Google apps
Main menu

Post a Comment On: Rany on the Royals

"The Secret Ingredient."

31 Comments -

1 – 31 of 31
Blogger formerbagger said...

It's hard not to like what the Royals have done in South America. At the same time it highlights the relative ineptitude of what they have done in the draft. Without the Latin players, the Royals would be...well, the Royals.

March 24, 2014 at 5:21 PM

Blogger Captain Corvus 42 said...

Rany, another great column. It will be exciting to see those Latin prospects in Royals uniforms in the coming years.

March 24, 2014 at 6:39 PM

Blogger David W. Lowe said...

Rany, I was hoping to see a mea culpa regarding your three-pronged begging of Royals management to trade Yordano Ventura for Howie Kendrick last year:

1. On radio interviews
2. In your blog
3. As a guest columnist for the KC Star

Did I miss an admission that you were wrong? That you, the Baseball Prospectus guru, misjudged the talent potential of Ventura?

Or do you still think Yordano Ventura is only worth Howie Kendrick?

March 24, 2014 at 11:57 PM

Comment deleted

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 24, 2014 at 11:57 PM

Blogger Michael S. said...

Wow David. You think three starts warrant anointing him better than a solid everyday second baseman? Don't get me wrong, I think in the long run Ventura will be more valuable, but he hasn't been yet. But he could also blow out his arm tomorrow and never pitch again.

March 25, 2014 at 7:28 AM

Blogger Eric Huffman said...

Rany did get sheepish on his Twitter feed re: Ventura/Kendrick, but seriously, David, you're not paying a dime to read this blog, and to my knowledge Rany doesn't get a dime to write it. Find some joy, man. Or just go read something else.

March 25, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Blogger Unknown said...

Yes, this is a free blog and I enjoy the contents of it, but I don't think David is that out of line. Rany has been blasting the org for trading Wil Myers for James Shields and then he wanted to trade Ventura for Kendrick (a 30-year-old 2B). Considering the Royals signed Infante and kept Ventura I think GMDM won the upgrade 2B discussion.

March 25, 2014 at 1:23 PM

Blogger Rany said...

I don't disagree with that sentiment. Ventura has continued to develop even beyond where he was last July, and Infante came at a very reasonable price. I think Kendrick is a better player, he's younger, and the Royals wouldn't have to pay him for his declining years (he's only signed for this year and next), but obviously the difference isn't worth Ventura.

I think it's only fair to point out that Ventura has made exactly three major league starts, and it's premature to be crowning him so soon. But to state the obvious, yes, trading him for Kendrick looks like it would have been a bad idea now, and I'm glad the Royals found another solution to their gaping hole at second base.

March 25, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, Ventura looks good now and all, but is Kendrick the difference in making the playoffs?

And isn't making the playoffs the goal?

March 25, 2014 at 3:52 PM

Blogger JRB said...

Rany, I have been reading your columns for over a decade now dating back to when it was Rob (Neyer) and Rany on the Royals. This is the first time I've commented - but I just couldn't help myself.

I find it comical that you have become the pessimist! I distinctly remember reading your exchanges with Rob from years ago. Inevitably it would boil down to you taking a somewhat optimistic viewpoint on a move the Royals made (and by optimistic I simply mean that you thought the move would not *completely* blow up in the Royals face), with Rob responding that whatever move or projections for improvement you had were nothing more than blind optimism.

I always hoped Rob would be wrong - he rarely was.

I have been a fan of yours for a long time now. Thank you for making the Royals entertaining. You, Rob, Joe and Bob have made being a Royals fan fun - even for a 29 year old who has no idea what a winning hometown franchise looks like.

Ryan

P.S. Congrats on the Grantland gig - but how could you possibly pass up a Cubs front office position?!? I know dermatology is glamorous, but that is a dream job.

March 25, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Blogger BobDD said...

I agree (with practically everyone?) that Ventura is better to have than Kendrick, but as the commenter who thinks he has a major gotcha also reminded us that Rany was so very right about the Myers trade. At least Rany can easily acknowledge that mistake, while GMDM still cannot see the error of Yuni, Guillen, Frenchy, or Yuni again(*). Not learning enough from his mistakes has always been the scariest thing about GMDM.

