A More Fair Assessment Of Moore Than Many Seen Here
by timlacy on Jan 13, 2009 10:54 AM EST
Email
PrintSam Mellinger of the KC Star's Ball Star blog posted a more fair (but brief) assessment of Dayton Moore's recent moves than most gradings I've seen here. I like it that Mellinger contextualizes several decisions and events in the piece: The Posterisk on Rob Neyer, the changed baseball economics over 2007-08, the Royals need to overpay for FA talent (per our perpetual losingness), the Royals lack of HR power, the need for many veteran/solid/reliable players with track records over one big splash FA signing (e.g. Dunn), etc. Granted, Mellinger's post is really about fantasizing over players we didn't get. But he's built in some thoughtful points about how Moore's doing the best he can with the tools he has available in the context of the times in which we're living.
You can call these excuses, but I call it empathy. Moore's balancing the urge to win with the the drive to develop players and the Royals recent history. - TL
143 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well, I thought Mellinger's...
…assessment was more fair until I read Royals Nation’s post just below this one (i.e. “My Current Perception of Dayton Moore”). Of course RN’s is subjective, but aren’t they all? My feeling is that we need to give Moore this year and next before substantial judgments can be made (i.e. firing, keeping, modifying his staff). – TL
He makes good points. Especially about blogs and cheerleaders
It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird.
I suspect this is who he had in mind
But, whatever, blogs are for fun — right? Fun or links to cheerleader photos, …
Nasty Royals Cheerleader Lady is less then fully excited when she thinks about Wee Willie.
www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage
by James Quinn on Jan 13, 2009 11:24 AM EST up reply actions
Yes, that is a real Royals cheerleader outfit.
That is all I know.
www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage
What Moore paid for...
…was the certainty of what I’ll call “major league average” (MLA). If he and the coaches see in Spring Training that in-house candidates are likely to give an MLA performance, he’ll look to trade the guys he signed. Farnsworth is an asset somewhere, ditto Bloomquist or Jacobs, he can trade them. The money those guys make is not horrendous. Not even Farnsworth’s salary renders him untradable. Moore has accumulated proven MLA assets in case our position player situation doesn’t pan out. You can’t fault him for at least wanting to maintain MLA for 2009. – TL
What Moore paid for…
…was the certainty of what I’ll call "major league average" (MLA)
The problem is that only one of the players that Moore acquired (Crisp) has been a league average player for his position and should be expected to be so in 2009. The rest are below average, or replacement level players. For $16M. Add in Olivo and that’s about $19M.
If he and the coaches see in Spring Training that in-house candidates are likely to give an MLA performance, he’ll look to trade the guys he signed.
I think that is wishful thinking. He brought in those guys because he thinks they are at least pretty good. Do you think that a poor March performance is going to suddenly change his mind? There’s no reason to believe that he’s suddenly going to look to trade guys he just acquired even before the season starts.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 13, 2009 1:51 PM EST up reply actions
On your last comment, I should've...
…said trade before the end of the season’s first half, not Spring Training. And you’re right, I’m placing a certain amount of faith in him to do this, but I think he will. Otherwise I stand by my paying-for-MLA point. Jacobs is an average 1st baseman, and Farnsworth’s an average reliever with the potential for more. Olivo can be traded. In terms of salary, it feels like the new ML average is around $4 million for a MLA player. – TL
Farnsworth isn't
average. He’s what we usually call “crappy.” Jacobs get get on base enough to be average with the bat, and is horrific defensively. How is he average, then?
Stathead, Zack Greinke fan, and Rock Band 2 singer extraordinaire.
How about having two crappy years and losing velocity?
Pitchers in their 30’s often lose velocity each year. Farnsworth has decreased his FB velocity over the last few years. And that is his major skill. As that goes, so goes Farnsworth. So he’s shown diminishing skills and crappy performance on the field. What does that leave? Grit?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 13, 2009 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
Awesome eyewear preference
BIG plus for Farnsy. And that skill shows no signs of diminishing over the life of his Royals contract.
"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 13, 2009 3:19 PM EST up reply actions
He does get grit points for that
But I think his assholishness might cancel out his grit value.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 13, 2009 3:36 PM EST up reply actions
The last bonafide good year
that Professor Farnsworth had was 2005, the year before his big deal with the Yankees. Before that, he had had three bad years out of five when he was a Cub. He’s ALWAYS given up too many home runs to be a reliable set-up man. But because he’s got a big arm and strikes people out, teams have foolishly always regarded him as a good reliever….when he’s been average at best over the past three years, trending downward….and never was very good early in his career.
Stathead, Zack Greinke fan, and Rock Band 2 singer extraordinaire.
Hey, I don't...
…love the guy, and am not necessarily happy with the signing. It’s just that as long as he’s MLA, he’s acceptable in terms of 2009—-meaning our current talent level, coaching potential, and goals. If McClure gets a good half out of Farnsworth, my guess is that he’s traded to a contender. In sum, it’s 75/25 that Farnsy is gone by the All-Star break. – TL
But if the point of your post is to point out...
areas where others have been too critical of Moore, then how can Farnsworth even being MLA account for the ridiculous contract that Moore gave him? And it’s not just that the Royals have to pay it—your trade scenario will likely be affected by the size of the contract.
"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 13, 2009 3:21 PM EST up reply actions
That's not the...
