ninth again. I’d be happy to see this experiment in April. And as long as Farnsworth pitches well at all he should be tradable in 2010. So I do not hate the Farnsworth signing.

Coco Crisp is fine. Not good, but not bad. I do not hate him on the roster. He probably will be an upgrade over Costa/Maier in 2009 so he probably represents a marginal roster upgrade. I don’t like him pushing Teahen to the bench. I expect Teahen will prove to be the better player in 2009.

I very much dislike Jacobs and Bloomquist. And I very much liked Nunez.

Moore hasn’t given away Teahen or DeJesus on the cheap. I like that. And I like the Shealy is still part of the team.

It’s not been a disastrous off-season. Just a disappointing winter, a slow string of unforced errors.

What makes it seem worse than it really has been, from my perspective at least, is that I expected more from Dayton Moore. That and the many possibilities Moore missed out on which truly would have helped the club, such as signing Adam Dunn instead of trading for Crisp and Jacobs. I expect Dunn will cost about as much as those two guys, and I’m sure he would have added more to the team then they are likely to contribute.

Oh well, I do not think the 2009 Royals will be worse than the 2008 team. And I have hopes for 85 wins. If things break right for the team the season might be very interesting all the way into September.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Jan 11, 2009 11:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

i too would've liked to see Dunn, but he did state that he wanted to go to a contender....

by Fernando Vina School of Linguistics on Jan 12, 2009 12:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

but if he came to KC, they could be a contender

The concept of progress acts as a protective mechanism to shield us from the terrors of the future. - Collected sayings of Muad'Dib

by buddyball on Jan 12, 2009 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm willing to wait until a couple of weeks into spring training

before I start climbing out onto the ledge.

The concept of progress acts as a protective mechanism to shield us from the terrors of the future. - Collected sayings of Muad'Dib

by buddyball on Jan 11, 2009 11:40 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

Ditto.

Let’s see where we’re at around June 15-30 before we start that perpetual cycle of negativity that surrounds the Royals. – TL

[In 2008] Kila Ka’aihue had the best on-base percentage of any hitter in the minor leagues. - Joe Posnanski, 11/9/2008 ... Ergo, let's give him a shot at first base in KC in 2009.

by timlacy on Jan 12, 2009 10:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm split

I really have no problem with Farns, Jacobs, Crisp, Waechter or Ho Ram. Do I think that we paid too much, or gave up value to acquire them? Sometimes, but I really don’t care how much we spend, because I believe we have the CAPABILITY to spend $90M + and still operate in the Black as an organization.

Bloomquist makes no sense to me though. Signing a 31 year old journeyman-esque Middle IF is pretty much pointless to me. I would normally say that it makes no sense to me YET, as we have yet to see what GMDM’s next move is, but I don’t see any move that can be made that adds any value to the signing. He is worse than German as a U. He is worse than Aviles or callaspo as a 2B/SS. Hell, he’s worse than Gload as a U for that matter.

I do that that GMDM is not done yet. I think there is still the distinct possibility that one or more of Buck, Teahen, Gload, DDJ, German, Butler, Shealy, Kia, will be moved in the coming few months.

I, for one, have stopped checking this board as much though because the negativity has become so frequent & vile.

by GoBabies!! on Jan 11, 2009 11:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Way too negative

It’s easy to criticize, but let’s not forget that the win total has increased by 6 or so every year since GMDM took over. How much does he need to do to get cut a little slack around here? I’m not saying that I think Kyle Farnsworth is worth almost $5MM per year (I’d love to know who GMDM thought he was bidding against for his services), but I do think the Royals will do better next year than they did last year, and the doom-and-gloomers need to keep a broader perspective.

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Jan 12, 2009 12:03 AM EST reply actions 1 recs

How much does Moore need to do to get cut a little slack around here?

More good moves and fewer stupid ones.

but I do think the Royals will do better next year than they did last year,

Is that the standard of GM success? By all accounts the team would likely do better in 2009 than 2008 if he hadn’t done anything at all. I think you are setting the bar ridiculously low.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 4:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think

that a measured pace of steady improvement four years running is a ridiculously low bar. And let’s not forget the so far solid-looking foundation for the future he’s been building in the minors while managing to improve the major league team by 6-7 games every year.

It’s easy enough to say that there was nowhere to go but up, given what he was left with. But Allard Baird managed to have a 2004 worse than 2002, and a 2005 that was worse still.

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Jan 12, 2009 8:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think that a measured pace of steady improvement four years running is a ridiculously low bar

First, where do you get “four years running”? Moore has been the GM for less than three years. And there has been improvement over that period of time. But of course Moore doesn’t get credit for the contributions of Gordon, Butler, Greinke or anyone who was here when he got here. He gets credit for the additions and subtractions that he has made. He gets credit for bringing in Meche and Soria. He gets the blame for all of the bad moves (I won’t list them yet again).

And of course the Royals should be better in 2009 than 2008. But more steady improvement due in large part to the continued development of players already in the system and on the team when he arrived cannot be credited to Moore. If the Royals win 81 games thanks to improvements from Butler, Greinke etc., but we see mediocrity or worse from Moore’s guys like Jacobs, Farnsworth, Bloomy, etc. would it make sense to give Moore credit? Of course not.

And again, getting to .500 would be nice. But it is much harder to get from 80 wins to 90 than it was to get from 70 wins to 80. And don’t you think Moore has shown us that he’s not the kind of GM who can likely get us there? Most prospects fail. You can’t expect a bunch of prospects to pan out and turn into good major leaguers. A GM has to augment them with good trades and FA signings. It sure doesn’t look like DM has it in him. If you can’t evaluate major league talent very well, it’s hard to be a good GM.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 8:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It will be four years running

If the pace holds true next year. 2006-2007-2008-2009. You said “better in 2009 than in 2008 is a low bar”. My point was that it’s not just the one year I’m thinking about.

And I do think Moore will deserve some of the credit if the players show some improvement. If the lineup or in-game strategy or clubhouse chemistry works better under Hillman than it did under Bell, Hillman was his hire. If the hitters show more improvement under Seitzer than under Mike Barnett, that’s Moore’s credit. If Mike Jacobs and Jose Guillen are exactly as bad as everyone here thinks they are, but because opponents afraid of the long-ball, his presence provides protection for Gordon and Butler, and results in better stats for them, that’s Moore’s credit too.

Any number of different things can happen next year. When the team has improved to the tune of 18 games since his arrival, I think he deserves a little more slack than he’s been given. His off-season moves haven’t yet been proven out on the field to be bad. I’m not saying he can’t be criticized, but I do think that people are hitting way too much of a panic button.

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Jan 12, 2009 9:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It can be four years running....after Moore has been here for four years

And I do think Moore will deserve some of the credit if the players show some improvement. If the lineup or in-game strategy or clubhouse chemistry works better under Hillman than it did under Bell, Hillman was his hire. If the hitters show more improvement under Seitzer than under Mike Barnett, that’s Moore’s credit.

