Fangraphs ranks the Royals System
Overall: C-
The Royals are a clear step ahead of the previous three teams, but still have an awful lot of work to do before they could ever be considered a legitimate World Series contender. Unfortunately, the moves the team has been making over the last year don’t inspire an awful lot of confidence that the team is going to make the necessary transition in philosophy, and filling out the roster with replacement level veterans is simply never going to work. With a smaller paryoll, they have to emulate the Cleveland/Oakland/Minnesota/Atlanta philosophies of getting big returns on small invetments, and right now, that’s just not happening in Kansas City.
Suffice to say: Ouch.
almost 3 years ago
RoyalPug
66 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I thought this review was wayyyy on the negative side
especially this: “here are some interesting arms behind those two, such as Dan Cortes and Tim Melville, but they aren’t the kinds of prospects that you like to see in your top five,”
are you kidding? Dan Cortes and Tim Melville are absolutely two guys you want to see in your top 5. You can complain about the potential lack of hitting depth, but overall the depth is excellent.
Grading the front office as a D is a joke as well. Like Moore or not, hes been a C+ GM for better or for worse, and our drafting to say the least has been excellent. Grading the FO a D is way too harsh.
There is no way that this team as a whole is worse than Pittsburgh, Seattle, San Diego, Cinncinatti, and probably several others are definitely worse. I’d venture to say that the Twins and White Sox may possibly worse, if not on the same level.
by wildthang on Mar 10, 2009 8:11 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
+1
completely awful
especially about the farm system. laughable.
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
the system really isnt good...
we’ve got two bats with huge potential…and then pretty much nothing….oh, and theyre both in A ball. We dont have a single pitcher who has been projected by anyone to be a top of the rotation type…and most of them are in A ball as well.
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Mar 11, 2009 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions
projecting pitching
especially from high school is mostly a crapshoot. You either have guys that are the prime prospects that have either made it to AA/AAA at 22-23 and have survived and thrived in the low and mid minors or guys who prove themselves against top college competition.
Most franchises don’t have young phenom pitchers. And even if they do, their chances of realizing that potential are not exactly high.
you'd still rather have guys with that potential...
than to not. Alot of teams have really good arms in AA/AAA who have ceilings at least as high…many higher. All of ours are like 4 years away…which is alot of time for something to go horribly wrong.
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Mar 11, 2009 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions
definitely
but that was in large part due to the Baird drafts. The farm was absolutely bare when he took over.
They are 4 years away, but thats how it goes, stuff will go wrong and some will fail, and hopefully at the end, we will have some guys that have the potential to be really good.
THats the problem...
nobody thinks any of these guys have the potential to be ‘really good’. They have potential to be solid. Almost every other team has at least one guy who you can say, “If everything goes right, he’s an ace”. Who do we have? And we dont have one major league position player in AA or above…possibly Kila…I’d have to agree that our farm system still sucks. If the A ball guys progress over the next two years and we continue to spend alot of money in the draft, the system might then be good. Right now it is not.
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Mar 11, 2009 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Ace material guys
Sample, Montgomery, Melville, Gutierrez, and Duffy. Possibly more.
And with regards to the position players, two elite prospects can do a whole hell of a lot for a franchise. They may still be young but their importance cannot be overlooked just because there is not a lot behind them.
find me one guy who evaluates prospects for a job who says that about those guys....
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Mar 11, 2009 1:28 AM EDT up reply actions
the pitchers that is
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Mar 11, 2009 1:28 AM EDT up reply actions
No one
names guys as front end starters in Low A unless they have names like Porcello or Bumgarner.
BA said Montgomery hs the potential to be the best lefty since Danny Jackson, who was considered a front of the rotation starter when he appeared in KC. BA loves Duffy also and said the combo of Montgomery gives KC something they haven’t had in years. BA said if Gutierrez can improve his change up the sky is the limit. That is about as good as you are gonna get from any prospect analyst when talking about a lower drafted guy at a low level.
Go read last years evaluations of Tommy Hanson and a few others. It is tough for any evaluator to give someone a front line grade when they are so low unless they possess a triple digit fastball.
There is a reason that the system bounced 12-13 spots in most peoples org rankings.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
12-13 is a middle of the road farm system....
along with alot of bad moves at the major league level…means that a C- isnt really an outrageous grade
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Mar 11, 2009 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions
...with really big budgets and really high draft picks as well
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Mar 11, 2009 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Who has really big budgets?
