Moore Has to Win Now, and He Knows It

by jackie ballgame on Jan 5, 2009 12:35 PM EST Comment 38 comments

While I finish up my annual Mark Teahen post, I thought I’d throw this thought out there about what I’ll call Dayton Moore’s ‘building project’. It’s been noted on this site that ‘re-building’ isn’t quite the correct term, as (a) re-building seems to suggest going with young players (although I’m not sure why that has to be the case), and the Royals are not truly young anymore, and (b) the Royals have had their core players in place for a couple of seasons now. Rany Jazayerli has noted that Moore is “fighting a two-front war,” that of building the minor league system and simultaneously improving the major league team. Those are two different jobs; look around the league and you’ll see that some GM’s are good at the first, some good at the second, fewer good at both.

I understand the paradox here. Theoretically, if you build the farm system, eventually your building project has to affect the major league team, otherwise you didn’t really build the farm system. See the Brewers and Rays; both teams did a tremendous job of obtaining and developing minor league players, and those players have born fruit and taken both major league teams to the playoffs. But that’s not quite what Rany’s “two-front” notion refers to. Rany is talking about the natural impatience of ball clubs and their fans, especially those clubs that have been underwater for a long time. When clubs bring in new regimes, you often hear talk of the need for patience among the fans. Sometimes that sentiment takes the form of a ‘5 year plan’, sometimes the GM says ‘it’s not going to happen overnight.’ And we want to accept that, at least at first. When Herm Edwards arrived, and especially after he declared last offseason that he was going to be giving significant playing time to a whole lot of young players, Chiefs fans knew that 2008 was going to be a long season. Likewise, when Moore said the Royals turnaround wasn’t going to happen overnight, and then started drafting high school players, we understood that he was building for the long term.

And yet, once the season starts, we really don’t understand. It will be a miracle if Edwards is the Chiefs coach one month from now. As for Moore, well, consider what Royals Nation (front office included) will sound like if the team wins less than 70 games next season (not a likelihood, but certainly a realistic possibility). Heck (I love that word ‘heck’)...Heck!, just look back at how Moore reacted to the 2008 season. The man sounded like he was fighting for his professional life. That’s an exaggeration, of course, but he seemed tense. Some changes are going to be made around here! I know what these players can (and can’t) do. We’re no longer saying our players are young and developing, they have to produce now, etc.

That’s what made the Royals job, for Moore and Co., the toughest to walk into in all of baseball. Our patience for the future had already worn out. Imagine if the next Chiefs GM, say Scott Pioli, arrives and says ‘Everyone be patient, we’re going to rebuild.’ Suppose his rebuilding plan has failed to improve the team five years from now. That next GM that succeeds him will not have any leverage to call for patience, and that’s roughly the equivalent of the shoes Moore put on when he arrived in Kansas City. He had no room for a five year plan. More than any other GM in baseball (except maybe Brian Cashman), he had to win now and at the same time he had to restock the farm system. And he’s been juggling five baseballs, in each hand, from the word go.

Moore probably does have more time to complete his building project. But he probably has less time than we thought, and he knows that better than anyone.

And while we’re on the subject, ditto Trey Hillman. No pressure guys, no pressure.

1 recs | Comment 38 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Read More: dayton moore, Reshaping the Roster- The Position Players(Royals Review), Reshaping the Roster- The Pitchers(Royals Review), Reshaping the Roster- The Minors(Royals Review)

Comments

Is there pressure enough for Moore to be fired if the season goes poorly?

by royalsreview on Jan 5, 2009 1:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don't think there is any chance DM gets fired

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jan 5, 2009 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Me neither

I think the Royals could lose 100 games this season and he wouldn’t be fired. I think that would put a lot of pressure on him for 2010 then, but I don’t see too much pressure on him right now.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 5, 2009 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

Unless the Royals take a major step backwards in 2009, I think Moore’s job is pretty safe until at least 2011.

by DarthYoshi on Jan 5, 2009 5:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You are comparing MLB to NFL

as I’m sure you already know the competitive balance of the two couldn’t be farther apart. Pioli could and would be expected to turn around the Chiefs in 3 years or under because it happens every year in the NFL as opposed to the Royals which must take a long term view just due to market size.

It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird.

by kcscoliny on Jan 5, 2009 1:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

mlb/nfl rebuilding time frame

the chiefs and royals have basically the same market size. I think the time frame to rebuild a team is much more a function of labor rules. MLB gives teams years of control over players plus makes them pay for bad contracts. The NFL allows free agency much quicker plus the right to cut players who under-perform.

I think I do agree with Jackie ballgame’s point tho, that Dayton is under pressure to win now/show major improvement

by ZeppelinDZ on Jan 5, 2009 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

NFL & MLB not so far apart

the competitive balance of the two couldn’t be farther apart

I would disagree with this statement. The # of teams playing in the WS & the Super Bowl this decade have been comparable. While the effects of the NFL salary cap are indeniable, there are subtler factors at work as well. Namely, the poor structure of the NFL Draft and the increasing awareness that Top 5 picks are not really much of a help to teams b/c of… you guessed it… the salary cap. Finally, under the current structure baseball teams have rigid salary control for 4-6 years over their players.

by royalsreview on Jan 5, 2009 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

under the current structure baseball teams have rigid salary control for 4-6 years over their players.

hence players getting bent over in pre-arb contracts like DDJ’s, or Pedroia’s, or Mauer’s, or…

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

by devil_fingers on Jan 5, 2009 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If Pioli is hired today?

What are the odds the Chiefs could be in the playoffs next year? I wouldn’t put them as great but I would say they could be greater than the Royals. The Chiefs are on the same playing field as every other NFL team so they have a better chance to compete. The Royals don’t have the capital to compete without employing a longterm strategy.

It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird.

by kcscoliny on Jan 5, 2009 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The # of teams playing in the WS & the Super Bowl this decade have been comparable.

That’s an EXTREMELY poor method of judging competitive balance in a league. Taking the last ten years and saying that there have been a lot of different teams that have just happened to make it to the league’s championship game/series at least once is a bad metric. You have to measure things based on where ALL teams in a league start…not where a couple teams end up at the end of the year. If I raced you in the 100 meters 10 times, and each time I had a 20-meter head start and you had one arm tied to you body, you might beat me once or twice because I stumbled out of the gates, tripped and fell, etc. Actually, this probably isn’t a good example because I’m really slow, you might beat me every time anyway. But there’s no question I had a considerable advantage at the start each time.

the increasing awareness that Top 5 picks are not really much of a help to teams b/c of… you guessed it… the salary cap

That’s not because of the salary cap. If anything, it’s the lack of a rookie cap/slotting system that the top picks in the NFL draft are so risky. You KNOW you’re going to be paying a huge chunk of cash to whoever you draft at that slot, so you can’t miss. If the payout to rookies in general was much lower until they proved their NFL worth, then that problem would be gone. Some sort of rookie cap/slotting system is going to happen in the next collective bargaining agreement. Count on it. Too many owners have been getting burned by the Matt Leinarts of the football world.

"Quit trying to strike everybody out. Strikeouts are boring...besides that they're fascist. Throw some groundballs. It's more democratic."

by Sweep_the_Leg on Jan 5, 2009 5:25 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Oh, no, Will.

Here’s a much better way of looking at it.

Jacksonville’s gone to the playoffs six times, and they didn’t exist until a decade after 1985. Tennessee’s gone more than five times just since moving from Houston. Even the freakin’ DETROIT LIONS have been to the playoffs six times since the Royals have.

NFL teams which have been in existence since 1985 and have failed to make at least FIVE playoff appearances since the Royals’ last appearance:

Oakland Raiders (4, HAHAHA)
Cincinnati Bengals (3)
Arizona Cardinals (2)

That’s it. Everyone else has either made five or more playoff appearances, or has a really good excuse (Houston, Carolina, and Cleveland — unless you follow the “legal” status of things and count the pre-Ravens as the current Browns, in which case they’ve made more than five appearances as well anyway).

Meanwhile, the Royals are 0-23, Montreal/Washington’s 0-27, Pittsburgh’s got a 15-year under .500 streak going, and Milwaukee and Detroit recently broke LONG non-playoff streaks.

In terms that actually matter, the NFL’s competitive balance is WAY beyond MLB’s.

Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.

by jonfmorse on Jan 8, 2009 9:54 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I don't think GMDM has to win now

I just think he is a competitor and wants to win now. I doubt there is too much pressure from the Glass family probably just more of his own internal pressure. GMDM probably knows he has an opportunity with a redone stadium, Chiefs at 70-80’s level lows, Solid youth talent on the come to take over as the city darlings again and inturn increase his payroll and ability to compete longterm.

It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird.

by kcscoliny on Jan 5, 2009 1:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

i agree with this post completely

Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.

by doublestix on Jan 5, 2009 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the chiefs and royals have basically the same market size

The Chiefs and Royals do have the same market size but in the NFL market size means nothing due to revenue sharing of all the teams. A major league baseball team in Green Bay wouldn’t be able to exist yet alone compete.

It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird.

by kcscoliny on Jan 5, 2009 1:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think we have a two year window

Where we have DJ and Greinke before we have to deal with their free agency, and I think DM maybe sees that as a time to build a contender before he has to rebuild again.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jan 5, 2009 2:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think I would agree

by royalsreview on Jan 5, 2009 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Motivation for the post

Came from my surprise this morning, the more I thought about it, how both the fans and Clark Hunt accepted the Chiefs’ rebuilding project just one year ago and now have totally discarded it (not saying that’s a bad thing necessarily).

You guys are right that NFL to MLB is a rough comparison, I just started wondering if maybe we/Glass would turn on Moore just as abruptly when it seemed, to me at least, just last season that he had as long as he wanted to ‘rebuild’.

The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that if he were to have another crappy season, even if the farm system is teeming with talent, his job is going to be in jeopardy. And I think he realizes that, and I think maybe that’s what has motivated his moves so far this offseason.

He seems to be running scared a little. How else can you justify the Farnsworth signing? Really, I just spend all of my time these days trying to figure out in the hell that singing happened.

I'm about to change my username to DannyDuffyfan

by jackie ballgame on Jan 5, 2009 2:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

How have they discarded it?

Did they say something today?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jan 5, 2009 10:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

farnsworth was a disaster

The Jacobs and Crisp trades were somewhat defensible, and even have their share of enthusiasts. (Even though I don’t think it made sense in the context of the team, with Shealy, Butler, and Kila around, I’m actually kind of excited about Jacobs).

When you look at the Farnsworth signing, though, it makes no sense at all. You might be on to something when you suggest he was scared a little — I’ve always attributed Baird’s final free agency to his being afraid of his impending dismissal from the job. Perhaps Moore’s starting to feel as though he’s in the same boat with regard to job security, and thus feels more pressured to win now, even if it means blowing money on a reliever.

by marbotty on Jan 6, 2009 6:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I just hope GMDM/Glass

continue to attack the ML draft the same way they did this year. Even if none of these guys turn out to be pros if KC continues to draft the way they did in ’08 they will eventually have a heap load of solid pro and prospect level talent.

It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird.

by kcscoliny on Jan 5, 2009 2:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

DM....

…. will be in trouble if any of his draft picks begin to fizzle in AA or AAA and don’t contribute to the ML club. He is safe for at least 2 years, even if the ML is at 90+ losses.

by Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal) on Jan 5, 2009 3:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Well, if Glass TRULY bought in to the changes Moore asked of him,

i.e., that building from within is the ONLY way to win in this market, and that he himself had been HINDERING that approach with his cheapskate ways and meddling in affairs,

THEN

Moore certainly deserves at least 7-10 years to build the organization.

I say that because he seemingly inherited the worst run player development system in baseball and basically had to start it over from scratch. Considering that even good players take 3-5 years to reach the majors, and that after doing so the team has 6 additional years of control, one could argue that Moore cannot fully place his stamp upon this organization until at least the better part of a decade has passed. (That is to say that at least his stamp won’t be fully impactful until that much time has passed)

Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!

by loyal2sdad on Jan 5, 2009 4:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Glass could be forcing DMGM into a juggling act.

While DMGM has been given much more money and control to build the farm system(the millions spent on last years draft) Glass has several times given as a goal of the Royals to get to .500. While Dayton has a fairly long leash, the weakness of the division last year may have Glass pushing for some short term deals to try to push into contention this year. It would explain the moves for Jacobs, Crisp, and Farnsworth, who clearly don’t fit long term but might bump us to break-even now. I certainly thought two years ago when Gordon struggled so horribly early that Butler was rushed up as an appeasement for the fans. I think and hope Moore has the backing to commit for the long-term, but he may feel he has to appease Glass with some quickie deals for this year.

by hunter s. royal on Jan 6, 2009 1:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think with Mike Arbuckle in the organization now, Dayton Moore has more pressure than ever. Arbuckle was one of the few being considered to take over the GM position in Philadelphia. I think as long as the improvement is steady, Moore will have a job in Kansas City, but one can’t over look Mike Arbuckle as the quick, obvious replacement of Dayton Moore.
Up until this off season, I have been happy with Moore. I think the honeymoon is over as soon as he traded for Coco Crisp and failed to sign, thus far, any good free agents.

