Google apps
Main menu

Post a Comment On: Rany on the Royals

"The Meaning of the Minors, Part 2."

31 Comments -

1 – 31 of 31
Blogger Scott said...

Hey, I drink the Kool-Ade too, but at what point do we have to worry about a regression of the minor league system?

The minor league system took a huge jump, ranking-wise, between 2010 and 2011. What's to say it doesn't take a step back?

What's the old saying? That in good times, your team is never as good as it looks, and in bad times your team is never as bad as it looks?

March 4, 2011 at 9:05 AM

Blogger Unknown said...

This is what I have been thinking about as well. It is really exciting to have such a strong group of kids to follow, but really, there is no where to go but down from "the best farm system in baseball."

Maybe the key is to make sure the fall isn't too far down. If you can consistently stay in the top 5 or 7 or 10 the Royals can't help but improve.

March 4, 2011 at 10:01 AM

Blogger Scott said...

Looks like Will M. beat me to the punch by 13 hours: http://tinyurl.com/4bm4lpt

March 4, 2011 at 10:10 AM

Blogger Paul Thompson said...

Is Rany talking about the Minnesota Twins? San Francisco Giants?

March 4, 2011 at 10:38 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Take a look at the how the Astros in the 90s were built -- lots of prospects and then even more prospects that they went and traded when they needed to. They never won the Series, but they dominated the NL Central throughout the 90s.

March 4, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Blogger Unknown said...

gotta be the giants...and i'm not a fan of the pessimistic view many people take with the minor leagues, but i think Scott has gotten a bit too much unwarranted criticism for his bit he did on failure rates of prospects. From my take on reading it, i got more of a "let's be realistic here" than a doom and gloom viewpoint.

March 4, 2011 at 10:46 AM

Blogger Rich said...

How bout the 2008 Phillies? Almost every vital part of that team was their own prospect, traded for with prospects, or was a Rule V pickup (Victorino). As best as I can tell, Werth was the only FA who contributed big to that team, and he was not a big time free agent when he signed.

March 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM

Blogger Timothy said...

You know...I almost hate to say this, but your last paragraph really made me think...
Has Dayton Moore out Moneyballed EVERYONE?
Think about it...the point of money ball is simply to find market inefficiencies, stock up on them, and use them to get the team to a winning position.

The Royals have done just that. In a method reminiscent of lottery tickets, GMDM has loaded the system with prospects, a risky proposition considering their volatility, and its payed out. The Royals have the best system.

But we only need a couple of those tickets to really pay out. Its more than possible to make a great team with 2-3 stars and a lot of average players.

Even better, and most importantly to the moneyball ideal, is that those lottery tickets are right now, more prized than just about anything in baseball. As you said an above average MLB player and 3 likely worthless lottery tickets can get you one of the better pitchers in the league.
Thats the power of these tickets, they can turn above average players into stars, without costing a dime.

Its almost brilliant, and if DM can show an aptitude for turning guys that are 3-4 years away into MLB ready players, then this team is in great shape.

March 4, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Blogger Jack Campbell said...

Because you mentioned the answer was surprising and off the top of my head: The 1996 Yankees?

March 4, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Blogger Unknown said...

I'm thinking it has to be the Braves of 1995. They had a couple starters they got via free agency, but six of their starting eight were home grown. Three of their five starters were drafted. One was acquired in a trade before he became a major leaguer. Most of their bullpen was home grown, too.

I'm probably wrong though.

March 4, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Blogger Jeff said...

My guess it was the Royals

March 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Blogger Nick said...

The 1996 Yankees without a doubt

March 4, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whats with all this Scott Mckinny nonsense? What are we supposed to do not draft good prospects because theyll never pan out anyway, jeesh talk about laying over. All these skeptic in the face of such joy, weve got the best farm system ever and people are bringing up Scott Mckinny. who cares. and Keith Law? 6 prospects? you can take Billy Butler's bat and and stick it up your...
oh and when did Tim Melville drop so far. that kid has size. i remember last year it was him and montgomery the class of the pitching prospects

March 4, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Blogger Jhawk said...

As a Royals fan I can't decide whether to be mad at Soren Petro for dashing my hopes when he talked about the article discussing the depressing number of Top 100 misses, or to be mad at you Rany for picking my hopes back up. Really enjoy your work, thanks.

March 4, 2011 at 6:40 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great stuff, Rany. The depth truly is amazing. Especially the pitching. The depth is not quite as strong in the outfield and at catcher, but like you say, that can be made up with the arms.

Jack beat me to it but I would say the Yankees also. I grew up in KC in the late 70's so I hate the Yankees to my core. And it takes a lot for me to say this, but that '96 Yankee team was fun to watch. They really had a blue collar mentality about them, and they played as a team with no individuals.

I think McKinney should be praised for his work. It isn't perfect. The numbers probably need to be tweaked. Any time you have a new idea you always do. But I think he is on to something, and he should be congratulated for taking a new look at an issue.

One of the ways the Royals may beat the curve on the Prospects List is because they are selecting high character guys. It is easy to say that, and easy to pretend that is what you are doing, but it really looks like they are being successful in that. At least from what I have seen from this first wave of guys.

One question, Rany. May be a bit early to think about this, but should the Royals go after Beltran this off season?

March 4, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Blogger Benjamin said...

Not sure you strong of a case you can make for the 96 Yankees. Their starting lineup included Joe Girardi, Paul O'Neill, Wade Boggs, John Wetteland, Tino Martinez, and Darryl Strawberry. Their pitching staff had John Wetteland, David Cone, Doc Gooden and Bob Wickman. All of those guys were acquired through trade. If we're looking for a team whose farm system built a contender "all by itself," we have to look elsewhere.

March 5, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Blogger Benjamin said...

Sorry, I realize that I had Wetteland in there twice. Poor editing on my part.

March 5, 2011 at 10:15 AM

Blogger Kyle said...

Great stuff Rany!! I have been talking about the depth for awhile. The prospects outside the top 100 are still pretty impressive.

There are a few off the radar bats in the outfield in Van Straten, Francis, Orlando, Testa, and Richardson. Then the highlights might be D.Robinson, Eibner, Myers, and Lough. But they are either light hitting speed demons or high strikeout low OBP guys. It will be interesting to see how things play out this year.

March 5, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Blogger Antonio. said...

If they acquired the vets by trading from the farm, it's still building through the system.

March 5, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Blogger meb6216 said...

Actually I think Rany is talking about the New York Yankees. The championships the Yanks won beginning in the mid 90s were due to a superior farm system, simply overspending in free agency hadn't worked to that point.

March 6, 2011 at 2:12 AM

Blogger meb6216 said...

I see now that I'm not the only one who thought Yankees.

March 6, 2011 at 2:13 AM

Blogger Kenneth said...

Boston. (Youkilis, Lester, Paplebon, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Varitek) I know I missing even more

But even more glaring would be either Florida Marlin team. They had home grown talent they filled in around in free agency. Let's not forget this franchise no one will come watch. They have more world series since 1999 (2) then the Royals have winning seasons (1)

can't be Atlanta or Minnesota or Oakland or Tampa because we think of those places as having good farm systems so that would not be a suprise.

March 6, 2011 at 2:30 AM

Blogger Brett said...

My apologies for the potential ignorance, but why don't I ever hear anything about Dyson, Robinson, and Robinson. I know they aren't prospects by definition, but is is unlikely that they will contribute to the overall picture before it's said and done?
For crying out loud, Clint Robinson was the Texas League Triple Crown winner last year. And I think he's looking pretty good this spring. Does he not project to help out at the major league level at some point?

March 6, 2011 at 9:55 PM

Blogger PathetiKCfanCB said...

I also want to cement some other nicknames. Moustakas I think has been declared Moose or Mous. I think this is quite fitting because he is kind of a lovable lug with lots of power. But how should it be spelled? I prefer to spell it Moose even though Mous is more accurate. But Mous just seems to fancy to me. And Hosmer has been named Hoz, but I am not sure I like it. One reason is I hate it when things connected to KC get the Wizard of Oz relationship. First of all it is a lane connection and also the royals play in Missouri not Kansas. So it's not even accurate. I think I prefer it being Hos because he is a big ole strapping Hos of a man or is it spelled Haus? Plus Hos and Moose kind of fit together and is intimidating for the middle of a lineup. Ballstar was thinking wizard of Hoz which kind of fits like his bat is a magic wand be waives around. But again I prefer Hos. From @PathetiKCfancB on twitter. Feel free to answer on twitter too!

