PDA

View Full Version : I hate the Royals front office


ChiefsCountry
04-19-2006, 03:52 PM
This is just getting out of hand. Glass grow some nuts can Baird, or keep him and run the team like a real baseball team should be run. This is NOT Wal-Mart where cheap young and old workers cut it. You have to actual talent to make it work. :cuss:

Sully
04-19-2006, 04:03 PM
I'm all for Baird going.
But Glass is the main problem. Until he decides to sell the team, whoever is "at the wheel" will have the same nag sitting next to him refusing to allow him to run the team correctly.

chiefqueen
04-19-2006, 04:13 PM
Check this out:

http://www.kcskyscrapers.com/newforum/index.php?topic=8663.0

Old Dog
04-19-2006, 04:19 PM
I hope you aren't looking for many arguments.

KCChiefsFan88
04-19-2006, 04:23 PM
I hate Carl Peterson more

nychief
04-19-2006, 04:34 PM
aweful.

CoMoChief
04-19-2006, 04:52 PM
I hate Carl Peterson more


Most people do because most KC fans now are more passionate about the Chiefs than they are the Royals. Now it hasnt always been like that. The late 70's and 80's KC was almost strictly a baseball city. As much as I hate Carl Peterson and the bone head asshole things he does a GM, he's alot better than anyone the Royals have had since Ewing Kauffman and company were around.

Carl Peterson has at least gotten us to the playoffs in the last decade or so, as the Royals concern, I can't even remember the last time we finished over .500. Maybe 1993? I dont know.

Peterson has drafted a fair share of HOF players in Tony Gonzalez, Will Shields, Derrick Thomas, Neil Smith maybe and you also have to consider Larry Johnson in there someday even. Now obviously that CBA in the NFL and the revenue sharing system helps small markets like the Chiefs out, which baseball doesn't have and probably never will. So I guess you would have to cut the Royals front office some slack.

As far as Royals ownership goes, if anyone here had as much money as Glass and were to buy the Royals, I doubt that you would dip into your pocket and sign some big name guys. Every team in professional sports is ran like a business, the owners buy teams for a reason and thats to make money. Everything in porfessional sports is about money and it would be stupid to disagree with that. Now should Glass pay a more to the guys that we developed that eventually turn into all star calibur players like Damon Dye and Beltran? Probably all of us would say yes, but then again Beltran wanted a shit load of money and I can bet that no one here would wanna pay him the kind of money he wanted if it came from your pocket. Now should they have decided to make Sweeney THE guy to pay and to build around? **** no, he sucks and has marginal power and is hurt for at least a 1/4 of the season every year.

Some could also argue that the more good players we have and the more we win, the better attendance will be and more money will be brought into the team. In the 80's Kansas City loved the Royals, and attendance was alot better then than it is now due to the fact that we won alot then. No one wants to watch a team that gets their asses kicked night in and night out.

The sad thing about all of this is that the Royals will never be good again IMO as long as Glass is around. Even though I cant blame everything on him because of the fact that theres no cap in baseball. But the thing that hurts the Royals the most is that as soon as our farm players develope into good players in the majors, we trade them for more future prospects that most of them end of staying in the minors for most of the time. Welcome to small market baseball folks!

RP_McMurphy
04-19-2006, 05:06 PM
Well Baird drafted a fruit cake in Zach Grineke does that count?

beavis
04-19-2006, 05:07 PM
But Glass is the main problem. Until he decides to sell the team, whoever is "at the wheel" will have the same nag sitting next to him refusing to allow him to run the team correctly.
On what, exactly, do you base this?

petegz28
04-19-2006, 05:14 PM
I used to blame Glass too. I still do to a point. but let's face it...he let's Baird pick and choose who we sign and who we do not. I lay this season squarley on Baird and Bell to a lesser extent.

Much the same as I blame Peterson and not Lamar Hunt

Glass uped the $'s this year and who did Baird go and sign?

shakesthecat
04-19-2006, 05:17 PM
On what, exactly, do you base this?

Not to answer for Sully, but...

It's been rumored that Glass blocked a proposed deal with the Angels for Sweeney last year.

Yeah, I know, could just be talk radio or message board BS. But I've heard it enough places to think it may have some teeth.

shakesthecat
04-19-2006, 05:23 PM
Glass uped the $'s this year and who did Baird go and sign?

It's not that simple anymore. The top FA's won't even consider KC, and most of the 2nd level guys like Paul Byrd will take less money to play for a contender.

The ass pounding Baird took in the Dye, Damon, and Beltran trades are the reason KC's present is what it is.

Baird's inability to draft and develop talent is the reason KC's future is so bleak.

He needed to be fired 4 years ago.

CoMoChief
04-19-2006, 05:40 PM
It's not that simple anymore. The top FA's won't even consider KC, and most of the 2nd level guys like Paul Byrd will take less money to play for a contender.

The ass pounding Baird took in the Dye, Damon, and Beltran trades are the reason KC's present is what it is.

Baird's inability to draft and develop talent is the reason KC's future is so bleak.

He needed to be fired 4 years ago.



You mean to tell me that trading Carlos Beltran for John Buck isnt a fair trade??? :banghead:

shakesthecat
04-19-2006, 05:56 PM
You mean to tell me that trading Carlos Beltran for John Buck isnt a fair trade??? :banghead:

But....but...he hasn't struck out all year!

Sully
04-19-2006, 06:10 PM
Not to answer for Sully, but...

It's been rumored that Glass blocked a proposed deal with the Angels for Sweeney last year.

Yeah, I know, could just be talk radio or message board BS. But I've heard it enough places to think it may have some teeth.

This is exactly one of the things I was thinking. It's rumor, but you hear it enough times, and... you know... where there's smoke... (Kinda like a Tanner's waitress getting knocked up???)