On the other hand, Moore should not be judged until his draft picks have a chance to prove themselves. Moustakas alone is considered the #11 prospect in all of baseball…after one year…in a pitching friendly league.

by Royal Knight on Jan 6, 2009 10:08 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

just a note

Not a comment on Moore good or bad, but I actually consider the top draft picks of an organization with high picks like KC one of the least important factors in evaluating a GM, unless they all consistently bomb. Just about anybody with top-5 picks several years in a row is going to end up with top prospects — even Baird ended up producing Greinke, Gordon, and Butler (all top prospects in their time).

I’m not putting down Moore. I just think, in terms of the minors, he should be judged more on what comes out of the rest of the draft — both “overslot” signings like Melville, etc., and the rest of the guys. That’s what makes or breaks a minor league farm system. This is the one area where (and I admit my relative ignorance) I’ve been the happiest with DMGM.

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

by devil_fingers on Jan 6, 2009 10:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

but Baird also gave us...

Colt Griffin, Roscoe Crosby, Chris Lubanski…

Just saying. Baird had several years to come up with guys like Greinke, Gordon, and Butler, but in between those years, he came up with some real stinkers for first-round picks. Baird whiffed on draft picks a lot. In the fall of 2008, JoePo did this big long column chronicling the differences between how we drafted and how the Rays drafted over the last several years, since both teams were perennial top-10 in the draft order for a while. The differences were pretty clear. Your ability to draft, even at high levels, matters. A lot.

by DarthYoshi on Jan 6, 2009 12:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

All I mean is that the top picks are generally less difficult to screw up (except if you’re the Royals, apparently) than getting good players lower down.

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

by devil_fingers on Jan 6, 2009 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

they are generally less difficult to screw up in terms of finding players who can contribute

but there is also far more at stake. If you screw up a 20th round pick, BFD. But if you happened to pick Matt Bush with #1 overall pick, well, sucks to be you.

by DarthYoshi on Jan 6, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What you are really saying

is that the GM should be good at evaluating rough, fringe talent as well as the presumed obvious talent. And, perhaps more importantly developing a farm system that is primo at teaching and development and thereby increasing the talent level of whatever players you do end up with.

The Royals have almost always needed to do better at developing hitters. Big area of improvement need.

I AM intangible!

by kabrink on Jan 6, 2009 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The problem is that Royal's have bombed with the first round picks in the past:

YEAR PLAYER POS SCHOOL/HOMETOWN PICK
2003 Mitchell Myer C U. of Toledo 30
2003 Chris Lubanski OF Kennedy-Kenrick HS 5
2002 Zack Greinke RHP Apopka, FL 6
2001 Colt Griffin RHP Marshall (Texas) HS 9
2000 Mike Stodolka LHP Corona, CA 4
1999 Mike Macdougal RHP Wake Forest U. 25
1999 Kyle Snyder RHP U. of North Carolina 7
1998 Matt Burch RHP Va. Commonwealth U. 30
1998 Jeff Austin RHP Stanford U. 4
1997 Dan Reichert RHP U of the Pacific 7
1996 Dermal Brown OF Marlboro, NY 14
1995 Juan Lebron OF Arroyo, PR 19
1994 Matt Smith 1B Grants Pass, OR 16
1993 Jeff Granger LHP Texas A&M U 5
1992 James Pittsley RHP Dubois, PA 17
1992 Michael Tucker SS-2B Longwood College 10
1991 Joseph Vitiello OF U of Alabama 7
1989 Brent Mayne C Cal State Fullerton 13
1988 Hugh Walker OF Jacksonville, AR 18

by Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal) on Jan 6, 2009 11:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

That list is depressing

until you realize that Stodolka is gonna hit .400 in AAA/.330 for KC this year and lead to the replacement of Mark Teahen and Jose Guillen. Well maybe not but the mustache rules !!!

It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird.

by kcscoliny on Jan 6, 2009 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

even more depressing

is that I had no idea who the hell the first guy on the list was at all.

by DarthYoshi on Jan 6, 2009 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's a misspelling

It’s Mitch Maier

Waiting for a 90+ win season

by RoyalsFanInMarinerTown on Jan 7, 2009 11:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

oh good

I know who he is. I feel less dumb now!

by DarthYoshi on Jan 7, 2009 1:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But every team has some first round bombs

I think what’s worse is that the Royals had entire DRAFTS bomb. Usually teams find a few gems in the later rounds. We have entire drafts where no one got more than a cup of coffee in the big leagues.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jan 6, 2009 1:25 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs