Re #4: Because it’s very difficult, if not impossible, for bloggers and commenters to really know what’s going on in the clubhouse. By the time any of the non-insiders hear about it, clubhouse issues or chemistry is obviously already an issue because it’s been reported by the media. Also, I think clubhouse chemistry is much less important to a baseball team’s success than a football or basketball team. There is no other sport that is so based on individual performances isolated from teammates’ performances. It’s basically the opposite of a sport like football, where you need all 11 guys working together on each play to make it successful.

Re #5: Not every single (position player) FA acquisition is evaluated based upon OBP. Obviously, there is more widespread recognition that OBP is a key stat to judge in evaulating players. So, I definitely agree that higher OBP guys are going to be considered more valuable, making them more expensive, and many times putting them out of the Royals’ reach. However, you are generally not going to get a guy with a high OBP, for example, to serve as a super-utility/backup middle IF (otherwise, the guy wouldn’t be a utility/backup player). Knowing that, why do you pay 2/3.1 for a guy like Bloomquist? Especially after you’ve just re-signed German? While OBP is important, I think most commenters here judge each FA acquisition based on all the factors.

Re #6: It’s not just the Burrell deal. Moore’s moves should be judged in light of the overall FA/trade market. What about the Giambi deal? What about the Branyan deal? What about the trade opportunities for players like Willingham or Swisher? What about signing Farnsworth for the $9.25M he’s getting? What about signing Bloomquist for 2/3.1? Those signings absolutely had an impact on other opportunities. That money, and paying Jacobs and Crisp the money they are due, likely kept the Royals from offering more for Furcal. While the Burrell deal is a good example of what could have been done (although probably for another $2M or so per), it’s not the ONLY example of what could have been done.

Re #12: I agree that Moore has one of the most difficult (if not THE most difficult) jobs in MLB. If for no other reason than the mess he was handed when he started. I think he definitely wants to win more games in the short term (2009-10) until he knows the Royals have a real shot at contention. In fact, Glass may have given him a sort of offseason mandate in light of the opening of the new Kauffman. But I still don’t think that excuses many of his moves this offseason.

Re: #15: The only FA’s the Royals overpaid for will be FA’s again (unless re-signed) in two years. (Farnsworth, Bloomquist, HoRam, Waechter) In fact, the Royals’ overpayment for Farnsworth may actually KEEP him from being traded before the deadline this year or in 2010, even assuming that he actually performs well enough to make him a valued trade commodity (it doesn’t look good based on his recent history, age, etc.). On the bright side, at least the Royals aren’t obligated to pay any of them after 2010—I will give credit to Moore for sticking with that logical part of the plan. This team is not going to be laden down with albatross contracts in 2011 (unless we see a repeat of this sort of offseason in 2009-10).

Re #16: I agree that a high BABIP shouldn’t necessary be considered a negative or “lucky” statistic. For some players, it’s indicative of good bat control (like you said), and line drive ability. I think the best use of BABIP is to see how consistent it is. If a 6 year veteran has traditionally had low-to-average BABIP’s, and then suddenly has a much higher BABIP, then it’s more likely the player was just luckier that year when he made contact.