Also, another rumor is that Glass is taking in, from MLB around $50 million per year. He denies it, of course, but I've heard it enough that I lean toward believing it's true. If that's the case, why is our payroll, at a "raised" level this year, still lower than it was 10 years ago?

The only excuse, since I refuse to believe that Glass is just in this to make money, is this:
Glass has been the leader of the fight against big-market teams. He only got a little compromise last time the CBA was coming up, toward what he wanted. If he uses that compromise to its full ability to build a contender, where will he go toward shifting things more his way the next time negotiations come around? It's a poor plan, since we know he's making more money than he's spending, but it's all I can come up with.

MVChiefFan
04-19-2006, 06:20 PM
It's not that simple anymore. The top FA's won't even consider KC, and most of the 2nd level guys like Paul Byrd will take less money to play for a contender.

The ass pounding Baird took in the Dye, Damon, and Beltran trades are the reason KC's present is what it is.

Baird's inability to draft and develop talent is the reason KC's future is so bleak.

He needed to be fired 4 years ago.

You are exactly right! Every team gets thrown a bone every once in a while. The Twins and Indians are examples of teams that at least won some games with the guys they brought up through the minors. I know people always say it's because we trade everyone away, while true, we never have more than a couple of good guys at one time. And never any good pitching. I'm talking a mow 'em down type guy. As many pitchers that we draft in the first few rounds, I mean c'mon. And, In baseball you have a multitude of rounds in a draft, you would think they could get someone right. SCOUTING SUCKS ASS!!!

shakesthecat
04-19-2006, 06:23 PM
.

I'm not sure the exact amount Glass takes in,(tk13 might know) but it's a pretty big chunk of coin. He's making $$$

I'd like to believe him when he says he's willing to spend even more. But I think his biggest fault has been putting too much faith in Baird. Baird has driven this franchise so far into the ground, it will take years to climb back out.

My hope is Glass finally gets tired of the team being a national embarassment, and fires Baird ASAP.

Short Leash Hootie
04-19-2006, 07:24 PM
I don't know if anyone pointed this out, but someone said they don't even know when the Royals last finished about .500...didn't they do so three years ago?

Valiant
04-19-2006, 09:45 PM
This is exactly one of the things I was thinking. It's rumor, but you hear it enough times, and... you know... where there's smoke... (Kinda like a Tanner's waitress getting knocked up???)

Also, another rumor is that Glass is taking in, from MLB around $50 million per year. He denies it, of course, but I've heard it enough that I lean toward believing it's true. If that's the case, why is our payroll, at a "raised" level this year, still lower than it was 10 years ago?

The only excuse, since I refuse to believe that Glass is just in this to make money, is this:
Glass has been the leader of the fight against big-market teams. He only got a little compromise last time the CBA was coming up, toward what he wanted. If he uses that compromise to its full ability to build a contender, where will he go toward shifting things more his way the next time negotiations come around? It's a poor plan, since we know he's making more money than he's spending, but it's all I can come up with.


If you want some fuel.. My aunt does payroll there.. They have now made a good profit the last four years in a row now... I believe she said the money we got from the top teams last year was a little bit more then our entire payroll for the year...

KC problem with its franchises is our owners run them like buisnesses, ran to make money, not ran to win championships.. Hell all American sports outside of the Redskins and Paul Allens basketball team seem to be ran this way.. These guys are filthy rich they should want the damn championships for bragging rights like it used to be...

DaneMcCloud
04-19-2006, 11:54 PM
Some could also argue that the more good players we have and the more we win, the better attendance will be and more money will be brought into the team. In the 80's Kansas City loved the Royals, and attendance was alot better then than it is now due to the fact that we won alot then. No one wants to watch a team that gets their asses kicked night in and night out.

How do you explain the Cubs then? Or the Red Sox (before winning the Series in 2004? Or the Cards before LaRussa got to town? It's so weird to me that so many people in KC don't realize what they have in the Royals. Yes, they're awful. Yes, ownership and the front office are awful. But it's CHEAP entertainment! Where else can you watch some of the best athletes in the world compete, while drinking beer, eating hotdogs and sausages and hanging out with friends? Besides that, the tickets are CHEAP! Now while G.A. isn't as cheap as it was in the 80's and early 90's (like $3-$5), it's still extremely affordable. You won't get that at Dodger Stadium, Pac Bell Park, etc.

The Royals will more than likely not be any good until changes in the front office and even ownership are made. But that doesn't mean that a night at the ballpark, even if the Royals lose, can't be a great time. Enjoy it.

DJJasonp
04-19-2006, 11:58 PM
How do you explain the Cubs then? Or the Red Sox (before winning the Series in 2004? Or the Cards before LaRussa got to town? It's so weird to me that so many people in KC don't realize what they have in the Royals. Yes, they're awful. Yes, ownership and the front office are awful. But it's CHEAP entertainment! Where else can you watch some of the best athletes in the world compete, while drinking beer, eating hotdogs and sausages and hanging out with friends? Besides that, the tickets are CHEAP! Now while G.A. isn't as cheap as it was in the 80's and early 90's (like $3-$5), it's still extremely affordable. You won't get that at Dodger Stadium, Pac Bell Park, etc.

The Royals will more than likely not be any good until changes in the front office and even ownership are made. But that doesn't mean that a night at the ballpark, even if the Royals lose, can't be a great time. Enjoy it.


You make some good points....but I think...speaking for Royals fans....the frustration doesnt lie in the fact that the team stinks....the frustration is that the team has stunk for over a decade now and hasnt even sniffed the playoffs....and even worse, the ownership doesnt seem to give a damn about winning.

You have to understand....Mr. K would have taken a loss if it meant beating the Yankees.

Deberg_1990
04-20-2006, 12:13 AM
You have to understand....Mr. K would have taken a loss if it meant beating the Yankees.

and therin lies the problem. I just dont get the feeling that Glass is a fan or loves the game. I hate owners like Steinbrenner as much as the next guy, but at least the guy loves his team and wants desperately to win which i respect.

