PDA

View Full Version : Our Buddy...


RockChalk
06-07-2006, 10:24 PM
Like a lot of Royals fans, I used to believe that Buddy Bell simply struggled as a manager because he has always been surrounded with mediocre talent. That is no longer the case...the man simply has no feel for the game as a manager.

I have seen Bell pull pitchers way too early this season and tonight was one of many examples of his horrible judgement of baseball. Keppel had every right to finish that game tonight and Bell brings in a pitcher that couldn't stop a beachball from going into a golf hole. 94 pitches, 7 hits, 0 runs, and one lousy leadoff single in the 9th gets you pulled???? The guy pitched his ass off only to watch it waste away because he has a jackass for a manager. Moore better take care of business starting tomorrow.

:banghead: :cuss:

Sure-Oz
06-07-2006, 10:26 PM
Buddy Bell get's this loss, easy.

BWillie
06-07-2006, 10:29 PM
Who is this Keppell guy anyway. Where did he come from? I guess I don't know much about him, but yeah you bring up a good point. I don't know why you would yank a guy after a lead off single when he's had that kinda game. Doesn't make since

RockChalk
06-07-2006, 10:38 PM
Bells makes moves like this all the time. Keppel pitched pretty well in AAA and got the call up. I believe this was his 2nd quality start in as many chances. He went 6 or 7 innings against Seattle last weekend but 84 year old Moyer shut us out. Maybe Bell is trying to get fired?

RockChalk
06-07-2006, 10:41 PM
The thing that drives me crazy is that when I listen or watch these games, I get the feeling that Bell is making a wrong move. I always seem to second guess his decisions and his decisions always seem to get us a loss, or at least contribute. Now I know even the best manager will make a mistake from time to time, but his decisions seem to hurt us 80% of the time.

ChiefsCountry
06-07-2006, 10:44 PM
He is killing time until we move the Wichita Wranglers to KC. White will be the manager.

BWillie
06-07-2006, 10:50 PM
He is killing time until we move the Wichita Wranglers to KC. White will be the manager.

If Wichita is so good then how come they are 27-31? I don't buy it. Butler, Gordon...they'll all find ways to suck. Always happens for the Royals. Fork up the money, get some good free agents. I'm sick and tired of waiting.

Moooo
06-07-2006, 10:51 PM
This would've been Keppel's first win no?

So he pulled a pitcher who was about to have his first win, in the 9th when he was pitching a shutout?

I'm sorry if I'm too sentimental, but this kid may never be able to pitch a shutout again, or perhaps even a win again, who knows what can happen, especially with the most finicky position in all of sports. It seems to me that in a season thats already over for us, a little sentimental thing like this would play in someone's mind.

Nice to see some good pitching, too...

Moooo

ChiefsCountry
06-07-2006, 11:28 PM
If Wichita is so good then how come they are 27-31? I don't buy it. Butler, Gordon...they'll all find ways to suck. Always happens for the Royals. Fork up the money, get some good free agents. I'm sick and tired of waiting.

Pitching, Wichita has no pitching. They are good - Butler, Gordon, I saw them in person. No pitching kills them.

BWillie
06-07-2006, 11:47 PM
Pitching, Wichita has no pitching. They are good - Butler, Gordon, I saw them in person. No pitching kills them.

Yeah, well pitching kills Royals too. By far an away worse than our offense. If we had the Yankees offense, we still wouldn't be .500.

Moooo
06-07-2006, 11:52 PM
Yeah, well pitching kills Royals too. By far an away worse than our offense. If we had the Yankees offense, we still wouldn't be .500.

If we had the Yankees offense, We'd be the Chiefs of Baseball. It would be only fitting that both offensive ponies would be in the same city...

Moooo

Cochise
06-07-2006, 11:56 PM
Yeah, you can argue about all this after the fact, but if you are the manager and are making the decision in real time, you might not choose the same thing.

It's easy to say 'leave the rookie in the game' after the fact when you know how it turned out. Not a terribly risky statement. But if Bell would have left him in and he'd blown it, the same thread would exist here, with all the same people bitching about Bell blowing the game for leaving him in.

Common sense tells you that the way it probably went down was that Bell let Keppel go out for the 9th, told him or decided that if he brought the tying run to the plate (which he did), he would go to the closer. He's brand new to the majors, he was at 100 pitches, he's got a long history of injuries so you dont want to overwork him, and the last time Keppel was out on the mound he was left in a little too long and it blew up an otherwise good outing.

While everyone pretends like they knew all the right answers, I'll go on record saying that I would have done the same thing. I would have sent Keppel out in the 9th, and told him that if the tying run came up I was going to make the change. I wouldn't have gone to Burgos - criticism of that is fair - but we don't have a whole lot of options out there either.

BWillie
06-07-2006, 11:56 PM
Hey Moo..get an AVATAR!!

chiefsfan987
06-08-2006, 12:18 AM
Yeah, you can argue about all this after the fact, but if you are the manager and are making the decision in real time, you might not choose the same thing.

It's easy to say 'leave the rookie in the game' after the fact when you know how it turned out. Not a terribly risky statement. But if Bell would have left him in and he'd blown it, the same thread would exist here, with all the same people bitching about Bell blowing the game for leaving him in.

Common sense tells you that the way it probably went down was that Bell let Keppel go out for the 9th, told him or decided that if he brought the tying run to the plate (which he did), he would go to the closer. He's brand new to the majors, he was at 100 pitches, he's got a long history of injuries so you dont want to overwork him, and the last time Keppel was out on the mound he was left in a little too long and it blew up an otherwise good outing.

While everyone pretends like they knew all the right answers, I'll go on record saying that I would have done the same thing. I would have sent Keppel out in the 9th, and told him that if the tying run came up I was going to make the change. I wouldn't have gone to Burgos - criticism of that is fair - but we don't have a whole lot of options out there either.

So if you were manager you would have taken out a guy who was pitching a shutout and in the 7th and 8th pitched his best innings both 1-2-3 innings to bring in a guy who's era is over 7 (now 7.90) with a runner already aboard and had blown 6 of his last 8 games to close the ninth? Your odds of coming out ahead on that one is pretty slim to none.

Cochise
06-08-2006, 12:33 AM
So if you were manager you would have taken out a guy who was pitching a shutout and in the 7th and 8th pitched his best innings both 1-2-3 innings to bring in a guy who's era is over 7 (now 7.90) with a runner already aboard and had blown 6 of his last 8 games to close the ninth? Your odds of coming out ahead on that one is pretty slim to none.

Like I said, I would not have gone to Burgos. But I would have made a change when he brought the tying run up.

Moooo
06-08-2006, 12:56 AM
Hey Moo..get an AVATAR!!

Why? I don't see a need, I fade into obscurity better this way.

Moooo

ChiTown
06-08-2006, 07:03 AM
No, no, no.

Buddy Bell is a geeeneeeus. He just needs 5-6 more 100 loss seasons before he can master the art of winning 65 games a year...........

RockChalk
06-08-2006, 07:11 AM
Yeah, you can argue about all this after the fact, but if you are the manager and are making the decision in real time, you might not choose the same thing.

It's easy to say 'leave the rookie in the game' after the fact when you know how it turned out. Not a terribly risky statement. But if Bell would have left him in and he'd blown it, the same thread would exist here, with all the same people bitching about Bell blowing the game for leaving him in.

Common sense tells you that the way it probably went down was that Bell let Keppel go out for the 9th, told him or decided that if he brought the tying run to the plate (which he did), he would go to the closer. He's brand new to the majors, he was at 100 pitches, he's got a long history of injuries so you dont want to overwork him, and the last time Keppel was out on the mound he was left in a little too long and it blew up an otherwise good outing.

While everyone pretends like they knew all the right answers, I'll go on record saying that I would have done the same thing. I would have sent Keppel out in the 9th, and told him that if the tying run came up I was going to make the change. I wouldn't have gone to Burgos - criticism of that is fair - but we don't have a whole lot of options out there either.

I was second guessing Buddy Bell during the game. I was listening to the game on 810 and when LeFebre said that Bell was on his way out to the mound, I turned the game off. An hour later, my brother called telling me that the game was lost. My point is this, the Royals suck, we are going nowhere. Is it that big of a deal to let your rookie pitcher try and get out of the jam he put himself in. Keppel was the only reason we were winning that game, so it was his to lose.

On a side note, I think Burgos may be injured. No zip on his fastball and no break on the dreaded splitter.

shakesthecat
06-08-2006, 07:24 AM
There's no excuse for not letting Kepple win or lose that game on his own.

That fact that Buddy keeps trotting Burgos out there just reinforces what a complete moron he really is.

Burgos and Sisco should have both been sent to AAA a month ago.

Cochise
06-08-2006, 07:34 AM
I was second guessing Buddy Bell during the game. I was listening to the game on 810 and when LeFebre said that Bell was on his way out to the mound, I turned the game off. An hour later, my brother called telling me that the game was lost. My point is this, the Royals suck, we are going nowhere. Is it that big of a deal to let your rookie pitcher try and get out of the jam he put himself in. Keppel was the only reason we were winning that game, so it was his to lose.

On a side note, I think Burgos may be injured. No zip on his fastball and no break on the dreaded splitter.

Well, good on you then, I was a little harsh in my initial post. I think everyone is quick to jump on the guy from their armchair who actually has to make the decisions and live with it. I don't think it's monumentally stupid after what happened in Seattle to give him a chance to win the game but going to the pen if he gets in trouble.

I think Burgos' issue is that the split hasn't been working, and no matter how good your fastball is, if they know it's coming a big league hitter is going to get the job done.

ChiTown
06-08-2006, 07:34 AM
There's no excuse for not letting Kepple win or lose that game on his own.

That fact that Buddy keeps trotting Burgos out there just reinforces what a complete moron he really is.

Burgos and Sisco should have both been sent to AAA a month ago.

You meant geeeneeeus, right?

I remember telling everyone when we first hired Buddy Bell that this guy would look lost if he had the Yankees talent in the clubhouse. This hire never made sense at all. NEVER.

RockChalk
06-08-2006, 07:37 AM
The problem Dayton faces is whether to fire him now or let him finish out the disaster he helped orchestrate. I've heard rumors about White taking over, but I'd let him stay with the real team down in Wichita. If Frank is the guy Dayton wants, start him off fresh next season.

Cochise
06-08-2006, 07:38 AM
The problem Dayton faces is whether to fire him now or let him finish out the disaster he helped orchestrate. I've heard rumors about White taking over, but I'd let him stay with the real team down in Wichita. If Frank is the guy Dayton wants, start him off fresh next season.

I don't see what is to be gained if you have selected a successor, not moving right into that person's era. Let him use this year to learn about the players he has and gain experience. No matter if it's White or anybody else.

shakesthecat
06-08-2006, 07:41 AM
You meant geeeneeeus, right?

I remember telling everyone when we first hired Buddy Bell that this guy would look lost if he had the Yankees talent in the clubhouse. This hire never made sense at all. NEVER.


I'd like to think he'll be gone by the All Star break, if not sooner.
Hopefully he'll take McClure with him.

Saulbadguy
06-08-2006, 07:42 AM
I never understood why we hired him in the first place.

Cochise
06-08-2006, 07:48 AM
I never understood why we hired him in the first place.

If you believe some, it was going to be Showalter (sp?), Baird had him ready to come in, but the deal was nixed by ownership.

ChiTown
06-08-2006, 07:53 AM
If you believe some, it was going to be Showalter (sp?), Baird had him ready to come in, but the deal was nixed by ownership.

That's true.

The problem with Buck is that he's not as stoopid as Buddy. He wouldn't have settled for bringing in a bunch of hasbeenneverwas players just to fill out a squad. He would have actually stood up to the Glass Family and made them get players who can hit, catch, and pitch. That's just the type of attitude the Glass Family won't stand for.........

The Dayton Moore hire shoud be interesting. Maybe the Glass family has decided that they can make a few extra bucks by fielding a team that the fans actually want to see play. Who knows?

RockChalk
06-08-2006, 07:53 AM
If you believe some, it was going to be Showalter (sp?), Baird had him ready to come in, but the deal was nixed by ownership.

That would certainly be par for the course

RockChalk
06-08-2006, 07:54 AM
That's true.

The problem with Buck is that he's not as stoopid as Buddy. He wouldn't have settled for bringing in a bunch of hasbeenneverwas players just to fill out a squad. He would have actually stood up to the Glass Family and made them get players who can hit, catch, and pitch. That's just the type of attitude the Glass Family won't stand for.........

The Dayton Moore hire shoud be interesting. Maybe the Glass family has decided that they can make a few extra bucks by fielding a team that the fans actually want to see play. Who knows?


No way, so you're telling me that if more fans want to pay to see the team play, we would make more money? That can't be.... :hmmm:

ChiTown
06-08-2006, 08:31 AM
No way, so you're telling me that if more fans want to pay to see the team play, we would make more money? That can't be.... :hmmm:

I'm an edumacated man. I've even read "Moneyball".....................

RockChalk
06-08-2006, 09:01 AM
I'm an edumacated man. I've even read "Moneyball".....................

Only a few owners in MLB know that putting fans in the stands generates money, I mean it's not common sense.

Do you think Glass is mocked and laughed at when attending Owners Meetings?

ChiTown
06-08-2006, 09:44 AM
Only a few owners in MLB know that putting fans in the stands generates money, I mean it's not common sense.

Do you think Glass is mocked and laughed at when attending Owners Meetings?

NO, not at all.

He's like a retard. They don't laugh until he's out of the room...............