Monday, July 31, 2006

chiefs sign ty law, part 2

i still agree with my drunken bet about the chiefs reaching the Championship game. i like roaf retiring. he's tired, possibly ineffective, and it's a man's life. if he didn't think he could safely go, then good for him.

in the beginning, i think the offensive line will struggle but with Turley and Sampson (whom everyone is raving about, yet waiting to show that promise) will effectively (not up to the normal standard) block for trent. obviously, the offense will be scaled down, which will also affect trent, but this was happening anyway, so who cares.

we can't expect to have the same thing we've had for the past few years, we questioned every year, but we always had offensive minded Dick. we had to expect something less GREAT than the past b/c we got a new style of coach. i'm fine with it. high powered offense didn't help us win and now we still have that offense (minus the consistency of the missing veterans), in smaller doses. everyone is dumb if they think the offense will suddenly disappear. for goodness sakes', we still have fearless trent, major league gonzo, and LJ. What else do you really need, especially with better personnel on defense.

Implications of the Trading

Here's a couple things I THINK will happen.

1) Ken Harvey will never, EVER again see the big leagues. Thank goodness. I am sooo tired of reading mailbag and people asking about him. HE SUCKS! He hits for average, little power, and that does not a major leaguer make. The man Can't play DEFENSE! He broke Grimsley's face, which looking back, healed remarkably fast. Ha! He didn't hit with enough power (or was too slow to leg out doubles/triples) to make him worthwile to the organization. Give up on the dream now Kenny.

2) Teahen is gone next year by this time or the following year... UNLESS, he can learn to play second base. Clearly, if Shealy lives up to his hype, we don't have the room for Teahen or Gordon at first with Sweeney (if he comes back healthy), Menkbitch (when he comes back healthy this year, and will be gone next), and Huber or Butler as DH. B/c we have too many 1st basement/DHers, this shows that Shealy will probably play first, Huber may never make THIS team as an OF (which he currently is shifting to; also we have lubanski and butler) and I really like our soft, but doubles hitting OF of Costa, Gathright, and Dejesus. So that leaves Huber and Teahen the odd men out. Teahen stays next year so Gordon gets AAA experience and stays the next year if Gordon struggles in 07.

3) Moore gets rid of shady players (at least in the KC market, let them begin anew elsewhere) for lots of youth (Lumsden, among others), but also some older players who can help now (de la Rosa, Perez, Dohmann, Diaz). This shows me that he is not content in just building a team for next year and the year after. He wants to do some winning this year, or prep them for next, by bringing in guys who are good, but are currently struggling. Our rotation is looking much better next year then it started this year (07: Perez, de la Rosa, maybe Diaz, maybe Greinke, maybe Hudson/Duckworth/Gobble; rather than 06: Mays, Redman, Elarton, Hernia, and whoever else was there (there's been so many i can't remember)). By playing Moore's version of musical starting chairs this year, we may avoid Baird's arbitrary switcheroos of the past. He wants to find a solid, SOLID staff that can help win games. I like it.

mabye i like everything he did b/c it was a change from the norm. normally, we didn't get big names, or trade away big names, but this year, we are seeing personnel changes, which is a good thing b/c obviously the old personnel couldn't get it done.

Deadline Deals, Perspective 2

I like these 2 trades for a number of personal reasons.

First of all, I agreed with many sport broadcasters out there that were concerned that Bautista was under 200 pounds and threw close to 98 MPH, with poor mechanics. As most of my fellow bloggers know, I'm a fan of purging Baird's lousy players (most likely lousy b/c they were rushed, but lousy as they stand now, nonetheless), i.e., Bautista, Affeldt (can't start and if you have to hold your breath when he comes in relief, then you know he's a weakness), Greinke, Howell, though Nunez and maybe Burgos will eventually come around.

I'm happy that we may have a legit 1st baseman. Do we have an infield coach? Maybe we can pull an Oakland A's, ala Scott Hattesberg, and make a serviceable fielder out of him. Under Baird, this concept would have made me laugh, but Dayton (so far) seems like the real deal., a fantastic website, thinks that Shealy can hit .280/20HR/85RBIs in the bigs, which looks to be our best starting player (projected stat-wise) other than Teahen, as of right now.

Here's what I like about Dohmann, he has a career 2:1 SO:BB ratio, 106:53. His BA against has been steadly increasing since he made it to the bigs (.236 up to .277) and his career ERA is 5.22. He's also 28. Let's break it down, not knowing his pitches: He has experience, he's cheap, and he strikes guys out. The poor qualities (ERA and BA Against) are a concern. His ERA may not be, he did play in Coors and some guys just aren't meant to pitch there. He could rediscover himself in a normal climate. His BA against is a real concern though. Hopefully, he lacked confidence in his ability b/c he pitched poorly in CO, which is fixable with a few successful outings. We have to wait and see on that. Another concern, though, is his lack of DP. He has led batters to ground out 5 times in his 3 big league years. But, like de la Rosa, maybe he is a reclamation project and we see what 1 sample size does (de la Rosa - 3.00 ERA on Saturday).

Get rid of Stairs. I'm happy about this. I'm also happy we got an older guy with pretty good numbers. His age, experience, and above average numbers cry out for a callup, i.e., the bullpen till he proves he can handle, ala Braves style of integrating pitchers (no wins, 3.28 ERA at AAA Oklahoma). I think we'll see him pretty soon and probably end up replacing lazy Hernandez.

Deadline deals

I must admit, I'm not a huge fan of either of these deals. I suppose that dealing Matty Stairs for a younger pitcher is a good move. But, Matt was a good clubhouse presence - very productive as a backup 1B/4th OF'er - and pretty cheap. It bothers me that we dealt him for a 26 year old reliever (with good minor league stats I know) who has never pitched in the Bigs. But, I can deal with this trade.

The second move, sending Affeldt and Bautista to Colorado, comes across as a purge to me. A shot across the bow of Allard Baird; A final shot saying this is what I think of your talent. Dohmann is nothing, NOTHING. Shealy is a decent bat, I won't argue that. But, he's another young player without a real position. We're stockpiling DH's.....why? Affeldt had fallen on hard times and Bautista was yo-yo'd so much by the Royals organization that I'm not at all surprised he's had problems. But, Affeldt and Bautista are young and have a LOT of upside. Even if that upside is never reached, I wouldn't have made this second deal. If Shealy and Doughboy are all we could get for Affeldt and Bautista then Moore should have just hung up the phone and gone out to play a round of golf...instead of making a deal to spite Baird.

