Blue Jays sign John Buck, $2M/1yr
Alrighty then. Trust the process.
about 2 years ago
BHWick
173 comments
1 recs |
Email
PrintComments
There It Is
The contract we needed to give him. We’ll sign him in 2016 when he’s had time to develop veteran presence.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
Yeah...
I have literally nothing good to say. I’m going to focus on football and finals instead.
"You know what, I mean I cried in bed for a while, moaning 'Why!? Why did this have to happen?'"
Zack Greinke on the Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston split
Let's see, your name is DCRoyals and you root for the Royals
So I’m guessing your NFL team is either the Chiefs or the Redskins. Ouch. Maybe you should just throw all your focus into those finals.
by Soria's Unibrow on Dec 13, 2009 4:43 PM EST up reply actions
I root for
1. My fantasy football team
2. The Chiefs
Not a good day for me.
"You know what, I mean I cried in bed for a while, moaning 'Why!? Why did this have to happen?'"
Zack Greinke on the Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston split
Adopt Buffalo
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 13, 2009 5:57 PM EST up reply actions
I went to college w Fitzpatrick
so I have a rooting interest there
"You know what, I mean I cried in bed for a while, moaning 'Why!? Why did this have to happen?'"
Zack Greinke on the Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston split
Yep
watch out for the bball team this year — don’t know if you saw the ESPN article about Jeremy Lin (our star player) a couple of days ago, but it was an interesting read.
We beat BC, lost to UConn by 6, playing at Gtown next. Probably going to get blown out, but it’s good experience leading up to conference play.
We’ve never made the tournament. Ever. All you have to do is win the Ivies. And we’ve never done it.
"You know what, I mean I cried in bed for a while, moaning 'Why!? Why did this have to happen?'"
Zack Greinke on the Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston split
I’m a BC student. Sad to say I was at that Harvard-BC game. Demoralizing to say the least…Two straight years…Ugh. At least we have hockey…
I went to the Beanpot
two years ago, when you guys beat us like 6-5 in OT at the Garden. Great game, never really felt like we had a chance though.
Aside from the H-Y football game, hockey games were my favorite thing to go to. You could sit right next to the glass and get drunk and yell at the opposing goalie… I miss college so bad.
"You know what, I mean I cried in bed for a while, moaning 'Why!? Why did this have to happen?'"
Zack Greinke on the Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston split
'08, Lowell
"You know what, I mean I cried in bed for a while, moaning 'Why!? Why did this have to happen?'"
Zack Greinke on the Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston split
I was in Teach for America for a little while
and there were a bunch of people there who graduated from Harvard this year. I’m sure you’d probably know a couple, but I don’t remember any names… I just remember one of them had swine flu, and at the time everyone thought that was a big deal.
Wow, I had no idea they'd never made the tournament.
I went to Baylor for undergrad, so I can sympathize with bad sports teams. We’re slowly turning things around though; looks like Harvard is as well.
UMM...let's see...
a better offensive player, 6 yrs. younger, already knows your staff, at 1yr/2mil OR what we got at 2yr/6.5 (if he hits incentives)—-I wonder……..TRust the—oh, fuck it.
Even if we didn't sign Jason Kendall, JB wasn't going to sign with KC
Think about if you are John Buck. You get non-tendered after making 2.9M. Would you sign a one year contract for 2M with your old team when others would be interested signing you? I wouldn’t sign for less with my employer after they released me. I would rather take a pay cut and start fresh with another organization. No way if John Buck believes himself would he sign with the Royals even if we didn’t sign Jason Kendall.
by Rogue Buddhist on Dec 13, 2009 2:27 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
still would have tried it, though
I mean, is the market for Jason Kendall such that we HAD to have him right now? I mean, look it’s not the end of the world, but it’s a stupid move. small, but stupid.
"He once had an awkward moment, just to see how it felt...he lives vicariously...through himself- He is the most interesting man in the world"
by Home Run Tony Cogan on Dec 13, 2009 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
I think he was going to sign with the team that offered him the most money
It might have cost the Royals $2.1M.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 2:48 PM EST up reply actions
exactly
even if the Royals had offered Buck 1 year $1M, he would have stayed, and it would have been a far superior deal. And I can’t imagine he would turn down an extra million. The only reason you do is spite, and he wouldn’t be that spiteful—HE’D STILL BE GETTING A RAISE! (I can’t express how unhappy I am with this Kendall deal.)
yeah, if you're a...
…Marxist. But ball-players are bundles of emotions and pride. Buck’s FCA affiliation wouldn’t have prevented pride from rearing its ugly head. I say he’s being paid perhaps what he’s worth, but am slightly surprised he didn’t wait longer to sign. But he signed immediately because the Blue Jays have a better upward trend. – TL
I said "Marxist" because...
…I’m implying you share the Marxist critique of capitalist systems (all decisions are rooted in greed, with a few exceptions for power).
This bundle of emotion and pride has twin daughters to take care of
I’ve got to think his mind is on the bottom line.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 3:29 PM EST up reply actions
Bigger philosophical question: Why do you...
…always assume, without exception, that the ballplayer always goes for the highest money? As a Cubs fan, I’ve seen players sign with that team for less money pretty regularly (despite the Soriano exception—-which makes the money spent on him all the more strange). For instance, Aramis Ramirez turned down millions from the Angels to stay in Chicago. – TL
Bigger philosophical question: Why do you…
…always assume, without exception, that the ballplayer always goes for the highest money?
Because they almost always do.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 3:30 PM EST up reply actions
$$$ not the biggest factor
2010 is his final season before free-agency. My bet is that he signed where he felt he would get the most ABs. Once he was non-tendered, he wasn’t going to re-sign.
http://27up27out.blogspot.com
To be fair
that was in the context of arbitration, right?
"You know what, I mean I cried in bed for a while, moaning 'Why!? Why did this have to happen?'"
Zack Greinke on the Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston split
by DCRoyals on Dec 13, 2009 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not sure why that person said that
It was after the Kendall signing, when it was clear Buck was going to be non-tendered. It was pretty clear that even if the Royals wanted Buck, the thing to do was non-tender him and then negotiate a new 1-year contract with him for less. So the “how much he would have gotten in arbitration” issue was irrelevant.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
That was me
and I still insist that it would have cost the Royals $3.5M to sign him.
Keeping Buck would have required one of three things: deciding he would be Pena’s backup, deciding to release Pena and sign a starter, or deciding Buck would be the starter.
In the first case, you cannot go to arb with him, period. You’d be paying a ridiculous sum for a backup, since he could not have ended up with any more than a 10% pay cut.
In the second case, the same would be true, plus we’d all have blown our gaskets over releasing Pena, because we actually think he’s good enough to start.
In the third case, you have to offer him arb, because you can’t risk letting him get away. Now, I ask everyone: if anyone here had uttered the words “we can’t risk losing Buck”, how many derisive comments would that person have received?
That is why I assert that keeping Buck would have cost more than getting Kendall; we could only keep him via arb, because trying to retain him elsewise would have put us in the position where we had to get him to resign on the cheap, which gives him all the leverage.
And, of course, being very nearly the lone voice in the wilderness the last two years claiming that Buck wasn’t the problem… I think it’s pretty hypocritical of this forum in general to start wailing in sackcloth about losing him.
This space for rent.