* The four of his mistakes that were most visible even from the start - in fact three of those were things many of us were making jokes about before they ever happened, as in not even GMDM would be that crazy!

March 25, 2014 at 9:11 PM

Blogger KHAZAD said...

I think you are on the optimistic side most of the time. Perhaps that makes ME a pessimist. Although last year was the first year I was off on the low side in my season win prediction, so perhaps realist is a better term than pessimist.

Yes, you were pessimistic (rightfully so) about the Myers trade, but you have been able to find a positive bent to almost everything else, while also looking at the (sometimes much more likely) downside.

Ironically (given you hatred of the trade) the times you get most desperate or pessimistic is when you want to make a trade to fill a gaping hole (others have mentioned the Ventura for Kendrick proposition) or to sign players for more than they are worth.(any number of the "for want of a pitcher" series)

Other than that, I actually look to you to find the bright side, and to temper my own sometimes justified, sometimes (over)reaction.

March 26, 2014 at 6:15 AM

Blogger Tampa Mike said...

I have to agree with you that this blog got awfully negative the last couple of years. I'm hoping this is a return to your former positivity. Not that I want to read all rainbows and unicorns, but the negativity gets old and there is so much of it spread across the internet.

March 26, 2014 at 2:18 PM

Blogger Tampa Mike said...

I think the jury is still very much out on the Myers/Shields trade. Rays fans are just as skeptical about the trade as Royals fans are.

March 26, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Blogger Michael S. said...

I'm really encouraged by Mike Moustakas' spring numbers. Not only his average and power, but he's also walking more than he's striking out. Now obviously small sample size and quality of competition come into play, but it's still encouraging nonetheless.

March 27, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Blogger Kansas City said...

Interesting take from Tampa Mike. In what way are the Tampa fans skeptical?

Royal paid $11.8MM for 2.0 WAR (Shields and Davis) .
Tampa paid $1MM for 2.2 WAR (Myers and Odorizi)

The trade was a bust for the Royals even in the first year.

And, this year, the Royals are paying $18.3MM for Shields and Davis!!! While the Rays sill pay Myers/Oderizi $1MM and no doubt spent the total #30MM saved on Shields/Davis for quality players.

The Myers/Shields and Ventura/Kendrick comparision is informative. I don't remember what Rany said last year, but it is funny that he apparently has been on both sides of the qustion of whether to trade a top flight prospect for an established veteran with a high dollar contract. Kendrick was worth 3.4 WAR last year for 8.75MM - he also has two more years $18.85MM, so he obviously would be better return than Shields and Davis (I'm ignoring Johnson, because he turned out worthless and I don't believe the .7 fielding generated WAR for him).

What the Royals did with Ventura/Kendricks is what they obviously should have done with Myers. They kept Ventura and spent the money they would have paid Kendrick on Enfante.

To state the obvious, the Royals should have kept Myers and spent the $30.1MM they spent on two years of Shields and Davis on one or more free agents who would have contributed more than the 2.0from Shields/Davis.

YOU KEEP YOUR PROSPECT AND USE THE SAVED MONEY TO BRING IN ANOTHER GOOD PLAYER. IT IS OBVIOUS THE ROYALS WERE TOO DUMB TO SEE IT WITH MYERS, BUT AT LEAST THEY SEEM TO HAVE SEEN IT WITH VENTURA (ALTHOUGH IT WAS A CLOSER CALL ON WHETHER TO MAKE THE KENDRICKS TRADE THAN IT WAS TO MAKE THE MYERS TRADE.)

March 27, 2014 at 3:21 PM

Comment deleted

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 27, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Blogger BobDD said...

If as you say, the Rays fans are skeptical, they will have an additional four years at least to be repetitively impressed beyond the large lead they already enjoy with this trade. No, this trade was lost from the beginning because GMDM evidently does not understand the concept of having properly (highly) paid free agents for two years versus having a minor league player of the year and other prospects under (low) cost control for six. The only way to win that kind of trade is for the prospect to be a bust.

Betting on your own draft picks to be a bust - maybe that's the market inefficiency that will make Dayton Moore famous.

March 27, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Blogger BobDD said...

still left a chunk out: 2 high cost yrs vs 6 controlled cost yrs, plus the money saved to add yet more

March 27, 2014 at 4:33 PM

Blogger Kansas City said...

BobDD

You are correct. The only conceivable justification for this trade was a belief that Myers would be a bust, but there has been barely a hint of that.

I think the more likely explanaton is that Moore was over matched intellectually. Some of his public explanations have indicated that to be the case:(1) the Royals still had a lot of other good prospects - he put them up on the board as they made the decision to trade Myers - obvioulsy flawed thinking because the value of other prospects (or even other big league players) should have ZERO weight in deciding whether to trade Myers; and (2) the Royals need to trade prospects to secure high quality veterans bcause they can't sign/afford high quality veterans in free agency - again, this should have ZERO weight in deciding whether to trade Myers or any anyone else.

SOMEONE SHOULD SIT MOORE DOWN AND EXPLAIN THAT THE ONLY FACTORS IN A TRADE ARE THE COST AND LIKELY FUTURE VALUE TO THE TEAM OF THE PLAYERS BEING EXCHANGED.

March 27, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Blogger Tampa Mike said...

You are of course ASSUMING that there were free agents willing to sign for the same money as James Shields. Rumor had it that Edwin Jackson wasn't interested in the Royals.

March 27, 2014 at 10:41 PM

Blogger Michael S. said...

Edwin Jackson is also not as good as Shields.

March 28, 2014 at 5:46 AM

Blogger Kansas City said...

The way I would put it is that I am ASSUMING any intelligent general manager with $30MM to spend over two years would be able to improve the team.

However, I think there is strong argument that even if Moore totally misfired on the $30MM, the Royals still would be better with six years of the four players traded than 2 years of Shields and probably 2 years of Davis (there are three more years of club options, but is Moore dumb enough to pay Davis 7MM,
8MM and 10MM?

Don't answer that. The only thing I could envision is that if Davis can be an effective closer, you could salvage something on the Myers trade by trading Holland for sommething valuable.

March 28, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Blogger RoyalVegas said...

You numbers junkies arguing against the Shields/Myers trade aren't looking at the important numbers, just the individual lines (which are useful, but hardly the tell-all story).

First, Wil Myers had a great rookie season. He looks like he will be a .300-30-100 guy, and those guys are great. But he's still just...what? 23? A lot can happen between 23-30, and I've seen can't miss prospects literally disappear. Especially prospects with holes in their swing. So already, your argument is flawed in that you have put altogether way too much weight on the kid.

Wade Davis was a flyer, so whatever on that.

James Shields though? Do you really just look at the WAR and write the trade off as bad? (a 4.1 WAR, by the way, is pretty goddamn good) Just look at the team pitching since 2009 (you know, when we had a Cy Young winner skewing numbers positively).

YR ERA WHIP K/BB

2009 4.83 1.46 1.92
2010 4.97 1.47 1.88
2011 4.44 1.41 1.94
2012 4.30 1.41 2.17

You cannot win with that pitching. Period. 2012 was close to "okay" at least, but was nowhere near

2013 3.45 1.27 2.58

Now, you could be of the opinion that everyone just magically decided to gel last year, that the stars aligned and our pitching leaped forward light years beyond what it had been in prior years.

Or you could realize that James Shields brought with him a work ethic, a mind-set and a determination that inspired our arms to push themselves. You know, like every single player in the clubhouse has said. Something like that affects whole careers, and when your clubhouse is as young as ours, that's ALWAYS a good thing.

We've had a some big bats over the years and still lost 90 games. Mike Sweeney, Carlos Beltran, etc. We've had one fluke winning season since George Brett retired. Pitching wins ballgames, and it always has. Over the span of 5 games, a quality SP is responsible for 30 individual PA. A batter is responsible for 25. Over the course of a year, that adds up to 160 PA, which translates into a metric shit-ton of game-deciding factors.