Just my .02

Thursday, July 27, 2006

Fast Eddie... wait, he's not that fast.

So I'm reading the paper and swearing at the top of my lungs through my Fruit Loops and coffee... it was quite a mess... because I'm reading that Eddie Kennison wants more money. GIVE ME A BREAK. I'm sorry Mr. Kennison, but I think we're over-paying you as it is. Now I know that the statistics are against me here, I know that he is in the top 10 in almost every recieving category in Chiefs' history, but spare me your money grubbing blabber Eddie. First of all, you have played in an explosive offense in which you were a minor part. Of course your stats will look better than the receivers of the Marty-ball era, when passing was unheard of. And our recievers in previous eras had the little problem that THE GAME WAS DEFENSIVELY MINDED! It's interesting to see how all sports have shifted to a more offensive focus in recent years... it makes you wonder how bad some of today's players would perform back then and how wonderfully some of yesteryears' players would perform now. But, back to your friend and mine, Eddie Kennison. Would you like to know why Kennison's numbers look so good? I'll tell you this, it ain't because he can run a stellar route or that he's a speed demon and can blow past defenders (although that's what he keeps getting billed as). Kennison reminds me of good ol' Derrick Alexander who was talked up to be this super-human reciever, but when it boiled right down to it, he couldn't get open to save his life unless we ran a successful play-action pass. So, Eddie's success has been based on the fact that he is a role-player surrounded by superb offensive weapons. When a defense has to put eight in the box to stop Johnson, double cover Tony G over the middle, and worry about the recieving ability of Priest out of the backfield, someone else is going to be left with very little attention paid to them... TA-DA! Eddie Kennison. Nevermind the fact, also, that Trent Green is one of the most accurate passers in the game today... so if Eddie gets a foot of separation there's a good chance Green can get it to him. So shut the hell up Kennison and play the position you were born to play: minute role-player in a high-powered offense. Or leave, I could care less. We will find someone else to fill your shoes, and they'll probably do better.

brandx (who as an out-of-shape, heavy individual could outrun Eddie Kennison)

Moore of a good thing...

I am thoroughly impressed with the work Dayton Moore has done so far as GM. I have to agree with my blogging counterparts that the moves made recently by Moore have been amazing. I will admit that I am sad to see MacDougal, Dessens, and Graffanino leave, I loved both those guys and the effort they gave day in and day out. However, we got a lot in return. Four minor league pitching studs (Lumsden was voted as having the best fastball and slider in the CWS minor league system, and Pimentel and Johnson were ranked the 16 and 17 prospects in the Dodgers' system). Now, who knows if anything will pan out with these guys, but this immediately helps our minor league pitching prospects. And the key thing to remember is that all of these pitching prospects except Lumsden are in A ball, Lumsden is in AA. This means that we have minor league pitchin with room to grow that is already becoming an impact. We also got a guy in Odalis Perez who can pitch at the major league level (although I still feel he is one of the more over-rated pitchers in the majors) and can still improve (he's 29). And we also got a guy in de la Rosa that could pan out for us. He is versatile and has good stuff, just poor command. But, as I read in the star yesterday... what have we got to lose? Let the guy go out and throw, he'll eventually find his groove if you give him the right coaching and time... and it's not like we've got a season to salvage. So keep the good times a rollin' Moore, you've got my support!


Tuesday, July 25, 2006

more on trades

"Moore said the Dodgers had assumed paying Perez's contract that includes $7.25 million this year, and $7.75 million next year.

'To be very candid, we're happy for Elmer Dessens and the Dodgers are paying for Odalis this year and next,' he said." -

this is a fantastic deal. even if nothing comes of odalis, we have 2 future prospects and gave up dessens (who had a decent era, but was getting hit at a very high pace) for a free major league ready pitcher who will start in the bullpen and stretch out as a starter.

also, goodbye tony graf. i know nothing about jorge de la rosa, but i think it's a good deal. we didn't need graf with stairs, german, and teahen playing well at third. we got more pitching (he can start and pitch the bullpen) and even though his numbers don't look great, i actually like bob mcclure and maybe they can fix him up.

also, just a rumor, but a friend of mine read that moore is already starting his managerial search. i'm loving this guy right now. fire buddy bell!

Royals acquire Perez

Despite the fact that he hasn't pitched too well this season, I'm stoked about this deal. Odalis Perez is probably the highest profile starting pitcher the Royals have had since Paul Byrd (saying a lot, I know). Moore just dealt a 35 year-old RP for a 29 year old former all-star AND 2, 21 year olds. I'm very impressed.

Go Royals!


P.S. I'm new to this blog. If you've got any questions for me, just ask. :-)

Monday, July 24, 2006

chiefs sign ty law

i think a good move even if he flames out. it's a moral boost from king carl that says he's here to back the team up and try to get the best players.'s, johnny clayton commented that ty was probably the best guy on the market this offseason. congratulations to the chiefs for signing him. whether he helps physically, or helps younger players develop (julian battle, lenny walls, etc.), then this was a good pickup.

be excited, SI gave LJ props as the number 1 fantasy running back in the league, though (with a more conservative offense coming as assumed by all 'experts') trent dropped from top 5 in fantasy points to 24th. i think this is a grave mistake and any comments hermie is stating about scaling back the offense are all smoke and mirrors. only a moron would destroy what've we had for the past few years. it's not unheard of to have an AWESOME offense and a good/great defense. WHY do you have to sacrifice one to get the other? you don't! our offense is basically the same (and may get better with a suprise WR corp: hopefully, parker, thorpe, kennison, with a little hall as the icing) since vermeil revamped it and now we have better, though newer, defensive personnel. this should mean great offense, good defense, which should equal a playoff spot to a championship game.

hold me to it (though i've had 4 beers to this point on a semi-empty stomach):
-I bet my friends 12 packs of blue moon and boulevard wheat that the Chiefs go to the Championship game. i lose, i buy 24 bottles of beer and my pals drink free.

