Google apps
Main menu

Post a Comment On: Rany on the Royals

"Royals Report Card, 2010: Part Five."

22 Comments -

1 – 22 of 22
Blogger Collin said...

I think McClure got too much credit for a fantastic 2007 and is getting too much guff for the decline since then. Bullpens are notoriously fickle and beyond that, we traded away Nunez and RamRam before 2009 - undoubtedly our best non-Soria bullpen arms.

Your point about Holland and Wood both having high ERAs is a little worrisome, however. You'd think McClure would be able to quickly help them adjust whatever was causing their problems. If they don't adjust next season then I suppose I can see the Royals hiring a new pitching coach. Beyond that point, though, I see no reason to be overly concerned about an unpredictable revolving-door bullpen producing poor results since 2007.

November 18, 2010 at 7:35 PM

Blogger Unknown said...

this actually got me emotional.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=12470

November 19, 2010 at 9:31 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tony-

That was a fun read. Aaahh the potential.

As excited as I got reading that, I had the thoughts of how long will these guys stay. It is too early to be thinking that way, but such is the life of a Royals fan as long as the team is owned by Mr. Burns.

Think about a lineup of:
Robinson
Giavotella
Hosmer
Moustakas
Butler
Myers
Gordon/Dyson/Lough
Perez/Pina
Colon

With a rotation of:
Greinke
Montgomery
Lamb
Dwyer
Duffy

In the bullpen
Soria
Collins
Coleman
Hardy

Looks like fun.

November 19, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Blogger Nathan said...

Rany,

Off topic, but a Keith Law spot on espn.com got me speculating about a possible trade: Zack Greinke for Justin Upton? Do you think this could make sense for both teams?

November 19, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Blogger Mr. Martin said...

The best line of the whole post:

"Yuniesky Betancourt wasn’t terrible."

I laughed.

November 19, 2010 at 2:04 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nathan-

I know you asked Rany, but I hope it's ok if I give my .02.

That question is kind of the ultimate sabermatrician puzzle. All things being equal would you rather have the All Star Centerfielder or the All Star Ace.

I don't have numbers to back me up, but off the top of my head I would rather have the ace.

In this case I don't think it is equal, as I consider Greinke to be one of the top three pitchers in the game. I don't think Upton is one of the top three centerfielders or one of the top three everyday players.

I too would be very interested in Rany's take on this.

November 19, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Blogger Kansas City said...

I imagine there is an answer at to whether an ace or a top center fielder is more valuable.

In the old days, I thought the answer was simple. The center fielder has the opportunity to help you win a game every day, while the pitcher can only help once every five days. Therefore, the center fielder is more valuable. I still like the logic and simplicity of it, but I imagine sabremetrics has it all figured out.

November 19, 2010 at 7:19 PM

Blogger Nathan said...

Bryan, I agree with most of what you said (though Greinke might be a little too fickle for top-3 status). But what balances all that out is that Upton is signed for five years, and Greinke for only 2. In fact, I suspect the Royals would have to throw in a prospect to make this happen.

November 19, 2010 at 11:26 PM

Blogger Nathan said...

Kansas City, a starter helps (or hurts) you way more than any position player on his one day out of five, though.

November 19, 2010 at 11:27 PM

Blogger Rany said...

If you're asking whether, in a world without a reserve clause where you can keep players forever (e.g. in a Strat league), whether I'd rather have Greinke or Upton - I'd probably lean towards Greinke. At his best, Greinke is the best pitcher in baseball; Upton has never been close to the best hitter in baseball. The worry with pitchers is their injury risk, but for a variety of reasons, Greinke is as safe a bet to stay healthy as any pitcher in baseball. (Fortunately, in my Strat league I don't have to choose - I have both of them.)

But that's not the question. The question is whether I'd rather have Greinke for the next two years, for $27 million, or Upton for the next FIVE years, at $49.5 million. And the answer to that is pretty clearly Upton, which is why I don't think the Diamondbacks would make such a deal.

The more interesting question is whether you'd rather have Upton or Colby Rasmus, who's under contract for four more season. It's close, and I wouldn't be that surprised if the Cardinals and Diamondbacks make a swap.

November 20, 2010 at 8:16 AM

Blogger Kansas City said...

Nathan:

There must be applicable statistics. I have not grasped them yet, but aren't stats like WAR the answer?

I think I would go with the star center fielder watching him make plays and help win games every day.

November 20, 2010 at 9:35 AM

Blogger Unknown said...

Rany,

Is i-70 the only reason neither the Royals or the Cardinals would do a Rasmus for Grienke trade. Too close of a proximity for them to see the "other" guy suceed?

November 20, 2010 at 10:14 AM

Blogger Michael said...

Word is the Royals do have "considerable interest" in Justin Upton, but he can block a trade to KC. They are also offering big money to some free agents, so we may get a big FA splash this year.

Hopefully they don't consider Francouer a big FA. :)

November 21, 2010 at 4:45 PM

Blogger Bucket said...

Interesting point that a possible reason for the rising dominance of the "Closer" is in relation to the tight restrictions managers often have on their usage. Can you imagine what Starters' stats would look like if they knew going into a game they were going to pitch 6 innings (or twice through the lineup) and then hand the ball over. I would hate that as a fan, but their stats would sky rocket just like the Closers have.

