PDA

View Full Version : Dutton: Glass speaks out about Royals' profits


tk13
05-03-2005, 04:03 AM
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/11547456.htm

Glass confirms Royals profited last year

But owner says he has lost $27 million since purchase

By BOB DUTTON The Kansas City Star


CHICAGO — Few things rile Royals owner David Glass quicker than the suggestion that his ballclub represents a cash cow to his personal fortune.

“It's just stupid for people to think that,” he said by phone from his business office in Bentonville, Ark. “There's just no way. If people think that, I'd like to have them come on board as partners.”

Forbes magazine, in its annual valuation of baseball franchises, recently reported the Royals made a net profit last season of $3 million before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.

“That's just about right,” Glass said. “That's the first time they've been close. We were scheduled to lose a little money last year, but we started so poorly that we traded Carlos Beltran and saved somewhere between $5 million and $6 million.

“That made the difference between losing money and making money.”

Despite that profit, Glass estimated he has lost “about $27 million” since purchasing the Royals in 2000 for $96 million. He has long maintained his goal is to break even over the long term.

“The commissioner doesn't like us to talk about figures,” he said, “but there is so much bad information going around. Last year, we made about $3 million. The year before, we lost about $6.5 million. The year before that, we lost $23.5 million. Those are the audited numbers.”

Those numbers clash with Forbes' estimates, which are compiled from independent sources without direct access to the clubs' financial records.

The magazine contends the Royals actually made $6.5 million in 2003 and lost only $11.2 million in 2002. It also contends the club has generated a profit of $4.9 million since Glass became the owner.

Forbes further reports the Royals were one of 20 teams to produce an operating profit in 2004. The Orioles generated the most money at $34 million, followed by the Indians and Devil Rays at $27.2 million. The Royals' $3 million profit tied Florida for 18th on the list.

The Yankees posted the biggest operating loss at $37.1 million, followed by the Los Angeles Angels at $30 million.

The magazine also computes the Royals' franchise value at $187 million. That ranks 27th among the game's 30 franchises but represents a 95 percent increase over the price Glass paid five years ago.

That increased value, however, is virtually irrelevant to Glass because any profit gleaned by selling the club would revert to Kansas City charities under terms of his purchase from Ewing M. Kauffman's estate.

The Royals' finances are drawing increased scrutiny this season because of the club's disappointing play after slashing its major-league payroll as a result of its accelerated rebuilding plan.

The departure of several higher-priced veterans left the Royals with a payroll of $36.9 million on opening day for their 25-man roster. That ranked ahead of only Tampa Bay and represented a 22.5 percent reduction from last year's franchise-record $47.6 million.

Glass acknowledged: “People say, ‘Well, you made $3 million last year, and you cut the payroll. What are you going to make this year?' I tell them I don't have a clue, because there's been no limit placed on the payroll.”

Glass said general manager Allard Baird has permission to fund improvements to the club.

“Nobody has told Allard that he can't have more payroll,” Glass said. “Allard has been working since last winter to try to get a corner outfielder. He just hasn't been able to make a deal for the right person.

“We still have payroll flexibility, and we won't rest until we improve this club.”

The Royals are 7-18 and trail first-place Chicago by 11 games in the American League Central as they head into tonight's series opener between the two teams at U.S. Cellular Field.

Yet Glass remains convinced his club is on the right track with its rebuilding plan.

“We have some building blocks,” he said. “We just need a lot of patience to see it through. If Allard can add some pieces to what we have, we can really build something.

“I hate to lose. I've seen too much of it. I've seen too much of it already this year. I know our fans have, too. Right now, we're going through a difficult time, but we're going to get through it.”

Cochise
05-03-2005, 05:27 AM
but...but...but... he's just cheap and pocketing the profits, he doesn't care about winning! :deevee:

cookster50
05-03-2005, 05:28 AM
To quote Vermiel, "I say BS"

|Zach|
05-03-2005, 05:42 AM
To quote Vermiel, "I say BS"
Based on...

elvomito
05-03-2005, 06:28 AM
Based on...
actions, not words

wazu
05-03-2005, 07:00 AM
I hope he does make money. He could lose 30 million a year and the Royals still wouldn't be competitive in the current Major League Baseball arrangement. Glass should make all the money he can while fighting to bring the same kind of parity to baseball that the NFL currently enjoys.

jarjar
05-03-2005, 08:15 AM
I feel for the guy. It's gotta be hard owning a MLB team in a small market where the fans are constantly pissed but your hands are tied due to the broken assed MLB system.

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 08:20 AM
I hope he does make money. He could lose 30 million a year and the Royals still wouldn't be competitive in the current Major League Baseball arrangement. Glass should make all the money he can while fighting to bring the same kind of parity to baseball that the NFL currently enjoys.

Hmm....the Florida Marlins, Oakland A's, and Minnesota Twins disprove your point.

I think we could be extremely competetive if we just increased payroll to around $55-60 million.

jarjar
05-03-2005, 08:25 AM
Hmm....the Florida Marlins, Oakland A's, and Minnesota Twins disprove your point.

I think we could be extremely competetive if we just increased payroll to around $55-60 million.

Marlins and the A's aren't really small market. They are locally but there is a lot of regional fanbase that is much larger than the KC area.

The twins are the single abberation in the league. I think as an MLB owner I'd have a hard time commiting to losing $35m a year for awhile on the chance that the Royals would get enough out of region fanbase to make it profitable.

I'm not saying it wouldn't work, maybe it would, but none of us can really know the risk involved in that enough to judge the guy for it.

cookster50
05-03-2005, 08:26 AM
These teams do all sorts of things to hide money. For instance, they will create a seperate company to do the concessions and not report that as profit for the "main" company. Same thing with parking. Probably do the same thing with running the scoreboard, training, etc.

ChiTown
05-03-2005, 08:26 AM
but...but...but... he's just cheap and pocketing the profits, he doesn't care about winning! :deevee:

Here's the thing..........

If you don't have the profits, which they clearly don't, then you have to be that much better at developing talent - which they aren't (Please see Twins and A's for more information). The minor league system is shallow on the offensive side - very shallow. They APPEAR to have some budding talent with their pitchers, but nothing concrete as of yet. It would be nice to say that we are going with a youth movement, but in all honesty, it's more like a bowel movement. They've got about 2, and probably more likely 3 years of purging the system before they can get some of their A level players to the K.

They've (Ownership/Management) made a TON of mistakes over the years, but to think we are even close to seeing something better than AAA baseball in KC might be a bit of a pipe dream. JMHO

BTW, I am completely against the major spending spree mentality. I don't think KC can/will support the higher salary structures, nor will they ever be successful with it given the current format of MLB. Draft well and develop........rinse and repeat.

cookster50
05-03-2005, 08:27 AM
Besides, I don't think you would see owners lining up to purchase teams, any team, like we do if they knew they wouldn't make money. That is BS.

KCTitus
05-03-2005, 08:30 AM
...but to think we are even close to seeing something better than AAA baseball in KC might be a bit of a pipe dream. JMHO

I agree. KC can develop all the talent it wants, but will never be able to retain that talent as they become FA's. The best this club can hope for is .500.

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 08:34 AM
Marlins and the A's aren't really small market. They are locally but there is a lot of regional fanbase that is much larger than the KC area.

The twins are the single abberation in the league. I think as an MLB owner I'd have a hard time commiting to losing $35m a year for awhile on the chance that the Royals would get enough out of region fanbase to make it profitable.

I'm not saying it wouldn't work, maybe it would, but none of us can really know the risk involved in that enough to judge the guy for it.

I don't see what that really has to do with it. They are small-market in that they don't get much revenue from attendence and they are one the frugal spenders in MLB. Their success proves that small-market teams can have win in this league, despite what Glass wants everyone to think.

redbrian
05-03-2005, 08:40 AM
I don't see what that really has to do with it. They are small-market in that they don't get much revenue from attendence and they are one the frugal spenders in MLB. Their success proves that small-market teams can have win in this league, despite what Glass wants everyone to think.

Success? Don't recall seeing them win the World Series lately.

In the current state of affairs the best that any but the top handfull of bought teams can expect is to maybe win their division.

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 08:43 AM
Success? Don't recall seeing them win the World Series lately.

In the current state of affairs the best that any but the top handfull of bought teams can expect is to maybe win their division.

Florida Marlins? 2003 ring a bell?

And honestly, who cares about winning the World Series right now, I just want to compete for a division title and maybe, MAYBE, go to the playoffs. That alone would be a huge success for this franchise and this city.

ChiTown
05-03-2005, 08:49 AM
Florida Marlins? 2003 ring a bell?

And honestly, who cares about winning the World Series right now, I just want to compete for a division title and maybe, MAYBE, go to the playoffs. That alone would be a huge success for this franchise and this city.

Given the state of MLB, I'd be DAMN fine with that.

jspchief
05-03-2005, 09:00 AM
What a scumbag. He owns a business and he profits from it? The nerve.

Cochise
05-03-2005, 10:05 AM
Hmm....the Florida Marlins, Oakland A's, and Minnesota Twins disprove your point.

I think we could be extremely competetive if we just increased payroll to around $55-60 million.

Dear lord... you think this team is $15 million in payroll away from competing? Can you buy a whole lineup and a bullpen, and 2 front line starting pitchers for that?

Those teams don't disprove anything, other than that they capture weak divisions and flounder in the playoffs. For the past 10 years or so, what has there been, 1 small payroll world series win? And they weren't even that small, their payroll was around $60 million IIRC.

oldandslow
05-03-2005, 10:12 AM
Are the Cards not small market?

Are the Twins not small market?

Are the Marlins not small market?

Have they all not been to the playoffs/series in the past 5 years?

The Royals are badly run and poorly managed...Period.

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 10:21 AM
Dear lord... you think this team is $15 million in payroll away from competing? Can you buy a whole lineup and a bullpen, and 2 front line starting pitchers for that?

Those teams don't disprove anything, other than that they capture weak divisions and flounder in the playoffs. For the past 10 years or so, what has there been, 1 small payroll world series win? And they weren't even that small, their payroll was around $60 million IIRC.

Yeah, I do. Our payroll right now is $36 million, we could add a lot to this team with another $20 million. We could get a real outfielder for $8-10 mill a year, we could add bullpen help for $3-5 mill, and add a frontline starter for another $8 mill.

Who cares what the end result is? I for one am tired of the season being over by May 1st. I would be thrilled if we were in a pennant chase and had just a chance at making the playoffs. Losing 100+ games a season is getting real old.

By the way, the Angels won in 2002 with a $60 mill payroll, the Marlins won in 2003 with a $48 mill payroll.

Stinger
05-03-2005, 10:49 AM
Are the Cards not small market?

Not really they are actually a regional market, With the 6th highest payroll.

PastorMikH
05-03-2005, 11:14 AM
Baseball teams aren't about profit. Glass needs to sell the Royals to someone that will keep them in KC and can afford to spend the $ to make them a winner again. Build a winner, then when the stadium is full for every game, when every little kid in KC and the surrounding area is sporting Royals shirts and hats, and when they get good enough for solid TV coverage, then he might start seeing a legit profit.


It really looks to me like Glass is running the team so he can move it, but that's just me.

ChiTown
05-03-2005, 11:18 AM
....

The Royals are badly run and poorly managed...Period.

Can't dispute that at all.

* Haven't really competed for a full season in over 10 years.

* Farm system went to absolute hell back in late 90's, and in all honesty, they completely ignored their offense for a good 5-6 yr stretch (draft, minor league acquisitions)

* Ownership issues were next to pathetic for nearly 7 years

* They've had 2nd rate Managers running 2nd rate talent

* GM's/scouts have done a horrible job identifying talent (Muzzy Jackson should have been fired years ago)

* No clear cut direction other than - "We're going to a youth movement...." What the hell does that mean when you are always in a youth movement, but rarely develop the talent for yourself?

beavis
05-03-2005, 11:19 AM
It really looks to me like Glass is running the team so he can move it, but that's just me.
There is virtually no way that can happen.

Herzig
05-03-2005, 11:20 AM
I'm tired of Glass using the Royals as his tax write off.

beavis
05-03-2005, 11:25 AM
I'm tired of Glass using the Royals as his tax write off.
ROFL

So we're sick of him losing money, but we hate him becaue he won't lose more. You just can't make this shit up.

Cochise
05-03-2005, 11:27 AM
Are the Cards not small market?

Are the Twins not small market?

Are the Marlins not small market?

Have they all not been to the playoffs/series in the past 5 years?

The Royals are badly run and poorly managed...Period.

The Cardinals payroll is above $90 million.

The Twins have 3 playoff appearances recently from winning a crappy divison, and upon qualifying they are bounced by a big payroll team.

The Marlins had a good postseason run in 2003 and are the only viable example. They benefitted from the Cubs' monumental choke as well, but it was a good run. Congrats to them for being the one exception. But one example does not prove a principle wrong and make the system fair.

jspchief
05-03-2005, 11:28 AM
Yeah, I do. Our payroll right now is $36 million, we could add a lot to this team with another $20 million. We could get a real outfielder for $8-10 mill a year, we could add bullpen help for $3-5 mill, and add a frontline starter for another $8 mill.

Who cares what the end result is? I for one am tired of the season being over by May 1st. I would be thrilled if we were in a pennant chase and had just a chance at making the playoffs. Losing 100+ games a season is getting real old.

By the way, the Angels won in 2002 with a $60 mill payroll, the Marlins won in 2003 with a $48 mill payroll.So you'd like him to lose about 12 million a year?

KCTitus
05-03-2005, 11:35 AM
Baseball teams aren't about profit. Glass needs to sell the Royals to someone that will keep them in KC and can afford to spend the $ to make them a winner again. Build a winner, then when the stadium is full for every game, when every little kid in KC and the surrounding area is sporting Royals shirts and hats, and when they get good enough for solid TV coverage, then he might start seeing a legit profit.

He's seeing a 'legit' profit now and no one likes the team...to 'build' up that team to become a contender would require losses in the hundreds of millions over the course of several years.

When the Royals were winning divisions and WS, they still lost money according to Kaufmann.

Pitt Gorilla
05-03-2005, 11:40 AM
Here's the thing..........
The minor league system is shallow on the offensive side - very shallow.
I'm not sure that is true. Check out the latest farm report on kcroyals.com to view our "shallow" offensive players. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 11:42 AM
So you'd like him to lose about 12 million a year?

