Royals Transaction Round-Up: Gload, Peralta, Hudson No More

by Will McDonald on Apr 2, 2009 5:01 PM EDT in News Comment 99 comments

It's been quite a forty-eight hours here in Royals land and we may not be done yet. Are the Royals clearly getting better? No, not really, but various short-term questions were finally answered.

Sidney Ponson named to starting rotation. I'm on record as saying Sidney Ponson isn't a good pitcher, and that the Royals' sudden infatuation with him was founded on a bad methodology and displayed lazy thinking. The next day NYRoyal weighed in and argued that Ponson isn't that bad relative to his fellow roster-filler brethern and that he gives the Royals depth. Most people seemed to agree with NYRoyal, and I was lambasted for being too negative, and for not being able to generate better options than Ponson. That I was wrong to assume he would make the rotation, that I was just letting my negativity color me. And hey, he's minor league depth, even though he's not. Anyway, for a few days I responded to everyone by snarkily arguing that we shouldn't limit Ponson to fifth starter consideration, that I see him as a #4. Well, now he is the #4 starter, whatever that means. Who knows what will happen? Actually, we do know. Well, Dayton Moore's made me miss Brett Tomko.
Horacio Ramirez named to starting rotation. The spin here is that the #5 guy, Ho-Ram, will only pitch an inning a month or something, because of all the off-days in April. Does it ever work out like that? What happens if Meche/Greinke has a long outing, which could happen, since they are actually good... we'll see what happens. The scary thing is, I think I like Ho-Ram as a starter better than Ponson at this point, but I mean, I'd hate to discount Ponson's nine immortal innings in the WBC. Since Ponson is a staff anchor (ok, that's going too far) and the best pitcher of the bunch, Hochevar, is being demoted for non-competition reasons, we're left with a competition between Ho-Ram and Brian Bannister, who now looks like nothing more than a flash in the pan. Horacio won that competition, and maybe rightfully so, although to find really happy Ho-Ram memories as a starter, you've got to go back further than you do with Banny. I wondered this Spring as to if Bannister would top Darrell May's career innings pitched mark of 660. That isn't a sure thing anymore. We can keep arguing about Ponson & Ho-Ram, but the larger story here is the future of Bannister, because if he's done, we're still going to be dealing with future Ponsons and Ho-Rams in great number for at least another few years.

Joel Peralta released, Luke Hudson announces retirement. Dayton Moore is the wrong GM to work under if you happen to be a pre-existing reliever. He's a transactions junkie in this area, both buying and selling. Everyone, I believe, who Dayton inherited in the bullpen, from the guys who sucked to those who didn't, are now gone. There are presumably better options in the 'pen now, at least according to management, and who are we to dismiss the abilities of Kyle Farnsworth? Peralta, nevertheless, is the definition of an expendable guy and in fact its amazing that he lasted this long. As for Hudson... I kept forgetting the guy was around, then someone would post a note about him, rehabbing somewhere off-stage or pitching in Iowa or someplace. He had no chance with the Royals, even if he was healthy(which of course he wasn't), not given the better talent on the team and the expertise of the staff to snag diamonds in the rough like Ho-Ram & Sidney. The larger thing here is that he's leaving the game altogether. He's 32 and starting over, so best of luck to him.
The Royals Trade Ross Gload to Florida for a PTBNL. The Royals did this to themselves, but at least they've now moved on. NYRoyal and I (you may have noticed a pattern) got into an exchange about Gload about a month back, as I was certain Ross would get 400 PAs (I think) with the Royals in 2009. Well, I was wrong. Wrong. They did business with the one team that could be excited about a free player who's terrible, but they did it. Rany's heard that the prospect coming back might actually be one, but there's no way of knowing now. (Fish Stripes on the trade.) So to wrap it all up, they solved the problem they made to the best of their abilities. I should have more to say about Gload leaving us, but nothing's bubbling up. I mean, I carried a sign saying "Gload will Explode" to the K, risking humiliation and frat-boy attention (which happened) due to the obvious alternate meaning of the phrase and the fact that I looked like a complete idiot or, at best, a weird guy. I'll have to post my bet losing post on this at some point. The odd thing is that bad defensive numbers keep popping up regarding Gload, which could mean that he's one of the absolute worst position players on earth, considering that he can't hit. He collected 747 plate appearances as a Royal.

So where are the Royals and where are they going? I don't know. It's been a strange week. Just a few days after I talked about the Royals maybe winning the division, the Royals made a win-later move in demoting Hochevar. The Royals jumped hard at the chance to add Ponson to the rotation, despite the fact that in a week a ton of guys were going to be available. Look, the reassuring thing is to say, "if Ponson is bad, he'll be gone" and in fact, this is what happened with the aforementioned Tomko. However, this also didn't happen with Gload or Tony Pena Jr., until way too late.

Sometimes... sometimes I just don't get it. The Royals bring in Ho-Ram the first time, I scream and moan, and he's used as a reliever, isn't bad and eventually gets traded. So pie on my face. Then the Royals bring Ho-Ram back, and we all let our guard down, because, well, he was good out of the 'pen. Then, we start creeping toward Ho-Ram starting... and it happened. It's like they've gone out of their way to make the wrong decision.

So, if we are anywhere, that's where we're at. Can you really trust this front office?

3 recs | Comment 99 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Very snarky!

I enjoyed it immensely. Kudos to you on predicting Ponson as the #4 starter even if you were only saying it sarcastically.

by djk royal on Apr 2, 2009 5:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Any Brett Tomko mention must be accompanied by this:

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Apr 2, 2009 5:14 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

if it just me, or is she pretty non-awesome for a playmate?

hate to go there, but… am I wrong?

by Will McDonald on Apr 2, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isn't that what makes her awesome?

BOOM! ROASTED!

by GoBabies!! on Apr 2, 2009 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

I think she’s one of the less skanky, more girl-next-doorish playmates ever.

Then again, we’ve already established that 90% of the women 90% of the men think are hot, I think are nasty overly made-up hunks of plastic who care too much about “fashion.” Gimme the cute girl who’s still cute in a t-shirt, jeans, and no makeup everytime.

This space for rent.

by jonfmorse on Apr 2, 2009 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+100

She looks like a beautiful, non-plastic woman. Naturally gorgeous and not skankified.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Apr 2, 2009 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

don't know much about playmates

but that’s actually what I’d consider a good picture of her. Some of them are pretty skanky.

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

by Matt Klaassen on Apr 2, 2009 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

any thoughts on if Banny will catch D-May's IP total?

by Will McDonald on Apr 2, 2009 5:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes, but it might require a year or two in the NL

by Gopherballs on Apr 2, 2009 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i will guess that Banny has lost it for good

i do hope i am wrong, but after his first month last year, i have not heard one piece of good news about him. dutton reported that bannister was optioned to omaha. http://www.kansascity.com/sports/royals/story/1118588.html
i have opening day tickets, and i am highly offended that i will be forced to watch ponson pitch. the new Kauffman will begin with a bang! a major problem with the royals has been terrible starts. it really feels great to be almost out of the division race in may. starting with ponson and horam, and not hochevar is very disheartening. the whole season appears to be on meche and greinke. i feel any optimism i had was squelched by spring training.

over the line smokey

by saintalfonzo on Apr 2, 2009 5:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think the schedule, luckily, is alright in april & may

which may help things a little

but yea, opening day could be awkward, although, i mean, its one baseball game, so Sir Sidney could be great

by Will McDonald on Apr 2, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

maybe

keep in mind he’s pitching for the Royals this time

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

by Matt Klaassen on Apr 2, 2009 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

did anyone run the numbers on ho-ram v. ponson in one of the earlier threads?

by Will McDonald on Apr 2, 2009 5:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

well, if you

read my totally awesome Al Central SP preview, you’ll see that Sir Sidney’s projected FIP is 5.00, for a .440 win percentage assuming a league average of 4.40 ERA (a league average pitcher is a .500 pitcher; .370 is AL replacement level for starters). Ho-Ram projects with a 4.39 FIP… sol he’s above average…

Um, yeah, I wish I could do it all over again in some ways. I’d just use last years run environment for various reasons (about a 4.3 ERA, 4.72 RA)… still Ho-Ram’s nuimbers, especially, seem way off. I think the problem is the influence of his reliever numbers.

I’m sure you remember my ~~awesome~~ fake tRA Marcels.

If not, here’s what I wrote:

Whereas most projection systems takes Marcel as their baseline, the Crude and Rough Assessment of PItchers (or CRAP) takes Marcel as it’s ideal — since I’m working without components, it’s unlikely it will ever be as good as Marcel. Nonetheless, like Marcel, it’s a wegihted average that incorporates regression to the mean, using the tRA rate stat (tRA* already incorporates some regression, so it would be redundant). I actually feel pretty good about it, given my knowledge of tihngs. I haven’t added age adjustments in yet, but I did get some nice IP/GS stuff out of it for rough RAR/WAR stuff, and one nice thing about Stat Corner separating league for starters and relievers is that it makes it regression to "more similar" groups (in this case, just starters, not them together) a bit simpler…

Anyway, here are the preliminary CRAP results for 2009 tRA’s for some of our favorites. There are three numbers for each listed pitcher.

*The first number is the projected tRA.
*The second is the pitcher win% assuming last season’s AL run environiment. .370 is replacement level for the AL, although some just use .380 for both leagues.
*The third number is the "reliability score," which is based on how much regression to the mean is involved — the more regression to the mean (rather than the pitcher’s own stas) is part of the projection, the less reliable the projection is. Don’t take these reliability number’s to mean anything in themselves (liek a percent chance the projection is "good,"), but rather a relative measure of how reliable the projections are in relation to each other.

This is just me goofing around last week, if people want more, maybe I’ll do more. I projected most of the Royals starters, but I’ll stick with the few at issue here. Remember that tRA is on an RA scale, so the numbers will be higher than the ERA/FIP numbers you’re used to seeing.

Sidney Ponson 5.67 tRA, .413 win, .489 Rel.
Bannister 5.61 tRA, .418 win, .585 Rel.
Davies 5.59 tRA, .420 win, .544 Rel.
HoRam 5.87 tRA, .397 win, .401 Rel.
Hochevar 5.02 tRA, .471 win%, .334 Rel.

It’s far from great, but it does just go off starter stats and regression to the average starter, and includes park adjustments. I think it helps compare better in some ways than the FIPs we’re getting projected from guys who have not gotten a lot of starts lately. Ranking them for the lazy

1. Hochevar 5.02 tRA, .471 win%, .334 Rel.
2. Davies 5.59 tRA, .420 win, .544 Rel.
3. Bannister 5.61 tRA, .418 win, .585 Rel.
4. Sidney Ponson 5.67 tRA, .413 win, .489 Rel.
5. HoRam 5.87 tRA, .397 win, .401 Rel.

This jibes with my “intuition,” but I can’t speak for others.

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

by Matt Klaassen on Apr 2, 2009 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Note that I didn't adjust for age

So Ponson and HoRam are likely a bit worse, Hochevar and Davies better.

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

by Matt Klaassen on Apr 2, 2009 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

a little scary on Davies

since the ship has sailed for everyone in terms of loving the guy

by Will McDonald on Apr 2, 2009 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey now, I'm still on the dock

Davies needs a good jump in his strikeout rate or a good drop in his walk rate, as his HR/FB rate is likely to return to normal and he does not generate many groundballs.

by Gopherballs on Apr 2, 2009 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yea, he was a little banny-r-ficic last year

by Will McDonald on Apr 2, 2009 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

he at least has more to work with than Banny

by Gopherballs on Apr 2, 2009 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

people aren't liking the guy because of stats

I think I’ve said that like a million times here.

Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.

by doublestix on Apr 2, 2009 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

understood

but the stats did happen, and continue to reveal that whatever they like him for hasn’t fully translated

by Will McDonald on Apr 2, 2009 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

we're talking about Davies, right?

(sorry, I thought we might be talking about Banny)

Davies actually did okay overall last season, I thought. Near league-average tRA, above average FIP and tRA. I realize his peripherals weren’t glowing (and that’s reflected in his 5.19 tRA*), but it’s still just his age 25 season. He’s probably another #4 type guy, but maybe he has more upside than that. Or maybe he’s terrible.

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

by Matt Klaassen on Apr 2, 2009 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, it's the totality of the statistical record that looks ugly for Davies

Either he figured something out last year and turned a corner and he’s a useful #3-4, or that was just a blip and he returns to suckage. We’ll see.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Apr 2, 2009 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If only the Royals had a young guy like Luke Hochevar

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

by Matt Klaassen on Apr 2, 2009 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes Davies

here is a quote from Olney’s blog:

"From an AL talent evaluator:

No. 1: Kyle Davies is improved — I really like his curveball and feel for the game."

he was phenomenal at the end of last year. statistically, yea also, but you could tell he was a different pitcher. he was throwing waaaaaaaay more strikes and mixing in his curve way more as well. now, i dunno if he is going to keep that up, but it’s possible. and if he does, all of a sudden you have a really, really good top 3 in the rotation.

Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.

by doublestix on Apr 3, 2009 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well, I hope you are right

davies has become a huge part of the plan

by Will McDonald on Apr 3, 2009 12:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

PECOTA (which has HoRam as a starter)

Ramirez 5.45 ERA (no FIP readily available), 1.26 K/BB

Ponson 5.21ERA, 1.20 K/BB

Recent minor league free agent Shawn Hill: 4.89 ERA, 2.00 K/BB

by Gopherballs on Apr 2, 2009 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I wondered about Hill

And surely you read my AL Central SP WAR preview… Ho-Ram’s averaged FIPs are 4.39… PECOTA was the most pessimistic at 4.71….

Yeah, I"m not seeing it, either

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

by Matt Klaassen on Apr 2, 2009 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am on record as being 100% in agreeance with you

I have been stewing for the last couple of days.

Rec’d

by FretFriendly on Apr 2, 2009 6:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Oh, and I don't think Bannister is done

by FretFriendly on Apr 2, 2009 6:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, the front office's thinking...

…on pitching has been pretty decent overall—-sans Tomko and a few others. So, if they think Ponson is worth a shot, then I’m on board. Ponson’s had off-the-field issues for the last few years, yes? If so, then his recent numbers and projections really don’t mean as much. – TL

by timlacy on Apr 2, 2009 6:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

"a few others"

Yabuta, Nomo… oh, basically every non-trivial pitching acquisition.

GMDM is very good at getting something from what appears to be nothing at all off the scrap heap (RamRam, Ho-Ram last year, and possible we’ll say this about Davies in the end); the disturbing factor here, I think, is that he’s thus far proven lousy at actually spending money on pitching (Cruz being the likely exception).

This space for rent.

by jonfmorse on Apr 2, 2009 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Uh, I think you're missing one other glaring exception...

by the name of Meche. And I can understand leaving Greinke out of the equation because (1) Moore wasn’t the one who drafted/acquired him, and (2) a 6 year old would recognize the benefit of extending him (although I’ll give Moore some credit for actually convincing Zack to sign…however much credit he deserves…who knows).

I pretty much agree with what you’re saying though. Moore has proven very adept at signing/trading for league minimum (or barely above) pitching, and making one wise decision for big money (Meche). On the other hand, his judgment when it comes to that middle range $1M per year (Yabuta) to $5M per (i.e. Farnsworth) has NOT been good.

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

by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 2, 2009 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Some other exceptions

Jonfmorse’s point is well taken, but I did want to throw in a couple other examples where money was well spent on pitching: Riske (good production for themoney and compensatory draft pick) and Dotel (good production for the money and Davies through trade).

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Apr 2, 2009 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, it's only fair

Everyone else who bitches about Moore’s bad track record forgets Meche and Riske and Cruz and RamRam and getting two first-round Boras clients to sign without holding him at gunpoint, so it all works out in the end.

This space for rent.

by jonfmorse on Apr 3, 2009 1:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

as a side note

How does David, “2007 Mahay” Riske make it into that August company? He contract was a horrible, Meche-surplus draining one, but it was hardly great. Much like, well, Ron Mahay. NO, it was better than that, because of the draft pick, and it wasn’t two years, or as much money.

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

by Matt Klaassen on Apr 3, 2009 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

genius compared to farnsworth

by Will McDonald on Apr 3, 2009 1:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Simply put

Riske’s actually a good pitcher.

This space for rent.

by jonfmorse on Apr 3, 2009 1:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

one year of riske for 2 million

the mahay contract seems pretty bad though

why we really needed either guy to finish in 5th and 4th, I don’t know

by Will McDonald on Apr 3, 2009 1:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

meant to say Riske's contract was alright

by Will McDonald on Apr 3, 2009 1:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Weeellllll...

finishing in 5th and losing 96 games is a lot less painful than finishing fifth and losing 100, ifyouknowwhatImeanandIthinkyoudo.

This space for rent.

by jonfmorse on Apr 3, 2009 1:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

he was okay

3, 4 runs above replacement., with a 1.05 pLI (not his fault, of course).. hard to get too excited about that. Much better contract than Mahay.

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

by Matt Klaassen on Apr 3, 2009 1:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And then you have to add in the fact that Riske got the Royals a sandwich pick as well

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Apr 3, 2009 2:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, I thought I mentioned that

not that it was a terrible signing/acquisition, I just don’t think it was in the same league with Meche, Ramirez, or Cruz.