ChiefsCountry
04-20-2006, 12:15 AM
Difference between Glass and Mr. K, Mr. K was a billionarie, Glass isn't. Also Mr. K thought of the Royals as a gift to the city.

DaneMcCloud
04-20-2006, 12:19 AM
You make some good points....but I think...speaking for Royals fans....the frustration doesnt lie in the fact that the team stinks....the frustration is that the team has stunk for over a decade now and hasnt even sniffed the playoffs....and even worse, the ownership doesnt seem to give a damn about winning.

You have to understand....Mr. K would have taken a loss if it meant beating the Yankees.

Look, you couldn't find a bigger Royals fan anywhere in the country if you tried. I grew up in Blue Springs. For over 6 years, Paul Splitorff lived directly across the street and Fred Patek lived two doors down. I used to play Wiffle Ball with Split's kids, Jamie Quirk, George Brett and on and on. I was in grade school during the glory days of the 70's, attended the World Series in 1980 and then again in 1985. I go to Royals games every year in KC and then again in SoCal.

All that being said, I really don't understand the difference between the Chiefs and Royals in so many people's minds. The Chiefs haven't won anything of significiance since 1971. The Royals haven't won since 1985. But the overall sentiment still seems to favor the Chiefs over the Royals.

The Royals suck. Big deal. It's still a great way to spend a night (or day), win or lose. It's all about the experience, how your son/daughter responded when someone hit a home run. Or how you or your buddy teased the opposing outfielder. There's thousands of reasons to go to a game. The eventual outcome shouldn't be the reason not to go.

DaneMcCloud
04-20-2006, 12:26 AM
I hate owners like Steinbrenner as much as the next guy, but at least the guy loves his team and wants desperately to win which i respect.

Why do you hate Steinbrenner? Because he'll do whatever it takes to win? Because he's paid over $75 Million a year for luxury tax over the past few years? Steinbrenner's done more for the game of baseball than David Glass will ever do. And I will never forget Chris Chambliss hitting the walk off home run! After all these years, I still can't believe it.

I know a lot of you guys bag on me for the perceived "bragging" or whatever you all think, but I've got a very close friend who has MAJOR insight on MLB and I'd love to share a little but for fear of backlash or namedropping, I'm hesitant to relay any info.

But let's just say that behind closed doors, most of MLB isn't too thrilled with Mr. Glass.

SLAG
04-20-2006, 12:27 AM
Look, you couldn't find a bigger Royals fan anywhere in the country if you tried. I grew up in Blue Springs. For over 6 years, Paul Splitorff lived directly across the street and Fred Patek lived two doors down. I used to play Wiffle Ball with Split's kids, Jamie Quirk, George Brett and on and on. I was in grade school during the glory days of the 70's, attended the World Series in 1980 and then again in 1985. I go to Royals games every year in KC and then again in SoCal.

All that being said, I really don't understand the difference between the Chiefs and Royals in so many people's minds. The Chiefs haven't won anything of significiance since 1971. The Royals haven't won since 1985. But the overall sentiment still seems to favor the Chiefs over the Royals.

The Royals suck. Big deal. It's still a great way to spend a night (or day), win or lose. It's all about the experience, how your son/daughter responded when someone hit a home run. Or how you or your buddy teased the opposing outfielder. There's thousands of reasons to go to a game. The eventual outcome shouldn't be the reason not to go.

Good Post

Deberg_1990
04-20-2006, 12:29 AM
All that being said, I really don't understand the difference between the Chiefs and Royals in so many people's minds.

Its simple, the Chiefs, althought they havent won anything of signifigance since 1971, have always been competative since CP's been here.

The Royals have been trash for over 10 years now and havent made the playoffs for over 20. Thats enough to make even the "Diehards" interest wane.....nobody wants to go pay for a trash product.

Guru
04-20-2006, 12:30 AM
Why do you hate Steinbrenner? Because he'll do whatever it takes to win? Because he's paid over $75 Million a year for luxury tax over the past few years? Steinbrenner's done more for the game of baseball than David Glass will ever do. And I will never forget Chris Chambliss hitting the walk off home run! After all these years, I still can't believe it.

I know a lot of you guys bag on me for the perceived "bragging" or whatever you all think, but I've got a very close friend who has MAJOR insight on MLB and I'd love to share a little but for fear of backlash or namedropping, I'm hesitant to relay any info.

But let's just say that behind closed doors, most of MLB isn't too thrilled with Mr. Glass.


Get them to run his ass out of America.

Deberg_1990
04-20-2006, 12:38 AM
I know a lot of you guys bag on me for the perceived "bragging" or whatever you all think, but I've got a very close friend who has MAJOR insight on MLB and I'd love to share a little but for fear of backlash or namedropping, I'm hesitant to relay any info.

But let's just say that behind closed doors, most of MLB isn't too thrilled with Mr. Glass.

Id love to hear about it sometime Dane. Honestly.....you can PM if you dont feel like posting about it on here.

DaneMcCloud
04-20-2006, 12:40 AM
Its simple, the Chiefs, althought they havent won anything of signifigance since 1971, have always been competative since CP's been here.

Wow, I find this statement to be "off" on so many levels (no offense). The Chiefs have had ONE winning playoff appearance in 13 years. The three other showings during that time resulted in a one and done. The Royals WON the World Series 20 years ago! How is that different?

The Chiefs have had awful coaching, bad records and problems with personnel. When was the last time you heard about a Royals player having 7 kids with 6 different women? When was the last time a Royals player pulled a gun in Westport? When was the last time a Royals player was even arrested?

Again, I just don't know if the people of Kansas City realize what they have in the Royals. And IMO, it's a damn shame.

Guru
04-20-2006, 12:41 AM
Id love to hear about it sometime Dane. Honestly.....you can PM if you dont feel like posting about it on here.


Ditto

greg63
04-20-2006, 12:42 AM
I don't know if anyone pointed this out, but someone said they don't even know when the Royals last finished about .500...didn't they do so three years ago?


Do they even have any of the same players from three years ago?

Guru
04-20-2006, 12:43 AM
Do they even have any of the same players from three years ago?
Sweeny.

EDIT forgot about Angel too. Remember the Rook of the Year?

Deberg_1990
04-20-2006, 12:45 AM
Again, I just don't know if the people of Kansas City realize what they have in the Royals. And IMO, it's a damn shame.

I believe most of us who grew up in the 70's and 80's do..but there is a whole generation of people in KC who have known nothing but Royals suckatude for 20 years.

Believe me, its hard to watch the Royals now, knowing how great they once were.

Mecca
04-20-2006, 12:50 AM
Look, you couldn't find a bigger Royals fan anywhere in the country if you tried. I grew up in Blue Springs. For over 6 years, Paul Splitorff lived directly across the street and Fred Patek lived two doors down. I used to play Wiffle Ball with Split's kids, Jamie Quirk, George Brett and on and on. I was in grade school during the glory days of the 70's, attended the World Series in 1980 and then again in 1985. I go to Royals games every year in KC and then again in SoCal.

All that being said, I really don't understand the difference between the Chiefs and Royals in so many people's minds. The Chiefs haven't won anything of significiance since 1971. The Royals haven't won since 1985. But the overall sentiment still seems to favor the Chiefs over the Royals.

The Royals suck. Big deal. It's still a great way to spend a night (or day), win or lose. It's all about the experience, how your son/daughter responded when someone hit a home run. Or how you or your buddy teased the opposing outfielder. There's thousands of reasons to go to a game. The eventual outcome shouldn't be the reason not to go.

When the seasons over before it begins for over a decade that's a pretty good way to lose interest in a sport.

Not to mention Football is much more popular than Baseball is these days. With the Chiefs you feel like there's atleast hope they'll get it done one day, with the Royals there isn't even hope.

DaneMcCloud
04-20-2006, 12:55 AM
With the Chiefs you feel like there's atleast hope they'll get it done one day, with the Royals there isn't even hope.

But how realistic is this 'feeling'? Everyone on this BB knows the Chiefs strengths and weaknesses ad nausem. We can all pretty much predict the outcome of each game and the final season record. Can you do that in baseball?

If you're going to the Ballpark for "hope" or in hopes that your team will win (or Win it All!), then in my simple opinion, you're missing out on what makes a day or night at the K special.

Mecca
04-20-2006, 12:57 AM
But how realistic is this 'feeling'? Everyone on this BB knows the Chiefs strengths and weaknesses ad nausem. We can all pretty much predict the outcome of each game and the final season record. Can you do that in baseball?

If you're going to the Ballpark for "hope" or in hopes that your team will win (or Win it All!), then in my simple opinion, you're missing out on what makes a day or night at the K special.

I don't like baseball enough to want to go sit in the stadium for 3 hours to watch a bad team play. So telling me that is kinda eh, I'm not much of a baseball fan. I consider it a highly boring game that I have ane extremely hard time watching more than 1-2 innings of on TV.

In football all teams are placed on an equal playing field so before the year everyone has some sort of hope about their team or what their team is building to. In baseball for a team not in a big market to be good it has to be done exactly right and even when it is that team will be torn apart in a few years.

Guru
04-20-2006, 12:57 AM
But how realistic is this 'feeling'? Everyone on this BB knows the Chiefs strengths and weaknesses ad nausem. We can all pretty much predict the outcome of each game and the final season record. Can you do that in baseball?

If you're going to the Ballpark for "hope" or in hopes that your team will win (or Win it All!), then in my simple opinion, you're missing out on what makes a day or night at the K special.


As a father, I completely agree with you. As a fan though, it is hard to put myself through the aggrevation of watching it. I usually spend time telling my son about the 70's and early 80's teams.

DaneMcCloud
04-20-2006, 01:05 AM
I don't like baseball enough to want to go sit in the stadium for 3 hours to watch a bad team play. So telling me that is kinda eh, I'm not much of a baseball fan. I consider it a highly boring game that I have ane extremely hard time watching more than 1-2 innings of on TV.

Well, I guess that's where we differ. I played baseball, spent a few summers as an umpire for 3-2 Baseball and find it to be a chess match. As I've stated earlier, it's also a place to have great memories. I can remember being at the park and seeing George Brett hit game winning home runs. I can remember seeing Tug McGraw pitch in the 1980 World Series. I can see clearly, Bo Jackson breaking a bat over his head when he struck out. I can also remember hanging out just a few years ago with a great friend, in the rain, watching Curtis Leskanic blowing a game.

Baseball is about life and friendships and memories. And not to sound like a broken record, I think it's something that's obviously been forgotten in KC.

greg63
04-20-2006, 01:05 AM
Sweeny.

EDIT forgot about Angel too. Remember the Rook of the Year?


What my 8 ball says.




No; not really.

Guru
04-20-2006, 01:16 AM
What my 8 ball says.




No; not really.


wow, their best year in a decade and you don't remember it. That's sad.

greg63
04-20-2006, 01:24 AM
wow, their best year in a decade and you don't remember it. That's sad.


Truly, what my 8 ball says. :shake:

Valiant
04-20-2006, 02:10 AM
wow, their best year in a decade and you don't remember it. That's sad.


You know how sad it is that 3rd in the division is our best in over 10years... :(

Guru
04-20-2006, 02:12 AM
You know how sad it is that 3rd in the division is our best in over 10years... :(


I try to remember it as the year they were in first most of the year.