tyler lumsden and mac the 9th

Fun fact:
tyler lumsden is ambidextrious. it's a proven fact that left-handed, he can throw around 91-95 MPH... while right-handed he tosses an 80's-ish fastball. will we ever see it in a game? let's hope the hell not!

here's me excited we traded for pitching. here's me sad we traded a major leaguer for class A (Daniel Cortes) and AA (tyler lumsden) talent. what's good about lumsden are his numbers... sort of. he's clearly dominating AA ball with a sub-3.00 ERA with 123 IP... what is not great is his SO:BB ratio - 72:40 - in 123 innings. not great, not bad. the best interpretation is that he's a contact hitter that keeps the homers down (9 allowed in AA this year). his arsenal includes a newly developed change-up, a 4 seam fastball, 2 seam fastball, cutter, and curveball. he just starred in the Futures Game, so it looks good for the future... but you wonder how long it'll take for him to make it up and when Hochevar signs. Out of our starting line up this year, none of them are locks for the starting pitching positions. There's no guarantee of greinke, gobble, duckworth, hochevar, hudson, etc. most of these guys are newly inserted and maybe one year wonder flings... which has been known to happen to the Royals (Sisco, Burgos, Nunez).

All comments seem postive about him, though he is 1 year of elbow surgery to repair a bone chip in his throwing arm, so it'll be nice to see him get a break to avoid wear and tear. also, trading mac the 9th allows either burgos to reclaim the role (and find command of the strike zone, he's got the stuff, but no eye for it) or Ryan Braun (26 yrs old, with 12 total saves between AA and AAA with a low 2.00 ERA). Personally, I want Braun up... he throws 96 MPH, has a head on him and is no longer too young to really be ruined by a call-up.

We'll see how Cortes rounds out, he's 19, going to A with a 4.10 ERA (not great, and probably 2-3 years from a call-up, unless he shows SOMETHING that he hasn't yet). I do like how Moore said more trades could be in the works for the next 24-48 hours. I like the move, but personally, I want mid-top of the line AAA pitching or low-mid level talent that is already major league ready and is either a starter or a long reliever that can be converted.

Saturday, July 22, 2006

Why not me too?

Ok, so I apologize in advance to anyone who has no desire to hear anymore about the subject of this post... if you choose not to read it, that's fine. I'm going to get my two cents in about Barry Bonds. If you are sick and tired of him, read no further. I just feel like I have to say a few things in light of his current situation.

First things first: I hate Barry Bonds. He is a self-centered, ego-maniacal, cheating, ungrateful, self-righteous, no good, waste of human flesh. I could go on, but I will spare you some of my anger. This guy is a terrible example for people of all ages, and yet he is one of the greatest ball players of all time (don't even try to argue that point, you'll look loke an idiot). But he is a terrible person. I don's want him to pass Hank Aaron, I didn't want him to pass Babe Ruth, I hoped he would have fallen short of Mark MacGuire and Roger Maris, hell, if I had my way he wouldn't have passed Ozzie Smith on the all-time homerun list.

But right now I hate Bud Selig, the Players' Union, the Government, and anyone else involved even more than Barry Bonds for one simple reason: they have made me feel bad for Barry Bonds. I actually find myself feeling pity for this pityless sack of flesh. Why? Because he has become the pariah, the scapegoat in this whole steroids fiasco. Sure, the current allegations are that he purgered (sp?) and commited tax fraud or evasion (I'm not real sure), but why are these things suddenly coming into the light? Because everyone is sure that Bonds used steroids but knows that they can't get him on it. So the logical solution is to get him on anything ou can find and make an exampe of him. The thought process is that this will somehow fix baseball's problem, or at least turn the spotlight away.

Barry Bonds did use steroids, I think anyone that looks at pictures of Bonds from every year of his career will see that his weight gain in a short span of time was not solely from intense weight training. But let me re-enlighten everyone who is pissed at Bonds for this fact... it was a legal substance according to MLB rules during the time he used it. Holy Sh*t! Hmmm... So that means that although he may have set records and approached others using a substance that is performance enhancing, he did it while obeying the rules agreed upon by MLB, the players and the owners. So, everyone, let's root for Barry to outdo all of this off the field crap so that we can fix the real problems in baseball instead of hiding behind a convenient scape-goat. Then when Barry steps back onto the field let's not pay any attention. If he hits a homerun don't acknowledge it. If he passes Hank Aaron I don't even want to know about it. Just let him play his last year or two without one bit of press coverage, not one bit of applause, not one boo... just silence. And do this because he is an individual that needs to realize how insignificant he is in this world when you get right down to it. He thinks of himself as a superhuman, when he makes a living playing a game, not something important.

Then let's all focus on getting Bud Selig out of the Commissioner's seat, and keeping the PLayer's Union accountable for their dumbass, selfish actions, and forcing owners to play fair and get rid of players that are cheating or are bad for the game.


Friday, July 21, 2006

Pulling a Buddy Bell

Today in my softball league, I pulled a Buddy Bell... I filled out the lineup card incorrectly, not knowing the rules of the league. I put 11 coeds on the team... but the rule is that you need 8, 9, 10 or 12 players. If you have 11, you take an automatic out when the "12th" man/woman comes to bat. And since our 11 hitter left his shirt at home, we took 2 auto outs b/c you have to be in a similar color and he was not. Therefore, with these faux paus and 4 of our regulars not being there and having some dude pitch for the 1st time ever, it's not suprising we lost 22-4... though my buddy was 0-2 with 2 RBIs and I was 2-2 with 1 R and Dawn was 2-2... safe to say our regulars are ok.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

What do Alex Gordon and Mark Redman have in Common?


Today's Topics:
1. Reasons to leave Gordon in AA.
2. Reasons to keep Mark Redman this year and next year and the year after that.

Topic 2 first then!

Mark Redman is making 4.5 million dollars this year. 4.5 million dollars and he's 32 yrs old. Randy Johnson is making just under 16 million and is 43. Randy Johnson has a 3006 ERA of 5.04. Mark Redman has an ERA of 5.02 (as of 7/19).

Two points to be made here: 1) you NEVER know what you'll get with a free agent pitcher, which is why I believe you can buy hitting but not pitching (develop it in the minors and you'll more likely know what you'll get from him and it's CHEAPER, especially if you have little money to spend (ROYALS!)) and 2) free agent pitching has gotten RIDICULOUSLY expensive; keeping the Royals from being able to BUY mid-to-top of the line pitching.