What team is it we’re talking about?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 11, 2009 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions
daytons draft budgets...sorry...not clear....
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Mar 12, 2009 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions
If I remember correctly
Dayton Moore had a big draft budget in 2008. They had an ok draft budget in 2007 (they spent a lot on their first round choice and went over-slot on a few picks but that didn’t involve spending a great deal of money). And the 2006 draft budget wasn’t big at all (again, they spent a lot on the #1 overall pick, but then didn’t go overslot much or spend much at all outside the first round). So I don’t think it is accurate to say that Moore has had “really big” draft budgets over his tenure. He had a really big draft budget in one year of three.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 12, 2009 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions
Considering last year they were
ranked 25th and previously they hadn’t been inside the Top 20 they are definitely on the upswing
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
Do you read Baseball America much?
Many there think many of those guys have ace potential.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 11, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions
i want quotes...b/c i have yet to see one
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Mar 11, 2009 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Where have you been looking?
Do you do much reading on prospects? BA is the preeminent source on baseball prospects. So if you haven’t been looking there for opinions on prospects then I don’t think you’ve been looking much at all. Goldstein at BP doesn’t see a high ceiling for those guys. Many at BA do. Sickels does for some of them. Without doing a bunch of research to re-find quotes I’ve seen, at least a couple guys at BA talked throughout the season in online chats about how Duffy had ace potential. BA ranked Melville the #1 HS pitcher on their draft board because they thought he had ace potential.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 11, 2009 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions
sickels has nothing better than 'solid' pitching prospect....
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2008/10/15/635257/kansas-city-royals-top-20
BAs search feature is a clusterfuck, but i’ll continue looking
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Mar 12, 2009 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Have you read Sickels 2009 prospect book?
He gets into more detail than these one liners. And I don’t know if you are familiar with his grading system, but for him a “B” grade is very high.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Mar 12, 2009 1:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Name a quote
where they don’t think they could be 1/2’s. Cegarra is the 31st rated prospect by BA and the 12th rated Royals right handed starter and their exact quote is “Cegarra’s upside is as a No. 4 or 5 starter, and because he made it to high Class A at age 19, he has shown there’s a decent chance he’ll reach that ceiling.” That is out of the 12th rated Righthander ! So I’m sure BA has a #1 ceiling out of a couple of the other guys.
Is there a Price or Feliz? No not yet but the chances of them reaching their full potential is still pretty large and they are a more advanced than KC’s prospects. It would be nothing more than a guess to label any of KC’s pitchers as sure fire #1’s already especially when none of them were 1st round picks. Those are the guys that garner those calls, 1st round picks combined with great results.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
Not that I care one way or the other
Kevin Goldstein at Baseball Prospectus (and formerly one of the senior contributers at Baseball America) gave the following “Perfect World Projections” for the Royals top pitching prospects (all considered “three-star” talents out of a possible five stars):
Cortes: He’ll be a solid third starter in a big-league rotation.
Melville: A mid-rotation starter with an outside chance to be better than that.
Gutierrez: He becomes a solid mid-rotation starter.
Duffy: Another Royals mid-rotation starter.
Montgomery: Like so many young arms in the system, Montgomery looks to many like a potential good third starter.
Rosa: A fifth starter, but more likely a late-inning reliever.
Wood: “One night I think he’s a future number-three starter…”
These were the most-things-go-right projections.
if coco, farnsworth and jacobs have bad seasons...
giving him a D isnt out of the question. They’re paying a ton of money for guys who just arent good players. The farm system is better, but it could have improved with me at the helm if i was giving $11 million to spend in the draft.
The guys that I think will be the reason for improvement, are Allard’s guys. Moore cant take credit for Zack, Billy, Gordon, etc
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Mar 11, 2009 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions
If they all have bad seasons
A D would probably be generous
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 11, 2009 12:59 AM EDT up reply actions
it may make me seem like i have an anti moore bias....
but it just pisses me off that people consider allard just an absolutely dreadful gm. Dayton is playing with a completely different deck of cards, yet is still relying heavily on Bairds guys.
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Mar 11, 2009 1:30 AM EDT up reply actions
you're preaching to the choir, bro
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 11, 2009 1:45 AM EDT up reply actions
Also disagree with this
"Moore has made a long series of moves that have significantly tarnished his reputation and harmed the future of the franchise. "
Jacobs does not harm the future of the franchise unless we sign him to some insane, and unlikely deal.
Crisp is solid. He’s going to be a good guy to have around for a few years.
Guillen was a mistake in the dollar value. It sucks that we paid a lot for him, but if guys like Epstein get passes for Julio Lugo, and Cashman for Pavano, and Sabean for everyone, Daniles for the Michael Young extension, riccardi for the wells extension, even Beane with the Chavez and Crosby extensions etc etc, then Dayton gets one too. Pick a franchise and they all have a couple shitty contracts.
Bloomquist, eh, dumb deal, not franchise crippling, just an odd move.
Farnsworth was straight up retarded though. Still wanna know why he needed more than 4 million. It would be a great deal if he was good and potentially a closer though.
Callaspo was a heist, even if hes a career backup.
For the record, Cameron liked the Crisp trade at the time
and doesn’t mention it here
His problem with Jacobs is more that it doesn’t really improve the team in the short or long-term, and that it says more about Moore’s philosophy of how to build a team than anything else.
Not sure how he judges the farm system.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 10, 2009 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Crisp is solid...thats it...
and we’re paying like $14 million over 2 years for solid…and giving away 5 years of Ramirez…which led to Farnsworth. All being totaled, we’re paying like 11 million this year to marginally improve the OF and downgrade significantly in the pen.
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Mar 11, 2009 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions
I think its a bit negative
But yea, when your top minor leaguers for the most part have such a limited track record and are completely being sold on potential, then yea, your farm system isn’t going to be rated all that highly. Maybe in a year or two, we’ll have a highly rated system, but I think people want to see a bit more of Melville, Hosmer, Sample, Montgomery, etc. before lavishing them with priase.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
This grade is a joke
Front Office: D
- Name me one move that has hurt the teams long term future? Guillen has two years left on his deal which is perfect considering the team really isn’t gonna be ready to compete for a true playoff run til next year or the year after. The only move that GMDM has performed that could’ve possibly hurt KC longterm would be the Meche move if it didn’t workout which it has. Also the additions in scouting and the rest of the FO are a major plus as well as the additions to the LA staff. This grade is based purely on GMDM’s FA signings and have no reflection on his scouting staff and other abilities in trades, etc. WEAK to say the least
The Royals are a clear step ahead of the previous three teams, but still have an awful lot of work to do before they could ever be considered a legitimate World Series contender.
What is wrong with GMDM ? Why isn’t KC competing for the WS in his 3rd year WTF fire him now !!!
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
36 million is gone on guillen....
when that money couldve been used to lock up a young player….or to buy a bunch of dominicans…since we were pretty inactive last year due to lack of funds. Mike Jacobs is likely going to start at 1b this year…which doesnt allow us to see if Billy Butler can be a 1b in the future. I think Bloomy will start and Callaspo may very well be DFAd…which isnt good for our future since Bert never really got a shot, etc
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Mar 11, 2009 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions
"Name me one move that has hurt the teams long term future? "
Spending all that money on Guillen and Farnsworth definitely hurts the future, especially if Guillen doesn’t improve his performance and Farnsworth doesn’t pull a rabbit out of his hat.
I just got back from your mom's basement.
I guess I view long term
as more than just 2 years.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
not being able to sign....
guys in LA b/c of guillens contract is much more long term than 2 years.
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Mar 12, 2009 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Those budgets are a seperate thing
If you want to say that signing Hosmer for 6M hurt the Royals LA signings then fine but the amateur budget is a seperate thing from the current payroll.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
so says who?
The money is all coming from the exact same source. If Glass had whiffed on Guillen, I guarantee we’d have spent more money on the draft and in LA.
Beane in Oakland said I believe when they signed Ynoa that they were able to do that because the major league payroll wasnt as high as expected. Are we to believe that teams do it that much differently?
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Mar 12, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Well it seems funny that the Guillen
contract didn’t prevent them from spending 12+ M on the regular amateur draft. Beane also signed his first round pick to below slot money so he had extra money left in his amateur budget. You know very little about who KC signed in LA this year and who they could’ve signed so to blow a gasket about a few guys that we have no idea about at 16 years old is somewhat ridiculous.