November 22, 2010 at 8:15 AM

Blogger Nathan said...

Upton is a year younger than Rasmus, signed for a year longer, and has slightly better career stats. He also seems to have been more highly regarded by scouts, drafted first overall. He may have an attitude problem.

No doubt the Royals have way better means of player evaluation than this, but if we're trading Greinke, Upton seems like a slightly more appealing target to me.

November 23, 2010 at 5:05 AM

Blogger Nathan said...

However, I'm guessing that if Arizona is willing to trade Upton, they're not looking for a mid-career ace in return. They're probably looking for top prospects. And so I think the more relevant question is whether the Royals would make, say, Eric Hosmer, available.

November 23, 2010 at 5:10 AM

Blogger Kyle said...

There is no way Eric Hosmer is available. Besides this trade will never happen, b/c of Upton's no trade clause that includes the Royals. The only trade that might happen is Greinke for prospects. When the Yankees get Cliff Lee, the Rangers will be desperate. They will probably be willing to sell the entire farm for Zack.

If that is the case, there are several nice options there. I read over at royals prospects dot com and at royals review that there have been rumors from the Rangers bloggers on this too. Greinke to the Rangers for one of Perez or Scheppers (sounds like Perez is the guy we want), Holland (pitched with the Rangers last year), Profar (stud 17 year old SS), and Borbon (Rangers starting CF).

If that trade is available, there is no way to pass that up.

November 23, 2010 at 8:32 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would do the trade with the Rangers. But because I don't think the Rangers will offer that much, and because I think the Royals have a reasonable shot at resigning when he comes up, I don't think he will be traded.

Moore is supposedly in on Millwood. I would support that. Give our rotation some leadership and a big innings eater.

I for one, don't think we have to concede that this next year is a throw away. Why can't we compete this year?

November 23, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Blogger Kyle said...

Are you talking about Kevin Millwood? At first when I read that I thought, well he used to be pretty decent. But he is a 35 year old coming off a 4-16 season with a 5.60 ERA. I don't think he is the answer.

I would rather have Jorge de la Rosa, but not for too much money. I have read a few places that the Royals are going to be spenders this winter. Let's just hope that it's not on guys like Jeff Francoeur. I think the Royals could be winners in 2011, but it's going to take speeding up the "process" to do so. Get Moustakas, Hosmer, Teaford, Duffy, Collins, Coleman, Hardy on the opening day roster, and make it happen.

November 24, 2010 at 8:15 AM

Blogger Michael said...

Millwood is no great shakes, I agree, but he's much better than what he showed last year. I think in a spacious park like Kauffman, his flyball tendencies won't hurt as much. I could see him posting a 4.50 ERA here. Not bad for a 4 or 5 starter. Sadly though, after Greinke, all we have are #4 and 5 starters!

And like you said, I wouldn't pay De La Rosa what he figures to get on the FA market, therefore, I don't want to see the Royals get him. If we give him, say, a Gil Meche contract (which is probably pretty close, at least in average salary, to what he'll get) we'll greatly regret it.

November 25, 2010 at 9:12 AM

Blogger KCBar said...

Just a comment on Moore's actions the past few years. I agree that some of his trades have been hard to fathom, but I see more intention in his filling the roster w/ guys like Ankiel and Podsednik. I assumed from the beginning that the only reason the Royals signed these guys was to trade them away for prospects. On a team not really going anywhere and building for a glut of minor league talent to mature at the same time (which hopefully is what the Royals are doing) the ability to turn these guys (who everyone screams are not part of our future so why did we sign them) into younger, cheaper guys w/ higher potential seems like the smart play. Essentially you are buying other team's draft picks after they have had a few years to mature/prove themselves.

If these guys were signed w/ the hope they could be traded for young value, then that seems like a great way to execute on a plan to grow a winning team through your farm system. If you look at the FA pick ups last year in light of how those guys fit into the Royals' team going forward, they were extremely hard to rationalize. I am going to assume that this was Moore thinking "these type of guys might have some real value to someone else down the stretch who is in a different situation than the Royals" and signing them as part of a longer term strategy. From the Royals standpoint, I would rather have O' Sullivan, W. Smith , L May , Pucetas and T Collins than the grab bag of guys we gave up, even if only 1 of them ever is a successful major leaguer.

I guess I am saying that Dayton may look like the worst GM in baseball if you believe he was trying to assemble a winning club in 2009 or 2010 - it would be hard to argue otherwise. But if he is really trying to build towards 2012 some of his questionable signing make sense. I am willing to give him that benefit of the doubt, but not forever.

By the way, I am brand new to this blog and am totally blown away by the quality of the analysis and entertaining writing style. Truly a treasure during the cold, grey days when they are not playing baseball.

December 2, 2010 at 9:01 AM

Blogger Antonio. said...

Kyle, the point of bringing in Millwood, which currently is off the table, wouldn't be to be "the answer". The Answer isn't what this team is looking for anyways. Average ERA+ eating a lot of innings is what they're looking for. Did you look at Millwood's BABIP over the last few years? Other than the outlier of '09, recently they've been in the .320s. The gamble is will those return to the normal expected rate. If they do, you should be able to project about a 100 ERA+

December 5, 2010 at 2:56 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.