March 6, 2011 at 10:28 PM

Blogger Michael said...

He's a DH/1st base type, who makes Billy Butler look good in the field. If he does help out at the ML level, it's because of a lot of injuries. D-Rob has a lot to work on hitting wise, but he's got the speed and tools to be a pretty good defender.

March 6, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Blogger Antonio. said...

When discussing Clint Robinson's prospect status and future within the organization, you have to keep in mind that he's a very old prospect. He's done very well and I wish the Royals would have pushed him harder. He wasn't a high school draftee. Why start him in Rookie ball and why make him do full season stints in a level per year pace? Why not bump him to Omaha when Kila advanced to the bigs? He's hit at every level he's been at. Derrick Robinson, on the other hand, is the EXACT opposite of C. Robinson. He's a good defender. He's crazy fast. He can't hit all that well, though he did have a bit of a break-out season (for him) last year...but in a hitter's park in a hitter's league. No power, of course. Not a lot of patience, so he's not helping his cause out that way either. And overall, his stealing rates are BARELY acceptable and was actually slightly down this year. He just doesn't have a lot of baseball sense, I'd say. He's trying to get by too much on his blinding speed instead of using his brain. Cain is definitely ahead of him in the pecking order and it's been said that Dyson has passed him too, but it's all Cain as Dyson and Derrick Robinson cannot hit.

March 6, 2011 at 11:38 PM

Blogger Michael said...

I absolutely, 100% agree with everything there Antonio. I think that, just like Kila had too, C-Rob is going to have to REALLY force the Royals hand before he gets any serious taste of the big leagues.

March 7, 2011 at 1:00 AM

Blogger Rich said...

The 1996 Yankees were predominantly homegrown or acquired in trades for homegrown talent, but still had a significant number of Free Agent key parts. O'Neill, Boggs, and almost the entire rotation--Cone (acquired in trade in '95, but resigned as a free agent for '96), Gooden, Jimmy Key, and Kenny Rogers were all free agents. Plus, Cecil Fielder was acquired in a trade for Ruben Sierra (and a prospect), who in turn was acquired in a trade of Danny Tartabull, who was certainly not a homegrown talent. Thus, the '96 Yankees are not quite a model of a team built entirely with a farm system.

What they are, however, is a perfect example of a team built utilizing all of its assets--successful homegrown talent, trades and free agency to fill in the gaps--and may more realistically be what the Royals will have to accomplish to have long term success.

March 7, 2011 at 9:13 AM

Blogger Kyle said...

Michael and Antonio make some pretty good points. I have a feeling that D.Rob will surprise some people this year. I'm not sure what they will do with the plethora of speedy low OBP CF. D.Rob, Orlando, Cain, Dyson, Richardson, etc.

D.Rob and Orlando may be late bloomers as they were not baseball only players growing up (D.Rob had a Football scholarship to Florida and Orlando is the only baseball player to ever come out of Brazil). At least this what I am hoping.

As for C.Robinson, he is just a little lower on the pecking order. I have heard that he will play some LF/RF in AAA this year when he is not DH. But I am not sure he is fast enough or has the athletism to be an avg outfielder. Hosmer may be a better option in LF. But right now if Kila never hits MLB pitching, C.Robinson could get a look this year. Then Hosmer will take over full time next year.

March 7, 2011 at 9:27 AM

Blogger Antonio. said...

Cone wouldn't count as a free agent because they parted with youth and re-signed "one of their own". Would you consider Alex Rodriguez differently? You might, but they still gave up youth to get him. How about Derek Jeter? They re-signed him, but he still came from them developing resources. Same with Coney. They developed a resource well enough to trade for a top pitcher and then re-signed him when his contract was up. And O'Neill came from the Roberto Kelly trade...another Yankee farmhand.

March 7, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Blogger Antonio. said...

I'm a guy that doesn't give defense a lot of weight on the pitching/defense discussion, but I've seen Robinson during a series in Springfield and you don't want him in the corner outfield. He's pretty athletic for a big guy, but he's still a big guy and it would get pretty ugly out there. I was very impressed with him (and Hosmer, but that's obvious) at the plate.

March 7, 2011 at 11:19 AM

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

This blog does not allow anonymous comments.

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.