Valiant
04-20-2006, 02:26 AM
I try to remember it as the year they were in first most of the year.


hehe..

I am thinking of what another poster on here does... Bet 10 dollars agianst the Royals every game, if they lose great for me money wise.. But if they win, I am still happy and 10 bucks once a week or every two weeks will not set me back much..

Guru
04-20-2006, 02:31 AM
hehe..

I am thinking of what another poster on here does... Bet 10 dollars agianst the Royals every game, if they lose great for me money wise.. But if they win, I am still happy and 10 bucks once a week or every two weeks will not set me back much..


Not many.

Hope, for your sake, they don't go on a massive winning streak.

Yeah, I know. Ain't gonna happen.

kcfanXIII
04-20-2006, 04:09 AM
How do you explain the Cubs then? Or the Red Sox (before winning the Series in 2004? Or the Cards before LaRussa got to town? It's so weird to me that so many people in KC don't realize what they have in the Royals. Yes, they're awful. Yes, ownership and the front office are awful. But it's CHEAP entertainment! Where else can you watch some of the best athletes in the world compete, while drinking beer, eating hotdogs and sausages and hanging out with friends? Besides that, the tickets are CHEAP! Now while G.A. isn't as cheap as it was in the 80's and early 90's (like $3-$5), it's still extremely affordable. You won't get that at Dodger Stadium, Pac Bell Park, etc.

The Royals will more than likely not be any good until changes in the front office and even ownership are made. But that doesn't mean that a night at the ballpark, even if the Royals lose, can't be a great time. Enjoy it.

i agree with you, but the reason people bitch about it, is its been going on for 20 years. i can think of twice since 85 we made a push for the playoffs. 94 when they went on strike, and the fluke of 03. this has gone on too long. pitching should be improved asap. fire baird later.

Chief Henry
04-20-2006, 04:48 AM
If I were a Royals fan I would have revolted
years ago. David Glass is a BRUTAL owner.
He's not shown me one thing as an owner that he gives .02 about the Royals.

I've posted on here before how I think he will move
this franchise to Las Vegas. I still think he will.
It would be the best thing for him todo to improve
the bottam line to increase the value of his
franchise.

Don't tell me he has to keep the club in KC either.
If MLB would not allow the club to be sold to George Brett's group of men, then MLB has a plan for the KC Royals and it does not include KC in the
Long term. IMO

kcfanXIII
04-20-2006, 05:05 AM
lol, he's in a lease for the k. they locked them in till 2030 i think. they aren't moving. he just needs to spend the money to get the talent here, which will increase ticket sales, and he'd make his money back.

greg63
04-20-2006, 05:38 AM
I try to remember it as the year they were in first most of the year.


Actually; now that you say that, I do remember.

Guru
04-20-2006, 05:39 AM
Actually; now that you say that, I do remember.


Worked through the swiss cheese did ya? ROFL

greg63
04-20-2006, 05:57 AM
Worked through the swiss cheese did ya? ROFL

ROFL
Yep; what where we talkin about?:hmmm:

petegz28
04-20-2006, 06:45 AM
How do you explain the Cubs then? Or the Red Sox (before winning the Series in 2004? Or the Cards before LaRussa got to town? It's so weird to me that so many people in KC don't realize what they have in the Royals. Yes, they're awful. Yes, ownership and the front office are awful. But it's CHEAP entertainment! Where else can you watch some of the best athletes in the world compete, while drinking beer, eating hotdogs and sausages and hanging out with friends? Besides that, the tickets are CHEAP! Now while G.A. isn't as cheap as it was in the 80's and early 90's (like $3-$5), it's still extremely affordable. You won't get that at Dodger Stadium, Pac Bell Park, etc.

The Royals will more than likely not be any good until changes in the front office and even ownership are made. But that doesn't mean that a night at the ballpark, even if the Royals lose, can't be a great time. Enjoy it.


Cheap entertainment? My wife and I went last year and by the time was said and done we were out almost $100.

2 decent tickets $54
Parking, 3 dogs and 2 sodas $40

Not to mention the gas and driving hassles.

I can think of things I can do that are alot cheaper than watching a team fall flat on their face. How you get entertainment out of that ?

Watchig the best athletes? Yea watching them play against minor leaguers. I might as well just watch spring training.

greg63
04-20-2006, 06:47 AM
Cheap entertainment? My wife and I went last year and by the time was said and done we were out almost $100.

2 decent tickets $54
Parking, 3 dogs and 2 sodas $40

Not to mention the gas and driving hassles.

I can think of things I can do that are alot cheaper than watching a team fall flat on their face. How you get entertainment out of that ?

Watchig the best athletes? Yea watching them play against minor leaguers. I might as well just watch spring training.



...Or watch the grass grow in Kansas.

DaneMcCloud
04-20-2006, 11:12 AM
Cheap entertainment? My wife and I went last year and by the time was said and done we were out almost $100.

2 decent tickets $54
Parking, 3 dogs and 2 sodas $40

Not to mention the gas and driving hassles.

I can think of things I can do that are alot cheaper than watching a team fall flat on their face. How you get entertainment out of that ?

Watchig the best athletes? Yea watching them play against minor leaguers. I might as well just watch spring training.

Pete,

No offense personally, but you are the exactly the type of "fan" that I've been mentioning throughout my posts. You're missing the point about baseball. When it used to be referred to as the "National Pastime", that phrase wasn't used to indicate the popularity of the game, it was used to indicate how Americans had the time to spend (with friends and strangers) an afternoon or evening of old fashioned fun, watching a GAME. Not fretting over winning and losing, not being angry about parking fees and driving - just relaxing and enjoying the moment.

But as to your "dilemma", the $27 tickets are the most expensive tickets that can be bought at the K. You COULD pay as little as $7! Even if you only paid for two $12 dollar tickets, your expenses that evening would have been reduced to just $64.00! How is $32 dollars for an evening of entertainment per person expensive? You could spend as little as $20 per if you bought the $7 tickets.