…whole point of my post. My point, per Mellinger, is that Moore’s moves have not occurred in a vacuum: there are contextual factors. He’s had to overpay, he needed more than 1-2 players, some just won’t come here, he’s holding the line until minor league talent percolates up, etc. – TL
Farnsworth isn't worth 4.5 million a year,
and isn’t major league average! He’s not very good. He’s BELOW average. That seems pretty obvious, I must say, given his track record.
Stathead, Zack Greinke fan, and Rock Band 2 singer extraordinaire.
Why do you keep saying that Farnsworth is major league average?
What do you base that on? Certainly not stats. So what is it that convinces you that he’s league average?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 13, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions
And if you think someone is going to be eager to trade for Farnsworth in July when he’s still due about $6.5M, you’re nuts.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 13, 2009 3:24 PM EST up reply actions
Guarantee: If...
…Farnsworth is humming—-i.e. performing better than MLA—-before the All-Star break, several teams will think that $6.5 left is okay. – TL
One thing to remember
There will be several relievers on the trade market in July who are having good seasons whose contracts will be expiring and who aren’t owed $6.5M. The fact that some team would have to pay him $4.5M in 2010 will significantly hurt any trade value he might have from a good first half. There will be lots of other relievers with good first halves to choose from.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 13, 2009 4:41 PM EST up reply actions
the rangers always need GOOD pitching...
they always have plenty of Farnsworth type pitchers…thats their problem
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Jan 13, 2009 10:57 PM EST up reply actions
how many average players hit 33 homeruns???
I think people put too much emphasis on defense. Ryan howard is the worst defensive player I have ever seen in my life, but no one would call him close to average.
.247/.299 vs .251/.339 – besides hitting 15 more homeruns and walking 40 more times in 140 less at bats.
He has to get alot better but he could be close! (wishful thinking)
by GobbleforCyoung on Jan 15, 2009 10:37 AM EST up reply actions
140 more atbats!!
I’m not comparing the two clearly…but Jacobs is the definition of average player, to call anyone below average after hitting that many homeruns needs to get his head checked!!!
by GobbleforCyoung on Jan 15, 2009 10:38 AM EST up reply actions
How many average players have a .310 OBP?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 15, 2009 10:49 AM EST up reply actions
And don't forget his RBISZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!111111
"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 15, 2009 11:03 AM EST up reply actions
how many "average" players play defense so badly
that they would have to be 8 runs better over a full season just to be more valuable than a DH?
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 15, 2009 11:37 AM EST up reply actions
Average
He’s a clearly below average hitting first baseman and has been his entire career. He’s a clearly below average fielding first baseman and has been all his career. He’s not even particularly close to average unfortunately.
And Farnsworth hasn’t been average since 2006.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 13, 2009 2:50 PM EST up reply actions
Which fielding stat sites...
..say that Jacobs is below average? I hope you’re not saying this based on old-fashioned stats like errors? For the NL in 2008, Jacobs numbers sadly put in the range of Fielder and Howard. But that’s without accounting for one’s shortstop, catchers, pitchers, and 2nd basemen (contextual factors). Jacobs had only 2/3 of the other two’s chances. Do the scouts say Jacobs would be the same (or as bad) given an equal number of chances?
I guess where I'm going here...
…is this: Is there a plausible scenario for Jacobs’ fielding stats to underrate him? – TL
Not really
neither UZR or RZR likes him very much. Not that first base is a premium defensive position….but he’s bad afield, and doesn’t really contribute much with the bat due to his low OBPs.
Stathead, Zack Greinke fan, and Rock Band 2 singer extraordinaire.
Oh yeah, Jacobs' defense is bad
UZR (fangraphs.com), Dewan’s plus/minus, and THT’s RZR/OOZ all rated Jacobs as dead last among 1B in the majors in 2008.
Every fielding stat I've seen has shown Jacobs defense to be below average
Actually, way below average.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 13, 2009 3:25 PM EST up reply actions
I'd like to see/hear a...
…scouts report on his fielding. I don’t know why I can’t yet trust fielding numbers like I do some offensive stats. It’s irrational. – TL
That makes sense
I haven’t read/heard any scouting report or comment on his tools that contradicts what the stats show. Another piece of evidence which might help show that he’s slow and has little agility: he’s a converted catcher.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 13, 2009 4:42 PM EST up reply actions
Fan Scouting Report
Just checked it out.
Well, Jacobs isn’t as bad as Chris Duncan. That’s good enough for me! ;)
But seriously, I don’t know what to think of the methodology for the site, and I don’t know how many serious observers punched in on Jacobs. I mean, in a bad mood I could really wreak havoc with a player after a bad game on a site like this. Plus, with first baseman, you’re more likely to react poorly because, well, it seems so simple to the observer. – TL
I'm still looking for one piece of evidence that suggests Jacobs is even an average defensive 1B
So far, all of the stats and scouting reports agree. He’s bad defensively. The only question is how bad.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 14, 2009 7:58 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe this will help put his UZR in perspective
Career UZR/150
Mike Jacobs: -9.4
Player X: -5.4
Who is this defensive wizard, this “player X?”
Let me give you a hint:
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 14, 2009 8:07 PM EST up reply actions
I'm still looking for...
