PDA

View Full Version : Royals Royals: #2 Worst Franchise in Pro Sports


stlchiefs
05-08-2008, 02:20 PM
Every fan wants to cheer for a team that has the championship history of the New England Patriots, New York Yankees or Detroit Red Wings. Unfortunately, many get stuck with a long string of bad luck, like the Chicago Cubs; thrifty ownership, like the now-defunct Montreal Expos; or a dim-witted front office that is unable to make logical personnel decisions, like the current New York Knicks.

Here is a list of the top 10 worst sports franchises currently in operation.

10. Los Angeles Clippers

Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, is a man of many adjectives. We'll start with thrifty. Not only does he have a multi-page resume of skimping on talent, but he also once asked head coach Paul Silas to film the players himself to cut video expenses. Most of the Clippers' struggles can be traced to Sterling. Their .365 franchise winning percentage is the third-worst in the NBA and the Clippers have only had two winning seasons since Sterling bought the team in 1981.

Puzzling personnel plays: Drafting Michael Olowokandi, Lamond Murray, Darius Miles, Melvin Ely and failing to re-sign Lamar Odom

Remember ... 1986-87: The Clippers posted one of the ugliest NBA seasons in 1986-87 when they finished 12-70, which was the second-lowest winning record in NBA history. All-Star Norm Nixon missed the entire season after being injured in a celebrity softball game. His team started the season 3-3, but went on a 9-67 run to make them one of the worst sports franchises.

9. Vancouver/Memphis Grizzlies

The Vancouver Grizzlies were embarrassing in Canada and they haven't been much better since the move to Memphis. Vancouver compiled 56 wins throughout its first four seasons a total that serious contenders top annually and the team's downfall has been nightmarish draft days. From drafting role players and busts instead of superstars to drafting franchise players who don't want to play for their team, the Grizzlies have done exactly what's needed to become one of the worst sports franchises. Vancouver's draft-day trade of Steve Francis netted the team several players of no significance. Thankfully, drafting has improved since moving to Memphis.

Puzzling personnel plays: Trading Pau Gasol, Mike Bibby and Steve Francis, and drafting Bryant Reeves, Antonio Daniels and Shareef Abdur-Rahim.

Remember ... 1998-99: The thrill of reeling in Mike Bibby quickly died down, especially after Bryant Reeves suffered a season-ending knee injury 25 games in. A lockout shortened the season and the Grizzlies finished with eight wins.

8. Atlanta Hawks

The Atlanta Hawks, averaging 28 wins per season between 1999-00 and 2007-08, were the Eastern Conference's whipping boy until the Charlotte Bobcats entered the league. The good news is that the Hawks are chock-full of upside since they've been selecting at the top of virtually every draft over the last decade. On paper, the Hawks have more potential than most teams, but they haven't learned to win or remove themselves from the worst sports franchises list.

Puzzling personnel plays: Passing on Chris Paul and Deron Williams while trading for Antoine Walker, J.R. Rider and Pau Gasol.

Remember ... 2005: The Hawks, desperate for a point guard, spent their second-pick overall on Marvin Williams. The good news: Williams was filled with upside. The bad news: he played the same position as the Hawks' last two first-round picks, Josh Smith and Josh Childress. The worst news was that the Hawks passed on Chris Paul, Deron Williams and Raymond Felton, two of whom will be All-Star point guards for the next 10 years.

7. Minnesota Twins

"Moneyball" is to baseball what frugal is to cheap; it's a creative way of saying, "we're not going to pay for our stars or reward our veterans who have earned their keep." Sabermetrics and scientific stats are used to evaluate players and give a better indication of their worth, but teams like the Minnesota Twins use this strategy to kiss their superstars goodbye at the trade deadline or the first day of free agency. The Twins constantly sell proven veterans for prospects and draft picks, but when those youngsters finally develop, they get shipped away to start the cycle again. The Twins incessantly look to the future and winning now is not a priority. Translation: the Twins care more about the dollars than about winning.

