Royals Review: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: MLB Trade Rumors: Jorge Cantu to the Giants?

Has Dayton Moore's "obsession" with former Braves hurt the Royals?

One of the favorite pastimes of Royals Review posters is to comment or complain about the number of former Atlanta Braves players that Dayton Moore has acquired for the Kansas City Royals.  Sometimes this is a joke and sometimes it is a genuine complaint.  I've always thought that the argument that Dayton Moore has somehow hurt the Royals with this "obsession" was a bit thin.  Have these acquisitions actually hurt the Royals?  

Star-divide

When a general manager brings in players from an organization where he used to work, there are at least two ways to look at it.  The first is that he knows a good deal about these players and is using this information for the benefit of his new team.  Information is a good thing, and therefore knowing more about these players allows him to bring in good values for the team.  The second way of looking at this practice is that the GM is obsessed with these players that he once thought were great (or would be great) and so he's dead set on bringing them in regardless of their actual talent or cost and that he's doing this to the exclusion of players from other organizations who might help his new team.

J.C. Bradbury of Sabernomics.com mentioned this issue in a brief but interesting article which deals with the subject in question.  He sums up his concern (but doesn't go farther than that) in this excerpt:

Dayton Moore appears to be fascinated with the farm system he used to oversee. Since moving to the Royals he’s acquired former Braves products Odalis PerezTony PenaKyle DaviesBrayan Pena, and Horacio Ramirez. It’s not that acquiring these players were necessarily bad moves, but I think that fans should have a right to be worried when a GM seems attached to things that he once saw as great in his mind’s eye.

Ok, this "fascination" gives rise to what I think is a reasonable concern.  So let's look at some numbers to see if Moore is obsessed with mirages of talent from his past, or if he's actually adding value to the Royals.

The table below shows the former Braves that the Dayton Moore has acquired and given a major league contract to (or who have played at all for the K.C. Royals, and thus earned a major league salary).  It shows their Wins Above Replacement (WAR) for the years they were with the Royals (prorated for the portion of a year the player was a Royal, where applicable) along with the dollar value of that WAR in a given year, the actual salary the Royals paid to that player and the difference between the player's value and his cost.


PlayerYearWARValue ($)Salary ($)Difference ($)

Odalis Perez 2006 0.4 1.5 0.9* 0.6


2007 1.5 6.1 2.0* 4.1

Ken Ray 2007 0 0 0.4 -0.4

John Thompson 2007 0.3 1.1 0.5 0.6
Tony Pena, Jr. 2007 1.6 6.5 0.38 6.12


2008 -1.3 -6.0 0.405 -6.405

Kyle Davies 2007 0.1 0.5 0.13 0.37


2008 1.8 8.0 0.28 7.72

Ron Mahay 2008 0.5 2.1 4.0 -1.9

Horacio Ramirez 2008 0.5 2.2 0.1 2.1

TOTAL
5.4 22.0 9.1 12.9

* - Odalis Perez's salary was determined by the portion of his 2006 salary for the part of the season he was with the Royals ($2.4M) plus his 2007 salary ($7.75M) plus half of his signing bonus ($0.75M) minus the $8M which the Dodgers threw in as part of the trade which brought him to Kansas City.  This equals $2.9M, which I divided proportionately between 2006 and 2007.

[Note - one could argue that I should account for the lost value of Elmer Dessens and Octavio Dotel who were traded for Odalis Perez and Kyle Davies.  This could be done, but it wouldn't change the bottom line very much.  Dessens pitched 23 below average innings for the Dodgers and Dotel pitched 7.2 below average innings for the Braves.  Given their small contributions and the fact that the Royals saved money by trading them away, including them would likely improve that bottom line but only by a little.]

[One more thing, I think Ron Mahay's inclusion in any analysis of Moore's acquisitions of former Braves is ridiculous.  Mahay played for the Braves for one-third of the 2007 season, more than a year after Moore had left the Braves.  Now, Moore may be acquiring former Braves because of the information he has on them from when he worked in that organization, or because he's obsessed with those players he knew who he mistakenly thought would be great.  But does anyone seriously think that Moore is in love with every player who has ever worn a Braves jersey, including those who did so before and after Moore worked for that organization?  That would be an exceptionally odd assertion.  But, I didn't want to be accused of cherry-picking data, so I threw Mahay in there as well.]