Well, we’ll never be able to figure out if coaches caused any improvement of course. But Gordon and Butler were supposed to turn into good-to-great hitters. If they finally blossom, are you going to give the credit to Hillman and/or Seitzer? Did you give Bell/Hillman/McClure, and therefore Moore, the credit for Greinke’s blossoming? I don’t think we should. When players who were supposed to become very good actually become very good, then I don’t think the credit goes to the coaching staff.

If Mike Jacobs and Jose Guillen are exactly as bad as everyone here thinks they are, but because opponents afraid of the long-ball, his presence provides protection for Gordon and Butler, and results in better stats for them, that’s Moore’s credit too.

Out of curiosity, how are you going to determine if that happened. Let’s say Guillen and Jacobs are exactly as bad as most predict and Butler and Gordon have good seasons. How do we determine if the bizarre, inexplicable fear pitchers had of Guillen and Jacobs were a partial cause of Butler and Gordon’s good seasons?

When the team has improved to the tune of 18 games since his arrival, I think he deserves a little more slack than he’s been given.

I think we (certainly I) have given him a lot of slack. He used up a good chunk of it by signing Guillen and having that quickly turn into a failure. He used up the rest of it this offseason.

but I do think that people are hitting way too much of a panic button.

Calling a spade a spade isn’t hitting the panic button. A fair evaluation of a GM’s entire body of work over 2 3/4 years isn’t hitting the panic button.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 9:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

GMs who work for KC need...

…about 4-5 years before the truest of judgments can role in. Why? Fans and observers need to see the full effects of a GM’s drafts. The signing of free agents is not THE BEST way to judge a GM. The free agent market is too willy-nilly, especially w/r/t low-budget/small-market teams—-i.e. KC. – TL

[In 2008] Kila Ka’aihue had the best on-base percentage of any hitter in the minor leagues. - Joe Posnanski, 11/9/2008 ... Ergo, let's give him a shot at first base in KC in 2009.

by timlacy on Jan 12, 2009 10:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No one is judging Moore solely on his FA moves

In fact, I’ve evaluated him looking at everything he’s done, including drafts, trades, FA signings, staffing and more. The whole picture looks pretty mediocre. It looks like with Moore we’re going to have to hang all of our hopes on prospects. And a bunch of them are going to have to blossom at the same time for the Royals to contend. Again, that’s how it looks so far.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 10:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But most of the negativity...

…around here over the past 2-4 weeks has centered on FA signings. As a poster said below, do we really know what realistic options have come across GMDM’s desk? I actually think he’s done just fine with regard holding the line at the ML level until the better prospects percolate upward. – TL

[In 2008] Kila Ka’aihue had the best on-base percentage of any hitter in the minor leagues. - Joe Posnanski, 11/9/2008 ... Ergo, let's give him a shot at first base in KC in 2009.

by timlacy on Jan 12, 2009 10:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But most of the negativity…
…around here over the past 2-4 weeks has centered on FA signings.

And with good cause. They’ve been very bad. But we’ve discussed at length Moore’s complete track record, including the drafts, trades and more. This is one thread which discusses the totality of his moves as Royals GM. And other recent threads discuss why the fact that Moore is bad with FA’s is important. It means, if this continues, that the Royals can only contend when there is a fairly large core group of prospects on the the team at the same time who have panned out blossomed at the same time, because Moore can’t be counted on to augment them with good, shrewd FA signings. And that’s a problem.

As a poster said below, do we really know what realistic options have come across GMDM’s desk?

That doesn’t alibi all of his bad moves, and the failure to make good ones. Moore jumped on the market early to make inexplicable sigings like Farnsworth and HoRam. There was such a glut of corner OFers that it would have made sense to wait a bit and see what happens to that market and maybe some bargains would fall through the cracks. Turns out many bargains showed themselves. There were so many decent FA’s for the Royals to sign, even at $2M more per season than they signed elsewhere. To argue that perhaps none of them would have signed with the Royals even for that much more money is simply unbelievable. I understand that the Royals have to overbid other teams. But if one is arguing that FA’s would just avoid KC completely without regard to how many millions we throw at them, then that’s just nuts.

I actually think he’s done just fine with regard holding the line at the ML level until the better prospects percolate upward.

He’s spent many, many millions of dollars on below average and even replacement level players. I don’t see how anyone could seriously describe that as doing a fine job of holding the line at the ML level. I think one can only come to that conclusion of one doesn’t look too close at the signings, or if one really wants to come to that conclusion.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 10:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+10

by wildthang on Jan 12, 2009 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd almost say it would be completely

unfair to judge a GM by his drafts as baseball is uniquely prone to tons of big time draft busts. The major league moves is where it counts most, and those can be judged year to year.

by AxDxMx on Jan 12, 2009 10:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Isolate the differences

Well, we’ll never be able to figure out if coaches caused any improvement of course. But Gordon and Butler were supposed to turn into good-to-great hitters. If they finally blossom, are you going to give the credit to Hillman and/or Seitzer? Did you give Bell/Hillman/McClure, and therefore Moore, the credit for Greinke’s blossoming? I don’t think we should. When players who were supposed to become very good actually become very good, then I don’t think the credit goes to the coaching staff.

It’s not easy to isolate a specific factor (and multiple factors may well be at work), and one year is no doubt too small a sample size to start declaring a correlation, but in principle, logic dictates that if something changed to a significant degree, then there needs to be a factor that explains the change. If the coach or surrounding lineup or whatever has changed, that’s certainly a reasonable candidate at least in part.

And quite frankly, I do think Buddy Bell and Bob McClure deserve some credit for nursing Zach Grienke back to major-league competition. and the starting rotation in specific in a healthful manner. And I’d also say that McClure probably gets some degree of credit for settling down Grienke’s pitching mindset from experimental avant-garde picthing to effective, real-world pitching.

How do we determine if the bizarre, inexplicable fear pitchers had of Guillen and Jacobs were a partial cause of Butler and Gordon’s good seasons?

It’s not bizarre to fear the longball, even from a low-OBP producer, in certain situations. Do you really think pitchers throw the same stuff to Gordon if the next batter will be Guillen as if the next batter would be, say, Gload or Buck? I imagine the difference can be quantifiable, if you break out games in which certain people are hitting next in the order vs games in which they aren’t. It can probably be further refined based on how many outs there are when the player under analysis bats, and based on how many runs difference there are in the game. Not that I have the time to do something like that.

Calling a spade a spade isn’t hitting the panic button. A fair evaluation of a GM’s entire body of work over 2 3/4 years isn’t hitting the panic button.

I see his body of work as steady improvement. You see that improvement as something that would have happened no matter who the GM was or exceeded if the GM was someone particularly talented. Which viewppoint you start from will definitely color your reaction to, say, the signing of Willie Bloomquist.

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Jan 12, 2009 10:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

protection is a myth -- this is shown over and over again

end of transmission

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 12, 2009 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s not bizarre to fear the longball, even from a low-OBP producer, in certain situations.

It would be truly bizarre for pitchers to fear any batter who makes little contact, doesn’t get on base and hits around 25 HR’s over the course 600 PA’s.

Do you really think pitchers throw the same stuff to Gordon if the next batter will be Guillen as if the next batter would be, say, Gload or Buck?