Puzzling personnel plays: Trading Johan Santana and failing to re-sign Torii Hunter.

Remember ... 2002: A year removed from a contraction battle, the Minnesota Twins (under first-year manager Ron Gardenhire) make it to the American League Championship Series. With a solid roster and a light payroll, 2002 would have been the perfect season to sacrifice some future players to add some veteran players at the trade deadline and make a serious run. Instead, the Twins entered the playoffs with the youngest roster in the league and never stood a chance in the ALCS after beating fellow cheapskates, the Oakland Athletics, in the first round.

6. Boston Bruins

To be blunt, owner Jeremy Jacobs seems to be stingy and only cares about profits. The Bruins are an Original Six team in one of the biggest American markets, but ownership only allows the front office to make enough moves to tease the fans into believing there is hope. Up until 1997, the Bruins made the playoffs in 30 consecutive seasons, but have zero Stanley Cups since Jacobs took over 33 years ago. That might be because Jacobs is more focused on making money outside of hockey: He owns the TD Banknorth Garden, running the concession stands and charging rent to the Boston Celtics (among others).

Puzzling personnel plays: Signing Martin Lapointe and failing to hang on to Joe Thornton, Jason Allison and Bill Guerin.

Remember ... 2000: The Boston Bruins trade the heart and soul of the franchise, Ray Bourque, at his request. On March 6, Bourque was sent to Cup-contender Colorado, which suddenly inherited a slew of Boston fans who wanted to see Bourque hoist the Cup.

5. Detroit Lions

The Detroit Lions are perpetually in a three-to-five year rebuilding plan, but they rarely get out of year one. The Lions have never played in the Super Bowl and have had just one playoff win since 1957. Part of the problem has been thrifty ownership, but don't discount their ability to make some of the worst personnel decisions in the NFL.

Puzzling personnel plays: Drafting Reggie Rogers, Andre Ware, Aaron Gibson, Joey Harrington, Charles Rogers, and Mike Williams.

Remember ... 2001: Head Coach Marty Mornhinweg benched starting quarterback Charlie Batch after he was sacked seven times in the season opener. Mornhinweg then put in Ty Detmer, who proceeded to throw seven interceptions against the team from which he was acquired, the Cleveland Browns and Mornhinweg stuck with Detmer the next game. The Lions finished the season with only two wins.

4. Tampa Bay Rays

Expansion teams are typically a laughingstock for a few years, but in the Rays' case it's been permanent. In fact, a perennial assumption is that the Rays will finish fifth in their division. The Rays' best finish was in 2004, when they climbed to fourth in the American League East. They have finished fifth every other season and have never won more than 70 games.

Puzzling personnel plays: Signing Jose Canseco and Hideo Nomo, and acquiring Vinny Castilla and Greg Vaughn.

Remember ... 2002: The Rays were going to have Jason Tyner bobble-head doll night on June 2, but there was one problem: the outfielder was demoted to the Triple-A team. On Sept. 8, it was supposed to be Toby Hall bobble-head night, but he was also sent down. Good thing his weren't fully built and the heads were reconfigured in time for Steve Cox bobble-head night.

3. Arizona Cardinals

The Cardinals logo appears next to "loser" in the NFL dictionary. The Cardinals have made just four playoff appearances in 45 years since Bill Bidwill got his hands on the team. Bidwill is known as a cheapo, which explains why the Cardinals are always short on star power and talent. The closest they've come to success was when Cuba Gooding, Jr. as Rod Tidwell, in the movie "Jerry McGuire," wore a Cardinals jersey.

Puzzling personnel plays: Signing Emmitt Smith, and drafting Andre Wadsworth and Kelly Stouffer (when the team was in St. Louis).

Remember ... 2003: The Arizona Cardinals were abysmal, and it was head coach Dave McGinnis' second and last season. At 3-12, the Cardinals had the first pick overall in sight, but instead decided to play spoiler in Week 17 to the Minnesota Vikings. Cardinals' quarterback Josh McCown found Nathan Poole falling out of the end zone on the last play of the game to ruin the Vikings' playoff hopes and keep the Cardinals out of the first slot in the draft, which was Super Bowl XLII MVP Eli Manning.

2. Kansas City Royals

Having a cheap owner is a shortcut to getting on this list. Royals owner David Glass plays the small-market victim card as frequently as possible, but he's always first in line to receive revenue sharing or any other type of financial aid that MLB is happy to toss into his beggar's cap. And if Glass plays the role, his team's roster looks like a charity case. They never re-sign their stars, opting to use unproven youngsters and expired veterans to compose a team. Under Glass, the Royals have averaged 96 losses per season.

Puzzling personnel plays: Trading Johnny Damon, Carlos Beltran and Jermaine Dye; and signing Juan Gonzalez.

Remember ... 2004: The Royals were fresh off an 83-79 season, which was their first winning season since 1994, and finally entered a season with high expectations. After notching 17 wins in 31 games, it was time to blow it up. It seemed like the Royals might become respectable again, but then a quick fire sale in a span of about a week, which included the trade of Beltran, sent the Royals back to the AL Central cellar. 2004 marked the first of three consecutive 100-loss seasons.

1. Pittsburgh Pirates

Never mind championships, pennants or division titles, the Pittsburgh Pirates haven't even had a winning season in 15 years. One more losing season and the Pirates will tie the record for most consecutive losing seasons among the four major sports. They continually field one of the youngest and most inexperienced rosters in the league and are always rebuilding. The black and yellow team colors fit their plan of constantly being under construction.

Puzzling personnel plays: Signing Derek Bell, Jeromy Burnitz and Tony Armas, Jr.; and trading Aramis Ramirez.

Remember ... 1997: The closest the Pirates have come to 82 wins (otherwise known as a winning season) in the last 15 years was in 1997. They were expected to push 90 to 100 losses, but ended up as one of the league's irrelevant surprises when they finished with 79 wins. The entire team salary was $9 million, which was less than what Albert Belle made that season.



http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8098378/Top-10:-Worst-franchises-in-pro-sports?MSNHPHCP&GT1=39002#

keg in kc
05-08-2008, 02:26 PM
The "cheap owner" card is getting gradually more difficult to play, thankfully.

StcChief
05-08-2008, 02:27 PM
Not sure they are better than Pirates :D

DaneMcCloud
05-08-2008, 02:30 PM
The "cheap owner" card is getting gradually more difficult to play, thankfully.

Well, that's because Glass is essentially being forced into spending by the other owners (John Henry & George Steinbrenner in particular).

It was either start spending money or Adios, Amigo.

beavis
05-08-2008, 02:33 PM
Having a cheap owner is a shortcut to getting on this list. Royals owner David Glass plays the small-market victim card as frequently as possible, but he's always first in line to receive revenue sharing or any other type of financial aid that MLB is happy to toss into his beggar's cap.

These lists are usually dumb, but this one takes the cake. This part doesn't even make sense. Wouldn't it stand to reason that if he was cheap he'd take the handout? This writer fails at the internets.

He's really got some balls putting the Twins on there given the success they've had in recent years. The Dodgers might have underachieved, but they are far from an embarassment.

FWIW, I'd put the Chiefs ahead of the Royals on this same list now.

Stewie
05-08-2008, 02:34 PM
Well, that's because Glass is essentially being forced into spending by the other owners (John Henry & George Steinbrenner in particular).

It was either start spending money or Adios, Amigo.

I think Dayton Moore forced Glass's hand when he was negotiating to become GM. I'm pretty sure it was spend money or I won't come to KC. We'll see how the payroll looks in three years.

Amnorix
05-08-2008, 02:35 PM
The Bruins make the list. Dear God, Jacobs has ruined that proud franchise. I remember liking (not loving, but liking) hockey as a kid. Everybody talked about the Bruins, Bourque, Neely, Cheevers, and Orr.

Now, you never overhear talk about the Bruins. I couldn't name 3 players, and I doubt if 90% of Bostonians could either. They're totally irrelevant on the Boston sports scene, and they used to be ahead of the Celtics and Patriots in this town. :shake:

BigChiefFan
05-08-2008, 02:37 PM
What's that make the Chiefs, if the Cardinals are on the list? The Cardinals have actually won a playoff game in the past fourteen years.

Frazod
05-08-2008, 02:38 PM
How do the Blackhawks not make this list?

DeezNutz
05-08-2008, 02:39 PM
When payroll gets substantially higher than the amount the team receives in revenue sharing, then we can quit the cheap-owner remarks. Please don't make other excuses for the man: spending more in Latin American, scouting, farm system, etc. This is the cost of doing business if one wants to own a team. This is what every team should do; it doesn't make you special.

Petro leads the charge on this, and he claimed again today that the Royals payroll should be around 85 mil. now, and when the stadium improvements are complete, this team should be around the 100 mil. mark. I couldn't agree more.

DaneMcCloud
05-08-2008, 02:41 PM
I think Dayton Moore forced Glass's hand when he was negotiating to become GM. I'm pretty sure it was spend money or I won't come to KC. We'll see how the payroll looks in three years.

No, I'm telling you for a fact that the other owners in MLB basically forced his hand.

Dayton Moore was just a welcome side-effect.

Frosty
05-08-2008, 02:41 PM
I'm surprised that the Sonics and Mariners aren't on that list. :shake:

Brock
05-08-2008, 02:43 PM
I don't think the Royals or Twins belong on that list. They were at least at one time very respectable organizations. I mean, ahead of the Arizona Cardinals? Just stupid.

L.A. Chieffan
05-08-2008, 02:44 PM
Honestly the Clippers should be higher on that list. If they were in any other city Sterling probably wouldve been nuthooked a long time ago. Well, except maybe KC.

DeezNutz
05-08-2008, 02:50 PM
No, I'm telling you for a fact that the other owners in MLB basically forced his hand.

Dayton Moore was just a welcome side-effect.

Ok, explain, please. We know that Glass is a little wuss when it comes to Selig--no, no, Bud, I won't pay over slot value to our draft pick, promise--so what the deal here?

DaneMcCloud
05-08-2008, 02:51 PM
I don't think the Royals or Twins belong on that list. They were at least at one time very respectable organizations. I mean, ahead of the Arizona Cardinals? Just stupid.

Yeah but the Royals have been only been around since 1969 and they've been a non-competitive team for at least half of their existence.

DeezNutz
05-08-2008, 02:53 PM
Honestly the Clippers should be higher on that list. If they were in any other city Sterling probably wouldve been nuthooked a long time ago. Well, except maybe KC.

Lifetime passes are the norm here. Royals fans are so sad, and I'm definitely a fan, because they try to excuse anything (but, but, but, Glass has changed. Look at Meche, Guillen, etc.) because they're so starved for a decent product. I'll tell you when things have changed: 1.) When the team keeps its best talent, most if not all of it, not just one ****ing player to satisfy fans, like what happened with Sweeney. 2.) When the team drafts the best player, not one who will sign. Can you imagine if the Chiefs did this? We can't take Dorsey, let's take someone who is slotted at 30 because we know we won't have to give top-five money. I know the slotting system isn't the same for MLB, but any team can sign any draft pick. It comes down to whether that team is willing to do it and risk not getting to sit next to Selig at the country club the next time they see him.

We've been served shit for so long that we've forgotten what a real meal looks like. :shake: If this team doesn't progress and embarks on another "youth movement" in five years, I wonder what it will take for fans to rise up and run Glass's Walmart-penny-pinching-small-market-whining-player-acquisition-meddling ass out of town?

POND_OF_RED
05-08-2008, 03:19 PM
Well the Cardinals are #3...:p :Poke:

ChiefsCountry
05-08-2008, 03:22 PM
Yeah but the Royals have been only been around since 1969 and they've been a non-competitive team for at least half of their existence.

