KCRag Forum

Gladstoner wrote: Remove the balls?

That sir, was funny.

Sometimes I can't help myself. When I see it coming, hit or miss, I have to swing.

kurtiebird wrote: 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.

The Royals aren't in a position to compete this year.  Yeah, they've had a lot of one-run losses, some of which might have been wins if they had picked up Burnitz or Drew for an exorbitant sum (but of course, they'd all still be losses if the Royals had gone after Ordonez, since he's not even playing).  But they're not going to be making the playoffs this year either way, so aside from your apparent embarrassment at supporting a "laughing stock," what does it really matter if they win 48 games or 84 (not that they would have come close to that even with any of the three guys you've mentioned)?  Missing the playoffs is missing the playoffs, and if the Royals have to take some lumps for another year in order to get their young core in a position to compete in the future, then fine.

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.

I'm not disagreeing that holes have to be filled.  I'm just disagreeing with overspending on free agents to meet that end.  When Baird says money's not an issue, it's because the money's there to sign the right guy, not because it's there to sign any guy.

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.

If you're going to keep saying that, then we're just going to go in circles here.  You'll complain about washed up players, I'll say they're just stopgaps, you'll ask when they'll be gone, I'll say when Baird finds the right player, you'll complain again that there's too many washed up players, and so forth.  I'm not happy to see Eli Marrero and Terrence Long and Emil Brown getting regular playing time, but that's the way it is for now.  If it stays that way indefinitely, I'll probably start making the same complaints as you, but I'm not going to jump ship on the team and I don't think it's prudent for them to jump into a bidding war with rich teams for marquee players, so I'm going to remain cautiously optimistic about their current plan for now.

I think we're both tired of arguing back and forth. Tell you what, if the Royals even have a winning record in the next three years, I'll admit I'm wrong. I just don't see it happening. After that, we start to lose our young talent to free agency.

I'm not completely down on the Royals, however. I think Burgos may turn out to be the closer we've been needing. Sisco has been very impressive. If Bautista can be consistent, he'll be tough to beat. Teahen looks like a future gold-glover at third the last several games. DeJesus is no Beltran, but he's still pretty good.

Now if we could just replace our washed up guys with some kind of talent, and please, for the sake of my health, stop running MacDougal out there unless we have a 20 run lead. That guy is not good for my blood pressure.

A couple of days ago David Glass clarified on the "The Program" the he cannot profit from the sale of the Royals if they the new owner is moving the team. He can profit if the new owner keep the team in town. I don't know how contraction effects this, but I be there is a loop hole.