I actually think pitchers would be more afraid of pitching to Gordon than to Jacobs or Guillen. Jacobs and Guillen provide poor protection for anyone. They simply aren’t good hitters.

I imagine the difference can be quantifiable, if you break out games in which certain people are hitting next in the order vs games in which they aren’t. It can probably be further refined based on how many outs there are when the player under analysis bats, and based on how many runs difference there are in the game. Not that I have the time to do something like that.

Those are good ideas. And others have had those ideas. And quantified the phenomenon, isolated it and measured it….and found that it didn’t exist. Protection in the lineup is an old school idea that people assumed was real, but simply isn’t.

I see his body of work as steady improvement. You see that improvement as something that would have happened no matter who the GM was or exceeded if the GM was someone particularly talented. Which viewppoint you start from will definitely color your reaction to, say, the signing of Willie Bloomquist.

I don’t see how any viewpoint can justify spending $3M on a replacement level player.

Unfortunately, you are evaluating Moore strictly on the Royals record under his tenure. That is an exceptionally poor way to evaluate what Moore has actually done and failed to do.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Compared to what, exactly?

I don’t see how any viewpoint can justify spending $3M on a replacement level player.

Assuming you mean Bloomquist rather than Jacobs, that $3M is over two years, so we’re talking about 3x the league minimum for each year. Is it wonderful? Is it a bargain-licious steal? Is it going to be sung of on high by an angelic choir? No. Is it out of line with what replacement-level players command on the open market these days? No, it’s not.

Unfortunately, you are evaluating Moore strictly on the Royals record under his tenure. That is an exceptionally poor way to evaluate what Moore has actually done and failed to do.

And what exactly is the best way to evaluate him, outside of that? Comparisons to other general managers? Compared to his predecessors, he’s done great. That’s not saying much, but the comparison is there to be used, take it or leave it. Surely you’re not going to compare him to GMs in New York or Los Angeles or Philadelphia who have much larger markets and budgets. You can try comparing him to GMs in Colorado and Detroit, who took crappy teams, got them pretty quickly to a World Series but they seem to have crash and burn afterward. You can compare him to GMs of other perpetual small-market doormats like Pittsburgh and Cincinnati and he looks better. You can hop onto the bandwagons of Milwaukee and Tampa Bay and point to one year’s success, I suppose. In the end, there are only a few small-market GMs who have shown any ability to build consistent winners, I’m thinking of Oakland and Minnesota. That’s a pretty high bar to expect of Moore, and given the continued improvement at all levels of the Royals organization, I think it’s unfair to already conclude he can’t reach it, or at least more closely approach it.

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Jan 12, 2009 12:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

By definition

it is $2.6M over what replacement players command on the market

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 12, 2009 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Assuming that by replacement player

you mean “league minimum”, that’s 2.2M more, not 2.6. 3M for two years, not one. A little more than a million extra per year. What’s a million to a baseball team these days?

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Jan 12, 2009 12:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I assume you wouldn't need to sign a replacment player to a multi-uyyear deal

In any case, one million a year? That’s about the twice difference between what Mike Jacobs is going to get in arbitration and what Jason Giambi is going to get paid by the As next season.

CHONE projects Giambi to be worth about 18 runs (1.8 wins) better than Mike Jacobs next season.

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 12, 2009 12:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I assume that Bloomquist

probably had, at that pretty low price, other suitors and we wanted some more options in the middle infield.

Giambi might well be worth more than Jacobs this year, but Jacobs in under control for a while longer. Not to mention that the Royals probably figured that the Yankees were going to take Giambi back (not expecting the Tex signing that early on).

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Jan 12, 2009 12:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

whatever

not arguing the Royals should have picked up Giambi (although it shows the handle on the market GMDM had that he’s going to give Jacobs almost as much), just making a point about the market and why a million dollars matters, especially when DMGM does talk about “fiscal responsibility” and stuff

and the idea of getting into a bidding war over Willie Bloomquist, well, if true, that speaks to the competence of all the GMs involved

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 12, 2009 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Do you really want to control Jacobs for multiple years?

The fact that he’s under team control for multiple years actually makes him more risky. The worry is that as bad as he is for $3.5M, Moore might offer him arbitration next year and we could have this well below average 1B for more than $5M. In case you were wondering, that wouldn’t be a good thing.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If he does badly

then we just don’t bother offering arbitration.

Beats him doing well and then watching some other team grab him with a fatter wallet.

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Jan 12, 2009 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If he does badly
then we just don’t bother offering arbitration.

Here’s the problem, if he does what he’s projected to do, he’ll perform at the level of a well below average first baseman. But I think those projected stats look pretty good to Moore. I think he likes raw counting stats like HR and RBI. He clearly overvalues power at the corners and doesn’t understand the real value of OBP throughout the lineup. So Jacobs could do what he’s expected to do and I think Moore would likely tender him. That’s a big risk. That extra year of control really isn’t a positive.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and the guy given up

Nunez (who’s just as valuable a player, probably more valuble) is under control for longer

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 12, 2009 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Good point

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 3:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought the consensus was

That Leo wasn’t such a big deal to give up, since he’s so fragile and since middle relief is easy to find.

Granted, that was before RamRam was traded away and Farnsworth signed for an insane amount, but at the time, I didn’t see anyone bemoaning that we gave up too much. Just that we got the wrong guy.

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Jan 12, 2009 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That Leo wasn’t such a big deal to give up, since he’s so fragile and since middle relief is easy to find.

Trading him certainly wasn’t a problem, but he has value and you need to make sure you get back something of particular value to the Royals. Even with his injuries, his contributions to the Royals were valuable. Jacobs below average performance at his position, and not providing something substantially better than the Royals available options made him a poor exchange for Jacobs. This is particularly true considering that Nunez as very cheap, while Jacobs costs $3.5M. This is doubly true because Nunez had more years of team control, and he’s a player who you’d actually like to have around for all of those years, unlike Jacobs.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 3:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If Jacobs

takes Gload’s spot, what is the fallout?

by Warden11 on Jan 12, 2009 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The fallout

1. Loss of Nunez
2. Loss of $3.5M which could have been spent elsewhere
3. Worse infield defense
4. Decreased PT for Shealy and Kila (this would have been a good year to see if Shealy is a legitimate option for the Royals contending future and to see if Kila is for real)
5. The very real risk of decreased PT for Butler (Hillman could definitely do that)
6. The risk that Moore offers arbitration to Jacobs for 2010 at $5M+

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 8:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ok

Loss of Nunez- this is where Moore feels he can make that up. Correct? Whether or not he can is still up for debate.

The $3.5 M is a big hit, nothing to really argue there.

Worse infield defense at first base. We heard all last year how terrible Billy was at first, yet he never really hurt us.

Decreased PT for Shealy and Kila, which they didn’t get last year at all. Shealy didn’t get much of a chance last year, I’m not sure he was going to this year anyway. Kila could definitely use some time in AAA to see if he can continue what he did last year.

If Butler hits well, he’ll play.

And on the last point, I just don’t see Moore giving him $5M without Jacobs earning it this year.

Most of these come down to you not having faith in Moore. Correct?

by Warden11 on Jan 12, 2009 9:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Just a note

UZR/150 2008 at 1B:

Billy Butler (small sample size, but still): 0.9

Mike Jacobs: -17.0, -9.4 career

granted, with Butler the sample size is too small (but then, i would argue he needs to play more so we can find out for sure). The fans scouting report hates Butler as one of the worst defenders out there. But you know who one of the few players the FSR hated more?

Guess. Just guess.

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 12, 2009 9:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No

clue.

by Warden11 on Jan 12, 2009 9:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Most of these come down to you not having faith in Moore. Correct?

Not at all. You asked what the “fallout” was if Jacobs just replaced Gload. I assume you’re saying, “hey there’s really no downside if all he does is replace a bad player.” I’m pointing out that there are negatives. Losing a good reliever is a negative. That doesn’t mean Moore shouldn’t trade relievers. I’m all for that. But when you evaluate a trade, you have to consider all that has been gained and all that has been lost.

Kila could us some time in AAA. But with the major league team full of Butler, Jacobs, Shealy and/or Gload, now it doesn’t appear that there will be room for him in KC until September call ups. While I thought he could use a month or two in Omaha, the Jacobs acquisition means that he’ll likely be spending the entire year there.

I don’t know if Moore will bring Jacobs back for $5M+. But it is a real risk. Moore puts a pretty high value on low-OBP, pretty good SLG power guys on the corner (as seen with the Guillen signing and Jacobs trade). So if Jacobs continues to be that, Moore could easily see Jacobs as a good value for $5.5M.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 11:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

See

I just don’t see that with Moore. I think Moore assumes that we will have a major power void this year, Jacobs might be able to help that. After this year, we have Butler, Gordon, Kila, and possibly Shealy providing power in our line up.

by Warden11 on Jan 12, 2009 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Moore has done nothing to instill in me the confidence that he doesn't want Jacobs beyond 2009

Nothing. Nothing in his track record shows that he understands the relative value of getting on base, hitting for power and playing defense. I’m not saying he definitely will bring back Jacobs. But it is a significant risk.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Assuming you mean Bloomquist rather than Jacobs, that $3M is over two years, so we’re talking about 3x the league minimum for each year. Is it wonderful? Is it a bargain-licious steal?

I am talking about Bloomquist and he’s getting paid a little bit less than 4x the league minimum per year on this two-year deal. (Two years, $3.1M = 3.875 times more than league minimum for two years). No, that’s not wonderful. That’s awful. Are you arguing that paying almost 4 times league minimum for a replacement level player is no big deal? It’s not just “not a steal.” It is a screw job with the Royals on the wrong end.

Is it out of line with what replacement-level players command on the open market these days? No, it’s not.

There are some front offices which are inept enough to spend millions on replacement level players. So no, Moore is not out of line with those front offices. Then there are smart front offices who understand what replacement level is, how easy and cheap you can get those players and who wouldn’t consider spending this kind of money on a player like Bloomquist.

And what exactly is the best way to evaluate him, outside of that?

I’ve got an ideas. You could look at the quality of the various moves he’s made and how much they have contributed to a greater or worse run differential. And how much money he’s invested in that change in run differential. The result of that analysis is really unimpressive.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think it's been really negative

but I don’t think anyone should stop on account of others if they have negative feelings. Obviously, anyone can feel any way they want to about the team or FO. I’m just willing to wait till the season gets going to have those reactions.

by I need more Esteban on Jan 12, 2009 12:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I would stop by more often if it weren't so negative.

I clicked right over here when I saw the title of this post in my rss reader. I would agree that it has been a frustrating off-season, but the analysis has gone away from a friendly pub like discussion to childish bickering. I will say that any negative discussion about the following players should be exempt from any negativity complaints: Kyle Farnsworth, Willie Bloomquist, and Ross Gload. They all suck for one reason or another. Otherwise there are legitimate positive things that can be said about each of the other acquisitions and while we can debate the merits of outfield defense and the two faced nature of the OBP talk and hacktastic signings it can be done in a way that doesn’t focus on everything going to hell before a game has been played. I want to know why outfield defense matters and whether Crisp will help or not. I don’t want to hear about how GMDM wasted money that could have been spent on Player X who may or may not have told us to go to hell. I understand that the moves cost money and don’t occur in a vacuum but telling me that Adam Dunn or Pat Burrel is a better hitter and a better value is obvious and doesn’t really contribute to the discussion.

The mood this offseason has been a bit like a game thread where every move elicits a knee-jerk comment. Unfortunately, in the off-season there isn’t another play to focus on in a minute or two. The point of this place for me at least is a place where some insightful baseball analysis (flavored by home team bias of course) is combined with humor and irreverence to create a collective fan perspective. The problem is that the humor has been replaced by bitterness and the irreverence has been replaced by cynicism. The basebal analysis has also been tainted with people trying to assemble random stats to prove that their way of viewing the game is the best. I am not just aiming this final comment at the stat leaning posters the non stat guys are often just as bad by mentioning some advanced metric to prove that all advanced statistical analysis is crap.

Proud father of a budding Royals fan.

by Skirra on Jan 12, 2009 12:34 AM EST reply actions 4 recs

The problem is that the humor has been replaced by bitterness and the irreverence has been replaced by cynicism.

The tenor of the discussions here reflect the reality of the Kansas City Royals.

The basebal analysis has also been tainted with people trying to assemble random stats to prove that their way of viewing the game is the best.

I’m sorry but I have to call BS on that. The analysis on this site over the past few months is as good or better than it has ever been. “Assembling random stats”? What the hell is that? Like what? Give me a few examples of posts where “random stats” have been misused. Just because you don’t like the conclusion of someone’s analysis, doesn’t mean it was poor.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 4:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ahh one of my goals in life has been met.

I have been waiting forever to have one of my posts broken down point by point by you NYRoyal. The funny thing is that I agree with your assessment of the team and the offseason. The bar fro GMDM is low but for me setting the bar low is just another way of being a realist which you claim to be. Realistically when could we expect to have a GM that has his head out of his ass at any point since the late 80’s. If slow marginal improvement is the path to winning is what we are on I guess I have to accept that, as long as the path does lead to winning. Unfortunatley you might be right that the point in the future that we look forward to 2011-2012 may fall apart because of the warning signs we are seeing but a case could be made that GMDM has improved the team for now without actually making any moves that hurt that time frame.

As to my complaints about stat usage I could have made that point more clearly. My point more properly stated is that I don’t need 50 different ways of showing how player X sucks followed by some other stat that marginally contradicts that point and followed by a debate over which stat tells us more when the difference is more contrived than actual. As an example the Coco Crisp debate. Unless I read all of the posts at that time incorrectly. It was late and I was on a roll forgive me NYRoyal I may never measure up to your standard of obsessive precision in my realism.

Proud father of a budding Royals fan.

by Skirra on Jan 12, 2009 9:28 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

If slow marginal improvement is the path to winning is what we are on I guess I have to accept that, as long as the path does lead to winning.

You’ve gotten to the crux of the problem. As the Royals weren’t going to contend in 2009, most of these offseason proves probably don’t hurt the team long-term. But they show Moore’s mindset and his skill set. To me they show that we are decidedly not on the path to winning. We’re on the path to mediocrity. Moore is trying to get this team to contention, but isn’t good enough at his job to likely get us over the hump of mediocrity.

Unfortunatley you might be right that the point in the future that we look forward to 2011-2012 may fall apart because of the warning signs we are seeing but a case could be made that GMDM has improved the team for now without actually making any moves that hurt that time frame.

And the problem is that if he’s screwing up now and making Guillen/Farnsworth/HoRam/Bloomquist type moves now, shouldn’t we expect him to be making those kinds of moves in 2010, 2011, 2012 and beyond?

My point more properly stated is that I don’t need 50 different ways of showing how player X sucks followed by some other stat that marginally contradicts that point and followed by a debate over which stat tells us more when the difference is more contrived than actual. As an example the Coco Crisp debate.

I still don’t get what you’re talking about. Attempting to measure the value of a player’s offense and defense given his position, accounting for injury and small sample sizes and translating that into runs, wins and dollars is exceptionally difficult and complicated. Sure we can all look at Pujols and see that he’s a spectacular player. But for most players, it’s not that easy. Crisp was and is a difficult case. So there was a lot to discuss and debate. How much is his hitting worth? Was his hitting affected by injury? How much of an injury risk is he for the future? How good is his defense? And there is much more. So yes, when delving into these issues, there will be many stats thrown in along with a discussion of how meaningful those various metrics are. I don’t see a problem with that.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 9:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just because you don't like his conclusion, it doesn't mean his was poor or BS either....

honestly, I think this is the type of stuff that has drawn people away from RR…

by Fernando Vina School of Linguistics on Jan 12, 2009 9:37 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Huh?

He basically reduced the analysis on this site to “assembling random stats.” That’s an insult to the analysis on this site and the people who provide it (and I’m talking about everybody, from those who write long, detailed posts, to people who make small, infrequent comments). So yeah, calling that analysis “assembling random stats” is pure bullshit. Are they also just “assembling random stats” at BP, Hardball Times and Fangraphs? I’m not saying that all or even most of our work is at that level (although d_f and NHZ do some work at that level), but it is certainly that kind of analysis. And while our use of stats may not be quite at the high level of the best sabermetricians, it is from an assemblage of random stats.

And what is the stuff that has drawn people away from RR? Statistical discussions or me disagreeing with them?

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 9:48 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

interesting thread

I do sometimes worry about being too negative, really. In real life I’m pretty negative, so it isn’t an unsurprising criticism. Moreover, I do wish I could stay funny, but maybe there’s too much bitterness now.

I suppose everyone will have their own interpretation of the site based on when you log on, who you read, etc. I don’t think its too stat-y really, considering I barely do any hardcore analysis.

Overall, the readership may be shifting a little, but it isn’t shrinking. December was the biggest traffic month in site history.

by royalsreview on Jan 12, 2009 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, it didn't seem to me like readership or traffic was decreasing

I’m sure some people don’t like it and have left or decreased their visits to the site, but there are more new people who are joining up.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

December was the biggest traffic month in site history.

I assume you got Professor Farnsworth’s check in the mail?

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 12, 2009 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I mean that you mailed Kyle his check

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 12, 2009 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

barter

we only deal in glasses

by royalsreview on Jan 12, 2009 4:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

excellent

I’m hoping to catch the Royals when they come up here. I’d kill to get a picture of the prof.

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 12, 2009 7:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

with him, that is

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 12, 2009 7:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well, guessing from how many snide and mocking comments you get....

I’d venture a guess that some have been drawn away from RR because they feel anytime they post (or would wish to post) anything, that you’ll be traipsing in behind with a gluttony of block quotes and statements about how their opinion is wrong…..almost as if people aren’t allowed to have an opinion. That’s just a guess.

Personally, you’ve got every right to speak your mind and do all that you around here (and you have a lot of great information). But perhaps the message gets overshadowed by the delivery? I honestly have agreed with much of your points/analysis this winter. Anyway, that’s just my read of the situation. Since you are the most frequent commenter to the site, you most likely have a greater effect on the general tone of the site than that any other individual contributor or visitor.

by Fernando Vina School of Linguistics on Jan 12, 2009 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

In my short time on the site...

I would agree that NYRoyal definitely appears to be the “gatekeeper” for commentary. And it’s only natural that the most frequent posters/commenters are going to have the biggest effect on how a site is perceived. If you post at Royals Review, and you make a substantive statement or specific opinion, then you generally need to be ready to back it up. If it’s confusing, unreasonable, or irrational, then NYRoyal (and a few others) will definitely call you on it. (There are many times I probably would have written some responses fairly similar to NYRoyal’s—it’s just that he’s on here so frequently that he almost always gets there first.)

I don’t really think there is anything wrong with that. I don’t feel like he’s a “bully” or that he immediately shoots down anyone and everyone that even slightly disagrees with him. For some people, though, there’s a fine line between receiving and accepting reasonable and well-founded criticism about their positions or opinions, and that person taking offense to the criticizer and immediately assuming he’s pompous, arrogant, and intolerant of others’ views. I guess it just comes down to how thick your skin is and how much you value argument and debate. Some people just automatically equate healthy debate to uncomfortable confrontation.

"You think I’m a goddamned fool? I’m tired of all these stupidass questions every night. Just stay out if you’re going to ask all these dumbass questions. It’s stupid. Asking me that stupidass [BLEEP] every [BLEEP]ing [BLEEP] [BLEEP] night. [BLEEP] [BLEEP] [BLEEP] [unintelligible] I am sick and tired of [unintelligible] up with every [BLEEP]ing thing. No [BLEEP] from you guys, no [BLEEP] from you [BLEEP]ing players. And they can do any [BLEEP]ing thing they want to do. I’m sick and tired of all this bull[BLEEP]. Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it."

by Sweep_the_Leg on Jan 12, 2009 6:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

For some people, though, there’s a fine line between receiving and accepting reasonable and well-founded criticism about their positions or opinions, and that person taking offense to the criticizer and immediately assuming he’s pompous, arrogant, and intolerant of others’ views. I guess it just comes down to how thick your skin is and how much you value argument and debate. Some people just automatically equate healthy debate to uncomfortable confrontation.

I think that’s definitely true. I really think two things are going on here. The first is that I am not infrequently overly confrontational. That’s on me. The second is that some people don’t like their statements being challenged and disagreed with, particularly when it is done in detail. I think some people think that when I break down someone’s post or comment and respond to it point by point it is some kind of insult. What it really means is that I wanted to respond to several different things a poster said and I want to do it point by point. It doesn’t mean I think the poster is an idiot and that his/her post was worthless so I’m going to tear it apart.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 8:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m sure more than a few don’t like my style. I readily agree with that. I also think that the content I put on this site helps the site more than it hurts it (in terms of members, hits, site traffic, etc.)

Also, I find it odd that the post you referred to when you said, “honestly, I think this is the type of stuff that has drawn people away from RR…” is one in which I merely pointed out that the tenor of comments on this site reflect what is going on with the Royals and that calling the analysis on this site a “random assembly of stats” is an insult. Think I was out of bounds, inappropriate, or offensive?

