Update [2006-5-16 22:38:9 by royalsreview]: 6-4 Indians As Pacino says, "I don't know what to say really". That was incredibly horrible, yet strangely 100% expected. Frankly, a part of me is glad the Indians ended it in the 9th. This was the Indians fans can get home in time to catch Mad About You on Nick at Nite.
There is no accountability with this franchise. They're not committed to winning, and they haven't been for a long time. Team Glass has two goals: maintain the half-way-decent PR pose as the pittiable underdog, and keep cashing checks. Its on nights like this its tough to care, tough to root for a bunch of has-beens and never-will-be's making 10 times more than most Royals fans ever will.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Lets try this again. The Royals (hopefully)battle the Indians tonight in Cleveland. Because the Royals are an awesome team filled with the benefits of veteran leadership, I have no doubt that the boys in blue will win by at least 5 runs.
Buddy Bell feels the same way, he can never figure out why the team loses a game, "We just find all kinds of ways (to lose)," Bell said. "I can't explain it."
No one can Buddy, no one can.
While Affeldt's spot in the rotation has been rearranged, the Indians are sticking with Paul Byrd (4-3, 6.52 ERA) because he has a salt-and-pepper goatee and can be counted on in situations like this. No questions asked.
Continuing the revenge theme, the Royals turn to the dangerously tall Scott Elarton (0-4, 4.34 ERA) and his hideous herky-kerky throwing motion that looks like the product of a pitcher suffering from both Parkinson's and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Just what in the hell is he doing?
Still, Scott Elarton hates his former team, and they hate him and the blood is no less bad between Paul Byrd and his ex-mates on the Royals. This will be a hardcore, take no prisoners game by Lake Erie, make no mistake. Paul Byrd has 9.00 ERA against the Royals in two starts this season, so you know Buddisimo's licking his chops... Can you handle our awesome lineup Mr. Byrd?
I don't think so.
And remember to vote for Mark Teahen for the All-Star team.
Lastly, I wanted to make sure more people saw this detailed post by Mr. Weatherstone in the diaries:
Glass is the Problem I like the idea that he may be keeping Baird around until the end of the draft,it sounds logical. There is not enough time for a new GM to wiegh the ins and outs of each player. But on the other hand, we can take the best player in the draft at every level because we need help everywhere.Well said. Lets get a win tonight.
I was looking over Puljos biography on MLB.com the other day and I noticed he was from the KC area . . . I also shook my head in disgust when it appeared he went undrafted. In my mind Puljos is the best hitter in baseball right now, he is young, and he has the "hard working 9-5er" look to him. Then to think that we had a better chance than any other team to snag him . . . makes me cry.
He does reiterate an important question though, is it really Bairds fault or is it Glass's fault? How many of these moves has Glass "insisted" upon without the full support of Baird? Is Glass one of those behind the scenes owners that makes all the decisions leaving the GM as the fall guy or patsy? On the other hand though, if Baird was worth anything as a GM he would stand up to Glass and tell him about stupid moves.
Finally, the Royals have had luck. We used to develop a lot of talent in the minors, they came up to the majors and performed beautifully. Or we aquired them when they were young and unknown, and then they became good. The problem is that we never keep them. It appears to be the Royals policy that cannot have more than one quality player on the team at a time. We got rid of Dye, Beltran, Damon (this one was excusable though), and to a lesser degree Randa. We could have resigned all these guys. We could have a decent team right now, or at least not on the war path to break the loss record.
Think about it, we could have fielded a line up as such if Glass made reasonably intelligent moves (no particular order)
Dye - OF
Beltran - OF
Damon - OF
Randa - 3B
Puljos - 1B
Sweeney - DH
Berroa - SS (or Mark Ellis w/o the trade to Oak)
??? - C
Grudzielanek - 2B
There are a few holes on the team, but if we had resigned a few of these guys we may have been able to fill the gaps with quality free agents over the years. We could have been competitve right now.
But we don't have enough money. We have a payroll of 47.5 million right now tied up in the likes of Dougie, Sanders, Redman, Elarton, and Sweeney. (26.5 million) Those guys are doing us a ton of good right now. And just about everyone predicted they would have the impact they did during the offseason. Basically they are overpaid. So point #1 - we are wasting money.
Point #2 - our payroll is only 47.5 million!!! We get more money from revenue sharing (55 million, correct me if I am wrong) than we spend on player salaries. Where is this money going? In 2001 the Royals had an estimated 16 million dollar deficeit from baseball operating expenses. Most of which can be attributed to the stadium operating expenses. The money from revenue sharing covered all but 100k of that deficiet. Basically the Royals broke even that year fielding the team they had, with 1.5 million paying customers. (18,518 per game)
(http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1333) Basically the Royals are a 0 sum team. They can operate perfectly without having to be competitve, just the same as anyone can live perfectly pennyless being a bum on the street. You will survive, you don't have to take risks. Thus the Royals are the homeless bums out on the street. They contribute nothing, but they have no fear of ever being in the hole.
But what if we did take a risk and try to become competitive? Success would not happen overnight. It would take at least 1/2 a year for the fans to start attending the games again, and at least 1 year before we got anywhere near the playoffs. Thus the balance sheet at the end of the year would be in the red even with MLB handouts. Basically, that is money coming out of Glass's personal pocketbook. This does not sound like such a bad proposition , what business owner did not have to sacrifice financial security in order to make it big? Glass would obviously not be a stranger to this thought. To make money, you have to spend money, etc. The real problem is not the concept of risk vs. reward, but rather what is the incentive to seeking that reward.
To a normal person, the incentive would be to make more money. Better product = more fans = more money. But, the problem lies with the nature of how Glass aquired the team. Ewing Kauffman, god bless his philanthropy, had a clause stating that any profit from the sale of the Royals would go to charity. Thus this leaves Glass in a difficult position. If he wants to take the risk of creating a better baseball team, he has to spend his own money, which he may not get back. And even if he does make the franchise more valuable, all his hard work and effort will go to charity. Thus the only real option for Glass is either take a risk that will never have a reward, or do nothing and come to the same conclusion. Either way, Glass makes nothing. Thus why try if you have no opportunity to improve?
The real enemy here is David Glass. He appears to be willing to destroy a once proud organization and the love of Kansas City baseball, all in order to save himself from having to give money to charity. Scrooge has taken a new form and he is running the Kansas City Royals. Baird is just his Crotchett, doing what he possibly can to give money to Tiny Tim. Our only real hope is that Glass will sell the team. But that seems unlikely, he gets all the presitige of being a professional sports franchise owner, with none of the risk. Firing Baird will only mean that Glass has to hire a new deflecting shield.