|
The Royals dominate a top 10 list!
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 4:12 PM
The Royals dominate a top 10 list!
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 4:18 PM
RE: The Royals dominate a top 10 list!
Given that Dave Cameron is the author, that is not surprising in the least. Man has never said a positive thing about KC.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 4:39 PM
RE: The Royals dominate a top 10 list!
GeorgeBrettsPineTar wrote: Given that Dave Cameron is the author, that is not surprising in the least. Man has never said a positive thing about KC. The idea that this organization deserves positive things to be written about them is insane to me. Since Dayton Moore took over, the Royals are 467-610. They have developed one starting pitcher to pitch more than a handful of games and he's recovering from Tommy John surgery right now. And they continue to do baffling things like keep Luke Hochevar around and extend mediocre at best position players like Jeff Francoeur. Until they prove they can do anything competently, they don't deserve any positive reinforcement.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 4:50 PM
RE: The Royals dominate a top 10 list!
JockItch34 wrote:
GeorgeBrettsPineTar wrote: Given that Dave Cameron is the author, that is not surprising in the least. Man has never said a positive thing about KC.
The idea that this organization deserves positive things to be written about them is insane to me. Since Dayton Moore took over, the Royals are 467-610. They have developed one starting pitcher to pitch more than a handful of games and he's recovering from Tommy John surgery right now. And they continue to do baffling things like keep Luke Hochevar around and extend mediocre at best position players like Jeff Francoeur. Until they prove they can do anything competently, they don't deserve any positive reinforcement. There are a few "writers" though that go out of their way to put down everything the Royals do. Cameron is one of them. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 5:01 PM
RE: The Royals dominate a top 10 list!
The fact that he has Guthrie on the list but does not have Rafael Soriano tells me he is missing something. Soriano is getting $14M for two years. Guthrie is getting $8.3M and the Nationals had to give up their first round draft pick. It was a knee jerk reaction to blowing the two lead in the playoffs.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 5:05 PM
RE: The Royals dominate a top 10 list!
How can Santana even make the list? we gave up nothing. Sure we owe him a lot of money, but its just for one year. Whats the negative? What are the odds that if Seattle had made the deal he would of parsed it as a "smart low risk" move? Id say pretty good
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 5:27 PM
Re: The Royals dominate a top 10 list!
I pretty much agree with the entire list, we're going to end up spending close to 80 million for shields, Davis, Guthrie, and Santana? You're telling me you couldn't have spent that money better?
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 5:29 PM
RE: The Royals dominate a top 10 list!
--------------------------------------------- --- ryansublett wrote: JockItch34 wrote:
GeorgeBrettsPineTar wrote: Given that Dave Cameron is the author, that is not surprising in the least. Man has never said a positive thing about KC.
The idea that this organization deserves positive things to be written about them is insane to me. Since Dayton Moore took over, the Royals are 467-610. They have developed one starting pitcher to pitch more than a handful of games and he's recovering from Tommy John surgery right now. And they continue to do baffling things like keep Luke Hochevar around and extend mediocre at best position players like Jeff Francoeur. Until they prove they can do anything competently, they don't deserve any positive reinforcement. There are a few "writers" though that go out of their way to put down everything the Royals do. Cameron is one of them. --------------------------------------------- You could say that. You could also say that if a baseball analyst took a negative view of the Royals, they were correct far more often than not. Let's try this differently: can you think of a case where Cameron was overly negative and wrong? Don't get me wrong, I do not like Cameron and don't read him. I just take issue with the "this guys is biased against X team in general" viewpoint. I think most analyst at least try to give an unbiased opinion. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 5:44 PM
RE: The Royals dominate a top 10 list!
Gbwoy wrote:
You could say that. You could also say that if a baseball analyst took a negative view of the Royals, they were correct far more often than not.
Let's try this differently: can you think of a case where Cameron was overly negative and wrong?
