The Evolution of the Royals Genome
Over and over again, nationwide, you constantly hear variations on the following theme: “The Royals organization has been making the same inept mistakes for years.” Here are some of the variations:
- Year in, year out, the Royals always [do X].
- Signing Yuniesky Betancourt, that’s such a typical Royals move.
- The Royals can’t develop a shortstop. They’ve never really been able to.
How is it possible that these traits spill over from one regime to the next?
I’ve been a Royals fan since around 1988 (I moved to KC in ’86 and it took a couple years to sink in). I can’t remember the exact year Schuerholz left, at twelve years old—at least back then—you didn’t typically know or care about the general manager. You cared about Brett and Stillwell and Seitzer and Gubicza and Montgomery (I always thought he looked like Neil Young. Of course, at twelve I was cool enough to know who Neil Young was). When I finally realized you should care about and keep track of the GM, Herk Robinson was the guy. I remember—until he traded for Jermaine Dye—I couldn’t stand Herk. He seemed to always be acquiring old, slow guys (it’s likely that entire perception was colored by Kevin McReynolds). I remember when we signed Wally Joyner. You’d think Joyner would be a kids’ ballplayer—he looked like your dad out there, master of the fundamentals. But I couldn’t stand him; I wasn’t old enough to respect what he brought to the table. All I knew was that he was a first baseman who hit like a second baseman. It seemed like all the Royals, except Danny Tartabull, an aging George Brett and you-know-who, hit like second basemen (this is why I was slightly worried when we signed Seitzer as a hitting coach. I was, and still am, worried that he’s going to teach everyone to hit like Wally Joyner).
I’m getting way off topic. Point is, Herk—fairly or not—seemed to be the grandfather of a few traits that the Royals are now famous for, not the least of which is the blah acquisition—the overpaid free agents who were once maybe kind of good, but are now in the declining phase of their career and sign with the Royals mainly because they can’t sign anywhere else (you know the names. I’d like to see a complete list. The all-over-the-hill Royals team. The Kansas City Blah Stars). The best part is the Royals’ subsequent propaganda campaign. They fly over Kansas City and drop pamphlets out of an airplane. He may be 38, but [McReynolds, Gonzalez, Sanders, Guillen, ____, ____ ] is a POWER BAT!
The blah acquisition is just one of many alleles in what is taken to be Royals’ genetic code. ‘Can’t develop a shortstop’ is another. ‘Can’t develop a starting pitcher’ used to be one before Zack arrived. But here’s what doesn’t make sense to me. Haven’t there been three different front office regimes since Schuerholz left town and these fungi originally appeared? I can’t remember how many of Robinson’s staff carried over into the Baird regime, but since Baird was one of Robinson’s guys, you could try and say that he carried Herk’s traits with him. Perhaps, for example, Baird was infused with Herk’s eye for blah acquisitions.
But can you really ascribe the Royals’ organizational traits—those characteristics so quintessentially…Royalsian—to Moore? I mean, you can and no one will really disagree; the guy did sign Jose Guillen to a ridiculously burdensome contract. Yuniesky is a quintessentially Royals blah acquisition. But it just doesn’t make sense to me. This ascription of character traits to sports organizations across regimes happens all the time in sports. The ‘Braves’ Way’ will be referenced long after Schuerholz is gone from the organization. They’ll acquire some pitcher in 2050 and someone will say, that’s a classic Braves move! Shoot, you see this kind of thing all the time, not just in sports, but in life. “Foreign policy X is so American.” But you see a lot of it in sports. “NFC style football.” “Yankees style baseball” (even though their entire core was signed this last offseason).
I guess it wouldn’t bug me so much if there didn’t seem to be some truth in it, even if it makes no sense at all. Think about it. The only holdover from the Baird regime—as noted by Rany—is Nick Swartz. You’re telling me Nick Swartz carries on the Royals Way? Somebody is going to say that Glass is the common denominator, that he and his ownership circle (family) carry it along from GM to GM. I’m not buying. We’re led to believe that he has absolutely no say in player acquisitions, that Moore has been given total autonomy per his demands upon signing up for the job. And I do believe it. Also, the Royals are actually spending money now. They’re spending more money than almost anyone else in the draft, and they’re funding an extra affiliate. That was why we were so excited when Moore arrived, there were tangible changes in the way the team operated. Going forward, Royalsian moves were to be a thing of the past. When we saw Glass opening his wallet, we didn’t need convincing.
And yet…Royalsian moves continue. Not just typically Royals moves, quintessentially Royals moves. Is there a spirit hanging around at Kauffman stadium? Does the team need to be exorcised? If so, let’s hurry up and arrange it.
12 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Changing the genetic code via evolution is a slow process
you can attempt to Dr. Frankenstein your way around it ala NY Yankees, Washington Redskins, with a bunch of high dollar parts, but in the end it comes up short. It will take a long time for the GMDM tree to bear fruit of our liking, for now we stuck with the bitter taste of that self same slow evolution.
Keep in mind its a lot easier to evolve from the industrial revolution to the information age; than it is to crawl out of the sea, grow lungs and stand upright. Unfortunately for us we’re still waiting for our lungs to fully develop.
And it is very possible that GMDM isn’t the one to guide us through this evolution, he may just be the primer to get things going; time will tell.
by Your_Moms_Boyfriend on Jul 22, 2009 10:50 AM EDT reply actions
(joke about Moore/evolution redacted)
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Jul 22, 2009 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions
Good right up!!!
Some of the reasoning that Royaisian moves are still being made, is that, the Royals are still the Royals.
Let me expand; They are still in the same position they’ve been in since the late 80’s. They can’t just do a complete office/player/minor league system overhaul in a few years, and change how they function at nearly every level. Not possible.
It is however very strange the SS position is always a glaringly obvious problem (Yuni, you’re ok now because you haven’t had time to do too bad yet).
I guess, here is my point, where does one start? The Royals are the Royals. You are always going to have to make bad to average deals, because all you have are bad to average players. You will always get burned by the other systems because, hey they are the Royals, what are they going to do about it. Nothing. The Royals have no positions of leverage.
I agree that for some perpetual reason, the Royals genome is gobsmacked with bad mutations, and deletions, and even some UV induced Cysteine to Cysteine bonds (JoGui Defense in the OF). But I am not sure if there is a gene therapy devised that can fix it, except time. Time and money…….and better logic………and use of STATs more in player evaluation……………ect.
soon to change name to, "The Not So Curious Case of Benjamin Bratt"
by MarioVanPeebles Republic of China on Jul 22, 2009 12:29 PM EDT reply actions
Write On!
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jul 22, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
So
We need to all go say prayers at the Cysteine Chapel to promulgate a large positive genetic mutation?
Fuck This Team. Period.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Jul 22, 2009 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
awesome
soon to change name to, "The Not So Curious Case of Benjamin Bratt"
by MarioVanPeebles Republic of China on Jul 22, 2009 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Part of the problem is an over-reliance on essentialism
on the part of observers. Whatever the Royals do, by definition, is quintessentially Royals. They are what they are, and can’t change it. What they do is a product of their nature, their “essence.” You’re right to be skeptical about this argument.
Right now, only bad moves are part of their essence because they’ve been bad for many years. If they were good, only good moves would be seen as part of their essence. If they were up and down, people would be looking for Jekyll-and-Hyde actions to prove their essence. Essence is a bit old-fashioned (and Platonic), so now we’re looking at genetic factors, but still, this is boiled down to essentialism.
I don’t buy the genetic, or essential argument, unless the genome or essence simply points to “bad” after the early 1990s. Maybe, though, the genome has traits indicative of juvenile diabetes or hysterical pregnancy or lupus (or most likely, hypochondria), which has led to health problems as this franchise entered its 20s and 30s.
I think we are mis-remembering the late 1980s. The Royals were still pretty good, at least when Brett was healthy…they just didn’t make the playoffs. The teams from 1986-89 were all probably about as good as the 1985 team. They just didn’t have the luck needed for a World Series run. They’ve been bad in different ways since then (even the early 90s weren’t too bad). At one point, there was an over-reliance on veterans, then there was a good lineup with no pitching, then there was bad pitching and bad hitting, then ok pitching and bad hitting. These many ways of being bad haven’t continued unabated across GMs and managers, and don’t point to a single faulty “genome.” There have been changes, but the results have still been poor. We’ll see if it turns around.
This was an interesting piece…kudos on the Neil Young mention. I can sort of see a resemblance with Monty, but it could be my imagination. I’ve thought that Jim Carrey looked kinda like a young Neil, too.
The Question Is
Does essence precede existence?
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jul 22, 2009 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions
nice slogan rec'd
soon to change name to, "The Not So Curious Case of Benjamin Bratt"
by MarioVanPeebles Republic of China on Jul 22, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Points to the few points of continuity
These many ways of being bad haven’t continued unabated across GMs and managers, and don’t point to a single faulty "genome." There have been changes, but the results have still been poor.
Thanks to Rany we now know: Joyce, Swartz, GLASS, and FO Brett.
Fuck This Team. Period.
The General Theory of Royaltivity

by 