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 8:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

there's also a difference between more substantive discussions off-season

versus game threads or chatter during the season

we have nothing to actuyally talk about, so all opinions are more scrutinized, for better or worse

by royalsreview on Jan 12, 2009 9:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

About the stat comment.

I guess I am still not being clear. I tried to clarify it once and provide an example and you chose to ignore that clarification for your reply.I like statistical analysis and it is one of the reasons I read the site. There are two problems that I have. I would like to see a consesus build around a set of stats and to move past the new stat old stat debate that reappears as often as the annoying scouting v. stats debate that pops up all to often. The second problem is more of an attitude issue than a stat issue I guess. If FIP tells me something meaningful about how a pitcher was include it, if you are going to use it to show that you are smarter than someone else who arrived at the same conclusion using ERA or WHIP don’t waste my time.

As an addendum to my assembling random stats comment I did say tainted and by tainted I think I meant that some of the analysis is no more than a collection of random stats that casts a shadow on the hard work and detailed posts/replies that people on the site undertake. As I said before it was late and I got a little carried away.

Just for the record I am generally a negative person and take all sorts of crap for it. So complaining is not beyond me.

NY Royal in all seriousness I will quit reading the site if you give up breaking down irrational or wrong comments (or in my case difficulty expressing my point in a logical and clear way) and providing back-up for your point.

Proud father of a budding Royals fan.

by Skirra on Jan 13, 2009 12:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I tried to clarify it once and provide an example and you chose to ignore that clarification for your reply

I ignored it? You said “as an example the Crisp debate.” Then I responded to that by talking about the Crisp debate and how talking about a bunch of different stats and skills made sense and debating the relative merits and meaning of various stats made sense too. I think I responded to your example directly. And I still don’t know what problem you had with the Crisp debate. The only problem I had with the Crisp debate is that sometimes it got heated and people got snippy. While in a perfect world I think this should be avoided, we are all passionate about the Royals. So a trade or a free agent signing will get our emotions going. Sometimes that leads to more sniping and snark than is ideal. I think that just goes with the territory. But I didn’t really have any problem with the nature of the analysis or the content of the debate.

I would like to see a consesus build around a set of stats and to move past the new stat old stat debate

I would too. I’d also like to see a consensus build around tax policy, abortion the immigration issue. The problem is that people disagree. Some people don’t like relying on stats. Some prefer sticking with old school stats. Some prefer newer advanced metrics. Not all stats are created equal. Not everyone agrees, so you’re going to get discussion and debate. I’d argue that’s a good thing.

The second problem is more of an attitude issue than a stat issue I guess. If FIP tells me something meaningful about how a pitcher was include it, if you are going to use it to show that you are smarter than someone else who arrived at the same conclusion using ERA or WHIP don’t waste my time.

Do you think anyone here cites wOBA, FIP, tRA, UZR, etc. to prove that they are smarter than others? Don’t you think people use the stats that a) they are familiar with, b) they have easy access to, and c) find the most meaningful? And isn’t this what people should do?

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 13, 2009 12:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Stats are good and helpful.

The only problem I had with the Crisp debate is that sometimes it got heated and people got snippy.

That was my point and I thing some of that snippyness was manifested in petty stat arguments that distracted from the issue. And when I said you ignored it I was specifically responding to the later reply to another person’s comment by reattacking a position I had already tried to restate.

I would too. I’d also like to see a consensus build around tax policy, abortion the immigration issue. The problem is that people disagree…. I’d argue that ’s a good thing

On the occasion where the two views are in conflict I believe that there has to be acknowledgment of the other point of view to have a productive debate. Too often the two sides can’t even note the presence of a contrary position. I also percieve too much argument as contrived BS between two people on the same side of the debate as trying to outdo each other in an attempt to invalidate the contrary way of thinking all toghether.
I have tried to state repeatedly that I fundamentally agree with your position on GMDM’s performance and the overall amount and quality of statistical analsyis on the site, but have gotten no where with this approach. It seems that my statements are perceived as being against statistical analysis when really I am trying to make a case for preserving the high level of work that is done by the “statheads” on the site as a barrier to negativity (and excessive positivity but that hasn’t been much of a problem lately hehehe)

Do you think anyone here cites wOBA, FIP, tRA, UZR, etc. to prove that they are smarter than others?

Yes I do, it is a trap we all fall into. People also use stats for the reasons you gave but to ignore my position is to overlook human nature. A part of human nature very similar to the observation that people disagree. (i.e. people disagree so they will try to make the person they disagree with look stupid as a means of strengthening their point)

Proud father of a budding Royals fan.

by Skirra on Jan 13, 2009 1:23 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I also percieve too much argument as contrived BS between two people on the same side of the debate as trying to outdo each other in an attempt to invalidate the contrary way of thinking all toghether.

I don’t recalling seeing arguments where people agreed that a player was good or bad, but then argued over whether the old school stat or the new advanced metric proved it better. When people are arguing and using stats to back them up, they are on opposite sides of the issue.

Yes I do, it is a trap we all fall into.

I think people use the best stats that they have and that they understand. I don’t think anyone on here uses advanced metrics to prove how smart they are. I think the people who use them do so because they are better stats. And they are better stats.

I mean, when I’ve got a pitcher’s wins and losses, ERA, WHIP, FIP and tRA at my fingertips, shouldn’t I use those stats which are the most meaningful? And if one knows that FIP is more meaningful than ERA, is he really using it prove that he’s smarter? The advanced metrics are genuinely better than the old school metrics. So I don’t see any evidence that anyone is using them just to prove how smart they are. That just doesn’t make any sense.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 13, 2009 1:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nice rant.

by hunter s. royal on Jan 12, 2009 12:45 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

No cynicism implied. Sorry i can't get all my thoughts in one thread.

by hunter s. royal on Jan 12, 2009 12:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

it's alright....

by Fernando Vina School of Linguistics on Jan 12, 2009 12:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

happens to all of us.....(cue Adam Sandler)

http://www.entertonement.com/clips/40293/Pee-your-pants

by Fernando Vina School of Linguistics on Jan 12, 2009 12:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I prefer realism

If things are going well, I think we should say that. If they are going poorly, we should say that too. If we think Moore or HIllman or Teahen are good or bad, we should say that. If we think the offseason sucked, we should say that too.

I think irrational negativity or baseless optimism are pretty valueless. But telling it like it is is always a good thing.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 4:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

You guys are not alone.

Because us across the state (Cardinals) have not been in the greatest of moods either this off season. Many Cards fans are getting the feeling that the owner is more worried about pocketing cash than putting out a team that can contend. I think maybe Cards fans have been spoiled by the success of the recent past. But even I am really starting to question what the Cards are really trying to do this off season.

If the Cards don’t get more pitching help…I think the Royals might finish with a better record than the Cards in 2009.
The funny thing is…if we could combine the Cards offense with the Royals pitching…I think that would be a team that could go places.

We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.

by KYCards on Jan 12, 2009 5:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Heck of an idea

Jacobs for Pujols!!