I liked Buck
And at least recognized that he was better than Olivo. And I think he could have been had for less than $2.5M. The Royals could have let him go, hoping that they’d be able to re-sign him to share catching duties with Pena. Then, if they can’t re-sign him quickly, go out and get another decent, cheap catcher.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 5:00 PM EST up reply actions
I know you did
You’ll note I said “very nearly the lone voice” and “this board in general,” because I was specifically not saying “you”. :)
But here’s the thing: if you don’t resign him quickly (and Toronto’s haste in doing so makes that unlikely in the event, anyway), two things happen:
1) Potential replacements are no longer on the board.
2) The replacements that were out there are pretty uniformly bleh anyway.
This space for rent.
That’s why I said that he needed to be signed quickly. Actually, what I would have done is non-tendered him and simultaneously negotiated with a lot of similarly ok-but-not-particularly-exciting catcher possibilities. I think the potential replacements for Buck were indeed “uniformly bleh,” but I think that is true of Buck as well. Not bad, but not good. But certainly better than replacement level and considerably moreso than Kendall. So I’d negotiate with several and go with the one who is the best value for the money, who signs the quickest. If Buck really were hesitant to sign with the Royals, I’d make my final $2.2M offer to his agent and tell him that I’m negotiating with other catchers. If he doesn’t take the offer soon, it’s going to come off the table when another catcher accepts one of our offers.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 5:26 PM EST up reply actions
I don't disagree with any of that
I do think — especially given the rapidity of Buck’s signing with Toronto for less than I’d expected him to get on the open market — that there was no chance in hell of him coming back here anyway.
In that context, the outcry over this is silly. I have absolutely no quarrel with “we could have done better than Kendall”. That’s a position which I think is relatively self-evident.
What I DO take issue with is the concept that, given all available alternatives, the Kendall signing is even really relevant one way or another. I think they paid him too much, or more specifically for too long. But in realistic terms, the Royals were in between a rock and a hard place here. Yes, Royals catchers were actually among the best in the league offensively. Unfortunately, that’s damning with faint praise, and the financial cost of keeping that situation would have been far greater than its value.
In other words, I don’t like the result, but I can’t see how it could have worked out any differently except for a small shading of detail. We were going to end up without Buck, and with someone who wasn’t really any good anyway.
Obviously, my preference would have been to go ahead and get rid of Buck and Olivo for financial reasons, and give Pena the rope and sign an inexpensive nobody to back him up, but that simply wasn’t going to happen and we all knew it.
This space for rent.
Doesn't make the move any less stupid though.
Obviously, my preference would have been to go ahead and get rid of Buck and Olivo for financial reasons, and give Pena the rope and sign an inexpensive nobody to back him up, but that simply wasn’t going to happen and we all knew it.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
In that context, the outcry over this is silly. I have absolutely no quarrel with "we could have done better than Kendall". That’s a position which I think is relatively self-evident.
If “this” means the Buck signing, the outcry isn’t about not retaining Buck. The outcry is because this is great (and immediate) evidence that the Kendall signing was horrendous.
What I DO take issue with is the concept that, given all available alternatives, the Kendall signing is even really relevant one way or another…. I don’t like the result, but I can’t see how it could have worked out any differently except for a small shading of detail. We were going to end up without Buck, and with someone who wasn’t really any good anyway.
I don’t understand this. There were better alternatives than Kendall who cost the same money or less. All the Royals needed was someone to share time behind the plate with Pena. There were several available catchers who could have done so at a higher level of play than Kendall for much less money. Instead, Moore wasted scarce resources on an exceptionally poor player.
Isn’t the wasting of scarce resources on bad players exactly what the fans of a small market team should get upset about? It hurts the team for two years, both on the field and hurting the team’s ability to acquire good players because $6M is already spoken for.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 5:46 PM EST up reply actions
Obviously, my preference would have been to go ahead and get rid of Buck and Olivo for financial reasons, and give Pena the rope and sign an inexpensive nobody to back him up, but that simply wasn’t going to happen and we all knew it.
If that wasn’t going to happen because the front office is too fucking stupid to do it and instead wants to waste money on a “proven vet” then this is a good reason for fans to get really pissed off and post about it in places like this.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
I think you missed my chief point, though
I have no problem criticizing the Kendall signing, on its own.
I have a problem with criticizing it in the context of John Buck. That’s the only thing I’ve objected to the entire discussion.
This space for rent.
Criticizing the Kendall signing in the contxt of John Buck
I think it is appropriate to criticize the Kendall signing in the context of John Buck’s new contract with Toronto because it is a piece of evidence showing that the Royals could get a better catcher than Kendall for less. We now have a number to assign to a FA this offseason who is better than Kendall, and it is decidedly less than Kendall’s number. Over the next few months, more numbers will roll in on catchers better than Kendall, signing for less. Each will give rise to appropriate criticisms of Moore, with regard to Kendall. That this one was Buck’s signing and a day after Kendall’s makes it all a little more pointed.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 5:58 PM EST up reply actions
But it doesn't show that the Royals could have gotten
John Buck for less.
That’s my point.
This space for rent.
I don't see why they couldn't have had him for less.
You see it that way, I see it the other. Neither one of us has any information that can prove correct. In this situation, I think Buck takes the most money available. If it’s here and he doesn’t have to move and sell a house, I think he has no problem signing with the Royals for 2.1.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
Sigh
If Buck is still in the Royals picture, even after being non-tendered, his overall market value increases. He doesn’t sign with the Royals for 2.1, because if the Royals are still pursuing him at that point, it’s to be the starter, and Buck’s agent uses that.
In other words, it’s correct to say that perhaps the Royals could have gotten him for less. It is incorrect to say that this somehow demonstrates that they could have, because there’s more to all of this than just “Toronto paid him $2M.”
This space for rent.
If Buck is still in the Royals picture, even after being non-tendered, his overall market value increases. He doesn’t sign with the Royals for 2.1, because if the Royals are still pursuing him at that point, it’s to be the starter, and Buck’s agent uses that.
Is this assumption valid? Why does any negotiation between the Royals and Buck have to be with him as the starter? Can’t the Royals just offer him $2-2.5M to be a catcher for the Royals who shares time with Pena? You don’t have to make him any promises on playing time. I don’t think the BJ’s did.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 6:15 PM EST up reply actions
Gee, I dunno
Maybe the fact that John Buck isn’t a freakin’ IDIOT has something to do with this. I mean, it’s not like he’s some outsider who doesn’t know what’s going through the minds of the organization.
He KNOWS he’s Toby Flenderson.
He also KNOWS that neither Moore nor Hillman believe Pena is qualified to be the starter.
In fact, I’ll go so far as to say this: any agent who allowed John Buck to resign with the Royals after a non-tender for anything less than around $2.8M (assuming the Kendall signing doesn’t happen, of course) would be guilty of negligence. In fact, I would expect him to work a raise out of it, because:
1) Buck was above average offensively last season, and
2) If the team values him enough to try and retain him as the starter (or even in a time-share with a guy they don’t feel comfortable playing), then they can put the screws on.
End result? Either Buck gets paid (and probably regresses offensively, by the way), or Buck’s still gone and the Royals are digging through the scrap heap of crappy free-agent catchers.
And, uh, the fact that Buck was “available” doesn’t show that you could have gotten a guy just as good. In fact, I would argue that in reality the best free agent catcher on the market last night WAS John Buck, which makes that particular argument moot.
