KCRag Forum

I have been a "proud" season ticket holder for 8 years.  not my parents, me.

KCPowercat wrote: I have been a "proud" season ticket holder for 8 years.  not my parents, me.

Good to know but may I ask - how do you afford KSU football, Thiefs Football, KSU hoops, AND the Royals season tix packages every year?


W/o a trust fund, I have to call BS on you.

Maitre D wrote: Good to know but may I ask - how do you afford KSU football, Thiefs Football, KSU hoops, AND the Royals season tix packages every year?


W/o a trust fund, I have to call BS on you.

Just for what it's worth, I learned the hard way to NEVER make assumptions about anyone elses  personal finances!

head fry cook pays well I guess.

omenapt wrote: Just for what it's worth, I learned the hard way to NEVER make assumptions about anyone elses  personal finances!

Generally, I'd agree.

But when a person makes a slam about someone's parents paying for stuff, I think it's only fair to return the favor & ask how he can drop 5K on tix each year as a young urbanite.

Maybe it's all on CitiCard, I dunno.....

Not only the money, but where the hell do you find the time to attend all these games??? Seems like it would be more of a chore than anything.

just clarifying they weren't my family's tickets...not a slam at all.

guess that's what minimum gas buying can do for you.  feel free to pm me if you would like further details...we have a hot royals team to discuss.

Obv, he has partial season tix to these sports.  That's what's going on here.

Maitre D wrote: Good to know but may I ask - how do you afford KSU football, Thiefs Football, KSU hoops, AND the Royals season tix packages every year?


W/o a trust fund, I have to call BS on you.

Don't forget the royalties from KCSkyscrapers.com!

voltopt wrote: I love this dominance of the National League, but wouldn't you say historically we are an American League city?  The AAA Kansas City Blues, who were the AL Yankees farm club from 1936 until 1955.  The Kansas City Athletics, from 1956-1968, an AL team.  The Kansas City Royals, from 1969-Present, an AL team.  There is even speculation that the Western Association Team called the Kansas City Blues, which only existed for 3 years (1898-1900), essentially became the Washington Senators in 1901 with the founding of the American League, who of course later became the AL Minnesota Twins...

No!  Kansas City has a long and proud association with the National League (the Cowboys- 32-89 in 1886!  WOOOOO!)

Maitre D wrote: Hey, I'm on the same page re: the Cards being over-rated due to leagues.  But still, I bet we'd finish behind them if we shared a division.  They have a better team IMO.  And most of this decade, it was 25 games better.

And that bet is based on...what?  That the Cardinals have been successful so far this year pretty much took everyone by surprise.  They were supposed to be one of the league's bottom feeders, and as Lenexa mentioned, they've basically gotten by on smoke and mirrors this year.  Todd Wellemeyer has played a key role in their success, pulling a career year out of nowhere at the age of 30 -- how long is that going to last?  I'm not necessarily saying they don't have a better team -- the Royals set the bar so low here that you could step over it.  But I certainly don't think the difference is so stark this year, and if the Royals take the season series (especially if they win the series this weekend to go 5-1 or 6-0), I think it'll be tough to make the argument that the Cardinals are a better team.  What they've done for most of this decade is irrelevant -- we're not discussing whether the 2004 Cardinals were better than this or past Royals teams, we're talking about the here and now.  The Cardinals may or may not finish higher than the Royals if they both played in the same division; there's no way of knowing (although, in addition to going 3-0 against the Cardinals themselves this year, the Royals are currently 10-3 against their league -- extremely small sample, but it certainly seems as though the Royals wouldn't have much trouble with the sort of competition St. Louis faces).  All you can know for certain is how each team fares in the division where it actually does play (where the deck is heavily slanted in favor of the Cards and against the Royals) and how they fare head-to-head (where the Royals currently hold a 3-0 advantage going into this weekend's series).  The Cardinals have been the better team for years, no doubt about it.  They may still be the better team now.  But I wouldn't be so quick to crown them out of hand, especially when they just got swept in their own stadium.

Milwaukee has discussed coming back.  KC needs to move to the NL and move now - no matter what KCMax says about the leagues being the same.

I don't think Max ever said the leagues were the same, just that they tend to swing back and forth over time.  The AL is quite clearly the much stronger league right now, but it won't necessarily remain that way forever.  In ten or fifteen or twenty years, maybe the NL Royals would come to lament having ever switched.  I believe that was basically the argument the last time this came up.  My argument is much simpler: If the Royals build a quality team through strong drafts, solid trades, and maybe a good free agent signing here or there, they can compete in the AL.  I can't pretend a WS wouldn't be nice regardless how it comes, but I think I'd rather rely on a competently-run organization, which can succeed regardless of the league, than to hope for a fluke.  I don't want to pray for the pieces to fall just right, I want to watch the Royals carve up an inferior team.  They don't have to switch to the NL to do that, and switching to the NL alone isn't going to allow them to do that unless you think that this team could potentially luck out like the 2006 Cardinals did.  Bottom line, they must build a better team.  And there's even some advantage to staying in the AL -- they won't get embarrassed like last year's Rockies did when they have to face real competition in the World Series.  Maybe staying in the AL means they don't make the World Series in the first place, but then again, a team that contends for the playoffs and never does anything with it is just, well, the Chiefs.  Just my personal preference, but I'd rather see the Royals keep fighting the uphill battle and win it the smart way than switch leagues and get exposed in October (or pull off an unrepeatable victory through sheer luck).

Royals do it again!  Greinke not as sharp as usual but gets it done.  He was kinda off and on, but the offense continues to impress.

Pendergast wrote: Royals do it again!  Greinke not as sharp as usual but gets it done.   He was kinda off and on, but the offense continues to impress.

Greinke may have not been as sharp as usual but still managed 10 k's and no walks.  I'd say that says something about what we've got!

11-4 in their last 15, 8-2 in their last 10, 4-1 in their last 5.

I can live with this. Now just make a run at being competitive and I'll be happy....for now.

Yes, the NL record is impressive, but we aren't playing the best teams right now. But, they are the Royals, they aren't supposed to beat anyone. At least that's what SportsCenter and National folks think.

.500 boys, come one.

What happened to the Turd Bird crowd?

AllThingsKC wrote: What happened to the Turd Bird crowd?

WTF?  I'm still here until we leave last place in the standings.


GMAFB.

Maitre D wrote: WTF?   I'm still here until we leave last place in the standings.


GMAFB.

Could be tonight - only a half back from the slipping Indians.  Cleveland is starting to fall apart and things will only get worse once they inevitably deal C.C. over the next few weeks. 

Ez Street wrote: 11-4 in their last 15, 8-2 in their last 10, 4-1 in their last 5.

I can live with this. Now just make a run at being competitive and I'll be happy....for now.

Yes, the NL record is impressive, but we aren't playing the best teams right now. But, they are the Royals, they aren't supposed to beat anyone. At least that's what SportsCenter and National folks think.

.500 boys, come one.

You mean 9-1 in their last 10

LenexatoKCMO wrote: Could be tonight - only a half back from the slipping Indians.  Cleveland is starting to fall apart and things will only get worse once they inevitably deal C.C. over the next few weeks. 

Cleveland has outscored their opponents tho.  Their record isn't indicative of a team that's doing that.   Should be a winning team.