Royals Review: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

New Blog: Five For Howling - for Coyotes fans Bar-right-arrows

Royals reportedly sign Brett Tomko

Royalsretro_tiny by RoyalsRetro on

Dayton Moore has brought in his veteran pitcher and it is.....drumroll please....Brett Tomko!!!

Who is Brett Tomko?

ESPN: Royals sign Tomko

Brett Tomko was a second round pick by the Reds in 1995. He pitched fairly well in his first few seasons, winning 24 games in his first two years. He was then dealt with Mike Cameron to the Mariners in the Ken Griffey deal. In Seattle, Tomko found injury problems, although he and Gil Meche were part of a 116 win ballclub, with Tomko contributing mostly by sitting on the DL.

Tomko was then dealt to San Diego in a "junk for junk" deal. After one 10-10 4.49 ERA season in San Diego, he was dealt to St. Louis where he won 13 games despite a 5.28 ERA. Despite Tomko being only 30 years old, Giants General Manager Brian Sabean was quite impressed with Tomko, so he signed him to a two year deal. Tomko spent the next few years bouncing around the NL West - from San Fran to LA and back to San Diego. Colorado and Arizona were not interested in his services, so he signed with Kansas City.

Tomko is coming off a 4-12 5.55 ERA season, although he did strike out 105 in 131 innings. In eleven MLB seasons, he is 93-92 with a 4.62 ERA.

ZIPS projects Tomko to have a 4.34 ERA and a 104-49 K-BB ratio in 143 innings, although that was projected in a pitchers park in San Diego, and in the National League.

I think we could reasonably expect an ERA in the realm of 4.70-5.00 from Tomko, which isn't too shabby considering the money he is making ($3 million for one season with incentives pushing it to $4.5 million). He can start or relieve. He can provide veteran presence. He can provide grit.

I'm not so sure I endorse this deal, only because I'd rather see what our young'uns can do, but if we're going to sign a vet, I'd rather it be a low risk guy like Tomko, than a multi-year deal to Bartolo "Show me to the Buffet" Colon.

One last note, Tomko is married to Playboy model Julia Schultz (link is safe for work). So Mrs. Lima has definitely been replaced.

0 recs | Comment 84 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

This is the missing piece
Look out Boston!

Does anyone know how likely it is he makes the rotation? I seem to recall him being in the bullpen recently. We definitely have Meche,
Bannister, Greinke, and then the pu-pu platter to round out the rotation.

by raefzilla on Jan 20, 2008 6:54 PM EST   0 recs

Tomko's upside
...is considerably lower than guys like Bartolo Colon and even Jon Lieber.

He posted a 5.5 ERA last year with a .282 BAA in the notoriously pitcher-friendly PETCO Park and Dodgers Stadium.  At age 35, I think Tomko is toast.

I see Jose Lima, Mark Redman, and Scott Elarton oozing all over this signing.  Anything beyond a repeat of his paltry 2007 performance is gravy, in my opinion.

Worst signing of the offseason.

Visit my Royals blog: The Royal Treatment!

by Royals Nation on Jan 20, 2008 6:57 PM EST   0 recs

...and in the NL to boot
I guess Tomko would do okay as a 5th starter, but he would be an expensive 5th starter at $3 million guaranteed.  What makes this signing look really bad is that the Cubs got Lieber for only an extra $500K in guaranteed money.

That being said, before 2007, Tomko strung together three decent seasons.  Given Tomko's age, I don't think that 2007 is necessarily an aberration (I think he is pretty clearly on the decline), he is considerably lower-risk than Bartolo Colon.

by DarthYoshi on Jan 20, 2008 7:34 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Especially when...
just a few comments down, you say he has a good chance at being an average #5 starter.

by DarthYoshi on Jan 21, 2008 12:26 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Statistically...
He does, for the price, he does not.  Note that my comment here is in regards to dollars and cents.
The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 21, 2008 2:59 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Not too pick nits
but the average #5 starter in the AL in 2006 had an ERA just a bit above 6.  As long as Tomko can keep his ERA in the bottom half of 5 he will be about a league average #4 in the AL.

Tomko projects to be a bit below average next year, which makes him an OK #4, and a good #5.

I'd still rather have Nunez, Hochevar or Hudson getting the innings as they all have more of a future with the team.

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Jan 21, 2008 2:44 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

A one year deal
is NEVER the worst signing of an offseason.  Even if it's Juan Gone.

by howserfan on Jan 20, 2008 8:53 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Agreed
The Juan Gone signing gets a bad rap. It was nowhere near as bad as giving multi-year deals to the Scott Elartons and Reggie Sanders of the world.

by raefzilla on Jan 20, 2008 9:36 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

$3M
If the Royals are ever $3M short of signing Butler, Gordon or Greinke, this then could be considered the worst signing of the off season.

Correct me if I'm wrong, did the Royals not have to get George Brett to pay for part of Gordon's signing bonus as they did not want to fork over an extra million or so?

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 21, 2008 10:44 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

bh, I think you are missing something here.
The Royals are owned by a guy with a lot of money.  If the team does not spend money on a player it is not because the owner did not have the money.  It is because he was cheap.  The Royals do not have a strict payroll budget.

The Royals can run a payroll of at least $80M this year and break even or turn a small profit.  The Royals have a lot of extra money laying around.  I can't think this Tomko signing will prevent any other signing from happening over the next few months due to empty coffers.

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Jan 21, 2008 11:43 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

$80M and turn a profit?!?
Really???

Wow, I can't imagine that is correct, but if it is, WOW!

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 21, 2008 3:00 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

In Terms of...
The rest of the financial figures, I can't be certain.  But $3M wasted is still $3M wasted, its not about being 'cheap'.

Also, how does this sound.  If they make a profit at $80M would they not also make a profit at $77M?  So why not save that $3M for 2009?  And then, they could have a payroll of $83M and essentially break even over the span of two years.

In my opinion, Moore seems to think he has a chance at winning.  Really?

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 21, 2008 3:06 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I do not speak for all Royals fans,
but I know a lot of us do not trust Glass one bit with money.  Just because he does not spend $3M in January of 2008 does not mean that money will still be available to Moore in June of 2008 or for the 2009 roster.

Saving the money for later is good in concept, but it is a risky proposition for a KC GM.

Regarding the $80M figure, if you go back about a six or seven weeks in the diaries you'll find a long discussion about this figure.  The Royals will take in about $60M from cable rights, revenue sharing and MLBAM alone.  And they will make more than $20M on their gate, concessions, merchandising and radio network.  I do not know how much overall team revenue is but I would not be surprised if it was north of $100M.  Glass has been pocketing about $20M in profits for the last several years.

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Jan 21, 2008 3:29 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

yes your wrong
Brett offered to pay some of the signing bonus to get him signed quicker, but didn't end up doing it.

by doublestix on Jan 21, 2008 2:56 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

SI
"yes your wrong"

The fact that he needed to offer shows enough.  Lets spend $3M on a garbage starting pitcher but struggle to bring in the face of the franchise...

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 21, 2008 3:01 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I agree with you.
While personally I don't like the signing. It has been pointed out that most teams use 6 starting pictures during a year, because of injury and what not.  Still a one year deal can not be that bad.  Also if he does struggle like he did last year I think Dayton showed us last year he will only put up  with so much bad pitching before DFA him, i.e Elarton.  Not to much down side that I can see.

by TXroyal on Jan 21, 2008 11:15 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Tomko's "Best"
I'd say he'd be about a league average #4 in the AL with a good chance at being a league average #5.

Fun with Rotation Numbers

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 21, 2008 11:21 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Tomko
He's OK for a long reliever/fifth starter.  I guess I'm hoping for more.  At the very least, it gives Hochevar minimal competition to earn a rotation spot out of spring training.  I guess it adds depth to our pitching staff.

by lordbyronk on Jan 20, 2008 7:21 PM EST   0 recs

Reeks of Allard Baird to be honest
I would think that John Bale could do what they think Brett Tomko can do, except do it better, and for half the cost.

Still, if they really felt they needed to add depth, I don't think its terrible.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 7:42 PM EST   0 recs

An interesting twist on Tomko's signing
MLBTR seems to think that the Tomko signing might indicate consideration of him as our new closer so that Soria could switch to the rotation for 2008.

I don't really think this is the case--Mahay and Yabuta both strike me as better candidates for closing out games, but at the very least, it provides food for thought.

by DarthYoshi on Jan 20, 2008 7:44 PM EST   0 recs

I am....
underwhelmed

Tomko has NL Stuff in the extreme. He can't put AL hitters away.

"So whattya say, should we clean this place up?" - Tom Cruise

by DyeFan187 on Jan 20, 2008 7:47 PM EST   0 recs

Tomko makes Odie Perez
look like a guy with great stuff

by royalsreview on Jan 20, 2008 7:50 PM EST   0 recs

More Projections
I'm not sure, but I assume these are assuming Tomko is pitching in San Diego.

Bill James - 4.53
CHONE - 4.66

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 7:52 PM EST   0 recs

It adds depth
But it doesn't add us positive depth.  If anything, I do fear Tomko could take away from Hochevar, Davies, or even De La Rosa (younger and cheaper options).

I haven't been able to draw a true parallel between Moore and Allard Baird thus far in the former's tenure, but I agree with R. Retro that this signing really does reek of Allard Baird.

What is the true best case scenario for Tomko in our rotation?  A 4.70-5.00 ERA?  For $3MM (possibly another $1.5MM) I would have rather signed nobody.  I'll give Moore the benefit of the doubt on pitching (he has shown an ability to coax maximum results out of most pitchers) but I really have a difficult time seeing Tomko performing even average in the A.L.

Quite simply, it's a waste of money, in my opinion.

Visit my Royals blog: The Royal Treatment!

by Royals Nation on Jan 20, 2008 8:08 PM EST   0 recs

combine this with the Gload deal
and its not Dayton's best week

by royalsreview on Jan 20, 2008 8:11 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

The difference
And its a positive one, is that at least Dayton brought in Tomko to be a competitor for the 5th spot in the rotation and long reliever, whereas Allard would have brought him in to be the ace.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 8:21 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I could see the Tomko closing
idea. His K numbers are fairly decent and if he only has to pitch one inning, he may be okay. I still like the idea of Davies closing more (heads up to phil). My question is, what does Tomko give you that Duckworth and Hudson couldn't? Used in the right spot, he could be useful, so I don't exactly hate the move. But, it is a little puzzling.

by royaldaddy on Jan 20, 2008 8:16 PM EST   0 recs

I've been waiting about a decade for this.
Not really.  But related story/rambling time:

I do remember back when he was playing for the M's and we were talking about dumping some vets--like we always did, though there were never any results.  Tomko was still a prospect then, and my brother and I really wanted to trade somebody for him.  I can't remember who we wanted to trade, but I'm glad we didn't get him then, even though we probably didn't get anyone better in the end.  

by BrRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 8:52 PM EST   0 recs

Meh
He's a 4th-5th starter.  He's just another guy to add to the mix for a possible spot in the rotation.  It adds depth.  For a one year deal, there is no way to argue that this hurts the team.  Relax guys, not every signing has to be the key piece that puts us in the playoffs.  This is a much better move than signing Colon.  I'll bet anyone any amount of money that Tomko pitches better this year than Colon.  We can stop talking about Colon's upside now.  His upside was years ago.  He's all downside now.
I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 9:18 PM EST   0 recs

It's all downside....
....With the 35-year old Brett Tomko.

Relax guys, not every signing has to be the key piece that puts us in the playoffs.

I don't think anyone is advocating for Dayton Moore to sign Vlad Guerrero, Mags Ordonez and John Smoltz.

For $3MM, this is still a highly questionable move, especially when De La Rosa, Hudson, Duckworth, and Davies, each viable #4-5 options at $1MM or less, are being given that opportunity.

This is a much better move than signing Colon.

It's probably a better move than signing a healthy Colon, but Colon, once, could throw 96-99mph.  When faced with the choice of a sub-90 throwing Colon, Tomko, or neither....I would definitely choose neither.  Then, save the $3MM for something far more important (drafts?  next year's possible Free Agent signing?  arbritation cases?  A "Butler and Gordon lock box"?)

I would have supported a Lieber or Colon signing (if healthy) because the upside of those two, I feel, is still considerably better than that of Tomko.  The only redeeming values in this is that a) it's a one-year signing (though expensive for a replacement-value #5 starter), and b) Tomko might, just might be moved to the bullpen, where he could be more effective (or at least less damaging) than in a 5-6 inning role.

Tomko stands little to no chance at being traded at the deadline.  And if this shouldn't - or won't - push us into the postseason, shouldn't we be looking to trade a signing such as this?

At first glance, I'd say there's no way Tomko surprasses a 5 ERA this season.  If he does, then a thousand props to Moore and McClure.  But his upside, at this point, is nonexistent.

Visit my Royals blog: The Royal Treatment!

by Royals Nation on Jan 20, 2008 9:42 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

No chance?
At first glance, I'd say there's no way Tomko surprasses a 5 ERA this season.

Then why do all of the projection systems have him at an ERA under 5?  I'm not saying they are all right, but if they all have him under 5, then don't you think that there is a decent chance that he does that?

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 10:01 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Probably
The 5.55 ERA he posted in two pitchers parks in the NL last season.

I think there's a good chance he bounces back and posts a 4.80 ERA or so, but I can certainly understand why others would think he is toast.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 10:04 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I never like looking only at one season
When people evaluate a player by looking only at the most recent season, it just flabbergasts me.  It is as if they think last season was all that matters.  That's a pretty shoddy way of evaluating a player.  His prior two seasons were just below league average, and that is after park and league normalizing his numbers.  For those of you who think he's "done," are the 2005 and 2006 seasons completely irrelevant?
I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 10:06 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Well
He hasn't been all that great prior to 2007 either. He's spent most of his career in the NL, and most of that time in pitchers parks, and his lifetime ERA is a brilliant 4.62.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 10:12 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I hear you
I'm not saying he's great or even good, but we need to look at more than 2007.  HIS ERA+ from recent years:

2004 108
2005 95
2006 95
2007 80

These are park and league normalized.  Above average in 04, a little below average in 05 and 06.  Those are all data points which deserve some attention, as well as 07.  There's a reason that Dips project him to something like 4.34.  Put him in the K and in the AL, that is still a sub-5 ERA (I'm pretty sure).

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 10:18 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

$3M
Something I have started thinking about...

Consider the value of the $3M player on Opening Day?  Hes worth $3M, and presumably, crap.

Consider the value of a $3M player at the mid way point?  His remaining contract is around $1.5M.

Now, consider the value of $3M at the mid way point?  Thats a player that at the beginning of the year was signed to a $6M contract.

Given the choice, if you knew nothing about the two individuals production, would you not assume that the $6M player would outperform the $3M player?

This is not an exact science, but it is something I thought about in depth when the Indians shelled out $5M for Foulke last year.  At his best, he was going to be worth $5M  But the trade value of being able to take on a player with $5M left on his second half contract would presumably be quite high...

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 21, 2008 10:48 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Poor signing
Come on Dayton, pull your head out
"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 Jan 20, 2008 9:19 PM EST   0 recs

What is the downside to this signing?
No, he doesn't fix the rotation.  He might not even improve it.  But I think he's as good a bet to be a decent #4-5 starter as Bale, Davies, De La Rosa, Hudson and the rest of the pool.  When all we have for the last two rotation spots is a bunch of very iffy maybes, adding another one increases the chances that you'll find two who are decent enough to man the job effectively.

Who did you want him to sign?  Santana isn't available.  Lieber was offered more than $3.5M by one or more teams and he took less to play with the Cubs.  Not much you can do there.  Colon?  Please.  If he's not healthy enough to make all of his winter league starts and he's not hitting 90 mph, then he's worthless.  There weren't a lot of good options here.  So Moore spent a little money that doesn't hurt the team's ability to sign FA's next year and he increased the depth of the 4-5 starter pool.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 9:27 PM EST   0 recs

Who did you want him to sign?
No one.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 9:35 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

WOPR said it best
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 9:36 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

So the downside to signing Tomko
...is fewer innings pitched for Davies and De La Rosa?  I'm underwhelmed by that "downside."
I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 9:41 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

That and the $3 million
No one is saying this will devastate the franchise or anything. But it doesn't seem to help much at all.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 9:43 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

How does saving $3M this year help the team?
Sure it means less money out of Glass's pocket, but that doesn't help me or the Royals any.  And no I don't think the ML payroll affects how much the Royals are going to spend on the draft or international development or anything else.
I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 9:45 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

$3 million
You don't believe that $3 million could have been used in scouting. That's fine. Its money that can't be spent on other MLB payroll though. Will it hamstring the franchise? Probably not. But let's not act like $3 million is nothing.  

I think the larger concern is that it will take innings away from younger guys we need to evaluate, but you and I will have to agree to disagree on the importance of that.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 9:49 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

$3 million
You don't believe that $3 million could have been used in scouting. That's fine.

It could have, but I don't think it would have.

Its money that can't be spent on other MLB payroll though.

How would you have rather they spent that $3M?  I don't think they turned down better options.

But let's not act like $3 million is nothing.

It is 4.3% of a $70M payroll.  It doesn't hurt the team or hurt it's ability to sign players next year and it increases depth.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 9:58 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Please provide a citation to . . .
a single shred of evidence that makes this comment believable:

"And no I don't think the ML payroll affects how much the Royals are going to spend on the draft or international development or anything else."

by royalstern05 on Jan 20, 2008 9:49 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

No citation
But they do have seperate budgets.  I have a strong feeling that the ML payroll budget, the draft budget, the scouting budget and the rest of the organizational budget is set for each fiscal year.  They don't wait to see how much they spent on payroll before setting the rest of the budget.
I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 9:54 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Saying that they have different budgets . . .
seems logical - but we don't know anything about it.

Regardless, I have a tough time reconciling a signing like this, with the Royals passing on certain draft picks over the years because we know the signing price will be "too high."  I completely understand the logic behind the bargaining position and the "slotting" and all those issues, but in the end, we've passed on high quality talent over the years, and then we turned around and threw $3 million at Tomko . . . .

NYRoyal - I applaud and appreciate your belief in the upside to this move.  We all need a dose of your optimism.  However, we have been burned by moves exactly like this one so many times.

I feel safe in saying that I speak for many on this forum when I say that I'm a little tired of moves like this.

by royalstern05 on Jan 20, 2008 10:12 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Stuff
seems logical - but we don't know anything about it.

Yeah, I don't know.  I'm just speculating.

Regardless, I have a tough time reconciling a signing like this, with the Royals passing on certain draft picks over the years because we know the signing price will be "too high."

I agree.  But, for better or worse, I think organizations look at the ML payroll and the draft budget differently.  I would argue that they should be put together, but they aren't together.

NYRoyal - I applaud and appreciate your belief in the upside to this move.  We all need a dose of your optimism.  However, we have been burned by moves exactly like this one so many times.

I don't see how this move could burn us.  This isn't like signing Redman and Elarton to be the Royals #2 and #3 SP.  We were counting on those gusy.  We signed them to be difference makers.  We signed Tomko to be one of several pitchers competing for the #4-5 rotation spot or the last bullpen spot.  The worst case scenario is that he doesn't pitch well and he gets placed on the major league roster by someone like Hudson, DLR, or Davies.  I don't see how even the worst case scenario burns us.

I feel safe in saying that I speak for many on this forum when I say that I'm a little tired of moves like this.

Moves like this.  What are "moves like this"?  Moves where they spend some of the remaining ML budget to add depth to the competition for the last pitching staff spot?

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 10:25 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

ultimately, we don't really know
one way or the other if it effects something or not, i doubt it does, but youneverknow...

by royalsreview on Jan 20, 2008 11:03 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

in a way, it's worse
Yes, the franchise is in better shape, so we don't need to throw money at guys in hopes that they can fill a rotation spot.

But I'd rather blow $3 million on something that's a necessity than on something that's a luxury.   I mean, it's somewhat forgivable that Baird went after Redman and Elarton.  They weren't ideal guys to sign, but he just needed a warm body.  In this case, the majority of the rotation is set, and there are several internal, cheaper candidates that should be able to fill out the back end.  The point is, if it's a luxury, you don't need to spend the money at all.

I don't know the exact dollar amounts that Moore offered to guys like Fukudome, Kuroda, or Jones.   But if he added $3-5 million/yr to the deal, wouldn't we have had a better chance at signing them?

If I have $35 million to spend in an offseason, I'd rather spend it on:

Two great players

Than on:

One or two good players and bunch of marginal players.

Until we have great players at the majority of our positions and occupying the majority of our rotation, there's no reason to spend millions of dollars on 4th outfielders, backup catchers, or guys that at best might compete for a spot on the 40.

by marbotty on Jan 21, 2008 6:02 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

let me also just say
that I'm not all that down on Tomko, either.  I think there's a somewhat decent chance (30% maybe?) that he can pitch in the mid 4's which would really be a great addition to the rotation.

My problem is with the overall offseason strategy.  I really do think that a couple of big signings are the way to go, rather than a moderately big signing and a bunch of little signings.  

I think the 2007 Cubs are a good example of how this strategy can pay off.  They signed the premiere offensive talent and one of the top 3 free agent pitchers.  As a result, they improved from 66 to 85 wins.

Obviously, those weren't the only factors affecting their improvement -- Derek Lee's return was a big one.  But in many ways, we can get a similar bump from improved play from Butler, Gordon, and possibly Teahen.  If we just had one more big arm and one more big bat (and perhaps Guillen can fill that role), I think we'd be there.  

While some of Moore's moves will certainly help a little, I worry that they weren't nearly enough to get us over .500.

by marbotty on Jan 21, 2008 6:26 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

NY is correct
They do have separate budgets. I remember Dayton talking about it before.

No I don't have a link.

Tomko isn't going to change what we spend in the draft or in Latin America. We spend a record amount for the franchise in the draft last year, and were in the top 10 (just like Dayton promised back in December of '06) in spending in Latin America.

by doublestix on Jan 21, 2008 12:52 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

yeah, but
Odds are if you've got 3 million available under one budget, you could transfer some or all of that to another budget, if necessary.  

I can't imagine Glass would be that inflexible to not allow that sort of transfer.

by marbotty on Jan 21, 2008 5:48 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

I respectfully disagree
I really think Davies, De La Rosa, Hudson, Bale, etc. will have the opportunity to win a starting job out of ST.  I don't think it has been given to Tomko who is making reliever money.  So if Davies and/or DLR are pitching well in ST, they can get their shot.  If not, then they'll probably get a shot when injury or poor performance opens a rotation spot.  Quite frankly, I'm much more interested in seeing Davies and DLR get a shot at the major league bullpen.
I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 9:39 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

So why do we need Tomko
We have Bale, Nunez, DLR, Davies, Hudson and Duckworth. Two of them can be in the rotation. The other three can jockey to be long relievers. If you want to see Davies and DLR in the bullpen, then you should not want Tomko clogging up roster space, because more than likely, he's the long man in the pen.

With these six mediocre pitchers already on the roster, why do we need Tomko?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 9:42 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Why depth helps
With these six mediocre pitchers already on the roster, why do we need Tomko?

Because when you have some mediocre pitchers, the way to increase the chances that you'll have at least one (or two) that perform at a decent level is to increase the number of mediocre pitchers.

Let's say, for instance, that each of these pitchers has a 20% chance of having an ERA under 4.75.  Would you rather have five such pitchers or six?  Adding another pitcher with a 20% chance increases the chances that one of them will reach that 4.75 ERA level.

We have Bale, Nunez, DLR, Davies, Hudson and Duckworth. Two of them can be in the rotation. The other three can jockey to be long relievers. If you want to see Davies and DLR in the bullpen, then you should not want Tomko clogging up roster space, because more than likely, he's the long man in the pen.

First, I think you can take Duckworth out of the SP list.  I don't think he's a realistic option and has considerably less talent than each of the rest of them.  Second, I like that we are increasing depth and options for the above reason.  Speaking of options, Davies has an option left and he might benefit best by starting every fifth day in Omaha for a while.  

Injuries and poor performances always create openings in both the rotation and the bullpen.  Every team ends up giving many starts and many innings to pitchers outside of the orginal 11 or 12 who start the season on the pitching staff.  There will be many opportunities for guys like Davies and DLR.  And, quite frankly, any of these guys can pitch their way into the major league pitching rotation with or without the Tomko signing.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 9:52 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Just out of curiousity
What Dayton Moore moves have you not liked?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jan 20, 2008 9:57 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Moore moves I haven't liked
Off the top of my head

Howell for Gathright - hated it at the time.  I have a better opinion of it now that Howell has sucked so horribly.

Re-signing Grudz

Gload for Sisco - didn't like it at the time.  I thought we got too little for Sisco.  I still think we could have gotten more.

This is a minor move that I think helps the team "this much" (holds fingers about an inch apart).

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 20, 2008 10:04 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I was sure
Howell for Gathright was a disaster.  Still probably wouldn't have done it, but much much less negative now.

I went around for a funk for two weeks after this trade muttering to myself

...'we traded the guy who broke Roger Clemens' strikeout record at Texas'...'we traded the guy who broke Roger Clemens' strikeout record at Texas.'

People in line at the bank were looking at me funny.

by howserfan on Jan 21, 2008 12:40 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

The Downside...
Its $3M guaranteed...

Essentially, that gives him about a 300% greater chance at making the rotation then the 5-7 other guys the Royals have.  That said, unless he isn't hitting 85mph during Spring Training and doesn't get out of the first in any one of his innings, the Royals are g