The next step for the Royals
by seelztlb on Aug 10, 2011 2:50 PM EDT
Email
PrintI am very, very excited about the direction I've seen Royals management taking the past few weeks. Some might argue that it's long overdue, and they might be right, but I'm content to just enjoy the growing suspicion I get that Dayton Moore is going balls to the wall to win, starting next year.
A franchise that for too long had allowed abstract and improvable perceptions to trump statistics benched a player they for whom they traded in favor of a guy who didn't project well but had ripped the cover off the ball at every stop in the minors.
A franchise that for too long has valued washed-up and/or never-has-been veterans to steal playing time from young players with potential benched a veteran catcher who is well-regarded for a 21 year-old prospect.
And now, a franchise gunshy after rightfully giving up on players like Jorge de la Rosa and Philip Humber only to watch them succeed elsewhere gave up the ghost on Kyle Davies to make room for the aforementioned catching prospect.
So now the question is, what next?
I don't think anyone would argue that our biggest need in the organization is top of the rotation help at the major league level. This is not a surprise, as 75% of the league needs top of the rotation help every year, but I really and truly believe the Royals are a true #1 and another young, middle-of-the-rotation guy with major league experience away from winning the AL Central NEXT YEAR.
So, how do we get there?
Simple, we use the currency that we have: prospects.
Obviously, I'd rather see the remaining highly-regarded prospects we have on the 2012-2013 track succeed in the majors wearing a Royals uniform, but we've known (or should have) that there would come a time when it made more sense to trade prospects for proven big-league talent than develop them ourselves -- that time is now.
So, I put forth the following hypothetical for discussion.
Mike Montgomery, Wil Myers, Louis Coleman and Jason Adam to the Dodgers for Clayton Kershaw.
Obviously, the number one sticking point is that the Dodgers would have to agree to trade Clayton Kershaw, but there have been rumors that they are at least taking offers and since the team is literally bankrupt, they might be motivated to maximize their return on him now while he's young and would represent a club-friendly contract to the acquiring team. As it stands, they may not even be able to afford to pay him league-minimum.
At first glance, we would be giving up quite a bit. But when you consider at 23, he's younger than Zack Greinke, Ubaldo Jimenez and Matt Garza were at the time of their trades, has better numbers and is under team control until 2015, his value is clearly higher.
It sucks to give up guys like Myers and Montgomery, but you have to give in order to get, and at this point I believe it makes more since to parlay our 2012-2013 prospects to set us up to win at the major league level and focus on putting guys around Jake Odorizzi, Noel Arguelles, Cheslor Cuthbert and the rest of the 2014+ class.
So, putting aside whether or not this would be a good deal for the Dodgers, do you think it would be a good deal for the Royals. Would you be willing to give up more? What other < 25 proven starters might be available? Are there any untouchables on the farm, or is everything fair game? Discuss.
75 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
uhh...you criticize them for giving up on de la rosa and humber...
yet, kyle davies is a very good canidate to do exactly the same thing that those guys did.
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Aug 10, 2011 2:56 PM EDT reply actions
What I meant was they were right to give up de la Rosa and Humber. Jorge and Kyle aren’t even close, Davies has a substantially higher sample size to determine he sucks than de la Rosa did, and even then just because you got a 2 the first time you hit on 19 doesn’t mean you should do it again.
As for the rumors, I cannot find a link so its possible I’ve remembered that incorrectly, but my point was really more of a hypothetical anyway. Should we go after a big fish starter (I’d rather do trades because none of the FA really excite me and I don’t want CJ Wilson to be the highest paid player on our team) and if so, what are we willing to give up.
So now the question is, what next?
LONG TERM EXTENSION FOR JEFF FRANCOEUR! HE’S A STUDFAGS!
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Link on the Clayton Kershaw rumors?
I have a hard time believing that. He’s very young, cheap, and is a valuable asset for any new owner. To get him, you’d have to give up way more than the Indians gave up for Ubaldo, and your offer isn’t doing that.
Do you mean Chad Billingsley? Because I can see him getting dealt, and probably for about what you offered, maybe less than what you offered.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
What do you think it would take then? It’s entirely possible he’s untouchable, he’d be pretty close if I was the GM. This is two A prospects in Montgomery and Myers, a very good prospect in Adam who is 19 and a young major league bullpen arm who has shown lots of talent. Not anything to sneeze at.
They're not both A prospects
They both had disappointing seasons. Ubaldo was moved for two similar type prospects, and he only has 2.5 years left on his contract. Kerhsaw has three more years until FA, and is younger, and without the red flags Ubaldo came with. The Dodgers would have to be overwhelmed – basically 4-5 great prospects – and even then, I doubt they move him as they are trying to make the franchise attractve to a buyer, and selling off your best asset (which will turn off fans) is not the best way to do that.
You’ll have to provide some sort of rumor that Kershaw is being talked about, because its about as likely to happen as the Royals trading Hosmer.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
OTOH
Guys that could become available:
Also, there wasn’t much discussion at the deadline, but why didn’t we pursue Doug Fister?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
wandy is the only guy on that list that interests me...
b/c he’ll basically cost money only….zambrano would too i guess…but he blows nutsack
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Aug 10, 2011 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions
and costs too much money...
and is only signed for one year…and wouldnt ever approve a trade here anyways
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Aug 10, 2011 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
I wouldn't mind buying low on Sanchez
He’s been a 2.5 WAR player the previous three seasons. The Giants seem to be in full win-now mode though, so I’m not sure how willing they would be to trade one of their top 3 starters for prospects.
IMO
Both Myers and Montgomery are A prospects. Of course, the issue is our definition of the term. Of course, it is tough to be as high on them as we were before their subpar seasons, but I think the team (and every other team) would still consider them prime prospects.
by Rufus R. Jones on Aug 11, 2011 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Kershaw is a pipe dream
Kershaw will be in his first year of arbitration next year. The “Dodgers have to trade everyone!” is myth. The Dodgers already have something like $40 million in salaries coming off the books in less than two months.
Trading prospects for an ace might make sense if the Royals had the talent to contend (or be close to contention) next year
I don’t think they are particularly close. I think this team projects to about 75 wins. Add an ace and they are still not in contention.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
The Royals are on pace for 70 wins THIS season, which only slightly lower than I expected (75-80). Nothing is ever 100% sure in baseball, that’s why the play the games, but I think it would take a level of pessimism even Will McDonald couldn’t muster to say the roster as it shapes up next year can’t add five wins to the 2010 team, even without any help from outside the organization.
I don't know
If they are a 75 win team now, and they replace a replacement level pitcher with a 5 WAR pitcher, that gets them to 80 wins. Factor in a bit of luck, and that gets you in contention in the Central, and maybe you can make a move at the deadline to put yourself over the top (or maybe a prospect comes up mid-season to make an impact). Its not like this is the AL East.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
I think he meant 75 win team next year
The team is currently on pace for 68 wins, and that is with almost half the regulars performing above career norms.
The franchise is better off playing out 2012 to see how the young players develop and then gauging how close the team is to contention before going “all in” with a huge (and highly volatile) investment in a top starting pitcher.
I meant 2012 too
If they’re a 75 win team + an ace, that pretty much gets you in contention IMO.
I think its tempting to think that the transition from crappy team to good team is one that takes baby steps, but what I got from studying teams that make the leap was that teams quite often seem to have dramatic improvements in one year. If the Royals are going to be good in the next few years, I think its more likely that the good players are impact players very quickly and we see dramatic improvement. If Hosmer and Moose are just .750 OPS players next year, and Duffy is still kinda scuffling with a 4.80 ERA and poor command and we win just 77 games, I’m not sure that’s a good sign for the future.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
If they’re a 75 win team + an ace, that pretty much gets you in contention IMO.
I guess everyone has the own definition for “in contention” but I wouldn’t say an 80-win team is in contention. Such a team is very likely to be several games out of first place, even in the AL Central.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 10, 2011 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions
If the Royals were .500 right now
They’d be 3 games back.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
And that is because the division leader is on pace to win 85 games
Can we expect the best team in the Central in a given year to win 85 games? Here is the win total of the first place team in the AL Central in recent years
2010 94
2009 87
2008 89
2007 97
2006 96
2005 99
2004 91
2003 90
2001 94
That’s an average of 93 wins and only twice under 90. Every offseason on this site when we talk about how the Royals will do in the coming season and if they have a chance, many people say something like “85 wins could take this division!” But it never does. I’ll bet that the division winner this year wins at least 87 games (the Tigers get to play a lot of games against poor AL Central teams down the stretch). And if it takes 87 wins to take this division (and that’s clearly on the very low end of what it might take), 80 wins is 7 games back and not really in contention.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 11, 2011 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions
Well I'm not saying 85 wins gets you the division
But it gets you in contention. That’s my only point. I never said adding an ace locks up the division for us.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Aug 11, 2011 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Sure, 85 wins gets you into contention. But I thought we were talking about 80 wins.
If they’re a 75 win team + an ace, that pretty much gets you in contention IMO.
75 wins + an ace = about 80 wins, right? And my point was that 80 wins doesn’t get you into contention.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 11, 2011 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Those teams had built an infrastructure at the major league level that the Royals have not
The study of the teams that do not make leap would start with the 2009 Royals.
Pitchers have a terrible attrition rate and if the team is signing a pitcher long-term, the team has to maximize the value upfront. If the prospects do not develop overnight, the team is looking at a window of contention in 2013 or later, but if the teams spends big money on a starter now, there is a strong possibility the pitcher is not worth the money in the back half of the contract (the Gil Meche contract is a perfect example) and hamstrings the payroll when the rest of the team is ready to contend. If the team improves in 2012 and becomes this year’s Blue Jays, the team can spend the money then and should have a better idea of a pitcher’s value in 2013 and beyond than they do now.
12 months ago, the list of “aces” fans would have been clamoring for included Francisco Liriano, Josh Johnson, Adam Wainwright, Brett Anderson, Roy Oswalt, and Brett Myers.
With the exception of Johnson, those guys are all 25+, and some are 30+. Nobody is talking about going out and bringing in Carlos Zambrano or some other big name pitcher who is in his waning years. The idea is to TRADE for a pitcher who is still 1, 2, 3 years away from free agency, not to over-spend on a free agent like CJ Wilson, who might be good but isn’t worth 3 years $35 million or whatever for this team at this time.
cj wilson would absolutely be worth 3/35...
the problem is that he’s gonna get 5 years and probably 90 million at a minimum
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Aug 11, 2011 1:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Aren't we on pace for 74 wins based on pythag though?
Our real W-L is four wins below our expected W-L.
Scott you are SO optimistic
that you are a danger to yourself and others…Glad you didn’t help plan the D-Day invasion, the Allies would still be amassing soldiers and weapons on the banks of the British Isle, questioning whether the time is right.
by Rufus R. Jones on Aug 11, 2011 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions
They went when the time was right
What do you think would have happened if they had gone too soon? I’d be typing this in German.
I just blew your mind!
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 11, 2011 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions 5 recs
Boom Scosted
SBN's most random and mysterious lurker guy who posts too much
Follow me on Twitter if you want: Lum_SM
by Lum on Aug 11, 2011 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
SOOOOO
if the D-Day invasion had failed, Germany would have taken over the United States? I don’t get it.
by Rufus R. Jones on Aug 12, 2011 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions
SOOOOO if the D-Day invasion had failed, Germany would have taken over the United States?
Yes
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 12, 2011 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions
Never
Would I even think of doing that deal!!!! That is at least three guys with futures in KC.
Trade Soria for crying out loud.
Right, because who wants a 23 y/o Cy Young candidate who is under team control for three years. One in the hand, my friend.
Take Monty
Out of the deal. I known he has had a bad year, but he was the #1 LHP in all of the minors.
Kershaw: 13-5, 2.79 ERA, 4 CGs, leads the NL with 184 K, 2.4 BB/9, 1.038 WHIP, ERA+ of 132 (last year it was 132 in over 200 innings, before that it was 143 in 170+ Innings as a 21 y/o).
If all the planets line up
We wil be in the playoffs in 2013.
Why? We will have Hosmer, Moose, Giavotella, Perez, Monty and Duffy with 1-2 years experience under their belt. Also at the moment this is a sample of FA pitchers that we could go after following the 2012 season.
MARCUM
GREINKE
Cole Hamels
Matt Cain
Jo. Sancez
Anibel Sancez
Jerad Weaver
Colby Lewis
Pipe Dreaming = Marcum (local makes sense), Greinke (been here done that & I kind of think he hates the big market teams) Maybe those two would only cost us 25 mil a year total and they would put our young team into WS contention.
Greinke
Marcum
Monty
Duffy
Odorizzi
With other canidates that would step in if someone fails, like: Lamb, Dwyer, W. Smith, Hoe, Crow???
marcum and greinke are more likely to cost $40 million/year than $25 million/year
marcum is a great option…greinke wont be back.
depending on how next year goes for marcum…5 years and 70 would be a decent deal for the royals and for marcum
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Aug 10, 2011 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions
You really think Greinke
Goes to a Big Market team? And why wouldn’t he come back?
they're not going to want him back...
the organization thinks he quit on them…he didnt get along with people…
he’ll end up in LA (his wife thinks shes an actress and its really laid back in spite of the big market) or somewhere like texas.
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Aug 10, 2011 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I actually wouldn't be surprised if he stays in Milwaukee
They let Fielder walk, re-up Greinke.
Arizona makes a lot of sense too.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
i think milwaukee probably trades both marcum and greinke next year...
if they’re not in contention…which is likely…they cant afford to pay both of them…and their minor league system is complete shit. they traded for them to make a run at it this year
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Aug 10, 2011 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I wouldn't mind the Royals trading for Marcum next year, then.
I'm a 14 year old freshman in high school with a love for all things Royals and Packers.
might as well just wait and sign him in the offseason
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Aug 10, 2011 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions
agreed
I think Marcum would go for it if he thought they were going to win. I know enough of his Exs Springs compadres to know we’d have to keep him away from them!
by Rufus R. Jones on Aug 11, 2011 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't really think the Kershaw trade would work, but...
I think this is what we should do to contend in 2012/2013:
1: Trade for Wandy Rodriguez this offseason. Give the Astros one B prospect and 2 C’s.
2: Promote Monty. Give him some major league experience this year, and have him be seasoned for next year.
3: Trade for Chad Billingsley. I know, the Dodgers being in dire financial straits doesn’t mean anything when it comes to who they will trade away, but trading one A prospect, two B’s and some organizational filler for him wouldn’t hurt us much, and would most likely benefit us in the long run.
4: Sign one or two FA pitchers next off-season, such as Matt Cain, Jered Weaver, Cole Hamels, or Shaun Marcum. I would think that it would make the most sense to sign Matt Cain or Shaun Marcum. Cain having the most upside, and Marcum being from here and both of them being 3 WAR guys.
5: Keep the six-man rotation for 2012 to give us a better insight on our pitchers for 2013.
This would give us a 2013 rotation of:
1-Billingsley
2-Cain/Marcum
3-Wandy
4-Duffy
5-Whoever performs the best in 2012 out of Paulino, Hochevar, and Montgomery.
2012 won’t be so bad either with a rotation of:
1-Billingsley
2-Wandy
3-Paulino
4-Hochevar
5-Duffy
6-Montgomery
I'm a 14 year old freshman in high school with a love for all things Royals and Packers.
Why a six man rotation?
You’re paying Billingsley and Wandy $10 million to have them make 27 starts a year?
I like the idea of pursuing Wandy. I think DM should be looking for more Felipe Paulinos (could be hard considering our 40 man roster crunch)
But I think a rotation of Wandy/Paulino/Duffy/Hooch/Crow has a chance to be good. Its not sure thing, but we’re going to have to take some risks. I don’t think you can tie up that kind of money in two pitchers like that considering we will have to pay Hosmer and a few others good money by the end of Wandy/Billingsley’s contracts.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
I suppose you're right about the six-man rotation thing..
And I agree with you about Wandy. He has proven to be effective in the past, and he will be cheap.
I also agree that a rotation with Wandy/Paulino/Duffy/ Hochevar/Crow has a chance to surprise people next year. If we can get three of them to post 2.5-3 WAR, we will be in contention.
I'm a 14 year old freshman in high school with a love for all things Royals and Packers.
I liked the Wandy idea until I found out he’s 32. I’m not interested in paying a 30-something pitcher $10 million+ to have break down after 2 1/2 years.
that wouldnt be a problem b/c he'd only be under contract for 3 years
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Aug 11, 2011 1:32 AM EDT up reply actions
Yea, its a risk
That’s why it wouldn’t take much in prospects to get him.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Two years really
His club option for a third year becomes a player option if he’s traded. So basically acquiring him means getting two years guaranteed plus a third year which is pure risk (he only exercises it if he’s not pitching well or if he’s injured).
When I thought that the third year would be a club option for the Royals, I liked trading for Wandy. Now, not so much. That is, unless Houston kicks in some significant money. And this all assumes that the Royals can get him for little in return (like the Smith’s).
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 11, 2011 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions
Royals need to take some time to evaluate what we have.
Other than Butler and Escobar, there’s very little track record/consistency to suggest how our line-up will fare in 2012 and beyond. Maybe Melky and Frenchy are for real. Maybe Alex, Moose and Hoz can be studs. And maybe Pina/Perez and Giavotella are good. Or maybe Alex, Melky and Frenchy regress to their career numbers next year, and maybe our rookies will be busts.
Our starting pitching is even more volatile. Other than Chen being a 4/5 starter, it’s hard to predict whether any of our future starters (Hoch, Paulino, Duffy) are going to be a #5 or a #2. Our bullpen looks good, but Crow, Collins, and Soria have shown that they can struggle and bullpen arms are notoriously inconsistent from season to season.
So, if everything goes right, we have a playoff caliber team for 2012 without any FA additions. But, if everything goes wrong, we’re the same team we were this season, maybe worse.
With so much volatility, betting the farm or tying up $20MM a year for an ace now seems unreasonable. Let see how the current players develop and then fill the holes as necessary. Now is NOT the time to go all-in. Lets wait and see who develops, who regresses, and then make our move(s).
That said, GMDM should realize that the “process” is underway and he should be working his ass off, kicking the tires and making reasonable offers for Wandy, Billingsley, Buerhle. If GMDM can find a great deal, then he should take it, but otherwise, he should wait until we know what we have before spending $ and prospects on what we might need.
That’s the thing, we have prospects to spare and nowhere to put them right now with the exception of Montgomery, and if we can rade him for Kershaw or even a Chad Billingsley, isn’t one in the hand worth two in the bush. I threw Kershaw out there as an example and freely admitted in the original post that the biggest hurdle would be LA’s willingness to trade him in the first place, regardless of what we offer. My point is I’m willing to deal just about anyone on the NW Arkansas and Omaha rosters to bring in 1 or 2 guys who we can plug into the top half of our rotation that are 1) proven, big-time starters 2) under 25 and 3) under team control through at least 2013. In a perfect world, Monty and Myers and all of those guys are kicking ass in Royal uniforms in 2013, but in the real world, it makes the most sense to trade them now for guys that can help us win and not in a “Win now, costs be damned sense” because we’re back-building in the lower minor leagues with excellent talent like Arugelles and Odorizzi and Cuthbert and Starling (hopefully) and bunch of other guys who are playing really well. Also don’t forget we’ll have a top 5 pick again this year and may get a sandwich pick from Bruce Chen (though I don’t see him declining arbitration, given the reception he received on the FA market last year). That’s the whole point in stockpiling all these prospects. They can’t all play for us in KC, some of them need to be traded for guys that make us better now. As long as we keep drafting well, keep developing well and keep making trades like the Betemit and Aviles trades for filler, we’ll be fine.
I agree in principle but I don't agree on the timing. You say
[I]t makes the most sense to trade them now for guys that can help us win and not in a "Win now, costs be damned sense"
Trading all/most of our top prospects from AA or AAA means that we believe that this roster is one year of development and one player (FA pitcher) from competing in 2012 and 2013. I don’t think we’re there. I think we’re one year of development, and four players (two pitchers, and two position players) from competing. I’d rather try to fill those four holes with two prospects and two free agents.
It’s a matter of perception, but I’m just not convinced we’re as close as you think we are.
I agree with many of your points
Especially taking our time to grow and evaluate. Our fans in the stands and media are generally unrealistic about the time frame for a player to become GOOD consistently.
I agree that we should probably hold off a year on the big splash pitchers. Not saying we should stand pat this off season, b/c you always have to find ways to improve the roster (rotation).
I think saying any of the rookies could be “busts” next year is a little much. Even if a guy has a rough year or has to be sent back down for awhile, a 22-25 year old with 1-2 years of major league experience is hardly a bust, no matter what.
by Rufus R. Jones on Aug 11, 2011 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Also
I think Dayton would LOVE to contend next year. But I also think he has been around the game long enough to know that it could be a year with great growing pains as well.
The biggest thing is creating an atmosphere of competition and high expectations. These youngsters have been raised like that. Personally, I think they thrive on it. I can tell watching them they are a confident bunch that will work their tails off. Looks like we’re going to find out sooner than later.
by Rufus R. Jones on Aug 11, 2011 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Let's look at the Greinke deal as an appropriate comp
We traded two years of Greinke for a rookie SS that was a top 15 prospect the prior year, a top 100 pitcher, another former top 100 pitcher, and a young center fielder that had produced at the high minors and a brief time in the majors.
The other strong competitor for Greinke was Texas, and the rumor was a deal involving some combination of Derek Holland (former top 100 pitcher), Martin Perez (top 50), Jurickson Profar (top 50/100), and Engel Beltre (fringe top 100 with upside).
I believe Kershaw would have three years of team control remaining until he hits free agency ahead of the 2015 season, so we would have to pay a bit more.
My realistic suggestion:
Montgomery
Odorizzi
Myers or Cuthbert
Colon or Eibner
Lough
Thoughts? I can’t decide if this is too much or not enough, given the disappointing seasons from Monty, Myers, Colon, and Eibner. Still, overall upside seems okay to me.
Pass
I wouldn’t eviscerate the Royals top 10 for three years of one player.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 11, 2011 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Even for arguably the top pitcher in the league?
It would certainly be a gamble, and Moore would look like a total fool if we didn’t end up making the postseason. Still, three of those players arguably do not have a place to play on this team for the foreseeable future, so it would basically be trading quality depth to fill a serious weakness.
No way
If the Royals were close and this were very likely to get them over the top, then maybe. But I don’t think they are close. And I don’t think a team like the Royals can afford to give up that many prospects. Top prospects are how the Royals can develop stars for 6+ years of team control. I’m not against trading prospects at the right time for the right players, but this is too many top prospects and at the wrong time.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Aug 11, 2011 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions
I think we are closer to competing for the Central than you think we are
While not perfect, I thought kcdc’s thread made some good points.
Why not Felix Hernandez?
Or Tim Lincecum? They’re a bit more proven than Kershaw.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Aug 11, 2011 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm just going with the theme of the thread
But Felix would work too. I doubt SF would trade Lincecum
Probably not any more unlikely than Kershaw
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Aug 11, 2011 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Really?
Lincecum has already signed one extension and SF is trying to make their second straight World Series. LA has been pretty mediocre the last two seasons and at various points has struggled to make payroll, while Kershaw supposedly wants to test FA.
I’m not saying it is likely at all, but Kershaw seems to have a higher likelihood of getting traded than Lincecum.
Probably both are pretty remote
LA is struggling to meet payroll, but trading Kershaw doesn’t help them since he isn’t expensive, and won’t be until they have a new owner. He may want to test FA, but can’t for three more years. He’s not going anywhere.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
lincecum didnt sign an extension...
he signed a contract guaranteeing his super 2 and 3+ arb awards for $23 million. he’s still got 2 years of original team control after that firs contract
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Aug 11, 2011 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Royals Review
Related FanShots on Royals Review
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
