I'm starting to feel bad for KC fans.

by Toxicadam on Jan 9, 2009 11:07 PM EST

I know it's a sports fan sin to show compassion for the opposition, but I am beginning to really feel for these fans. Look at what their offseason consisted of:

Crisp $4.75M

Jacobs $3.5M

Farnsworth $4.25M

H. Ramirez $1.8M

Bloomquist $1.5M

Waechter $640K

TOTAL $16.44M

Wat? We have Indians fans kvetching about the paltry sum of money we spent on Pavano .. and look at that list. For 16.5 million you have a bunch of guys that could be out of the league in 2 years time.

I know the Royals have some exciting prospects in the minors (I believe 2 of their guys are top 20 BA), but what's the point if you surround them with these guys?

It's hard to blame the inequities of baseball on the Yankees/Sox/Mets/Cubs spending sprees when you have teams that are habitually making decisions like this. It would be nice to see the Royals at least compete once a decade.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Eh, I dunno. The Farnsworth deal is very bad but at a completely forgivable dollar level. The rest of them are appropriate.

I think this is what they should be doing; if they’ve really fixed the farm system plus the player evaluation, they should tread water, let their young guys play, and try to be good in 2-3 years. It doesn’t make any sense to make the sort of signings they have been (Meche, Guillen) even if those signings end up being good values.

Hopefully, these contracts are an indication that they’re dumping the money into the scouting, foreign academies, etc.

by afh4 on Jan 10, 2009 2:28 PM EST reply actions

Rob Neyer was writing about this on Friday after the Bloomquist signing. He looked at the 4 free agents they signed for about $11 million, and noted that’s the difference between good organizations and bad ones: good organizations sign a good player for $11 million while bad ones signed a bunch of average/crappy players for that total. You can find a guy like Bloomquist in your minor leagues who can give you about the same level of production for much less money.

This is what bothers me about organizations like the Royals and Pirates complaining that they can’t afford to sign good players. They can, but they just don’t spend their money wisely. Of course they can’t afford to sign CC or Tex, but most teams can’t. That doesn’t mean you waste your money on replacement-level players. You use your money to sign a guy like Dunn or Burrell who can actually help your team.

Yes, I do feel sorry for Royals fans.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 10, 2009 3:06 PM EST reply actions

Who are they going to sign for 11 million dollars? They’ve got a lot of young guys who profile a lot like Dunn and Burrell (Butler, the Hawaiian kid, Hosmer).

No, these signings don’t make them any better at the major league level but so what? That shouldn’t be their focus-they need to build their farm and be able to play guys as soon as they’re ready; it’s a lot easier to sit down Crisp than it is Guillen, plus Guillen is not exactly tradeable .

I’d argue that some of these guys, because of their low dollar values and weird skill sets, are actually valuable assets for a team like the Royals because of deadline trade value. They might be able to turn Coco Crisp into a Max Ramirez type; if Farnsworth pitches, you can always turn a reliever into a decent prospect.

I’m not saying that’s the intended model but a bunch of fungible assets is better to me than a potential albatross signing, which any body at 11 a year has the potential to become.

I’m not sure the Royals are actually improving how they’re run; I just don’t think this offseason is some travesty. It’s a lot better than paying for somebody like Jack Wilson.

by afh4 on Jan 10, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions

You’re right, maybe they didn’t need Dunn or Burrell this year. I was just throwing those names out as examples. Maybe there wasn’t anyone they could sign this year who fit their needs. Then they could have invested that money in their farm system, or saved it for next year when maybe they could find someone who fit their needs.

The point is you don’t spend $2 milion on a guy when you have someone in the minors, or someone you can pick up from another team, that can do the same job at about the same level of production for league minimum. These signings are especially bad this year, when it’s a buyers market and good players are signing for much cheaper than in previous years.

Fangraphs has an article about these signings. also. Each player is projected to barely above replacement level. This is what bad teams do: spend $11 million on replacement level players.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 10, 2009 3:37 PM EST up reply actions

I like Dave Cameron but I feel the way about that post that I often feel about Fangraphs-it’s a little sloppy and misses a lot of nuance. It doesn’t make any sense to me to just look at wins above replacement and call it a day.

1-With regards to Jacobs, you only think he’s that bad if you buy fangraphs assertion that his value with the glove last season was -11.6.

Look, I’ve hardly ever watched Mike Jacobs but I find that hard to believe. -11.6 at 1B? Besides, he can now play DH, he’s at his physical peak, and might hit 25 homeruns. If you’re not trying to actually win at the major league level (which they aren’t), then I don’t see what the big deal is. He’s probably going to be sort of popular. He might even be decent if he’s a full time DH; his OPS last year made him passable at the position.

They’ve got Crisp at a -5.6 last year in CF in those defensive wins above replacement. I mean, I don’t know what to make of these stats but I don’t think it’s a great idea to use them in evaluating player contracts.

And, the larger point is that you can just cut or move Jacobs, easily, to get the young kids in.

2-For those not keeping score at home, Horacio Ramirez actually pitched in Kansas City last year to the tune of a 2.59 ERA and an FIP not much higher. Granted, he exploded in Chicago but there’s probably a narrative here. Did Horacio get along well with the pitching coach? Was he able to make some changes under somebody’s tutelage? On top of that, last year was Ramirez’s first as a reliever after having some modicum of success as a starter early in his career. So, why would you his stats from ’06 and ’07 in judging his value?

If you can resign a guy that you got great performance out of for 1.8 million dollars, you don’t think it’s an ok idea?

3-Farnsworth has stuff and was very good on Moore’s watch in Atlanta. It’s still a stupid signing but, again, relievers are tradeable.

4-Willie Bloomquist: whatever. We play a player who looks a lot like Bloomquist but older more money. Lots of GMs like these guys. Carroll is clearly a superior defender but Willie plays more positions. If your GM wants a super utility (which hopefully he’ll be) and a “positive clubhouse presence” why not get Bloomquist at that dollar level?

Not to get all “gritty” on you but guys like Blomquist keep jobs for a reason; I’ve not looked into it but I’m guessing he’s well liked by managers and coaches. With a ton of young kids coming up, I can see why a team thinks it’s an alright idea to have a mini-Trot Nixon walking around the clubhouse talking about “how to play the game.” Is it what I would do? No. But it’s not indefensible.

Again, though. Obviously, Kansas City wanted to spend a little money, probably generate some buzz among kansascity.com style fans. I don’t think this is a terrible way to do it. Again, I think it’s better than having a single player on a big contract that they can’t move or cut.

by afh4 on Jan 10, 2009 4:09 PM EST up reply actions

pay not play in Bloomquist bullet.

by afh4 on Jan 10, 2009 4:10 PM EST up reply actions

And sorry about writing the word again so much. I am half typing, half watching duke collapse.

by afh4 on Jan 10, 2009 4:11 PM EST up reply actions

My problem with the Jacobs deal is that they traded away an asset (Leo Nunez) to pay Jacobs more money than he’s worth at a position(s) where they have better, cheaper, and younger in-house options. Butler should DH everyday and Kila should be their first baseman.

Jacobs also scores poorly in Plus/Minus and RZR so the defensive metrics seem to be in agreement on his ability in the field.

by ClarkM on Jan 10, 2009 4:29 PM EST up reply actions

I like Dave Cameron but I feel the way about that post that I often feel about Fangraphs-it’s a little sloppy and misses a lot of nuance. It doesn’t make any sense to me to just look at wins above replacement and call it a day.

This is the problem with a lot of amateur statistical research in baseball.

by Jay on Jan 10, 2009 10:29 PM EST up reply actions

I’ll agree with that, also. I don’t think you can put one number on a guy’s value and judge the signing that way. There are many other factors to consider, such team needs. I still agree that all those signings aren’t going to help KC very much and cost too much money.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Jan 11, 2009 9:34 AM EST up reply actions

‘Starting’ to feel sorry for them? I’ve felt pity since the last out of the ‘85 World Series. They had some decent teams with Bo the next few years (93 wins in 1989) but have only finished above .500 once in the last 15 years. And the one year they were kickin’ tushy, with a 14-game winning streak and lead the Central…the strike hits!!!

KC used to be competitive (gasp!) year after year many moons ago. Those who remember those Royals teams of the 70s and early 80s can appreciate that fanbase’s monumental decline from a once proud franchise.

by WallyWorld2 on Jan 20, 2009 12:51 PM EST reply actions