Yes, we may wish we still had Myers if he turns into that .300-30-100 guy he's projected to. I'll still take two guaranteed years of solid known pitching ability over 4-5 years of a 60-70% chance at a possible stud RF. And that percentage is being generous, I think.

March 28, 2014 at 4:51 PM

Blogger Kansas City said...

Royal Vegas,

In your theory that Myers for Shields was a good trade, I think you miss the point of the above comments, because you ignore the issue of spending $30.1MM for Shields and Davis over two years. I don't see how you can evaluate the trade wihtout taking that into account and what players could have been added with that money (while keeping Shields, Odorizi and the other two players).

And the -2.1 WAR of Davis becomes "whatever?"

Also, as to the whole idea of "a work ethic, a mind-set and a determination that inspired our arms to push themselves," I am very skeptical. Who are the other pitchers that Shields supposedly made better? Certainly not Wade Davis. If you say he helped some pitchers, then did he make Davis, Crowe, Melendez, and others worse?

I also am better skeptical about your PA analysis. I have never seen it before. Because a starting pitcher faces 30 batters in one game, he necessarily has a greater effect on wins than a position player who plays in five games? That is hard to see, but I would be willing to consider some basis for it.

March 28, 2014 at 9:08 PM

Blogger Kansas City said...

It is probably obvious, but I meant "keeping Myers, Odorizi, and the other two players."

But I remain curious, just whom did Shields magical power make into a better ballpayer last year? Even beyond the pitchers? Did he make Moose, Escobar, Getz and Francoeur worse? If he has such magical powers, why did Tampa let him go and no one else make a huge offer to Tampa?

He is certainly a good pitcher, but where were his magical powers in May when the Royals had an awful month that cost them the playoffs and he did not win games?

March 29, 2014 at 6:22 AM

Blogger Unknown said...

I don't think spending the 30 million on five crappy pitchers would have really improved the team. If they wanted to sign a hypothetical Shields as a free agent, they would have paid 50 million for the two years so they really saved about 28 million on him. And, they would have had to go out on a limb for way more than a 2-yr contract to get him. And, to sign such a free-agent, they would have given up their first draft pick. When Shields leaves, they will get a draft pick. So, they gave up four prospects to save 28 million dollars, get a draft pick a couple of years later and avoid the risk associated with giving a 6-yr/$150 million contract to an ace pitcher. If Wade Davis could have just been an average starting pitcher, his contract would have been a bargain and the trade would really look good. Wade didn't come through but I can't blame the Royals for betting he would be average.

March 30, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Blogger Kansas City said...

Steve,

So much to say. You are correct that part of what the Royals received in the trade may be a sandwich first/second round draft pick (if the make a qualifying offer, Shields declines, and signs with a new team before the next draft). Can't say I agree with anything else.

Start with Dais. We are trying to judge the trade. You say "we can't blame the Royals" that Davis did not come through. HE WAS PART OF THE TRADE.

Next, you claim that trade saves the Royals $28 million. I never heard that rationale before. The flaw is that you place value (like Moore) on trading for a high quality guy with two years left on his contract because the Royals cannot afford to sign such a player in free agency. In truth, no weight should be given to that rationale. It is the question of the value of Shields, compared to the value of what you give up. It has nothing to do with the theoretical possibility of signng another pticher for $25 Million a year for 4 or 5 years. NO ONE IS SUGGESTION THE ROYALS SHOULD DO THAT.

Finally, you assume Moore would have blown the $30 Million on "five crappy pitchers." In effect, you are arguing Moore is too dumbt to improve the team with the $30 Million (but smart enough to beat the Rays on the Myers trade). We've seen what Moore did with $30 Million. He signed Infante ($30 Million) and Vargas ($32 Million) over four years each. Moore would have had another $30 Million to make anotehr move. Using those two signings as a comparison (which will cost $30 Million over two years), the Royals could have kept Myers and also had two years of players of the quality of Vargas and Infante.

So, anohter way to look at if is whethery you would do what Moore did -- have Shields and Davis for two years -- of what I think he should have done (have Myers, Odorizi, and the other two prospects for six years, plus two years of Infante and Vargas.

Would you trade Myers, Odorizi, Infante, Vargas and the other two prospect for two years of Shields and Davis? OF COURSE NOT.

March 30, 2014 at 5:45 PM

Blogger fireman24 said...

Another conceivable justification is that Wil Myers was (and is) replaceable, regardless of what he goes on to do, considering the organizational strengths and weaknesses.

Given the Royals track record of developing position players (Gordon, Butler, Hos, Moose, Salvy, Myers) vs. their track record developing starting pitching prospects, I'd say they used the currency they had (and could replenish) to fill a team need (that they couldn't develop themselves). If it feels like a short term move, consider this. At some point in a player's (or young team's) career, "winning now" is the next step in development. Learning to deal with that pressure and those expectations is vital and provides a long term ROI.

Therefore, I contend that the trade was the right move based on the needs of the team at the time, and the information on hand at the time. (After all, it wasn't the first time in Royals history that the next savior was tearing up the minors).

Claiming we could simply save the money paid to Shields and Davis to sign a FA starter or two (and keep Myers) is an argument based on assumptions. If we are dealing in assumptions, I will assume that if Dempster and Edwin Jackson are turning you down, you won't be getting the kind of pitcher(s) you need with that money. At which point you get ridiculed for having 4 #4's and Santana (who at the time was a wild card), as well as a win total in the 70's...again

On another note, I would like to thank you Rany for writing this blog. I've read it for a couple of years now and have always enjoyed your insight. Best of luck with your practice.

March 30, 2014 at 11:08 PM

Blogger Kansas City said...

I thank Rany for his great blog as well.

I do not agree wiht the replenishment theory. The fact that you can replace a player (which is not at all sure to be true in the Myers case - so far, we failed last year and have Aoki for one year) does not adversely affect the player's value for trade purpoese. Myers is worth the same to the Rays regardless of who is left in KC. So, to judge a trade, you look at the vaue of what you trade versus the value of what you receive.

April 2, 2014 at 6:54 PM

Blogger fireman24 said...

"The fact that you can replace a player (which is not at all sure to be true in the Myers case - so far, we failed last year and have Aoki for one year) does not adversely affect the player's value for trade purpoese."

A. How much more valuable was Myers than Lough? Was it more than the difference in value of Shields in the rotation vs Hochevar? Or similar? Or worse? I realize Davis sucked (and was part of the trade), but we are talking about the trade itself, not the decision to keep him in the rotation so long. I also realize we had frenchie nut-tapping his way around RF. But again, I'm talking about the trade, not the decision to keep him for so long and keep Lough down.

B. I realize making that point will lead you to compare the 6yrs of Myers vs 2yrs of Shields. Which is the basis of my point regarding the track record of developing position players. That track record is why I'm not worried about years 3-6. ALOT can happen in those two years in terms of prospect development, other trade possibilities, or even more stature in the FA market that winning affords a team.

"Myers is worth the same to the Rays regardless of who is left in KC. So, to judge a trade, you look at the vaue of what you trade versus the value of what you receive"

A. In isolation you are correct. If we were talking about two FAs then that would be more applicable. However, since we are talking about a team, the organization as a whole, and a trade, the picture is much bigger. So to judge the trade, you look at the value of the players relative to the teams involved. To compete last year, the Royals needed pitching...desperately. They could not sign one on the open market, and didn't have one in the pipeline. The only way to get that pitching was via trade. The fact that Myers was (and is) replaceable does lower his value compared to their need for Shields...it's supply and demand really. The value of a player IS adversely affected by a team's need for him. They needed Shields more than Myers last year. They need Shields more than Myers this year. As for years 3-6, we'll have to wait and see. But one of the few things the Royals have done consistently well is produce high caliber position player prospects. This reason is also what I was referring to when I spoke about "winning now" and it's role in developing players.

I plan on enjoying this year. I'm not sweating next year. In my opinion, it beats the hell out of "wait till next year (or the year after that...or actually the year after that). There are far too many variables in play to say whether a trade was won or lost. It's also quite possible that both teams got what they needed.

April 2, 2014 at 10:23 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.