Lubanski, Hughes up for grabs

by cookierojas73 on Nov 27, 2007 9:28 PM EST

Some interesting thoughts from Bryan Smith at Baseball Prospectus regarding possible Royals' Rule 5 picks:
*****************

The Royals made a bold decision to leave Chris Lubanski, the fifth overall choice in the 2003 draft, exposed. Lubanski has had a topsy-turvy minor league career, looking horrible at times, but he's managed a .285/.350/.471 career line in 557 games. In 2007, Lubanski was solid in Double-A Wichita before a disastrous second half in Triple-A, where he hit just .208/.273/.363. The Royals are clearly stating that Lubanski is not ready for the major leagues, challenging teams to draft a raw talent the way the Mets did with Jesus Flores a year ago (losing Flores to the Nationals as a result). However, while teams will see Lubanski as a player that has crushed right-handed pitching for almost his entire minor league career, many will notice that he was far worse against right-handers than southpaws in both Omaha and Arizona, a disturbing trend that limits Lubanski's value.

*****************
The Royals continued to surprise in their 40-man roster decisions, leaving Dusty Hughes eligible to the Rule 5 draft in addition to Lubanski. Hughes was voted as the AFL Pitcher of the Year after an Arizona Fall League where he posted a 2.25 ERA in six starts. However, it was Hughes' health that was most important, as the southpaw proved that his Tommy John surgery was successful. Hughes is a fantastic option to bring in to compete for the back end of a rotation, relying on a 88-90 mph sinking fastball that induces groundballs at a good rate, as well as a very good change. If teams believe they can continue Hughes' development by working with him on his breaking ball, he's the type of player the Rule 5 draft was designed to expose.

Tweet Comment 48 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

At least we've protected Jason Smith

If we lost him, we couldn't possibly replace his production on the open market.

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

by cmkeller on Nov 27, 2007 9:54 PM EST reply actions

Good point

I can't wait for when Colby Lewis wins the Cy Young and shows how smart Dayton Moore was for protecting him!

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Nov 27, 2007 10:22 PM EST up reply actions

What is the interest in Colby Lewis?

Dusty Hughes is a LH who is rising as a prospect and could stick on a staff due to good control and ability to get LHs out.

What are the Royals thinking of protecting a journeyman like Jason Smith, Paul Phillips and Colby Lewis and not protecting Lubanski or Hughes?

by daveyork on Nov 27, 2007 10:30 PM EST up reply actions

Colby Lewis has good tools

...and has pitched very well in AAA. Usually he hasn't been able to put it together in the majors. He certainly could help the Royals in the more immediate future than Hughes.

Moore is certainly not beyond criticism. But he's done a very good job of evaluating pitching talent. If he Moore and his people don't think Hughes is worth protecting, then that tells me a lot about him. Moore and his people know a hell of a lot more about Hughes (and Lewis for that matter) than we do. They have seen them up close and personal and read many scouting reports on them. We haven't. And, as I said, Moore has a good pitching track record.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 27, 2007 11:00 PM EST up reply actions

Moore's track record for evaluating....

....offensive talent, on the contrary, has been subpar at best. That could change, of course.

But protecting Jason Smith over Chris Lubanski is indefensible, let alone keeping players like Paul Phillips (not to mention Emil Brown) on the current roster.

If the Royals lose any of these players to the draft next season, I will be quite disappointed, needless to say. All for a well below-average infielder making $600K more than you can easily find at league-minimum.

sigh

Play MLB Managers Survivor at Royals Nation! http://royalsnation.proboards62.com/

by Royals Nation on Nov 27, 2007 11:10 PM EST up reply actions

Moore has done little with regard to offense

He spent his first year+ primarily focusing on rebuilding pitching. He has yet to make significant moves with regard to position players. So we have little to judge him on. From everything I've read, Lubanski is most likely to be a 4th OFer in the majors. So if we end up losing him, should we really be that disappointed? But I certainly think there is more room to criticize him on the offensive side. Jason Smith is quite worthless, unless they really see something that is going to blossom that I don't. I just don't see him blossoming even to the level of mediocrity.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 27, 2007 11:18 PM EST up reply actions

I Agree

Moore has so far only focused on rebuilding a depleted pitching staff as well as providing some young depth and hasn't fully dove into the offense side yet, but I believe he is getting ready to from all the rumors we keep hearing about players he is supposed to be pursuing

I think given time GMDM will show he is capable of evaluating position players as well he just hasn't gotten there yet

I may be drunk, but tomorrow I will be sober and you, ma'am, will still be ugly. - Winston Churchill

by fats on Nov 27, 2007 11:30 PM EST up reply actions

We'll see

I think he'll get Guillen, but won't make any other major moves this offseason. I think that is wise. Then there will be a really good FA class next offseason when he'll have another chance to prove himself.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 28, 2007 12:02 AM EST up reply actions

i think you're right

I'm not particularly sold on Guillen, but he should be an upgrade over Brown's performance last season.

However, if Brown were to rebound, I think their production offensively and defensively would be remarkably similar. Of course, who wants to take that gamble?

I'm really looking forward to the 2008 offseason. The FA crop is looking pretty sweet, and we've got a good shot at landing that impact bat we always dream about.

by marbotty on Nov 28, 2007 3:50 AM EST up reply actions

The problem is if Guillen is suspended

The Royals have basically thrown away their whole offensive rebuilding scheme and are back to where they were, except perhaps without Emil Brown.

I know Brown isn't the greatest player, but I'd rather have him for 162 games than Guillen for 112, especially given this franchise's track record of slow starts.

by jbrocato on Nov 28, 2007 7:51 AM EST up reply actions

I think I'd rather have

Lubanski than both of them. (But that's a lot of wishing and hoping on my part that he'll stay with the team and turn out to be any good...)

by marbotty on Nov 28, 2007 7:58 AM EST up reply actions

Really?

You'd rather have a prospect who is most likely to turn into a 4th OFer than an average or above average corner OFer with genuine RH power? Lubanski was once a real prospect. Now he's really mediocre.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 28, 2007 11:04 AM EST up reply actions

Guillen vs Lubanski

Guillen's OPS last three years

.817
.674
.813

Also comes with: $10 million/yr pricetag, attitude problem, suspect defense, and potential suspension, wrong side of 30

Lubanski

League minimum
.821 Career Minor League OPS, even including bad half season
Lead the texas league in walks in 06, was on pace to match that walk rate in 07, despite poor half season in AAA
Only 22 -- still room to improve

by marbotty on Nov 28, 2007 11:40 AM EST up reply actions

We can do better than that

Looking at raw OPS for Guillen doesn't give a good look at Guillen who was playing in two extreme pitcher's parks. His OPS+ for 2005 and 2007 were 116 and his hitting suffered from a wrist injury in 2006.

Lubanski on the other hand has had a few good half seasons in AA (in each season he had a horrible first half and a good second half) and complete failure in AAA. So, inconsistent performance in AA and consistently poor performance in AAA.

Yes, he still has "room to improve" but how much improvement should we expect. BP and BA (and the scouts they get their information from) are of the opinion that he's likely to improve to no more than a 4th OFer. I'd rather have an above average corner OFer who is affordable (and he is definitely affordable to the Royals) than a mediocre prospect who might fulfill his 4th OFer potential someday.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 28, 2007 11:50 AM EST up reply actions

I agree

I totally argree with you on this point.

A Loyal Royal

by bobchisam on Nov 28, 2007 8:52 AM EST up reply actions

I can't believe anyone wants Emil Brown

He had two average seasons for a corner OFer, that's it. He followed that with a horrendous season. At his age, and give his limited skill set, what are the odds that he rebounds to average again? Going with Brown is playing baseball on the cheap hoping that maybe we'll catch lightning in a bottle.

I'd rather have 112 games of a genuinely good OFer is better than 150 games of sub-mediocrity. And I think it unlikely that Guillen would get a 50-game suspension without a positive test. It will likely be less than that, if any.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 28, 2007 11:03 AM EST up reply actions

not necessarily true

Brought in through trades/acquired:

Shealy
Pena
Gathright
LaRue
Smith

Traded away:

Gotay
Kepp*
Murphy
Graffanino

How acquired:

Traded pitching prospects away to acquire Shealy, Pena, and Gathright. Traded away PTBNL for LaRue.

*He traded away Gotay for Keppinger, and then let Kepp walk. Then he traded away Donnie Murphy for cash. He traded away Graffanino for De La Rosa.

In summary, Moore, while not actively engaged in signing any significant offensive players, has done made several moves involving offensive players.

With the possible exceptions of the Gathright and Shealy trade, it would appear that he's been on the wrong side of these transactions 5 out of 7 times. Or 4 out of 7 if you include the Kepp trade, but he more or less negated that by letting both players get away.

That's being somewhat generous, too: both Gathright and Shealy have major question marks regarding their bats, health, or defense.

It's entirely possible that Moore has not made a single move during his tenure that has improved the offense.

The counter argument to that would be to say that he's been focused on pitching, but that's a bit disingenuous, because he's traded away 4 pitchers (3 of which were Top 10 prospects as recently as a season or two prior, and the fourth pitching very well in Colorado this year) to acquire his 3 players.

You can't be an effective GM and only focus on one aspect of the game at the detriment of the other. So, maybe Moore wasn't focusing on offense, but he should then be held accountable for when the offense is terrible.

Perhaps Moore was convinced that contributions from Butler, Gordon, Teahen, etc would improve the offense to the point that he did not need to make any significant offensive moves and could trade pitchers away for sub-optimal offensive players. That was not an unreasonable assumption -- many of us, including myself, thought the offense would improve dramatically this season.

But that does not mean he isn't culpable for the moves he DID make. I think most ridiculous is the handling of his middle infield prospects. There's no question that Gotay, Keppinger, and Murphy would have been an upgrade over the second utility infielder role, and one could make a valid case that both Keppinger and Murphy would be a significant upgrade over Pena at SS, and perhaps even Gotay over Grudz (considering youth and contract.) All three are gone, and he has absolutely nothing to show for it.

If Lubanski goes, too, I think it may be time to question whether Moore knows what he's doing, at least in regard to the offense.

by marbotty on Nov 28, 2007 3:27 AM EST up reply actions

Excellent synopsis

I really think from what he has demonstrated thus far in his tenure, Moore's objectives offensively are questionable at best. His remarks of finding an "RBI bat" show me he doesn't have a full grasp of offensive talent. Also, he is not particular known for acquiring high-OBP guys (Shealy? Pena? Gload?). His anti-Moneyball theories are questionable, and, yes, they are anti-Moneyball. Brian McRae told me so himself, laughs.

Play MLB Managers Survivor at Royals Nation! http://royalsnation.proboards62.com/

by Royals Nation on Nov 28, 2007 4:00 AM EST up reply actions

His moves on offense have been minor

He has made a number of minor, essentially tiny, moves with regard to position players, usually moving one sub-mediocre player for another.

Obviously you can't just focus on one thing forever. But he came into an organization which he had to rebuild nearly from the ground up. There were a handful of good young players and that's it. His priority was rebuilding the pitching organization wide. One can't reasonably expect him to completely rebuilding the starting pitching, bullpen and all of the offense in a year and a half. He's not magic. He only has so much cash to work with and talent to trade.

If Lubanski goes, too, I think it may be time to question whether Moore knows what he's doing, at least in regard to the offense.

Keppinger, Gotay, Murphy and Lubanski are all on the wrong side of mediocre. They are bench players and marginal major leaguers. Let's not let an aberrational season from stiffs like Keppinger and Gotay lead us to believe they are suddenly good. By all accounts, they aren't. Would anyone be surprised if they each failed to hit .200 next year in their limited, part-time roles?

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 28, 2007 11:12 AM EST up reply actions

Prospects?

Affeldt was not a prospect anymnore and had worn out his welcome here, yes he pitched alright this year but in the NL, the guy he traded for Pena has been injured consistently, and the only one who would qualify as a prospect was Howell and aside from a nice showing against the Royals, didn't have a very good year anyway, so I would rather have Moore take a flier on Gathright, Pena, and Shealy (who everyone seemed excited about at the end of 06) for 3 guys who probably weren't going to work out here anyway

As far as the position players go, Graffanino was gettin up there in years, Murphy and Gotay showed no reason to believe they would have decent seasons from what they showed during their time in KC, I agree Keppinger never really got a shot, but he couldn't even win a job out of ST

Hindsight is 20/20, but at the time I don't believe anyone was upset when these deals were made, and many of us probably applauded a few of them

I may be drunk, but tomorrow I will be sober and you, ma'am, will still be ugly. - Winston Churchill

by fats on Nov 28, 2007 11:24 AM EST up reply actions

A year from now

...I don't think anyone will be complaining about the "deals" that lost us Keppinger, Gotay and Murphy. They will be lucky to get 150 major league at bats and will likely not impress in that limited PT. Utility IFers like them are a dime a dozen.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 28, 2007 11:29 AM EST up reply actions

Agreed

I may be drunk, but tomorrow I will be sober and you, ma'am, will still be ugly. - Winston Churchill

by fats on Nov 28, 2007 3:04 PM EST up reply actions

The more I look at this list

...the more I am shocked that anyone could use it to argue that Moore is a poor judge of offensive talent.

Traded away:

Gotay
Keppinger
Murphy
Graffanino

Graffanino is the best player on that list and his trade was the best (we obviously came out ahead on this deadline trade for a two-month rental of a utility IFer). All of them are utility IFers at best. If you are arguing that Moore has done a bad job at evaluating the talent of utility IFers then I guess I agree. If you are arguing that a poor track record with utility IFers makes a bad GM with regard to offense, then I can't agree. Utility IFers aren't exactly the key to any team's offense, are they?

Shealy, Gload and Gathright are data points in the evaluation as well. But my point is that Moore has yet to do anything really significant with regard to position players. No significant trades, no significant FA signings. I'm going to have to see some of that in his second year before passing judgment on him one way or another. And I won't lose any sleep over the loss of a possible future 4th OFer.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 28, 2007 11:25 AM EST up reply actions

the point isn't that they're offensive juggernauts

the point is that he traded away our three best 2B prospects AND got nothing in return for it.

Considering that two of them (Kepp and Murphy) played extensively at SS for their new teams, and both OPS'd at least 130 points higher than Pena, 240 in Keppinger's case. (Keppinger's ML line is now 422 at bats, .309/.367/.439).

If you think Pena's glove justifies his anemic bat, then you could make the case that both of these players would be an upgrade over Grudz.

It's safe to say they've got a better range, since both teams used them at SS, and both of them hit better than Grudz. Even if you don't want to replace Mark in the field, it's nice to know that you have some depth in the minors, particularly if your second baseman is going to be 38 years old.

by marbotty on Nov 28, 2007 1:47 PM EST up reply actions

whoops

supposed to say "Considering that two of them (Kepp and Murphy) played extensively at SS for their new teams... ...it's hard not to see them as an upgrade over Pena."

by marbotty on Nov 28, 2007 1:50 PM EST up reply actions

My point

...is that these were minor deals involving minor players with minor talent. I don't think any of them would be an upgrade over Grudzielanek. I believe Murphy has been a small flash in the pan. A little decent part-time hitting. I saw this guy play in Wichita and I've seen his minor league stats. I think for the rest of his career he'll struggle to make replacement level and his defensive skills are MLB average for a 2B; he's never really had SS skills.

I am less familiar with Keppinger. All I know of him is his stats and that he's been shipped around by multiple organizations. I think 2007 was a fluke. I think he'll come back to earth at a level less than Grudzielanek and quickly.

I don't think either Murphy or Keppinger are realistic full-time SS, particularly if you value defense highly at that position. Pena at least excels at that position in the field. We'll see if his bat develops anymore.

So, in my mind, Moore thinned the crop of ok utility IFers in the Royals system. That's not good, but I think that is a minor offense. They are, in my opinion, very small pieces of data in judging Moore's abilities with regard to position players. It will be interesting to see what he does with bigger fish.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 28, 2007 3:54 PM EST up reply actions

It will be interesting to see what he does

with bigger fish."

Agreed

by marbotty on Nov 29, 2007 3:39 AM EST up reply actions

forgot about Gload trade

30 year old back-up corner OF/1B that hit .759 for a 21 year old pitcher only a year removed from a 3.11 ERA, 9.11 K/9 season.

It's unlikely Sisco will work out, but that's not exactly the sort of trade one makes if he's trying to rebuild the pitching.

by marbotty on Nov 28, 2007 3:37 AM EST up reply actions

He dumped crap for a modestly useful piece

And what's wrong with that?

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 28, 2007 11:12 AM EST up reply actions

Moore values BA and RBI

be afraid

by LeoBloom on Nov 28, 2007 11:55 AM EST up reply actions

How do you know what he values?

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 28, 2007 12:01 PM EST up reply actions

Moore Values BA and RBI

Yeah, that showed last year with our .261 team BA good for 11th in the AL and our 660 RBI's good for 14th in the AL (that's last by the way).

by MileHighKCfan on Nov 28, 2007 12:37 PM EST up reply actions

You guys are getting off topic

Lively debate, but totally off topic. The issue at hand is Lubanski and whether the Royals should have protected him. Personally, I don't think Lubanski will amount to much in the long run, but he still has potential associated with his young age going for him. Yes, he runs hot/cold at every level and hasn't lived up to his first round draft pick status. Yes, he projects as a fourth outfielder.

But, I might add that the Royals are already carrying a fourth outfielder named Shane Costa on their 40-man roster. Costa was born in 1981. Lubanski was born in 1985. Costa will be 27 years old in 2008 and has very little extra room for development. Lubanski hit AAA at age 22, which is the same age that Costa was toiling away in A ball. Why not protect Lubanski over Costa? It really does not make any sense to me.

"I'm tired of all these stupid a$$ questions every day. Why the f**k would I hit Brett for Miller?" The rest is history.

by DC Royal on Nov 28, 2007 1:05 PM EST up reply actions

why not protect Lubanski over:

Costa
One or both of Phillips or Tupman
Colby Lewis
Brandon Duckworth
Jason Smith

and even Mitch Maier, as much as I like him

I think Moore values different things than I do. Unfortunately, I cannot figure out what that is.

by marbotty on Nov 28, 2007 1:25 PM EST up reply actions

Great post

That is essentially what I am getting at. Lubanski projects as a fourth outfielder, but you look at some of his power numbers, some of his walk numbers and you can see that he is at least capable of breaking out into something more.

There are a number of guys we are protecting that we know what they are, and its pretty replaceable - Shane Costa, Paul Phillips, Matt Tupman, Colby Lewis, Jason Smith, Brandon Duckworth - all utterly replaceable parts that aren't at all very likely to suddenly have a breakout year and become a valuable piece.

The risk of losing Lubes isn't worth it IMO.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Nov 28, 2007 1:42 PM EST up reply actions

i swear to god I dont think

lubanski is eligible.

5 years from 03 would be next year not this year.

by wildthang on Nov 27, 2007 10:04 PM EST reply actions

He's eligible.

He is.

by doublestix on Nov 28, 2007 12:10 AM EST up reply actions

If Lubanski gets drafted

...I'll bet anyone interested $20 that he doesn't stick with with the team that drafts him and is offered back to the Royals. Not so sure about Hughes.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 27, 2007 11:05 PM EST reply actions

I'll double NYRoyal's beat

and add $20 of my own.

Wow..I actually agree with you, NYRoyal.

by Stook on Nov 28, 2007 12:43 AM EST up reply actions

It happens

...from time to time. I spout enough opinions on this site that every now and again anyone can find something to agree with.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 28, 2007 12:46 AM EST up reply actions

Hughes

I can't see a team putting a Rule 5, Double-A pitcher straight into a rotation, and I really don't see Hughes as a reliever. Strikes me as poor mans Jarrod Washburn, perhaps.

by doublestix on Nov 28, 2007 12:48 AM EST reply actions

I could see a team

putting him in the back of the bullpen and in mop up duty. A team that drafts him wouldn't be looking for what he can give them this year, but what he might be able to give them next year. I could see him going middle to late in the Rule 5. I would have to be a team with a deep bullpen or one that could afford to carry an extra pitcher.

by Stook on Nov 28, 2007 12:54 AM EST up reply actions

And coming off of Tommy John surgery

Hard to be confident that he's ready to pitch all year at the major league level after that surgery.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 28, 2007 12:54 AM EST up reply actions

You don't have to see him as a reliever

...permanently. But you can bet whichever team takes him in the Rule 5 will let him be a reliever for his "play him or lose him" year, and then put him into the minors for more seasoning as a starter (if they don't feel his bullpen year seasoned him enough).

Kind of what I expect us to try to do with Soria, if we can replace him with a decent alternate closer.

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

by cmkeller on Nov 28, 2007 1:44 AM EST up reply actions

A triple check on Lubanski's Rule 5 eligibility

I e-mailed the guy who wrote the above BP piece to ask him to double check Lubanski's eligibility. This was his response:

I did double-check, but yes, he is eligible for the Rule 5 Draft this season. I think what you aren't seeing -- 2003 counts as a year of service time, so he's had five: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.

As anecdotal proof, look at last year's Rule 5 draft, the first since the rule change. College 2003 draftees like Sean White and Ryan Goleski was chosen, and an 18-year-old pitcher, Nick DeBarr, was drafted having signed after the 2002 draft.

Bold move by the Royals, huh?

Thanks for writing in.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 28, 2007 1:59 AM EST reply actions

It's a gamble

This isn't just a matter of another organization thinking it would be nice to develop Lubes or Hughes for later use. They'd have to burn a 25-man roster spot all season to keep either guy. While it could be possible to bury Hughes as the 12th guy in the pen and use him only to mop up in blowouts, Lubanski is sunk cost this year--he's always needed a long adjustment period per level, and he hasn't done it at AAA yet. Moore's betting that no one will want to carry either player, who both are probably at least a year away from contributing.

Further, not putting a minor league player you control on the 40-man roster to protect from Rule V is not the same as DFAing a major leaguer--the player is still yours unless someone takes the chance. While all here would like to DFA players like Smith, Moore seems to believe that he doesn't have to make that decision yet--that he can keep his roster intact AND not lose anyone in the draft that he wants to keep. Here's hoping it works out.

by CentralChamps2009 on Nov 28, 2007 8:40 AM EST reply actions

Seems like

A high risk, low reward gamble to me.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Nov 28, 2007 1:44 PM EST up reply actions

I really hate to see Lubs... go, especially when

we are hanging on to the of Shealy and Smith. If Shealy's bat gets any slower he will still be swinging when the next batter comes to homeplate. Maybe Lubs isn't projected as anything better than a 4th outfielder. Remember projections are just assumptions gone crazy. Lubs is 22 and in AAA. Shealy is 28 and just one very poor year away from AAA.

I don't think Shealy breaks camp with the Royals this April.

by grudz69 on Nov 28, 2007 4:31 PM EST reply actions