This space for rent.
He also KNOWS that neither Moore nor Hillman believe Pena is qualified to be the starter.
Doesn’t he also know that neither Moore nor Hillman believe buck is qualified to be the starter? Hell, Pena played more games for the Royals in 2009 than Buck did. Do you think if the Royals tried to sign him he could be confident that he’d be the starter? I don’t think there’s any reason to be confident of that.
In fact, I’ll go so far as to say this: any agent who allowed John Buck to resign with the Royals after a non-tender for anything less than around $2.8M
No one was going to offer that much to Buck, period. So if the BJ’s offer $2M and the Royals make a final offer, $2.5M, Buck’s agent should do what? Tell the Royals that they really want to offer more? Buck and his agent know that he’s one of many merely ok catching options out there, for the Royals and several other teams.
End result? Either Buck gets paid (and probably regresses offensively, by the way), or Buck’s still gone and the Royals are digging through the scrap heap of crappy free-agent catchers.
Buck is just a part of that scrap heap. He’s just another piece of decent scrap. He would have very little bargaining power with the Royals. If he turns down their offer, they could give the same amount of money, or maybe even less to one of several other catchers. Or perhaps a bit more to a catcher better than Buck.
And, uh, the fact that Buck was "available" doesn’t show that you could have gotten a guy just as good. In fact, I would argue that in reality the best free agent catcher on the market last night WAS John Buck, which makes that particular argument moot.
I don’t think the numbers bear that out.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 6:29 PM EST up reply actions
Doesn’t he also know that neither Moore nor Hillman believe buck is qualified to be the starter?
Hello? Flenderson? He knows that they no longer wanted him around, period.
Which means that if they’re pursuing him anyway, they’re desperate.
No one was going to offer that much to Buck, period.
Oh, lord. Do y’all really not understand this? As long as the Royals actually have a need for Buck, then there is competition for his services. With the Royals no longer interested, he’s pretty much just looking for a job.
More simply: if more than one team was seriously seeking to employ him, he’d have gotten more than he got from Toronto. How much more, we can’t say.
I don’t think the numbers bear that out.
List of free-agent catchers you’d take over John Buck today, please. ‘cause I’m not seeing any in a short search.
This space for rent.
He knows that they no longer wanted him around, period.
Which means that if they’re pursuing him anyway, they’re desperate.
No, it means that he’s one of the catchers they are negotiating with to fill an open catching position on the team. And undoubtedly they wouldn’t just be looking at him. They’d probably be talking to several other catchers and they could tell his agent just that. That’s what gives them the freedom to make a final offer, tell him to take it or leave it while they are negotiating with others.
Oh, lord. Do y’all really not understand this? As long as the Royals actually have a need for Buck, then there is competition for his services. With the Royals no longer interested, he’s pretty much just looking for a job.
More simply: if more than one team was seriously seeking to employ him, he’d have gotten more than he got from Toronto. How much more, we can’t say.
Listen Jon, we’re not stupid. We just disagree with you. You are assuming that if the Royals make any offer to Buck then a) the Royals are desperate, and b) Buck and his agent would know they are desperate. I think that is silly. Buck is in a pool of decent, available catchers, of which he is just one. The Royals would no more be desperate for him than they would be for any of them.
List of free-agent catchers you’d take over John Buck today, please. ‘cause I’m not seeing any in a short search.
I should have said “available catchers.” I’m going to poach gopherballs list of available or possibly available catchers better than Kendall. These aren’t all better than Buck, but some are. And many who are a similar value in dollars/performance terms.
Ramon Castro is a better hitter and defender and will sign for $1 million or so (if he can get a major league deal). George Kotteras was a waiver claim. Ryan Doumit and Chris Snyder are being shopped at a discount in cost-cutting moves even though their salaries are reasonable given their expected performance. The Royals could re-sign John Buck at a lower salary after non-tendering him. All of these guys are projected to substantially outperform Kendall.
Here is a partial list of additional free agent (or soon-to-be non-tendered) catchers who project to outperform Kendall in 2010. (Courtesy of CHONE)
Dioneer Navarro
Rod Barajas
Miguel Olivo
Benjie Molina
Josh Bard
Yorvit Torrealba
Matt Treanor
This is not even getting into the young catchers who might be available in trade at a modest cost like JR Towles, Dusty Ryan, or even Shawn Riggans.
Given this pool of ho-hum catchers (like Buck), there would be no reason for the Royals to be desperate for Buck and no reason for him to think they are desperate for him.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 6:54 PM EST up reply actions
That tingling sense of deja moo ...
… That’s when you know you’ve seen this shit before.
All of this discussion is remarkably similar to the discussions that were had at sites such as Lookout Landing when Bavasi would make one of his idiotic deals.
There would be a posters who would say what’s the big deal – it’s only a couple of million dollars. Meanwhile others would be pointing out the sheer idiocy of the deal, how it exposes the fundamental flaws, and how four or five cumulative bad contracts quickly matches one bad one.
And around and around and around the discussions would go.
IMHO – defending thie Kendall signing as inconsequential is like defending one of Bavasi’s similar moves as inconsequential.
by Steve Nelson on Dec 13, 2009 7:32 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Yeah, it is inconsequential like the contracts of Gload, Farnsworth, HoRram, Bloomy, etc. Individually, they are all stupid but not earth shattering catastrophies. Together they waste a lot of money and paint a picture of incompetence and failure.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 7:42 PM EST up reply actions
Well, yeah, but
it’s not like I’m walking around sucking GMDM’s willy here. I know he’s a functional moron.
Again, I’m not defending the signing, and it’s starting to piss me off that it’s being characterized that way. This isn’t about Jason Kendall being a waste of money; it’s about this season’s options being like having a menu of gruel, liver, sweetbreads, mutton, and dog crap to choose from.
Yeah, Dayton picked the dog crap.
There needs to be a certain acceptance of reality here, though. Look, Dayton’s not going to wake up one morning and go, “You know what? I think that Pena kid can do the job. And I think maybe I should get Kila up here for the haul and see what he can do.” We don’t need to prove the point that he has no idea whatsoever how to effectively construct an inexpensive yet functional major-league roster. We already know it.
This space for rent.
So why defend anything he does
He needs to get put out on the street with yesterday’s trash. I am absolutely convinced that almost everyone on this site could put together a better team than Dayton. The on field performance will show that Dayton can’t even improve on last year’s debacle. It’s going to be a rough year.
I guess part of it
is that I have no expectation that this year will be any better than next, because Moore’s already acknowledged that trying to Win Now was a mistake.
This space for rent.
I think they definitely could have gotten Buck for less than Kendall
Certainly for less than the full value of Kendall’s contract. Definitely for less than the average value of the two years of the contract. And quite likely for around the amount Kendall gets in the first year of the contract.
Are you saying that a non-tendered Buck would sign with the BJ’s for $2M, but wouldn’t sign with the Royals for $2.5M?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 6:13 PM EST up reply actions
What I posted elsewhere on this same point
from the D J Carrasco thread:
… teams frequently tell players in Buck’s situation that they are going to non-tender to avoid aribitration, but are willing to keep the player if he will sign a contract for less than what he whill get in arbitration. . Almost every player on a MLB roster with four or five years of experience with the same tieam and who is making less than about $2 million is a guy who was told by his team that they were going to non-tender but were willing to keep around if he would sign a contract for less than he was going to receive in arbitration. Those are all guys who were told, in essence, go ahead and check the market if you don’t agree.