We always did feel the same, We just saw it from a different point of view, Tangled up in blue.
-Bob Dylan

by Royal Kingdom on Jan 12, 2009 10:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the sympathy

but you guys get to watch a HoFer (even if he never played another game, perhaps even after 2006, imnsho) about 150 times a year… sorry, hard to feel too sorry for you.

(winky face)

Seriously, does anyone realize that Pujols already has almost 20 more batting wins, in 8 seasons, than Jim Rice?

Holy shit.

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 12, 2009 11:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

not that Jim Rice is a HoFer...

I mean, he probably will be

(insert generic rant about Jim Rice being overrated)

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 12, 2009 11:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Moore's Moves Might

Look odd or even stupid from our perspective, but we don’t know what he’s had to deal with. As Skirra noted, we have no idea which FA’s were even willing to talk to Moore. If we open the season with no Gload, TPJ or even German on the roster, I have to see that as addition by subtraction. If I can look over to KC’s bench next year and see Buck/Olivo/Pena, Bloomquist, Shealey/Jacobs and Teahen, I’ll feel better about our chances than I did last year. If Farnsworth can be half the pitcher people thought he would be when he first came up, $4.5M will be a bargain. HoRam may be a fine middle reliever, and I don’t think he’ll do any more than some spot starts if injuries/suckitude strike the staff.

I would love to see GMDM perform magic with the roster, but that might have to wait a few years. Nothing succeeds like success, and winning more than losing is a reasonable goal for this year. Remember, Gordon, Butler, Hochevar and maybe Davies and Teahen could all have “breakout” years. Kila may force Moore’s hand and make other moves necessary to bring him up in June or July. Aviles could continue his tear. Until I see failure, I’ll look and hope for success this year. It could happen.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Jan 12, 2009 5:27 AM EST reply actions 1 recs

+1

NYRoyal and few others seem to magically know ALL the factors that GMDM has faced. As I said above, when dealing with small-market teams, you have to judge the GM on a slow curve cemented in drafts. – TL

[In 2008] Kila Ka’aihue had the best on-base percentage of any hitter in the minor leagues. - Joe Posnanski, 11/9/2008 ... Ergo, let's give him a shot at first base in KC in 2009.

by timlacy on Jan 12, 2009 10:41 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I think I'm just ready for Spring Training. I'm sick of the off-season. All we can do is talk about it because.......... THERE IS NO BASEBALL!!!

by Steve Hovley on Jan 12, 2009 5:43 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Silver lining

At least I won’t have unrealistic hopes about the Royals success going into this season.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 5:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

That Is A

Personal choice; I’ll be as unrealistic as I want to be.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Jan 12, 2009 6:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That really wasn't a shot at anyone

I’m talking about the fact that I’ve gone into many seasons with unrealistically positive expectations. The last two seasons I’ve expected the Royals to be 4 or 5 wins better than they ended up being. This year my expectations are going to be fairly muted. Unless they really crater, I won’t be surprised.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 7:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I feel sorry for you.

It must be tought to get up in the morning.

Don't Stop Believing!

by KC Chris on Jan 14, 2009 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You have no idea

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 14, 2009 7:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps the real question is has reality become too negative?

And if there’s little question that it has, then is the issue whether we should talk about or not?

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 7:45 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Disagree...I think the issue is that some people have become beat down by influx of negative posts the last week or so....

I’m not saying I’m part of that group, but that’s just what I’ve been reading. My opinion is that people are well aware of the suspect nature of the decisions that have been made this off-season, but the sheer volume of everything negative has become old and hashed out.

by Fernando Vina School of Linguistics on Jan 12, 2009 9:34 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs

Those who feel "beaten down" by the negativity are welcome to write their own fanposts

and almost everyone would read them, which is one of the great features about this site.

by Top Ramen on Jan 12, 2009 10:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I just think everyone should write whatever they want

And if someone posts something you don’t agree with or don’t like, you can:

1. Reply to it to share your thoughts and feelings.
2. Ignore it.
3. Create a post of your own on that subject or any other.

I’m sorry if some people feel beaten down by the majority analysis on this site which shows the offseason to be a clear failure. But since we think it was a clear failure, we’re probably going to talk about it.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 10:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't have a problem with the tone of the posts. Fans have a right to question and bitch. Are we to just suck it up and not exercise our right to dissent?

This is a forum for fan opinion. Let the opinion flow. It does not bring me down if NY dislikes the GMDM moves. It makes me think and evaluate and question. I think this is a good thing. I like the variety of viewpoints on this site, that’s why I come here instead of elsewhere. I think everyone should fire away with both barrels.

by Steve Hovley on Jan 12, 2009 9:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

More than once, in the past 2 weeks or so of observations, I’ve considered taking my traffic elsewhere. Frankly, I stick around because there’s a reasonable number of moderate folks. It’s just too bad the moderates aren’t a bit more vocal (finger pointing at me). – TL

[In 2008] Kila Ka’aihue had the best on-base percentage of any hitter in the minor leagues. - Joe Posnanski, 11/9/2008 ... Ergo, let's give him a shot at first base in KC in 2009.

by timlacy on Jan 12, 2009 10:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Royals Corner is full of toolsy, scout-loving, stat-unfriendly positivity

That site can be found here.
There message board can be found here.

I’m not suggesting you leave, but if you want that kind of discussion, they have it in abundance.

BTW, I’d love for the optimists to be more vocal (to call them “moderates” would be entirely inaccurate). But hopefully such comments would include actual arguments, logic and other facts to support their positivity, as opposed to just pleas for less negativity.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 10:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You need a baconator

by Warden11 on Jan 12, 2009 12:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes indeed............that would hit the spot

the popcorn I had for my 25 minute lunch isn’t going over too well now. But I’m not that opinionated on the positive/negative issue. I just could see it in the comments over the weekend and wondered how a poll would shake out. I honestly haven’t agreed with the off-season as well, but I’ve kept my mouth shut about it for the most part.

by Fernando Vina School of Linguistics on Jan 12, 2009 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd like to be the completely optimistic guy, who has a defense ready for each of the moves this offseason

a “Here’s what he was trying to do with that signing, and it will work because of X,Y, and Z”.

But after too many Baird offseasons, and this one being exactly like them, I just can’t blindly defend the GM.

by Top Ramen on Jan 12, 2009 9:48 AM EST reply actions 1 recs

You are the HAMMER

hitting the nail on the head.

by AxDxMx on Jan 12, 2009 10:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough...

there have been some questionable moves (as well as non-moves) this offseason. But everytime I log onto RR it is more of the same Debbie Downer stuff. One person will come in with an optimistic idea or lineup or whatever and will get ripped.

For me at least, its tough to show up and contribute knowing that there is such a swirl of negativity out there.

by labbadabba on Jan 12, 2009 10:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It looks like the vote is fairly close

But the reason for the preponderance of negativity is quite simply that people who are upset have more to say. There are some positives about all the moves, if you look, but the negatives kind of jump out at you.
My main problem with the off season has been the financial aspect of it. When you have a low payroll, your bench has to be good & cheap, and I believe that he has spent more money without improving the team significantly.
Despite the negative comments, I noticed that when we voted in December, the average # of wins was well beyond my own expectations. You guys seem to have a soft white underbelly underneath the sarcasm, and there is always hope.

by KHAZAD on Jan 12, 2009 10:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

And we repeatedly get suckerpunched in that soft white underbelly,

and then we get kicked in the jimmy and roll around in pain for the last half of the season.

by AxDxMx on Jan 12, 2009 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs

that cracked me up.