Don't get me wrong, I do not like Cameron and don't read him. I just take issue with the "this guys is biased against X team in general" viewpoint. I think most analyst at least try to give an unbiased opinion. Sure I can. Whats so bad about the Santana deal? The Royals gave up Brandon Sisk who if hes lucky will be a situational lefty. Not exactly a high price. Yes they will pay him a lot of money, but its not long term its one year. If it doesnt work out the Royals really are no worse off than they were before. Are there reasons not to like the move? sure, there also some evidence he could bounce back. His strike outs and walks were right in line with his past seasons. His home run rate went way up. who knows what the reason for that was, but if that gets figured out he should do well. Where ever you stand on the move though its a stretch to call it one of the 10 worst moves of the offseason. I can name one move for sure worse than that and it was Soranio to the Nats. I could probably name more as well... The Guthrie deal I think we overpaid slightly, but not overly so. I would of preferred 2 years, but again one of the worst moves of the offseason? thats an exaggeration |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 5:51 PM
RE: The Royals dominate a top 10 list!
They're paying 13 million dollars to a guy with over a 5 ERA last year and declining velocity, it was an awful deal The angels are a much smarter organization than the royals, if they aren't willing to pay 13 million to keep Santana, there's something wrong --------------------------------------------- --- ryansublett wrote: Gbwoy wrote:
You could say that. You could also say that if a baseball analyst took a negative view of the Royals, they were correct far more often than not.
Let's try this differently: can you think of a case where Cameron was overly negative and wrong?
Don't get me wrong, I do not like Cameron and don't read him. I just take issue with the "this guys is biased against X team in general" viewpoint. I think most analyst at least try to give an unbiased opinion. Sure I can. Whats so bad about the Santana deal? The Royals gave up Brandon Sisk who if hes lucky will be a situational lefty. Not exactly a high price. Yes they will pay him a lot of money, but its not long term its one year. If it doesnt work out the Royals really are no worse off than they were before. Are there reasons not to like the move? sure, there also some evidence he could bounce back. His strike outs and walks were right in line with his past seasons. His home run rate went way up. who knows what the reason for that was, but if that gets figured out he should do well. Where ever you stand on the move though its a stretch to call it one of the 10 worst moves of the offseason. I can name one move for sure worse than that and it was Soranio to the Nats. I could probably name more as well... The Guthrie deal I think we overpaid slightly, but not overly so. I would of preferred 2 years, but again one of the worst moves of the offseason? thats an exaggeration --------------------------------------------- |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 5:51 PM
RE: The Royals dominate a top 10 list!
Gbwoy wrote:
---------------------------------------------
--- ryansublett wrote:
JockItch34 wrote:
GeorgeBrettsPineTar wrote: Given that Dave Cameron is the author, that is not surprising in the least. Man has never said a positive thing about KC.
The idea that this organization deserves positive things to be written about them is insane to me. Since Dayton Moore took over, the Royals are 467-610. They have developed one starting pitcher to pitch more than a handful of games and he's recovering from Tommy John surgery right now. And they continue to do baffling things like keep Luke Hochevar around and extend mediocre at best position players like Jeff Francoeur. Until they prove they can do anything competently, they don't deserve any positive reinforcement. There are a few "writers" though that go out of their way to put down everything the Royals do. Cameron is one of them.
---------------------------------------------
You could say that. You could also say that if a baseball analyst took a negative view of the Royals, they were correct far more often than not.
Let's try this differently: can you think of a case where Cameron was overly negative and wrong?
Don't get me wrong, I do not like Cameron and don't read him. I just take issue with the "this guys is biased against X team in general" viewpoint. I think most analyst at least try to give an unbiased opinion. I always find it interesting that he goes out of his way to be negative about the Royals, even more so than other teams that have sucked, but yet very rarely has anything negative to say about his boy Jack Z. In fact he goes out of his way to give fellatio to Jack who sports a 288-360 record that is highly inflated by his first year, since then he has had a 101,95,&87 loss seasons...not exactly setting the world on fire and he has a much higher payroll & more talent in the system when he got the job. codylshs wrote: I'm right about everything else so it is as good as done..case closed
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 5:52 PM
Re: The Royals dominate a top 10 list!
Ok GM, how would you have done it differently? Not ripping you, just want to know your ideas.....
---------------------------------------------
--- wilson123 wrote:
I pretty much agree with the entire list, we're going to end up spending close to 80 million for shields, Davis, Guthrie, and Santana? You're telling me you couldn't have spent that money better?
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 5:55 PM
Re: The Royals dominate a top 10 list!
Edwin Jackson
Brandon McCarthy
Marcum
Joe Saunders
Same amount of money and we still keep Myers and Odorizzi, plus I think this group outperforms the group we have anyways
---------------------------------------------
--- kerg01 wrote:
Ok GM, how would you have done it differently? Not ripping you, just want to know your ideas.....
