Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Dallas Cowboys Projects: Andre Holmes

DMIT - Sweet Sixteen

Now things really get crazy.  We're in the Sweet Sixteen and while there were some big early upsets, things have settled down a bit.  The only Cindarella story is the Ryan Freel acquisition.  Who knew?  But I think it is almost midnight for Freel as he's about to hit the juggernauts of Willie Bloomquist's two-year deal and Jose Guillen's three-year mega-contract.  From this point on in the tourney, there are no gimmes.  Every matchup is going to be tough.  When you've got this much incompetence to choose from, anyone can win.

Bracket3_medium

Star-divide

#1 Jose Guillen signs a three-year contract vs. #5 Sidney Ponson signs a minor league deal and is eventually promoted to KC

#3 Willie Bloomquist signs a two-year contract vs. #10 Ryan Freel acquired

#1 David DeJesus is traded for Vin Mazzaro and Justin Marks vs. #4 Rick Ankiel is signed to a one-year deal plus a mutual option

#6 John Buck is non-tendered vs. #2 Kyle Farnsworth is signed to a two-year contract

#1 Dan Cortes and Derrick Saito traded for Yuniesky Betancourt and cash vs. #5 Jeff Keppinger traded for Russ Haltiwanger

#3 Ross Gload signs a two-year contract extension vs. #2 Leo Nunez traded for Mike Jacobs

#1 Jason Kendall signed to a two-year contract vs. #4 Jeff Francoeur signed to a one-year contract plus mutual option

#3 J.P. Howell traded for Joey Gathright vs. #2 Yasuhiko Yabuta signed to a two-year contract

Comment 108 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

wow, Kendall vs Francoeur

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

by mazoboom on Dec 30, 2010 3:41 AM EST up reply actions  

Well, Francouer hasn't even played yet

for the Royals. Some might still have hope that he can find his swing again. But Kendall was already a bad year.

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Dec 30, 2010 9:49 AM EST up reply actions  

this is tough

"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell

by buddyball on Dec 30, 2010 10:11 AM EST up reply actions  

It's more like

getting raped by your father in the morning or getting raped by your father in the afternoon

Hating life as a Royals fan 365 days a year at Royalscentricity

by Old Man Duggan on Dec 30, 2010 7:08 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

its weird...

I never liked the DDJ trade, and never really thought it warranted a “1 seed” but I have voted for it every time, and its probably gonna wind up in the final 4.

And despite that logic, I still don’t think its a terrible move, but merely a bad one.

Your 2010 Royals Review Fantasy Football Keeper League Champion

by averagegatsby on Dec 29, 2010 10:50 PM EST reply actions  

I voted for the lobster.

Hated the deal. After pods and Anderson signed. It just blocked younger players. I am so happy he is gone

- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …

by Jeff Zimmerman on Dec 29, 2010 11:00 PM EST up reply actions  

Clearly you forget that Anderson is a pitcher

Your 2010 Royals Review Fantasy Football Keeper League Champion

by averagegatsby on Dec 29, 2010 11:24 PM EST up reply actions  

I Can't Believe

He’s been signed again. Over 1M, right?

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

by philofthenorth on Dec 30, 2010 6:19 AM EST up reply actions  

Yup

1 yr / $1.5M from the Nationals

by Tito42 on Dec 31, 2010 10:12 AM EST up reply actions  

That should solve all their problems

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

by philofthenorth on Jan 1, 2011 2:26 PM EST up reply actions  

DDJ trade

is probably the worst trade of all time, its like trading mike sweeney, i’ll lmiss him and when we play oakland DDJ will hurt us, we’ll lose 120 games this year, atleast the CHIEFS are in the playoffs

by beltran42 on Dec 30, 2010 3:35 AM EST reply actions  

Yeah, like those horrendous years he had from 1999-2003

It was like he was batting against the Royals all those games.

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

by mazoboom on Dec 30, 2010 5:20 AM EST up reply actions  

Be fair:

The question isn’t whether he was good for us; the question is whether he was ever good against us.

And the answer is no.

by kcemigre on Dec 30, 2010 7:35 AM EST up reply actions  

where did i say he hurt us the entire time....

the only time mike sweeney ever hurt us when he was on our team….the statement is 100% correct and unarguable

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Dec 30, 2010 8:18 AM EST up reply actions  

But he was on our team in 2000, how did he hurt us then?

I’m clearly too dumb to understand the difference so please explain what you mean. (No really, I don’t understand what you’re trying to get at.)

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

by mazoboom on Dec 30, 2010 9:51 AM EST up reply actions  

Okay, I get it now!

Next time I’ll sleep in longer!

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

by mazoboom on Dec 30, 2010 9:53 AM EST up reply actions  

Probably accusing beltran42

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Dec 30, 2010 3:51 PM EST up reply actions  

That’s the way I read it. And, based upon limited evidence, the shoe seems to fit.

by kcemigre on Dec 30, 2010 3:56 PM EST up reply actions  

ahh...yes....

i cant scroll up and look in a straight line i guess

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Dec 30, 2010 3:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes, Beltran42

Just urging people not to respond to someone that is simply going for shock value/outrageous comments

by Boots 58 on Dec 30, 2010 4:14 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't know how much more confirmation you can really get. Its been repeated over and over again.

The GMs aren’t going to come out and say yes that was the offer.

Checkout Royals minor league notes at www.14for77.blogspot.com

by kcscoliny on Dec 30, 2010 11:57 AM EST up reply actions  

Its been repeated and repeated by speculators

I don’t think it’s been close to confirmed at all

by Boots 58 on Dec 30, 2010 2:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Sins of omission don't count

"Crimes don't pay no one but the lawyers." --Last words of executed murderer Ernest Gaither Jr., 1947

by Juancho on Dec 30, 2010 4:56 PM EST up reply actions  

I dont know what you mean by that

Care to elaborate?

I’m just saying that I feel like it’s been pumped out by the rumor mill or taken out of context (as in Montero for Soria + prospects, not a one-for-one deal). As far as we know, there may have been discussions, but I don’t really get the impression that the offer that people assume was all but confirmed actually happened.

by Boots 58 on Dec 30, 2010 6:47 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, the original rules for this tournament,

were that only moves actually made are qualified for the competition. So, “non-moves” like turning down a trade offer aren’t eligible for the DMIT.

Juancho must be replying to kcscoliny’s suggestion… up above.

by kcemigre on Dec 30, 2010 7:05 PM EST up reply actions  

Thanks. That's what I meant.

"Crimes don't pay no one but the lawyers." --Last words of executed murderer Ernest Gaither Jr., 1947

by Juancho on Dec 31, 2010 9:18 AM EST up reply actions  

I feel like I'm on the short list

Of people that wouldn’t really like to see Soria traded for montero. I mean scouts almost everywhere say he won’t stick behind the plate and if he doesn’t he’s just another 1B/DH masher…I think we’ve got the market pretty much cornered on young, talented hitters to man those positions.

(August 31, 2010 8:34 PM PDT) Jojothebeachbum: "WP FTW"

by Jojothebeachbum on Dec 30, 2010 1:30 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Even as a 1B/DH, Montero would be awful nice to have.

Would you trade for another Hosmer? How about another Myers (who, of course, is similarly unlikely to stick behind the plate)?

I’d take those and find a place to play them, or, all else failing, flip them somewhere when the time is right.

by kcemigre on Dec 30, 2010 1:38 PM EST up reply actions  

Great 1B mashers are wonderful to have

And if people are worried about having too many 1B/DH’s who are good, that is a great problem to have. First, it’s good to have depth in case someone fails (and any of the prospects could fail). Second, you can always trade a top prospect for something else you need.

The Royals need all of the elite talent they can get. It’s too soon to worry about having too many of this or that.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Dec 30, 2010 1:47 PM EST up reply actions  

Every team needs elite talent, sure

But I disagree that it’s too soon for the Royals to be worrying about positions. We now have elite prospects at 1B, 2B (Colon) 3B and RF (Myers), and elite position player prospects are a pretty safe bet. We have young, cheap players at SS and CF.

Yeah, it’s a nice problem to have, but if you have it already there’s no reason to be making it worse. Billy, Kila and Hosmer already gives us a logjam.

by moregritplease on Dec 30, 2010 3:31 PM EST up reply actions  

then you trade one of the 3 elite 1b/dh

for a catcher or another starting pitcher or a corner OF

nobody else is gonna give up a montero level prospect for soria

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Dec 30, 2010 3:46 PM EST up reply actions  

I think we're in a better boat

holding on to Soria because the bullpen (and closer specifically) is a bigger area of need/question ATM than another 1B/DH masher. Or if we’re at the baseball bazaar again, moving Soria for needed pieces makes more sense than trading for Montero and then trading him. Soria is a bona fide stud and Montero is just a prospect (albeit a pretty solid one).

(August 31, 2010 8:34 PM PDT) Jojothebeachbum: "WP FTW"

by Jojothebeachbum on Dec 30, 2010 3:55 PM EST up reply actions  

the thing is....

the yankees are the only team who really has no use for a prospect as elite as montero. they just dont have a spot for him if he cant catch and have proven willing to trade him.

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Dec 30, 2010 3:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Right so maybe

we don’t get any one slam dunk prospect. But, Soria is still enough of a prize to bring us two contributing pieces that fit better into the grand scheme of things than other big bat (ala what we got in the Greinke trade).

(August 31, 2010 8:34 PM PDT) Jojothebeachbum: "WP FTW"

by Jojothebeachbum on Dec 30, 2010 4:13 PM EST up reply actions  

When is this team going to really need a closer?

2012 at the very earliest. 2013 is more likely and that is counting on all kinds of things going well. I don’t know but how many closers have stayed at the top of the mountain for 5+ years?

Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.

People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk

by Warden11 on Dec 30, 2010 7:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Acquiring Montero wouldn't make anything worse

It makes the organization better. We have no idea which prospects will succeed. We don’t even know if there is a logjam with Billy, Kila and Hosmer. We only know that one of them is even above average. Kila could fail. Hosmer could fail. It would great to have a top prospect like Montero along with them. If Hosmer gets to the majors and performs well, then you trade someone and get an elite young player or MLB-ready prospect back. I don’t see how there is any downside to acquiring someone like Montero.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Dec 30, 2010 3:54 PM EST up reply actions  

That's also assuming that

Montero is failproof. Which he isn’t, as he too is a prospect. Best case scenario is that Hosmer and Kila and Billy and Montero are all awesome and then we trade one of them away. However that trading position is a weaker one than just trading Soria for something that we need. Other teams will see all that depth and will shoot out lower-ball offers because they will think that we are more eager to make a move because we can’t possibly use everyone anyways. When teams come calling about Soria, they will have to know that we covet his services and that any offer that would pry him loose would have to be substantial.

(August 31, 2010 8:34 PM PDT) Jojothebeachbum: "WP FTW"

by Jojothebeachbum on Dec 30, 2010 4:00 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't assume that any prospect is going to succeed

It’s just very good to have another elite prospect. He may well fail (like all prospects), but it is great to have that kind of elite talent.

Other teams will see all that depth and will shoot out lower-ball offers because they will think that we are more eager to make a move because we can’t possibly use everyone anyways

Then you turn down the lowball offers and wait for a good offer. If a good offer never comes (extremely unlikely) then just keep him. But there are always teams that want an elite closer.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Dec 30, 2010 8:29 PM EST up reply actions  

The problem is

If all we get for one of our surplus mashers are lowball offers, we would be stuck if we just kept everyone. Your point about elite closets makes my point: keepin Soria to trade him for someone else down the road is more valuable than trading him for montero just to flip him later.

(August 31, 2010 8:34 PM PDT) Jojothebeachbum: "WP FTW"

by Jojothebeachbum on Dec 30, 2010 9:14 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

First, we don’t know that we’d need to flip Montero or anyone later. That is a fallback position. Second, there is absolutely no reason to believe that if the Royals were willing to trade an elite piece of young, cheap talent eventually (like Hosmer or Montero) that all we’d get are lowball offers. Top prospects are valued so highly right now that most teams aren’t willing to trade them unless they get something great. So the Royals would likely get multiple great offers if they put one of those guys on the market.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Dec 30, 2010 9:55 PM EST up reply actions  

I think it's realistic to believe

we would need to make a trade at some point. Adding Montero to Hosmer, Billy, Kila, and even Cint Robinson would mostly likely yield at least three dominant bats that aren’t feasible anywhere but first or DH. And when teams see that we NEED to make a trade to keep talent from going to waste, we lose leverage and they will undoubtedly make lower offers than if they knew it was going take a whopper to pry away a player that we highly value. That’s why I think Soria would bring at least equal value in trade, if not more, down the road. He is a premier closer and any team would value a guy that is automatic at the end of a game. Creating a new hole at the big league level for a position that is already most likely filled seems like a step backwards.

(August 31, 2010 8:34 PM PDT) Jojothebeachbum: "WP FTW"

by Jojothebeachbum on Dec 30, 2010 10:46 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm sorry I don't buy that at all
And when teams see that we NEED to make a trade to keep talent from going to waste, we lose leverage and they will undoubtedly make lower offers than if they knew it was going take a whopper to pry away a player that we highly value.

The intense desire from multiple teams to get an elite, cheap, young talent that is under team control for multiple years would give rise to a bunch of great offers. The market value of players like that would give the Royals a ton of leverage.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Dec 31, 2010 11:34 AM EST up reply actions  

So the bottom line

Is that we’d be trading a proven commodity for a prospect with the sole intention of flipping him down the road (assuming no injuries and that Hosmer doesn’t bust)? I think we’re still better off keeping and using Soria and then trading him directly for needed pieces. Unless, of course, there is the potential to convert Hosmer AND Myers to COFs, in which case we would have room for another 1B/DH masher

(August 31, 2010 8:34 PM PDT) Jojothebeachbum: "WP FTW"

by Jojothebeachbum on Dec 31, 2010 7:32 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

No
we’d be trading a proven commodity for a prospect with the sole intention of flipping him down the road (assuming no injuries and that Hosmer doesn’t bust)?

You trade for elite talent and depth. And then if there are no major injuries or busts, someone can be traded. It could be Butler, Hosmer or Montero that is eventually traded (if necessary). Lots of talent means lots of options. And getting a piece of elite talent is better than getting multiple “needed pieces.”

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Dec 31, 2010 9:34 PM EST up reply actions  

I think the trade

Is for a elite backup. In my opinion, and maybe this is the main sticking point between us, it’s better for the Royals to have an elite trading chip in Soria, who would play all the time and act as a steady, guiding hand in the ‘pen, than an elite trading chip in Montero, who would only play every other day at best and would be akin to fine china locked in a cabinet. If they’re both going to be moved, I’d rather keep the guy that could contribute more while he’s here. And I agree elite talent is better than lesser “fits,” except I think 1B/DH is the position with the most congestion in the organization.

(August 31, 2010 8:34 PM PDT) Jojothebeachbum: "WP FTW"

by Jojothebeachbum on Dec 31, 2010 11:11 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Soria plays all the time?

good, that means i was just dreaming those entire weeks last season when he didnt play

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Jan 1, 2011 3:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Has the potential to,

Yes. He is available at the end of almost every game when healthy. Its just up to the other 24 guys to keep the game close enough to need to be saved.

(August 31, 2010 8:34 PM PDT) Jojothebeachbum: "WP FTW"

by Jojothebeachbum on Jan 1, 2011 4:04 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

And in the end, like pretty much all other closers, he pitches only about 70 innings a year and racks up only about 2 WAR, which is less than Cody Ross managed last year.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Jan 1, 2011 4:08 PM EST up reply actions  

The downside is giving up Soria, obviously

Look, if Montero for Soria was really offered, you’d obviously have to take it. And I don’t want to contend otherwise. The difference in value is just too huge to pass up. My point was just that it is not too soon to start worrying about the positions of prospect acquisitions. I’d rather have Betances+Romine than Montero, even though in a vacuum Montero is the better package.

Position player prospects are far less risky than pitchers. The fact that we have a bunch of young ones all over the diamond is a very, very good thing.

by moregritplease on Dec 30, 2010 5:30 PM EST up reply actions  

But we have more pitching prospects.

Also, closers aren’t really that valuable on a 65 win team. If Montero isn’t needed because we have Hosmer/Billy/Kila/etc., then trade him for something very nice.

by AxDxMx on Dec 30, 2010 5:57 PM EST up reply actions  

I think at this point

keeping Soria presents a certain value to this team because while he’s not gonna make a huge difference on a 65 win team, he IS on a team-friendly contract through 2014 or so, and having a guy who is lights-out in the pen (not to mention a more seasoned influence on the younger guys) is going to be valuable to our rebuilding effort.

(August 31, 2010 8:34 PM PDT) Jojothebeachbum: "WP FTW"

by Jojothebeachbum on Dec 30, 2010 6:03 PM EST up reply actions  

I have to agree that

I would rather have Romine/Sanchez and one of their young P prospects than Montero. But I say that because I don’t believe that Montero offers THIS particular team a whole lot more value than keeping Soria does.

(August 31, 2010 8:34 PM PDT) Jojothebeachbum: "WP FTW"

by Jojothebeachbum on Dec 30, 2010 6:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Also, remember that there is an opportunity cost in everything.

    If we hold onto Soria for 3 months, we get to see how the Big Four pitching prospects, our crurrent ML rotation, and the new ML relievers, how Kila is doing, how Moose, Hosmer and Meyers and Perez are doing and so on.
   That extra data point could very well change what the Royals should do in order to be in contention. Soria looses very little value in waiting until the deadline most likely, but the Mission 2012 is very fluid and murky right now. I think it is better to wait and see.

Go Royals!

by BabyBlues on Dec 30, 2010 8:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Can I lobby here?

I think Buck’s non-tender is one of the worst moves left in the tourney, but it’s currently trailing the Farnsworth signing. Frankly, we overpaid a reliever for a couple of years. Yeah, that’s dumb, but it happens…

And, consider this: without the Buck non-tender, Jason Kendall is never a Royal. Heck, we should have extended Buck (perhaps that bridge was already burned, once we made him Olivo’s backup, but it’s still worth pointing out what should have happened). With all due respect to Brena, Lucas and Pina, we are about to start seeing genuine prospects all over the diamond… except behind the dish.

Do you think Myers sticks back there? If so, Buck would have been a realistic option until he arrives. Think Myers won’t stick? Buck looks even better.

Plus, given the old-school GM’s distrust of relying upon young catchers* (how can you have a kid as your field general???), I expect DM to keep signing gritty veteran catchers for the foreseeable future, or at least until Sal Perez is, himself, on the verge of obtaining veteran status.

    * See, Posey, Buster.

Buck was decent at every aspect of the game except for throwing out runners, and even his arm was better than what Kendall has (semi-)attached to his shoulder. I just fear that it will be a long long time before KC has a better option than John Buck. And we just NON-TENDERED him.

And all of that is without even mentioning Buck’s 2010 season…

by kcemigre on Dec 30, 2010 1:09 PM EST reply actions   1 recs

All 3 catchers from 2009 were a better option than JKendall in 2010.

I’m right there with you. I totally voted Buck. He likely would have been cheaper than Kendall too, which makes it even worse.

by AxDxMx on Dec 30, 2010 1:18 PM EST up reply actions  

On the Posey thing

you’re right about the old-school GM’s mistrust of young catchers. In fact, there’s no franchise that has trusted young catchers less than the San Francisco Giants and their old-school GM, Brian Sabean. In the aughts they

 - signed Benito Santiago and kept him for three years, ages 36-38 (2001-2003)
 - took a risk on trading for a relatively young catcher, A.J. Pierzynski, when he was age 27 (but that worked out very badly for them) (2004)
 - reverted to form by signing Mike Matheny for two years, ages 34 and 35 (2005-2006)

(After Santiago they could have done just as well with Yorvit Torrealba, who came up with the Giants and had been the backup to Santiago, Pierzynski, and Matheny. But they never gave Torrealba the chance to win the job.)

 - would have preferred to play Todd Greene at age 35 when Matheny became unavailable to play after a series of concussions (but could not play Greene often, thanks to Prince Fielder’s NFL-worthy hit at home plate) (2006)
 - signed Bengie Molina for three years when he was 32 and already glacial (2007-2009)
 - re-signed Bengie Molina at age 35 rather than allow Posey to compete for the catching job in Spring Training (2010)
 - converted Posey to first base when they brought him up, after he had proved that that his bat was too good to stay in AAA, and kept Molina behind the plate.

Finally, only after Posey had already been in the majors for a month mostly playing first base, while Molina had been playing very badly behind the plate and hitting poorly, did they allow Posey to become the regular catcher. Even then they were giving Eli Whiteside a couple of starts a week. If Posey had had a bad week behind the plate to start with, I would guess he would have been sent back to first base or even back to Fresno, and the Giants would have played Whiteside and whoever they could pick up from the scrap heap. But fortunately for the Giants and their fans Posey was good enough to stick, right away.

So there you go: with an old-school GM it took someone as good as Buster Posey to overcome concerted resistance and win the regular catching job while still young. It’s not likely to happen again soon. Gritty catchers of the future, welcome to the Kansas City Royals.

by 2X2L on Dec 30, 2010 4:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Thanks for the elaboration...

…that is exactly what I meant to suggest by mentioning Posey. I had forgotten about the Torrealba part, though. Buck, in a way, was our slightly-more-talented Torrealba, except that it looked for all the world like he had won the job until we signed Olivo (or more specifically, until we promised Olivo that he was the starter).

Unless Myers puts things together pretty fast, the Royals won’t have a “Posey” to save them from this mess.

There were a series of mistakes leading up to it (e.g., Olivo), and there have been significant mistakes since (Kendall), but the day we non-tendered John Buck was a seriously bad day in recent Royals history. For me, that move represents a very specific and very troubling idiocy.

I think it’s lots worse than signing Farnsworth.

by kcemigre on Dec 30, 2010 4:32 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm going to lobby for the Gload extension

Which is losing 39-9 as I post this, but whatever.

I’m arguing that this move, more so than any other, is where Dayton flushed money down the toilet with absolutely no upside to the deal whatsoever

My voting is based on a combination of how bad the transaction was at the time, and how bad the result was. So the Howell for Gathright deal, in my opinion, is not nearly as bad as the other moves in the Sweet 16 because it didn’t seem like a bad idea at the time

In Dayton’s other bad moves, he at least got something in return with a bit of potential. Was trading for a DH who had a .300 OBP the previous year smart? Of course not, but Jacobs hit 29 homers and maybe, just maybe, he could post a .320 OBP and slug .500 and hit a bunch of bombs in the middle of order. Unlikely, but possible.

In extending Gload, the Royals got absolutely nothing. They didn’t buy out a year of free agency. They bought out a year of arbitration. It made no sense, as the only way the Royals would benefit was if Gload had some monster season where hit .300 with 30 bombs, saving the Royals an extra million or two in arbitration in this ridiculous scenario. Extending a contract to buy out one year of arbitration for a slaphitting first basemen is so incredibly stupid. No reason to take this risk at all. In terms of common sense, this may be the dumbest move Dayton has ever made. Dayton had no reason to do this, he should have just waited to see how Gload performed in 2009, then resigned or non-tendered him after the season. I know $1.6 million is not much in the grand scheme of things, but this was truly an ignorant move that I feel the need to highlight it here.

by gilmeche55 on Dec 30, 2010 3:45 PM EST reply actions  

IMO, Gload wasn't the problem. OF/1B sub.

It was the number of PA he got, that was the problem.

- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …

by Jeff Zimmerman on Dec 30, 2010 4:01 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree with most of what you're saying...

….and if Gload was pitted against Howell/Gathright, I’d agree. Heck, Moore was new at the time of the Gathright trade, and I was completely willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But Gload is up against Nunez/Jacobs, and that was one dumb trade. And, while it was, indeed, a waste of money, to lock up a slaphitting 1B, Jacobs was a 1B who couldn’t even play 1B. And we gave up talent (admittedly, just a reliever) in the process. That would be a close call right there, but I also think it was obvious at the time (to everyone but Moore) that Jacobs’ only asset (“power”) was a mirage from the start.

I’m sorry, but I just can’t vote against the Jacobs trade.

by kcemigre on Dec 30, 2010 4:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Dittoes.

We gave up a decent player in exchange for a slapdick.

"Crimes don't pay no one but the lawyers." --Last words of executed murderer Ernest Gaither Jr., 1947

by Juancho on Dec 30, 2010 5:01 PM EST up reply actions  

I’d still argue the Keppinger move was worse. Haltiwanger was a strictly org guy.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Dec 30, 2010 4:29 PM EST up reply actions  

some do....

it sucks, but its similar to the de la rosa trade…you cant hold those too much against Moore….unless they happen on a regular basis

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Dec 30, 2010 6:44 PM EST up reply actions  

When does a regular basis start?

Howell, Keppinger, De La Rosa. That’s only 3 but it’s not inconsequential, is it?

Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.

People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk

by Warden11 on Dec 30, 2010 8:02 PM EST up reply actions  

It is not just three.

You can add Rosa, Guttierez, and Cortez, all of which I believe were in the DMIT that were all organizational guys.

Go Royals!

by BabyBlues on Dec 30, 2010 8:37 PM EST up reply actions  

you cant have it both ways....

those guys looked good when traded…but have for the most part turned to shit…point in DMs favor

he traded guys that looked like shit and have turned decent….point against DM

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Dec 30, 2010 8:46 PM EST up reply actions  

It was just so unnecessary

It’s like if I wanted to buy a car in 2012. And I found the right car and the guy was willing to sell it in 2012, but instead I just give him the money now and hope he doesn’t drive it off a cliff between now and then.

The impact of giving Gload a million dollars to suck was not as bad as signing Guillen, but in terms of pure incompetence, the Gload extension looks so bad

by gilmeche55 on Dec 30, 2010 4:37 PM EST up reply actions  

Depression sets in

for my sleeper pick – Buck non-tendered. I really thought that had upset final four potential.

DAMN YOU KYLE FARNSWORTH!

"We're gonna win with pitching and defense" General Manager Dayton Moore, circa winter 2009

"Where did all these Indians come from?" General George Armstrong Custer, circa summer 1876

by loyal2sdad on Dec 30, 2010 5:43 PM EST reply actions  

You ‘n’ me both.

by kcemigre on Dec 30, 2010 5:54 PM EST up reply actions  

I had no hate for Buck,

only a realization that the organization had no faith in him. He was just another Baird guy that GMDM was bound to undervalue.

I was, on the other hand, really tired of watching Olivo flail at the ball at the plate and stab at it behind it — he who has now led his league in passed balls 4 of the last 5 years. In fact the only year of those five in which he didn’t was 2008, and he has John Buck’s playing time that year to thank for it.

by 2X2L on Dec 30, 2010 6:59 PM EST up reply actions  

They were both

pretty brutal behind the plate. I’d still rather have either one of them than Jason Kendall, as they at least have some value, although there is no way I’d want Buck at 3 and $18m.

Hating life as a Royals fan 365 days a year at Royalscentricity

by Old Man Duggan on Dec 30, 2010 7:19 PM EST up reply actions  

Maybe I should clarify

I think they both called games significantly better than Kendall, but with Buck, baserunners had their way with him. Olivo couldn’t block a ball in the dirt if his fucking life depended on it.

Hating life as a Royals fan 365 days a year at Royalscentricity

by Old Man Duggan on Dec 30, 2010 7:22 PM EST up reply actions  

and with both....

even with their huge flaws, they destroyed kendall

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Dec 30, 2010 7:23 PM EST up reply actions  

DM non-tendered ...

… a guy who made the all-star team the very next season.

End of argument.

by lsticky on Dec 30, 2010 11:37 PM EST up reply actions  

I’m simply talking about why they were disliked. Nothing compares to Jason Kendall.

The All-Star point is not lost on me, but it was at least as much because the pool of catchers was very, very shallow in the first half of 2010. Mark Redman and Ken Harvey were once All-Stars, so the All-Star argument isn’t exactly a slam dunk.

And if you’re going to argue about one catcher being ditched for another, Olivo had the edge in WAR in 2010, 3.2 to 2.9, to Buck.

But I’m nitpicking.

Hating life as a Royals fan 365 days a year at Royalscentricity

by Old Man Duggan on Dec 31, 2010 3:39 AM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Kansas City Royals.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Royalsretro_small
Would Royals Review Make Better Decisions Than Dayton Moore?
Funny-tattoos-hey-look-they-found-a-royals-fan_small
Mitch On the Bench
Royalsretro_small
Happy Mother's Day From Royals Review

Recent FanPosts

Small
Is Dave Eiland doing ... anything?
Small
Alcides Escobar's Bat
Download_small
Was Dayton Moore Right on Bruce Chen?
Chalmers2_small
2012 Royals vs 2012 Ex-Royals
1481395546_m_small
Why is our lineup so flawed?
Small
Fortune favors the bold
Sexy-beast-original_small
OT Friday: The first rule of Fight Club is NO FIGHTING
387504_small
Get to know a stop-gap starter - Vol. 2: Luis Mendoza

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Cimg0036_small Freneau

Editors

Dayton_small Jeff Zimmerman

Authors

Royalsretro_small RoyalsRetro

Headshot_small Old Man Duggan