How to fix baseball and save the Royals

[KC0KEK]

^^ Of course, there are always loopholes. I'm sure that Glass has checked to see if they exist.

[shinatoo]

Maybe the key word there is "Sell". Is contraction technicaly selling the team? I don't think Mr. Glass would pull something like that he seams like a nice guy, but I don't think he would be unhappy unloading his ballclub.

[KC0KEK]

Right. That could be a loophole, I guess. It all depends on how the terms of sale to Glass were worded, how lawyers would interpret that wording and whether a court would agree.

[KCMax]

Supposedly Tampa Bay has a pretty airtight lease and the Florida AG says he will fight any contraction efforts in Florida. And oh by the way, the Governor is the President's brother.

I just don't see why a sports as successful as MLB would contract. They could make a ton of money simply moving the Devil Rays to Portland or Vegas. If it struggles there, threaten to move again until they build you a nice stadium. Contraction is just a ploy used in CBA talks with labor.

[phuqueue]

2. You cannot have a balanced schedule with 30 teams and two leagues. That makes 15 teams in each league which means there would always have to be an interleague series going on.

Ah, fair point.  I was considering "balance" purely from a perspective of equal number of teams in each division.

3. I agree that having too many teams is bad for base ball but with a real salary cap and a shorter season I don't think adding two teams is going to kill the game. If anything its more incentive for the players union to accept because the "Stars" will have more of an opportunity to get the "star" contract. But that’s all objective so it’s no really worth hashing over again and again.

Adding two teams would probably be all right.  Adding a team to every 1-2 million metro area, as another post suggested, would be a pretty bad idea.

6. As for contraction being fear mongering read this article by Scott Rosner and then let me know what you think.

http://lgst.wharton.upenn.edu/srosner/F ... .11.02.pdf

I found it interesting that the KC Cowboys were the first team ever contracted by MLB.

Let me know what you think.

It's pretty long and I'm rather short on time at the moment, so I'll have to read it later.  I don't have any illusions that contraction isn't a possibility at all, but I'm cautiously optimistic for now.  Even that article is two and a half years old.  As far as I know, MLB hasn't said a word about contraction lately.  A year or so from now, the fate of the Royals will probably start to become more clear.  For now, I'm not too worried.

2. Kansas City and Tampa are not profitable for Major League Baseball. The TV Revenues are nothing and they both receive more money from the league profit sharing and revenue tax then they spend on payroll. If you were one of the top 12 owners who have to pay money to these guys because they wine about not being able to compete and found out that they were pocketing the money instead of spending it on there teams would you want to kick them out.

A lot of teams aren't profitable for MLB, though.  I recall reading a while back that only the Yankees and Indians turn a profit, although now that I've tried to look that up again, it seems like it's a few more teams than just them.  Everything I keep finding is from 2001, so it's a little old now.  ESPN shows two sets of figures, those from MLB and those from Forbes.  MLB's figures seem to be a bit more pessimistic, but it's up to you which ones you choose to believe.  According to MLB's figures, only nine teams were profitable (and the Royals recorded the smallest loss of any unprofitable team).  According to the Forbes figures, the Royals were actually profitable (as were nineteen other teams).  Obviously, that stuff is a little old now, but it's the most recent I could find quickly.

Maybe the key word there is "Sell". Is contraction technicaly selling the team? I don't think Mr. Glass would pull something like that he seams like a nice guy, but I don't think he would be unhappy unloading his ballclub.

I don't know how the law would view it, but when you get contracted, the team is bought by MLB.  Whether or not that would legally constitute a sale as if David Glass were selling it to some other person/group, I don't know, but contraction does involve selling the team back to the league.