At that point it just comes down to a question of where the guy wants to play. If he likes his current team he resigns with them. If he wants to try his luck elsewhere he tells the team "no thanks for now, but we’ll stay in touch".
In the end, if he signs the same offer but with a different team, it’s because he felt they situation was better for him someplace else. These are fringe guys; they don’t have the luxury of turning down an offer just because their feelings might have been hurt because they were non-tendered. The last thing that most of these guys need is to develop a reputation as a player who thinks too highly of himself or as a player who gets his feelings bruised easily.
It’s simply a business; the teams know that, the players know that, the agents know that. Telling a guy to check the market doesn’t mean a damn thing.
by Steve Nelson on Dec 13, 2009 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Makes no sense that Buck would re-sign
Don’t know where you read Buck was going to cost 3.5M. I think that was the figure for potential arbitration. But put it this way, if you got released or non-tendered you wouldn’t sign with your old team even if it was for 2.1M. Why would you re-sign with your old team when other teams want you to be their catcher?
read my above post
especially considering he’d basically be guaranteed the starting job. The worst part is, I’m pretty sure Moore thinks that Kendall is better than Buck right now.
Royals were minimizing Buck for the last 3 yrs.
Since ’07, Royals have been finding ways to minimize the role of Buck, first with LaRue then with Olivio. It has been pretty obvious that the Royals have not respected the performance of Buck on handling the pitchers, his catching skills, and his offensive skills. Myself, I am happy that Buck has left. For an amateur like me, it is difficult to watch and see Buck play. This is his typical pattern, does well offensively for the 1st month or so, the slump all throughout summer, then tease us again in September. But during the crucial months of June, July, and August, his production is less than ideal. You want a player that is consistent in all the months.
by Rogue Buddhist on Dec 13, 2009 3:17 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, the Royals reduced his role.
But they also let Olivo go. If they choose to bring Buck back, it’s only to be the starter. He can even get that as a statement! (Don’t know if that can go in a contract, but players get those kind of guarantees all the time.)
I think he cares more about money than respect
And with only Pena to compete with, he would have had a good shot at good playing time in KC.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 3:31 PM EST up reply actions
Ahem
Royals were minimizing Buck for the last 3 yrs.
(And so was everyone here.)
This space for rent.
Not entirely true.
Many of us were concerned that we had two mediocre catchers that were essentially the same and we were paying roughly 6MM for that redundancy. Mostly we debated which one we should keep and which one to trade away.
by Steve Hovley on Dec 13, 2009 5:02 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, and
in general, that debate landed on the side of “I guess Olivo sucks less.”
This space for rent.
That was certainly the majority position
A significant majority too.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 5:27 PM EST up reply actions
Again
Dayton Moore : John Buck ::
Michael Scott: Toby Flenderson
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 5:43 PM EST up reply actions
I tried several times to make the point that Buck was better than Olivo
but everyone always pointed to Buck’s CS rate as complete proof he was terrible.
I still hold a grudge against Buddy Bell for making Buck change his swing after he started the season red hot with a new one. What year was that? 2005, 6, or 7?
2007 was the year Buck started out insanely hot
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 9:20 PM EST up reply actions
Also worth considering
Read Steve Nelson’s posts on how this is often done in resigning players and telling them before they are non-tendered..
As an Americna living in the Greater Toronto Area, which I really enjoy, weight also has to be given to the fact that it’s a pain in the butt to move yourself and your family over the border, even if it’s a relatively simple move to Canada in terms of paperwork. OR, he could leave his family in KC and be apart from them half the year or more, even when he’s "home.’
In other words, there were other reasons he would have had to stay in KC for not much more thatn $2M. I don’t think they’re great arguments, but they are as good as some of the others thrown around here.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 5:42 PM EST up reply actions
And won't he be taxed at a higher rate in Canada?
I’ve read this about other players signing with a Canadian team. It makes ever $X deal worth less than X in real terms.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 5:49 PM EST up reply actions
I can barely figure out what's going on with my own binational taxes
In Buck’s case, I’m sure he’ll probably get fined by the Ontario Human Rights Commission if he messes with the Blue Jays pitching staff the way he did the Royals’.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 5:51 PM EST up reply actions
Doesn't the fact that Buck
barely even waited for the ink to dry on the press release announcing his non-tender to sign mean anything to anyone? Am I the only one who finds that sorta significant?
This space for rent.
Don't forget he signed this well after it was confirmed the Royals had chosed Kendall.
If he took the non-tendering personal, I’d imagine it has a whole lot more to do with being passed over for Kendall. Not with the fact that the Royals didn’t like the idea of paying him 3 million dollars.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
Again
I’m not saying signing Kendall was a good idea.
But we couldn’t have signed him for $2M without risking a bad situation anyway. If you go to Buck’s agent and say, “So, umm, what would it take to resign John if we non-tender him?” do you think they’re going to get a number any less than the $3.5M he could have been expected to get in arb? No. The only way you can get to a lower figure is to go ahead and release him.
If you then lose him, you’re officially desperate and you end up overpaying for Kendall even more than they did in the first place, or signing someone else for more than they’re worth.
Buck was gone, period. Moore made sure he got someone signed before the non-tender date so that he wouldn’t have to pay the premium for signing someone afterward; the fact that he chose Kendall is unfortunate.
This space for rent.
So all the catchers that haven't signed or will sign are going to sign for more than they're worth
because teams are now desperate?
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
What?
How many other teams are looking for a starting catcher among the ashpile of essentially fungible and useless free-agent catchers on the market?
Hmm. None, I figure.
The Royals, on the other hand, were.
This space for rent.
So, only the Royals would be desperate?
If you then lose him, you’re officially desperate and you end up overpaying for Kendall even more than they did in the first place, or signing someone else for more than they’re worth.
Buck was gone, period. Moore made sure he got someone signed before the non-tender date so that he wouldn’t have to pay the premium for signing someone afterward;
He paid the premium now. Without seeing what other catchers would get paid, again. We’ve seen the same thing many times and it hasn’t worked in the Royals favor yet.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
Oh, for chrissake
If there’s only one team in baseball for whom even one starting catcher on the free-agent pile would be an improvement, then YES. They’re the only team that would be desperate.
Do y’all seem to think there are other teams out there picking through this year’s horrible free-agent catcher scrap pile looking for a new STARTER? As soon as the Nats signed Pudge, that ship sailed. The Royals were the only team in baseball in search of a starter for whom anyone on the refuse pile might have been an improvement over what they already had (or perceived they had, since they’re too damned stupid to just play Pena).
THAT is the problem. The refusal to just say “screw it” and give Pena a chance. But in that instance, I can actually give weight to the argument that this pitching staff needs a veteran hand, because in 2010 it doesn’t freakin’ matter whether the Royals’ catcher is an offensive doorknob. Not. One. Bit. The 2010 Royals will not contend, but they might get their pitching staff in order for a 2011 run.
This space for rent.
You are very correct about the Royals making themselves to be desperate when there was no need to be.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
by Warden11 on Dec 13, 2009 6:52 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think your point shows that the Royals had no reason whatsoever to offer overmarket salary to any free agent catcher.
Do y’all seem to think there are other teams out there picking through this year’s horrible free-agent catcher scrap pile looking for a new STARTER? As soon as the Nats signed Pudge, that ship sailed. The Royals were the only team in baseball in search of a starter for whom anyone on the refuse pile might have been an improvement over what they already had (or perceived they had, since they’re too damned stupid to just play Pena).
That makes the supply far greater than the demand. If one of them wants the chance to start, they’re gonna have to take what the Royals are offering, because—as you said—they are the only team looking for a starter among this refuse pile.
EXACTLY.
They had no reason to offer overmarket salary to anyone. That is absolutely true.
Which is why there was no way in hell the Royals were going to be able to keep John Buck, because doing so would have all but required it. So they had to decide to cut him loose and look elsewhere.
The problem here is not that they could have kept John Buck for $2M; they couldn’t. The problem is that they decided to pay a washed-up 35-year-old with no power who isn’t even a singles hitter anymore.
This space for rent.
I'm confused....
If there’s only one team in baseball for whom even one starting catcher on the free-agent pile would be an improvement, then YES. They’re the only team that would be desperate.
They had no reason to offer overmarket salary to anyone. That is absolutely true.
To me those are 2 contradictory statements you are making. If a team is desperate they are willing to pay over market value for someone, and then you say the Royals shouldn’t have offered overmarket to anyone. In fact, it’s pretty clear to me with Buck signing so quickly he was moving to beat the other catcher FAs before they put him out of a job. When you have excess supply, prices are suppressed. Likely 1 or 2 of those guys will get minor league deals because they don’t fit in MLB right now. There was absolutely no reason the Royals couldn’t wait this out and go into the year with Pena and some other crappy backup for at least a million cheaper. If Dayton viewed the catching FAs as Pudge + Kendall on the top tier, that’s just a sad, sad mistake.
I haven't been too clear on this.
Buck signed quickly with Toronto to beat the other catcher FAs to a backup job.
The teams aren’t all competing for the same thing even though they’re after the same pool of talent. Imagine a small floundering company looking for a CEO, while several big established companies are looking for EVPs. Who’s going to get more resumes?
The Royals situation was exacerbated by the fact that — once Pudge signed — they were the only team in the market for a starting catcher. In some respects, that does help; you have something to offer that the other teams don’t, namely playing time.
But the thing I guess I haven’t really laid out so well is this: playing for the Royals in 2010 will not be fun. It will not be rewarding. It will likely not increase your potential future earnings, because you will be forgotten and irrelevant. They had no reason to offer overmarket salary to anyone because there was nobody worth paying — but at the same time, they needed a starting catcher, one way or another, and had to convince one to play here. Yes, the two statements are contradictory… because the situation creates a contradictory dichotomy.
This space for rent.
Pretty sure Buck is first in line in TOR to be the #1 catcher
for what it’s worth, as Barajas (maybe slightly better than Buck) isn’t going to be back, and Jesse Chavez, the other TOR catcher, is on a minor league deal
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 9:22 PM EST up reply actions
I'm willing to bet that Buck outproduces our catching situation in 2010
The only way that doesn’t happen is if Pena plays at least 40% of games, and we already know Kendall’s good for at least 130 games. So that’s out the window.
This simply does not make sense
But the thing I guess I haven’t really laid out so well is this: playing for the Royals in 2010 will not be fun. It will not be rewarding. It will likely not increase your potential future earnings, because you will be forgotten and irrelevant.
If you are a catcher and you believe that you are capable of being a starter and just haven’t been given your chance, of course you’re going to want to play for the Royals.
And it absolutely will increase your potential future earnings if acquit yourself credibly. Other teams aren’t blind. They know when someone a player on another team is doing a good job in a lost cause.
To imply that other teams ignore how Royals players are doing just because they play for the Royals is so blindingly ill-informed that I can’t imagine you actually believe that. (And I don’t think I’m mischaracterizing you; since your words are that playing for the Royals in 2010 “will likely not increase your potential future earnings, because you will be forgotten and irrelevant.”.)
by Steve Nelson on Dec 13, 2009 10:13 PM EST up reply actions
It does, but not what you think ...
Doesn’t the fact that Buck barely even waited for the ink to dry on the press release announcing his non-tender to sign mean anything to anyone? Am I the only one who finds that sorta significant?
What it means is that the Royals had told Buck that not only were they not-going to non-tender him, they also were not interested in bringing him back at all. So in the runup to the non-tender date they had probably already worked something out with Toronto.
Again, that’s pretty standard practice for players in Buck’s situation. The player’s agent is in contact with the team to find out what the teams plans are for the player. And if the team does not plan to bring the guy back, they let the player and his agent know so they can begin looking around.
by Steve Nelson on Dec 13, 2009 7:40 PM EST up reply actions
garhhhh
“not only were they not-going to non-tender him”
by Steve Nelson on Dec 13, 2009 7:41 PM EST up reply actions
More nuance.
It means that the Royals had already told Buck that they weren’t going to pay him what he wanted to be paid to stay in KC.
Whether that was $2.1M or $2.5M or $2.8M, we have no way of knowing. And whether that discussion took place before or after Jason Kendall was signed, we have no way of knowing.
It could well be that the Royals made no effort to try and retain Buck to handle most of the load at a reduced rate — indeed, I’m not actually sure whether that’s even entirely “legal” under the CBA. (I suspect it is not, but is probably wink-winked quite often.)
It could also be that they did make a reduced offer, but Buck’s agent informed the Royals that they could either agree to X money, take it or leave it, or he was leaving. “X money” could even have been in the $2.5M range; it wouldn’t be the first time that a player or his agent screwed up.
And it’s almost certain that most of these shenanigans occurred before the Royals signed Kendall. They could have told Buck they weren’t interested, and then begun the catcher search. They could have tried to work something out and been rebuffed, then went after a catcher. They could have been using the search for a catcher to try and induce Buck into a deal.
We don’t know what the hell may have happened, and the expressions of certainty regarding whether the Royals could have retained Buck if they’d wanted to for $2M just because that’s what Toronto paid him are silliness.
This space for rent.
So is saying there is no way they could have had him for 2.5M.
The bottom line is, we don’t know. I, like many others, think Buck would have taken the highest offer. You believe the Royals would have had to overpay for Buck.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
Yeah, I wish I could take the same job in Toronto for the same pay I could make here
That’s not exactly logical. Maybe the Royals completely lowballed him at like $1.5M.
I have no doubt that GMDM told Buck he would not offer him a contract at all.
It’s quite clear that Moore doesn’t like Buck, and I have no problem with that. However, I severely doubt that Buck would have turned down more money to stay in KC. I just can’t believe we gave out that contract to Kendall, and Buck’s contract puts the spotlight even brighter on the whole situation.
Why would you re-sign with your old team when other teams want you to be their catcher?
Because he’s not a big star making big money. He doesn’t even know how long he’ll be in the game. So he needs to make as much money as he can. He might be so immature that he’s pissed off at the Royals and wouldn’t play there even for more money, but I think that is a lot to assume. He isn’t one of these guys who has amassed a fortune and can now afford to turn down more money to play for the team of his choice. He’s a grinder. He needs to make as much money as he can now because he has to live on it for the rest of his life. It’s not like he’s going to a team where he knows he’ll be the first string catcher and make the vast majority of starts. He doesn’t know that with the BJ’s.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 2:55 PM EST up reply actions
You could look at it another way, he probably will get better coaching with the BJ’s and extend his career. Also 2M is nothing to sneeze out. from ’08 t0 ’10, he will or have earned 2.4M, 2.9M, 2M which is7.3M, not including his 1st 3 yrs non-arbitration years with the Royals. That is nothing to sneeze at and probably more than you or I have earned.
And honestly, what’s the point of arguing about John Buck and how inexpensive we can sign him. DM and the staff wasn’t interested in retaining him. He was not their first choice and they re-signed Olivio for ‘09 to catch the bulk of the games over Buck. DM and the Royals didn’t want him.
To me, the more important question is why didn’t the Royals draft Wieters or Buster Posey when they had the chance in the ’07 and ’08 draft especially when catching is at a premium and a large need.
by Rogue Buddhist on Dec 13, 2009 3:04 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I too have wondered why...
…they haven’t drafted a catcher in one of the higher positions. But perhaps the pitching needs were felt to be more acute (though a rock-solid backstop is always necessary to getting the most out of the pitchers). – TL
Look at the 2007 and 2008 draft
2007 Draft
Royals Mike Moustakas, but they passed on Matt Wieters
2008 Draft
Royals draft Eric Hosmer, passing Buster Posey, LHP Brian Matusz and 1B Justin Smoak, players that could be helping the Royals right now.
by Rogue Buddhist on Dec 13, 2009 3:13 PM EST up reply actions
You do make a good point
DM and the staff wasn’t interested in retaining him. He was not their first choice and they re-signed Olivio for ‘09 to catch the bulk of the games over Buck. DM and the Royals didn’t want him.
And, yet, they somehow came to the conclusion that JASON KENDALL is a viable starting candidate! If you have to choose between two things you hate, you pick the one that will hurt the least. It’s like ripping a Band-aid off: slow and gentle, with the lesser pain stretched out, or fast and furious, one big burst of pain. The problem is the Royals chose the bigger pain (more salary with bad production) over the longer period of time.
Awful
This makes the Kendall deal look worse and I didn’t know that was possible.
Yes, I'm still alive. Sorry to disappoint you.
Who would you
Maybe offensively JK doesn’t match up well with Buck especially when it comes to SLG%. This reminds me of the Royals in the 80’s when they traded a much better offensive catcher in Don Slaught for Jim Sundberg. I am not saying JK is Jim Sundberg or JB is Don Slaught. However, I am sure there are intangibles and the handling of a pitching staff that JK I believe will do better than JB. Finally, John Buck was just too inconsistent. When has he as a Royal sustained a consistent performance for an entire season? Not once. I think Jason Kendall is an upgrade. And finally who is available on the open market for that price right now? If budget wasn’t a concern, it would be better for us to sign Molina. And we need a competent gate keeper until Pina, Myers, or whoever else is ready.
Intangibles are good and all...
But at some point you need to have production.
In JB you have a player thats been a -5 hitter over the last 3 years, while Kendal is nearly a -20 hitter over that same time.
Defensively the two are very similar, neither throws out a lot of runners(though Buck got run on a lot less) and both are decent at blocking the plate.
So you have to be betting that Kendals knoweledge (of the other league…) out weighs the win and a half that bucks bat would bring, plus anything that bucks knoweledge of THIS league and THESE pitchers would give to the team.
I refuse to set up a signature....DAMMIT
He's cleaned up the locker room
John Buck insisted on playiing every day, refused to DH. I hear he was a total jerk to fans.
Jason Kendall is totally selfless and willing to bring younger players along.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 5:44 PM EST up reply actions
The spring training stories write themselves
“Kendall Ready to be Royals Iron Man Behind the Plate”
“Pitchers Benefit from Kendall’s Experience”
“Kendall Optimistic About the Royals Season”
And then we see no improvement on team pitching statistics, team hitting is worse and the team’s W/L record is largely unchanged.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 3:56 PM EST up reply actions
Our W/L record remains unchanged?
That’s the most optimistic thing I’ve seen from you in a long time NYRoyal.
by Soria's Unibrow on Dec 13, 2009 4:45 PM EST up reply actions
Oy vay
You really should get professional help. Your obsession with ND football is not healthy. ---Dr. lookingdeadred
LAME!
You really should get professional help. Your obsession with ND football is not healthy. ---Dr. lookingdeadred
by averagegatsby on Dec 13, 2009 5:08 PM EST up reply actions
So the Jays are now the place where Royal castoffs go?
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
Chicago White Sox mostly
Sisco, Gobble, Carrasco, MacDougal, Teahen.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 5:28 PM EST up reply actions
the good ones
Can’t wait to for Kila to hit 18 homers for them in a platoon role
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 5:44 PM EST up reply actions
One note on Buck and catcher defense
In the other thread, we discussed catcher defense extensively. Tom Tango invented WOWY for catchers, a defensive system which takes into account interactions with other players on the field. It’s the best defensive stat system for catchers out there.
Tango is best known for currelty working for the Mariners. This off-season, he also began consulting for the Blue Jays.
Any questions?
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 5:46 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
It would've taken at least 2.12M for the Royals to resign Buck
thats what 2m converts to Canadian. Sometimes it’s better to let the market develop a tad more than just one other bad team(Nats).
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
Minus the higher income tax rate in Canada
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 7:04 PM EST up reply actions
Oh ya forgot that part.
I wasn’t a big fan of Buck myself but to sign a worse player for more money is just another Daytonism.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
by kcscoliny on Dec 13, 2009 7:21 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This is the point.
No one here is actually pining for Buck. Very few here actually hate having Kendall on the team. It’s the fact that Buck’s signing for less shows that the Royals could have gotten similar or better production than Kendall for less than they decided to give Kendall.
But it doesn't.
It shows that Toronto could. It shows that the Royals might.
Look, let me put it this way: anyone who thinks that money is the main driver all the time is just plain wrong. I know lots of people who take pay cuts to get the hell out of… well, hell. I’ve personally refused to accept higher-paying job offers in the past because I knew I’d be miserable at the new company. The frustration wasn’t worth it.
Buck was disrespected by the team, he was disrespected by the fans, he was jerked around by coaches… anyone stop to think maybe he just wanted the hell out of here? And we recognize that the Royals have to overpay for free agents every time the topic comes up… so, really, who in their right mind would assume the Royals could have kept Buck for $2M? Seriously?
This space for rent.
Do you think he would've stayed for 2/4,2/5 or 1/3?
Isn’t his future retirement worth more even if it means 1 or 2 more season in KC? Most of these guys seem to look at this as a business more than a game so I would have to believe that his families longterm future and more money would make a difference to him. Maybe you are right just getting out was more important but I don’t know and neither do you.
I just think GMDM jumped the shark by offering Kendall too much too soon. That extra 1M could’ve came in handy for a reliever.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
Sure, people will stick around
when they’re miserable. Unless something better comes along, and the pay cut is outweighed by the lack of frustration.
Again, we have no way of knowing, but I’m pretty sure one of two things is true. Either Moore didn’t want Buck back at any price, or Buck made it clear he wanted more than Moore would give him.
Hell, maybe “more than Moore would give him” was $2M. In which case, everyone’s right. But I can’t imagine even that level of stupidity.
This space for rent.
Hell, maybe "more than Moore would give him" was $2M. In which case, everyone’s right. But I can’t imagine even that level of stupidity.
I think the rest of us can, and that’s why we’re arguing against you.
Welp
If you’re all right, then Moore needs to be fired RIGHT NOW, no excuses, no Process, no anything. Call David Glass up and tell him to call Dayton in and demand to know why we’re paying $3M a year for a catcher who’s worse than the one we just let go and is now getting $2M.
Glass isn’t an idiot, so if Dayton still has a job after that conversation, I must be right about something here.
This space for rent.
It's the sum of all the bad moves he's made
He just keeps doing it, and at this point the evidence is overwhelming that he’s really bad at offering contracts to FAs. This move alone is not evidence of that, but the pattern is very clear.
If we get Podsednik, we will lose 100 games guaran-freakin-teed.
Prove Glass isn't an idiot when it comes to baseball
He did give the guy an extension. Just because Glass knows about working children to death in China and profiting on it here in the states doesn’t mean he knows alot about ML baseball.
While the talent evaluation is a problem, GMDM tossing an extra 4M by jumping the market too quickly is a bigger problem. GMDM didn’t anticipate the catcher market well and I doubt he had to compete with too many teams for Kendall’s services and IF he did the fact he couldn’t walk away from the negotiating table is idiotic.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
You and I
might, perhaps, define children differently.
"You know what, I mean I cried in bed for a while, moaning 'Why!? Why did this have to happen?'"
Zack Greinke on the Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston split
He also reportedly said something along the lines of...
“Asians are smaller, so sometimes it’s hard to tell how old they really are.”
So you know he’s a classy guy.
When asked about the Kendall signing he was quoted
“Yeah…there are tragic things that happen all over the world.”
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
by kcscoliny on Dec 13, 2009 11:52 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I don't think you understand me.
I’m saying that a better player got a cheaper contract. There was no reason to offer anyone what they did to Kendall because Buck’s case shows that these other catchers could be had for less, and the production would have been similar, maybe even better. I wouldn’t have minded seeing Buck return, but I won’t miss him either. My argument is not about Buck himself, but what he represents: what the market actually is as compared to what GMDM thinks it is.
Good grief
95% of the time the MLB free agent takes the most money, so the suggestion that Buck would not have re-signed with the Royals even if they offered more than the Jays just does not fly. If the Royals kept Buck, he would have played regularly (and if the Royals would not, then again, that’s something else for which they deserve criticism).
Pena was not going to be the regular catcher no matter what. The members of the front office thought so much of Pena that they DFA’d him six months ago (and the 29 other MLB teams thought so much of him that they passed on him for free).
At least I'll get to see John Buck play in person
Unless my pancreas explodes or something
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 8:31 PM EST up reply actions
What it looks to me
- The Royals decided that neither Buck nor Pena was capable of being a starting catcher. Between the two, they selected Pena to be the backup catcher – the specific reasons at this point are irrelevant.
- Having decided that they informed Buck that they were cutting ties.
- They now needed a “Starting Catcher” and decided that Kendall was the best remaining option to fill that hole.
- They contacted Kendall and asked what will it take. He said a Pudge Rodriguez contract; they said fine and completed the deal.
I’ve posted before about the similarities with Bill Bavasi, and this is more of the same. Bavasi saw a roster as built of specific, discrete parts. When he saw a hole, he would look around for a fix, identify what he wanted, then inquire what it would take to acquire that piece. If it was what he wanted he would generally say OK, generally resulting in vast overpays.
We need a #2 hitter. How about Jose Vidro? Jim Bowden – what will it take? We pay all of the salary, vest his option, and give you two prospects?? Well, I guess so, if that’s what it takes.
We need a RH bat at DH. How about Eduardo Perez. Mark Shapiro – what do you want for Eduardo Perez? Shin Soo Choo? Well, I guess so. We really need a RH bat and with Ichiro, Ibañez, and Guillen we don’t have room for Choo.
Now we need a LH bat for DH – how about I call Mark again. Mark – what do you want for Ben Broussard? Asdrubal Cabrera – I guess so. OK – you got a deal.
We need another starting pitcher. Hey, Jarrod. What do you want to pitch for the Mariners? Four years and $37.5 million. Well, it looks like your the best starting pitcher out there and if that’s what you want I guess that’s what the market is. We’ll get right to work on the papers.
We need another starting pitcher. Hey, Carlos. What do you want to pitch for the Mariners? Four years and $48 million. Well, it looks like your the best starting pitcher out there and if that’s what you want I guess that’s what the market is. We’ll get right to work on the papers.
Moore’s approach to building a roster is like a kid who only plays with Legos. Ask him to build something, and he reaches for the Legos that he needs. If he’s out of some specific Lego he’s stuck.
But he has no idea that he can also build with Lincoln Logs. As far as he’s concerned, Legos are the only toys he knows so Legos are the only toys he’s going to use.
by Steve Nelson on Dec 13, 2009 10:52 PM EST reply actions 6 recs
Don't worry
Sam Mellinger says we’re all wasting energy on getting pissed over Bloomquist and Kendall. The real problems are Guillen and Farnsworth. Good thing Mellinger was all over that terrible Guillen deal. What, he said it was “great?” Must have been someone else.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Don't you mean "Block Structures?"
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 11:27 PM EST up reply actions
the legos vs lincoln logs analogy is spot on
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
Linear thinking
Steve, you are correct – Moore is stuck in a “linear thinking” pattern.
What we could use is a creative GM. I can recall Whitey Herzog, when he was GM and coach of the Cardinals, during one offseason of wheeling and dealing, he at one point had Sutter and Fingers on his roster at the same time. Naturally, he occured the seeminlgly excess talent at one spot KNOWING that he could trade it for what he needed at another. Creative thinking, not linear thinking.
Pretty basic concept – and it’s damn scary that Moore has shown precious little understanding of same when constructing his rosters in his career so far.
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
"accrued", not occured
d-f english skills rubbing off on me : )
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
I'm stealing this list from elsewhere, but it's horrific
Dayton Moore has signed:
Jason Kendall $6 million over two years
Kyle Farnsworth $9 million over two years
Willie Bloomquist $3.1 million over two years
Ross Gload $3.2 million over two years
Ron Mahay $8 million over two years
Brett Tomko $3 million over on year
Jose Guillen $36 million over three years
John Bale $5.2 million over three years
$81m worth of “talent” in 3 years. I won’t post the combined WAR of those guys, because I don’t want mass suicide on my conscience, but suffice to say the Royals are paying just a little above the market rate for each win.
Yasuhiko Yabuta $6 million over two years
Horacio Ramirez $1.8 million over one year
I made the list over at Royals Corner
But hadn’t seen it “published” elsewhere.
I thought I read somewhere (probably from Greg Schaum)
That Buck had a falling out with management over playing time and wasn’t going to re-sign here.
Of course, had they told him he was the every day starter, he probably would have.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
I've heard that as well
And the fact that they were willing to do that and sign Kendall for a lot more money doesn’t make management look better, it makes them look much worse, no matter how many embarrassing excuses and “it’s no big deal” comments Mellinger feels the need to make.
Cf. Bloomquist, W.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 14, 2009 11:35 AM EST up reply actions
And that cuts right to the heart of what this is all about ...
… The Royals didn’t see Buck as capable of being a starting catcher, whereas they saw Kendall as the best available qualified starting catcher.
Thus, to the Royals, there is no comparison. They need a “starting catcher” Lego block, but they don’t have Buck in the “Starting Catcher” pile. The notion that Buck might actually provide equal or better performance doesn’t come up, because Buck isn’t a “Starting Catcher”.
by Steve Nelson on Dec 14, 2009 1:09 PM EST up reply actions
As bad as it was when the Royals were picking up inferior players not wanted
by the Tango-employing Mariners, now its even worse when they overpaying for inferior replacements to players they don’t want, who are then picked up on the cheap by the Tango-employing Blue Jays
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 14, 2009 2:04 PM EST up reply actions
i always liked buck's demeanor.
it said, “it’s just a game… that we lose at 100 times a year.” not a jerk, but at least seemed to be serious about the team.
A new angle to the Buck issue:
Let’s suppose the Royals simply offered arbitration for 2009 to Buck, and guestimate he would have been awarded about 3.5 million. Then, suppose Buck would started, and hence, qualified as a Type A player. (Not that hard to imagine). That owuld lev
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
don't know what happened with this post
That would leave the Royals with 2.5 million to spend on a catcher in 2011, PLUS AN EXTRA draft pick.
Certainly preferable to what they did, right?
I mean, geez, they are citing the fact that Kendall’s 6m was split at 2.25m for 2010 and 3.75m for 2011 as a factor in their decision, seemingly because money is coming off the books after 2010.
So, incurring an extra 1.5m in 2010 instead of 2011 is SIGNIFICANT? How in the world can you take a year-by-year approach to your payroll budget, when player commitments themselves are often 2-4 years long? How does this even make sense?
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
you're ignoring another possibility
Kendall reverts to 2004 form, and after 2011, the Royals offer HIM arb and he turns it down as a Type A free agent
you got to think, man
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 14, 2009 11:56 AM EST up reply actions
I envy your bitter sarcasm!
I, too consider myself to be sarcastic – but I am merely a pathetic apprentice compared to you!
The good news – another year or two of following Moore’s offseason “process”, and we ALL will be experts in this field!
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
Dayton Moore has done one thing Allard Baird never did
Take the heat off of David Glass
Explains the extension
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 14, 2009 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
and I actually feel bad about it
others have much greater right to Royals-based bitterness than I
for me, as I’ve said before, the frustration comes from the reality that, despite all appearances, things aren’t hopeless as far the the Royals overall situation. They still have a decent fanbase, although they’re doing their best to kill it. They get enough money from revenue sharing to be better than they are. They have high draft picks (and I guess that will continue for a while). I’m not saying there aren’t “big picture” issues with payroll disparity and stuff in baseball, but KC isn’t to the point where they’ve hit the limit. I don’t think I could GM a team, but it’s obvious that they could be doing a lot better than they are. There are 3-4 outfielders out there now who would be near-league average players, at least one of whom will sign for less than $2M… and… well, and so on. And yet here we are, trying to “massage” some ridiculuos DH/RF combo of Guillen and Fields.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 14, 2009 2:09 PM EST up reply actions
Those positions aren't up for review this year.
It’s C (solved) and CF.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
by Warden11 on Dec 14, 2009 3:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
So, to sum GMDM up:
He fails to grasp the concepts of realistic player projections, replacement level player costs/availability, statistics-based defensive ratings in general, the defensive spectrum, and the player age decline curve.
Other than that, he has this GM shit down pat…
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
by loyal2sdad on Dec 14, 2009 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Bill Bavasi says, "Hi, Dayton!"
He fails to grasp the concepts of realistic player projections, replacement level player costs/availability, statistics-based defensive ratings in general, the defensive spectrum, and the player age decline curve.
Other than that, he has this GM shit down pat…
by Steve Nelson on Dec 14, 2009 3:37 PM EST up reply actions
We should have a vote
on what would be a better way to decide on free agent pay: the Elias formula or Dayton Moore
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 14, 2009 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think you can decide which is better.
Though DM is far more predictable than Elias.
I hear Insanity Wolf has a better grip on these things, maybe we should go to him.
No, I think you are mixing up the Elias free agent comp rankings and the salary arbitration process
Elias is stats-based only — heavy on traditional and counting stats (and thus playing time). It is used to determine free agent compensation (for the teams that lose free agents).
By agreement between the players and owners, the arbiter in the salary arbitration can only consider certain things, which include comparable players at the same position with the same service time (for example, a catcher with three years of service time can only be compared to other the recent salaries of other catchers with three years of service time — although in the last year of arbitration, the service time requirement no longer applies). Another consideration is the player’s previous salary. The effect is that players almost always get raises, and even after a bad year, a player can still get a decent raise based on what other players in his service class make.
I'm not mixing anything up
d_f mentioned this above:
Kendall reverts to 2004 form, and after 2011, the Royals offer HIM arb and he turns it down as a Type A free agent
So I replied to that and made a crack about how stupid Elias’s formula for Type A and B are because it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if that actually happened. Though I’m pretty sure Kendall would accept Arb or we’d nontender him in that situation. There are no more DM’s to sign a 38 year old catcher unless for some reason he actually does what DM thinks he will do here. In which case, DM probably goes 3/$36M on him and ensures that Kendall goes into the HOF as a Royal!
d_f then made a crack about how bad DM is at negotiating with FAs by comparing him to how bad the Elias formula is. If the Elias formula were used to pay players, who would be worse, DM or Elias? So yeah, I know the difference between Arb and what the Elias formula is used for. But thanks!
Royals PR
This is actually real:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=220295941672&id=35686273690&ref=nf
You know, I've given this some thought
My anger at this move has cooled off a little bit. I still think it was a very stupid decision, don’t get me wrong, but I no longer feel like I need to drive to Dayton’s house and poop on his front porch. I’m happy that I won’t have to put up with Olivo anymore. He was one of the most frustrating players I’ve ever seen. Any time my friends would come over and the Royals were on and Olivo was batting, I’d say “Watch, he’ll strike out swinging at three pitches and the third pitch will be a breaking ball low and away.” And he made me look like a genius every time. His defense was summarily atrocious, giving up anywhere from 3-5 passed balls per game (though the official scorer unfathomably called a majority of these “wild pitches”) and his pitch calling was really inconsistent and maddening.
Though Kendall will probably be roughly equivalent overall, I think he will at least be a modest upgrade in plate discipline and defense. At least Dayton acknowledged these flaws in Olivo’s game and tried to address them in his own misguided way. I don’t want it to look like I’m defending this acquisition. It’s still dumb and expensive, as I’m sure you could find an upgrade over Olivo’s defense and plate discipline almost anywhere for much cheaper. I don’t really go in much for “veteran presence” either, because it’s impossible to quantify. I simply believe that Kendall will be a less stressful player to watch than Olivo was.
by Soria's Unibrow on Dec 15, 2009 12:10 AM EST reply actions
Less stressful to watch
but worse. About the same defensively… maybe slighlty better…
But let’s put his bat in perspective: Kendall’s bat projects as 10 runs worse than Yuni’s. No, you read that correctly.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 15, 2009 12:14 AM EST up reply actions
Oh God no
I also just read the fangraphs article. We called him the first day he was available? What the hell Dayton??
by Soria's Unibrow on Dec 15, 2009 12:17 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Royals Review
Related FanShots on Royals Review
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise’
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
- The time Whitney Houston sang to Jim Bowden
- Pitchers and catchers! Mariners get early start in Arizona
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.