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

by Matt Klaassen on Apr 3, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I Think GMDM

Might be getting ready to deal Banny to an NL team. He’s hiding him in Omaha to keep him from hurting his trade value getting shelled in MLB.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Apr 2, 2009 7:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, we just need a multi team trade.

That lets us turn Bannister, Buck/Brayan Pena, and Ryan Shealy into Jeff Niemann. Yeah baby.

realistically speaking

by slayor on Apr 2, 2009 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice summary of a big pile of transactions and decisons there Will

Emotionally I am not ready to give up on Bannister, nor am I emotionally ready to accept Ponson as a Royal. I really like Banny and find Ponson one of the least likable people in the world.

Too bad about Peralta. I like the grinders. I expect he will find work somewhere. I’d rather have him as a starter than HoRam.

I love the dump of Gload. I feel sorry for the guy as he seems decent enough. And, I love the grinders. But he was just killing the team by being a first baseman. Let the glorious era of Shealy begin (again, or again for the next time.)

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Apr 2, 2009 7:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You of course realize

that what will happen now is that Ponson and Ho-Ram will combine to win 30 games, Jacobs will hit 37 homers, Blümqvist will hit .340 and steal 42 bases at an 80% clip, Guillen will drive in 137 runs and not have a single altercation, and we’ll win the pennant.

This space for rent.

by jonfmorse on Apr 2, 2009 9:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It won't matter what Moore ends up being right about

It's only the process that counts.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Apr 2, 2009 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

so you're happy with dumb ass processes like trading for Jacobs?

by Will McDonald on Apr 2, 2009 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No

But results matter too. One could argue that the process which led to signing Meche was extremely flawed, but that ignores the scouting element. It ignores tools. It ignores that a good scouting organization can sometimes see when a player is going to be better than projected. Sometimes they are right. And being about that kind of thing counts.

And, with regard to Jacobs, let’s say that Royals scouts loved him. They saw tools they liked which they think would lead to improved contact, and plate discipline (not great, but improved) as well as unspectacular but not awful defensive skills. And let’s further say that this opinion is ratified by significantly improved performance from Jacobs in 2009. [BTW, I do not think this will happen. I’d bet against it pretty heavily]. If the scouts, and therefore Moore’s FO turned out to be right, would their process then have been flawed?

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Apr 2, 2009 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

One could argue that the process which led to signing Meche was extremely flawed, but that ignores the scouting element. It ignores tools. It ignores that a good scouting organization can sometimes see when a player is going to be better than projected. Sometimes they are right. And being about that kind of thing counts.

Why would you assume that I am saying scouting isn’t part of the process? I am 100% not saying that.
With Ponson, part of the issue is sample size. Sample size matters for stats, and it should for scouting as well. He may have looked great in those nine WBC innings, but its still nine innings.

by Will McDonald on Apr 2, 2009 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are we just talking about Ponson?

I was talking about the whole offseason and Moore’s various acquisitions. The short version of my point is that good performances from some player(s) could vindicate Moore and his processes with regard to that/those player(s).

With regard to Ponson, what do we know of the evaluative process which led to his acquisition and insertion into the rotation? You appear to assume that it was all about how he looked in 9 WBC innings. I think that’s a very faulty assumption. Just because his WBC performance was mentioned in Moore’s public comments doesn’t mean that this was the primary factor. Royals scouts have seen Ponson before. They know how he looked then and how he performed then. Some scout(s) saw him in the WBC. Various evaluators saw him in workouts and games in Arizona.

Again, I’m not defending the choice to put Ponson into the rotation. To me, it looks idiotic. But we can’t say that regardless of how he pitches for KC, it was a horrendous move because we know the process that brought him here was flawed. We don’t know what the process was. I would agree, however, that the philosophy of putting a known mediocrity into the rotation instead of a younger guy with upside (and this includes Bannister) is inherently flawed for a team that is very likely not going to be contending.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Apr 2, 2009 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Love the umlauts

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Apr 3, 2009 8:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe Pontoon--I mean Ponson

will end up being good for the team?

Oh snap, here comes the Loyal2 optimism!

Listen to the MUSTN'Ts, child Listen to the DON'Ts Listen to the SHOULDN'Ts, The IMPOSSIBLEs, the WON'Ts Listen to the NEVER HAVEs Then listen close to me-- Anything can happen, child, ANYTHING can be --Shel Silverstein

by loyal2theroyals on Apr 2, 2009 10:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I just thought of something

has anyone thought about the ramifications of him and Alberto Callaspo being on the road together (in more ways than one)?