[Beermo]

got into an argument the other day with a friend of mine about the royals and glass and the money he gets and the money he spends. my friend makes huge money (over 100k, easy) compared to me and his argument was that glass is a businessman who is in business to make money and why should he dig in his pocket to pay salaries and what's wrong with glass taking the extra money that's left over after paying salaries and keeping it. my argument was why can't he just either sit at home and collect the interest on his cash or buy something else besides a sports team to make money with. paltry money at that. friend would not budge an inch. said that glass is free to go into whatever business he chooses. i countered with the familiar "homer" attitude. why does he got to take my hometown team and run it into the ground? it sucks when someone comes in and buys your team and no matter what his talk is, his walk tells me he doesn't care what i think or if the royals are in the crapper.

that being said........i would like to see a division alignment that uses the european soccer model. mlb goes to  a,b,c, divisions. or just a and b. first year it's all open. after first year teams are placed in a division based on their records. top teams in "a" divison, bottom teams in "b" division. champions of a and b division play for title. 3rd year bottom third teams or bottom 2-4 teams or what ever  in "a" division move to "b" division and top "b" teams move up to "a" division. all teams regardless of division only play teams in their division so that the "a" teams won't get the easy wins from the crap teams. and the crap teams won't be getting their asses kicked by the top teams all the time. or something like that. also you will get a financial incentive to get to and stay in the "a" division. and that incentiv e doesn't even have to be an actual cash payout. you could just make more money being in the "a" division and having the top teams with the top players come to your town. attendance would go way up and you would sell more tickets.

mlb already has this going on anyway without the actual structure of it, but now it seems that most of the time the top "a" teams end up playing each other for the championship.

i would also like to see a series involving the royals and t-bones and have them play for the "stateline cup" or whatever you want to call it. while the royals are in the top division of baseball play, it is widely acknowledge that they are playing on the level of an A or AA team. the t-bones are in an independent league with no affiliation and play at an A level or so. let's say the royals kick the t-bones ass every year. so what. the idea isn't necessarily to win the series for either team. the idea would be to give the fans a chance to see both teams together. give fans of both teams a chance to see the other team and give the t-bones players a weekend to play against mlb players and get some interaction going between the 2 teams. they would alternate venues every year. this idea is not as crazy as it might sound. the royals already play omaha every year and in the spring they do play against college teams.

[kurtiebird]

Yeah, Glass is a great business man. He's running the Royals into the ground. If he's being a cheapskate in order to make a bigger profit.... well, let me just say that baseball is not f*cking Wal Mart. You can't put out a cheap-ass crappy product and expect people to line up in droves to see them lose.

I'm not saying it's all about the money. But damn, it's obvious we have gaping holes in our lineup, and Glass didn't lift a finger to fill them. Instead, he chose to use this year as a "throwaway" of sorts. They don't expect to win anything because it's a development year.

Well, nobody wants to go see the sucky Royals lose, and it's showing in the attendance. Glass is making a huge mistake, he's turning us into what the Expos were before they moved to Washington. It won't be long before our average attendance is 5,000 per game.

In this business, you have to spend the money. I'm not saying we have to be the Yankees, but damn, don't just give up because Juan G was a bust. You have to keep trying. I'd say $50 million is a good minimum salary, and would have allowed us to sign a couple of stud players to bolster our hitting. Maybe we'd only be .500, but at least there'd be hope, and people would go to the games.

[phuqueue]

Yeah, Glass is a great business man. He's running the Royals into the ground. If he's being a cheapskate in order to make a bigger profit.... well, let me just say that baseball is not f*cking Wal Mart. You can't put out a cheap-ass crappy product and expect people to line up in droves to see them lose.

I'm not saying it's all about the money. But damn, it's obvious we have gaping holes in our lineup, and Glass didn't lift a finger to fill them. Instead, he chose to use this year as a "throwaway" of sorts. They don't expect to win anything because it's a development year.

Well, nobody wants to go see the sucky Royals lose, and it's showing in the attendance. Glass is making a huge mistake, he's turning us into what the Expos were before they moved to Washington. It won't be long before our average attendance is 5,000 per game.

In this business, you have to spend the money. I'm not saying we have to be the Yankees, but damn, don't just give up because Juan G was a bust. You have to keep trying. I'd say $50 million is a good minimum salary, and would have allowed us to sign a couple of stud players to bolster our hitting. Maybe we'd only be .500, but at least there'd be hope, and people would go to the games.

So, who should have been signed?  Do you even have any of this past offseason's free agents in mind, or do you just want to see the payroll go up just so it'll be a bigger number?  Allard Baird did talk to Cincinnati and Texas about Austin Kearns and Kevin Mench in his search for a power-hitting corner outfielder, but they wanted a young starting pitcher (ie, Greinke) in return.  So instead of just throwing out numbers and talking about "a couple of stud players," how about naming some names?  And maybe, since the youth movement has to be the plan in any small market that wants to win, also mention how these players would fit into the on-going youth movement here (in other words, unless you have someone young and cheap enough to sign a long-term contract, it'd probably be a bad idea to name C, 2B, 3B, SS, CF).

It's easy to speak in vague terms about what should be done, but it's something else entirely to put forth a realistic plan by which it could be done.

[Beermo]

So, who should have been signed?  Do you even have any of this past offseason's free agents in mind, or do you just want to see the payroll go up just so it'll be a bigger number?  Allard Baird did talk to Cincinnati and Texas about Austin Kearns and Kevin Mench in his search for a power-hitting corner outfielder, but they wanted a young starting pitcher (ie, Greinke) in return.  So instead of just throwing out numbers and talking about "a couple of stud players," how about naming some names?  And maybe, since the youth movement has to be the plan in any small market that wants to win, also mention how these players would fit into the on-going youth movement here (in other words, unless you have someone young and cheap enough to sign a long-term contract, it'd probably be a bad idea to name C, 2B, 3B, SS, CF).

It's easy to speak in vague terms about what should be done, but it's something else entirely to put forth a realistic plan by which it could be done.

it's also easy to throw around that "youth movement" statement when you haven't been around long enough to see that the royals "youth movement" goes back to the 80's with no end in sight and 0 cs wins.

youth movement has been made into a euphenism meaning no direction, no prospects in sight and no money for players. it used to mean that the team was getting older and that they were getting rid of the older, unproductive or semi-productive players and going with some great young prospects who might not win for a couple of years.

if you go by the later description of what a youth movement was, than the royals by having a perennial youth movement, are now featuring players who haven't been born yet.

you really need to take a duck identification class. and don't forget the "talk the talk", "walk the walk" theory either.  glass and baird may whisper sweet nothings in your ear but what do their actions say about them. that is the benchmark. what are they actually doing to make the royals better. they can talk shit all day long.

[phuqueue]

it's also easy to throw around that "youth movement" statement when you haven't been around long enough to see that the royals "youth movement" goes back to the 80's with no end in sight and 0 cs wins.

youth movement has been made into a euphenism meaning no direction, no prospects in sight and no money for players. it used to mean that the team was getting older and that they were getting rid of the older, unproductive or semi-productive players and going with some great young prospects who might not win for a couple of years.

if you go by the later description of what a youth movement was, than the royals by having a perennial youth movement, are now featuring players who haven't been born yet.

you really need to take a duck identification class. and don't forget the "talk the talk", "walk the walk" theory either.  glass and baird may whisper sweet nothings in your ear but what do their actions say about them. that is the benchmark. what are they actually doing to make the royals better. they can talk shit all day long.

How the hell would you know how long I've been around?  Don't talk to me like I jumped on the bandwagon two years ago and was too stupid to jump back off.  I witnessed all of the futility of the 1990s.  But I'm not some idiot fairweather fan who just looks at the loss column and assumes Allard Baird has no idea what he's doing.

You're confusing youth movement and rebuilding.  Rebuilding is the euphemism people like to throw around.  It sounds positive, it sounds like they've fallen and they're trying to get back up, but all it really means is they're losing.  That's what the Royals have been doing all these years.

Youth movement means you jettison everyone that's too old and/or too expensive, cultivate talent in your farm system, and bring it up together.  People like to point to the mid/late-90s, but Johnny Damon, Jermaine Dye, and Carlos Beltran do not constitute a youth movement.  They're only outfielders, and they didn't even come up together.  The Royals are in a real youth movement now.  The starting rotation includes Greinke, Hernandez, and Bautista.  The bullpen includes Sisco, Affeldt, MacDougal, Burgos, Wood, Snyder, and Cerda (ten of thirteen Royals pitchers).  Position players: DeJesus, Buck, Teahen, Gotay, Berroa, Harvey.  This is the third year for the oldest of these players, but it's the first or second for almost all of them.  The rest of the team is stopgaps that will be gone when there's someone to replace them.  Sweeney is the only exception to the rule, an aging and expensive player who probably isn't going anywhere.  He should be the full-time DH in a year or two.  Something to keep in mind about the Royals is that a couple years back they finally realized that they need pitching instead of hitting and changed their philosophy accordingly.  That's why they're bringing up Greinkes and Bautistas now, instead of putting New York's 2008 starting lineup out on the field.  In the short run, it means the Royals are even worse than they would be if they could put up big offensive numbers, but in the long run, it means they'll have the pitching to compete for something better than third place.  After all, let's not forget what fueled the early 2003 surge and brought everything crashing down after the All Star break.  Early on, they had guys like Runelvys Hernandez and Mike MacDougal dominating.  Later on, the staff fell victim to injuries and ineffectiveness, the pitching faltered, and the Royals blew a seven game lead.  It's all about pitching, and the Royals have only recently realized that.

What do Glass's and Baird's actions say about them?  Well, let's see.  What have they done lately?  There's the most obvious answer, Zack Greinke.  Baird somehow managed to trade aging middle reliever Jason Grimsley for Pedro Martinez's 23-year-old cousin with a 98-mph fastball.  He got in on a Mets/Pirates trade that had nothing to do with the Royals to pry Justin Huber away from New York.  Last year, he tried to do exactly what people want him to do, open the checkbook and bring in some veterans, but it didn't work for the obvious reason that if the Royals can afford them, there's got to be something wrong with them.  Now he's trying an alternative, the only way the Royals have any shot at all to win.

You can be pessimistic, you can sit there and whine about it all you want.  I think Baird has been making good moves that will eventually pay off, so I'm optimistic and I'm patient.  I never expected the Royals to win this year, so I'm not having any sort of knee-jerk reaction to a nine game losing streak.  Time will tell on this team, and if you don't have the patience to wait, I'm sure if you order now you can probably still find seats in Yankee Stadium.

[Beermo]

How the hell would you know how long I've been around?  Don't talk to me like I jumped on the bandwagon two years ago and was too stupid to jump back off.  I witnessed all of the futility of the 1990s.  But I'm not some idiot fairweather fan who just looks at the loss column and assumes Allard Baird has no idea what he's doing.

You're confusing youth movement and rebuilding.  Rebuilding is the euphemism people like to throw around.  It sounds positive, it sounds like they've fallen and they're trying to get back up, but all it really means is they're losing.  That's what the Royals have been doing all these years.

Youth movement means you jettison everyone that's too old and/or too expensive, cultivate talent in your farm system, and bring it up together.  People like to point to the mid/late-90s, but Johnny Damon, Jermaine Dye, and Carlos Beltran do not constitute a youth movement.  They're only outfielders, and they didn't even come up together.  The Royals are in a real youth movement now.  The starting rotation includes Greinke, Hernandez, and Bautista.  The bullpen includes Sisco, Affeldt, MacDougal, Burgos, Wood, Snyder, and Cerda (ten of thirteen Royals pitchers).  Position players: DeJesus, Buck, Teahen, Gotay, Berroa, Harvey.  This is the third year for the oldest of these players, but it's the first or second for almost all of them.  The rest of the team is stopgaps that will be gone when there's someone to replace them.  Sweeney is the only exception to the rule, an aging and expensive player who probably isn't going anywhere.  He should be the full-time DH in a year or two.  Something to keep in mind about the Royals is that a couple years back they finally realized that they need pitching instead of hitting and changed their philosophy accordingly.  That's why they're bringing up Greinkes and Bautistas now, instead of putting New York's 2008 starting lineup out on the field.  In the short run, it means the Royals are even worse than they would be if they could put up big offensive numbers, but in the long run, it means they'll have the pitching to compete for something better than third place.  After all, let's not forget what fueled the early 2003 surge and brought everything crashing down after the All Star break.  Early on, they had guys like Runelvys Hernandez and Mike MacDougal dominating.  Later on, the staff fell victim to injuries and ineffectiveness, the pitching faltered, and the Royals blew a seven game lead.  It's all about pitching, and the Royals have only recently realized that.

What do Glass's and Baird's actions say about them?  Well, let's see.  What have they done lately?  There's the most obvious answer, Zack Greinke.  Baird somehow managed to trade aging middle reliever Jason Grimsley for Pedro Martinez's 23-year-old cousin with a 98-mph fastball.  He got in on a Mets/Pirates trade that had nothing to do with the Royals to pry Justin Huber away from New York.  Last year, he tried to do exactly what people want him to do, open the checkbook and bring in some veterans, but it didn't work for the obvious reason that if the Royals can afford them, there's got to be something wrong with them.  Now he's trying an alternative, the only way the Royals have any shot at all to win.

You can be pessimistic, you can sit there and whine about it all you want.  I think Baird has been making good moves that will eventually pay off, so I'm optimistic and I'm patient.  I never expected the Royals to win this year, so I'm not having any sort of knee-jerk reaction to a nine game losing streak.  Time will tell on this team, and if you don't have the patience to wait, I'm sure if you order now you can probably still find seats in Yankee Stadium.

i don't know how old you are. i was making an assumption based on what you wrote. i saw no mention of anything after '85 and going into the '90's. you witnessed all of the futility of the '90's. swell, join the club. it's too bad you missed the royals kicking everyone's ass in the late '70's and early 80's. every october it was guaranteed that the royals would be in the playoffs and then meet the yanks for the alcs. it was a nice chapter in their history.

i'm not confusing youth movement or rebuilding. damon and dye were a youth movement. don't you remember those commercials featuring damon and brett. brett was situated as the old guard guy who came from a winner and he was passing the torch or his winning style to damon.

i think you have a great optimistic attitude and i like the way you're sticking up for the royals. i hope it works out for you. it really sucks to see another generation slapped down by the royals. the worst part of their losing is knowing that there are 2-3 generations of kids growing up here that have never seen the royals as winners. i was very lucky in that respect.

when i was growing up i was used to the royals making slick moves in the front office and on the field. almost every guy in their lineup could either kick ass with their bat or their glove and most the time they did both. everybody wore a royals hat back then and you saw a lot of jerseys and bumper stickers around town. when you told someone that you were from kc, they would almost always mention the royals and how good they were. now they make fun of both of us.

i don't believe in the bandwagon. just because you aren't rah-rah for the royals
doesn't mean you jumped off. they are my hometown team. i would like to see them be a success, but after almost 20 years of hollow statements and horrendous moves in the front office and on the field all the rah-rah shit gets old. it wears you down. you keep up with them and occasionally check the box scores, but you find other things to fill your time. things that will bring a smile to your face, not a smirk.

keep on loving your hometown team. if you get lucky they won't break your heart.

[phuqueue]

i don't know how old you are. i was making an assumption based on what you wrote. i saw no mention of anything after '85 and going into the '90's. you witnessed all of the futility of the '90's. swell, join the club. it's too bad you missed the royals kicking everyone's ass in the late '70's and early 80's. every october it was guaranteed that the royals would be in the playoffs and then meet the yanks for the alcs. it was a nice chapter in their history.

i'm not confusing youth movement or rebuilding. damon and dye were a youth movement. don't you remember those commercials featuring damon and brett. brett was situated as the old guard guy who came from a winner and he was passing the torch or his winning style to damon.

i think you have a great optimistic attitude and i like the way you're sticking up for the royals. i hope it works out for you. it really sucks to see another generation slapped down by the royals. the worst part of their losing is knowing that there are 2-3 generations of kids growing up here that have never seen the royals as winners. i was very lucky in that respect.

when i was growing up i was used to the royals making slick moves in the front office and on the field. almost every guy in their lineup could either kick ass with their bat or their glove and most the time they did both. everybody wore a royals hat back then and you saw a lot of jerseys and bumper stickers around town. when you told someone that you were from kc, they would almost always mention the royals and how good they were. now they make fun of both of us.

i don't believe in the bandwagon. just because you aren't rah-rah for the royals
doesn't mean you jumped off. they are my hometown team. i would like to see them be a success, but after almost 20 years of hollow statements and horrendous moves in the front office and on the field all the rah-rah shit gets old. it wears you down. you keep up with them and occasionally check the box scores, but you find other things to fill your time. things that will bring a smile to your face, not a smirk.

keep on loving your hometown team. if you get lucky they won't break your heart.

Well, I was also around for good stuff like the World Series, but it seemed you were putting more of an emphasis on the decades of losing, rather than the decade of winning that preceded them.

Like I said about Damon and Dye (and Beltran, since some throw him in too), I can't consider them a youth movement because they're the only ones that came up at that time.  The year Damon came up, all of the starters had 5+ years of major league experience.  He and Michael Tucker were the only pieces of that "youth movement."  Then Dye came around a couple years later, still no infusion of youth at other positions on the team.  And then Beltran came up a year or two after that, and there was still no youth throughout the rest of the team.  You can't just bring up three outfielders several years apart and call it a youth movement.

[kurtiebird]

So, who should have been signed?  Do you even have any of this past offseason's free agents in mind, or do you just want to see the payroll go up just so it'll be a bigger number?

Don't be stupid. I'm saying they have gaping holes in the lineup that could have been filled by decent players, but they chose not to. You speak of youth movement, but where does Eli Marrero, Terrence Long, and Emil Brown fit into that? They are all around 30 years old. Two of them are hitting around a buck-fifty.

A year ago I wanted the Royals to try to get Ivan Rodriguez. He is definitely a stud that could have helped with our young pitching.

As for this last off season, there were several outfielders we could have tried getting:

• Magglio Ordonez, Detroit, $7.2 million. I know he's out until July because of a hernia operation, but at the time, I thought he'd be worth picking up.
• JD Drew, Dodgers, $9.4 million
• Jeromy Burnitz, Cubs, $4.5 million
  [lil]Steve Finley, Angels, $6 million[/li]

There might be others as well. My point is, Glass probably told Baird to go out and sign some cheap filler guys to plug the holes, and didn't want to chance getting burned by another Juan Gone. The result is a team that will be lucky not to lose 100 games, and many people have given up on the season.

[shaffe]

Magglio Ordonez, Detroit, $7.2 million. I know he's out until July because of a hernia operation, but at the time, I thought he'd be worth picking up.
JD Drew, Dodgers, $9.4 million
Jeromy Burnitz, Cubs, $4.5 million
Steve Finley, Angels, $6 million

the thing about maggs was that boras told teams that he wasn't going to release any medical record until AFTER he was signed.  would you want to sign somebody without knowing whether or not they've recovered from major knee surgery?  as for the rest, and maggs included, in order to sign those guys the royals would've had to overpay to the tune of $2-4 million more (just an estimate there).  are you telling me jd drew is worth 8 figures?  burnitz and finley worth 7 and 9 million respectively?  the reason the payroll is low is because a lot of the team is making league minimum and baird didn't want to overpay for a mediocre free agent this past winter.  believe it or not, folks, barid isn't on a $40 million budget.  he's just been wise and hasn't tied up money into michael tuckers and chuck knoblauchs anymore.  in the next couple of years when it comes time to sign some of our young talent (greinke, dejesus, buck, bautista, ect.) to contracts paryoll will go up.

[KCMax]

Magglio Ordonez, Detroit, $7.2 million. I know he's out until July because of a hernia operation, but at the time, I thought he'd be worth picking up.
JD Drew, Dodgers, $9.4 million
Jeromy Burnitz, Cubs, $4.5 million
Steve Finley, Angels, $6 million

Magg's contract is absurd and if he would have signed here it would have crippled our payroll.
Drew never would have signed here, and he's a Boras client.
Burnitz is not that good.
Finley wanted to play in California.

Its easy to play GM when you're playing fantasy baseball, but the reality is that last year's free agent market was not that great, and many players got vastly overpaid. Frankly, I'm glad Baird stayed out. We're a bad team anyway, a free agent or two would just take us from a 57 win team to a 70 win team, so why waste the money? Let the young pitchers and hitters improve, then invest in the club with free agents when those guys peak.

Making knee jerk reactionary moves just to satisfy fan interest is a horrible way to run a club.

[phuqueue]

Don't be stupid. I'm saying they have gaping holes in the lineup that could have been filled by decent players, but they chose not to. You speak of youth movement, but where does Eli Marrero, Terrence Long, and Emil Brown fit into that? They are all around 30 years old. Two of them are hitting around a buck-fifty.

Should I just copy and paste my other post, bolding the part where I said some members of the team are stopgaps until Baird can get a long-term solution at those positions, or do you think you could find it on your own if you look hard enough?

Notice that all three of those guys are corner outfielders.  And notice that, as I said, Baird has worked hard to get a good, young, power-hitting corner outfielder (specifically, Austin Kearns or Kevin Mench...Kearns isn't exactly tearing it up right now, but Mench is doing quite a bit better than Magglio Ordonez).  It's not as if Allard Baird kicks back, looks at Emil Brown penciled in to play right field, and pats himself on the back for a job well done.  Contrary to what you seem to believe, you can't just have a guy because you want him.

[kurtiebird]

We're the only team in the league that can't sign decent free agents. When we try, we get the Juan Gones of the world who end up sucking. Maybe Baird did try to sign some guys, but bottom line is he failed, and as a result we have huge gaping holes in our lineup. Regarding the stopgaps, what is the long term solution? I'd be interested to know. How long must we tolerate guys in our lineup hitting under .200?

This is getting unbearable. Usually, I go to a few games every year, and listen to or watch the rest. I'm having trouble even wanting to listen on the radio. I was out of town all week, and it was a welcome respite from the gut-wrenching, heart-crushing experience of the day-to-day pissing away of the season.

I'll probably keep listening anyway, and I'll probably go to the one game through my company who has season tickets, but I'll be damned if I pay one penny of my own money to see this crap.

[phuqueue]

We're the only team in the league that can't sign decent free agents. When we try, we get the Juan Gones of the world who end up sucking. Maybe Baird did try to sign some guys, but bottom line is he failed, and as a result we have huge gaping holes in our lineup. Regarding the stopgaps, what is the long term solution? I'd be interested to know. How long must we tolerate guys in our lineup hitting under .200?

Until someone becomes available who can fill their place.  It's not as if the team was going to compete this year anyway, so time isn't really a factor.  Baird has plenty of time to pry Mench or Kearns or someone else away from their current team, or to sign someone next offseason if the right free agent comes along.

Only team in the league that can't sign free agents?  What about all the other teams in exactly the same boat as the Royals?  Devil Rays, Pirates, Brewers, etc.  Even the A's used to be in this position, although their payroll has expanded over the past year or two as they've become more successful and can afford to spend more.

Giving Magglio Ordonez $7.2 million would have been a bad idea, and I'm glad Baird didn't go for it.  If you're unhappy, I'm sure whiny Red Sox fans would always love more company, although at this point you might have trouble getting seats in Fenway.

[kurtiebird]

It's not as if the team was going to compete this year anyway, so time isn't really a factor.

This is the attitude that I can't stand. You try to compete EVERY year. You don't take years off. We've been bad for so long, that everyone just accepts this. Don't underestimate the power of one more good hitter. I mean, look at all the one run losses we have. Even if we didn't win the division, we wouldn't be the laughing stock of baseball, with the worst record and lowest batting average.

Even the A's used to be in this position, although their payroll has expanded over the past year or two as they've become more successful and can afford to spend more.

Money is not the issue, or so Baird tells us. I wouldn't complain about spending if our lineup wasn't so fricking lousy. But when you have gaping holes, you have to fill them.

If you're unhappy, I'm sure whiny Red Sox fans would always love more company

The Royals are my team. I just want them to be good. I think Baird is doing a crappy job in that respect. Maybe we'll be good in a couple of years, I don't know. All I know is that our current lineup sucks, and our "youth movement" contains too many washed up (or never-has-been) older guys.

[Gladstoner]

How to fix baseball....

Remove the balls?