Keep Mark b/c he won't garner HUGE numbers, probably the couple year, 10 million range, he's affordable for 5 million a year. It doesn't look like his numbers are very good, except that even though he doesn't strike people out, he's been getting people out. Also, in April, Mark had a 7.82 ERA and in May he had an ERA of 6.35... but he had just come back from surgery. His SO:BB ratio was practically identical showing a lack of command, bad decisions by the catcher, etc., but in June he posted a 3.74 ERA with 5 wins and a SO:BB ratio of 8:14 (still not very good).

Today Mark pitched 7 innings, gave up 1 run, struck out 9 and walked none. He's had more quality starts then any pitcher and he's proven. He CAN get big league outs. Who else on our team is a quality starter? Jimmy Gobble hasn't proven it yet, Greinke has not either. Without Hochevar signed and no JP Howell, our rotation next year looks bleak... UNLESS you resign Mark Redman. With him you get proven quality, a veteran player/teacher, and a above average 3, 4, 5 spot in the rotation.

Even though I want Teahen traded (for pitching) or moved to 1B, the Royals are making a smart move in holding back Gordon. Plus, until Mark has proven himself over the long haul, you can't get much for him in a trade (though you may want to try since his arm is apparently not 100%, so when will he finally break?)

Gordon though, as provided by the Wichita Eagle (, shows that even though Gordon has hit over .300, has 49 BB, 50 RBI, 17 SB, and 13 HR, he has hit a measely .143 with bases loaded, .231 with runners in scoring position, and .242 w/runners in scoring and 2 outs. I'd say bring him up to AAA once all of his numbers round out to the player we all think he can be. Adhere to the not rushing prospects rule; the Royals can't save their season this year, and probably not next year unless guys have careers years, major trades occur, or major free agent signings happen. We have an above average fielding Mark Teahen at 3rd, or even Tony Graffinino, so there is TRULY no rush for Gordon.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

All-Star Game Blunder

Since Bud Selig has become commissioner of baseball there has been blunder after blunder. Whether one chooses to look past the fact that as commissioner he was still an owner (and even though currently not an owner, his daughter now owns his share of the Brewers), that he may or may not have had any knowledge of steriod use and has just chosen to ignore it until it blew up in his face, or the fact that he has ruined the image of baseball for years to come, there are few things that he has done to damage baseball more than what has happened to the All-Star Game.

This game used to be a true mid-season classic. Something fans and kids could look forward too. The best players (favorite players) playing together, having fun, and just putting on a show. Lots of runs used to be scored, and even fans like us got to at least see their representative in the game. In 2002 we got an 11 inning thriller. It was an All-Star game with everything. 14 total runs scored, home runs, robbed home runs (Torii Hunter stealing a homer from Barry Bonds), stolen bases, and even some good pitching. Yes, this game ended in a tie. Was that so bad? Was having a game whose sole purpose is to just showcase the best talent from every team end in a tie a problem? Obviously for Bud Selig it was.

Now I ask? As a fan of baseball, is an All-Star game that ends in a tie a season ruining debacle? I personally think not, having watched last nights game. Bud Selig thought the perfect solution to never having an All-Star game end in a tie is to make it mean something. whoever wins gets home-field advantage in the World Series. Great idea BUD. Now when we tune in to the game we get to see a "competitive" match, in which Ozzie Guillen said he would manage the game "like it was the seventh game of the World Series." Wow! That sounds great, until you watch the game and see how the game has changed. Now I realize Mark Redman was a controversial All-Star, but as a Royals fan it would've been nice to at least see him in the game. But he is not even the biggest name left out of the game. Looks look at a list of All-Stars who didn't even make it onto the field:

Mark Buerhle
Jose Contreras
Bobby Jenks
Jonathan Pappelbon
Mark Redman
Jose Lopez (whose only real involvement was pinch running)
Scott Rolen
Dan Uggla
Andruw Jones
Chris Carpenter
Tom Glavine
Jason Schmidt
Carlos Zambrano

All of these men, selected to the All-Star, sat the bench. Reason? Because they had to win? Had to save something in case of extra innings? Whatever the reason it is completely freaking unacceptable. Why even be an All-Star, if you aren't even going to play in the game? Is it still an honor?

There has been a lot of criticism for the way Phil Garner managed the game last night. He said he was out to win, but then had no signs and just let his players play. He ended up losing, and in the process lost home field advantage for the NL in the World Series. When interviewed after the game he said that he wasn't dissappointed because it was a good game, that it was well played. This morning on a popular ESPN morning show he was admonished for not being more like Guillen who was playing it like a World Series game, and was managing it like a fan of the game. Isn't that the point! The All-Star game is for the FANS! I am sure if it were up the players they would love to have the All-Star break without a game just have a few more days rest in a long gruelling season.

So Bud Selig, thanks for taking the fun out of the midseason classic. Thanks for turning what used be an entertaining slugfest, with a little pitching, into a ridiculous spectacle that gives one league an arbitrary advantage in the World Series based on one game. If you want to determine home field advantage for the World Series in some other way than giving it to the team with the best record, then give it to the leage who had the better record in interleague play, a number of games, instead of it hinging on one meaningless game. Let us have our All-Star bash back!

The Notorious TKD

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Economics of the All-Star Game vs. KC

Alternate title: "Why Bud Selig is an ass."

''Usually these games are awarded to teams with new stadiums so they can show them off,'' said a local businessman who works extensively with sports franchises and leagues (, 1999).

Bear with me as I divulge some: "Get ready for a baseball All-Star Game" in Kansas City as voters said yes to "$575 million stadium renovations [as] the first priority, locking the Chiefs and Royals into Kansas City for years to come" (, 14265700). Now, I won't complain as to the logic of needing to renovate the stadiums so that they did not default and move, though both owners (Hunt and Glass) stated they would always find an alternative to that solution. I could complain about the lack of foresight by Glass as to the revitalization of Downtown KC, but I guess he wouldn't know that Downtown is shambles since oddly enough, Arkansas looks nothing like Downtown KC. This is a debate for another time... either way, I find two issues with the renovations and Bud Selig's unspoken policy.

First of all: "On the sports facility side, numerous researchers have examined the relationship between building new facilities and economic growth in metropolitan areas. In every case, independent work on the economic impact of stadiums and arenas has uniformly found that there is no statistically significant positive correlation between sports facility construction and economic development. This stands in stark contrast to the claims of sports teams and leagues who assert that the large economic benefits of professional franchises merit considerable public expenditures on stadiums and arenas," economic advantages such as having an All-Star game "attaches a $75 million benefit to the [host city] (, Vol5-No1). Obviously, this isn't a steady number, for instance, Detroit said they estimated 50 million in revenue generation, while Pittsburgh estimated 62-65 million.

Google any Pittsburgh newspaper, though (Pittsburgh, All-Star Game, Economics), and you'll find that in preparation for this event, they repaved roads, repaired roads, cleaned up the city, etc., but none of these papers accounted for how much money was used to prepare for the game. An All-Star game in KC would have been assured with Downtown baseball, but is probably a truth with renovated Kauffman, but looking at the numbers, splitting 500 million b/t 2 stadiums amounts to (just averaging b/t 2) 250 million in taxes for KC. 60-75 million in revenue generation seems a bit small. Also, much of the revenue is actually converged into a single event, rather than multiple ones, which is usually what happens... " studies often ignore the substitution effect. To the extent that attendees at a sporting event spend their money on that event instead of on other activities in the local economy, the sporting event simply results in a reallocation of expenditures in the economy rather than a real net increase in economic activity" (, Vol5-No1). Following this reasoning, this revenue doesn't create new revenue opportunities, but rather, funnels it into one day and one event. maybe this is a good thing, you generate that much revenue in one day, and then continue to generate revenue elsewhere as the city normally would, but this isn't what Selig and crew represent, they make it look like PURE profit in one event, when we can see, to get the event we had to spend over 200 million on stadium renovation (I'm not ignoring we had to do something, since the teams may have moved).

The second thing that bothers me is that even with Glass and his BUTTY Selig, we still couldn't get the all star game. They are best buds and Glass still couldn't convince Selig to send an All-Star game here. maybe he hates KC or maybe his policy to show off new stadiums is STUPID. Clearly, Selig likes to ignore the past. He's all about the future... i'm like this to, in every aspect but BASEBALL. IF the past wasn't important, we wouldn't keep records... barry bonds approaching the all time homer record WOULDN'T MATTER (probably doesn't anyway... STEROIDS!!).... integrating blacks, latinos, asians into the game's representation in the 1900s wouldn't matter and today we'd have all white, all slow baseball. doesn't sound like fun, so why not harken back to the old days and show some older stadiums... read some Boston Globe articles and you'll see the Red Sox only got it a few years ago b/c Milwaukee's stadium in 1999 wasn't ready (, 1999).

To me, the point is the purpose. THE PURPOSE! The purpose of the approved tax in Jackson County should have been keeping the Royals, Chiefs, and updating facilities (minus the idiocy of not approving DOWNTOWN BASEBALL!). Sadly, the KCSTAR and other local papers were more excited by the fact that we could get an All-Star game. In fact, weeks before the vote, Selig and Tagliabue both stated that KC would get the All-Star game and Superbowl if we approved stadium renovation. It became the focus of the owners, fans, and sportswriters to get the vote approved for this purpose. We lost focus that we would be able to keep 2 very important entertainment centers to KC. IF we lost these teams, I probably wouldn't dream of raising my family there. I'd move to St. Louis (who I HATE!) so that my children and I could view SPORTS!

So back to the purpose, was the purpose to spend all of this money to keep our teams here? Or was the purpose to attract Selig and Tagliabue? Do we, as Kansas Citians, want to show where we REALLY play... or some facimile that was finished days before the big games?

I would have voted no. No to stadium renovations and no to Bud Selig, the Willy Wonka of Baseball's Future. The man who has crazy concoctions of ideas (see All-Star Game Blunders Post, the Wild Card Teams, "Steroids and 'Why I put my head into the Sand'" by Butt Selig, etc.) and will eventually leave some factory and midgets, who can't properly dye their hair and stain their skin orange, to some crazy kid who doesn't understand how to run the league.

Complete the pattern: 5, 10, 20...

Today I read an article in the KC Star about how Carlos Beltran has really become the stellar player that all of Kansas City knew he would be. It really got me thinking about the future of the Royals... like just about anything else. But this time I started thinking about something different. I was trying to figure out who would be the next player to have their number retired by the Royals. Had Beltran stayed there is little doubt that eventually his number would have been placed at the base of the scoreboard (barring injury or mental breakdown). Just imagine having that .270+ avg, 35+ hr, 100+ runs scored, 100+ rbi, 20+ sb almost every year... it almost makes me cry. There's only one problem to this secenario: Beltran would not have put up these numbers in KC (if he was stuck here) because he did not feel as if he were on a team that could compete. Eventually his numbers would have fallen because he would not have put forth the effort for the Royals. So maybe his number would not have been retired after all. The next thought would have been Mike Sweeney. The man is a machine in the batter's box and any Major League pitcher will tell you he is one of the toughest outs in the majors. He is even a great guy off the field, and a great ambassador for the game. But, as we all know, number 29 will not find its way to the base of the scoreboard because Sweeney has been racked with injuries. So where does that leave us? Who is out there that could possibly earn the right to have their number for the rest of the Royals' days?

First, it's important to look at those who's numbers have been retired briefly. You have 10 Dick Howser, 20 Frank White, and 5 George Brett. The key to all three of these individuals is not that they were the only three to make a lasting impact on the Royals. It is the fact that they helped to define Royals baseball. Dick Howser was a guy that people in KC latched onto, he really pushed the team to succeed and he put them in postion to win all the time. Frank White is quite possibly the best defensive second baseman of all time. Like the Wizard in St. Louis, White preveted as many runs scoring as many people drove in throughout a season. He played smart, tough baseball. George Brett put the Royals on the map. He was the Royals first true superstar and he played the game the way it is supposed to be played. Every day he gave it everything he got, regardless of the situation or his contract or even his health. Consequently, his numbers refelect this attitude.