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

by Matt Klaassen on Apr 2, 2009 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

callaspo will be playing everyday, he'll be too focused

oh wait…

by Will McDonald on Apr 2, 2009 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can't decide if the rush of adrenelin I feel

is excitement for the crazy antics that might ensue, or fear for the lives of drivers and pedestians in the KC metro area.

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

by Matt Klaassen on Apr 2, 2009 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

thank god I've got a full year and a half before I move to the area...

by loyal2theroyals on Apr 2, 2009 10:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

when do we find out if TPJ makes the team or not?

final roster has to be set fairly soon, right?

by Will McDonald on Apr 2, 2009 10:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

someone has to be the token god-awful-shortstop on the team

and he fits the role so well…

by loyal2theroyals on Apr 2, 2009 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sunday is the deadline cutdown

But, he’s staying on.

The General Theory of Royaltivity

by kabrink on Apr 2, 2009 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

More predictive certainty?

Or do you have some kind of inside source? I would have thought that events over the past week or two would have made your more hesitant to be certain you know what the organization is going to do. Gobble, Bloomquist, Gload. Didn’t you think they’d all make the team (and have a starting role in the case of Bloomquist)?

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Apr 2, 2009 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No inside source here

But, I’m comfortable admitting when I’m wrong. And, I’m glad too. Goodbye Gobble and Gload. I still think Bloomy would be the starter if they hadn’t dreamed up the Teahen adventure. He still could.

The General Theory of Royaltivity

by kabrink on Apr 2, 2009 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, also

Remember they said they’re likely to carry “just” 11 pitchers? So, that is what is indicating to me that they may at least feel a bit more freedom to keep TPJ around for the time being. Remember, they must still carry some worry that Teahen won’t pan out at 2B and if he doesn’t, then Bloomy “can’t” be the backup SS.

The General Theory of Royaltivity

by kabrink on Apr 2, 2009 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Everything I’ve read over the past few days has said that they are planning to carry 11 pitchers for the short-term only. Does that mean they want TPJ on the bench? Maybe, but not necessarily. I’m not saying it is stupid to think that TPJ might make the team. He might. The problem is that you are always certain about what’s going to happen. Bloomy was going to be the starting second baseman from the day he was signed. It was clear that Gload was going to make the team and play too much.

Remember, they must still carry some worry that Teahen won’t pan out at 2B and if he doesn’t, then Bloomy "can’t" be the backup SS.

Do you think that Callaspo isn’t going to make the team? Of course Bloomy can be the backup SS. Let’s say Teahen flames out at 2B. Let’s further say for the sake of argument that they move Bloomy into that position as the full-time starter. Then, when Aviles needs a day off or if he goes on the DL, Bloomy moves to SS and Callaspo moves to 2B.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Apr 2, 2009 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But, I’m comfortable admitting when I’m wrong.

That’s great, but I would think that these misses would show you that your constant certainty about what the Royals will do is misplaced. When you just assume that the organization is always going to make the most stupid decisions, you’re going to be right some of the time. But that’s a poor excuse for thoughtful, reasonable analysis.

I still think Bloomy would be the starter if they hadn’t dreamed up the Teahen adventure.

Yeah and Gobble would be in the bullpen if they hadn’t released him, and Gload would have made the team if they hadn’t traded him. See my point? You predicted that the worst player for the starting second base role would get that job and the Royals, predictably, have apparently not taken that path.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Apr 2, 2009 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The truth is, he might be onto something

when we expect the worst,t he best happens, when we expect things to be okay, BOOM out of nowhere, Farns/Bloomquist/HoRam get signed. Ponson #4 starter. Mike Jacobs. Etcetera.

I’m not sure what’s going to happen, but good thing (e.g., Gload trade) only happen when we seem to be predicting the oppsite.

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

by Matt Klaassen on Apr 2, 2009 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

(since we're talking tongue-in-cheek)

And when an announcer mentions the possibility of a no-hitter, he jinxes it and prevents it from happening. ;)

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Apr 2, 2009 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I couldn't have said that better myself.

by Dayton Moore. Yes, really. on Apr 3, 2009 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not always wrong

I was right about HoRam. I don’t think that was hard to be right about. I think the Royals were fairly vocal and seemed pretty set at that from the very beginning. The did try to back off of it a little because they did start saying things like “well, we have to balance having a lefty with who the best 5 are” and “we aren’t going to put in a lefty if he’s not one of the 5 best possibilities”. But, I guess I never really believed that stuff.

But, also, I did say a while back in admitting to some earlier criticism from you that I do tend to be pessimistic rather than overly optimistic so they don’t punch me in the gut.

The General Theory of Royaltivity

by kabrink on Apr 3, 2009 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying you are always wrong

Of course you’re not always wrong. I’m not saying you are even usually wrong or that you’ll usually be wrong in the future. As I said, when you predict that the Royals will make all of the stupidest decisions, you’ll be right some of the time. Just as if someone predicted that the Royals would make all of the smartest decisions, they’d be right some of the time too. But that’s shows a poor mode of analysis and there’s no support for your constant certainty.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Apr 3, 2009 2:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And therein lies the rub

I frequently make sure to admit that I’m no stat analyst. While I’m reading and trying to learn more about it, I’m not now and probably never will put in enough time to be real good at it.

I don’t come on this site to “win” or to be “right” or to compete to be the “most right” about anything. I like participating in discussions with fellow Royals fans, speculating on things, making smart ass comments and joking around, expressing hopes and fears, expressing opinions which are probably mostly subjective (even though I often make them from a somewhat informed basis of reading and interpreting stories and statements), and sometimes making comments that might be provocative.

I sometimes try to support my arguments using statistics but as I’ve always said, these are from my primitive level analsis. And, I realize my level of competence in that realm and will argue my point but also try to learn from the opposite analysis and understand it. If I come to believe someone else is right, I’ll admit that rather than belligerently try to support a position I know may be fragile to begin with. If I can’t agree with them, I tend to agree to disagree until different “data” comes in.

I agree that if you simply take one side all the time as you pose above, you are likely to be right some percentage of the time. That percentage depends I guess on the competency of the FO. However, that’s not what I’m trying to do. I wasn’t trying to do anything other than interpret statements and behaviors the Royals have displayed – and to dampen my optimism as a self protecting device. Heaven knows how many times we Royal fans have had our hopes dashed mercilessly on the rocks time and time again. For many folks, it looks like it may be happening again.

The General Theory of Royaltivity

by kabrink on Apr 3, 2009 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I read and appreciate all the comments made here.

Some because of their statistical expertise and analysis, some because of their traditional tools based analysis, and some just because the purveyor cares passionately about the Royals just like I do. I learn from all and respect all because I get more and better information here than I do from the mainstream media. RR rocks.

by Steve Hovley on Apr 3, 2009 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Gload Will Explode"

That ranks as my favorite RR saying… I will miss him only because i will no longer be able to say “gload will explode”….

by KC Masterpiece on Apr 2, 2009 11:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Apr 3, 2009 8:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't understand

There seems to be a lot of back and forth that has a subtext in the win now vs. win later debate. I think we’d all like to win now. But, I think most of us on here don’t want to win now if it’s just a head fake that actually mortgages against a better future. So, doesn’t this mean we should be fine with Che and Banny going to Omaha? And, not care overly much if Ponson (cheap as hell) and HoRam (well, not quite as cheap) start and burn some time in KC while we save some money on our presumed pitchers of the future?

I think a lot of us are a bit conflicted, I know I am. But, like I said the other day, and many of you have also said before, it seems like Moore is trying to do a bit of both – and maybe he’s being ordered to. But, at any rate, these moves seem a bit more like win in the future than win now. A good thing, right?

As to that list of other pitchers that may be available, do we think DM might be trying to grab any? I would not be surprised.

The General Theory of Royaltivity

by kabrink on Apr 2, 2009 11:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Despite everything

I like Banny. I’m not sure he’s very good, but I think he can be given a chance. Not to put to fine a point on it, though, let me say what I said earlier: he’s not bad enough to get sent down in favor of Ponson/HoRam, not good enough that the Royals should care about his service time.

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

by Matt Klaassen on Apr 2, 2009 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But, I think most of us on here don’t want to win now if it’s just a head fake that actually mortgages against a better future. So, doesn’t this mean we should be fine with Che and Banny going to Omaha? And, not care overly much if Ponson (cheap as hell) and HoRam (well, not quite as cheap) start and burn some time in KC while we save some money on our presumed pitchers of the future?

Well, I think Hochevar and Bannister were the best choices for the #4 and #5 SP spots for both “win now” and “win later” purposes. As a starter in 2009, Hochevar and Bannister project to be better than HoRam and Ponson. Also, Hochevar and Bannister have upside potential to be better for the Royals future. And what is best for their development as MLB pitchers is pitching in the major leagues. It’s not like they are prospects who aren’t yet major league ready. I just don’t see the upside (short-term or long-term) in going with Ponson and HoRam.

Now of course there’s the service time/team control thing with Hochevar, which is fine. That’s a decent reason to sit him in Omaha for a month. Other than that, this is FUBAR.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Apr 2, 2009 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

is banny injured? he clearly was not really part of the plan this spring

I really can’t figure out how they soured on him so fast, seemingly

maybe last season was his extended try out, and he didn’t get the job done, i dunno

by Will McDonald on Apr 3, 2009 12:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, I don't think he's injured

I don’t think they liked his stuff/control throughout the spring. I don’t know why you assume that he was never “part of the plan” or under serious consideration for the rotation. I don’t think they’ve given up on him; but they certainly aren’t very high on him.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Apr 3, 2009 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ho-ram seemed to be a starter from the beginning

or at least very early

again, who knows, but just trying to read between the lines… why did they make that move so quickly? i have a hard time thinking he won the job based on how he pitched this spring

by Will McDonald on Apr 3, 2009 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If they just decided now to go into "Win Later / Service Time Matters" mode

I’ll be upset they didn’t do the same thing with Gordon.

Really, I think that the front office thinks this is the best win now squad* (because Ponson’s contractual commitment is met, Olivo’s agreement to be the starter is met, HoRam’s agreement to be the starter is met), and there’s pitching depth because of this.

* as scary as it sounds

by Top Ramen on Apr 3, 2009 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, that's becoming typical

Dayton Moore: making “win now” moves that don’t help the team win now

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

by Matt Klaassen on Apr 3, 2009 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

bloomy pushes us over the top

by Will McDonald on Apr 3, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's Bloomers, Thank

You.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Apr 6, 2009 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Best talent???

Dayton officially sucks now!!I was so happy when spring training began. We had so much depth. But it looks like the Royals are trying to keep depth instead of playing the best players.Who were the pitchers when the Royals went 18-8? Meche,Greinke,Bannister,Davies, and Duckworth. Why not take that and add a young arm or two. But you choose Ponson and Ramirez instead of Bannister, Hochevar, Phillips, Tejeda,DiNardo, Duckworth, or J.Wright. Banny didn’t do well,Tejeda had too many walks, Duckworth is a number 5 at best, J. Wright didn’t get a chance to start, DiNardo struck out 7 in 5 innings and didn’t allow a run ,and then there are Hochevar and Phillips, whose ERA’S in spring were both 3.86. Dayton wants depth, so he will sacrifice the first 2 or 3 months of the season just to have a strong farm system. Well, he’ll need it and need it quickly!!! Ramirez sucks and Ponson Needs to diet and get in shape.Then he may be as good as Duckworth. Sorry Duck, no offense to you. I respect you very much for not whining and crying everytime you get sent down when you could be an effective reliever and part-time starter in the majors.

by Totally confused on Apr 3, 2009 12:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i agree with a lot of what you are saying

but like most spring training battles, the decision for Ho-ram and Ponson were made irrespective of other options

by Will McDonald on Apr 3, 2009 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i’m left handed. is it too late to try out?

My stories a lot like yours only more interesting because it involves robots!

by AvilesRotY on Apr 3, 2009 12:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

yesterday was the deadline

by Will McDonald on Apr 3, 2009 12:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

noooooo!!! i’d run to first on walks!!11

My stories a lot like yours only more interesting because it involves robots!

by AvilesRotY on Apr 3, 2009 12:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

my fastball only hits 82 though so i didn’t make my college team

My stories a lot like yours only more interesting because it involves robots!

by AvilesRotY on Apr 3, 2009 12:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You have higher velocity than two of the Royals pitching prospects at the AA level

Don’t give up.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Apr 3, 2009 12:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hahaha

My stories a lot like yours only more interesting because it involves robots!

by AvilesRotY on Apr 3, 2009 12:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

We shouldn't even be having this discussion... At all...

Because if Soria were in the rotation, and factor in Hochevar coming up to take the fifth spot when that becomes necessary, then all this hand wringing over PonsBaniRam would be moot.

It’s always going to be more difficult – and more valuable – to fill five starting spots with capable arms than to find a handful of guys to plug into the bullpen. That’s why I will always hate the stand-pat-because-we’re-too-paralyzed-with-fear-to-make-a-bold-move decision on leaving Soria in the pen.

Baseball's that swingy stick game, right?

by royalsroyalsroyals on Apr 3, 2009 12:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs