Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Trent Richardson Interviews Fellow Brown Brandon Weeden

11/30 Royals Links Roundup: Reactions to Broxton

Photo

Royals:

Star-divide

Baseball:

Grab Bag:

Comment 252 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Rany's article was good

The fact that Chen has given up less HRs at home than on the road, but managed to have a higher ERA at home than on the road was a good point, and quite worrisome.

by Loose Seal on Nov 30, 2011 12:14 PM EST reply actions  

Here's his 2011 home/road splits (I haven't read the Rany article yet)

K/BB, K%, B%, FIP, xFIP
2011 Home 1.92, 13.5%, 7.0%, 4.40, 4.76
2011 Away 1.96, 16.4%, 8.3%, 4.37, 4.61

Surprisingly similar results even though the K% and BB% were very different. Was he pitching to contact at home while avoiding contact on the road? (FWIW, the year before was different.)

Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448

by SagehenMacGyver47 on Nov 30, 2011 12:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Seems like a good explanation

Maybe just a result of how the schedule broke down and which teams he faced at home and which he faced on the road.

by Loose Seal on Nov 30, 2011 12:38 PM EST up reply actions  

So Chen had bigger offers than ours

That should put to rest the notion DM got snookered into overpaying. It won’t obviously, but it should.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 12:26 PM EST reply actions  

c'mon

i’m not the one driving the narrative here

but i’ll remember y’all passionate belief in athlete honesty the next time someone says they didn’t sign somewhere for the money/best offer

by Freneau on Nov 30, 2011 1:05 PM EST up reply actions  

That was completely different.

A deal was being negotiated at the time. For Chen, the deal was done.

by hawkinscm87 on Nov 30, 2011 1:51 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm just saying that I am now skeptical enough that I don't believe much of

what I hear from professional athletes and coaches in these matters.

"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell

by buddyball on Nov 30, 2011 4:21 PM EST up reply actions  

your negativity is obviously blinding you

to the lunacy of your statements. You just argued that the report that Chen took a hometown discount to sign is likely a lie because the reporter ‘lies’…all to somehow defend your/or someone else’s point that DM made a bad move. You seriously sound like someone losing their mind

by its coming on Nov 30, 2011 10:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Have I mentioned that your handle disturbs me on about five different levels?

Not all of them are related to grammar.

Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan

by Old Man Duggan on Dec 1, 2011 8:34 PM EST up reply actions  

oh man, you're right

i just noticed that “its” is in the possessive form, not the abbreviated verb form – i’m disturbed

by Loose Seal on Dec 1, 2011 10:26 PM EST up reply actions  

By that logic, any deal is a good deal if somebody else offered more. If somebody offered $100K for a 2009 Toyota Camry, does that make it a good deal if you purchase it for $50K?

by Loose Seal on Nov 30, 2011 12:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Didn't say it meant it was a good deal

Just said it meant it wasn’t an overpay relative to the market.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 12:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Fair enough

But did he overpay for the commodity? I would argue that he did considering there were numerous other pitchers similar to Chen available for less years or less $ than Chen’s 2 years/$9MM.

To continue the analogy, did Dayton agree to a 2 year lease for a Red Camry despite the availability of numerous other Camrys (but in different colors) available for 1 year-leases?

by Loose Seal on Nov 30, 2011 12:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Do you believe every self-serving statement a professional athlete makes?

Or is it just that you really want to believe it because it makes this signing look just a little bit less stupid?

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 1:58 PM EST up reply actions  

let it go

this board should be renamed the PMS board for all the bitching an whining that goes on

by its coming on Nov 30, 2011 10:17 PM EST up reply actions  

because this isn't bitching and whining?
this board should be renamed the PMS board for all the bitching an whining that goes on

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

by Warden11 on Dec 1, 2011 9:41 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

This is me officially resenting the PMS comment.

by Gross(est) on Dec 1, 2011 10:05 PM EST up reply actions  

My default assumption

Is that a fact claim has a default level of credibility when printed in a place like the Star. Doesn’t mean it is true, just means that’s its potential truth value is a lot higher than random postings on MLBTR which seem to be treated like gospel.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 2:10 PM EST up reply actions  

Did I even suggest that this came out of the Royals front office?

Since I didn’t what is the basis for your statement?

Also, I have never said anything like “anything coming out of the Royals front office…is a like?” I’ve said that Moore uses GM-speak, and uses his public statements for PR, like every other GM. Do you disagree? Or do you think he’s just open and frank? I think he’s smart enough to play his cards close to his vest and sell his moves and the team to the public, like any good GM should.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:11 PM EST up reply actions  

I overstated

My understanding is that you believe that the truth is orthogonal to the interest of the Royals front office. They’ll say whatever they think gets them the best PR, and if that’s the truth, that’s fine, but it’s also fine if it’s a lie.

My default assumption is that major newspapers have fact-checking standards so that if something appears in them, it is far more likely to be true than false.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 2:18 PM EST up reply actions  

They’ll say whatever they think gets them the best PR, and if that’s the truth, that’s fine, but it’s also fine if it’s a lie.

That’s a pretty harsh way to say it. In reality, what I’m saying is that they do very standard MLB FO PR. No more or less honest than the average MLB FO.

My default assumption is that major newspapers have fact-checking standards so that if something appears in them, it is far more likely to be true than false.

Do you think this is equally true (industry-wide) of every statement made in sports columns as with other articles? Do you think every claim made by Whitlock in each of his columns fact checked and confirmed? Do you think that is true of all or even most columnists?

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:23 PM EST up reply actions  

I think it's true of the major dailies and weeklies

I don’t know who Whitlock writes for now, and I don’t remember him including much in the way of facts in his pieces, but if it’s a major daily or weekly, then, yes, I’d assume that any facts in his columns are more likely than not to be true.

However, in general, I don’t respect Whitlock, and I do respect Mellinger, so on top of that general belief, I’m more likely to trust Mellinger.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 2:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that you believe that the Star wouldn’t let Mellinger print that unless it had been independently confirmed by a second source? Major dailies and weeklies print single source, anonymous rumors in their sports pages all the time. Do you really think they get confirmation from a second source on every rumor and throwaway line like “Chen turned down guaranteed money to sign with the Royals”?

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:41 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't know exactly what the Star's standards are now

But when I worked as news editor at the Kansan, our standard was based on local papers and that standard was that if you only had a single source (on facts that weren’t already in the public domain), the information was to be attributed to that source (even if we weren’t revealing the source’s identity). In order to run something without attribution to a source, like Mellinger did here, you had to have confirmation from a second source.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 2:45 PM EST up reply actions  

The Kansas

Are talking about the UDK, KU’s school newspaper?