…a qualitative eval of his defense that contextualizes him next other Marlins players, injuries, the catcher-to-1st Base learning curve, etc. So far all I’ve seen are bad stats. Stats can hide important factors. I’m hoping there is something qualitative that tells me he can be better. – TL
ok
I get it
I’m worried about those gaps in the fossil record, too
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 14, 2009 9:16 PM EST up reply actions
UZR
and RZR aren’t bad stats. I’m afraid I can’t come close to agreeing with you on this one. I think you’re just blowing smoke.
Stathead, Zack Greinke fan, and Rock Band 2 singer extraordinaire.
What I meant there...
…is that the stats say he is bad, not that the stats are bad. Sorry about the confusion. – TL
Tim, it seems like you are grasping at straws here...
…in the hopes that you can find something, anything that might refute the ton of evidence which shows that Jacobs is an exceedingly poor defensive first baseman. I can understand your desire to find such evidence. But you need to understand that the reality is that he’s a bad defender, period.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 15, 2009 10:51 AM EST up reply actions
I'm not so sure.
What about the disjunct between the qualitative evidence that Aviles (or was it Callaspo?) was bad versus the statistical evidence that said he was good. It’s not grasping at straws to wonder if something like this is happening with Jacobs. Statistics are only based on historical evidence. If Jacobs was a catcher converted to 1B, then there’s a change curve in play. If KC’s infield coaches (whether in the org or at the ML level) think he can be better, then there’s no reason to harbor so much pessimism about the forthcoming season and GMDM’s decision to sign him.
I’m asking you and others to (1) think outside the stat box and (2) to have a little hope.
- TL
I do have hope
that Jacobs only plays DH, is strictly platooned, and doesn’t take a single AB away from Butler or Kila
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 15, 2009 11:38 AM EST up reply actions
Both the qualitative and quantitative evidence say that Jacobs is a poor defensive first baseman
What about the disjunct between the qualitative evidence that Aviles (or was it Callaspo?) was bad versus the statistical evidence that said he was good.
There you had a difference between the qualitative and quantitative evidence. One said he was good defensively and one said he was not. With Jacobs the qualitative and quantitative are in agreement.
If Jacobs was a catcher converted to 1B, then there’s a change curve in play.
That was four years ago, and his fielding stats are actually getting worse over that period.
If KC’s infield coaches (whether in the org or at the ML level) think he can be better, then there’s no reason to harbor so much pessimism about the forthcoming season and GMDM’s decision to sign him.
First, do they think he can be better? Do you think he was acquired for his defense? Or do you think Moore acquired him for his power? I don’t think there is any reason to believe that Moore or his people like his defense or even think it is average. I think they like him despite his defense. Second, even if they think his defense can improve, what might it improve to? Average? And then you still have his well below average hitting for a first baseman. There’s a lot of reason to feel about about this signing and to be pessimistic about Jacobs future with the Royals.
I’m asking you and others to (1) think outside the stat box
I’m going to repeat this for about the fourth or fifth time in the thread and hope that it finally gets through. BOTH the fielding stats AND the scouting reports say that Jacobs is poor fielder. And as far as his hitting goes, is there any reason to believe that a player his age with his major league experience is suddenly going to become a significantly better hitter?
(2) to have a little hope.
I always hope for the best. But when talking about how good I think a player actually is and will be, I do my best to describe reality, not engage in wishcasting. So, in short, I think he’ll be a considerably below average first baseman for the Royals. But I hope he’s much better than that.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 15, 2009 11:38 AM EST up reply actions
Okay.
My only continuation here is this: Where on this blog has a professional qualitative scouting report given any indication of Jacob’s real life problems (range, throws, decision making) and chances for fielding improvement?
Perhaps that report has been posted here, and maybe I’ve missed it over the holidays? Help me with this and I’ll be close to giving up the thread. – TL
Professional scouting report
I’m only relating what I’ve read and heard about him from the tools-based side. I don’t have any links for you. I remember him being referred to as slow, not agile, poor footwork at first base, and an unreliable throwing arm. Interestingly, I don’t recall anyone talking about how good he is at stretching and picking bad throws.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 15, 2009 11:48 AM EST up reply actions
A brief Google search...
…revealed nothing in terms of a professional qualitative report. …I wonder how much a nice fielding pitcher and second baseman can cover the non-catching weaknesses of a first baseman. Anyway, I’ll be waiting now for ST observations of Jacobs. – TL
We'd all like a professional one
if anyone has access, please post the links or quotes. Srsly
Otherwise, GB posted links to Tango’s Fan Scouting Reports somewhere around here. Yes, they are by fans, so they aren’t “perfect.” But Tango, who works in the industry, has had real scouts and crosscheckers look at them, and got very positive (and surprised) responses.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 15, 2009 11:48 AM EST up reply actions
I'll give $1 (American) to anyone who can find any professional
(scout, analyst, commentator, writer) who has said or written that Jacobs has one good defensive skill. It might be out there, but I haven’t ever found it. And I’ve looked.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 15, 2009 11:58 AM EST up reply actions
I appreciate the...
…second reference to Tango. After looking over the site, I don’t quite trust it. No offense to you. – TL
Another thing about the Fan Scouting Report
Most of the fans who gave input on Jacobs would have been Marlins fans. And, if anything, they are likely to be too positive about their own players. So for the FSR to be so down on Jacobs, I think that says something meaningfully negative about his defense.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 15, 2009 11:59 AM EST up reply actions
good point
Tango acknowledges those biases coming in, but shows that even those are overcome with time — cf. Jeter, Derek.
The “wisdom of the crowd” approach accompanied by “agreement” scores is also helpful
People who know who Tango is and take the time to fill out the FSR can pretty safely be assumed to be pretty hardcore fans who watch lots of games. I don’t do it because I don’t get to watch many games live.
I hope we can get a bunch of momentum for hardcore Royals fans, especially those who don’t like the defensive metrics (and thus won’t be biased by looking at them), to participate. The more the merrier (and the better the results).
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 15, 2009 12:06 PM EST up reply actions
I think it has some value when used as one piece of evidence among a dozen
…which is, of course, how Tango and other sabermetricians use it.
But I don’t think we should have any illusions about who participates in the FSR. Tango puts links up all over the place (including ever SBNation blog) asking for people to come and give their votes for the FSR. There’s a lot of average Joes (including me) giving their half-assed amateur scouting opinions.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 15, 2009 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
My fear was actually that...
…the fans would be overly biased toward the negative. I base that fear on my own reactions. I get really really down on a guy for messing up a play a key time—-which is not necessarily indicative of a bad defensive player, just one who failed in a pressure situation. But also I couldn’t find on Tango how many inputs were given. You can see where I’m going: Was Jacobs’ low assessment based on a few fans with reactions like mine, or many fans who are more levelheaded? – TL
You see the number of
“ballots” cast for each player each season, as well as the level of agreement
Granted, there aren’t a whole lot for FLO in general (much more in 2008 than in 2007, though), but again… all the evidence we have says he sucks. Where’s a single piece of Jacobs-specific evidence that says he’s even close to average?
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 15, 2009 1:54 PM EST up reply actions
The agreement level for 2007 (.79) and 2008 (.65) for Jacobs
were right around the average (.71). In other words, in 2008, there was a little more agreement on Jacobs than the average for other players. So the answer is no.
None taken
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 15, 2009 12:03 PM EST up reply actions
He's definitely below average
but I don’t think anyone can be the blackhole that UZR says he is. Well unless they are standing next to Dan Uggla.
It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird.
If the plan was to sign these guys to above market contracts
and try to trade them in March if and when they look like they’ll put up their career numbers, I can’t even begin to describe how monumentally stupid that would be.
I couldn't figure out
if Mellinger was sticking up for Dayton or showing how boneheaded some of his moves have been. Guess I probably need to read it again.
I suspect
he thinks they aren’t great moves, but doesn’t want to get banned from press conferences
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 13, 2009 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
Mellinger - the self-appointed arbitrator between statheads scouty types.
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 13, 2009 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
statheads AND scouty types...
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 13, 2009 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
except that his misunderstands that sabermetrics, properly done
already knows that it needs scouting, and what place it has
can’t say the same for people like the “Bravest Way…” moron
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 13, 2009 2:12 PM EST up reply actions
Everyone assumes KC is gonna eat Gloads contract which is 1.9M
If this is the case what would be the problem with eating Bloomquist 1.5M if he sucks major apples this year? Not a great strategy but the Crisp, Jacobs, Olivo, Bloomquist, HoRam deals can all be over prior to next year. Farny was the big mistake. If they can help this team win 80 games and change the overall view of the Royals organization then it will be worth the money as opposed to dealing out multiyear deals for Giambi, Burrell, Furcal(back problem), Abreu, Cabrera or Ibanez. All those guys are on the edge to the end of their careers and numbers could see sharp declines playing at the K fulltime.
I love how Olivo gets lumped in these convos when Buck is gonna make equal to or more than him probably with equal amounts of sucktitude.
It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird.
Yeah, that's because Buck is better than Olivo, and younger
Stats count.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 13, 2009 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
And one more thing
One of the problems with re-signing Buck is that the team already had a player roughly like him under team control who was going to get about that much money. Why re-sign another one? So the issue really isn’t Buck vs. Olivo. It’s Olivo vs. Pena. Another $2.7M wasted.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 13, 2009 2:54 PM EST up reply actions
Don't forget J. R. House!
The man who makes Wieters vs. Moustakas irrelevant
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 13, 2009 2:56 PM EST up reply actions
minor league free agent sometime after the season ended
Of course, the problem with House is that he is a “catcher” in the same way that Matt LeCroy was.
True
House would’ve needed an ideal situation—as LeCroy had with the Twins—where his offensive skills were appreciated more than his defensive shortcoming counted against him. To this date, he hasn’t found one. I doubt that’ll change. And who knows if he can hit enough at this late date anyway…
Stathead, Zack Greinke fan, and Rock Band 2 singer extraordinaire.
Plus all three (Buck, Olivo, Pena) struggle mightily against RHP
so their batting skillsets do not even balance each other out.
Thank God the Royals signed HoRam
before they wasted money on Josh Bard or David Ross!
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 13, 2009 11:14 PM EST up reply actions
Bucks better
Okay if better you mean hits equally bad is definitely inline for a gigantic second half slump and couldn’t throw out BamBam stealing second then maybe. Stats don’t count performance does and his performance is terrible.
So 2.7 is a waste when you’re already wasting 3M on another shitty catcher. Bucks only quality is the 20 extra bb’s he gets a year so he can clog the basepaths. The dude is a turd pure and simple. If you are gonna complain about one might as well complain about the other.