That post was in response to this:

"Dear lord... you think this team is $15 million in payroll away from competing? Can you buy a whole lineup and a bullpen, and 2 front line starting pitchers for that?

Those teams don't disprove anything, other than that they capture weak divisions and flounder in the playoffs. For the past 10 years or so, what has there been, 1 small payroll world series win? And they weren't even that small, their payroll was around $60 million IIRC."


I don't own this team, so I don't feel like I have the right to tell David Glass what to do with his money. However, it seems to me most businesses lose money in the early years in order to make money down the road. It might be a wise move to invest a little more into this team so that the fans believe that the team has a chance to compete.

oldandslow
05-03-2005, 11:48 AM
The Cardinals payroll is above $90 million.

The Twins have 3 playoff appearances recently from winning a crappy divison, and upon qualifying they are bounced by a big payroll team.

The Marlins had a good postseason run in 2003 and are the only viable example. They benefitted from the Cubs' monumental choke as well, but it was a good run. Congrats to them for being the one exception. But one example does not prove a principle wrong and make the system fair.

The Cards payroll is above 90 mil....So What...

They come from the same state as the Royals...They come from a similar city...They have approx the same number of radio/tv outlets.

And, I would venture they still make money.

The Cards are the best example I can think of how to run a "small market" team.

They win and they make money because they win. They win by developing their own talent...e.g., Pujols, Molina, Morris, and make incredibly good trades, e.g., Edmonds, Walker, Rolen, Marquis. They sign very few "big name" free agents who are not giving a "home town" discount.

The twins are GREAT at scouting - see Santana, a rule five pickup - and developing young players (almost everyone else on the squad.) They play competitive baseball year in and year out. Are the Royals not in the same div the twins are? Hell, I would take the Royals being competitive in this so-called crappy divsion.

The Marlins are apt to win the entire thing again this year. Their pitching is THAT good.

Now tell me again how the poor Royals just "can't compete." I call it complete BS.

PastorMikH
05-03-2005, 11:49 AM
He's seeing a 'legit' profit now and no one likes the team...to 'build' up that team to become a contender would require losses in the hundreds of millions over the course of several years.

When the Royals were winning divisions and WS, they still lost money according to Kaufmann.

Yep. Notice the key word "Might" Glass isn't willing to do that. And until he is, the fans will continue to be dissapointed with a team at the bottom of the divisional rankings.

jspchief
05-03-2005, 11:51 AM
I don't own this team, so I don't feel like I have the right to tell David Glass what to do with his money. However, it seems to me most businesses lose money in the early years in order to make money down the road. It might be a wise move to invest a little more into this team so that the fans believe that the team has a chance to compete.Well, since you think he needs to spend an extra 15 million, and he only profited 3 million last year, that suggests that you think he should lose in the neighborhood of 12 million in an attempt (a gamble) to field a better team, and thus earn more money.

It' easy to suggest losing money to make the customer happy, when you're the customer.

No offense, but I think he might not see it as being the "wise move" that you think it is. And he might be better qualified to make that judgement.

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 11:55 AM
Well, since you think he needs to spend an extra 15 million, and he only profited 3 million last year, that suggests that you think he should lose in the neighborhood of 12 million in an attempt (a gamble) to field a better team, and thus earn more money.

It' easy to suggest losing money to make the customer happy, when you're the customer.

No offense, but I think he might not see it as being the "wise move" that you think it is. And he might be better qualified to make that judgement.

Okay, I think you need to read slower. When did I ever say he SHOULD spend an extra $15 million? All I did was point out that we could be competitive with an extra $15-20 mill, despite what some on here believe.

As a smart business man, I think Glass should have realized a long time ago that you have to spend money early to make money later. Why would anyone waste their money on a ticket this year when everyone in the organization is looking towards 2006 and 2007?

jspchief
05-03-2005, 12:01 PM
Okay, I think you need to read slower. When did I ever say he SHOULD spend an extra $15 million? All I did was point out that we could be competitive with an extra $15-20 mill, despite what some on here believe.

As a smart business man, I think Glass should have realized a long time ago that you have to spend money early to make money later. Why would anyone waste their money on a ticket this year when everyone in the organization is looking towards 2006 and 2007?
Okay, so they could be more competitive spending an extra 15 million. Why bother? Why lose 12 million and win over making 3 million and losing?

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 12:05 PM
Okay, so they could be more competitive spending an extra 15 million. Why bother? Why lose 12 million and win over making 3 million and losing?

I would think that you would want to have a successful baseball team if you bothered to buy the franchise. There are many more lucrative endeavors out there for Glass to spend his money on then buying a baseball team. The Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, Angels, and Dodgers all lost money last year, but they all made the playoffs as well. At some point you have to ask yourself whether you are in this to make money or to have a successful team.

I think Mr. Glass has shown what side of the fence he is on.

beavis
05-03-2005, 12:09 PM
I would think that you would want to have a successful baseball team if you bothered to buy the franchise. There are many more lucrative endeavors out there for Glass to spend his money on then buying a baseball team. The Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, Angels, and Dodgers all lost money last year, but they all made the playoffs as well. At some point you have to ask yourself whether you are in this to make money or to have a successful team.

I think Mr. Glass has shown what side of the fence he is on.
These posts piss me off so much, I'm about ready to start handing out negative rep for them. You really think he should lose $50 million a year in order for a chance to maybe be competitive? Hell Balitmore spends close to $100 million every year, and they suck balls.

I'm just as pissed as anyone that the Royals couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, but saying Glass is cheap is moronic at best.

svuba
05-03-2005, 12:10 PM
The Cardinals payroll is above $90 million.

The Twins have 3 playoff appearances recently from winning a crappy divison, and upon qualifying they are bounced by a big payroll team.

The Marlins had a good postseason run in 2003 and are the only viable example. They benefitted from the Cubs' monumental choke as well, but it was a good run. Congrats to them for being the one exception. But one example does not prove a principle wrong and make the system fair.


The exception proves the rule

The way that MLB is structured A Franchise must have one key ingredient to have a winning team.....A Sugar Daddy owner who is willing to loose $40 million per year.

The system is inherently unfair to small market teams because the revenue does not support spending to keep your free agents.

Arguments that small market teams can be competive are simply an ackowledgement that the baseball players union is too strong to fight, and baseball will never be fair so you may as well blame your ownership group because there is a better chance that the team will be sold than their will ever be a salary cap in baseball.

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 12:12 PM
These posts piss me off so much, I'm about ready to start handing out negative rep for them. You really think he should lose $50 million a year in order for a chance to maybe be competitive? Hell Balitmore spends close to $100 million every year, and they suck balls.

I'm just as pissed as anyone that the Royals couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, but saying Glass is cheap is moronic at best.

WTF are you talking about? When did I ever say he should lose $50 mill a year? He profited $3 mill last year while putting a sh#t product on the field, why not spend $10-15 mill more to put quality out there? This year is even more ridiculous, who would waste money on a ticket this year?

Baltimore spends a lot of money, but they were also the most profitable team last year.

beavis
05-03-2005, 12:14 PM
WTF are you talking about? When did I ever say he should lose $50 mill a year? He profited $3 mill last year while putting a sh#t product on the field, why not spend $10-15 mill more to put quality out there? This year is even more ridiculous, who would waste money on a ticket this year?

Baltimore spends a lot of money, but they were also the most profitable team last year.
Well that makes it a lot better, you want him to lose $10 million a year to field a shitty product? I guess I just don't understand your line of reasoning here.

Would you get up and go to work every morning if you had to cut your boss a check at the end of the day?

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 12:18 PM
Well that makes it a lot better, you want him to lose $10 million a year to field a shitty product? I guess I just don't understand your line of reasoning here.

Would you get up and go to work every morning if you had to cut your boss a check at the end of the day?

You don't think we could be more competetive if we put $10-20 mill extra into the team? You don't think the attendance would boost if fans actually felt like the team had a chance past April? Like I said before, most businesses have to spend money early to make money later. At some point Mr. Glass needs to ask himself why he bought this team.

jspchief
05-03-2005, 12:24 PM
Like I said in an earlier post:

It's easy to suggest that a company should lose money to please the customer, when you are the customer.

SCTrojan
05-03-2005, 12:26 PM
The profit he is showing right now is based on the figures of today's situation. In other words, he makes his stated profit of three mil based on daily attendance that's pretty shoddy, with the corresponding parking and concession sales. A large part of his operating cost is consumed by the players' salaries of about 36 mil.

Who's to say what would happen if he increased salary to 50-55 mil and received an increase in attendance and the resulting concession, memorabilia and parking money?

We saw what happened with attendance in 2003 when they were just in the chase. That year, they had an attendance increase of nearly 40 percent. (http://www.ballparkwatch.com/features/attendance_by_average_2003_mlb.htm)

This town/region will support a winning ball club. Spend a little more to get the players to make the Royals competitive, and Glass may make even more money, like Eazy talked about.

ChiTown
05-03-2005, 12:30 PM
I'm not sure that is true. Check out the latest farm report on kcroyals.com to view our "shallow" offensive players. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

I've seen it.

There aren't any outfielders ready to come up from either AA or AAA. I'm talking legit MLB talent. Mitch Maier is a legit OF talent, but he probably won't be ready until late 2006, maybe 2007. Lubanski is struggling like crazy. The AA team has some mid level talent like Costa and Aldridge, but those guys are a real stretch to make the Royals roster in the next 2 years. The AAA club has nothing but garbage players at the OF spot, including Adrian Brown and Gueil. In single A, Maier is the only legit prospect right now that's making progress. I know the Royals are real high on Alan Moye, but we'll have to see how he progresses this year.

At 3b, I absolutely love what Billy Butler is doing. Kid's a player, and he'll be in Wichita in the next couple of months. 1b Kila Kaaihue is an excellent A ball prospect, but I won't be convinced until I see him here in Wichita. I think he's got the tools to be a good MLB player. Justin Huber has looked very good thus far. Conversion from C to 1b has gone pretty well thus far. 1b is one spot the Royals seem to have a log jam. Donnie Murphy continues to impress. I really think he could be pushing Rueben Gotay out of a spot with the Royals. Murphy is a polished 2b, and has a very good eye at the plate. He doesn't have the pop of the bat that Gotay possess, nor is he a switch hitter like Reuben. But, he doesn't strike out a lot, and knows how to move runners.

I'm just really down on the OF position. It amazes me how poorly we left the cupboard after Damon and Beltran came through.

cookster50
05-03-2005, 12:42 PM
I'd go to more games if there was a winning product on the field. Might even buy a jersey or two if that happened.

Pitt Gorilla
05-03-2005, 12:44 PM
WTF are you talking about? When did I ever say he should lose $50 mill a year? He profited $3 mill last year while putting a sh#t product on the field, why not spend $10-15 mill more to put quality out there? This year is even more ridiculous, who would waste money on a ticket this year?
Ah, but therein lies the problem. Your assumption is that 10-15 million extra would "put quality out there." I want to know which free agents at 10-15 million would have been significantly better than our young players. Seriously. You even get hindsight to help construct your argument!

ChiefsCountry
05-03-2005, 12:45 PM
What ticks me off is the Cardinals claim we are a regional franchise. The Royals used to stake claim to that as well, now they seem to just hide in KC market. Omaha, Des Moines, Wichita, Springfield those areas need to be hit hard by the marketing of the Royals. Hey here in Springfield we didnt even have a radio afflitate when the season started. Its just poor management and marketing by the Royals more than anything.

Pitt Gorilla
05-03-2005, 12:45 PM
I've seen it.

There aren't any outfielders ready to come up from either AA or AAA. I'm talking legit MLB talent. Mitch Maier is a legit OF talent, but he probably won't be ready until late 2006, maybe 2007. Lubanski is struggling like crazy. The AA team has some mid level talent like Costa and Aldridge, but those guys are a real stretch to make the Royals roster in the next 2 years. The AAA club has nothing but garbage players at the OF spot, including Adrian Brown and Gueil. In single A, Maier is the only legit prospect right now that's making progress. I know the Royals are real high on Alan Moye, but we'll have to see how he progresses this year.

At 3b, I absolutely love what Billy Butler is doing. Kid's a player, and he'll be in Wichita in the next couple of months. 1b Kila Kaaihue is an excellent A ball prospect, but I won't be convinced until I see him here in Wichita. I think he's got the tools to be a good MLB player. Justin Huber has looked very good thus far. Conversion from C to 1b has gone pretty well thus far. 1b is one spot the Royals seem to have a log jam. Donnie Murphy continues to impress. I really think he could be pushing Rueben Gotay out of a spot with the Royals. Murphy is a polished 2b, and has a very good eye at the plate. He doesn't have the pop of the bat that Gotay possess, nor is he a switch hitter like Reuben. But, he doesn't strike out a lot, and knows how to move runners.

I'm just really down on the OF position. It amazes me how poorly we left the cupboard after Damon and Beltran came through.When you said offense, I didn't realize you were talking exclusively about the outfield.

KCTitus
05-03-2005, 12:48 PM
The profit he is showing right now is based on the figures of today's situation. In other words, he makes his stated profit of three mil based on daily attendance that's pretty shoddy, with the corresponding parking and concession sales. A large part of his operating cost is consumed by the players' salaries of about 36 mil.

Who's to say what would happen if he increased salary to 50-55 mil and received an increase in attendance and the resulting concession, memorabilia and parking money?

We saw what happened with attendance in 2003 when they were just in the chase. That year, they had an attendance increase of nearly 40 percent. (http://www.ballparkwatch.com/features/attendance_by_average_2003_mlb.htm)

This town/region will support a winning ball club. Spend a little more to get the players to make the Royals competitive, and Glass may make even more money, like Eazy talked about.

According to Glass, they lost 6.5M in 2003 and payroll was nowhere near 50-55M.

Pitt Gorilla
05-03-2005, 12:48 PM
You don't think we could be more competetive if we put $10-20 mill extra into the team? You don't think the attendance would boost if fans actually felt like the team had a chance past April? Like I said before, most businesses have to spend money early to make money later. At some point Mr. Glass needs to ask himself why he bought this team.If that extra money was put into aging veterans (where have we seen that before?) which stall the youth movement again, that would represent the WORST situation. We knew that going young this year would hurt us early on. Hopefully, the talent that we have will continue to develop. I still think Allard WOULD add payroll in the form of a good, young, power-hitting OF; the right trade just hasn't materialized.

Dave Lane
05-03-2005, 12:50 PM
Hmm....the Florida Marlins, Oakland A's, and Minnesota Twins disprove your point.