Which brings us back to the present. Who can redefine Royals baseball over the next decade or so? Who can become the face of the Royals and lead us to success? Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the next number to be retired by the Royals (as long as health or trade don't interfere): 9. That's right, number 9. Good old David DeJesus. Watching DeJesus play is immensly fun. Like the retired numbers before him, he plays the game the way it is supposed to be played. He is out their giving his all every play regardless, and to top it off, he is having fun doing it. He almost always has a smile on his face in the field and on the bases... it's refreshing to see that enjoyment on a player's face in KC. And the kicker to all of this is that he makes the Royals better. He may not be as flashy as Beltran was or is, but day in and day out he makes plays that help the Royals win and he does it in all aspects. He hits the ball solidly, gets on base, runs the bases well, and fields the ball as good as just about anyone. So, 25 or 30 years from now, when DeJesus has been away from the game for awhile, don't be surprised if number 9 sits forever immortalized with 5, 10, and 20.


Monday, July 10, 2006

The Blame Game

So I keep watching the Royals, and I will continue to watch the Royals, but I keep noticing something that I think a lot of people are getting wrong. Everyone, analysts included, keeps saying how the Royals' starting pitching has been their Achilles tendon. Now, I'm not saying that the starting pitching has been great, but I think that the blame placed on many of our starters has been incorrect. Now, I know what you're thinking: 'this guy's crazy, look at the starters' ERA's!' And, frankly, you'd be right. Our lowest ERA for a starter is Jimmy Gobble at 4.32, but most of that was out of the pen. So our lowest full time starter ERA belongs to Mark Redman with a 5.27. This is definitely not Cy Young material in any league. But, the Royals can't ask for Cy Young stuff from their pitchers... We're not there yet. As a team at the bottom of the league we have to make small steps. That means that all we can hope to ask of our pitching staff is to keep the opposing team within striking distance so that our offense, which has moments of brilliance, can score just enough for a win.

I know that you're all still wondering where in God's green earth I am going here, because the pitching is still bad, really bad. What I want you to do is look back at the first few starts of all of our pitchers (don't look at Joe Mays or Mark Redman; they're the exceptions). What were the problems in those games? It was one of two things: offense or bullpen. Really, we have gotten some quality outings from our starting pitchers when they stepped on the field the first few times. Again, we're not talking Cy Young, we're talking work-horse: give me 7 innings or so without giving the game away, pitching. What happened is this: our starters game us a good outing, an outing we could work with, and then the offense forgot that they have to actually score runs to win or the bullpen forgot that they play baseball and that they are supposed to get people OUT, not loft meatballs so thick and juicy that even the strictest vegan couldn't resist tearing through a platefull with the bloodlust of a T-Rex. I mean, look at Elarton's first 3 or 4 starts... How did he not kill a single teammate?!? He should have won at least, and I mean AT LEAST, 2 of those. It's tough to throw 7 scoreless innings and still lose. And what about poor Bobby Keppel? This guy goes out and throws a shutout into the ninth (and if my memory serves me, he only gave up a couple of hits) and still gets saddled with the loss!

Which brings me to why we cannot blame the starters for their poor performances now. When you go out and throw a gem and still lose, you lose confidence in those around you. When that happens, and any analyst with any sense at all will tell you this, you start to try to do it all by yourself. You start to over-analyze hitters and over-throw pitches. You think that if you don't throw a perfect game with 27 strikeouts there ain't no way your team is going to be able to get you the win. It becomes immensely frustrating and it is tough to correct once you get to that point. So, take a look at our starters now. Those who are struggling (and started earlier in the year) all seem to be leaving the ball up... Why? Because they are trying to add extra velocity to insure that they can strike guys out, because they have no confidence in their offense, or their bullpen. Now, the irony in all of this is that by leaving balls up batters are just going to send the ball into a different zip code, and that our offense and even at times our bullpen are starting to come to life. They just showed up to late for our starters. My only hope is that they can get themselves on the same page as everyone else and come out with all cylinders firing, then maybe we can turn this season around and start moving this franchise in the right direction.


Friday, July 07, 2006

Thoughts on '03

The latest post made me think of something that I just have to get out of my system, it doesn't really pertain to the Royals of today, but someone's gotta hear my thoughts... I will make it quick , though.

Of all the things that went wrong following 2003, the most wonderful year of my life (that I can remember... I was turning 4 in 1985), the thing that hurt the Royals more than any other was the loss of Brent Mayne. That's right, Brent Mayne, folks. Now I know you're all thinking that I'm crazy, surely he means Raul Ibanez, or the fact that Sweeney couldn't stay healthy, or that Pena lost his magic touch (by magically touching his neighbor's wife), or any number of other things, but no my friends, it was Mayne.

To answer the dumbfounded looks on your faces and the mumbled, incoherent stammering I'll pose a question: What wins games in the major leagues? The answer is pitching.

But Mayne is a catcher... he doesn't pitch!

That's right, he doesn't pitch... but he does help coach the pitchers along through the game, and he helps call the game: fastball up and in, changeup down and away, etc. And he was good at it.

Now look at who we got to replace him: Benito Santiago, supposedly better offensively (although I can't seem to recall any boost in offense due to the intimidating presence of Benito in the batter's box), but not too stout at calling the game. Which lead to the need to get a catcher for the future - John Buck. I love Buck and he's going to be great, but he is still learning the game and is riddled with the inconsistencies of youth behind the plate and at the plate.

Next, take a look at our pitching staff of '04 and '05... hmmm... we got a lot, I mean a LOT of inexperience. So if our catcher can't call a game and our pitchers are still learning the dynamics of pitching at the Major League level, what's gonna happen? You guesed it folks, or young pitchers are going to get shelled and lose their confidence, setting them back a few years in development. All the while we get creamed and lose fan interest. Had we kept that great defensive catcher, the guy that could guide these young guns on the mound by providing steady game calling, who knows where we'd be now?

Just imagine... Gobble would be showing us what he has been starting to show lately back in '04, Hernandez would not have a weight problem because he'd be pitching every fifth game and intimidating hitters, Affeldt would be throwing a curveball that would make Zito jealous, Snyder would be holding his own and making hitters look foolish, and Greinke would have lost his mind because he just barely missed a 20 win season or fell to second in the Cy Young vote. All because we lost Brent Mayne.


Why Baird should have been fired.

Today I want to point out some reasons that Baird SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIRED; nice man or not. I think the overall statement adequately sums my thoughts: Baird was led BY the youth movement, he DID NOT lead it. I had this thought today while listening to sports radio. The topic of discussion was Aaron Guiel (now with the Yankees and went 1-3, 3 Runs scored, 1 BB). Obviously, this is a 1 game sample, so we won't look at it. We will examine his AAA stats and his 2003 stats and then look at who took his CHEAP spot on the outfield (cheap meaning ... less than a MILLION = bargain for Royals).

In 2004 I concede he had terrible eyesight and struggled to make it back to form, which is ok and I commend the decision to put him in the minors till he proved he could hit. But let's lazily look at his AAA line in 2006:

52 177 32 44 14 1 11 32 93 35 45 0 0 .388.525 .249 .914 2

Remember that this is only 52 games. project this 3x and you get some pretty good numbers (though this doesn't "count" b/c players are subject to hot and cold slumps, injuries, etc.).

here's the 03 line.


99 354 63 98 30 0 15 52 27 63 3 5 .277 .346 .489 .835

On the other hand, lets examine the last few replacement players and their AGES:

2006 : Reggie Sanders, 38 years old, 5 MILLION DOLLARS!:

64 236 38 59 15 1 9 42 21 70 6 4 .250 .309 .436 .745

2005 : Terrence Long, 28-29 years old, 3 MILLION Dollars!:

137 455 62 127 21 3 6 53 30 56 3 3 .279 .321 .378 .699


What we can see from these lines is that we overpaid for OLD players when we had the resources in the minor leagues.... so back to my original point... the youth movemenet led Baird. Here's what it LOOKS like, not saying this is what happened.... it LOOKS like Baird didn't want to bring Guiel up b/c at the time he was 32-33 years old b/c he preached youth in most spots. What I think he thought could be forgiven was paying money for an older player that was a bigger name; i.e. Reggie... though who the HELL knows what about Long. This happened with Juan Gonzalez in 04, he was replaced by someone who didn't make it a week, but he was a BIG NAME! It looks like he thought he could get away with big name older veterans who didn't fit in with the youth movement, but had big impacts early early early in their careers. unfortunately, he wasted money on players who were passed their prime and didn't add anything to the team. That $$$ could have been used for pitching (don't get me started on FA pitching), or finding younger, bigger names.

This is one reason Baird should have been fired. Let's look at it from a different perspective: let's say it's true that the Glass family intervened quite often into the movings of Allard. Let's say David didn't want Aaron up in the bigs for one reason or another (he's not splashy, he's not what brings the fans in, he's too old with mediocre numbers), Baird should have been fired for not seeminlgy being assertive. It's the GM's job to MAKE the owner understand baseball. That's why owners own teams and hire GMs, b/c they know squat about baseball other than they like to watch and they like to win. It was Baird's job to make Aaron Guiel an attractive potential for the OF. Clearly, we get the sense from Baird's comments and bringing Guiel back that he liked what Aaron did and what his capabilities were. Aaron is the perfect, cheap rent-a-player. We needed a few years before Butler, Lubanski, Huber (now an OF), and Mitch could make it up, so why not use a proven player who is old, but still productive and CHEAP. Why pay Reggie 5 mil for this production when you'd get more from Aaron for 800,000 or less? Wouldn't it be probable that he would retire the minute we brought someone up? He's not the type of player with great numbers to be able to play till 42. If we kept him around till he was 35, 36 (until 2008ish), he still would have been cheap and probably productive (relatively so) for a corner spot. That's why Emil Brown (Limey - EMIL backwards with some Schtick! to it) is an attractive (though hated by me) corner OF.

I think what all of this boils down to is that every year since 2003, Baird thought we had a contender when we did not and he kept bringing in worthless player after worthless player. This all led to Baird's firing b/c he kept rushing the process. Kansas Citians keep claiming that they won't take this team seriously until we replace/d: 1) Limey Brown, 2) Aaron Guiel, & 3) Angel Berroa. While I agree with these feelings, I say we shouldn't have taken this team seriously. In 2005, we should have had an OF of Limey, Guiel, and Dejesus as we let the minor leaguers develop. Baird should have been honest with the city and said that we have players that can help us win now, but we want to let the guys down low develop more b/c they are the future, we don't want to pay 5 million dollars for a rent-a-player. Then, if he had discussed this with these certain players, he could have made them realize this is a place to revitalize their careers and then become valuable role player free agents or traded to a contending team. Sometimes the truth is a bummer, but would you rather have a bummer and know it, or expect something better and have a team winning .250 in their first 3 months?

In your face Ozzie!

This is the first of many posts from the one and only brandx... I don't claim to know everything because everyone already knows that I do.

Disclaimer: I'm really not conceited, but it's a lot more fun to post on a blog with an attitude and ego the size of the yankees failed payroll - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Recently Ozzie Guillen sat down to piece together the last pieces of his All-Star team, the one that he hopes will give his team homefield advantage in the World Series. For his mandatory Royals choice: Mark Redman. Now, I know that everyone has gone over the statistics and compared Redman to Liriano (who could get God to groundout into an inning ending double play) and even Verlander (also made up of superhuman DNA). I have heard two reasons for choosing a 5-4 record with 5.59 ERA and as many walks as strikeouts:

  1. Make the downtrodden Royals the laughing stock of the MLB in order to do away with the rule that every team must have a representative.
  2. That Ozzie wanted another lefty in his bullpen and since Redman is pitching well of late he made a good fit.

Now, the second argument has been made by many Royals commentators and their argument is based on Redman's recent performances. This is a justified argument. With homefield advantage based on the winner of the All-Star Game, and the White Sox remaining somewhere in the top three teams in baseball, Ozzie would be crazy to do anything but pick players that were garaunteed to help him beat the National League. However, we are forgetting one key component that makes this point of view null and void:

Ozzie Guillen is an opinionated, self-righteous dick.

That's right, now that we bring that back into the picture we see that Guillen probably did pick Redman over many other more qualified players to prove a point. In reality, wouldn't he have picked more of his own players to insure a win and to give his team even more notoriety around the league? This was a chance for him to make a point and to rub the Royals' noses into the ground.

But, there is good news to this tale my friends, Redman pitched a game worthy of an All-Star nomination last night. He really only made one regrettable pitch (which Vernon Wells hit to Toronto). Aside from that one pitch Redman only kept one of the more prolific offensive clubs in the majors to 2 runs. That's right, 2 runs. And, the hits (forgetting Wells' shot to Mars) were not extremely hard hit balls and were really just quality at bats that Redman couldn't quite finish. Really, if you look at Redman since he came back from Bereavement leave he has pitched astonishingly well. No, he has not looked like a Cy Young winner, but he has put the Royals in a position to win every game since his return, and most of those were quality outings. So I say Redman is a solid pick for the Royals... maybe there were a few more deserving, but Redman has stuck to Ozzie by shining in his laest outing. My only hope is that he continues to shine after the Mid-summer Classic. It's really just too bad that Redman won't throw a single pitch in the game, because Guillen will be too busy proving his point.


Wednesday, July 05, 2006


This begins my quest to have Buddy Bell replaced, for numerous reasons... first being, "his" book is fraggin' boring and I can't get passed the first chapters.

second, this isn't the team for him and never will be. He clearly needs better, older talent to be an effective coach (and this is giving him the benefit of the doubt). Some of my friends, while not liking him as our coach, still think he COULD be a good coach and since I respect said friends, I am willing to concede some ground.

I don't think he can ever be a good coach. He was a loser player, coached for loser teams, and now managers a team with the psychological outset of losers. We're the self-fulfilling prophecy. The kid who is told he can't get the pretty girl, but could if he had more confidence. Buddy Bell isn't that guy. We need a coach who won't take shit from anyone (especially Fatty Hernandez who doesn't care enough about hte game to lose 30 pounds).

We need a coach who doesn't think so highly of veterans with nothing left; i.e. Scott Elarton; you don't put an old man throwing 86 MPH out in the 8th inning when he's pitched over 100 pitches and hasn't thrown strikes all night. You can be the smartest pitcher in the world, but some nights you don't have command and you get TIRED!

Who do I want, the dear reader may ask? I don't know. But I know what characteristics in a manager that I want. I want a manager who will be firm, not listen to his player when he knows he's done for the night, overmatched. Someone who garners respect from players, fans, and media personnel. Someone that regards statistics with some dignity, who doesn't run SISCO out every night for the lefty matchup when it doesn't work, or puts Dessens in with runners on when the stats show that OPPONENTS are hitting over .280 on him (and the case where this happened, guess what, they SCORED). I want a smart manager that understands the game, understands his opponents, and most importantly, knows how to win. Tony Pena knew how to win in 2003, he went crazy in 04/05, but for one year, we had the coach we needed. Moore needs to find that coach, but one that is more consistent and doesn't rely on the same tricks (We Believe, Together we Can). Dayton, find some crafty veteran manager or some guy I have never heard of, but if you're going to retread someone, find someone who knows how to be a winner and that gets respect.

Why respect? B/c this team has no pitching, which means we won't be good for quit a time... BUT, as an organization, we need to get respect from the league to get decent free agents and some good face time on ESPN where the AREN"T making fun of us. Dayton's hiring was one step forward, banning reporters was 4 steps back. Get respected manager (a player's manager) and get interest from players around the league. Perk players and fans' interest alike.

I beg you.

My only question is, do you fire Buddy now or at the end.

There are pros and cons to both. Fire him now and you may hinder his bad ideas and poor development of the players. Fire him now, though, and you may not get a decent manager. Fire him now if you know who you want and he's currently not working b/c if we get a headstart this season, then next may not be such a wash after all.

Just when you thought...

It seemed like the Royals had turned a corner, winning series against all the NL teams, but the Reds. Life seemed good, they were playing above average baseball adn putting runs on the board!

Sadly, just when things looked up (and we all knew they wouldn't win every series, every time), Buddy Bell friggs things up again.

Follow the reasoning, maybe you disagree; I was at the Minnesota game July 3rd and saw the whole thing go down.

1) Scott Elarton was not pitching particularly well. Whether you believe Moneyball thoughts and general consensus, you want your pitcher throwing 1st pitch strikes to get the batter down in the count and thinking. Scott did this sparingly. All night he was battling from 2-0, 3-0 counts. Kudos to only giving up 3 runs pitching w/o usual command.
2) In a close game, when you are beating someone you shouldn't be, you don't want to give free runners. In the 8th, for whatever reason, Buddy made the moronic decision to put Elarton back in after he had a) pitched more than 105 pitches, and b) not pitched first, second pitch strikes all night long. My Buddy's plan obviously failed when Scott walked the first batter on 4 straight pitches, opening the window to a MN comeback; and comeback they did.

You may disagree with me about Buddy's decision affecting the rest of the inning, but things often snowball. You lie to your friend, a small lie, but then you have to start telling other lies to cover the first and eventually everything snowballs. Wellemeyer gets the first out, then gives up a hit, so what happens, Buddy makes bad decision #2.

He goes for the lefty-lefty match up. I don't believe in it, especially/ESPECIALLY, when your lefty pitcher is having a horrible year and not getting anyone out. After Affeldt had been warming up in the 7th, one would assume you bring in that lefty, who has been pitching better out of relief. Instead, my Buddy brings in Sisco who promptly gives up a run. Then Burgie comes in and wild pitches and then Buck throws everything away.

This is the corner I had hoped to turn. We have too many veterans for this poor thinking, poor strategizing, and poor play to continue. Burgos should be sent to AAA, Sisco should be sent to AAA. No closer you ask? Joe Nelson closed in AAA for a few games and can clearly do it. OR suffer with Affeldt for a couple weeks till MacDougie gets healthy. Saavy?

Youth movements are redonkulous when you have subpar veterans (Elarton, Dessens, Redman, Sanders) and overmatched youth (Sisco, Burgos, Nunez, Greinke, Howell).

This leads to my next comment, I congratulate you Dayton for showing character and patience in your decision to keep Greinke in AA and slowly move him along. This is what should have been done with all our youths, and if it were possible to trade some of the youthful ones, you should for other youth that haven't been tainted by Baird's Rush Plan. If some of the youth show the fortitude to keep their confidence, then they WILL be good players, but for instance, Sisco is overmatched and seems unsure of himself on the mound. Burgos has no command and no respect for the "thinking" portion of the game. THINK how good he could be with COMMAND and his STUFF. Sadly, he's not half the player he could be b/c he has no control, making his stuff suspect.