Well done.

by Warden11 on Jan 12, 2009 12:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You call it "Jimmy."

That will be good for a couple of laughs today. Thanks…

by grudz96 on Jan 12, 2009 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes, that was outstanding

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 12, 2009 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah it was the worst offseason in Royals' history

Guillen is by far the worst outfielder in baseball despite leading the team with 20 homeruns and 97 RBI. Farnsworth is the most overpaid player in baseball despite small market teams paying twice his salary for busts like Eric Gagne

I get blasted for thinking positively on this boards about Crisp/Jacobs/Farnsworth. When John Smoltz, Mark Texeira, etc sign with large market teams at a discounted price, the Royals will always have troubling being competitive. Thus, the game of baseball needs its salary structure overhauled

by GobbleforCyoung on Jan 12, 2009 2:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

From one ditch to the other

The worst offseason in Royals history? How long have you been following the Royals? Guillen the worst OF in baseball? That’s just nuts. Farnsworth the most overpaid player in baseball? You’re joking right?

But thank you for coming into this thread and showing everyone what crazed, baseless, exaggerated negativity really looks like.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Whoa.

The worst offseason in Royals history? How long have you been following the Royals? Guillen the worst OF in baseball? That’s just nuts. Farnsworth the most overpaid player in baseball? You’re joking right?

Yes, I think he was joking.

by belt on Jan 12, 2009 4:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

On second read, I think you're right

More positivity! Woohoo!

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 8:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You know what?

I still can’t be too negative about this offseason. There is no way we should lose 100 games, that’s an improvement. I’ll still take it.

by Warden11 on Jan 12, 2009 3:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

is that due to my awesome chart?

see, I’ve made an optimistic contribution

(although it was aided by rounding to the first decimal…)

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 12, 2009 3:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

and your awesome chart even showed that we have a chance at winning 100 games. (.02% if I remember correctly)

by Warden11 on Jan 12, 2009 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And if Moore had gone into hibernation for the entire offseason the Royals would have been just as unlikely to lose 100 games in 2009

Wasting $16M which could have been used better isn’t acceptable. And it’s not like Moore would have had to acquire an impact player to do better. As d_f has shown with his number crunching, the 2009 team would have improved on its own by at least 4 wins (through young players developing).

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There weren't many years

where Allard could claim that. Yes, I know Baird helped draft and put together this current squad.

by Warden11 on Jan 12, 2009 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The mere fact that Moore has taken the Royals out of the fear of losing 100 games doesn't say much

It says he isn’t an awful GM. I don’t even think he’s a bad GM. I think he’s roughly mediocre (maybe a little better than average, maybe a little worse). I think he’s a mediocre GM who had a bad offseason. And if you’re the smallest market team in MLB, having a mediocre GM isn’t enough to get you to the playoffs, probably ever…unless you hit the prospect lottery.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 12, 2009 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't disagree with that at all.

But it is kind of new to us.

by Warden11 on Jan 12, 2009 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To me, it's not as simple as saying...

“be more positive” or “everyone is too negative.” I’m fairly new to this site, but “NYVader” (NYRoyal) is right when he says Royals Review is NOT the place for incessant cheerleading. Far and away, this is probably THE site that is most grounded in the reality of what the Royals’ true situation happens to be at the time.

What bothers me more than negative vs. positive is irrational and unreasonable attitudes…in EITHER direction. I can’t stand to read posts that say little more than “the sky is falling,” especially if they are not grounded in reasonable analysis and a rational consideration of the reason for the post. By the same token, I also will not bother returning to a site where the majority of commenters simply offer: “SWEET! We signed a guy! He had 30 homers last year, so he’ll be awesome!! The Royals are gonna win 100 this year!!!!! Wooooo!!!!!1111”. It’s the “CHIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFFFFS!!!!!” Effect for me. (My friends and I make fun of this element of drunken, irrational, and generally uninformed Chiefs fans that just repeatedly yell out their “battle cry” while stumbling around the Arrowhead parking lot without obviously considering how ridiculous it sounds when your team of choice is 2-14. This isn’t high school. You don’t HAVE to blindly support your team no matter how poorly they are playing or how inept their front office and coaching staff appear to be.)

I also think a big part of the frustration felt by many regarding the “negativity” of many posts is that people have different standards for what we should be getting excited about. There are many who, being Royals fans, have just been beaten down over the years and have basically come to expect the absolute worst no matter what. For these fans, ANY progress is good, and should be cherished without dwelling on potential negatives. I can understand that, I suppose. But I guess it’s just a matter of standards.

I don’t think you make a team, organization, company, etc. truly great by being happy with mediocrity…regardless of how low you may have been. It’s fine to recognize, and maybe even “celebrate” a little, when you reach certain incremental goals (like reaching .500 for the Royals). It is very difficult (especially for a small-market team in MLB) to turn things completely around overnight. But at the same time, many people are just not going to be content with that, and I don’t think they should be. I don’t know many sports fans who think, “Man, if my team could just finish at .500 consistently, then that would be awesome.” Fans want their teams to win a championship…and to do it repeatedly.

Many of us have been pretty disappointed with the moves the Royals have made during this offseason. They just don’t seem to be part of a good overall plan to continue building the Royals into a contender. More importantly, they are revealing what Dayton Moore’s abilities are…and what they are not. On the other hand, his moves have at least not hopelessly crippled the franchise for the foreseeable future. And maybe he can improve in the areas he seems to be poor in right now. I think more than anything, most of us are just much more concerned about the likelihood that Moore will be able to lead the Royals into contention. Our confidence (whatever level it had been at) has been shaken. I think most of the posts I’ve seen basically reflect that opinion.

If you want to see more positivity, then by all means, post something with as much sunshine as you can muster. If your position (say, the Royals winning 100 games in 2009) is mostly wishful thinking and is based on drastic, unreasonable improvements by nearly every player on the roster, then you’re going to have to expect some backlash from the usual suspects here. Most of the regular commenters here just aren’t interested in the “rah-rah,” “this season is going to be AWESOME!!!!1111” sorts of posts.

"You think I’m a goddamned fool? I’m tired of all these stupidass questions every night. Just stay out if you’re going to ask all these dumbass questions. It’s stupid. Asking me that stupidass [BLEEP] every [BLEEP]ing [BLEEP] [BLEEP] night. [BLEEP] [BLEEP] [BLEEP] [unintelligible] I am sick and tired of [unintelligible] up with every [BLEEP]ing thing. No [BLEEP] from you guys, no [BLEEP] from you [BLEEP]ing players. And they can do any [BLEEP]ing thing they want to do. I’m sick and tired of all this bull[BLEEP]. Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it."

by Sweep_the_Leg on Jan 12, 2009 4:30 PM EST reply actions 3 recs