---------------------------------------------
--- wilson123 wrote:
I pretty much agree with the entire list, we're going to end up spending close to 80 million for shields, Davis, Guthrie, and Santana? You're telling me you couldn't have spent that money better?
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 6:33 PM
RE: The Royals dominate a top 10 list!
--------------------------------------------- --- ryanluvstony wrote: Gbwoy wrote:
---------------------------------------------
--- ryansublett wrote:
JockItch34 wrote:
GeorgeBrettsPineTar wrote: Given that Dave Cameron is the author, that is not surprising in the least. Man has never said a positive thing about KC.
The idea that this organization deserves positive things to be written about them is insane to me. Since Dayton Moore took over, the Royals are 467-610. They have developed one starting pitcher to pitch more than a handful of games and he's recovering from Tommy John surgery right now. And they continue to do baffling things like keep Luke Hochevar around and extend mediocre at best position players like Jeff Francoeur. Until they prove they can do anything competently, they don't deserve any positive reinforcement. There are a few "writers" though that go out of their way to put down everything the Royals do. Cameron is one of them.
---------------------------------------------
You could say that. You could also say that if a baseball analyst took a negative view of the Royals, they were correct far more often than not.
Let's try this differently: can you think of a case where Cameron was overly negative and wrong?
Don't get me wrong, I do not like Cameron and don't read him. I just take issue with the "this guys is biased against X team in general" viewpoint. I think most analyst at least try to give an unbiased opinion. I always find it interesting that he goes out of his way to be negative about the Royals, even more so than other teams that have sucked, but yet very rarely has anything negative to say about his boy Jack Z. In fact he goes out of his way to give fellatio to Jack who sports a 288-360 record that is highly inflated by his first year, since then he has had a 101,95,&87 loss seasons...not exactly setting the world on fire and he has a much higher payroll & more talent in the system when he got the job. --------------------------------------------- I'm a bit confused...you do realize that Cameron is a stats guy, right? It kinda stands to reason that he would support moves by a stats inclined GM. That's not so much a bias against the Royals as a bias for organizations that value similar ways of thinking. Maybe that's just splitting hairs, but I see it as a big difference. One is ating on the Royals for the hell of it. The other is hating on the Royals because you dislike the way they run the org. And ryan, I need something that has already happened. Not something Cameron has a chance to be wrong on, or something you think he might be wrong on. Something he trashed the Royals for that wound up being a positive for them. I agree with what you're saying in general, but it doesn't prove a bias against the Royals. For example, had he trashed the Royals for picking up Soria in the Rule V, that would qualify. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
- reid82
- Wilmington Blue Rock
- 248 posts this site
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 6:39 PM
Re: The Royals dominate a top 10 list!
How he doesn't include trading Trevor Bauer for the flaming pile of average that is Didi Gregorious is beyond me. Six years of a guy who can win a Cy Young vs. six years of a guy who MIGHT be a league average SS... come on.
I also think it's funny that some of the more advanced stats guys look at Guthrie and don't pay attention to his performance away from Camden Yards/outside of Colorado over the years. He was very effective as a road pitcher as an Oriole.
When the guy is in a more pitcher-friendly environment than Camden Yards, he has pitched like a pretty solid No. 3 pitcher.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 6:47 PM
RE: The Royals dominate a top 10 list!
Gbwoy wrote:
-
---------------------------------------------
I'm a bit confused...you do realize that Cameron is a stats guy, right? It kinda stands to reason that he would support moves by a stats inclined GM.
That's not so much a bias against the Royals as a bias for organizations that value similar ways of thinking.
Maybe that's just splitting hairs, but I see it as a big difference. One is
ating on the Royals for the hell of it. The other is hating on the Royals because you dislike the way they run the org.
You do realize that he is a Mariners fan hence his blog uss mariner right? Even if he was strictly supporting moves based on Jack Z stat based moves alone it would be a weak argument since his lover GM has a .444 winning percentage and his whipping boy GM that never makes a good move according to him has a .433 winning percentage with far less resources. He can hate DM's moves and the way he runs the organization but at the end of the day the success rate is quite similar to the guy that he sucks off every chance he gets. codylshs wrote: I'm right about everything else so it is as good as done..case closed
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 6:49 PM
RE: The Royals dominate a top 10 list!
Gbwoy wrote:
I'm a bit confused...you do realize that Cameron is a stats guy, right? It kinda stands to reason that he would support moves by a stats inclined GM.
That's not so much a bias against the Royals as a bias for organizations that value similar ways of thinking.
Maybe that's just splitting hairs, but I see it as a big difference. One is
ating on the Royals for the hell of it. The other is hating on the Royals because you dislike the way they run the org.
And ryan, I need something that has already happened. Not something Cameron has a chance to be wrong on, or something you think he might be wrong on. Something he trashed the Royals for that wound up being a positive for them. I agree with what you're saying in general, but it doesn't prove a bias against the Royals.
For example, had he trashed the Royals for picking up Soria in the Rule V, that would qualify. Sure, you are more likely to support people who think like you, but there are a few stat bloggers(and this is in part why im labled a stat hater) who go out of their way to bash teams that dont share their view on evaluation. Then they defend guys that do share their view despite the results being roughly the same. I mean I get that a stat guy would prefer jack Z over DM I dont have issue with that, but lthe results of the two have been similar. In fact you can argue that jack Z has been worse when you consider he has more resoueces and inhearted the best pitcher in the game. If you want to advocate that a statistical way of thinking is the best way to go Jack Z probably isnt the best horse to hitch your wagon to. Ive also seen Cameron bash a GM for a certain move, and then praise Seattle for a similar move. In fact I think your about to see it. I assume one of the reasons he doesnt like the Santana deal is the same as some stat folks suggested that Santana is injured or an injury waiting to happen. Valid concern, BUT I bet you he praises seattle for the Fielx deal despite their being some concerns about him long term(that have lingered for a couple years). I dont mind anyone giving their opinion on moves. I just want consistancy, and it seems like their are bloggers out there who go more or who made the move rather than what the move was By the way im not saying its crazy not to like the moves. There are valid reasons not to be a fan. Im just saying they arent two of the worst in the offseason. Thats a stretch big time
Last edited 2/11/2013 6:59 PM by ryansublett
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 7:17 PM
RE: The Royals dominate a top 10 list!
Having had all winter to consider the Shields trade, here is the conclusion I have come to:
I AM SICK OF HEARING ABOUT THE ROYALS FUTURE. 
What a refreshing season it would be to win 85 games and be in the pennant race in September! We have been playing for the future for almost 2 decades. As the historic farm system is showing, the prospects don't always work out.
KC isn't going to spend big money signing FA pitchers to multiple year deals. Hard enough to sign their own guys. That is assuming that pitchers want to come here. I don't know if Santana will be any good. Knowing the Royals, he'll probably be terrible. But it's a one year deal and he is flippable in a trade. Hell, Jonathan Sanchez was tradeable so anyone can be dealt.
Here's what I know: The rotation is MUCH better than 2012. 3 of our best 4 starters Chen, Hochevar and Mendoza are competing for 5th starting spot. This was done without affecting the starting lineup although you could make a case that Myers would be RF. Personally, I think KC would have held him in the minors again due to salary.
I would much rather go into the season with Shields, Guthrie, Santana, Davis and _____ along with Duffy, Paulino and Lamb on the way than the crew from 2011.
I'll root for Myers and Odorizzi to do well. They seem like good players and good kids. Montgomery was done in KC org. Leonard is a lottery pick.
Easy for guys in the media to dog the Royals. They are much improved over 2012.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 7:23 PM
RE: The Royals dominate a top 10 list!
I have no problem with Cameron's criticism other than his (and others) continued characterization of Shields as a good but not elite pitcher.
Only 8 pitchers have a higher fWAR than him over the past two seasons. I get that he's got a lot of mileage and some feel he's an injury risk going forward, but to say he's not one of the top 20 SPs (a #1 pitcher by definition) going into this season is madness.
What's most frustrating about that is the fact that you could still make a pretty good case that it was a bad trade even while acknowledging the Shields is a top flight SP.
But, yes, he is spot-on regarding Santana and Guthrie. Dayton totally misread the market for bottom of the rotation SPs. He moved too fast.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2013 7:38 PM
Re: The Royals dominate a top 10 list!
So, you would take a rotation that will be on the disabled list by early May over a bunch of guys that are proven work horses and have proven they are good pitchers?
If you want to bet your rotation does better, I will take it. How much?
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