Royals were a competive team from 1969 to 1995. Its the only last 12 to 13 years they have slipped.

DeezNutz
05-08-2008, 03:24 PM
Royals were a competive team from 1969 to 1995. Its the only last 12 to 13 years they have slipped.


right off a 4,000 ft. cliff and fallen flat on their ****ing faces.

Stewie
05-08-2008, 04:04 PM
No, I'm telling you for a fact that the other owners in MLB basically forced his hand.

Dayton Moore was just a welcome side-effect.

Other owners forced Glass's hand? Our payroll is lower than last year! Where did you dream that BS up?

2008 vs. 2007 payroll.

25 (22) Royals $58,245,500 $67,366,500 ($9,121,000)

beavis
05-08-2008, 04:10 PM
Other owners forced Glass's hand? Our payroll is lower than last year! Where did you dream that BS up?

2008 vs. 2007 payroll.

25 (22) Royals $58,245,500 $67,366,500 ($9,121,000)






He's just part of the "in" crowd that thinks the Royals should bankrupt themselves.

chiefqueen
05-08-2008, 04:54 PM
Other owners forced Glass's hand? Our payroll is lower than last year! Where did you dream that BS up?

2008 vs. 2007 payroll.

25 (22) Royals $58,245,500 $67,366,500 ($9,121,000)






I expect that to increase dramatically over the next few years as the club sign Grienke, Gordon, Butler, Teahen and others to lucrative long term contracts.

Adept Havelock
05-08-2008, 05:11 PM
Petro leads the charge on this, and he claimed again today that the Royals payroll should be around 85 mil. now, and when the stadium improvements are complete, this team should be around the 100 mil. mark. I couldn't agree more.

I agree with him, but I can't stand to listen to him anymore on the topic. Just the other day he was doing a wonderful impression of a three year old because his diaper was in a bunch over the fact more people aren't ANGRY!

Translation: People aren't calling my show to kvetch like I want them to. :deevee:

I lost a lot of respect of Petro when a sabremetric-obsessed friend of mine (nicely) backed him into a corner on a point he was in error on, and rather than admit he was wrong he hung up on him and spent the next 10 minutes berating the guy when he couldn't defend himself.

IMO he'd be a lot better and more interesting if he kept his temper in check.

redbrian
05-08-2008, 05:12 PM
How do the St. Louis Blues not make this list?

stlchiefs
05-08-2008, 05:16 PM
I expect that to stay consistent over the next few years as the club trades Grienke, Gordon, Butler, Teahen and others to the Yankees so they can sign lucrative long term contracts.

FYP

siberian khatru
05-08-2008, 05:35 PM
Remember ... 2004: The Royals were fresh off an 83-79 season, which was their first winning season since 1994, and finally entered a season with high expectations. After notching 17 wins in 31 games, it was time to blow it up. It seemed like the Royals might become respectable again, but then a quick fire sale in a span of about a week, which included the trade of Beltran, sent the Royals back to the AL Central cellar. 2004 marked the first of three consecutive 100-loss seasons.[/B]



WTF?

The Royals in 2004 NEVER won 17 of 31 games. At one point they were 17-31. When they traded Beltran on June 24, they were 28-41. That didn't "send them to the cellar" -- they were in 5th place for good on April 29.

That guy totally blew it.

Stewie
05-08-2008, 05:45 PM
I expect that to increase dramatically over the next few years as the club sign Grienke, Gordon, Butler, Teahen and others to lucrative long term contracts.

I agree, but Dane made the point that other owners were forcing Glass to increase payroll before Dayton was hired. That's not so if you look at the numbers.

Mecca
05-08-2008, 05:45 PM
I expect that to increase dramatically over the next few years as the club sign Grienke, Gordon, Butler, Teahen and others to lucrative long term contracts.

If I have to watch light hitting Mark Teahen in the OF for more than 1 contract I will go insane.

Adept Havelock
05-08-2008, 05:47 PM
If I have to watch light hitting Mark Teahen in the OF for more than 1 contract I will go insane.

Go?

Mecca
05-08-2008, 06:05 PM
Go?

I'd like to know what the obsession with that guy is, he's in the corner outfield and he's hits like a shitty middle infielder.

siberian khatru
05-08-2008, 06:12 PM
I'd like to know what the obsession with that guy is, he's in the corner outfield and he's hits like a shitty middle infielder.

He had one terrific half-season to tease us. That's looking more and more like a fluke.

Adept Havelock
05-08-2008, 06:26 PM
He had one terrific half-season to tease us. That's looking more and more like a fluke.

Yep. Should have left him at 3B and shopped him when Gordon came up. He would have had some value.

Oh well, hindsight is always 20/20.

Pasta Giant Meatball
05-08-2008, 10:33 PM
How do the St. Louis Blues not make this list?

meh, the Blues had a huge stretch of seasons where they at least made the playoffs. the teams on this list are the bottom of the barrel, not mediocre like the blues and chiefs.

KcMizzou
05-08-2008, 10:37 PM
meh, the Blues had a huge stretch of seasons where they at least made the playoffs. the teams on this list are the bottom of the barrel, not mediocre like the blues and chiefs.The Royals have done that, and won a World Series. And the Twins have done it too, recently.

Pasta Giant Meatball
05-08-2008, 10:41 PM
The Royals have done that, and won a World Series. And the Twins have done it too, recently.

ya reading further the bruins had a 30 year playoff run as well....when i think of the worst sports franchises the blues don't come to mind. the teams on this list outside of the bruins are the ones i think of...all opinion of course.

DaneMcCloud
05-08-2008, 10:49 PM
Other owners forced Glass's hand? Our payroll is lower than last year! Where did you dream that BS up?

2008 vs. 2007 payroll.

25 (22) Royals $58,245,500 $67,366,500 ($9,121,000)



Yeah, and what about a few years back when it was $20 million while other teams were in the $80-90-100 million range?

Let's just put it this way Stewie: I've alluded to the outrage of the other MLB owners now since 2005. And the since then, the Royals payroll has nearly doubled. I'm not going to get into specifics and "drop names" but I have information from VERY reliable sources within MLB the other owners were sick of funding the Royals through the luxury tax, only to have them make a profit while spending none of their own money.

KcMizzou
05-08-2008, 10:54 PM
Yeah, and what about a few years back when it was $20 million while other teams were in the $80-90-100 million range?

Let's just put it this way Stewie: I've alluded to the outrage of the other MLB owners now since 2005. And the since then, the Royals payroll has nearly doubled. I'm not going to get into specifics and "drop names" but I have information from VERY reliable sources within MLB the other owners were sick of funding the Royals through the luxury tax, only to have them make a profit while spending none of their own money.You've got hook-ups with not only all of the Hollywood insiders, but Major League baseball as well?

That's impressive.

What kinda secret stuff is DARPA working on these days?

DaneMcCloud
05-08-2008, 10:59 PM
You've got hook-ups with not only all of the Hollywood insiders, but Major League baseball as well?

That's impressive.

What kinda secret stuff is DARPA working on these days?

Without sounding like dick (which I probably will anyway), I live in a fairly diverse neighborhood. I have neighbors that are pretty much into all forms of entertainment and believe it or not, many are close friends.

Except the NFL, sadly.

KcMizzou
05-08-2008, 11:01 PM
Without sounding like dick (which I probably will anyway), I live in a fairly diverse neighborhood. I have neighbors that are pretty much into all forms of entertainment and believe it or not, many are close friends.

Except the NFL, sadly.I'm just busting your balls, really.

You've gotta admit, though... it does sound a little far fetched.

DaneMcCloud
05-08-2008, 11:07 PM
I'm just busting your balls, really.

You've gotta admit, though... it does sound a little far fetched.

I was a dinner party in early 2005 when I heard of this issue. It angered me but also made sense that so many of the MLB owners were sick of basically subsidizing the Royals. The Royals would receive "X Amount" from ticket sales, television and radio, then a much larger amount from the luxury tax. Yet, they weren't spending money on payroll. So after many years of this happening, many owners (led by You-Know-Who) finally put their foot down with Glass.

It does make sense though, from a financial standpoint. What do owners like Peter Angelos and John Henry gain from throwing money in the pot (upwards around $20-$30 in total from all teams combined) to keep an uncompetitive team in KC that's unwilling to spend money to improve?

KcMizzou
05-08-2008, 11:12 PM
I was a dinner party in early 2005 when I heard of this issue. It angered me but also made sense that so many of the MLB owners were sick of basically subsidizing the Royals. The Royals would receive "X Amount" from ticket sales, television and radio, then a much larger amount from the luxury tax. Yet, they weren't spending money on payroll. So after many years of this happening, many owners (led by You-Know-Who) finally put their foot down with Glass.

It does make sense though, from a financial standpoint. What do owners like Peter Angelos and John Henry gain from throwing money in the pot (upwards around $20-$30 in total from all teams combined) to keep an uncompetitive team in KC?I have no doubt that you're right about that. But, if they had it their way, eventually there'd be like 8 teams in MLB. The business model is all screwed up.

IMO, it would do MLB well to learn from the NFL's system. The problem is, guys like you mentioned will never accept true revenue sharing. I mean, if they're that pissy about a luxury tax...

eazyb81
05-08-2008, 11:18 PM
Lifetime passes are the norm here. Royals fans are so sad, and I'm definitely a fan, because they try to excuse anything (but, but, but, Glass has changed. Look at Meche, Guillen, etc.) because they're so starved for a decent product. I'll tell you when things have changed: 1.) When the team keeps its best talent, most if not all of it, not just one ****ing player to satisfy fans, like what happened with Sweeney.

How is this at all important? Isn't the point to win games, period? Franchises such as Oakland, Cleveland, and Minnesota prove that you can build consistently competitive franchises without keeping over the hill veterans.

2.) When the team drafts the best player, not one who will sign. Can you imagine if the Chiefs did this? We can't take Dorsey, let's take someone who is slotted at 30 because we know we won't have to give top-five money. I know the slotting system isn't the same for MLB, but any team can sign any draft pick. It comes down to whether that team is willing to do it and risk not getting to sit next to Selig at the country club the next time they see him.


WTF? When was the last time the Royals went cheap in the 1st round? Mike Stodolka? You could point to Billy Butler, but by now it's obvious that was a fantastic pick.

During the Dayton Moore regime, we certainly haven't gone cheap in the draft. In fact, last year we were in the top five in total money spent on draft signings. Plus, we are more involved in Latin America than ever before, so in short I think your opinion is off base.

DaneMcCloud
05-08-2008, 11:45 PM
I have no doubt that you're right about that. But, if they had it their way, eventually there'd be like 8 teams in MLB. The business model is all screwed up.

IMO, it would do MLB well to learn from the NFL's system. The problem is, guys like you mentioned will never accept true revenue sharing. I mean, if they're that pissy about a luxury tax...

Steinbrenner is the most outspoken owner in regards to the luxury tax. He HATES that he has to share HIS money with teams like the Royals - teams who don't bring anything (from his POV) to the table. At least the Tampa Rays play into "his" market, where the Yankees hold spring training (not to mention the millions of retirees from NYC).

And if any of us were hoping it would change with him taking a reduced role, think again.

Hank may be worse than the "Boss".

sedated
05-09-2008, 12:29 AM
god damn, everyone was going bat-crazy ape-shit when the suggestion of trading Teahen was brought up this time last year.

Chiefmanwillcatch
05-09-2008, 01:11 PM
Get rid of free agency.

Get rid of guaranteed contracts and stupid bonuses.

Make all prospects including foreign players play in the minors to judge them effectively then have a draft.

Then we can say the Royals are a bad team if they still fail.