Gas and driving don't even figure into the equation. You'd have to "endure" that agony for any entertainment outside the home.

If baseball is only about winning and losing to you, you should root for a team like the Yankees or Red Sox. But if you want to have a night that you'll remember for a long time, grab a few friends, order a beer and sit in the cheap seats. I doubt you'd forget a night like that.

And if you feel so ambivalent about the Royals, why is it that you're constantly starting threads about them?

Sully
04-20-2006, 11:21 AM
2 decent tickets do not cost $54.
View level tickets are GREAT tickets, and come to about half that.

Brock
04-20-2006, 11:57 AM
2 decent tickets do not cost $54.
View level tickets are GREAT tickets, and come to about half that.

27 dollars for a turd viewing, what a bargain.

Sully
04-20-2006, 12:02 PM
Front row of the upper deck.
Yeah. You can hardly see the field from there. :rolleyes:

hawkchief
04-20-2006, 12:39 PM
You people who continue to wring thier hands daily about the Royals management/ownership are amusing. Bring in any owner/GM/manager you want, and the Royals still have zero chance to win a Championship under MLB's current financial structure. If playing armchair GM each day gets you through it and/or you are happy to settle for building a team that might someday play .500 baseball, or if you are like some here who are just tickled pink to have the privelige of putting down their money to watch the other team's good players, and don't care about the oiutcome, then good for you. I was around for the '85 World Championship, and IMO we shouldn't be forced to settle for hoping/striving for anything less.

The reality is that the teams that win pennants and are legitimate World Series Championships contenders all have great pitching. Guess what - great pitching costs A LOT of money. Money that no one in their right mind would spend as an owner of a MLB franchise based in KC. The sport of MLB (not the Royals) is the problem. Until someone can devise a way for the small market owners to feild similar teams to those of the big-markets - we are screwed. Has Allard Baird made some bad moves, sure. Has David Glass been tight with the purse-strings, probably. Has Buddy Bell made some bad decisions - of course. But, we are not a new GM, 1 or 2 players, or one or two off-season moves away from being competitive in the league. We are an entire pitching rotation and 5-6 offseason moves that would cost more than our entire current payroll. We are not $5-10 million away from competing for a Championship, we are probably closer to $50 - 70 million.

Frankly, it amazes me that Yankee fans and other big market fans truly enjoy wathcing their teams win most of the titles. If I were to get a bunch of my 2nd grade players, and they played against me and my buddies, I don't think the dads would be high-fiving each other oafter our lopsided victory. IMO that is how the big-market teams have it now.

Face it folks, we are going to be a losing team for a long time. It sucks that every March 1st many of us already understand that. It's amusing that many do not.

DaneMcCloud
04-20-2006, 01:13 PM
You people who continue to wring thier hands daily about the Royals management/ownership are amusing. Bring in any owner/GM/manager you want, and the Royals still have zero chance to win a Championship under MLB's current financial structure. If playing armchair GM each day gets you through it and/or you are happy to settle for building a team that might someday play .500 baseball, or if you are like some here who are just tickled pink to have the privelige of putting down their money to watch the other team's good players, and don't care about the oiutcome, then good for you. I was around for the '85 World Championship, and IMO we shouldn't be forced to settle for hoping/striving for anything less.

The reality is that the teams that win pennants and are legitimate World Series Championships contenders all have great pitching. Guess what - great pitching costs A LOT of money. Money that no one in their right mind would spend as an owner of a MLB franchise based in KC. The sport of MLB (not the Royals) is the problem. Until someone can devise a way for the small market owners to feild similar teams to those of the big-markets - we are screwed. Has Allard Baird made some bad moves, sure. Has David Glass been tight with the purse-strings, probably. Has Buddy Bell made some bad decisions - of course. But, we are not a new GM, 1 or 2 players, or one or two off-season moves away from being competitive in the league. We are an entire pitching rotation and 5-6 offseason moves that would cost more than our entire current payroll. We are not $5-10 million away from competing for a Championship, we are probably closer to $50 - 70 million.

Frankly, it amazes me that Yankee fans and other big market fans truly enjoy wathcing their teams win most of the titles. If I were to get a bunch of my 2nd grade players, and they played against me and my buddies, I don't think the dads would be high-fiving each other oafter our lopsided victory. IMO that is how the big-market teams have it now.

Face it folks, we are going to be a losing team for a long time. It sucks that every March 1st many of us already understand that. It's amusing that many do not.

How do you explain the Florida Marlins of 2003? Or the Anaheim Angels of 2002? The Rich versus Poor argument is a PATHETIC excuse used by local reporters and people who do not follow baseball. The Royals have a 40+ million dollar payroll this year, mostly funded by the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, etc. Without "Name Dropping", I can tell you for a fact that many of those team owners would rather do without a team like the Royals, who drain their profits.

The Royals have bad ownership. They have a bad front office, who seem hell bent on rushing high school pitchers through the farm system. They have poor scouting. They say they're going youth, then sign old timers. They have no plan for the foreseable future. Everyone needs to fired, Glass need to completely step away from the decision making and good, experienced smart people need to be put in place.

There's no way in the world that this team can't be competitive with a 50 million dollar payroll, a good GM and good scouting. Will they win the World Series? Hard to say, but there have been six different winners in the past six years. But IF the right people were hired and IF the scouting department and managerial staff were all on the same page, I just don't see how this team couldn't at least be hovering around .500 every year.

Be prepared for more changes because it's very likely that in the next CBA, we'll see a spending FLOOR, not a spending ceiling. The Royals need to be smart to be competitive - not more money.

hawkchief
04-20-2006, 01:31 PM
Dane,

First, there are always going to be exceptions, and occassionally a smaller market team will "catch lightning in a bottle". In reality, and proven over time, you can't be expected to outmanage someone who has 3-4 times the capital to purchase the best talent available each year - I don't care if you have the leagues best front office and manager working for you. The world just doens't work that way, not in baseball, and usually not in business.

.500 baseball every year seems to be your goal - not having the opportunity to contend perenially for the World Series. That is where we differ significantly. I can go watch the T-Bones if I choose to watch minor league baseball.

DaneMcCloud
04-20-2006, 01:40 PM
Dane,

First, there are always going to be exceptions, and occassionally a smaller market team will "catch lightning in a bottle". In reality, and proven over time, you can't be expected to outmanage someone who has 3-4 times the capital to purchase the best talent available each year - I don't care if you have the leagues best front office and manager working for you. The world just doens't work that way, not in baseball, and usually not in business.

.500 baseball every year seems to be your goal - not having the opportunity to contend perenially for the World Series. That is where we differ significantly. I can go watch the T-Bones if I choose to watch minor league baseball.

So you're of the opinion that $75 million dollars will win the Royals the division, but they need $150 or more to win a Series? How's that working for the Yankees?

The Royals need to be smart in their decision making and they're not. The Chiefs went through a 15 year dryspell and FINALLY fired everyone. It's the people in charge, not necessarily the payroll.

If Glass gave Baird another $50 million to spend, does anyone actually think that he'd field a winner? At least the Marlins are realistic. They dumped all their high salary players, got great draft choices in return and KNOW how to build a winner (they did it after their 1997 WS win and they're doing it again).

The Royals have no plan and have no leadership. Hoping for .500 is a pipe dream at this point.

hawkchief
04-20-2006, 01:49 PM
I am not saying that Allard Baird or Glass should be considered for any types of awards. However, in reality winning requires a combination of both management and spending, and it's a whole lot easier to find good managers than it is to come up with $75 million. (And, yes, were the Royals able to throw $50-$75 million at their team, their chances of winning the Series would grow exponentially).

BTW, haven't the Yankess beaten the Royals 15 straight times at Yankee Stadium? Check the updated Vegas odds of the Yankees winning a title versus those for the Royals. Sorry, you can't build a Mercedes with GM parts, even using Mercedes' best mechanics and engineers..

DJJasonp
04-20-2006, 01:52 PM
So you're of the opinion that $75 million dollars will win the Royals the division, but they need $150 or more to win a Series? How's that working for the Yankees?

The Royals need to be smart in their decision making and they're not. The Chiefs went through a 15 year dryspell and FINALLY fired everyone. It's the people in charge, not necessarily the payroll.

If Glass gave Baird another $50 million to spend, does anyone actually think that he'd field a winner? At least the Marlins are realistic. They dumped all their high salary players, got great draft choices in return and KNOW how to build a winner (they did it after their 1997 WS win and they're doing it again).

The Royals have no plan and have no leadership. Hoping for .500 is a pipe dream at this point.


With all due respect....you're not comparing apples to apples here. It's not an even playing field. In a previous post you compared the royals ineptitude to that of the chiefs....

That's not even close to a comparison....the chiefs operate under a salary cap which, for better or worse, gives all teams a chance to compete (minus a few owners who dont like to throw in the extra bonus money). But the point is...the royals start each season with one arm tied behind their back.

Yes, it's true, that management decisions can be blamed for success/failure....but as a recent article stated....if the yankees blow 10 million for juan gonzalez....and he doesnt produce one single hit....no biggie...they drop him and pick up someone before the trade deadline.

If the royals spend a chunk on a free agent and he tanks....it sets them back for 3-5 years.

The marlins success was the equivelant to catching lightning in a bottle....combine good draft results...(especially pitching choices)...combine with a few great free agent bargains....and some timely hitting in the playoffs....jackpot.

But how many times has this happened in the last 25 years????

I'm a pretty big royals fan as well, and from what you wrote...it seems we're about the same age....and I remember well the entertainment that was royals baseball in the 70's and 80's.....

But look at the Yankees lineup.....for god's sake...Bernie Williams bats 8th on this team.....

DaneMcCloud
04-20-2006, 02:17 PM
With all due respect....you're not comparing apples to apples here. It's not an even playing field. In a previous post you compared the royals ineptitude to that of the chiefs....

That's not even close to a comparison....the chiefs operate under a salary cap which, for better or worse, gives all teams a chance to compete (minus a few owners who dont like to throw in the extra bonus money). But the point is...the royals start each season with one arm tied behind their back.

Yes, it's true, that management decisions can be blamed for success/failure....but as a recent article stated....if the yankees blow 10 million for juan gonzalez....and he doesnt produce one single hit....no biggie...they drop him and pick up someone before the trade deadline.

If the royals spend a chunk on a free agent and he tanks....it sets them back for 3-5 years.

The marlins success was the equivelant to catching lightning in a bottle....combine good draft results...(especially pitching choices)...combine with a few great free agent bargains....and some timely hitting in the playoffs....jackpot.

But how many times has this happened in the last 25 years????

I'm a pretty big royals fan as well, and from what you wrote...it seems we're about the same age....and I remember well the entertainment that was royals baseball in the 70's and 80's.....

But look at the Yankees lineup.....for god's sake...Bernie Williams bats 8th on this team.....

I'm in no way trying to imply that the Royals have any shot of being the Yankees. And while the NFL has a salary cap, it's not a Hard Cap. The Redskins, Cowboys and others have a huge amount of income that's not shared, which is why they're always able to land high priced free agents. The signing bonus money comes from their local revenue, which was of issue in the last CBA.

But I think we can all agree that for the Royals to even have a chance at being competitive, the front office needs to go. There needs to be a major change in philosphy and the owner needs to keep out of the decision making process. The Royals need to do whatever it takes to improve this ballclub from year to year and IMO, you don't do that by signing a bunch of 35 year olds. This team needs to be grown from the ground up and I really think that the fans would support such a movement, if it were EVER to take place.