It's hard to have a problem with those numbers.  Obviously there were pluses, minuses and pushes, but overall Moore got good value for the former Braves he acquired.  Over his three years, the actual value of the former Braves he has brought in has more than doubled their cost to the Royals.

So Moore's record with former Braves to this point has been quite good.  But some might say that while the former Brave "obsession" has been merely interesting so far, the contracts given to Farnsworth and Ramirez this offseason change this fascination into a clear liability.  Then let's look at the 2009 projections for Royals who were once Braves:

 



PlayerYearWARValue ($)Salary ($)Difference ($)

Kyle Farnsworth 2009 0.5 2.6 4.25 -1.65

Horacio Ramirez 2009 0.3 1.7 1.8 -0.1

Kyle Davies 2009 1.3 6.1 1.3 4.8

Ron Mahay 2009 0.5 2.6 4 -1.4

Juan Cruz 2009 1.4 6.6 2.25 4.35

TOTAL
4.0 19.6 13.6 6.0

 

[I could have included players like Tony Pena and Brayan Pena, but I chose to include only those players likely to make the 25-man roster.  If both Pena's were included, using CHONE's projections, it would improve the bottom line, as both players are projected to have values which match or exceed their 2009 salaries.]

Again, there are some significant positives and negatives on that list, but the overall numbers are quite good.  While there are some pretty clear mistakes on that list, one has to feel good about getting $19.6M worth of performance for $13.6M.  If we add the to-date total from the first table to the projected totals from the second table, we get:




WARValue ($)Salary ($)Difference ($)

GRAND TOTAL
9.4 41.6 22.7 18.9

The bottom line is $41.6M of performance for $22.7M.  If that is an obsession, It's certainly a very functional one.  So far it looks like Dayton Moore's habit of acquiring former Braves has, on balance, been very good for the team.

Unaccounted for in the above analysis is the opportunity cost of bringing in these players.  Signing Juan Cruz means not acquiring another player.  Claiming Brayan Pena off of waivers means potentially not claiming another player (although waiver claims are clearly not a zero sum transaction).  It is possible that Moore's acquisition of former Braves prevented better moves.  It is also possible that these acquisitions prevented Moore from making worse moves.  Has Dayton Moore been choosing former Braves when he could and should have chosen better players who have never been in that organization?  I have no idea.  But given the above numbers, it's hard to argue that, overall, he could and should have done better than those choices.

My analysis also does not include minor leaguers.  Moore has brought some minor leaguers like Roman Colon, Matt Wright, Jairo Cuevas, etc.  But it's hard to see how their acquisition has hurt real prospects in the system.  They don't appear to be blocking any genuine prospects.  Actually, if anything, they appear to be taking up space, allowing prospects to not be rushed through the system to fill holes at a higher level they aren't yet ready for.  Again, there is the opportunity cost that perhaps another minor league FA could have been acquired or another player claimed off of waivers.  But the claim that Moore could, would or should have brought in better, essentially free players for the minor league system is speculative in the extreme.  It's possible that he could have brought in better players, and it is also possible that he would have brought in worse players.  How could we possibly even guess?

Does all of this put the issue to bed?  Certainly not.  But I think the above is good evidence that Moore has used his knowledge of former Braves to bring in talent which has helped the Royals much more than it has hurt them, and for a very good dollar value.

2 recs  |  Comment 66 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Wasn't Bowden accused of a Reds bias when working in DC?

Let’s just hope this doesn’t lead to FBI probes for Dayton!

Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!

by mazoboom on Mar 12, 2009 6:20 AM EDT reply actions  

Seems like it

Adam Dunn, Austin Kearns, Felipe Lopez, Wily Mo Pena, Aaron Boone, Dmitri Young, Damian Jackson, Ramon Ortiz, Ryan Wagner, Jose Guillen…

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mar 12, 2009 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions  

theres a blog somewhere....

that keeps count of formers reds employees hired by Bowden…whether scouts, FO types, minors leaguers, major leaguers, etc and i think the tally was at 60 something

TPJ...you're dead to me

by billybeingbilly on Mar 12, 2009 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions  

From Baseball Think Factory

Adam Dunn
Jose Guillen
Austin Kearns
Javier Valentin
Austin Kearns
Felipe Lopez
Dmitri Young
Hector Carrasco
Corey Patterson
Ryan Wagner
Wily Mo Pena
Aaron Boone
Ray King
Joey Eischen
Charlie Manning
D’Angelo Jimenez
Damian Jackson
Carlos Baerga
Felix Rodriguez
Jeffrey Hammonds
C.J. Nitkowski
Chris Booker
Tony Blanco
Pokey Reese
Bret Boone
Kenny Kelly
Brandon Watson
Rob Mackowiak (drafted by Jim, didn’t sign)
Brandon Larson
Brandon Claussen
Phil Hiatt
Luis Pineda
Ed Yarnall
Michael Tucker
Jim Crowell
Josh Hall
Chris Michalak
Michael Coleman
Jose Rijo (scout)
Bob Boone (Assistant GM)
Barry Larkin (FO)
Rob Dibble (broadcaster)

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mar 12, 2009 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions  

I'm so sick of the Jim Bowden jokes!

I’m going to do a big post refuting it!

Next thing you know, this is going to snowball into a “Jim Bowden was incompetent as a GM.” And that would be totally unfair.

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

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 12, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think we still need more data points

I wish he had a picture of him with the cowboy hat and leather pants

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

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 12, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

Awesome

Walking IS hard. And slow. When you’ve got so many places to go, and so many people to lie to when you get there, some sort of motorized personal transportation is absolutely necessary.

"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae

by Sweep_the_Leg on Mar 12, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

ILUUUUUSION, Michael!

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

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 12, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

And when you see...

guys wearing sunglasses and navy blue windbreakers (that don’t say “Nationals” on the front…but instead “FBI” on the back) heading toward you, it makes for much faster getaways.

"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae

by Sweep_the_Leg on Mar 12, 2009 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Excellent post

I did notice, however, a Freudian slip:

So far it looks like Dayton Moore’s habit of acquiring former Royals…..

But, I’m sure you’re right. If DM ever moves on to another team we can expect to get raided for several years afterwards!

The General Theory of Royaltivity

by kabrink on Mar 12, 2009 8:46 AM EDT reply actions  

Ho-Ram~!

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

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 12, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

Unaccounted for in the above analysis is the opportunity cost of bringing in these players.

Of course, and we don’t know who we could have brought in. I think it is very difficult to say whether or not the ex-Brave fetish has hurt or help.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mar 12, 2009 9:57 AM EDT reply actions  

The thesis of this post

Is something I brought up before and I’ll admit I don’t know whether it hurts or helps. It happens enough that I think there should be concern, but I don’t think its inherently a bad thing to bring in guys you know something about (Scott Pioli is doing the same thing with ex-Patriots right now). But there probably is a line where if you start bringing in too many ex-Braves, you are hurting your team. I’m not sure at all if DM is at that point. As NYRoyal points out, the guys he has brought in have been mostly useful. But who knows what promising young player he has looked over in order to get someone he knows? We can never know.

Speaking of which, the Braves released P Anthony Lerew, a former hot Braves prospect the other day. The scout that signed Lerew originally? JJ Piccolo. Look for him to be a Royal soon. Which is great, I think Lerew is still young and loaded with potential.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mar 12, 2009 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions  

Actually,

according to the tables, we’ve almost broken even on Pena (if you ignore the minor-leaguer that we traded to get him).

by BrRoyal on Mar 12, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

But who knows what promising young player he has looked over in order to get someone he knows? We can never know.

agreed

by Will McDonald on Mar 12, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

Good recap

like Retro, I was going to bring up opportunity cost, but you touched on it about as well (probably better than) I could of. Basically, opportunity cost may skew things into a liability, but there’s no way to know.

by Top Ramen on Mar 12, 2009 10:11 AM EDT reply actions  

On a non-related point

WAR and value across baseball.

I’m trying to wrap my head around the stats:

 - Are there any articles out there that show the relationships between small-market teams and value? I would expect small market team to need to get the most value possible.

- Isn’t WAR per (value -salary) scale heavily skewed towards pre-arb eligible players? So pre-arb eligible players who play above a TPJ level will always seem to be a bargain.

- The other thing I’m trying to figure out is Odalis Perez. In 2007, he pitched 137.1 innings of 5.51 ERA (4.81 FIP). WAR/$ shows that as worth 6.1M. How does that happen?

by Top Ramen on Mar 12, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions  

These are very good questions to ask.

Taking another step back: among players signed to major league contracts, how many have salaries above the mean and how many below? How far is the mean from the median?

by 2X2L on Mar 12, 2009 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions  

A little look at amount the Royals need to spend per player to get to 90 wins

I looked at 3 teams, Yankees, Blue Jays and Royals.

Used 2008 payroll

Assume 42 wins from a team of 400K replacement players

Putting together a team of 25 AAAA/Replacements players = 10M

The following is the Team, initial payroll, payroll after 10M, and the additional amount they have to spend on each player per year to reach 90 wins (payroll after 10M/ (90wins-48wins)

Yankees
209M
199M
4.36M

Blue Jays
98M
88M
2.04M

Royals
58M
48M
1.2M

by Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal) on Mar 12, 2009 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

The farther away you are from 90 wins, the less you have to pay to get there.

Dombrowski’s a genius.

by 2X2L on Mar 12, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

TR

I thought replacement level teams were more like 48-49 wins?

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

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 12, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

D-F

I don’t know the answer to your question. But, TR actually used 48 wins in his match even though he had stated 42 above. So, he likely agrees with you and simply mistyped.

The General Theory of Royaltivity

by kabrink on Mar 12, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

math

The General Theory of Royaltivity

by kabrink on Mar 12, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

Your are correct, the following numbers are:

Yankees
209M
199M
4.74M

Blue Jays
98M
88M
2.10M

Royals
58M
48M
1.14M

Thanks DF, the Yankees get an additional 500K to spent per player and we get an additional 60K, why don’t you just make Allad Baird the GM again.

by Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal) on Mar 12, 2009 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

why don’t you just make Allad Baird the GM again.

After this offseason, I’m beginning to think that won’t be necessary.

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 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

My attempt at answers

1. I’m sure there are articles out there, but I don’t have any links off the top of my head. If I find something, I’ll let you know. But you are certainly correct that a small market team can’t really afford to pay $X for X value. Small market teams need to pay less than the value they are getting. And I think the above numbers show that Moore has done a good job with this with the former Braves he has brought in.

2. Yes having pre-arb and arbitration players greatly helps in the WAR/$ analysis, but that’s part of the point. One of the things that any team (particularly a small market team) needs to do is find good, young players who are in the cheap phase of their career. This maximizes their value to the team. So I don’t think the fact that he brought in some young, cheap players really skews the analysis. It shows that he’s doing something right.

3. First, a 4.81 FIP isn’t awful. It’s below average and basically at the level of a #4 SP. Second, starting pitchers who eat a decent number of innings and perform at a decent level are going to rack up some WAR. Third, a 1.5 WAR is still below average for a regular.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 12, 2009 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

While I agree with NYRoyal’s answer to the question he posed — actually I think he picked a strawman this time that’s pretty easy to knock down — I’m very suspicious of analysis based on $/WAR. MLB salary structure is very far from linear, while $/WAR is essentially a slope of a salary line. I think $/WAR is probably a useful data point when trying to determine whether the contract team X signed player Y for is likely to be a bargain or a bust, but when aggregating, beware.

by 2X2L on Mar 12, 2009 10:21 AM EDT reply actions   1 recs

It's natural for any GM

to lean towards guys he has evaluated and seen produce in the past. It happens in all sports with all different typs of GM’s.

I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.

by kcscoliny on Mar 12, 2009 12:03 PM EDT reply actions  

Or in other words, what has hurt the Royals is Dayton Moore's "obsession" with mediocre players

It is kind of telling that even with the former Braves listed above, none have posted or are projected to post a league average WAR (it is still 2.5 WAR for the AL, right?).

by Gopherballs on Mar 12, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

I dunno

I’d say it’s closer to 2 when we adjust for playing time, maybe 2.25 for position players/starters in the AL. It’s a rough guide, I guess. If the data comes from FanGraphs, they don’t have separate replacement levels, so it’s more like 2-2.25 for the whole of MLB.

Having said that, Cameron (as far as I know) didn’t go into much detail about relievers in particular olther than to note the higher replacement level. So I’m not sure if and how they incorporate leverage into player value.

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

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 12, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

it will also be interesting to re-do this chart after 2009

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

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 12, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't even know if it's an obsession with mediocre players...

as much as it’s an obsession with negotiating against himself. Anybody wanna go in with me on having this delivered to Kauffman, to Dayton’s attention?

"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae

by Sweep_the_Leg on Mar 12, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

I'd love to see him open that package

Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!

by mazoboom on Mar 12, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

He'd never see it

what do you think Jin Wong’s getting paid for?

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

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 12, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

But it's not just a joke

Many people have made the argument on this site that Moore’s obsession with bringing in former Braves has hurt and is hurting the organization. It might just be a joke to you (which of course is hard to tell given how often you bring it up and sometimes even argue the point) but it isn’t to many others.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 12, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

The x4 multiplier seems awfully high these days

How was the x4 multiplier arrived at? Total MLB payroll to players divided by total number of wins in an MLB season? I think that’d be the best way to do it, but there are 3 different salary scales in MLB—pre-arb, post-arb, and FA. Average MLB $/win might give you some insight as to how you’re doing overall, but if you apply that multiplier to FA acquisitions, you’re going to find that the vast majority of FA signings look terrible. Or if you apply a good FA multiplier to pre-arb players, every one with a positive WAR will look great.

It can’t be that hard to come up with a nonlinear model for $/win. It’d be different for each team, but you’d think you could maybe just get by with a universal model with maybe 2 or 3 variables for ticket market, tv market, and merchandise market or something.

by kcdc1 on Mar 12, 2009 1:19 PM EDT reply actions  

This is true on a team level

and that needs to be done, but for each individual player considered in themselves, the average make the most sense, since they only “earn” the overpayment by being signed at a different point in the team’s development toward being a winner, fi that makes any sense.

A while back, Sky Kalkman did both basic linear and non-linear payroll analyses at Beyond the Box Score, if you go back through the archives.

Colin Wyers recently re-ran the numbers and came up with similar average $/WAR figures for 2007 and 2008 — 3.8 and 4.2 respectively (irrc, very close to the 4.0 and 4.4 popularized by Tango).

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

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 12, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

Read Cameron's and Wyers's explanation of the x4 multiplier

Cameron’s method makes sense, but it’s explicitly a FA multiplier, and is not to be applied to pre-FA players. Wyers’s article is difficult to understand. He doesn’t explain his results table particularly well. If you look at his regression models, it looks like the revenue generated by a win is around $3 million, but in his results table, he seems to plug in average values for each of his variables and then divide by the number of wins to arrive at his $/win figure. Maybe? I honestly have no clue what’s going on there. Either way, it doesn’t address the problem I was talking about, and the models are still linear with respect to wins.

As for evaluating acquisitions, I think it makes sense to stick with using a FA multiplier that’s derived only from FA data and apply that multiplier only to evaluate FA signings. It still assumes linear pay with respect to a player’s skill and with respect to a team’s standing, but it works as a rule of thumb.

by kcdc1 on Mar 12, 2009 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

yeah, i think we're in basic agreement

that for an average FA signing, the mutiplier counts. I agree that for pre-arb and arb players it doesn’t work straight-up. If it did, Jacobs would be being paid the “correct” amount, rather than 3x what one would expect.

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 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

i think there's still opportunity cost issues here

but then again, so many of Moore’s other moves suck, so maybe he should just stick to former braves

all the minor league guys just seem pointless… and in the grand scheme of things, this is a bad thing

he needs to have a more global reach, because frankly, the braves system hasn’t been good enough to support multyiple teams

by Will McDonald on Mar 12, 2009 1:43 PM EDT reply actions  

note that their pitching kicks ass again

but none of those guys are ATL prospects — Lowe, Vazquez, and Jurrjens (although they made a hell of a trade to get him, so that should be in Wren’s favor). I have them as clearly the best rotation in the division, and I’ll bet the whole NL.

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

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 12, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes, the opportunity cost is there. But we don’t know what it is. Would Moore, or an average GM, have brought in better players if not for these former Braves? Perhaps. Given the above numbers, I think it is likely that the opposite is true. All the minor league guys seem pointless? Every organization needs filler. That’s not pointless. And sometimes Moore has replaced a piece of filler with a very cheap reclamation project (like Roman Colon). It’s worth a shot. And sometimes you need to fill an organizational weakness to get a little depth (like Brayan Pena). I don’t see how this is a bad thing. We’re not talking about trading away a good player or prospect for a former Braves minor leaguer who sucks. We’re talking about essentially free moves to fill some very minor role in the system.

And Moore does look beyond former Braves. It’s not like this is his entire strategy. He just brings in a somewhat disproportionate number of Braves, as well as many more players from other organizations and other countries.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 12, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

And sometimes Moore has replaced a piece of filler with a very cheap reclamation project (like Roman Colon). It’s worth a shot. And sometimes you need to fill an organizational weakness to get a little depth (like Brayan Pena). I don’t see how this is a bad thing.

yes, that is true

the only issue is, as we have discussed a ton with the FA discussions this winter, is that, given the enormity of the task presented to him, and the very real constraints that are a part of the business (roster space, payroll, etc) can we completely write off all this stuff as minor/OK

the $3 million dollar contracts to guys who suck add up, the roster spots to complete randoms like Brayan, add up

sure, on balance, basically its worked out (almost entirely on Davies, who is far from a sure thing) but that doesn’t mean that its an ideal situation

by Will McDonald on Mar 12, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

the only issue is, as we have discussed a ton with the FA discussions this winter, is that, given the enormity of the task presented to him, and the very real constraints that are a part of the business (roster space, payroll, etc) can we completely write off all this stuff as minor/OK

We can evaluate the moves individually and in aggregate, as we should. And I think the acquisitions of former Braves have worked out quite well. Of course there were mistakes, but there has been much more positive than negative. If you are talking about the minor league moves, then yes I think we can completely write it off as minor/ok.

the $3 million dollar contracts to guys who suck add up

Of course they do. The $3M mistakes count. And the $400K successes count too. Add them up and the pluses outweigh the minuses by more than a little.

the roster spots to complete randoms like Brayan, add up

I’m not sure what this means. The minor league roster spots for guys like Brayan Pena add up? That was a good move. The Royals (like most organizations) were extremely shallow in catchers. They needed more potentially decent catchers, so they got one for free and stashed him in AAA where he fit in easily (didn’t block any genuine prospects). There are other moves, like acquiring Roman Colon, Jairo Cuevas and others where Moore brought in either a reclamation project or an upgraded piece of minor league filler. Every organization does that. You’d like to have legitimate prospects in minor league roster spot, but no organization has anything even close to that.

sure, on balance, basically its worked out (almost entirely on Davies, who is far from a sure thing) but that doesn’t mean that its an ideal situation

Actually there have been multiple pluses and Cruz projects to be nearly as much of a value as Davies in the immediate future. I’m not sure what “not an ideal situation” means. Would it have been better for Moore to get the same value or slightly worse value from players from other organizations? Do you think it is likely that he would have done better with players from other organizations? If so, why? I think one of the benefits of hiring a guy from another team’s front office is that you get the benefit of that guy’s knowledge of former organization’s players. If he can poach them and get good value for him, that’s a plus. It appears Moore has done that.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 12, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

opportunity cost

is present in EVERY trade regardless whether you did it with the Braves. there is always a different deal that could have been done.

The General Theory of Royaltivity

by kabrink on Mar 12, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

The problem of ignoring opportunity cost because we don't have all of the details:

Take one event in Royals history that is almost universally disparaged and evaluate it by WAR/$:

a 1/2 season of Beltran = +7.6M (which uses his crazy Houston stats)

for
John Buck (to date) = +18.1M
Mark Teahen (to date) = +15.6M
Mike Wood = +1.6M

by Top Ramen on Mar 12, 2009 5:39 PM EDT reply actions  

and losing him for free

after that 1/2 season, right?

The General Theory of Royaltivity

by kabrink on Mar 12, 2009 5:51 PM EDT reply actions  

Yep

Allard Baird managed to get +35M WAR (and counting) value out of losing half a season of Beltran. Remove the names and just look at the numbers and it doesn’t look too bad until the opportunity cost is factored in.

by Top Ramen on Mar 13, 2009 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions  

Maybe we're talking past each other

But, I still don’t follow. It seems like you’re against the trade of Beltran. I’m loathe to defend Buck, Teahen, or Wood but isn’t it preferable to at least get those guys rather than nobody? We weren’t going to be able to sign the guy, we were losing him anyway. In that case, I’ll take 3 mediocre players rather than none. I need some kind of players.

The General Theory of Royaltivity

by kabrink on Mar 13, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

Perhaps Top Ramen is saying that Baird could and should have gotten more for Beltran

There are the highly questionable rumors about other offers that were made for Beltran (Youkilis and Shoppach; Cano and Navarro). Of course this opportunity cost argument has the same weakness as every other OC argument: what other opportunities were there? We really don’t know.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 13, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

Youkilis will never hit for power

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

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 13, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

There's a rumor that an aspiring model named Heidi Klum once asked me out

…but I turned her down. A rumor like that must be true.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 13, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

you're right, we'll never know

And, I don’t WANT to know at this point. If one of those trades were offered, we really blew it. Of course, that was also not to be known at the time. These guys may not have panned out. Cano is still an open question too isn’t he?

But, it sure seems like teams knew we were over a barrel at the time.

The General Theory of Royaltivity

by kabrink on Mar 13, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

The Royals were indeed over a barrel

…and it has been well documented that the Red Sox organization was in love with Youkilis from the beginning. It’s hard to believe they’d trade him for a two-month rental of Beltran.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 13, 2009 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Maybe this is only an issue because we're unfamiliar with it

Moore is the first GM brought in from outside the organization in a while, right? Maybe this happens more than we think simply because there haven’t been other GMs taken from the Royals’ system and, even if there were, none of them would be slobbering for our recently players/prospects.

by BrRoyal on Mar 12, 2009 7:42 PM EDT reply actions  

SF Giants, let me introduce you to two old associates of your GM, Mr. Sabean. Here are Mr. Snow and Mr. Rivera.

by 2X2L on Mar 12, 2009 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

But don’t get too excited, because Mr. Rivera’s first name is not Mariano.

by 2X2L on Mar 12, 2009 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

Because the Dotel-for-Davies trade was such utter highway robbery, I could imagine one could make a legitimate argument that his perceived infatuation with ex-Braves has actually helped the Royals. Most of his ex-Brave acquisitions haven’t yielded significant dividends for the Royals, at all. Mostly because there are scouting/front office acquisitions that are difficult to quantify and qualify, and there are so many Minor League free agent signings. Also, we of course can mostly only speculate as to which non ex-Braves were actually available at the time – or potentially more valuable.

Anyway, I digress. I think with regard to certain activities – threatening to use HoRam in the rotation, for instance, or threatening to keep TPJ on the roster – we have a right to worry, a bit, as to whether his Brave bias could potentially harm the Royals down the road. Does he romanticize his vision of his former players, as many G.M.’s do, naturally, of their own current players? We need more time to figure that out.

by Royals Nation on Mar 13, 2009 3:12 AM EDT reply actions  

I think with regard to certain activities – threatening to use HoRam in the rotation, for instance, or threatening to keep TPJ on the roster – we have a right to worry, a bit, as to whether his Brave bias could potentially harm the Royals down the road.

Do we even know if those decisions (if they end up being made) have anything to do with “Brave bias”? Moore has made more than a few poor personnel decisions (Suchs Gload, Bloomquist, Jacobs, etc.). Some of his poor personnel decisions involve former Braves. Many poor do not. Is it safe to assume that when Moore makes a poor personnel move with a former Brave that it was because he has a bias in favor of any player who was ever in the Braves system? Maybe he likes Pena because he’s in love with his defensive tools. Maybe he likes HoRam because he’s desperate for a lefty SP and likes his sinker.

Does he romanticize his vision of his former players, as many G.M.’s do, naturally, of their own current players? We need more time to figure that out.

In the meantime we can be comforted by the fact that the available evidence points strongly in the direction that Moore’s acquisition of former Braves has helped the K.C. Royals.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 13, 2009 4:06 AM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Kansas City Royals.
Start posting about the Royals »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

SBNation.com Recent Stories

HOUSTON - JULY 24:  Pitcher Roy Oswalt #44 of the Houston Astros throws against the Cincinnati Reds in the first inning at Minute Maid Park on July 24 2010 in Houston Texas.  (Photo by Bob Levey/Getty Images) +1 updates

Astros, Phillies Reportedly Have Deal In Place To Trade Roy Oswalt To Philadelphia

ARLINGTON TX - JULY 10:  Pitcher Cliff Lee #33 of the Texas Rangers throws against the Baltimore Orioles on July 10 2010 at Rangers Ballpark in Arlington Texas.  (Photo by Ronald Martinez/Getty Images)

MLB Trade Deadline FAQ: What It Is, What It Means, And Why It's Awesome

NEW YORK - JUNE 11:  Roy Oswalt #44 of the Houston Astros looks on prior to a game against the New York Yankees  on June 11, 2010 in the Bronx borough of New York City.  (Photo by Mike Stobe/Getty Images) +13 updates

Wednesday's MLB Trade Rumors: Phillies Focused On Roy Oswalt As Other Suitors Drop Out

More from SBNation.com >


Managers

Cimg0036_small Will McDonald

Editors

Dayton_small Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal)