Banny to start instead of HoRam?

From Rotoworld:

Brian Bannister was removed after pitching two perfect innings for Triple-A Omaha on Sunday.
Indications are that the Royals will start Horacio Ramirez on Wednesday, but pulling Bannister after two innings gives them an alternative to the left-hander. Bannister has a 3.46 ERA after three starts for Omaha.

almost 3 years ago jsolo 21 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

So far, all I've read/heard is speculation

Could be Banny to make the start, which would make Hillman’s recent public comments about why HoRam is going to make the start particularly bizarre. Or Banny could be called up as backup for HoRam in that start. But, if Banny is called up, someone has to get bumped off of the 25-man roster. One of the Pena brothers? HoRam? Some pitcher randomly to the DL?

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 20, 2009 4:07 PM EDT reply actions

As bizarra as saying Soria is going to get work because he needs it,

then not bringing him in when he had 2 obvious chances?

If you were thinking, you wouldn't have thought that.

by Warden11 on Apr 20, 2009 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions

Newman was warming up at the start of the game

so something is planned. Maybe a trade of Brian or calling him up. The Angels are HURTING for starting pitching so if KC could trade him and get something respectable I would be all for it.

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

by kcscoliny on Apr 20, 2009 4:13 PM EDT reply actions

Banny for Brandon Wood!

Do it!

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 20, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions

Throw in Ponson and try to get Kendrick, too

I still believe in Kendrick, even though he breaks his hand every freaking season since he stands on top of the plate and swings at everything, thus ruiing my fantasy chances.

HK-47 is a sweet, nickname, though, and we need a Reggie Cleveland guy on the Royals.

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

by Matt Klaassen on Apr 20, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions

I wonder what it would take to get Wood

considering his ML struggles

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

by kcscoliny on Apr 20, 2009 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions

You'll have to pry him from Tony Reagins cold dead hands

Aren’t the Angels known for never parting with their top prospects, only to watch them flame out and lose all their value (see McPherson, Dallas).

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Apr 20, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't know

KC could’ve had Wood for Sweeney but Allard or Glass wouldn’t pull the trigger.

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

by kcscoliny on Apr 20, 2009 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions

A short blurb in the Star

mentions a trade as a possibility, though admits they have no inside info at the moment. I hope if they trade him that they aren’t selling low. I still think Banny could be a valuable 3/4 type starter.

by jsolo on Apr 20, 2009 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions

I hope that if they are trading him, they are trading him for a young, cheap position player with upside

I’m not talking about a great top prospect, but perhaps someone like Bannister, but on the position player side. Someone who has shown something good in the majors, but also full of question marks. We don’t need more pitchers like that. I wouldn’t mind having another position player like that. This organization is woefully short on decent position players.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 20, 2009 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Oh, and this is why KC Star reporters have to be uncritical of the team and management

So they can have the access that gets them this great inside information.

I tell you what, nothing happens in this team that Bob Dutton doesn’t find out about it after it has already happened and been reported on the wire services. He never fails to pass on the wire reports to his loyal readers. That’s what gets you to the top of the BBWAA.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 20, 2009 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions

It would be nice if they could package Banni and B.Pena

for something decent but I can’t think of a team that needs a starting pitcher and a backup catcher. Angels have 2 solid catchers, Rangers and O’s don’t have a need for a catcher.

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

by kcscoliny on Apr 20, 2009 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions

This was exactly what I was getting at in the other thread

If you purposely handle the organization you cover with kid gloves so that you can get the scoops, then you’re providing your readers/the fans with a service. If you’re critical of an organization where criticism is warranted, and ask the tough questions, then there is value in that for the readers/fans. However, if you’re nothing more than a human information relay, then you’re nothing more than another organizational mouthpiece. And how many Kaegels do we need?

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

by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 20, 2009 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Maybe

but these guys are writers who primary audience should be the purchasers of newspapers not online readers. Purchasers of the paper are an older audience that tend not to be into rocking the boat and calling out the coaches but just mouthpieces. Just my opinion, if they want to target their online readers then they should be charging to read their paper online and catering to those readers. That’s just my take and I’m sure many disagree.

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

by kcscoliny on Apr 20, 2009 8:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Not anymore

but these guys are writers who primary audience should be the purchasers of newspapers not online readers

Not at all. Relying on the hard copy reader base is exactly why many newspapers are going under. The way (arguably the only way) that a newspaper is going to get or stay profitable nowadays is to expand its internet reader base, because the hard copy reader base is deteriorating rapidly. As many before me have said, the way to profitability for newspapers is to focus on their online version, charge nothing, maximize hits to their site and make their money off of ads.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 20, 2009 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions

That's what they should be doing but they aren't

The problem IMO is that they are giving their paper away for free online. I don’t think that they can create enough advertising revenue to match what they did in the print version online. Creating subscriber purchase content is all they can really do online to compete.

You might be right about the hits, ad revenue but with so much news everywhere else the only way they can really compete is to charge to read their paper.

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

by kcscoliny on Apr 20, 2009 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Even with the hard copy, the vast majority of revenue comes from the ads

But with the hard copy version, they need to charge some for the paper because there is so much overhead (printing, distribution and delivery). With the online versions, the overhead is comparatively small. So they need to maximize hits (circulation) to maximize ad revenue. Newspapers can either try to compete for the 1990’s market (hard copy) or the 21st century market (online). And charging for online content is only going to serve to decrease total revenue.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 20, 2009 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions