Google apps
Main menu

Post a Comment On: Rany on the Royals

"The Meaning of the Minors, Part 4."

15 Comments -

1 – 15 of 15
Blogger Michael said...

Chills Rany. I have so much optimism already, and you just elevated it a whole lot more. Now if we don't win the division by 2014 I'll be severely disappointed. :)

March 9, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Blogger Charles Winters said...

Michael,
It's possible, of course, for the process to have worked beautifully well and for the Royals not to win any division titles through 2015. How? Let's say Detroit or Chicago starts spending like a Steinbrenner and it works perfectly for them... They win 104 games, the Royals win 97.... In the East two teams beat the 97 total.... Royals still miss.

I'm not saying that this would be at all likely. It's possible however... I think the correct way to interpret is this: given the minor league talent that has been accumulated a failure to have any 90 win seasons before 2017 would have to be deemed a total failure.

March 9, 2011 at 7:50 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

A great end to the saga of the meaning of the minors and fitting for the spring training optimism. Here, here for baseball weather, it looks wonderful out there!

March 9, 2011 at 7:55 AM

Blogger Extraneous_Ed said...

I live in the Twin Cities and was a Twins season ticket holder who went to 60 games a year (even when they stunk) back in those days (before marriage and kids).
You're right about Tom Kelly. He hated those young kids. He was furious with Mientkiewicz because he turned down a September call up to go play on the Olympic baseball team one year. He took shots at him all the time even when Doug was in the minors. Gardy coming in was huge.
But don't forget, in 2001, the Twins shot out of the gate and went like 13-2 in their first 15 games of the year or something like that. Guzman was actually an All-Star in 2001. The Twins held the lead all season, until getting swept and destroyed in a 4 game series in Cleveland in early August. They didn't come out of nowhere completely in 2002.
I remember seeing a slow progression, even if wins didn't reflect it. In 1999, they would routinely get killed 7-2, 8-3, etc... Then in 2000, they lost a lot more close games. They still lost like 99 games, but they were more competitive. Then 2001 came along and they took off.

March 9, 2011 at 9:10 AM

Blogger Unknown said...

Thanks, Rany. This just made my day.

March 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Blogger Jacob said...

Just because something happened once does not make it a good model to base a franchise on. The most prudent course is to play the odds. And, by far, most good teams develop rosters using prospects, FA, and good trades.

Most prospects fail. Even highly touted prospects have a high rate of failure. Especially pitchers. Therefore, it is not prudent to base the fortunes of a franchise on an improbable model of success.

No one is arguing that developing prospects is not important. It is vitally important. But so is signing good FAs, making good trades and putting together a strong roster. And GMDM has not been good at any of these things so far.

The last four articles seem like more of an exercise in cognitive dissonance than empirical fact.

March 9, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Blogger Michael said...

Jacob, in small market baseball, this is about the only way to build a winner. Rany has shown that more than one team gas done this, its just that Minnesota had the best luck. Sure, we'll most likely gave to supplement the roster with free agents, but those signings will be of less importance to winning than they have been in the past when we didn't have the talent coming from the farm.

March 9, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Blogger Michael said...

And Charles, I'm one of the bigger supporters of Dayton Moore on this site, and even I won't give him till 2017 to have a winning team! That would be 11 straight years of futility if we gave him that long! If we still have 90+ losses in 2013, and have a bad first half in 2014, that's when I'd make a change.

March 9, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Blogger LedZepp28 said...

I'll preface this by saying I am not a Royals fan, just a baseball fan who is interested to see if this Royals rebuilding plan works out, and I think this is a great blog. But I don't get the comparison to the 02 Twins as your ideal to shoot for. The later Twins teams (with Mauer, Morneu, etc.) and the mid 90's Indians are want you want to emulate IMO. The 02 Twins simply got lucky, and if not for the talent infusion that followed, would not have sustained the sucess of 02.

What this article fails to mention or acknowledge was that the 02 Twins were not a great team, they just won a weak division. No other team in their division that year was over .500, and 2 of the 3 worst teams in the AL were in their division. With the unbalanced schedule in effect, it's not hard to see why the Twins won the division - someone had to. In fact, the Twins went 50-25 against the AL Central that year. The Twins were below league average in runs scored a game that year, and a bit above league average in both ERA and ERA+. Hardly the blueprint for a 94 win team.

For all the great analyis in other areas of this blog, I am just surprised that a lucky team like the 02 Twins is the supposed perfect embodiement of what the Royals are trying to do. Whereas the rebuilding job in Clevenand in the mid-90's with a combination of good young prospects, shrewd trades, and good signings of complementary veterans is not.

March 9, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Blogger Rany said...

Jacob and LedZepp28,

I actually agree with you for the most part - the 2002 Twins were not a great team by any means. They were a slightly above-average team that won 94 games thanks to an easy division and some Pythagorean luck.

But at the same time, the 2002 Twins were an above-average team built entirely from their farm system - WITHOUT ANY ELITE PROSPECTS. That's what is so striking about them.

They're not a perfect comp for the Royals' youth movement, but I find the comparison fascinating because if the Twins could build an 85-win team without a single elite prospect, it stands to reason that the Royals could do a lot better with The Greatest Farm System In The History Of Whatever (TM).

March 9, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Blogger Jacob said...

LedZepp28,

The Indians are not a model because no one has any confidence that GMDM can make shrewd trades, and good signings of complementary veterans. It certainly is possible, but so far GMDM has been terrible with FA signings and his trades have been a wash.

I am not a cynic and I really want the Royals to be good. But basing all of our hopes on prospects seems a lot like buying a lottery ticket.

And if we as fans are relying on the same guy who made the Yuni trade and who signed Guillen to surround the prospects with good pieces, we are probably going to be disappointed.

March 9, 2011 at 5:31 PM

Blogger Dixon said...

Rany, I'm printing off these "Meaning of the Minors" posts, sealing them in a canister, burying said canister in my garden, only to be dug up in 5 years, so I can torture myself re-reading them, reminiscing about what could've been.

God, I hope you're right. Well, I know you're right....I just hope you're RIGHT. Right?

March 10, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Blogger Kenneth said...

NITPICKER ALERT - you said we'd be suprised .. step 1 to admitting you actually are a Royals fan .. caring about what is said about the team !

March 10, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Blogger Jacob G. said...

Most disturbing part of the article is the idea that we may have a player like Pierzynski on our roster. Can't stand him!
(Wait. Rany was looking at skills not personality you say? Thank goodness).

March 11, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Blogger Kevin said...

One correction -- Mitch Maier was in the system prior to DM taking over. In fact, after jettisoning Zack and DDJ, Maier is now the longest tenured player -- he had a cup of coffee in 2005 with the big club. Only player we have now who had any IPs or ABs prior to Moore taking over.

March 11, 2011 at 3:32 PM

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.