Clearly the sports pages of major dailies and weeklies don’t follow your college paper’s standards. This is my opinion. Feel free to disregard it.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:48 PM EST up reply actions  

That's fair

You asked for the reasons for my opinion and I gave them. I’m honest when I say I don’t know what the Star’s standards are now.

And yes, I meant the UDK. I was never in the Journalism school, but I was an editor on the paper for two semesters. I gained a lot of respect for journalists in that time, much of which I’ve managed to retain despite occasionally working as a press secretary here in Washington.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 2:51 PM EST up reply actions  

Nicely played, Sir!

“despite occasionally working as a press secretary here in Washington”

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 2:54 PM EST up reply actions  

I have absolutely no problem with KSinDC dropping that in there, but do you think it has particular relevance with regard to his opinion of sports page editorial standards?

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Well

Working as a press secretary and working for a newspaper clearly hasn’t provided him any insights into the production processes and quality standards of newspapers.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 2:58 PM EST up reply actions  

probably, if that's the market rate

which would likely be a part of some apocalyptic scenario involving few cars existing, but the persistence of fiat money and gasoline distribution.

by 9il on Nov 30, 2011 5:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Here's the quote

“Signing Broxton is a signal the Royals are a bit freaked out by the market for starting pitchers — Bruce Chen, a No. 4 starter, passed on bigger offers to sign for two years and $9 million with the Royals — and have focused on building the best possible bullpen around a hope-for-the-best rotation.”

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 2:01 PM EST up reply actions  

I'd like to see the source on that

Chen? Boras? Heyman (who has a long history of pushing anything Boras tells him as an unsourced rumor). Or do you think Sam Mellinger has the inside track on what’s really going on with contract offers in Major League Baseball. I guess we could just assume it is true for fun. In fact, let’s assume he turned down a 5/50 offer from the Yankees. That would be cool.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:06 PM EST up reply actions  

“Or do you think Sam Mellinger has the inside track on what’s really going on with contract offers in Major League Baseball.”

Considering that he is a beat writer for baseball and a member of the BBWA, I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest he might know a bit more about such things than random posters on the internet.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 2:08 PM EST up reply actions  

He is not the Royals beat writer

Dutton is the Royals beat writer. Mellinger is a columnist who does some reporting on the Royals. What was his source? Was the information reliable? I guess we can just assume that it was, but I don’t think that makes sense.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:12 PM EST up reply actions  

Here's a tweet from Mellinger

“True story. Not a ton, but at least a million. MT @DannyParkins Bruce Chen says he turned down more money to return to the #Royals. "

Now, do you think Mellinger just accepted Chen’s claim at face value or at least asked around a bit?

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 2:15 PM EST up reply actions  

No, I don't think he got confirmation on that

I think he heard it from somewhere and reported it. My question is, what is the source? Some sources would be more reliable than others. I’m very skeptical about this.

I’ve asked this elsewhere and no one is apparently willing to think about it. Why would Chen do this? And then, do you think turning down “at least a million” in guaranteed money to sign with the Royals for this reason is even plausible?

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:17 PM EST up reply actions  

I think it is somewhat plausible

Chen went from a top prospect to a journeyman. It’s not ridiculous to think, having been in KC for 3 years now, he might just want to stick around if the money is close.

by BeauJackson on Nov 30, 2011 2:21 PM EST up reply actions  

You think an extra million dollars doesn't mean much to Bruce Chen?

It’s not like we’re talking about the difference between $50M and $51M. And if money wasn’t a big deal to him, why did he choose Scott Boras as his agent?

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:24 PM EST up reply actions  

When did he hire Boras?

Was it before his recent “success”? If he wasn’t hired just recently, I doubt Chen was just looking for the top dollar deal.

I just think it is plausible that a guy in his 30s, who hasn’t had much stability in his career, would want to settle down somewhere as long as the money is close. He might just finally feel comfortable and not want to start over with yet another franchise.

by BeauJackson on Nov 30, 2011 2:31 PM EST up reply actions  

Was it before his recent "success"? If he wasn’t hired just recently, I doubt Chen was just looking for the top dollar deal.

Boras is all about the top dollar deal. That’s what he does. That’s his reputation. Hell, it’s his raison d’etre.

I just think it is plausible that a guy in his 30s, who hasn’t had much stability in his career, would want to settle down somewhere as long as the money is close.

So he hasn’t had much stability, and yet more guaranteed money isn’t important to him? I think there’s a contradiction there.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Not having to start over again

He’s finally found some semblance of success with his 10th franchise. If they want him and the money is close, why not stick around? I don’t think it is as far fetched as you seem to believe. Not everyone in the world is a fiend for every last cent they can get.

by BeauJackson on Nov 30, 2011 2:39 PM EST up reply actions  

He’s finally found some semblance of success with his 10th franchise. If they want him and the money is close, why not stick around?

Because another team wants him for at least the same number of years for more money. Why stick around? Because you like our house or your apartment? Because you love Kansas City?

I don’t think it is as far fetched as you seem to believe. Not everyone in the world is a fiend for every last cent they can get.

An additional 11.1% isn’t exactly every last cent.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:43 PM EST up reply actions  

It would seem to me that there are a lot of people out there

who would choose to stay at their current job rather than take a 10% raise to go somewhere else. And they haven’t made the kind of money that Chen already has over the course of his career.

I think you’re right in your general assumption that most free agent baseball players are ultimately going to go wherever they can get paid the most money. However, I don’t see why it’s so impossible for you to fathom why someone might agree to take 10% less in salary to stay somewhere they have already said they like to be, and feel comfortable with.

by Sweep_the_Leg on Nov 30, 2011 2:47 PM EST up reply actions  

I just turned down a bigger offer than that, actually

And I assure you if would have had a bigger impact on Casa BEA than Chen’s additional million.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 2:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Sorry I wasn't clear

A 20 percent bump would have a much bigger impact on my standard or living than an additional million a year for two years would have on Chen’s.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 2:52 PM EST up reply actions  

No, I know what you were saying

And I agree. I’m just not sure what Scott’s point was.

by Sweep_the_Leg on Nov 30, 2011 2:54 PM EST up reply actions  

If you're arguing that it's implausible that Chen would turn down the extra money

It seems like examples of people turning down similar relative raises would have some bearing on that belief.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 2:52 PM EST up reply actions  

Do the above posters work in industries where status isn’t so much about your title, as how much you make? And do they also work in industries where everyone (including the general public) knows what they make?

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Many things are public records

And the vast majority of that which is in public records are things that the public will never know, because no one cares to even look into it. Does the general public know how much money you make?

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:56 PM EST up reply actions  

I thought the claim was that it mattered

Because your co-workers knew and it was a measuring stick among co-workers.

I don’t really feel like the development of Cot’s Baseball contracts has meaningfully changed the free agent compensation discussion.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 3:00 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Because your co-workers knew and it was a measuring stick among co-workers.

No, it’s how he’s valued by everyone. Everyone in baseball, the media, the fans. Everyone.

Do you think that Cots is the only way people know how much a baseball player makes?

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:02 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't even think that most baseball fans

know exactly how much particular players make, even on their own team. Unless a particular player is a very large, or very recent, FA acquisition.

by Sweep_the_Leg on Nov 30, 2011 3:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Do you really think that Chen would

walk around, beating his chest in the clubhouse, flashing extra $100’s from his wallet, just because he got that extra million? Because even if he had gotten the extra money, his contract obviously pales in comparison to a lot of other players. And assuming that the offer for an extra million came from a bigger market team, it’s much more likely they would be multiple guys in that team’s clubhouse whose contracts would dwarf Chen’s.

by Sweep_the_Leg on Nov 30, 2011 2:57 PM EST up reply actions  

No, I don’t think he’d do that. But it gives him a certain status, and in baseball that status is intimately tied to how much you make.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Are you kidding me?

Now you’ve clearly stepped over the edge into something I’ll dub “McKinney Mode”—you’ve argued your point so far that you won’t concede any ground no matter how ridiculous.

Do you REALLY think that Chen making $10 million over two years gives him significantly more status that it would if he were making $9 million over two years?

by Sweep_the_Leg on Nov 30, 2011 3:04 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

It's ridiculous that I think a baseball player signed for the most money?

Ok. I think we’re through the looking glass here, but ok.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:05 PM EST up reply actions  

No no no

You’re not twisting your way out of that one. Your quote:

But it gives him a certain status, and in baseball that status is intimately tied to how much you make.

The “it” obviously being the extra million that Chen was offered (allegedly, since that’s the only info we have). Your point, as stated above, was that the higher offer (i.e. the extra million) would give Chen a “certain status” that the $9M contract offered by the Royals wouldn’t give him. THAT is what I deemed to be ridiculous.

by Sweep_the_Leg on Nov 30, 2011 3:08 PM EST up reply actions  

More status. A higher spot in the pecking order. I think there’s an ethos in that industry (as many in that industry have said) that you get the most money you can because how much you make is how much you are worth as a player. That’s how you’re valued. Maybe I’m completely wrong. But it’s not ridiculous.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:10 PM EST up reply actions  

So who's the leader of the Yankees?

Arod? Hell no. The basis of your argument is flat out wrong Scott. I’m sure you’re great at what you do and that you make more money just for being in New York, but things would be much different for you with 11% less money and living in KC. You’d have a much higher standard of living, less expenses, etc…I’ve literally turned down jobs for 40-50% more in the last few years just to spend more time with my kids. I feel like a dipshit for it at times, but I know what it means for my family. The money isn’t everything. It doesn’t matter if it’s me or “Bruce fucking Chen”

I'm waiting for my wave of talent to arrive.

by mitchfreakingmaier! on Dec 1, 2011 11:19 AM EST up reply actions  

Hell

He might even have figured out that an extra million from, say, Chicago gets whacked down a bunch by state and local taxes so that it really doesn’t help that much.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 2:59 PM EST up reply actions  

This is very true

We really aren’t talking about a net $1M more here. That may have been the offer, but like you said, where you live (i.e. cost of living, tax rates, etc.) could whittle that down significantly.

by Sweep_the_Leg on Nov 30, 2011 3:05 PM EST up reply actions  

I think its possible someone would stick around where they're comfortable if the money is close

You think this is a ridiculous idea. I don’t think we’re changing each others minds here.

by BeauJackson on Nov 30, 2011 2:49 PM EST up reply actions  

The more I learn about other agents

The more I think that I’d choose Boras as a baseball player. And $1M when I’d already made several million definitely wouldn’t mean anything to me.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 2:31 PM EST up reply actions  

Congratulations. You’d be very rare.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:34 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't think I'm that rare

I’m moved from Wall Street to DC and took a 80% pay cut in doing so, but I’m hardly unique here.

If we’re just talking baseball, I think that there are plenty of guys who sign below-market extensions rather than going for every last penny on the free market.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 2:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Below market extensions with your current team, rather than free agency later is different. With extensions, the player is in a position where he can only negotiate with his current team and he’s being offered a nice chunk of guaranteed money. What might happen later on the FA market (and the bad things that can happen before you get there) is a complete unknown. In this case, we are to believe that Chen was offered X and X+11.1% and chose X.

And Chen is in an industry where players are valued by how much they make and, unlike you, everyone knows exactly how much he makes. It’s hard for guys to turn down more money, especially 11% more.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:46 PM EST up reply actions  

Exceptions do not prove the rule. But that is a data point.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:57 PM EST up reply actions  

I think the rule you're advocating goes far beyond that

It should be: “Players ALWAYS sign for the most money, with absolutely no exceptions.”

by Sweep_the_Leg on Nov 30, 2011 3:10 PM EST up reply actions  

No, I never said anything like that

Of course some players sometimes sign for less money. I think it is very rare and there’s no good reason to believe that this journeyman turned down 11.1% more money to play for a losing team.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:11 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, that's certainly not what you've been arguing against

You have argued fervently against a few of us who have stated that, yes, sometimes players DO sign for less money. And the fact you mentioned Chen was a journeyman helps to prove the point in this particular case. It seems pretty clear to me from quotes from Chen and the theme of articles written by guys like Dutton, that because Chen has been with so many teams, he wanted to finally find a team to settle in with.

by Sweep_the_Leg on Nov 30, 2011 3:17 PM EST up reply actions  

I disagree that his desire to not move is worth more to him than $1M more and whatever status/value that goes with it. And yes of course sometimes player sign for less money. I think it is rare. I think it is even more rare for players to sign for 11% less. I don’t think Lee did that.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:24 PM EST up reply actions  

That's very significant then

And I think it is pretty rare. You certainly don’t hear about it happening often.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:29 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't think it happens very often

More often you see the Jayson Werth’s of the world going to the highest bidder.

I’m sure there are other example of guys taking less, but are almost certainly outweighed by guys taking more.

by BeauJackson on Nov 30, 2011 3:32 PM EST up reply actions  

The intangible, emotional, psychological

motivation he seems to have had to stay in KC. I know the possible existence of those things confounds you to no end, but I’m assuming they also came into play.

by Sweep_the_Leg on Nov 30, 2011 3:31 PM EST up reply actions  

Typically people tend to argue that players either sign for the most money, or they sign to play for a winner. You’re arguing that Chen turnd his back on both of the above because of intangible, emotional and psychological motivations to stay in KC. That is possible. I find it exceedingly unlikely.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:33 PM EST up reply actions  

We're also not sure who else was offering him a 2 year deal

For all we know, it could’ve been the Pirates, Padres and Nationals.

by BeauJackson on Nov 30, 2011 3:35 PM EST up reply actions  

So we've now truly come full circle

From one of my comments above:

I think you’re right in your general assumption that most free agent baseball players are ultimately going to go wherever they can get paid the most money. However, I don’t see why it’s so impossible for you to fathom why someone might agree to take 10% less in salary to stay somewhere they have already said they like to be, and feel comfortable with.

What this really comes down to is that you think Chen or Boras or Mellinger (or all of them) are lying about the existence of a larger offer.

by Sweep_the_Leg on Nov 30, 2011 3:39 PM EST up reply actions  

wow...im glad you disagree with what chen might've thought...

since you’re in his brain and all…you’re really losing it dude

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Nov 30, 2011 7:57 PM EST up reply actions  

That seems to be a big reaction...

….to someone doubting that a player chose to take less money to play for a losing team. That really is crazy, isn’t it?

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 8:17 PM EST up reply actions  

More specifically

The KC Star reporting this news does not constitute a good reason to believe that Chen turned down more money.

And almost any possible source in a position to be confirm the report is untrustworthy.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 3:18 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm sorry that the sources are untrustworthy

But they are. And that is relevant.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:23 PM EST up reply actions  

From one angle

It looks a lot like rejecting any evidence that doesn’t fit with your conclusion.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 3:29 PM EST up reply actions  

There’s one piece of evidence and I think it is spurious.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:30 PM EST up reply actions  

You've rejected more than one piece of evidence

You’ve made broader claims about people not taking less money, especially when their salaries are public, but then distinguished every example given from what would bear on your conclusion.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 3:36 PM EST up reply actions  

I disagreed on the relevance of those points

…to Chen’s situation. Ok? Can we be done now? Or should we keep going on and on with this?

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:39 PM EST up reply actions  

Doesn't prove a rule

But it is possible Chen came to the same conclusions that Lee did in regards to where he wanted to play when the money was close to equal.

I think we’re missing the bigger point, which is that there isn’t much to be excited about with the Chen signing.

by BeauJackson on Nov 30, 2011 3:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Anything is possible

It’s possible that he turned down a 5/50 deal. Anything and everything is possible. It’s possible that the Royals will sweep the World Series next year. I just think that all of the above are very unlikely.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:02 PM EST up reply actions  

You know, there are thousands of horses starving in America

I think it would be better to use this straw to feed them than to use it to construct crude facsimiles of people all over the landscape.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 3:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Please. It’s not a straw man to say that anything is possible. I’m not saying that BeauJackson was claiming any of the things in my comment. I just responded to “it’s possible that…”. Yes, it is possible. And saying that something is “possible” isn’t saying much. I’ll happily agree that X is possible.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:08 PM EST up reply actions  

No, I'm saying that it is extremely unlikely

Did I every say impossible? I said implausible. I might have even said it is laughable or ridiculous, IMO.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 8:17 PM EST up reply actions  

there's a data point...

but you’re saying its absolutely impossible that chen did it….what the fuck…maybe cliff lee lied about it

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Nov 30, 2011 7:56 PM EST up reply actions  

That's great

And that’s very uncommon. And of course the general public doesn’t know and doesn’t care. You’re not a public figure. Nobody is talking about how much you make and how much you signed for on multiple blogs, in newspapers and on various sports websites. I think there’s a real difference here, no?

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Public figure or not

It sure as hell is meaningful to his peers, who do look him up.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 3:02 PM EST up reply actions  

I can't imagine that the opinion of the general public on this matters to Chen

In fact, you seem to be arguing the opposite, that players want the general public to think that they signed for less money.

My co-workers know what I make and I know what they make. Whether the general public accesses the data (and they do because I here about it all the time) makes no more difference to me than it would seem to make to Bruce Chen. The key thing seems to be competition and status within the industry, and we have just as much of that as baseball players.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 3:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Ok guys, I'm out of this one

I think this is truly ridiculous, but maybe I’m just nuts and it’s likely that Chen left money on the table to play with in a great organization like the Royals. Chen for President.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Well

At least you are no longer claiming he was really available for a year and 3 million bucks.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 3:05 PM EST up reply actions  

I really don't know what his market value was

I’m sure other teams were interested in him. For how much and how long, I’m not sure. I really think the Royals offered him the most money. Just my crazy opinion.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:06 PM EST up reply actions  

well at least you're not so certain that everyone is lying...

and that everyone is wrong and you’re right…thats progress i suppose

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Nov 30, 2011 8:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Not sure why you're making up this stuff about me always saying that everyone is lying

It appears to be your fetish of the day, and of course it is baseless.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 8:18 PM EST up reply actions  

Two possibilities as I see it

Either Bruce Chen likes KC and doesn’t want to move, as others have suggested. Boras can prefer the top money deal all he wants, Chen gets to decide where he plays.

Or, Chen thinks his numbers will be better playing for the Royals for whatever reason. Given this, he and Boras might reasonably believe he can increase the value of his NEXT contract by more than $1M.

by CompmanJX3 on Nov 30, 2011 2:58 PM EST up reply actions  

The same reason Chen would say it

Good PR for Chen. I think Chen and Boras care about Chen’s image. Every player would like to be seen as the guy who doesn’t really care about money so much, he’s just about the love of the game, love of the town, love of the team, love of the players, etc.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Patting myself on the back

This little post worked even better than I possibly imagined!

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 3:41 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes, you’ve proven that Chen turned down at least one higher offer to sign with the Royals. It was written; it is true. And people call me a douche. lol

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Trust, me it was clear what you were trying to do

Expose some crazed anti-Moore person(s) who somehow don’t believe that he’s good at playing the FA market….even in the face of an unsourced, anonymous throwaway line in a sports page column. Mission accomplished.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Ah, not cool man

Not awful, but not cool. I get into dust ups often, but I never do it for the sake of creating a dust up.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:53 PM EST up reply actions  

Are you having a bad day? You’re using “fucking” considerably more than usual.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 8:19 PM EST up reply actions  

at least he's got some reasoning other than

‘nobody does it’….‘its the very rare expection’ ‘no wait, lee didnt turn down significant money’ ‘i take that back, lee did turn down alot, he’s the only one’

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Nov 30, 2011 8:03 PM EST up reply actions  

I thought Rany had a pretty good take on the Chen extension

And questioned the wisdom of the Broxton signing this morning on 810. He pointed out that the money given to those two next year would get you close to what it would take to get Oswalt (is he assuming Oswald would take a one year deal?).

I’m not remotely as high on signing Oswalt, or spending big money on FAs this offseason. But the I agree with Rany that if you’re trying to improve next year’s ML roster and are willing to spend money to do so, you gave to make the best use of that resource. It’s obvious the bullpen is not the glaring need. I agree with the Royals that the trade and FA market for SPs is very expensive, but 4mil+ for Broxton is expensive.

Maybe this will turn out like Dotel, but the Royals didn’t have a good closing option then, not yet knowing what they had in Soria. And that led to the Kyle Davies era.

by thelaundry on Nov 30, 2011 12:32 PM EST reply actions  

If you save your resources for Oswalt / other big name FA pitcher and you don't get them

then what?

The virtue of spreading the money across more players instead of going all-in on a very small market for high level FA SPs is that you can be sure you improve the team (if you grant, for sake of argument, that DM believes the deals he’s making will improve the team) this offseason.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 1:48 PM EST up reply actions  

But the problem is that signing mediocre players isn't something that should lead you to be sure you improved the team

I’m certain that Moore thinks he improved the team by signing the very mediocre Chen and Broxton for moderate money. I’m equally sure that he thought he improved the team by signing Fransworth, HoRam, and Bloomquist and trading for Jacobs and Crisp, all mediocre players, and all for moderate money. Adding mediocre players for millions rather than pooling that money on a better than mediocre player rarely works. Now, if this were a good team that just needed to add a few spare parts, then it might make sense. But this team still has a big talent deficit. There are some big holes on this team. And spreading out money to some mediocre players isn’t a wise way to genuinely improve the team.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Is there any evidence for that statement?

Fangraphs research consistently shows that WAR costs $5M apiece on the free agent market and there’s no premium for high-WAR guys. If you assume the market is efficient, then you’d get just as many WAR by signing mediocre guys for small dollar contracts as you would by pooling the money on better than mediocre players.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 2:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Yea

I think you should spend money on players perceived as being mediocre but for whatever reason are more valuable than what the market has dictated.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Nov 30, 2011 2:05 PM EST up reply actions  

Yep

Getting 2 WAR from a DDJ guy for a 1 WAR price is a good thing.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 2:06 PM EST up reply actions  

It sure worked for the Royals in 2009

I’m glad to see that Dayton is sticking to his process.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:08 PM EST up reply actions  

I wish Scott McKinney were here to illustrate the problems with cherry picking evidence

in an attempt to skew the impression of DM’s abilities in the free agent market.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 2:10 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't need to cherry pick evidence to skew the impression of DM's abilities in the FA market

Look at his entire record on the FA market. Looking at it in its totality, it’s damned ugly. Do you disagree?

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Actually he's might actually be close to breaking even now

Last year was pretty good for him. I need to go update my spreadsheet.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 2:16 PM EST up reply actions  

If you don't need to, then don't do it

“It sure worked for the Royals in 2009” is no different than “It sure worked for the Royals in 2010” except one is sarcasm and one is truth.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 2:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Let me rephrase then

It has sure worked for Dayton Moore with the Royals so far. Sure, let’s not just cherry pick years. Let’s look at his whole track record. It’s awful. It’s amazing how people (not necessarily you, I don’t know) are still willing to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that Dayton Moore hasn’t been genuinely horrible at evaluating, valuing and acquiring major league talent.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:19 PM EST up reply actions  

The JoGui signing by itself cancels out a lot of his good work

I don’t have a strong sense on his track record on pursuing mediocre players on relatively small contracts. Without having any numbers, I’d guess he’s gotten about even value for his money on those signings.

Regardless, I think you’re right that the totality of his record (not just last year, but also not just any other year) is the right gauge.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 2:26 PM EST up reply actions  

More of an indictment of Moore

Than mid-level free agents. We can all name quite a few mid-level FAs that have worked quite well for smarter teams.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Nov 30, 2011 2:32 PM EST up reply actions  

David DeJesus to the Cubs

2/$10 mill, per Robothal

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Nov 30, 2011 12:51 PM EST reply actions  

DDJ

Well, we know Theo likes him from the aborted trade at the ASB.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 1:15 PM EST up reply actions  

I assume STL qualifies

because they are in one of the bottom 10 “markets”?

Am I remembering this correctly? I think you can qualify by being either bottom 10 “market size”, or bottom 10 “revenue”? Obviously, there is considerable overlap in those two groups – but not complete overlap.

Although I hate the Cardinals, one could argue that it’s OK to “help” them because their market is small, and that it doesn’t make sense to “punish” them because they are succesful in getting their revenue up despite their small market status?

If strikeouts are indeed fascist - then find me some starters that believe in fascism

by loyal2sdad on Nov 30, 2011 1:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Perhaps.

I would argue that he’s Kyle Farnsworth on donuts.

I'm waiting for my wave of talent to arrive.

by mitchfreakingmaier! on Dec 1, 2011 11:31 AM EST up reply actions  

This is why I think it was a pretty good signing..

“Broxton, if healthy, can be a major asset even in just 60 innings or so out of the bullpen. If he doesn’t return to form, the risk is minimal — he takes his $4 million dollars and both sides move on with next season’s budget intact. If we see the Broxton of 2006-2010 — the Broxton which compiled 9.5 WAR in five seasons out of the bullpen — the Royals either have an excellent trade chip for the deadline or the backbone of one of baseball’s best bullpens.”

by LimaTime10 on Nov 30, 2011 1:39 PM EST reply actions  

SF just exercised Affeldt's $5 million option which should say something about the market

And I’d much rather have Broxton at 27 for $4 million than Affeldt at 32 for $5 million.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 1:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Good point

Although I’m not sure the SF is always representative of the market at large.

How can Affeldt and DDJ be worth the same?

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 1:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Wow

That is remarkable. I know he’s coming off a really crummy year, but its Clint F. Barmes.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Nov 30, 2011 2:06 PM EST up reply actions  

Even with it being crummy

he still came in at 2.2 fWar, which by all accounts, is above average.

Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so.-Bertrand Russell

by Dr. van Strijcker on Nov 30, 2011 6:35 PM EST up reply actions  

That article on Cameron was interesting

It’s amazing how similar our politics and British politics have gotten. We have almost the same detoxify-the-brand vs. push-harder-for-conservative-policies on our right here, although it seems the British conservatives are more transparent about their willingness to reverse the push for balanced budgets.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 1:45 PM EST reply actions  

Has Canadian politics become like that too?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Nov 30, 2011 2:06 PM EST up reply actions  

yes

Harper is seen as being pretty conservative by Canadian standards, yet has won like a zillion straight elections by changing the image of the Tories

by Freneau on Nov 30, 2011 2:19 PM EST up reply actions  

But is there the same large contingent among Canadian conservatives

who push to adopt unpopular policies that are opposed by the Treasury? That’s what I think is so striking about British and American politics (although in our case, you’d substitute CBO for Treasury).

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 2:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Did liberals have a purity movement at all?

Was it the 70s? I know a lot of old south/political machine conservative Dems left the party when identity gender/race politics rose to power, but I don’t think that was a concerted effort to get rid of non-liberals.

I remember when I was in college in the 90s, some of the younger radicals disgusted with Clinton’s “third way” politics and free trade wanted to purge the Dem party of Blue Dogs, but they quickly jumped ship to Nader and the Greens and the movement never gained much steam.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Nov 30, 2011 2:44 PM EST up reply actions  

I think every party has purity movements

Certainly the Occupy protesters would like the administration and Democrats in general to move to the left.

What’s unique about the conservatives right now is that they’re pushing proposals that are both unpopular and outside of the economic/political mainstream. Most modern parties are a mixture of populist and technocratic impulses. To have some other impulse overwhelm both of them is very unusual, but we’re seeing it in both British and U.S. conservatives.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 2:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes, both the left and right have the more extreme factions which are upset with the party on their side of the political spectrum. But the difference between the Democrts and the Republicans right now is that the GOP’s more extreme elements have gotten deep into the party and are driving its actions to a significant extent. Moderate Republicans are decried as RINO’s and “squishes” and are reviled and have been effectively primaried. Conversely, fairly moderate Democrats, like Obama quite frankly, still have a great deal of support within the party and aren’t being pushed too hard by the lefties.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 2:53 PM EST up reply actions  

In a sense

The Democrats drove off working class whites.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 3:03 PM EST up reply actions  

But it wasn't a concerted effort or purity drive

Just an ideological shift.

I think FDR had a grand political shift in mind with the New Deal and wanted to get liberal Republicans on board at the expense of conservative Dems in the south, but I’m not sure it came to fruition.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Nov 30, 2011 3:09 PM EST up reply actions  

I dunno about that

The Democrats made it basically impossible, for example, to be a pro-life Democrat. I’d call that a purity drive.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 3:10 PM EST up reply actions  

I think there are dozens of pro-life Dems in the Congress right now

I think that Democrats get right around half of the Catholic vote.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 3:14 PM EST up reply actions  

The Senate leader of the party is pro-life

Besides, there has never been an effort to purge the party of pro-lifers. They welcome them. Republicans on the other hand are contesting Republican candidates in primaries that don’t fit a certain litmus test. I’d agree with you if like NARAL or Emily’s List was really successful in getting pro-choice candidates to challange pro-lifers in Dem primaries, but I haven’t seen that to be the case.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Nov 30, 2011 3:24 PM EST up reply actions  

Only rhetorically

He faithfully carries water for NARAL/Emily’s List.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 3:38 PM EST up reply actions  

But if there were a purity movement of any significance

An publicly pro-life Senator would not have that position of power in the party.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:40 PM EST up reply actions  

Do you think a purity movement would allow a Senator who says "I'm pro-life" to be majority leader?

…even if he carries water for NARAL? You can’t call yourself pro-life and be ideologically “pure” to lefties (and of course the same is true of pro-choice and righties).

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:46 PM EST up reply actions  

It would be like a Republican

Saying “I support government spending” while secretly being a Tea Party member. How long do you think he’d last in the GOP?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Nov 30, 2011 3:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Not even talking about abortion

But we’re talking about two different things. You’re talking about a difference in ideological platform. A party can change its platform no big deal, and those that disagree can choose to stay or leave. That happens all the time.

What I’m talking about is actively running candidates against candidates of your own party because they don’t fit what you perceive to be the most important issue or issues of the party.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Nov 30, 2011 3:48 PM EST up reply actions  

It can happen

The current government of Canada is the “conservative party”, but they have only existed for about 8 years.

They came about after a merger of the “progressive conservatives” (an oxymoron, but thats by the by) and the Canadian Alliance. Except the Canadian Alliance was originally a splinter group of the PC’s, born out resentment in Western Canada about the idealogical platform of the PC party and it’s kowtowing to Ontario and Quebec.

The Canadian Alliance (who were initially called the Reform Party, just to further confuse things) stood candidates against their former PC allies, and beat them out of sight in the West. Which of course meant a fractured opposition and a Liberal federal government that nobody really liked all that much.

So then they merged again, but with a very different platform to the united party of old. And until this year, when they finally brokethrough in a big way in Ontario, they still relied on the West for the bulk of their support (Harper is from the pre-merger Alliance party, as are a lot of his cabinet).

Edgar knows best.

by kcbottom9th on Nov 30, 2011 4:33 PM EST up reply actions  

I might contest that.

There was a controversy a few years ago in which Democrats for Life was fighting for official party recognition or a website link or something, and the DNC wanted nothing to do with them because they directly opposed a major part of the party platform. This was a few years ago, when Terry McAuliffe was in charge of the party and I have no idea what’s happened since.

"There is nothing shrewd about running a red light and later finding out it kept you from being hit by an asteroid." - philofthenorth

by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 30, 2011 10:02 PM EST up reply actions  

I'd be interested in seeing polling data on northern whites making under the median income

Democrats’ share of the white vote has plummeted, but I’m not sure how much of that is just the geographic realignment of southern conservatives (overwhelmingly white) switching to their more natural home in the Republican party. It would be hard for the Democrats to continue to easily carry the industrial midwest if the working class whites in those states turned strongly against them.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 3:10 PM EST up reply actions  

OTOH

With Demographics the way they are and white males comprising less and less of the population, long-term does that give them a better chance out west in traditionally red states?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Nov 30, 2011 3:26 PM EST up reply actions  

I think in states with significantly increasing Latino populations, yes it does

Most of the southwest has already turned purple. Arizona is becoming increasingly so with every passing year. Quite frankly, I think those SW purple states will just keep turning more and more blue over the coming decades. And I think the same can happen, on a much slower pace in the mountain west.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:28 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm not sure how losing votes in one demographic helps overall

But if you’re going to lose votes, it’s certainly better to have it be in a demographic that’s growing relatively slowly.

It’s not clear how the hispanics in the west will vote over the long term. They tend to be religious and socially conservative. Right now, all of that is being trumped by issues of race and immigration, but if those issues lose salience, the latin american immigrants could easily be a solid Republican voting block.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 3:33 PM EST up reply actions  

How long would that take though?

Once a certain demographic grows into a faction for one of the parties, isn’t it likely that party will do all they can to pander to said demographic?

by BeauJackson on Nov 30, 2011 3:37 PM EST up reply actions  

One theory of politics is that parties are constantly remaking themselves in search of a majority

If hostility to Latinos blocks the party’s chances of gaining a majority, party leaders will force a switch in policies/attitudes.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 3:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Right now, all of that is being trumped by issues of race and immigration, but if those issues lose salience, the latin american immigrants could easily be a solid Republican voting block.

That’s certainly possible. But the GOP has never been able to make much of a dent into the African American vote. I don’t know why it would be much different for Latinos. Certainly, given the religious/culturally conservative nature of some Latinos, there will always be a significant percentage that votes Republican (certainly much higher than in the African American community) but I don’t think issues of race are going away or even becoming marginalized anytime soon. I think unless the GOP radically changes (and not just on immigration), I think the Democrats will have a significant majority of the Latino vote for a long, long time.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:38 PM EST up reply actions  

Cubans are a solid republican voting block

Conservatives are naturally receptive to Cuban refugees because they’ve fled communism. If they became more receptive to other Latinos, perhaps driven by Cubans like Marco Rubio reaching positions of power in the party, I think you could see a change in policy coming from the top down (in this respect the heirarchical nature of the Repbulican Party would be a key element in changing attitudes).

I agree that the most likely scenario is that Republicans continue to perform poorly among non-Cuban Latinos.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 3:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Cubans and Republicans get along

Because the GOP takes a harder line with Cuba than Dems do.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Nov 30, 2011 3:49 PM EST up reply actions  

I think that's a large part of it

I’m not sure how relevant it is to looking ahead to whether Republicans could substantially improve their share of the non-Cuban Latino vote.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 3:51 PM EST up reply actions  

I do agree there is an opening for the GOP with Latinos

Because they are socially conservative. But it would have to be after the immigration debate has died down for a generation, and you’d also have to have a substantial number Latinos in the middle class.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Nov 30, 2011 3:53 PM EST up reply actions  

Nothing is static, though

The Democrats have a pretty unstable coalition between poor minorities and sub-elite liberal urbanites right now. While added together those groups may make up a majority it isn’t a big one and there are plenty of fault lines to exploit.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 3:55 PM EST up reply actions  

This is why the conservative political position right now is so fascinating

Instead of trying to exploit the fault lines in the center-left coalition (Labour in UK, Democrats in US), large elements within the conservative parties in both countries are pursuing policies that are neither in the mainstream of popular opinion or the mainstream of economic/political theory.

It’s essentially a bet-the-party risk when much easier options are available.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 4:00 PM EST up reply actions  

I have read (although I haven’t seen studies, so I can’t verify the numbers on this) that the Cuban fealty to the GOP is mostly a generational thing. The older generations are focused on Cuba-America relations and Castro, while the younger generations aren’t so much, and thus the younger generations are more Democratic. Then again, younger people are more Democratic in general, so I don’t know if that’s been studied and appropriately taken into account. But it is possible that the biggest thing that attaches Cubans to the GOP is something which will die out as Cuban Americans get further and further removed for the Cuban Revolution and Cuba in general.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 3:52 PM EST up reply actions  

I've read the same analysis and I also don't know how true it is

The Democrats have certainly succeeded in making inroads into Cuban areas of South Florida, knocking out one of the Diaz-Balart brothers in 08 and potentially the other in 2012.

by KSinDC on Nov 30, 2011 3:56 PM EST up reply actions  

I think that's going to be a bargain sign for them

Even if he regresses to a 1.5 WAR player his contract is good.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 30, 2011 2:00 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, playing half his games in Wrigley

will make it less likely for him to have a season ending injury running into an outfield law.

"There is nothing shrewd about running a red light and later finding out it kept you from being hit by an asteroid." - philofthenorth

by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 30, 2011 6:46 PM EST up reply actions  

er, wall

"There is nothing shrewd about running a red light and later finding out it kept you from being hit by an asteroid." - philofthenorth

by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 30, 2011 6:46 PM EST up reply actions  

Chill out bros!

Bruce fucking loves us, and we love him. That’s all that matters.

by Official Arrowhead Pride Parade on Nov 30, 2011 4:56 PM EST reply actions  

I think that’s beautiful. These guys really do love each other. They’re like a family. This season is really going to be something special.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 30, 2011 5:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Frenchy, Ned, J-Box and Foxworthy are just gonna bow hunting

And spin a few yarns, tell a couple of ya might be rednecks, and poof world effing series bros!

by Official Arrowhead Pride Parade on Nov 30, 2011 5:20 PM EST up reply actions  

Your aspersions on the Man who brought Chenaoke down from the mountaintop are growing tiresome.

Whether he’s tipping one back at Bobby Baker’s, goofin in clothing section at Cabela’s, enjoying a brush creek gondola with a special lady, cheering on Ned’s kinfolk at the I-70 speedway, playing in the crown center fountains, waiting in line at Oklahoma Joe’s, or enjoying a night of Yo Yo Ma at the new Kaufman performing arts center, the Bruce can’t get enough!


The Bruce shall not be harmed!

by Official Arrowhead Pride Parade on Nov 30, 2011 5:28 PM EST up reply actions  

No

No no no!

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Nov 30, 2011 9:37 PM EST up reply actions  

Bianchi is a weird case. Derailed by injury, but a middle infielder with potential at the plate. I don’t see him as a Rule 5 risk though. This year is definitely huge. If he doesn’t break out, he never will, IMO.

by WURoyal on Nov 30, 2011 9:45 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

This was a cranky thread

I thought this site was all about fraternal dick sucking.

I seriously doubt that either Mellinger or Chen is lying. They have no reason to. It’s just a two-year contract for a 2 WAR pitcher. No point in covering anything up. It’s not a military secret.

The thing about the Hispanic vote is it’s 85% Mexican. The Cubans are in Florida and the Puerto Ricans in the Northeast, but the great majority in the US are Mexican and Central American. They are socially conservative and religious, but are attracted to the Democrats for identity reasons and a wider welfare state. I see them moving to the right in the long run, as they become more prosperous and more English-speaking, sort of like the urban ethnic whites in the North did.

If Europe is any example, the party in power is going to get shellacked at the next election because the people will blame it for the economic crisis.

"All the boys think she's a guy
She's got crazy Frenchy eyes."

by Juancho on Dec 1, 2011 4:51 AM EST reply actions  

Our elections are closer together

The party in power has already gotten shellacked two elections in a row here because of the economic crisis.

Also, since we have a Presidential system with non-synchronous terms, we can (and do now) have multiple parties in power. How odd will it be if the Republicans take back the White House and Democrats take back the House.

by KSinDC on Dec 1, 2011 6:23 AM EST up reply actions  

Zapatero, I believe, was the last left-wing leader of an important European country

Cameron’s a Conservative, Sarkozy’s a Gaullist, Merkel’s a Christian Democrat, Berlusconi was a right-winger before giving way to Monti, an apolitical technocrat, and if you count Russia, Putin’s a Mafioso. Almost all the smaller countries have conservative governments as well. The Socialists/Social Democrats have been swept out everywhere.

In Spain there are three different election cycles: the municipals, the regionals, and the generals. Technically each election takes place five years after the last one, but as a general rule they’re called slightly earlier. All the municipal elections are held the same day throughout Spain, and so are 13 of the 17 regionals. Catalonia, the Basque Country, Andalusia, and Galicia are more autonomous than the other regions, and each of their elections is on its own cycle. Zapatero was forced to call an early general election because of the seriousness of the situation.

You vote for the party’s list of candidates rather than for individuals. Seats in the city council, the regional parliament, and the national Congress of Deputies are then assigned proportionally.

First the conservatives wiped out the Socialists in the municipals and regionals—the Socialists lost both their strongholds, Sevilla and Barcelona—and that made it clear that the PSOE was going to get its clock cleaned in the generals.

"All the boys think she's a guy
She's got crazy Frenchy eyes."

by Juancho on Dec 1, 2011 6:54 AM EST up reply actions  

I don't know how long until Germany's next national elections

But Merkel’s CDU has been getting hammered in the regional elections, just like Zapatero’s Socialists were. Sarkozy is up next Spring in France, and I think his polling numbers remain pretty crappy.

I don’t think you’ll have to wait too long for leftist governments to return to power in Europe’s biggest economies.

by KSinDC on Dec 1, 2011 9:00 AM EST up reply actions  

Sarkozy may find himself running against

Marine Le Pen in the second round, as the French Socialists have committed suicide with their internal divisions, and they have various small Green, Communist, and Trot parties on their left sucking up votes in the first round. Merkel has been losing regional elections, but not in the landslide we’ve seen in Spain.

"All the boys think she's a guy
She's got crazy Frenchy eyes."

by Juancho on Dec 1, 2011 2:27 PM EST up reply actions  

You're seeing polling data that's considerably different from what I've seen

From a month ago:
Hollande (Socialist): 39
Sarkozy: 24
Le Pen: 14
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/208059.html

And even if the CDU/CSU losses aren’t as bad as the Socialists’ losses in Spain, they seem plenty big enough to indicate that the left will return to power at the next national election in Germany.

by KSinDC on Dec 1, 2011 3:20 PM EST up reply actions  

All the polling i've seen

Shows a huge “undecided” block in Germany at the moment. It’s a fair assumption based on history (including quite spectacularly in the UK last year when lots of very soft Lib Dem support bled to the incumbent Labour at the very last moment) that a lot of that “undecided” will vote for the incumbent option, the CDU.

It’s also relevant of course that Germany has it’s lowest unemployment in 20 years and collected so much of a tax surplus this year that they could afford to cut tax and still be fiscally solvent. They are so financially sound that ironically no one will lend to them, because the yield isn’t enough to bother. There have been none of the austerity measures seen in Greece, Spain, Ireland and the UK.

Edgar knows best.

by kcbottom9th on Dec 1, 2011 4:51 PM EST up reply actions  

The undecideds are not saving the CDU/CSU in the regional elections

I’m also not sure what you mean by tax surplus. Germany has consistently run a deficit through the last several years. It’s below the Maastricht limit of 3% of GDP, but they do still run a budget deficit, as they have consistently done for the last many years. Germany’s government debt to GDP ratio is well higher than either Spain or the U.S.

I think the cost of keeping the Eurozone together will doom Merkel’s coalition at the next election, but even if the elections were held before this problem spiralled into crisis, I think she would have lost, based on the results of the regional elections.

by KSinDC on Dec 1, 2011 5:19 PM EST up reply actions  

I Blame W

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

by philofthenorth on Dec 1, 2011 7:43 PM EST up reply actions  

Here's another French poll from 5 days ago

Hollande: 30
Sarkozy: 26
Le Pen: 18
http://plus.lefigaro.fr/note/sarkozy-and-hollande-pull-ahead-in-polls-20111125-610375

I do remember some speculation that Le Pen would overtake Sarkozy (although that possibility seems to have receded) but it seems implausible that she’d pass Hollande. In addition, every poll I’ve seen has Hollande up double digits on Sarkozy in the second round.

by KSinDC on Dec 1, 2011 3:28 PM EST up reply actions  

The French Socialists are bound to screw it up

but, yeah, Sarkozy is vulnerable because he’s the guy in office now.

"All the boys think she's a guy
She's got crazy Frenchy eyes."

by Juancho on Dec 1, 2011 6:35 PM EST up reply actions  

I think that you're right Juancho.

These guys have fraternal blue balls.

I'm waiting for my wave of talent to arrive.

by mitchfreakingmaier! on Dec 1, 2011 11:35 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

Dignan_small
Friday Game 43 Open Thread
Funny-tattoos-hey-look-they-found-a-royals-fan_small
MORE Mitch on the Bench
Sexy-beast-original_small
OT Friday: The generic boilerplate template desert island gambit
Tumblr_lwfiy4qkgv1r204zxo1_500_small
RR Poetry Contest
Small
Extrapolating the First 43 Games over the Full Season
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

+ 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