KC’s best LA players in their system are 250K signings so to toss millions apon millions at a “16” year old is like flipping a coin and none of the current payroll has effected their ability this season. Moore clearly said that having to pay the amateur draft more than they thought effected the LA signings. If Guillens contract would’ve been a problem with LA then it would’ve been a problem adding additional payroll via FA’s this year and obviously it wasn’t because they added nearly 20M.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
I actually agree with b.b.b. in general
but I think your argument would be stronger if you focused on how the Guillen contract hampered the Royals in this offseason’s free agency (Hudson, Guillen, maybe Furcal, etc., Abreu signed for half of what Guillen got, and so so) and also next season’s.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 12, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Plus a roster and starting spot that could go to someone younger and better
who actually might be a contributing part of the team in 2011. If not for Guillen using up one of the corner outfield slots, Moore could have traded for Franklin Gutierrez, Matt Joyce, Felix Pie, or one of the A’s or Rangers surplus outfielders.
yup
I wonder if the Royals could have gotten one of those guys
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 12, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions
None were really cost prohibitive
Ryan Langerhans was definitely available. Nelson Cruz was available on waivers last spring training.
stop torturing me with Langerhans, you bastard
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 12, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with that
but FA is just one part of the puzzle in the FO. GMDM has added talent in scouting here and abroad, added loads of talent within the minor league system and the overall infrastructure. Camerons grades are weak and to have the Mariners as rated higher than the Royals is showing bias on his part due to them hiring his buddy Tango. They have a weaker Major league team, minor league talent and have made very minimal impact moves in the offseason. His bias wreaks and his grades are scewed by his bias.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
Not buying the bias
The M’s probably rate higher simply based on an ownership and a goldmine of new park that permits a top ten payroll year after year. The new GM, while uglier than Moore, also has adopted the better philosophy — a combination of scouting and analysis. The Mariners are also known as one of the better organizations in scouting (and spending) abroad.
As for offseason moves, Franklin Gutierrez is better than any player Dayton Moore acquired this offseason, and (just like virtually everyone else the M’s picked up), is young, cheap, and under team control for several more years. Branyan projects the same or better than Jacobs offensively, but with better defense and at a lower cost (in terms of both salary and loss of talent to acquire). Rather than signing mediocre veterans to above market contracts, the M’s spent the offseason acquiring young, cheap talent who could be productive when the team gets good again in a couple years.
And really, there are not huge differences in major league (Hernandez, Beltre, Ichiro, Gutierrez, Bedard, Morrow, Clement, Lopez) or minor league talent (Halman, Saunders, Aumont, Triunfel, plus the second pick in the draft and whatever they get in trade or free agent compensation for Beltre and Bedard).
plus, some of the Ms older, more expensive talent might actually bring back something in return
without them having to eat the contract. I’m thinking of Beltre, in particular.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 12, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions
although, again, you could say the same thing about Meche
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 12, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Meche won't turn into draft picks at the end of the year
Meche’s current value falls entirely within the major league talent category.
Beltre is a little different because as an impending free agent, his current value is split between the major league talent category (his value as a player for only this year) and the compensation the team will get when he leaves (either through trade or draft picks).
In other words, the asset allocation is different for each.
OK
I was just saying that they are decent signings (that were both widely mocked at the time) that could be turned into assets one way or the other.
Geez… Beltre isn’t even 30 yet (neither is Meche). Didn’t realize that.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 12, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I know
but I’m really attached to Gordon at 3B… Maybe Beltre can play MI? that might not be fair to Willie
I wonder where he’ll end up, actually. He’s make sense for the White Sox, maybe Cleveland… Minnesota would be smart to sign him (unless Crede shocks the world by recovering and then staying for a reasonable price) although Bill Smith is, to all appearance, a moron. Detroit, although they might be on a Marlins budget by then…
Red Sox, maybe, if they really don’t want to move Youkilis. If Jeffrey Loria wasn’t freaking Mr. Burns, Beltre could probably push the Marlins into contention. The Phillies make a ton of sense, since that’s one of their few holes, and they are running out of the prime years of the rest of their awesome infield. Houston: see the comment about Bill Smith.
The Angels… there we go. That makes a ton of sense for them.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 12, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Beltre is the kind of free agent the Royals should target
but, yeah, Gordon is the one position player that the Royals should leave alone as long as he can handle third.
The Angels make sense, but he is not exactly the Angels kind of player. Beltre is the Twins kind of player (didn’t they try to trade for him at the deadline?), and with the new stadium, the Twins may want to sign a non-bargain basement free agent.
By this offseason, the Dodgers may be done with the Casey Blake experience. He also makes some sense for the Giants, assuming Sandoval has to move off third, or Toronto, as one thing that JP definitely understands is defense.
If the Chavez contract ran out a year earlier, Oakland would be interested. Cleveland may not have the money. Seattle does have the money and probably would like to re-sign him, but he may want out of that ballpark.
Or maybe the Rays will move Longoria to short.
Yeah, the Dodgers do make the most intuitive sense
why? Because nothing makes more sense than the Dodgers bringing in an expensive free agent to correct an earlier bad signing of a guy who will still be on the team, anyway.
I agree that the Royals should go after guys like him, though.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 12, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
So now they get
credit for picks they haven’t made. Forecast the future? The Mariners minor league talent is rated in the bottom third (reality bottom 5 overall) of most every organizational talent system currently.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
And that new
park is 10 years old. Giving the FO credit for doing their work in a larger market then should equal a A for Cashman.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
Ownership (which includes revenues and payrolls) and front office are separate factors
Seattle is a top ten team in terms of revenue and payroll, in large part due to a ballpark that not only continues to draw crowds despite a lousy product, but gives virtually every revenue stream to the owners. According to Forbes, Seattle gets something like an extra $65 million to play with every year. That is a huge organizational advantage.
Yes, Cameron gave the Nationals credit for the number one pick
so the M’s should get credit for adding an impact talent with the second pick (which is likely Strasburg or Green). They also have something four of the first 50 picks in the draft. And given most of their top prospects are already at AA, they are relatively close to the majors but still likely not to graduate this year.
The focus of the series is to rank “organizational health, top to bottom” going forward, not to rank the items in the abstract or what has happened in the past.
Giving anyone credit for draft picks
is stupid. The Nats could easily pass on Strassburg just because of money which would be absolutely ridiculous. Green isn’t exactly lighting the college ranks on fire currently and to give them credit for drafting him already is also dumb. That’s like giving the Blazers credit for drafting Oden which at the time looked great and currently doesn’t look so good.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
Just like giving the Royals credit for Hosmer when he is three years away from the majors
The point is that having the first or second pick in the draft is a significant asset and will add an impact talent that certainly will affect the health of a team’s minor league system.
The talent dropoff from Strassburg to the rest of the draft is significant and to give them credit for having the #2 pick is not much different than having the 5th pick if they use it incorrectly. It’s only an asset if used correctly and considering they are still four months away from using it then Cam is just making guesses. The Astros used the 10th pick on Castro last year, at the time that was considered a solid pick to have but they used it incorrectly(some think). The same with other picks by other teams of the past.
Overall giving the M’s alot of credit for hiring Tango and switching to a video scouting (which other teams are doing) is giving Jack too much credit. KC is working on their own advanced scouting projection program for college players but since Cameron doesn’t know about it or he doesn’t think it can be done they get no credit for advanced thinking.
It’s just bias overall. The M’s minor league system is currently weak, their ml product is currently weak and their 10 year old booming park had to be supplemented with KGj to make sure revenue kept pooring in. If the rankings are based solely on what market a team plays in then Cameron should’ve shortened his article and just listed the Top 30 Market ratings.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
I don't think Cameron is the one with the bias
It is a lot more than just hiring Tango and switching to video scouting. This is the guy who is second in command now. What KC is just now working on was figured out by the guys now running the M’s five years ago. They “get” the things that Moore does well, but also the important things that Moore does not.
The second pick in the draft is almost certainly going to fetch Seattle a talent on par with Moustaskas and Hosmer, so ignoring that imminent contribution to the health of the minor league system is a simple case of burying one’s head in the sand.
In the ownership category, Seattle is miles ahead of Kansas City, and the front office has a clear advantage in that it fully understands baseball in the 21st Century. Whatever middling differences there may be in minor league talent pales in comparison to the other considerations.
hey...felix and zack are the same?
i want to trade for felix…im a big zack fan, but there’s nothing more enjoyable to me in baseball than watching a good felix hernandez start
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Mar 12, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, i thought they would be more like each other, too
Felix has a better projection for 2009, but I think Zack’s a bit better than his (due to not starting in 2007, for example). But I keep forgetting how young Felix is… yeah… I’m a bigger “fan” of Zack for obvious reasons, but Felix is the better property.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Mar 12, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Royals Review
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- MLB Fan Cave candidate explains the stories behind his 30 MLB mascot tattoos
- Kate Upton’s new MLB 2K12 ad is really something
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise,’ featuring the Miami Marlins
- 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
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.