I just hope that the people of Kansas City realize what's happening in MLB. The Royals are being subsidized by all the wealthy teams. The Yankees, Red Sox, Astros, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants, Mets and Cubs don't need the Royals. The Royals need them. And even though the tax issue passed and the K will be renovated, it is not out of the realm of possibility that MLB could still contract the Royals, pay off the stadium upgrades and be just fine without them. With the Yankees paying out over $75 million in luxury tax the last couple of years alone, no one should be surprised if this were to occur.

chiefqueen
04-20-2006, 02:45 PM
.

The marlins success was the equivelant to catching lightning in a bottle....combine good draft results...(especially pitching choices)...combine with a few great free agent bargains....and some timely hitting in the playoffs....jackpot.




It also helps to receive fan interference at critical junctures, too.

DJJasonp
04-20-2006, 03:00 PM
I'm in no way trying to imply that the Royals have any shot of being the Yankees. And while the NFL has a salary cap, it's not a Hard Cap. The Redskins, Cowboys and others have a huge amount of income that's not shared, which is why they're always able to land high priced free agents. The signing bonus money comes from their local revenue, which was of issue in the last CBA.

But I think we can all agree that for the Royals to even have a chance at being competitive, the front office needs to go. There needs to be a major change in philosphy and the owner needs to keep out of the decision making process. The Royals need to do whatever it takes to improve this ballclub from year to year and IMO, you don't do that by signing a bunch of 35 year olds. This team needs to be grown from the ground up and I really think that the fans would support such a movement, if it were EVER to take place.

I just hope that the people of Kansas City realize what's happening in MLB. The Royals are being subsidized by all the wealthy teams. The Yankees, Red Sox, Astros, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants, Mets and Cubs don't need the Royals. The Royals need them. And even though the tax issue passed and the K will be renovated, it is not out of the realm of possibility that MLB could still contract the Royals, pay off the stadium upgrades and be just fine without them. With the Yankees paying out over $75 million in luxury tax the last couple of years alone, no one should be surprised if this were to occur.

Well put.

I just wish that the MLB would realize how popular the NFL is and how NFL teams sell jerseys in other markets besides their own. In the NFL, to the above-average fan...you can name 3-5 players on every single team.....Name me 3 Devil Rays...or 3 pirates, etc etc.

When every team is capable of putting a decent product on the field...more fans will attend more games because the product (the game, not the players) will be more competitive. This sells more season tickets, sells more jerseys, pennants, posters, etc....sells fatter TV contracts, and so on and so on.....

Brock
04-20-2006, 03:07 PM
The marlins success was the equivelant to catching lightning in a bottle....

Yeah, TWICE.

DJJasonp
04-20-2006, 03:12 PM
Yeah, TWICE.


Yeah, but the first time....didnt the owner pay a buttload of money for free agents like Kevin Brown, Livan Hernandez, Al Leiter, Bobby Bonilla, Edgar Renteria, Jeff Conine, Moises Alou, Gary Sheffield....

Totally different approach....

And as soon as they won in '97....fire sale.....

What they did in '03 was a different story.

Just for the hell of it....and remember this was 9 years ago...

1997 Florida Marlins
Salaries

Alex Fernandez $7,000,000.00
Gary Sheffield $6,100,000.00
Bobby Bonilla $5,600,000.00
Kevin Brown $4,510,000.00
Moises Alou $4,500,000.00
Devon White $3,400,000.00
Robb Nen $3,080,000.00
Al Leiter $2,900,000.00
Jeff Conine $2,800,000.00
Jim Eisenreich $1,400,000.00
Pat Rapp $1,125,000.00
Livan Hernandez $1,050,000.00

hawkchief
04-20-2006, 03:33 PM
I'm in no way trying to imply that the Royals have any shot of being the Yankees. And while the NFL has a salary cap, it's not a Hard Cap. The Redskins, Cowboys and others have a huge amount of income that's not shared, which is why they're always able to land high priced free agents. The signing bonus money comes from their local revenue, which was of issue in the last CBA.

But I think we can all agree that for the Royals to even have a chance at being competitive, the front office needs to go. There needs to be a major change in philosphy and the owner needs to keep out of the decision making process. The Royals need to do whatever it takes to improve this ballclub from year to year and IMO, you don't do that by signing a bunch of 35 year olds. This team needs to be grown from the ground up and I really think that the fans would support such a movement, if it were EVER to take place.

I just hope that the people of Kansas City realize what's happening in MLB. The Royals are being subsidized by all the wealthy teams. The Yankees, Red Sox, Astros, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants, Mets and Cubs don't need the Royals. The Royals need them. And even though the tax issue passed and the K will be renovated, it is not out of the realm of possibility that MLB could still contract the Royals, pay off the stadium upgrades and be just fine without them. With the Yankees paying out over $75 million in luxury tax the last couple of years alone, no one should be surprised if this were to occur.

You say there is no way we can be the Yankees, but that we can be competetive. Which is it? IMO if we are not competitive with the Yankees, and every other team in the league, then we are not competitive. Being competetive is not merely having a chance to break even with the weak sisters in our division each year.

Also, I don't feel any sense of obligation or gratitude to the Yankees or any other large market teams due to the fact that they are paying a luxury tax. That is a tax that they are paying that allows them to pummel us every year and to keep us in business as a part of their farm system. Yes, they are paying out a subsidy, but last time I checked those teams still have most of the talent, and we are left with the scraps.

Chiefshrink
04-20-2006, 03:45 PM
Glass won't sell because all he wants is take a business loss every year therefore we will never be competitive. Glass is a billionaire and can compete for those big salaries but as most of you have said he is a "cheap A$$".