I think we could be extremely competetive if we just increased payroll to around $55-60 million.

And you'd spend the other $15 million on?

Dave

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 12:53 PM
Ah, but therein lies the problem. Your assumption is that 10-15 million extra would "put quality out there." I want to know which free agents at 10-15 million would have been significantly better than our young players. Seriously. You even get hindsight to help construct your argument!

In an earlier post I said $15-20 mill more would make the team much more competetive. Going on the assumption of adding $20 mill, we would have a payroll of about $56 mill and be tied with Minnesota for 20th in the league in total payroll. With that extra money we could use $8-10 mill on a good outfielder (J.D. Drew?, Steve Finley?), $3-5 mill on bullpen help, and $7-8 mill on another starter (Matt Clement?).

These names were just off the top of my head, I don't remember all the players that were free agents this past offseason. However, the point is that we COULD have filled a few key holes by spending more money.

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 12:56 PM
If that extra money was put into aging veterans (where have we seen that before?) which stall the youth movement again, that would represent the WORST situation. We knew that going young this year would hurt us early on. Hopefully, the talent that we have will continue to develop. I still think Allard WOULD add payroll in the form of a good, young, power-hitting OF; the right trade just hasn't materialized.

So spending some dough on a real outfielder would stall the youth movement? How so? Who is ready to come up and be a legit MLB outfielder right now? Diaz? Costa? Maier? The fact of the matter is that we don't have any minor leaguers that are ready to play full-time in the majors.

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 12:57 PM
According to Glass, they lost 6.5M in 2003 and payroll was nowhere near 50-55M.

Personally, I will trust an unbiased Forbes over a biased David Glass.

PastorMikH
05-03-2005, 01:09 PM
Like I said in an earlier post:

It's easy to suggest that a company should lose money to please the customer, when you are the customer.


On yours and eazyb81's arguments, on the to spend or not to spend issue, one thing I would question is how long can Glass put a team of this quality on the field and expect fans to fill the seats? Once the seats are empty, and no one is buying Royals gear, how much profit will there be?

KCTitus
05-03-2005, 01:11 PM
Personally, I will trust an unbiased Forbes over a biased David Glass.

Maybe, but I have issues with the below statement:

Those numbers clash with Forbes' estimates, which are compiled from independent sources without direct access to the clubs' financial records.

I'd assume the CEO of the organization is going to know his P/L better than a group that didnt have access to the records.

ChiTown
05-03-2005, 01:11 PM
When you said offense, I didn't realize you were talking exclusively about the outfield.

Primarily, that's what I mean, but we are starting to do a better job at the corner infield positions. We've generally had good luck with the middle infield spots, and absolutely been putrid at Catcher. Catcher Scott Walter looks interesting. But I'm not sure what the Royals plans are with him at AAA. Matt Tupman in Wichita has started off really hot, but he's not been that good of a hitter until now.

I like John Buck, and I think he can be a very serviceable player for a number of years. I just don't know if they have much behind him.

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 01:21 PM
Maybe, but I have issues with the below statement:



I'd assume the CEO of the organization is going to know his P/L better than a group that didnt have access to the records.

I'd assume that Glass knows more too, but I don't think he would be honest with the media about something like this. What does he have to gain by admitting the higher profit figures?

KCTitus
05-03-2005, 01:27 PM
I'd assume that Glass knows more too, but I don't think he would be honest with the media about something like this. What does he have to gain by admitting the higher profit figures?

He referred to 'audited numbers'...I doubt he would lie about something that's verifiable like that. Remember, that even that 3M in 'profit' is EBITDA so bottom line it's possible they lost money on paper after all is done.

beavis
05-03-2005, 02:35 PM
I'd assume the CEO of the organization is going to know his P/L better than a group that didnt have access to the records.
One would think, but some people will bitch about everything.

tk13
05-03-2005, 02:52 PM
In an earlier post I said $15-20 mill more would make the team much more competetive. Going on the assumption of adding $20 mill, we would have a payroll of about $56 mill and be tied with Minnesota for 20th in the league in total payroll. With that extra money we could use $8-10 mill on a good outfielder (J.D. Drew?, Steve Finley?), $3-5 mill on bullpen help, and $7-8 mill on another starter (Matt Clement?).

These names were just off the top of my head, I don't remember all the players that were free agents this past offseason. However, the point is that we COULD have filled a few key holes by spending more money.
That's fantasy baseball. Where did Drew, Finley, and Clement go? Big market teams on the coasts. If you can convince them to take the same money for a team in the plains who is coming off a 104 loss season and trying to develop several young players, you would be a pretty persuasive negotiator, especially dealing with Scott Boras like that.

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 03:09 PM
That's fantasy baseball. Where did Drew, Finley, and Clement go? Big market teams on the coasts. If you can convince them to take the same money for a team in the plains who is coming off a 104 loss season and trying to develop several young players, you would be a pretty persuasive negotiator, especially dealing with Scott Boras like that.
I never said we would definately sign any of those players, but it would be nice to see them at least attempt to sign them. I don't remember hearing that the Royals were interested in signing any high-caliber player this year. Do you?

We can sit here and say that they wouldn't want to come here anyways, but how do we really know if we don't even bother to try? Finley is making $6 mill this year, I think he would at least give us a look if we offered 8.

tk13
05-03-2005, 03:18 PM
I never said we would definately sign any of those players, but it would be nice to see them at least attempt to sign them. I don't remember hearing that the Royals were interested in signing any high-caliber player this year. Do you?

We can sit here and say that they wouldn't want to come here anyways, but how do we really know if we don't even bother to try? Finley is making $6 mill this year, I think he would at least give us a look if we offered 8.
Who's to say we didn't try? Nobody knows that for sure. I think you're completely living in a dream state if you think a 40 year old millionaire outfielder looking for a ring is going to accept playing next to David DeJesus and Matt Stairs over Garrett Anderson and Vlad Guerrero on a playoff team over a couple million dollars, not to mention getting in a bidding war with Arte Moreno, he probably would've just outbid us.

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 03:25 PM
Who's to say we didn't try? Nobody knows that for sure. I think you're completely living in a dream state if you think a 40 year old millionaire outfielder looking for a ring is going to accept playing next to David DeJesus and Matt Stairs over Garrett Anderson and Vlad Guerrero on a playoff team over a couple million dollars, not to mention getting in a bidding war with Arte Moreno, he probably would've just outbid us.

I think we would have heard something in either the local or national media indicating we were interested in a particular elite player.

I'm just using Finley as an example, i'm not saying that not signing him is the sole reason we are bad this year. Many players sign with teams that are already good, but believe it or not there are players that sign with teams that were bad the previous year. Seattle signed Beltre and Sexson, Arizona signed Glaus and Ortiz.

tk13
05-03-2005, 03:35 PM
I think we would have heard something in either the local or national media indicating we were interested in a particular elite player.

I'm just using Finley as an example, i'm not saying that not signing him is the sole reason we are bad this year. Many players sign with teams that are already good, but believe it or not there are players that sign with teams that were bad the previous year. Seattle signed Beltre and Sexson, Arizona signed Glaus and Ortiz.
I don't know about that, the Royals don't get coverage like the Chiefs about stuff like that. It's like the Beltran deal, nobody reported much of what really went on there, and many in KC flipped out and got upset when he was traded. Jayson Stark of ESPN reported that Boras was asking for as much as $200 million dollars from some teams in free agency, I'm pretty sure we were one of them. Nobody in KC has ever reported that. And unlike the Chiefs, the Royals don't try to explain every failure so we don't always know what's going on.

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 03:43 PM
I don't know about that, the Royals don't get coverage like the Chiefs about stuff like that. It's like the Beltran deal, nobody reported much of what really went on there, and many in KC flipped out and got upset when he was traded. Jayson Stark of ESPN reported that Boras was asking for as much as $200 million dollars from some teams in free agency, I'm pretty sure we were one of them. Nobody in KC has ever reported that. And unlike the Chiefs, the Royals don't try to explain every failure so we don't always know what's going on.

Change of topic question: There is a rumor floating around that there is a preliminary deal in place to trade Jeremy Affeldt for Austin Kearns. Would you do this deal? I think it would be amazing if we got Kearns, while also giving up Affeldt while his value is still high. What do you think?

tk13
05-03-2005, 03:54 PM
It'd be tempting, but Kearns has never even played a full season, and really his numbers aren't all that impressive except for the first year where he was called up. He'd definitely be somebody we could plant in RF though, then we could actually do more of a platoon with Marrerro/Long and Harvey/Stairs. All four of those guys are pretty decent hitters as long as they are batting against an opposite-handed pitcher, but we haven't always been able to put them in those situations. I don't think we've really ever given Affeldt a fair shot either, we've moved him around a lot from starter/reliever/closer and so on, he's never been able to get settled.

Miles
05-03-2005, 03:57 PM
Many players sign with teams that are already good, but believe it or not there are players that sign with teams that were bad the previous year. Seattle signed Beltre and Sexson, Arizona signed Glaus and Ortiz.

Both of those teams have had recent success though. One bad year on a mid market team with a sizable payroll is hardly comparable to a team that hasn’t made the playoffs in 20 years.

Lets say they added one of those guys at around 12mil. How many more games do you think they would win with one? Not to mention that if this player should suffer a major injury the team would be completly screwed.

The way to fix the Royals is hardly though free agency.

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 04:07 PM
Both of those teams have had recent success though. One bad year on a mid market team with a sizable payroll is hardly comparable to a team that hasn’t made the playoffs in 20 years.

Lets say they added one of those guys at around 12mil. How many more games do you think they would win with one? Not to mention that if this player should suffer a major injury the team would be completly screwed.

The way to fix the Royals is hardly though free agency.

Okay, players won't sign with teams that had a bad year, players won't sign with teams that haven't had recent success, and players won't sign with teams that don't live in cool areas of the country. Ok, I think I got it now guys. Are there any more qualifications I need to know about? :)

I certainly would not expect the Royals to be "fixed" if we signed an expensive player or two, but it would help the overall morale of this city in regards to baseball. KC has all but given up on the Royals this season, and it is only the 2nd day of May....that is pretty sad if you ask me.

Dipping into free agency will not solve all of our problems, but it might give fans some faith that our owner actually cares about winning and give another reason to actually go to the games.

Free agency is hardly the way to "fix" the Royals, but having guys like Eli Marrero, Tony Graffanino, and Joe McEwing start for us is not the way either.

Miles
05-03-2005, 04:33 PM
Okay, players won't sign with teams that had a bad year, players won't sign with teams that haven't had recent success, and players won't sign with teams that don't live in cool areas of the country. Ok, I think I got it now guys. Are there any more qualifications I need to know about? :)

I certainly would not expect the Royals to be "fixed" if we signed an expensive player or two, but it would help the overall morale of this city in regards to baseball. KC has all but given up on the Royals this season, and it is only the 2nd day of May....that is pretty sad if you ask me.

Dipping into free agency will not solve all of our problems, but it might give fans some faith that our owner actually cares about winning and give another reason to actually go to the games.

Free agency is hardly the way to "fix" the Royals, but having guys like Eli Marrero, Tony Graffanino, and Joe McEwing start for us is not the way either.

This is pretty much the approach the Tigers have taken the last two years. They attracted a few mid level FA's by paying well over market for them and raising their payroll to around 70mil.

Though i think the far more responsible thing to do is to develop young talent and as you get better then dip into free agency.

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 04:45 PM
This is pretty much the approach the Tigers have taken the last two years. They attracted a few mid level FA's by paying well over market for them and raising their payroll to around 70mil.

Though i think the far more responsible thing to do is to develop young talent and as you get better then dip into free agency.

Do you think we can truly be competetive year in and year out on a payroll under $50 million? It seems like a pipedream to me considering our so-so minor league system.

Calcountry
05-03-2005, 04:50 PM
I hope he does make money. He could lose 30 million a year and the Royals still wouldn't be competitive in the current Major League Baseball arrangement. Glass should make all the money he can while fighting to bring the same kind of parity to baseball that the NFL currently enjoys.Look, if you love the game of baseball, accept the Royals as a 4A team for the rest of the league. Look at it as an opportunity for good young talent to be tested against the real big league clubs, a final proving ground if you will.

Thats what I do with the A's.

Ever here of Miguel Tejada? I heard he is tearing the cover off the ball right now. Mark Mulder, Tim Hudson?

We have great pitching this year, but lack any offensive production so we will do about 500.

Its like rooting for the USA hockey team in 1980 v the Soviet Union. When they win, its a big time upset.

Just enjoy it for what it is until they change it. No sense stressin over it, life is too short.

:)

Cochise
05-03-2005, 04:53 PM
ZZZ for the one millionth time...

-Glass says he is losing money, not pocketing huge profits. If anyone wants to call him a liar lets see your evidence.
-This team is not one or two players away and $20 million isn't going to put them in the race.
-When it looked like we were a couple players away they tried to make it happen (Lloyd, Leskanic, Levine, Santiago, Gonzalez, White, and the others who were brought in when it looked like we were close). Unfortunately it didnt work out that time, but you can't say they didn't try to get over the hump
-No one buys a baseball team to lose $50 million a year. No one with that amount of money got it by being that stupid.
-Face it, baseball is rigged, we have neither a commissioner nor a player's union that cares, and thus the Royals are handcuffed for the time being.

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 04:54 PM
BIG difference between the Royals and the A's. The Royals have not made the playoffs since 1985, while the A's have been very competetive recently and have made the playoffs a handful of times. Both teams have low payrolls, but that's about where the similarities stop.

I'd give my right nut to see the kind of success the A's have had the past few years.

Cochise
05-03-2005, 04:56 PM
Just enjoy it for what it is until they change it. No sense stressin over it, life is too short.

:)

:clap: That's what I'm saying, baseball will get fixed eventually, but don't kid yourself in the meantime. The team has to follow the smallball model in the meantime, bring the best young talent in the system all to the top at once and hope for the best. It's not out of the question that they could get a division crown or wild card and playoff baseball return to Kauffman. Just have to keep expectations at a reasonable level until the game is repaired.

That's all that most of these small market 'success stories' have done anyway. Oakland and Minnesota win divisions but don't go anywhere. Probably fun to watch every year even though the big payrolls expose them in the postseason.

Calcountry
05-03-2005, 04:56 PM
What a scumbag. He owns a business and he profits from it? The nerve.They should just lower ticket prices on weeknight games to like 5 bucks a pop for the upper decks, and 10 bucks for the lower decks. Double the price on fri sat and sun.

You can't go to a fuggin movie for 5 bucks. Fill the seats, sell concessions, entertain, even if you lose. But guess what, a full house is infectious.

I bet he would make more money if he would just give the fuggin seats away.

Mr. Laz
05-03-2005, 04:57 PM
These teams do all sorts of things to hide money. For instance, they will create a seperate company to do the concessions and not report that as profit for the "main" company. Same thing with parking. Probably do the same thing with running the scoreboard, training, etc.
i think you just bought into the BS that the players association wants everyone to believe so they can keep disregarding the health of the game and fill their pockets.

Miles
05-03-2005, 05:10 PM
Do you think we can truly be competetive year in and year out on a payroll under $50 million? It seems like a pipedream to me considering our so-so minor league system.

Nope. I just see trying to put together a young core of young guys is about the only shot at being competative. Sure its damn difficult to pull off, but good management and talent evaluation is about the only way its possible to have a good team thats cheap.

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 05:16 PM
Nope. I just see trying to put together a young core of young guys is about the only shot at being competative. Sure its damn difficult to pull off, but good management and talent evaluation is about the only way its possible to have a good team thats cheap.

So basically our goal every year should just be to get to .500, and not even bother worrying about the playoffs.

Where do I sign up for season tickets??? ROFL

Calcountry
05-03-2005, 05:19 PM
BIG difference between the Royals and the A's. The Royals have not made the playoffs since 1985, while the A's have been very competetive recently and have made the playoffs a handful of times. Both teams have low payrolls, but that's about where the similarities stop.

I'd give my right nut to see the kind of success the A's have had the past few years.

You know what pisses me off more? I was at the A's Ranger game last night at Oaktown, and they had like, all of 7K people there to watch a former Athletic, Kenny Rodgers, throw no hit through 5 innings, shutout through 8, and the A's had the tying run on 3rd with 2 out in the ninth despite all that because Harden pitched his ass off.

Last year, the fuggin A's were in a penant drive and less than 14 thousand were out on a night weekday game. Thats a pathetic show of support for a level of competitive that other markets would give left testicles for.

I pre(No shit, this interruption/ Rickey Hendersons Uncle just was in my store)/ I predict that the A's will be moving soon, they just got bought by a new owner.

Miles
05-03-2005, 05:20 PM
ZZZ for the one millionth time...

-Glass says he is losing money, not pocketing huge profits. If anyone wants to call him a liar lets see your evidence.
-This team is not one or two players away and $20 million isn't going to put them in the race.
-When it looked like we were a couple players away they tried to make it happen (Lloyd, Leskanic, Levine, Santiago, Gonzalez, White, and the others who were brought in when it looked like we were close). Unfortunately it didnt work out that time, but you can't say they didn't try to get over the hump
-No one buys a baseball team to lose $50 million a year. No one with that amount of money got it by being that stupid.
-Face it, baseball is rigged, we have neither a commissioner nor a player's union that cares, and thus the Royals are handcuffed for the time being.

Nice post.

I definitly agree with you on the economics of baseball being complete crap and it needing to be fixed. Though i really havent heard any good arguments of how it will realisticly happen.

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 05:23 PM
Nice post.

I definitly agree with you on the economics of baseball being complete crap and it needing to be fixed. Though i really havent heard any good arguments of how it will realisticly happen.

Increasing the revenue sharing from 20% to 50% along with splitting all local TV revenue between all 30 teams would be a good start.

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 05:24 PM
You know what pisses me off more? I was at the A's Ranger game last night at Oaktown, and they had like, all of 7K people there to watch a former Athletic, Kenny Rodgers, throw no hit through 5 innings, shutout through 8, and the A's had the tying run on 3rd with 2 out in the ninth despite all that because Harden pitched his ass off.

Last year, the fuggin A's were in a penant drive and less than 14 thousand were out on a night weekday game. Thats a pathetic show of support for a level of competitive that other markets would give left testicles for.

I pre(No shit, this interruption/ Rickey Hendersons Uncle just was in my store)/ I predict that the A's will be moving soon, they just got bought by a new owner.

Why is there no fan support? Do people there just hate baseball? Or do they like the Giants a lot more? It seems odd that the A's are still struggling to get fans to come out.

Miles
05-03-2005, 05:28 PM
So basically our goal every year should just be to get to .500, and not even bother worrying about the playoffs.

Where do I sign up for season tickets??? ROFL

No I think you misunderstood me. I was trying to make the point that the only real method to making with their payroll is though developing young talent. The dramatic increase in salary that would be required to build a competative team through free agency is very unrealistic.

See Cochise's posts. He did a much better job of making the argument than I did.

Miles
05-03-2005, 05:30 PM
Increasing the revenue sharing from 20% to 50% along with splitting all local TV revenue between all 30 teams would be a good start.

Sure it is, but how does that go about happening? Its not exacly easy to get the big market teams to give up their revenue just for the sake of having a better competative balance.

tk13
05-03-2005, 05:32 PM
along with splitting all local TV revenue between all 30 teams


Steinbrenner would go insane... it'd be funny though.

eazyb81
05-03-2005, 05:34 PM
Sure it is, but how does that go about happening? Its not exacly easy to get the big market teams to give up their revenue just for the sake of having a better competative balance.

It is probably not going to happen, there would have to be a fairly long lockout by the owners, and I doubt that the majority of owners would be in favor of it right now.

IMO, a fair and balanced MLB is a pipedream right now, the union is too tough and the owners that are making money want to keep making money.

Calcountry
05-03-2005, 07:27 PM
Why is there no fan support? Do people there just hate baseball? Or do they like the Giants a lot more? It seems odd that the A's are still struggling to get fans to come out.Ever since the Giants opened up the new ballpark the Yuppies only go there.

Calcountry
05-03-2005, 07:28 PM
Why is there no fan support? Do people there just hate baseball? Or do they like the Giants a lot more? It seems odd that the A's are still struggling to get fans to come out.Oakland is just too blue collar for a lot of people, if you know what I mean.

Frazod
05-03-2005, 07:29 PM
Like this f#cking prick gives a damn about the team or the fans. 4321

DIE GLASS DIE

:cuss:

Calcountry
05-03-2005, 07:30 PM
It is probably not going to happen, there would have to be a fairly long lockout by the owners, and I doubt that the majority of owners would be in favor of it right now.

IMO, a fair and balanced MLB is a pipedream right now, the union is too tough and the owners that are making money want to keep making money.And the owners that are losing money can do so, if they can entertain important clients with Luxury suites when they are in town for business.

Some dudes, are so fuggin rich, that it is nothing for them to have a ballclub that loses a couple mill per year. Its like having a toy train set.

Calcountry
05-03-2005, 07:30 PM
Like this f#cking prick gives a damn about the team or the fans. 4321

DIE GLASS DIE

:cuss:Toy train set, lmao.

Calcountry
05-03-2005, 07:31 PM
Steinbrenner would go insane... it'd be funny though.And the merchandise.

tk13
05-04-2005, 05:32 AM
Further discussion in today's paper...

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/11556440.htm

Glass was warned he would be vilified about payroll

JEFFREY FLANAGAN


So David Glass acknowledged the Royals made $3 million last year but also that he has lost $27 million since buying the team in 2000.

And if you listen to some fans, losing $27 million isn't enough. Fans today seem infuriated with any owner not willing to lose millions and millions each season. Any owner not willing to do so is cheap.

“I told David when he bought the team,” former general manager Herk Robinson said, “that he'd just bought a license to get criticized for not spending enough and not losing enough money. To some fans, you're only a good owner if you run up a huge debt. I don't get it.”

Many of these same Royals fans also exist in this fantasy world that if Ewing Kauffman still owned the team that he'd be willing to lose a fortune to make the Royals competitive with the big boys in baseball, namely the Yankees and Red Sox.

“I've heard that stuff, too, and it's utter baloney,” Robinson said. “Mr. K hated to lose money on the Royals. He considered that really bad business. He'd get upset if the team lost $500,000 in a season.

“And I can promise you that he wouldn't be spending so much that he'd have an $80 million payroll because that would mean he'd be losing, what, $40 million? There's no way.

“The truth is, I doubt very much that Mr. K would even own the Royals if he were alive today. He wouldn't be interested in the present system where one team can spend $200 million on payroll and other teams can't spend $50 million. That wasn't him. He'd have much rather spent the money on his charity foundations. He figured the money he gave away there went a lot further in society.”

ChiTown
05-04-2005, 10:33 AM
This is a very tiresome subject.......

Here's the bottom line, and I think this works for all small market teams. You want to have some success with MLB on a small budget? Great. Build and develop a great minor league system. That means having excellent scouts, great Minor League coaches, great teachers.

Know how to effectively spend your dollars - AKA, not tieing up the majority of your usable dough with one guy (AKA Sweeney). That means getting FA acqusitions that don't have baggage (AKA Bennie Santiago, Juan Gone).

Get a manager who can teach and develop young talent, and actually manage a game. God love ya Tony, but you just aren't a very good manager.

I think it's crazy for a team to lose a bunch of money to try and win games. I am totally against that thinking. I think it's better to spend your money on being the best at determing who the talent is (HS/College kids), and how to develop it. Hey, we are who we are, and that's just the way MLB is. But we don't have to be everyones bitch just because we can't figure how to be smarter than the teams with money. It's not the Glass Families job to lose money, but it is their job to figure out how to be smarter with what we do have.

petegz28
05-04-2005, 10:38 AM
Then WHY HAVE A TEAM????????? If you are gonna lose money and can't afford to make the team better...WHY HAVE A TEAM?

Cochise
05-04-2005, 10:40 AM
Then WHY HAVE A TEAM????????? If you are gonna lose money and can't afford to make the team better...WHY HAVE A TEAM?

Weren't you just saying earlier that the whole reason people buy baseball teams is to lose money on them?

ChiTown
05-04-2005, 10:43 AM
Then WHY HAVE A TEAM????????? If you are gonna lose money and can't afford to make the team better...WHY HAVE A TEAM?

Reading is a skill.....................

You don't have to lose millions to win games. If you spend your time and money developing your scouting and minor league systems (like the Royals used to do in the 70's), you can be competitive - especially in the ALC. The Royals got sloppy, sleepy, sucky, shitty, etc. etc. at developing their talent. They are starting to get better, but they need to purge themselves of certain players before they can finally get there (Sweeney). Seriously, what good does it do to have Sweeney in the system when we know damn good and well that he'll never be here or be productive by the time we get around to sporting a team with talent. Use those funds to upgrade the ML system or save it. We'll eventually need those funds at some point.

KCTitus
05-04-2005, 10:44 AM
Then WHY HAVE A TEAM????????? If you are gonna lose money and can't afford to make the team better...WHY HAVE A TEAM?

Team's not the issue, rather it's the league. Royals would be better served moving to AAA ball.

Rain Man
05-04-2005, 10:48 AM
He bought a major league baseball team for $96 million in the year 2000? Wow.

beavis
05-04-2005, 11:17 AM
This is a very tiresome subject.......

Here's the bottom line, and I think this works for all small market teams. You want to have some success with MLB on a small budget? Great. Build and develop a great minor league system. That means having excellent scouts, great Minor League coaches, great teachers.

Know how to effectively spend your dollars - AKA, not tieing up the majority of your usable dough with one guy (AKA Sweeney). That means getting FA acqusitions that don't have baggage (AKA Bennie Santiago, Juan Gone).

Get a manager who can teach and develop young talent, and actually manage a game. God love ya Tony, but you just aren't a very good manager.

I think it's crazy for a team to lose a bunch of money to try and win games. I am totally against that thinking. I think it's better to spend your money on being the best at determing who the talent is (HS/College kids), and how to develop it. Hey, we are who we are, and that's just the way MLB is. But we don't have to be everyones bitch just because we can't figure how to be smarter than the teams with money. It's not the Glass Families job to lose money, but it is their job to figure out how to be smarter with what we do have.
Couldn't agree more. :clap:

I don't hold Glass/Baird responsible for not losing millions every year to buy talent. I do hold them responsible for not developing the farm system into the talent well it has to be if we ever want to be competitive.

petegz28
05-04-2005, 12:35 PM
Weren't you just saying earlier that the whole reason people buy baseball teams is to lose money on them?


Nope twas not me. I have said in other threads it is not unreasonalbe to expect a loss your first couple years. But the picture that is being painted and what I actually see happening is this team is detined to do nothing but lose money unless we put AA talent on the field. So again why have a team then?

Just a novel thought.....put a team that competes on the field and watch the fans pack it in at the K.

Cochise
05-04-2005, 12:40 PM
Couldn't agree more. :clap:

I don't hold Glass/Baird responsible for not losing millions every year to buy talent. I do hold them responsible for not developing the farm system into the talent well it has to be if we ever want to be competitive.

Yeah, if you don't think the system has enough young talent in it, then go ahead and fire at Baird and the scouting department for making bad draft picks, or the development personnel for not developing them. There, a case can be made.

But the "OMGZ GLASSZ IZ SO CHEEP >_< !!!!111one" argument does nothing but make one look like a tard

petegz28
05-04-2005, 12:42 PM
Couldn't agree more. :clap:

I don't hold Glass/Baird responsible for not losing millions every year to buy talent. I do hold them responsible for not developing the farm system into the talent well it has to be if we ever want to be competitive.


You mean not develop talent like that guy, oh waht is his name...CAROLS BELTRAN? The same Beltran that we drafted? The same Beltran that is now playing elsewhere?

We can develop all the talent we want. It will just go away to other teams if we don't compete in $'s. Yes I am for a salary cap. Yes I understand we are a small market team. But if beig a small market team is forever going to be an excuse then move the team to AAA.

ChiTown
05-04-2005, 12:44 PM
But the "OMGZ GLASSZ IZ SO CHEEP >_< !!!!111one" argument does nothing but make one look like a tard

Yep.

Buying a MLB franchise, esp. a small market franchise, is pretty much a losing proposition. It certainly doesn't yield what you could get in most investments.

That said, the Glass family knew what they were getting into. Now, they need to figure out how to make this thing work in KC.

ChiTown
05-04-2005, 12:48 PM
You mean not develop talent like that guy, oh waht is his name...CAROLS BELTRAN? The same Beltran that we drafted? The same Beltran that is now playing elsewhere?

We can develop all the talent we want. It will just go away to other teams if we don't compete in $'s. Yes I am for a salary cap. Yes I understand we are a small market team. But if beig a small market team is forever going to be an excuse then move the team to AAA.

Not altogteher true......

The thing is to have lots of developing talent in the pipeline. In all honesty, we've had a rather shallow pool to deal with. We shouldn't have to be hung to our death's if one player leaves. We should be nurturing enough talent that when one guy leaves, we plug in the next. I'm not trying to say we should have had another Carlos Beltran ready to go, but we should have been able to replace him with a decent prospect. David DeJesus, while a nice player, wasn't that guy, IMO.

petegz28
05-04-2005, 12:54 PM
Yeah, if you don't think the system has enough young talent in it, then go ahead and fire at Baird and the scouting department for making bad draft picks, or the development personnel for not developing them. There, a case can be made.

But the "OMGZ GLASSZ IZ SO CHEEP >_< !!!!111one" argument does nothing but make one look like a tard


I think the reality of it is that it is a little bit of both. Glass is cheap and Baird sucks at draft picks.

Cochise
05-04-2005, 12:55 PM
We shouldn't have to be hung to our death's if one player leaves. We should be nurturing enough talent that when one guy leaves, we plug in the next.

I think that was the idea re: Beltran with Chris Lubanski (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/draft/lubanski0304.html) but I don't know how he's doing.

According to BA our best 10 prospects are:

1. Billy Butler, 3b
2. Denny Bautista, rhp
3. Mark Teahen, 3b
4. Chris Lubanski, of
5. Justin Huber, c
6. Luis Cota, rhp
7. Shane Costa, of
8. Mitch Maier, 3b/of
9. Donald Murphy, 2b
10. J.P. Howell, rhp

And if you want to know why there is so little in the pipeline look at the last several #1 draft picks, especially the pre-Baird ones.

1995 Juan LeBron, of
1996 Dee Brown, of
1997 Dan Reichert, rhp
1998 Jeff Austin, rhp
1999 Kyle Snyder, rhp
2000 Mike Stodolka, lhp
2001 Colt Griffin, rhp
2002 Zack Greinke, rhp
2003 Chris Lubanski, of
2004 Billy Butler, 3b

Of these guys I would consider only Greinke to have amounted to anything. (jury still out on the last two).

If you're a small market team you have to draft well and cultivate talent well, and if we are doing that now, we hadn't been until recently.

petegz28
05-04-2005, 12:57 PM
Not altogteher true......

The thing is to have lots of developing talent in the pipeline. In all honesty, we've had a rather shallow pool to deal with. We shouldn't have to be hung to our death's if one player leaves. We should be nurturing enough talent that when one guy leaves, we plug in the next. I'm not trying to say we should have had another Carlos Beltran ready to go, but we should have been able to replace him with a decent prospect. David DeJesus, while a nice player, wasn't that guy, IMO.


1 player that is argulably the best player in baseball in the last couple decades. On top of Damon, Dye, Randa. DeJesus looks to be a good player but yes no Beltran but could be better than Damon. The fact of the matter is we have a owner that sucks and I do not care for Baird. They don't know how to get\keep the talent and when they do get it don't know how to manage it.

ChiTown
05-04-2005, 01:02 PM
I think that was the idea re: Beltran with Chris Lubanski (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/draft/lubanski0304.html) but I don't know how he's doing.

According to BA our best 10 prospects are:

1. Billy Butler, 3b
2. Denny Bautista, rhp
3. Mark Teahen, 3b
4. Chris Lubanski, of
5. Justin Huber, c
6. Luis Cota, rhp
7. Shane Costa, of
8. Mitch Maier, 3b/of
9. Donald Murphy, 2b
10. J.P. Howell, rhp

And if you want to know why there is so little in the pipeline look at the last several #1 draft picks, especially the pre-Baird ones.

1995 Juan LeBron, of
1996 Dee Brown, of
1997 Dan Reichert, rhp
1998 Jeff Austin, rhp
1999 Kyle Snyder, rhp
2000 Mike Stodolka, lhp
2001 Colt Griffin, rhp
2002 Zack Greinke, rhp
2003 Chris Lubanski, of
2004 Billy Butler, 3b

Of these guys I would consider only Greinke to have amounted to anything. (jury still out on the last two).

If you're a small market team you have to draft well and cultivate talent well, and if we are doing that now, we hadn't been until recently.


Well, I can assure you that Lubanski was never going to be in KC before 2006, earliest. So, knowing that we weren't ever going to be able to keep Beltran, he was never the replacement. In all reality, if he makes it, it probably won't be until 2007 or after. The kid is really struggling at the plate.

Billy Butler is just ripping it up this year. This kid is an absolute stud. He'll be in Wichita in the next couple of months and pushing for a roster spot in 06. Teahan better watch out.

Colt Griffin, again, is struggling. I just don't see this kid making it. He's a converted pitcher, who has some real mechanics issues. I really hope they can keep Mitch Maier (2003 draftee with Lubanski - 2nd pick). He's really developed well converting from Catcher to 3b to OF. I think this kid has a shot in 2007.

KingPriest2
05-04-2005, 02:36 PM
The Cards payroll is above 90 mil....So What...

They come from the same state as the Royals...They come from a similar city...They have approx the same number of radio/tv outlets.

And, I would venture they still make money.

The Cards are the best example I can think of how to run a "small market" team.

They win and they make money because they win. They win by developing their own talent...e.g., Pujols, Molina, Morris, and make incredibly good trades, e.g., Edmonds, Walker, Rolen, Marquis. They sign very few "big name" free agents who are not giving a "home town" discount.

The twins are GREAT at scouting - see Santana, a rule five pickup - and developing young players (almost everyone else on the squad.) They play competitive baseball year in and year out. Are the Royals not in the same div the twins are? Hell, I would take the Royals being competitive in this so-called crappy divsion.

The Marlins are apt to win the entire thing again this year. Their pitching is THAT good.

Now tell me again how the poor Royals just "can't compete." I call it complete BS.


Wrong

1 New York, NY 15,340,000
#2 Los Angeles, CA 10,609,200
#3 Chicago, IL 7,612,100
#4 San Francisco, CA 6,012,000
#5 Dallas, TX 4,576,700
#6 Philadelphia, PA 4,291,700
#7 Houston, TX 4,165,000
#8 Washington, DC 4,041,300
#9 Boston, MA 3,888,800
#10 Detroit, MI 3,859,700
#11 Atlanta, GA 3,750,700
#12 Miami, FL 3,489,800
#13 Puerto Rico 3,264,900
#14 Seattle, WA 3,150,300
#15 Phoenix, AZ 2,801,300
#16 Minneapolis MN 2,550,200
#17 San Diego, CA 2,485,600
#18 Nassau, NY 2,353,600
#19 Baltimore, MD 2,236,800
#20 St. Louis, MO 2,210,800
#21 Tampa, FL 2,194,600
#22 Denver, CO 2,150,300
#23 Pittsburgh, PA 2,019,400
#24 Portland, OR 1,905,700
#25 Cleveland, OH 1,800,600
#26 Cincinnati, OH 1,691,100
#27 Sacramento, CA 1,651,800
#28 Riverside, CA 1,571,100
#29 Kansas City, MO 1,506,400
#30 San Antonio, TX 1,496,600
#31 Salt Lake City, UT 1,467,800
#32 San Jose, CA 1,466,800
#33 Milwaukee, WI 1,420,300
#34 Providence, RI 1,383,300
#35 Columbus, OH 1,382,600
#36 Middlesex, NJ 1,372,700
#37 Charlotte, NC 1,355,800
#38 Orlando, FL 1,340,500
#39 Las Vegas, NV 1,335,300
#40 Norfolk, VA 1,298,500
#41 Indianapolis, IN 1,277,500
#42 Austin, TX 1,189,800
#43 Greensboro, NC 1,106,400
#44 Raleigh, NC 1,087,100
#45 Nashville, TN 1,084,700
#46 New Orleans, LA 1,074,800
#47 W.Palm Beach, FL 1,054,100
#48 Memphis, TN 1,029,100
#49 Hartford, CT 1,020,200
#50 Jacksonville, FL 1,014,900
#51 Monmouth, NJ 995,300
#52 Buffalo, NY 987,100
#53 Oklahoma City, OK 935,100
#54 Rochester, NY 932,000
#55 Louisville, KY 912,000
#56 Richmond, VA 876,700
#57 Birmingham, AL 848,000
#58 Dayton, OH 833,900
#59 Greenville, SC 798,400
#60 Westchester, NY 785,500

Cochise
05-04-2005, 02:40 PM
Billy Butler is just ripping it up this year. This kid is an absolute stud. He'll be in Wichita in the next couple of months and pushing for a roster spot in 06. Teahan better watch out.

You can see the beginnings for a good team again, if one of Butler/Teahen becomes a corner OF, Lubanski pans out, Buck matures at the plate, etc.

Miles
05-04-2005, 02:43 PM
1 player that is argulably the best player in baseball in the last couple decades.

Beltran? I have seen him overrated but this certainly tops it.

KingPriest2
05-04-2005, 03:17 PM
Like I said in an earlier post:

It's easy to suggest that a company should lose money to please the customer, when you are the customer.


Do you own a business? I guess not

I do.

My wife and I own a preschool. We opened with only 10 to 15 kids. We wanted more so we planned for it. We have added to our preschool 2 diff times. We had to spend money to make money later. We are now up to having 80 some kids. We were voted the best preschool in the area. We get so many compliements. We have had a waiting list for about 6 months. We are at the point to where we have to expand again. We are now starting to make show a profit. That is unbelieveable actually. after being open for a year and a half.

We lost money to please the customer in order to get where we are today.

KingPriest2
05-04-2005, 03:20 PM
If that extra money was put into aging veterans (where have we seen that before?) which stall the youth movement again, that would represent the WORST situation. We knew that going young this year would hurt us early on. Hopefully, the talent that we have will continue to develop. I still think Allard WOULD add payroll in the form of a good, young, power-hitting OF; the right trade just hasn't materialized.


The thing is they really never commited to a youth movement.

ENDelt260
05-04-2005, 03:21 PM
The twins are the single abberation in the league.

Well, *someone* has to win the Central.

KingPriest2
05-04-2005, 03:25 PM
This is a very tiresome subject.......

Here's the bottom line, and I think this works for all small market teams. You want to have some success with MLB on a small budget? Great. Build and develop a great minor league system. That means having excellent scouts, great Minor League coaches, great teachers.

Know how to effectively spend your dollars - AKA, not tieing up the majority of your usable dough with one guy (AKA Sweeney). That means getting FA acqusitions that don't have baggage (AKA Bennie Santiago, Juan Gone).

Get a manager who can teach and develop young talent, and actually manage a game. God love ya Tony, but you just aren't a very good manager.

I think it's crazy for a team to lose a bunch of money to try and win games. I am totally against that thinking. I think it's better to spend your money on being the best at determing who the talent is (HS/College kids), and how to develop it. Hey, we are who we are, and that's just the way MLB is. But we don't have to be everyones bitch just because we can't figure how to be smarter than the teams with money. It's not the Glass Families job to lose money, but it is their job to figure out how to be smarter with what we do have.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

ChiefsCountry
05-04-2005, 03:36 PM
Wrong

1 New York, NY 15,340,000
#2 Los Angeles, CA 10,609,200
#3 Chicago, IL 7,612,100
#4 San Francisco, CA 6,012,000
#5 Dallas, TX 4,576,700
#6 Philadelphia, PA 4,291,700
#7 Houston, TX 4,165,000
#8 Washington, DC 4,041,300
#9 Boston, MA 3,888,800
#10 Detroit, MI 3,859,700
#11 Atlanta, GA 3,750,700
#12 Miami, FL 3,489,800
#13 Puerto Rico 3,264,900
#14 Seattle, WA 3,150,300
#15 Phoenix, AZ 2,801,300
#16 Minneapolis MN 2,550,200
#17 San Diego, CA 2,485,600
#18 Nassau, NY 2,353,600
#19 Baltimore, MD 2,236,800
#20 St. Louis, MO 2,210,800
#21 Tampa, FL 2,194,600
#22 Denver, CO 2,150,300
#23 Pittsburgh, PA 2,019,400
#24 Portland, OR 1,905,700
#25 Cleveland, OH 1,800,600
#26 Cincinnati, OH 1,691,100
#27 Sacramento, CA 1,651,800
#28 Riverside, CA 1,571,100
#29 Kansas City, MO 1,506,400
#30 San Antonio, TX 1,496,600
#31 Salt Lake City, UT 1,467,800
#32 San Jose, CA 1,466,800
#33 Milwaukee, WI 1,420,300
#34 Providence, RI 1,383,300
#35 Columbus, OH 1,382,600
#36 Middlesex, NJ 1,372,700
#37 Charlotte, NC 1,355,800
#38 Orlando, FL 1,340,500
#39 Las Vegas, NV 1,335,300
#40 Norfolk, VA 1,298,500
#41 Indianapolis, IN 1,277,500
#42 Austin, TX 1,189,800
#43 Greensboro, NC 1,106,400
#44 Raleigh, NC 1,087,100
#45 Nashville, TN 1,084,700
#46 New Orleans, LA 1,074,800
#47 W.Palm Beach, FL 1,054,100
#48 Memphis, TN 1,029,100
#49 Hartford, CT 1,020,200
#50 Jacksonville, FL 1,014,900
#51 Monmouth, NJ 995,300
#52 Buffalo, NY 987,100
#53 Oklahoma City, OK 935,100
#54 Rochester, NY 932,000
#55 Louisville, KY 912,000
#56 Richmond, VA 876,700
#57 Birmingham, AL 848,000
#58 Dayton, OH 833,900
#59 Greenville, SC 798,400
#60 Westchester, NY 785,500

In all reality, we are the #26 market in the country. Some of those are huge suburbs of a major city ie Nasau, NY and San Jose, CA. And I took out Puerto Rico.

So it should go:

#1 New York, NY 15,340,000
#2 Los Angeles, CA 10,609,200
#3 Chicago, IL 7,612,100
#4 San Francisco, CA 6,012,000
#5 Dallas, TX 4,576,700
#6 Philadelphia, PA 4,291,700
#7 Houston, TX 4,165,000
#8 Washington, DC 4,041,300
#9 Boston, MA 3,888,800
#10 Detroit, MI 3,859,700
#11 Atlanta, GA 3,750,700
#12 Miami, FL 3,489,800
#13 Seattle, WA 3,150,300
#14 Phoenix, AZ 2,801,300
#15 Minneapolis MN 2,550,200
#16 San Diego, CA 2,485,600
#17 Baltimore, MD 2,236,800
#18 St. Louis, MO 2,210,800
#19 Tampa, FL 2,194,600
#20 Denver, CO 2,150,300
#21 Pittsburgh, PA 2,019,400
#22 Portland, OR 1,905,700
#23 Cleveland, OH 1,800,600
#24 Cincinnati, OH 1,691,100
#25 Sacramento, CA 1,651,800
#26 Kansas City, MO 1,506,400
#27 San Antonio, TX 1,496,600
#28 Salt Lake City, UT 1,467,800
#29 Milwaukee, WI 1,420,300
#30 Providence, RI 1,383,300
#31 Columbus, OH 1,382,600
#32 Charlotte, NC 1,355,800
#33 Orlando, FL 1,340,500
#34 Las Vegas, NV 1,335,300
#35 Norfolk, VA 1,298,500
#36 Indianapolis, IN 1,277,500
#37 Austin, TX 1,189,800
#38 Greensboro, NC 1,106,400
#39 Raleigh, NC 1,087,100
#40 Nashville, TN 1,084,700
#41 New Orleans, LA 1,074,800
#42 Memphis, TN 1,029,100
#43 Hartford, CT 1,020,200
#44 Jacksonville, FL 1,014,900
#45 Buffalo, NY 987,100
#46 Oklahoma City, OK 935,100
#47 Rochester, NY 932,000
#48 Louisville, KY 912,000
#49 Richmond, VA 876,700
#50 Birmingham, AL 848,000
#51 Dayton, OH 833,900
#52 Greenville, SC 798,400

ENDelt260
05-04-2005, 03:38 PM
It's fun reading a Royals thread every once in awhile. It's always the same stuff over and over again.

I particularly enjoy the folks who insist on signing some FAs as some sort of good faith effort. "Who cares if we end up losing still... at least TRY." Were these people comatose in 2004?

Cochise
05-04-2005, 03:38 PM
Beltran? I have seen him overrated but this certainly tops it.

He's a fine center fielder, but the best player in decades? Please.

ChiefsCountry
05-04-2005, 03:41 PM
He's a fine center fielder, but the best player in decades? Please.

Gurrerro with the Angels, he is alot better than Beltran.

beavis
05-04-2005, 03:52 PM
It's fun reading a Royals thread every once in awhile. It's always the same stuff over and over again.

I particularly enjoy the folks who insist on signing some FAs as some sort of good faith effort. "Who cares if we end up losing still... at least TRY." Were these people comatose in 2004?
Yeah, that extra $10 million is going to make us instant contenders.

beavis
05-04-2005, 03:53 PM
Do you own a business? I guess not

I do.

My wife and I own a preschool. We opened with only 10 to 15 kids. We wanted more so we planned for it. We have added to our preschool 2 diff times. We had to spend money to make money later. We are now up to having 80 some kids. We were voted the best preschool in the area. We get so many compliements. We have had a waiting list for about 6 months. We are at the point to where we have to expand again. We are now starting to make show a profit. That is unbelieveable actually. after being open for a year and a half.

We lost money to please the customer in order to get where we are today.
So how much would Glass have to spend today to make money tomorrow? You may own a business, but I get the feeling you don't understand the economics of baseball very well.

beavis
05-04-2005, 03:55 PM
You mean not develop talent like that guy, oh waht is his name...CAROLS BELTRAN? The same Beltran that we drafted? The same Beltran that is now playing elsewhere?

We can develop all the talent we want. It will just go away to other teams if we don't compete in $'s. Yes I am for a salary cap. Yes I understand we are a small market team. But if beig a small market team is forever going to be an excuse then move the team to AAA.
1) You really think the Royals should have signed Beltran to a contract like the one he has with the Mets?

2) Question 1 is irrelevant, as his agent would never allow him to sign with KC.

beavis
05-04-2005, 03:58 PM
Well, I can assure you that Lubanski was never going to be in KC before 2006, earliest. So, knowing that we weren't ever going to be able to keep Beltran, he was never the replacement. In all reality, if he makes it, it probably won't be until 2007 or after. The kid is really struggling at the plate.

Billy Butler is just ripping it up this year. This kid is an absolute stud. He'll be in Wichita in the next couple of months and pushing for a roster spot in 06. Teahan better watch out.

Colt Griffin, again, is struggling. I just don't see this kid making it. He's a converted pitcher, who has some real mechanics issues. I really hope they can keep Mitch Maier (2003 draftee with Lubanski - 2nd pick). He's really developed well converting from Catcher to 3b to OF. I think this kid has a shot in 2007.
I've heard talk that Butler will endup in the outfield.

Last I heard Griffin was doing better as a reliever, but that's been last year.

KingPriest2
05-04-2005, 04:20 PM
In all reality, we are the #26 market in the country. Some of those are huge suburbs of a major city ie Nasau, NY and San Jose, CA. And I took out Puerto Rico.

So it should go:

#1 New York, NY 15,340,000
#2 Los Angeles, CA 10,609,200
#3 Chicago, IL 7,612,100
#4 San Francisco, CA 6,012,000
#5 Dallas, TX 4,576,700
#6 Philadelphia, PA 4,291,700
#7 Houston, TX 4,165,000
#8 Washington, DC 4,041,300
#9 Boston, MA 3,888,800
#10 Detroit, MI 3,859,700
#11 Atlanta, GA 3,750,700
#12 Miami, FL 3,489,800
#13 Seattle, WA 3,150,300
#14 Phoenix, AZ 2,801,300
#15 Minneapolis MN 2,550,200
#16 San Diego, CA 2,485,600
#17 Baltimore, MD 2,236,800
#18 St. Louis, MO 2,210,800
#19 Tampa, FL 2,194,600
#20 Denver, CO 2,150,300
#21 Pittsburgh, PA 2,019,400
#22 Portland, OR 1,905,700
#23 Cleveland, OH 1,800,600
#24 Cincinnati, OH 1,691,100
#25 Sacramento, CA 1,651,800
#26 Kansas City, MO 1,506,400
#27 San Antonio, TX 1,496,600
#28 Salt Lake City, UT 1,467,800
#29 Milwaukee, WI 1,420,300
#30 Providence, RI 1,383,300
#31 Columbus, OH 1,382,600
#32 Charlotte, NC 1,355,800
#33 Orlando, FL 1,340,500
#34 Las Vegas, NV 1,335,300
#35 Norfolk, VA 1,298,500
#36 Indianapolis, IN 1,277,500
#37 Austin, TX 1,189,800
#38 Greensboro, NC 1,106,400
#39 Raleigh, NC 1,087,100
#40 Nashville, TN 1,084,700
#41 New Orleans, LA 1,074,800
#42 Memphis, TN 1,029,100
#43 Hartford, CT 1,020,200
#44 Jacksonville, FL 1,014,900
#45 Buffalo, NY 987,100
#46 Oklahoma City, OK 935,100
#47 Rochester, NY 932,000
#48 Louisville, KY 912,000
#49 Richmond, VA 876,700
#50 Birmingham, AL 848,000
#51 Dayton, OH 833,900
#52 Greenville, SC 798,400

San Jose is not a suberb

KingPriest2
05-04-2005, 04:23 PM
So how much would Glass have to spend today to make money tomorrow? You may own a business, but I get the feeling you don't understand the economics of baseball very well.


I do understand the economics of baseball. I do know that like Chitown said Glass is going about it all wrong.

Let me ask you this.

With the state of baseball the way it is in now do you like what you are seeing with the Yankees struggling? Or do you want them to win and win and win?

ChiTown
05-04-2005, 04:25 PM
I've heard talk that Butler will endup in the outfield.

Last I heard Griffin was doing better as a reliever, but that's been last year.

I hadn't heard that about Butler. Thanks for the info.

Re: Griffin
I take my kids to a lot of Wranglers games - they're cheap and easy to get to.

Griffin has kept his ERA down, but he has an awful time finding the plate. 17 BB's in 17+ innings = not good. He's toned his velocity down, but it's very awkward to watch at times. They've been working him about an inning and a half per outing - Middle relief and setup. If he could be more consistent with his fastball, he might make a helluva setup guy some day. Colt is exactly the reason the Royals should throw money to great coaches and teachers. He's just not been coached up very well.

Calcountry
05-04-2005, 04:57 PM
San Jose is not a suberbFug an A, the place goes on forever and ever. Milpitas, now thats a Suburb. Mountain View, suburb, but San Jose? Fuggin San Fran is San Jose's suburb rather than the other way arround.

beavis
05-04-2005, 05:19 PM
I hadn't heard that about Butler. Thanks for the info.

Re: Griffin
I take my kids to a lot of Wranglers games - they're cheap and easy to get to.

Griffin has kept his ERA down, but he has an awful time finding the plate. 17 BB's in 17+ innings = not good. He's toned his velocity down, but it's very awkward to watch at times. They've been working him about an inning and a half per outing - Middle relief and setup. If he could be more consistent with his fastball, he might make a helluva setup guy some day. Colt is exactly the reason the Royals should throw money to great coaches and teachers. He's just not been coached up very well.
Sounds like he has the MacDougal syndrome.

BTW, I heard a rumor today that the Rangers are trying to trade for Mac. If Mench is part of the deal, Baird better be on the phone working out the details right now.

beavis
05-04-2005, 05:21 PM
I do understand the economics of baseball. I do know that like Chitown said Glass is going about it all wrong.

Let me ask you this.

With the state of baseball the way it is in now do you like what you are seeing with the Yankees struggling? Or do you want them to win and win and win?
I agree that Glass has made mistakes. But insisting that he blow a shitload of money is ludicrious. I think I've harped that point enough so I'll leave it alone.

I always want the Yankees to lose. If your point is, do I want the Yankees to lose to prove my point, then no, it's not needed. Their $200 million payroll speaks for itself, win or lose.

beavis
05-04-2005, 05:22 PM
Are you going to answer my question?
I just did Skippy.

KingPriest2
05-04-2005, 05:26 PM
I agree that Glass has made mistakes. But insisting that he blow a shitload of money is ludicrious. I think I've harped that point enough so I'll leave it alone.

I always want the Yankees to lose. If your point is, do I want the Yankees to lose to prove my point, then no, it's not needed. Their $200 million payroll speaks for itself, win or lose.


I think it speaks more if they win. The reason being is with them losing they would say "We are spending $200 mil and have the same record as the Royals so why should baseball change?" Or for that matter if they had a .500 record.

Lets go with this scenario. Lets say the Royals win a ton of games or smaller market teams and make the world series and win.

Then that hurts them. They would be like hell they are only spending $40 to $60 mil and they won the world series or even made it. Why should we change baseball?


See what I mean?

beavis
05-04-2005, 05:35 PM
I think it speaks more if they win. The reason being is with them losing they would say "We are spending $200 mil and have the same record as the Royals so why should baseball change?" Or for that matter if they had a .500 record.

Lets go with this scenario. Lets say the Royals win a ton of games or smaller market teams and make the world series and win.

Then that hurts them. They would be like hell they are only spending $40 to $60 mil and they won the world series or even made it. Why should we change baseball?


See what I mean?
I get your point, but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. The Royals could win 100 games, and they still won't come close to the revenue that NY has. We'll never be able to afford 6-year free agents with things the way they currently are, and teams like NY, Boston, etc will have their pick of the talent we've developed.

Records don't matter, baseball is broken, in a big time way.

KingPriest2
05-04-2005, 05:41 PM
I get your point, but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. The Royals could win 100 games, and they still won't come close to the revenue that NY has. We'll never be able to afford 6-year free agents with things the way they currently are, and teams like NY, Boston, etc will have their pick of the talent we've developed.

Records don't matter, baseball is broken, in a big time way.


But it does not matter if we played it smart and developed like Chitown discussed we would be ok.

I am not saying baseball is not broken. It is. Look at the Twins and As KC does support baseball. If they develop and win games then they would make money. They just have to make sure they do it.

It does not matter if the revenue is not close. People want to win. As you could see on this thread Record DO matter.

But in order to keep our players baseball does need to change. That is why you want the big market teams to dominate and the small market teams to struggle so there are no excuses because if it were the other way the could use it.

Look right now the Yankees got the other players from the small market teams. They are struggling. So you point holds no water.

Raiderhader
05-04-2005, 06:07 PM
Okay, players won't sign with teams that had a bad year, players won't sign with teams that haven't had recent success, and players won't sign with teams that don't live in cool areas of the country. Ok, I think I got it now guys. Are there any more qualifications I need to know about? :)

I certainly would not expect the Royals to be "fixed" if we signed an expensive player or two, but it would help the overall morale of this city in regards to baseball. KC has all but given up on the Royals this season, and it is only the 2nd day of May....that is pretty sad if you ask me.

Dipping into free agency will not solve all of our problems, but it might give fans some faith that our owner actually cares about winning and give another reason to actually go to the games.

Free agency is hardly the way to "fix" the Royals, but having guys like Eli Marrero, Tony Graffanino, and Joe McEwing start for us is not the way either.



You mean like Juan Gonzales? let's not pretend like it this approach has not been attempted and even taken. That is like saying that the Chiefs did not attempt to improve the defense through draft and FA during the first three years of the DV era. Alot of people say that as fact, but it just is not true.

eazyb81
05-04-2005, 06:15 PM
You mean like Juan Gonzales? let's not pretend like it this approach has not been attempted and even taken. That is like saying that the Chiefs did not attempt to improve the defense through draft and FA during the first three years of the DV era. Alot of people say that as fact, but it just is not true.

Juan Gonzalez was a good gamble on paper, he just didn't pan out. I would like to see the Royals spend a little bit on players that are still young, rather then past their prime players like Juan Gone and Santiago. However, I can't blame Baird for signing a few players last year to try and catch lightening in a bottle, it was Beltran's last year and we played really well the year before.

nychief
05-04-2005, 06:27 PM
from gammons

A Royal mess
The most disappointing team in April was likely the Royals. "I know a lot of our fans are disappointed and frustrated," K.C. general manager Allard Baird says. "But we have to build the right way. This is the way we have to go, and if anyone has to be fired, then fire me."

Baird is encouraged by his young pitching. Zack Greinke, Denny Bautista and Runelvys Hernandez (who still is getting his command back after undergoing Tommy John surgery) are the core of a future rotation, while Andy Sisco (20 strikeouts, two earned runs allowed in 18 innings pitched) was a great Rule V pickup from the Cubs, and Ambiorix Burgos shot out of Double-A hitting 98 mph on the radar gun.

Come July, the Royals will be looking to make some deals for young players. Mike Sweeney would love to go to the Dodgers. Brian Anderson could be available, as could Jeremy Affeldt, who will be a fourth-year arbitration case at the end of the season.

Baird's problem is that ownership doesn't breed relationships with young players. Affeldt had to go to arbitration over a $200,000 difference. Ken Harvey was shipped to Triple-A Omaha to open the season for arbitration reasons. That undermines what Baird and manager Tony Pena are trying to accomplish.

Raiderhader
05-04-2005, 06:32 PM
Juan Gonzalez was a good gamble on paper, he just didn't pan out. I would like to see the Royals spend a little bit on players that are still young, rather then past their prime players like Juan Gone and Santiago. However, I can't blame Baird for signing a few players last year to try and catch lightening in a bottle, it was Beltran's last year and we played really well the year before.


I think most agree that Juan was a good signing that just didn't pan out, that was not my point. My point was that we have attempted what you are suggesting we do. It didn't help any. The excitement at the begining of last season was merely bolstered by the FAs we brought in, most of it was carry over from the prior season where we competed primarly with the young talent we had.

KingPriest2
05-04-2005, 06:36 PM
from gammons

A Royal mess
The most disappointing team in April was likely the Royals. "I know a lot of our fans are disappointed and frustrated," K.C. general manager Allard Baird says. "But we have to build the right way. This is the way we have to go, and if anyone has to be fired, then fire me."

Baird is encouraged by his young pitching. Zack Greinke, Denny Bautista and Runelvys Hernandez (who still is getting his command back after undergoing Tommy John surgery) are the core of a future rotation, while Andy Sisco (20 strikeouts, two earned runs allowed in 18 innings pitched) was a great Rule V pickup from the Cubs, and Ambiorix Burgos shot out of Double-A hitting 98 mph on the radar gun.

Come July, the Royals will be looking to make some deals for young players. Mike Sweeney would love to go to the Dodgers. Brian Anderson could be available, as could Jeremy Affeldt, who will be a fourth-year arbitration case at the end of the season.

Baird's problem is that ownership doesn't breed relationships with young players. Affeldt had to go to arbitration over a $200,000 difference. Ken Harvey was shipped to Triple-A Omaha to open the season for arbitration reasons. That undermines what Baird and manager Tony Pena are trying to accomplish.


You got to be kidding me Gammons?

nychief
05-04-2005, 06:37 PM
You got to be kidding me Gammons?


you disagree with the final graf?

Cochise
05-04-2005, 06:38 PM
from gammons

A Royal mess
The most disappointing team in April was likely the Royals. "I know a lot of our fans are disappointed and frustrated," K.C. general manager Allard Baird says. "But we have to build the right way. This is the way we have to go, and if anyone has to be fired, then fire me."

Baird is encouraged by his young pitching. Zack Greinke, Denny Bautista and Runelvys Hernandez (who still is getting his command back after undergoing Tommy John surgery) are the core of a future rotation, while Andy Sisco (20 strikeouts, two earned runs allowed in 18 innings pitched) was a great Rule V pickup from the Cubs, and Ambiorix Burgos shot out of Double-A hitting 98 mph on the radar gun.

Come July, the Royals will be looking to make some deals for young players. Mike Sweeney would love to go to the Dodgers. Brian Anderson could be available, as could Jeremy Affeldt, who will be a fourth-year arbitration case at the end of the season.

Baird's problem is that ownership doesn't breed relationships with young players. Affeldt had to go to arbitration over a $200,000 difference. Ken Harvey was shipped to Triple-A Omaha to open the season for arbitration reasons. That undermines what Baird and manager Tony Pena are trying to accomplish.

I haven't liked in the past the way they've held back younger players to keep them from arbitration, but I guess it's not bad to maximize the time you have with them.

As for Affeldt, he hasn't done much so far this year to warrant any $200k difference.

Gammons mentions the future there though. Greinke/Bautista/Hernandez + Burgos closing. Perhaps Affeldt could start again, perhaps Sisco will pan out for us. That is most of a pitching staff, enough to where when there was some offense ready they could plug in a few vets.

tk13
05-04-2005, 06:55 PM
Don't listen to Peter Gammons. I could be wrong about this, but over on the kcroyals.com board they figured it up and Harvey is still going to be arbitration eligible at the end of the year. I haven't added it up myself but I trust some of the regulars over there that figured it up. Harvey didn't hit worth a darn the 2nd half and in spring training, and he doesn't take walks. Affeldt didn't pitch that well either, Gammons needs to consider that poor performance as much as the fact that he thinks Glass is trying to weasel out a couple hundred thousand dollars. We sent Angel Berroa and Mike MacDougal, our 2003 ROY and 2003 All-Star, to the minors last year, we aren't afraid to do that if you're sucking wind. If we really wanted to hold players back for arbitration reasons we could've held Teahen and Gotay back and just used Graffy and McEwing this year.

petegz28
05-04-2005, 07:21 PM
He's a fine center fielder, but the best player in decades? Please.

Ok..name another 5-tool player in the game today....then name the last one in the game at all

tk13
05-04-2005, 07:22 PM
Ok..name another 5-tool player in the game today....then name the last one in the game at all
Uh... A-Rod?

petegz28
05-04-2005, 07:37 PM
Uh... A-Rod?


Is A-Rod a switch hitter? I don't remember.

Raiderhader
05-04-2005, 07:41 PM
Is A-Rod a switch hitter? I don't remember.



I always thought he was kinda faggish.....

Raiderhader
05-04-2005, 07:42 PM
I always thought he was kinda Rump Rangergish.....


Heh, nice filter.

siberian khatru
05-04-2005, 07:47 PM
Ken Harvey was shipped to Triple-A Omaha to open the season for arbitration reasons.

Rob & Rany on the Royals


MONDAY, MAY 2

Rany: Well, the masses got what they wanted: Grimace is back.

There is one saving grace to his return. Tonight, the Royals got an extended discussion on Baseball Tonight – first and last time this season – which began with a discussion of Harvey. The show’s producer, who deserves an Emmy for his decision, overlaid the discussion with a montage of every collision of Ken Harvey’s career. Collisions with opposing baserunners that he couldn’t get out of the way of; collisions with the tarp; collisions with baseballs that nailed him in the back; collisions with his teammate, Jason Grimsley, who he nearly decapitated in the middle of a throw. I’d pay 20 bucks to get this on DVD. Priceless stuff.

But then the question came up, “why did the Royals send Harvey to Triple-A to start the season?” And the answer from Harold Reynolds – which everyone on the panel seemed to agree with, was “to keep him from becoming eligible for arbitration.”

I love a good conspiracy theory as much as anyone, but this is plainly absurd. The only time I had seen this theory discussed before is by everyone’s favorite conspiracy theorist, the Star’s Jeffrey Flanagan, who a few days ago wrote: “The conspiracy theorists out there believe that Harvey isn't with the big-league club because of his arbitration status. If the Royals keep him in the minors the whole season, he won't be arbitration-eligible this offseason. Harvey has two years, 19 days of major-league service and needs to get to three full years or become a “Super 2” by being in the top 17 percent of all other two-plus service-years players to become eligible.”

Really, the answer is right there in his writing. Harvey already had more than 2 years of service to come into the season; to avoid being arbitration eligible at the end of the year, Harvey could not get more than about 90 days of service this year, as the cutoff for Super Two status is usually in the range of 110-130 days. Flanagan suggests that the Royals might keep Harvey in the minors all year just for this purpose, which of course would be the most blatant manipulation of service time status in the history of baseball, would be challenged by the Players’ Association in a heartbeat, and would impugn the Royals’ reputation throughout baseball - all for the sake of keeping Ken Harvey around.

Like I said, it’s absurd. Which is why it’s so sad that this has now been reported on national television. Of course, by calling up Harvey today, not only will he be arbitration-eligible at the end of the year, but he probably will have 3 complete years of service time at the end of the season, meaning Harvey will be a free agent at the end of 2008 instead of 2009 if he avoids any more demotions. He had 19 extra days coming into the season, and while he spent the first 24 days of the season in Omaha, there’s a buffer between the number of days in a season and the number of days of service team needed to complete one year (in other words, a player will be credited with a complete year of service time even if he’s not on the roster for up to about 10 days during the season.)

If the Royals had waited another 10 days or so to call up Harvey, they could have delayed his free agency rights by another year. Recalling him today is exactly the opposite of what you’d expect the Royals to do if they were trying to control the rights to Harvey as much as possible. But then, every conspiracy theorist knows that this only proves the depth to with this conspiracy goes, and the lengths to which the Royals will go to keep people off their track.

If you want to question whether the Royals are competent, whether they have a plan for the future, whether they know that attempting to steal with Matt Stairs is usually a bad idea – be my guest. If you want to say they have no clue how to build a winning team, have at it. But don’t tell me that they’re engaged in an elaborate scheme to defraud one of their players. Especially when every piece of evidence at our disposal suggests otherwise.

Rob: Flanagan's theory was preposterous, and the Baseball Tonight guys were -- I hope I can say this without getting into trouble -- irresponsible for bringing it to a national audience. I mean, instead of enumerating the ways that Tony Pena has lost games all by himself, they spent a few minutes on this?

Anyway, I didn't actually see the show, so perhaps it's unfair of me to criticize anybody except Flanagan. As I said, this is preposterous, for the reasons you cite and also because that's just not how Allard Baird operates. I mean, Good God, just look at how many players have been promoted to the majors well before necessary, just because Baird thought they were ready.

Let's not talk about this any more. In fact, let's not talk about the Titanic's deck chairs at all, for a while. Let's instead talk about the ineffective idiot in the dugout. If we've got any sort of role at this point in the franchise's fortunes, it's to do whatever we can to enumerate the ways in which this manager doesn't have any idea what he's doing.

I didn't watch all of Friday night's game because it's just too damn depressing, but I did catch the first few innings, in which 1) the first baseman threw the ball into left field, and 2) the right fielder missed the cutoff man by about twenty feet, and the catcher by about thirty.

I've never seen a team like this. I've never seen a team on which so many of the players seemed so utterly unable to accomplish even the most routine of their professional tasks. Considering that the manager, this past spring and at other times in the last few years, specifically focused on the "fundamentals", doesn't he deserve a significant chunk of the blame when his players can't do those things at better than a Class AA level?

And I'm just talking about leadership and teaching here; all of the tactical errors are so obvious and numerous that I wouldn't have even the faintest idea where to start.

This is the worst team in the majors by quite a lot, and it seems to me that if you're not going to fire the manager (my prescription) then you sure as hell have to fire his boss.

Rany: It’s interesting to me how quickly the “fire Tony Pena” meme has spread. I mean, the Royals lost 104 games last year and no one was talking about firing him, but three weeks into the season, and the pitchforks were out. The Star made a story out of it, forcing Allard Baird to give the dreaded public vote of confidence to his manager. WHB radio asked me to come on the air last Wednesday, and all they wanted to talk about was whether the Royals should fire Pena. (I made my own > contribution to this thought process.)

I think there are two main issues with Pena that have simply become too obvious for even casual fans to ignore. One is the fact that, obviously, the Royals are just an awful fundamental ballclub. Pena certainly deserves part of the blame for this, especially since he has publicly made this his #1 priority. But I think the Royals, like all bad teams, are under the impression that the ability to execute fundamentals is somehow different than the ability to hit home runs, or strike out hitters, or any other skill that usually separates good teams from bad teams.

To put it another way, a lot of bad teams think that while their roster may not be able to compete with the best teams in terms of hitting or pitching, that they ought to be able to compete in terms of defense and “fundamental execution”, which means stuff like throwing to the right base and not getting nailed trying to steal third with two outs in the ninth inning of a tie game (which Angel Berroa did last week.) And when you think about it, it’s an absurd idea. If you look at the numbers for good teams as a whole, and bad teams as a whole, good teams are superior in every statistic: not just homers and walks and doubles, but stuff like wild pitches and outfielder assists and balks. (Double plays are the exception, but that’s because bad teams have a lot more double play opportunities.) Fundamentals may be something that can be taught to everyone, but the ability to execute fundamentals is a skill, and assuming that you can take a bunch of players who’ve proven they can’t hit or pitch as well as their opponents, and teach them to execute fundamentals better than their opponents, is absurd.

Think of it this way: do you think you could take a Double-A team and get that team to play defense and execute rundowns and throw to the cutoff man better than a major-league team? Of course not – if those players, as a whole, had the talent to do that, they wouldn’t be in Double-A. So why assume you can do the same with a bad major-league team?

Teams that focus on the fundamentals to cure their ills are missing the point, and not addressing the real issue, which is their lack of talent. In the history of baseball, I’m willing to bet that no last-place team has ever fashioned itself into a contender by focusing on the fundamentals. Which leads me to coin a new rule – call it Jazayerli’s Law of Fundamentals:

A team’s ability to execute the “fundamentals” is inversely correlated to the time spent discussing the importance of executing them.

The second issue with Pena is that the Royals have been absolutely awful in one-run games, a number of those being games in which the Royals ran themselves out of at least a run with stupid tactical indulgences like the botched suicide squeeze or bunting with a runner on second and none out. In the first eight games of their nine-game losing streak, the Royals lost six games by one-run. The last American League team to lose six one-run games in a span of eight games was the 1984 White Sox.

I’m quite certain that Pena is not in any immediate danger, and I don’t think the Royals have to make a move immediately anyway. For one, they need to come up with a plan for who to replace him with before he’s fired. A manager (Larry Dierker, anyone?) with previous managerial experience would be a nice thing, given that the Royals haven’t hired a manager with prior experience in nearly 20 years. But the key is getting a manager who realizes the most effective way to improve a team isn’t by harping on the fundamentals. It’s replacing the guys who can’t execute them with guys who can.

Rob: True enough. The notion that you can "teach" grown men how to play baseball is probably misguided. What's also misguided is asking players to execute fundamentals that simply shouldn't be executed. To wit, this reaction from a game last week...

Rob,

It's beginning to be time to question the manager. A talk show host here in KC wants the Royals to fire Tony Pena and hire Larry Bowa. Bowa would have an aneurysm watching the Royals botch play after play. But consider this strategy in the game today:

3rd inning - Twins lead 3-0. Buck and Berroa single with nobody out, putting runners on first and second and bringing David DeJesus, the Royals' best hitter to the plate. Pena calls for the bunt(!). After 2 unsuccessful attempts, DeJesus rips a triple down the right field line. The Royals eventually tie the game.

5th inning - Game tied 3-3. Berroa is hit by a pitch to lead off the inning. DeJesus up again. Pena calls for the bunt. After an unsuccessful attempt, there is a wild pitch advancing Berroa to second. Undaunted, Pena calls for the bunt yet again and DeJesus successfully sacrifices. Berroa is stranded on third.

9th inning - Twins lead 5-4. Berroa leads off with a double. DeJesus up again. Pena calls for the bunt. After several unsuccessful sacrifice attempts, DeJesus flies to center.

That's 3 times your .320 hitting leadoff man comes up with runners in scoring position and 3 times the manager calls for a bunt. There is this school of thought that if you are a bad offensive team, that you need to bunt to move runners. I think you need to bunt less not more. We make way too many outs as it is without deliberately making more. And to bunt 3 times with DeJesus in those situations is just horrible.

Bill

http://www.robneyer.com/robrany.html

petegz28
05-04-2005, 07:57 PM
Sorry A-Rod only bats right...that would make him a 4-tool player would it not?

ENDelt260
05-04-2005, 08:00 PM
Sorry A-Rod only bats right...that would make him a 4-tool player would it not?
You're kidding, right?

tk13
05-04-2005, 08:01 PM
I think that's a pretty good piece. I too think it's freaking absurd that ESPN is caught up in this conspiracy crap, I'm glad there's somebody out there who could make some sense of it.

I agree we still have a lot of fundamental problems. I'm not sure how much of that is just not working on them and Pena's fault, or if our guys just have William Bartee-esque brain problems out there in the field of play. What I really wish is that Pena would pick a couple lineups and stick to them. I'm sick of this Bob Boone stuff. With the number of platoon-type players we have, I don't mind if we have a right handed lineup and left handed lineup, but let's figure out something more solid and stick to it. It's been hard to tell who is going to be in the lineup where from day to day.

tk13
05-04-2005, 08:01 PM
Sorry A-Rod only bats right...that would make him a 4-tool player would it not?
Power, average, fielding, throwing, running.

Those are your 5 tools.

ENDelt260
05-04-2005, 08:02 PM
Power, average, fielding, throwing, running.

Those are your 5 tools.
Damnit. I was just about to make a post requesting that no one post the five tools until we saw pete's list.

tk13
05-04-2005, 08:06 PM
Damnit. I was just about to make a post requesting that no one post the five tools until we saw pete's list.
"Hitting, Running, Bashful, Dancer and Prancer."

Deberg_1990
05-04-2005, 08:06 PM
What I really wish is that Pena would pick a couple lineups and stick to them. I'm sick of this Bob Boone stuff. With the number of platoon-type players we have, I don't mind if we have a right handed lineup and left handed lineup, but let's figure out something more solid and stick to it. It's been hard to tell who is going to be in the lineup where from day to day.

When we dont have legitimate "Major League" talent, its kind of hard to figure out who bats in what order each night. Pena is just trying to figure out what works best. At least hes trying to do something, its only about 30-40% his fault.

eazyb81
05-04-2005, 08:16 PM
I think that's a pretty good piece. I too think it's freaking absurd that ESPN is caught up in this conspiracy crap, I'm glad there's somebody out there who could make some sense of it.

I agree we still have a lot of fundamental problems. I'm not sure how much of that is just not working on them and Pena's fault, or if our guys just have William Bartee-esque brain problems out there in the field of play. What I really wish is that Pena would pick a couple lineups and stick to them. I'm sick of this Bob Boone stuff. With the number of platoon-type players we have, I don't mind if we have a right handed lineup and left handed lineup, but let's figure out something more solid and stick to it. It's been hard to tell who is going to be in the lineup where from day to day.

I think my main gripe is the fact that we will play guys like Graffanino and Joe McEwing over Gotay, Teahen, and other youngsters. This was a bigger problem earlier in the year, but I am at the point that I want to live and die with the kids out there. Dejesus, Berroa, Buck, Gotay, and Teahen need to play just about every game. Every year Pena gets a fascination with an old nobody like Mendy Lopez and plays him in front of young guys that need the experience.

petegz28
05-04-2005, 08:23 PM
Power, average, fielding, throwing, running.

Those are your 5 tools.


I always thought they were arm, glove, base-stealing speed, bat, switch hit.

petegz28
05-04-2005, 08:25 PM
Damnit. I was just about to make a post requesting that no one post the five tools until we saw pete's list.
nlm

KingPriest2
05-04-2005, 08:53 PM
interesting article from 5 years ago




FEATURED
ADVERTISER LINKS

Diabetes Defeated
University Alliance, Leading Universities Online
Re-Grow your own hair, Get your Free DVD



sports nut The stadium scene.


Six Teams Out
By Charles Sisk
Posted Thursday, Nov. 2, 2000, at 8:30 PM PT


Major League Baseball's rich owners and its not-so-rich owners are skirmishing over the game's economic structure, and if something doesn't change by this time next year the conflict will burst into a bench-clearing brawl. For years, the poorest franchises have wanted rich clubs to share more of their local revenues, which include parking, concessions, gate receipts, and local broadcast contracts. The poor-club argument got a boost in July when an independent panel appointed by MLB recommended that baseball pool half of its local revenues.

The money pressure will only increase at the close of next season, when baseball's labor agreement expires and the players negotiate a sweeter deal for themselves. The cash-starved, small-market teams will say that without revenue sharing they won't be able to survive, let alone field competitive teams. If pushed too hard in the direction of revenue sharing, the rich owners might even pull out of Major League Baseball and form their own league.


Continue Article

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have Our Top 20 Newsletter
Delivered to Your Inbox Each Week!
The Most "WOW!" Travel Deals on the
Internet - here's a sampling: Released
MAY 4, 2005


Costa Rica from 15 Cities (Roundtrip) $178-$268 US Airways

Las Vegas 3-Star Hotel on the Strip $55 Harrah's Las Vegas

Disney Cruises at Lowest Prices of the Year $354 & up Expedia.com

Orlando from Minneapolis, Roundtrip (!) $79 Worry-Free Vacations

Anniversary Sale to France & 8 European Cities $299 & up Air France

Click on Any Deal and Check Them Out Today!
*Fares listed may not include all taxes, charges and government fees.
More information. © 2005 Travelzoo Inc.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The rich owners are right to oppose revenue sharing. It will not restore competitive balance. And extending life support to the half-dozen poorest franchises will only undermine the successful teams. The best alternative is to reduce MLB from 30 franchises to the two dozen that have a legitimate chance of staying healthy. Contraction has been quietly debated inside the baseball temples for more than a year now. Several executives, such as the San Diego Padres' Larry Lucchino, have suggested dropping a couple of teams.

It all comes down to money. According to the report commissioned by MLB, the gap between rich and poor franchises has widened. Revenues at baseball's eight richest clubs have almost doubled since 1995, rising from $69 million apiece to $123 million. Meanwhile, baseball's poorest eight teams brought in $29 million per club last year, only $6 million more than in 1995.

With rare exception, the suffering franchises play in fairly small TV markets—those with 1.5 million or fewer households. This explains why these clubs are going broke: Local broadcast revenue is baseball's most important income source. More viewers mean more money, and more money means a fatter treasury to attract top players, and top players often translate into bigger audiences. Also, big bucks make it easier for clubs to weather bad years.

The root of the problem has been over-expansion: Since the expansion era began in 1962, MLB has tried to put a team in every decent-sized North American city instead of moving franchises to where the people are. For example, instead of expanding the league again in the late '90s, MLB should have moved the Twins or the Expos to Phoenix. If a team can't attract enough fans in one city, it should be given two cities, maybe even three so the potential market is at least 1.5 million homes. So let's get out the surgical saw:

On paper, Southern California should be able to support three teams. But in reality, the Padres and the Angels are still in the second division of baseball's revenue tables. Combine them! Assuming a third of Los Angeles supports the team, it would control about 2.8 million households. The team could be called the Saints or maybe something snappier, like the Nuns.

Theoretically, Southern Florida should support at least two teams. Right now, it doesn't support any. The Marlins rank 20th by local revenue; the Devil Rays are 11th and fading fast. Merge them and move the new franchise to Orlando, where it would draw fans from across the state, as well as tourists. Miami, Tampa, and Orlando together have just over 4 million homes. Suggested names: the Sun Rays, the Fish, the Darlin's.

The upper Midwest only needs one team. The Twins (29th in local revenue) can merge with the Brewers (25th). The combined Minneapolis-St. Paul-Milwaukee market: 2.3 million. Suggested name: the Beavers, evocative of the area's rich history of fur trapping.

The Cardinals (14th by revenue) draw well throughout Missouri, but not in the far west of the state. Nix the Royals. They rank 26th by revenue. Combined Kansas City-St. Louis market: 2 million. Suggested name: Still the Cardinals.

Then, there are the Blue Jays and the Expos, two large-market teams that rank 16th and 30th by revenue and both on the decline. The combined team should be moved to Ottawa and given a name that shows it is Canada's team. The Frostbacks? It may be an insult, but in Canada, so is Yankee. Combined market, including Ottawa: 4.7 million.

Contraction's opponents worry that baseball will eliminate teams that may become viable. Indeed, a decade ago, the Mariners, the Indians, and the Braves all struggled to make ends meet. All three are now healthy. Ten years from now, the same may be true of the White Sox and the Giants. But that won't be true of the Athletics, the Bay Area's No. 2 team. Merge them with the Giants immediately. The new team could be called the Gigantics. It would dominate a TV market of 2.4 million households.

That leaves just two franchises struggling in small markets, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. Both dwell in the bottom half by revenue, but neither is in immediate danger of failing. And both are close to opening new stadiums. If they don't improve, merge them with the Phillies and the Indians.

Or, one of them could move to New York, a market of nearly 7 million—more than enough room for a third team. What do Pirates bring to mind if not Wall Street? And is there a better home for a team called the Reds than the Upper West Side?


Charles Sisk is a business writer and sports fan in the Washington, D.C., area.

ENDelt260
05-04-2005, 08:58 PM
The Cardinals (14th by revenue) draw well throughout Missouri, but not in the far west of the state. Nix the Royals. They rank 26th by revenue. Combined Kansas City-St. Louis market: 2 million. Suggested name: Still the Cardinals.

What a son of a bitch. Suggesting whacking the Royals is one thing... I expected to see it. But, then, suggesting I become a Cards fan? That's quite simply un-f*cking-forgiveable. Burn in hell, Charles Sisk. You suck cock willingly.

eazyb81
05-04-2005, 09:20 PM
The Cardinals (14th by revenue) draw well throughout Missouri, but not in the far west of the state. Nix the Royals. They rank 26th by revenue. Combined Kansas City-St. Louis market: 2 million. Suggested name: Still the Cardinals.

The 2000 Census Metropolitan Statistical Area population:

St. Louis - 2,724,880
Kansas City - 1,842,420

Total = 4,567,300


It's hard to take a writer seriously when he gets something like this completely wrong.

Cochise
05-04-2005, 09:21 PM
I'd rather die of assrot than root for the cardinals :cuss:

Valiant
05-04-2005, 09:32 PM
Sorry A-Rod only bats right...that would make him a 4-tool player would it not?



Do you know anything about baseball switchhitting has nothing to do with being a five tool player...

five tool is:

Hitting
power(homers)
speed
fielding
arm strength

eazyb81
05-04-2005, 09:33 PM
Game over, MacDougal is in the game.

Is there a more worthless player on the team? The guy has a severe case of Ankiel syndrome.

Valiant
05-04-2005, 09:36 PM
What a son of a bitch. Suggesting whacking the Royals is one thing... I expected to see it. But, then, suggesting I become a Cards fan? That's quite simply un-f*cking-forgiveable. Burn in hell, Charles Sisk. You suck cock willingly.



I still think they should redo the leagues into the big market and small market divisions... That way anybody spend over say 80-90 million is in with the yankees and then their is the one with royals/twins/pittsburg...

petegz28
05-04-2005, 10:13 PM
Do you know anything about baseball switchhitting has nothing to do with being a five tool player...

five tool is:

Hitting
power(homers)
speed
fielding
arm strength

Nope! Only played for 10 years.

petegz28
05-05-2005, 08:39 AM
Ok I am wrong. But none the less if A-Rod is considered a 5-tool player I would say Beltran is a 6-tool (if there is such a thing) because he is a 5-toool and can switch hit. My bad though.

beavis
05-05-2005, 08:59 AM
Nope! Only played for 10 years.
T-ball at the home for "exceptional" people doesn't count.

petegz28
05-05-2005, 09:35 AM
T-ball at the home for "exceptional" people doesn't count.


Glad to see you came out of your hole dick weed.

ChiTown
05-05-2005, 09:39 AM
Nope! Only played for 10 years.

Just curious. What ages does that 10 yr stretch include?

petegz28
05-05-2005, 09:40 AM
Just curious. What ages does that 10 yr stretch include?


What the freak is the difference? 7-17 if it matters.

ChiTown
05-05-2005, 09:42 AM
What the freak is the difference? 7-17 if it matters.

Ease the hell up! I was just wondering if you played ML ball. When someone says they played 10 years, I don't know if that means they played HS, college, ML's, MLB......Just a question, Francis...

petegz28
05-05-2005, 09:43 AM
Ease the hell up! I was just wondering if you played ML ball. When someone says they played 10 years, I don't know if that means they played HS, college, ML's, MLB......Just a question, Francis...


Sorry ChiTown...Beavr the Bunghole just reminded me why half the people on this board are freaking losers. You are not included in that. My apologies.

beavis
05-05-2005, 09:53 AM
Ease the hell up! I was just wondering if you played ML ball. When someone says they played 10 years, I don't know if that means they played HS, college, ML's, MLB......Just a question, Francis...
He gave a whole new meaning to the phrase "dribbler up the middle".

petegz28
05-05-2005, 10:27 AM
He gave a whole new meaning to the phrase "dribbler up the middle".


Look just cause you sucked too bad to make the retard's t-ball team is no reason for you to take out your jealousy on others. We tried to give you bat-boy but you just threw a temper tantrum.

One must wonder how many of your 1,000's of post lack insult.. :shake:

beavis
05-05-2005, 11:40 AM
Look just cause you sucked too bad to make the retard's t-ball team is no reason for you to take out your jealousy on others. We tried to give you bat-boy but you just threw a temper tantrum.

One must wonder how many of your 1,000's of post lack insult.. :shake:
All of them except the ones directed at you.