It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird.
by kcscoliny on Jan 13, 2009 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Buck is the better hitter
Please look at more than one year of stats. And remember that OBP counts.
The dude is a turd pure and simple.
Thank you for your trenchant analysis.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 13, 2009 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
When you are talking about two bad offensive players then defense counts
and Olivo is better at the one part of catching defense they can calculate. Also over the last 3 years Olivo has beaten Buck in OPS twice so maybe stats do matter.
It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird.
Defense always counts
And OBP and SLG always count. And OBP counts more than SLG (see wOBA). And league and park count too.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 13, 2009 4:24 PM EST up reply actions
They do
no one says they don’t. What else counts is the ENTIRE roster and not just trades and FA picks. John Buck is equally garbage as is Mark Teahen yet all anyone is in here doing is complaining about the new guys. Those two sucking in 3M is just as bad as The Spork earning 1.5. Weigh it based on actual per season performance not hit or miss projections. Obviously projections have to be added in slightly but the facts are Teahen is gonna bring in 3M and has been below average (3/4 seasons ) on offense and below average in the outfield (2/4 seasons). John Buck has never been average offensively (highest WOBA finish among all catchers 35th in ’07) and he stinks at throwing out runners and is getting worse.
I’m tired of everyone evaluating GMDM just by his FA moves and trades. He got here and everyone accepts the fact that KC didn’t have much to work with yet everyone wants to already chalk him up as a bad GM already. Has anyone listened to these former players and radio host talk about KC on ESPN, Mlb network, Xm radio? They are continually mocked and downgraded and it’s not just the moves GMDM performed it has more to do with the players that are currently here. If you were a FA how likely are you to jump on the Nats, Pirates or Royals roster? Not likely at all and the lack of movement to the Nats should show us these fictional opportunities everyone is inventing are just that fictional. Burrell, Dunn, Hudson, Furcal, etc weren’t gonna sign here they were gonna use KC as nothing more than a chip to drive their price up. I mean come on those guys even mocked Wills optimism when he got off the radio today. This is gonna take time and the only way to do it properly is with a youth movement and not locking the team into another Guillen deal.
It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird.
by kcscoliny on Jan 13, 2009 5:01 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
After I type this I'm sure Dunn and Hudson will sign with the Nats.
It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird.
Mark Teahen is "equally garbage" as Olivo?
Please. You’re off on a rant now. If you started off rational, you gave that up a post or two ago. So I’m done.
Except for this:
Burrell, Dunn, Hudson, Furcal, etc weren’t gonna sign here they were gonna use KC as nothing more than a chip to drive their price up
So no matter how much the Royals offered, none of them would sign with KC. Even if the Royals offered $2M more per year than say Burrell and Furcal got, no chance? I guess money means nothing to baseball players.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 13, 2009 5:15 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You really think 2m would've gotten it done?
Please that is funny.
Hey Pat would you like to play for what you view as a perennial loser for say 20M? If you think that would’ve worked I think you are overplaying all of these guys greed. They have greed but they also enjoy winning and the perception of Kansas City, Pittsburgh and Washington right now is that they are not places you can win right now or even in the forseeable future. Extra years is the only thing that could pry these guys to KC and I’m glad GMDM didn’t do that.
Mark Teahen is garbage in the same way Olivo is. Olivo at least plays a position where having a bad bat doesn’t way you down that much. If you are gonna balk about paying Olivo 2.7 then scoff at paying Teahen 3M because the last professional season they played they both knocked out a 91 OPS +. At least Olivo grades out above average at the defensive stat they can track as opposed to Teahen who is below average according to UZR.
The difference between Teahen, Buck and Olivo is small and yet you guys bang on all these FA’s. That is the problem when so called fixtures in your lineups are below grade players then you are already swimming against the current. Guys like Teahen and Buck are just as big a culprit in the longtime losing and underperforming of KC than anyone else but you guys want to hang onto projections like they are meaningful and true. The reality is in all but one season of their careers they have been below par players as well. If you wanna start banging on GMDM for having those guys on the roster too then maybe what you are saying is worth some salt otherwise it sounds like a onesided rant.
Just like this.
It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird.
by kcscoliny on Jan 13, 2009 6:11 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
we didnt give up valuable pieces for the right to pay...
bad players a bunch of money though…that is the difference
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Jan 13, 2009 6:18 PM EST up reply actions
meaning we didnt trade ramirez and nunez...
for the right to pay buck/olivo/teahen $9 million like we did for crisp and jacobs
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Jan 13, 2009 6:19 PM EST up reply actions
What's funny is that you think these guys play to contend more than they play for money
Money talks. Of course the Royals have to pay more for talent than contenders. But if Burrell will play for TB for 2/16, he’ll play for KC for 2/20. You think their “enjoyment of winning” means more to them than extra millons of dollars. That’s not funny; that’s hilarious.
And then you go off on another crazy Teahen rant. You’ve seen the stats. Dan has explained to you how you properly take into account Teahen’s good luck and back luck in recent seasons and yet you don’t want to hear it. None of the projections are right. You’re right. I get it. I’m not feeding into this crazed anti-Teahen rant full of your cherry-picked stats. But you go right ahead.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 13, 2009 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
there is at least 1 documented instance of a player offering...
to take less to play for a winner…and surprisingly enough, its the most selfish, greediest player in sports
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Jan 13, 2009 6:36 PM EST up reply actions
Of course most players are willing to sign for a winner for less
…and, therefore, you have to pay more to get those players if your team is not going to be in contention. But that doesn’t mean that none of Dunn, Burrell, Hudson, Furcal, Bradley would have signed with the Royals period. Nor does it mean the Royals would have had to offer them twice as much. Players want money. And they aren’t willing to turn down a lot more money (in the hypothetical case of offering Burrel 2/20 we’re talking about 25% more money) to play for the Royals. The Royals certainly could have gotten one of them. To pretend that Dayton Moore didn’t have a shot at any of them is just working really hard to alibi for Moore’s horrendous offseason.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 13, 2009 6:43 PM EST up reply actions
And even the unknown "Royals Free Agent Surcharge"...
doesn’t come into play when you never even put yourself in the running. It’s a rare instance where you suddenly see a FA sign with a team out of the blue without also hearing about other teams that are showing serious interest for days or weeks in advance—especially with fairly high level FA’s like Burrell. I never saw any indication that Moore even put the Royals’ hat into the ring with him.
And I have to say that only the most die-hard, competitive, team-first professional athlete would turn down 25% more money to sign with a team. After all, we’re only talking about a two-year deal here. It wouldn’t be Burrell’s last contract, and therefore his “last shot at a winner.”
"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 13, 2009 9:29 PM EST up reply actions
When Washington lands someone
I will believe you guys. They have money to burn and haven’t had any luck of yet. Dunn seems like a perfect fit for them besides having a crowded outfield.
I believe KC could’ve landed FA’s by offering more years but not by adding a mil or two to the same year deals. Players want security more than anything and adding an extra year or two to Giambi or Burrell’s deals probably would’ve turned the worm in our favor but it wouldn’t have been good moves in the longterm.
I just don’t find the need to rip FA/trade aqu’s before they set field when you have players performing below average and making more money. Say what you will about projections but they are inaccurate over time. I appreciate Dan for coming on here and explaining his system but sorry if I don’t trust someone who would come up with the same projected value for a player no matter if he lost a arm entering the season. It has been said over and over again that Teahen used a different approach for ‘06 so sorry if I don’t buy into Dan’s system for Teahen.
As long as KC and GMDM stays on the same plan of building for youth they will be taking the right approach longterm. 1-2 year players who aren’t cripples on the payroll longterm is the best approach.
It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird.
As far as security goes
aren’t years and more mil’s basically the same thing because of guaranteed contracts?
You are always good for an anti-rec comment
It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird.
by kcscoliny on Jan 15, 2009 12:07 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
CC and Teixera already proved its all about the money!
But not if you are the Royals, uh I mean Nationals.
When the Yankees can match any deal you make (find me an instance where 2 million more a year makes financial possibilty for the Royals- so signing Teixera for 200 million or CC Sabathia for 180 million would have put them in Royals uniform!)
yeah right – the Royals can’t even afford to pay 2 million less for CC and Texeira…..thats why Moore signs average players like Jacobs/Crisp/Farsworth for 3,5,4 million and overpays! I don’t think its that smart.
Hell if i was him I would just put Kiwi and Sheally at first, sign Brad Penny or Smoltz for 10 million and throw Bannister in the pen
by GobbleforCyoung on Jan 15, 2009 10:47 AM EST up reply actions
It's not a measurable "defensive" statistic or metric...
but I would say that a consensus from your pitching staff about who they would rather have catching their games is worth quite a bit. More than all but the most pronounced disparity in throwing out runners. And to my knowledge the staff has generally preferred Buck over Olivo (although Olivo was gaining more respect towards the end of ’08).
"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 13, 2009 4:25 PM EST up reply actions
Hanging out with a guy and having dinner with him are always
good evaluators of talent.
It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird.
Stats are a good evaluator of talent
Fans, not so much.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 13, 2009 5:16 PM EST up reply actions
Wait he came over in a trade
just like Teahen so he is somewhat decent. Maybe if both of them played closer to their half season aberations they would both be worthy of the bogus projections you guys use on them. Instead you cling to their half dream seasons.
They are essentially the same garbage replacement players at different positions. Each had one ridiculous half season that blows their projections up but when looking at each season beside that “Half” they are gonna be overpaid slumps. Using the Bloomquist equivalent they both seem to fit in quite nicely on this team. Why complain about “The Spork” when you guys wanna start Buck and Teahen. Oh ya that’s right weighted projections.
It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird.
by kcscoliny on Jan 13, 2009 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I thought Mellinger's post was ok
but the most interesting and thought provoking point for me was the brief mention of how the Royals have had to pay too much for replacement level talent because the upper minor leagues were bare. This to me has been a major handicap but not a total excuse for some of the crappy moves. When viewed in this light it makes it painfully obvious that we aren’t going to get a big FA signing anytime soon and to me it makes the moves made in the FA market less painful. My justification is the admittedly weak organizational depth reasoning, but I have to keep some level of positive perspective for my own sake. I suppose it could be a cause for more pain as we are stuck with replacement level talent for probably 2-3 more years. I guess that you can choose your own path.
Proud father of a budding Royals fan.
by Skirra on Jan 13, 2009 4:02 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Dayton Moore and lost cheap middle infielders.
As far as I know Moore has not said he was forced into signing Bloomquist because he inherited a bare cupboard in terms of MLB ready middle infielders from the Baird era. But if he did make such a claim it would not hold up.
Gotay and Keppinger were both much better than Bloomquist, and Moore got rid of both for minimal return. Both would have been playing for MLB minimum this year.
German and Aviles were inherited by Moore and both are better and cheaper than Bloomquist.
Moore already aquired Callaspo, who is much better and much cheaper than Bloomquist.
If Moore feels the lack of MLB-ready “not horrible” middle infielders who can fill out the roster without breaking the budget it is a problem of his own making.
The Royal need GOOD middle infielders. The team doesn’t have many Furcal-types laying around. They have had plenty of cheap replacement level middle infielders. There was no need to spend $3.1M to throw one more on the pile.
www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage
+1
I do think that the Royals’ cupboard was virtually bare for true backup SS (or utility guys that could play good-to-great defense at SS). Hence the TPJ acquisition. But I completely agree that a 2/3.1 deal for Bloomquist was the type of misallocation of scarce small-market resources that the Royals simply do not need. Trade for another AAAA-quality backup SS, or sign a replacement level backup for a replacement level salary. There was no reason to pay $1.5M for one this year, and there was especially no reason to give him ANOTHER guaranteed year at that same amount.
"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 13, 2009 4:53 PM EST up reply actions
+1
And just to add to what JQ and StL said, even if the cupboard is bare in AAA, that doesn’t mean you go out and spend 2/3.1 on a replacement level player. There are lots of ways to acquire replacement level players. Minor league FA’s is one way. Moore could have found similar hitting (perhaps a bit worse) and better IF defense on the minor league FA market for $400K.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 13, 2009 4:57 PM EST up reply actions
+1
Ditto. I think the point of Mellinger’s post is that we’re doing the best we can given our abysmal recent history. We have to stay at .500 a few years before we can pay reasonable prices for talent. – TL
Maybe you can help me out...
I just don’t understand the viewpoint that the Royals “have done the best they can,” even allowing for difficulties in the FA market given the team’s location and recent losing history.
1. Trading Nunez for Mike Jacobs VERY early in the offseason is not the best you can do.
2. Trading Ramirez for Coco Crisp (although not a bad deal in and of itself), who will make $6.75M this year to address a perceived deficiency in DDJ’s CF defense is not the best you can do.
3. Signing Kyle Farnsworth to a 2/6.5 deal to make up for losing Nunez and Ramirez is NOT the best you can do.
4. Spending 2/3.1 for a player like Willie Bloomquist is NOT the best you can do, especially after you’ve already re-signed German to fill almost the same exact role (absent playing SS occasionally).
Let’s assume that the Royals do have to pay a little more to get FA’s in here. Although it’s difficult to really measure the “KC Free Agent Premium,” I think it’s probably true to some extent. Even so, Russell Branyan really wouldn’t have come here if the Royals offered another $500K or $1M more? Do you really think that Giambi would have turned down a 1/5 or 1/5.5 (or maybe a 1/4.5 with more potentially lucrative incentives) deal to go to Oakland instead? Would Burrell really rather go play for the Rays even if the Royals offered as much as another $4M total (2/10)? Are the Royals better off having Jacobs, Farnsworth and Bloomquist than paying a little premium for Furcal instead?
Look, if you really do like each trade or signing, as opposed to the likely alternatives that were available., then fine. We’ll have to agree to disagree. But if you’re looking at the offseason as a whole and saying that the entirety of the Royals offseason moves was the best possible outcome, even given the Royals’ circumstances, I just don’t see how that’s even remotely a reasonable conclusion.
"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 13, 2009 5:16 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, this isn't the best the Royals could have done this offseason
It’s the best Moore could manage with his particular talents.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Jan 13, 2009 5:19 PM EST up reply actions
I agree on points 3, and 4 but
1. Trading Nunez for Mike Jacobs VERY early in the offseason is not the best you can do.
Who’s to say? How do you know? There hasn’t been much movement in terms of trades.
At the end of the day no matter what you think about Leo Nunez, he is a middle reliever. He’s not even a closer!
by Royal from Queens on Jan 13, 2009 9:33 PM EST up reply actions
I was referring to...
the thinking behind the decision that you needed to trade Nunez at all to get a 1B/DH of Jacobs’ quality (even a left-handed one). Observed in a vacuum, Nunez for Jacobs isn’t a horrible deal for the Royals. As I mentioned later in the post, though, Giambi was available for just $1-1.5M more WITHOUT having to give up a player in exchange. Even one who isn’t a “closer.” Another example that many others pointed out, and that I cited in my post, was Russell the Muscle.
And if you add in the fact that Farnsworth was acquired to replace Nunez (and/or Ramirez), then the Nunez/Jacobs trade is all the worse.
"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 13, 2009 10:09 PM EST up reply actions
Its a good point
BUT I’ll go out on a limb and say with the A’s vying for Giambi’s services, it would have been impossible to sign him.
I will say this though, the Royals had/have a realistic chance of signing these “power” guys: Eric Hinske, Richie Sexson, and Ty Wigginton (although who knows how much he’s asking for)
Are any of these guys better than Jacobs?
Hinske ehh, I guess.
Who knows if Wigginton is real.
Sexson has been trash but it would have been fun to give a chance.
by Royal from Queens on Jan 13, 2009 10:21 PM EST up reply actions
I just don't understand this automatically defeatist attitude...
and kneejerk conclusion that it’s just “impossible” for the Royals to sign most FA’s just because they’re the Royals. Have Glass’ checks been bouncing? Is Kansas City really that much worse than Oakland (I’ve never been there)? I KNOW that Kauffman is light years better than McAfee or whatever it’s called now. I know that he played there before, and probably liked playing there, but I also know that he went to play for the Yankees (in large part) because they wanted to pay him more money than anyone else.
I understand that there may be a certain “Royals Free Agent Surcharge,” but I just don’t believe that Giambi would have opted for 1/4.5 from Oakland if the Royals had put in a 1/5 or 1/5.5 (or 1/4.5 plus a lot of incentives) deal. Same reason why Burrell would not have turned down another $4M if Moore had come in with a 2/20 offer. Sure, most players like playing for franchises with a more recent history of winning, but they don’t like playing for them for $4M less.
"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 13, 2009 10:45 PM EST up reply actions
oakland is an awful awful place
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Jan 13, 2009 11:14 PM EST up reply actions
Mellinger may be "fair," but, as usual, JoPo is "accurate"
take your pick. You know which one I prefer:
Man, the Royals threw around a lot of money to a lot of players who did not have good years in 2008. Maybe it will work. They do have a lot of guys in the clubhouse who love the game. I personally would have taken that money and signed Adam Dunn and a couple of other guys who may not like baseball a whole lot but at least get on base and get batters out. It’s a different philosophy.
tick tock…
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
You just can't say...
…“I…would have taken that money and signed Adam Dunn.” Has Dunn EVER expressed any interest in playing for KC? How do we know that GMDM didn’t make a quiet overture and get rebuffed? And, Mellinger’s point is that we had more holes that right or left field. Plus, Dunn’s no better defender than Jacobs: on that front it’s a wash (believe me, as I watched Dunn a lot as a Cubs fan." – TL
and Jacobs cant carry Dunns jock as a hitter....
they’re not even reasonably comparable players. Dunn is a great hitter. Jacobs isnt good.
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Jan 14, 2009 12:17 PM EST up reply actions
Minor correction: Dunn is...
…a great power hitter. Jacobs beats him on average—-significantly—-by 20 points or more. In only 2 of his 7 full seasons has Dunn hit above .260. Jacobs had a bad year last year, avg. wise, but looks poised to be better than a career .260 hitter. – TL
wow
I’d get into wOBA, projections, and the like, but I think there’s one strangely-much-ignored number that says it all. Well, two numbers, one stat.
.318 vs. .381
ONe is the career number for Mike Jacobs, the other for Adam Dunn. Which number belongs with each player, and what number is it?
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 14, 2009 1:09 PM EST up reply actions
I know, I know…further evidence of Dunn’s hatred for baseball, his refusal to continually swing at pitches outside the strike zone?
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 14, 2009 1:18 PM EST up reply actions
Nope
It’s defensive range…measured in square feet of playing field the player is able to cover. I have to admit that I’m stumped as to which number belongs to which guy, though. That extra 0.63 sq. ft. really makes a difference, so I’m gonna say the .381 is Dunn…you know, since he’s the hot FA.
"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 14, 2009 1:41 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, and Jacobs came...
…cheaper than this. WTF?! So, it looks like we couldn’t even have afforded Dunn if we took all of our FA money this year and spent it on him. Wow. – TL
I read last week that Dunn might sign a one year deal.
Apparently the thinking is the market for corner outfielders will be be better next year? Anyway, I’m expecting to see Dunn sign something like a one or two year deal for around $10M. We’ll see.
Personally I’d be thrilled to see the Royals sign him to a 4/50+ deal, but I’m a Dunn fan. Plus I want to see the Royals win. Plus I don’t give a rat’s ass about Glass’ bank account balance. I’d rather see Dunn hitting home runs than read about Glass banking another eight figures of profit next year.
www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage
I like DUnn a great deal, too
but 4/$50M is way too much, and I thought so long before the economy went south as did the market for slugging types
however, his defense really, and measurably, cuts into his value. He’s only slightly better than Burrell, albeit young (if with “old player” skills). Check out his fangraphs page — his only truly “great” year was 2005, and he’s been between average (around 2 WAR) and above average (3) since then, with a 1.9 this past year.
Although it’s a bit conservative, the ‘Two Monkeys’ Robo-GM says that 3/$24.4 is about the max deal that makes sense for Dunn, although, again, that isn’t very subtle. 3/30 might be OK, but that’s pushing it. And, yeah, Ibanez isn’t as good, but one stupid deal doesn’t deserve another (a lesson a certain former Braves Director of Player Development could stand to learn)
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 14, 2009 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Who know how much money a player is worth,
the market changes all the time. And there are so many crazy deals out there it is hard to make any rational sense of it on a holistic basis.
All I really care about is getting good players on the Royals roster. So if Dunn is available I want the Royals to go after him.
Plus I don’t like Glass. He certainly can afford to pay Dunn. I’d love to see him do it. Lord knows the Royals have made him a ton of money already. He probably “owes” the fans something in the order of $100M by now.
www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage
Glass's issues aside
stupid deals don’t change the objective value of marginal wins
richie sexson’s contract seemed like a good one a the time, too
Burrell went for 2/16 — Adam Dunn is better than Burrell, but not twice as good
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 14, 2009 9:18 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
