The Kansas City Royals

[Paul Pleiss]

Errasing a 29 year play-off drought, the longest in the 4 major professional sports, the Kansas City Royals are playoff bound.

 

It's about damn time.

 

Hopefully it doesn't take the Twins that long to find the post-season again.

[Seth Stohs]

Hopefully!! 

 

It's great to see the Royals make the playoffs... does this make the Wil Myers/Jake Odorizzi trade for James Shields/Wade Davis worthwhile?

 

I will be cheering for the Royals, for sure.

[biggentleben]

Hopefully!! 

 

It's great to see the Royals make the playoffs... does this make the Wil Myers/Jake Odorizzi trade for James Shields/Wade Davis worthwhile?

 

I will be cheering for the Royals, for sure.

 

Shields has been exactly what they needed multiple times to stop a losing streak, which is exactly what an ace should be.  Davis has been arguably the most dominant reliever of the second half and has been untouchable all season.  Even if overpaid as a reliever, this is the time of year where a guy like Davis in your bullpen is invaluable.

[Kwak]

I want to second the motion of trading prospects for talent (Shields).  Many posters blasted that trade as short-sighted, but a huge problem for the Royals was solved--they are no longer irrelevant.

[TheLeviathan]

Yeah, Moore got roundly blasted and he gets the last laugh.   I hope Shields resigns with KC and really cements that deal as a good one for the Royals.  I've found my team to root for this postseason.  

[biggentleben]

While Moore was criticized, this was something I read right after the trade that lauded him.

 

Would you rather have:

 

Zack Greinke, Wil Myers, Yuniesky Betancourt, Jake Odorizzi, Mike Montgomery, and Patrick Leonard

 

or

 

James Shields, Wade Davis, Alcides Escobar, and Lorenzo Cain

 

I remember many people ripping the Royals right away, and while I didn't think it was a win for them, I didn''t think it a poor deal either.

[kab21]

I'm not sure I would have considered it as either or those two deals.  With Greinke the Royals weren't where they are now.  An argument could be made that the Royals should have signed Greinke to a massive extension at that time and then they would have had a better pitcher and kept their prospects.  Or they could have had an awesome rotation with Greinke/Shields.  Money might have been an issue but they aren't spending much.

[biggentleben]

I'm not sure I would have considered it as either or those two deals.  With Greinke the Royals weren't where they are now.  An argument could be made that the Royals should have signed Greinke to a massive extension at that time and then they would have had a better pitcher and kept their prospects.  Or they could have had an awesome rotation with Greinke/Shields.  Money might have been an issue but they aren't spending much.

 

But without moving Greinke, they don't have Escobar and Cain.

[kab21]

The Brewers trade turned out well for both teams but I would easily take Greinke over them.  And I would easily take Greinke over Shields.  At this point I would probably take Odorizzi and Myers over Escobar and Cain.  But none of this really matters because the Royals weren't going to take that step forward in the 1.5 yrs that they had Greinke signed for.  It was the right move at that time and the Shields trade has worked out well for them.  Basically both trades have been win-win trades for all 3 teams.

[Paul Pleiss]

I'm bleeding Royal blue for as long as their magic season goes on.

[Monkeypaws]

Wow, do I love the way the Royals "get after it."

 

They share many traits with good Twins teams, but are even better at certain things.

 

Speed, defense, pitching (good lord the arms), that is fun to watch when they execute as KC has this postseason.

 

Their team power didn't show much during the regular season, but has been timely and killer this post-season.

 

Billy Butler stealing a base was the icing on the cake.

 

They got a fan in me for the rest of this season, although I like the Birds too.

[USAFChief]

How not to manage, by Mike Scosia: you have arguably a more talented offense than your opponent, but you waste three outs with sacrifice bunts (leading to zero runs, btw), thereby giving yourself 24 outs to work with instead of 27, negating a decent portion of the offensive advantage you had before the game started. Then in a must win game, you panic and pull your starter after two outs, requiring you to cycle through your entire bullpen, virtually ensuring you'll run into one or two who are off their game.

 

All that said, it seemed to me the baseball gods decided KC was going to win this series, so maybe it didnt matter anyway. Good for KC, their fans deserve it.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Instead of doing the out of control facial hair schtick, the Royals schtick seems to be overt, on-field celebrations after just about any good play, offense or defense. Oddly, it's not that annoying and it's actually kind of fun. I hope they go all the way!

[JB_Iowa]

Really looking forward to the ALCS. Rooting for the Royals

and the AL Central but happy for the Orioles, too.

[biggentleben]

I'm cheering for the Royals, but I am more cheering against a Mizzou series, so let's go Dodgers! (dang I feel dirty saying that)

[Boom Boom]

Hopefully!! 

 

It's great to see the Royals make the playoffs... does this make the Wil Myers/Jake Odorizzi trade for James Shields/Wade Davis worthwhile?

 

I will be cheering for the Royals, for sure.

 

I'm sure some will argue that the Royals mortgaged their future to go all-in.  I respect the Royals for seizing an opportunity while they have one and not waiting for it to fall in their lap.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

How not to manage, by Mike Scosia: you have arguably a more talented offense than your opponent, but you waste three outs with sacrifice bunts (leading to zero runs, btw), thereby giving yourself 24 outs to work with instead of 27, negating a decent portion of the offensive advantage you had before the game started. Then in a must win game, you panic and pull your starter after two outs, requiring you to cycle through your entire bullpen, virtually ensuring you'll run into one or two who are off their game.

 

All that said, it seemed to me the baseball gods decided KC was going to win this series, so maybe it didnt matter anyway. Good for KC, their fans deserve it.

 

I wonder if Scioscia is on the hot seat for the way he managed in the playoffs - there was an article not that long ago that seemed to imply that he had changed his old school strategies a bit to "favor the sabr," at least during the regular season.

 

But the Royals are pretty good - not sure it would have mattered if he had opted to swing away and had those three outs again.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Yeah, Moore got roundly blasted and he gets the last laugh.   I hope Shields resigns with KC and really cements that deal as a good one for the Royals.  I've found my team to root for this postseason.  

I still disagree with the methodology but the results are there, that's for sure. Good for the Royals. That fanbase needed a shot in the arm and I'll be rooting for them through the playoffs, as they're the ONLY team other than the Dodgers that I don't despise and are still in the hunt.

 

And I don't despise the Dodgers because Vin Scully. That's it.

[James]

I'm definitely cheering for the Royals this offseason.  I've been watching the playoff games, and they are certainly an exciting team to watch.  

 

It's really hard to believe that this is a team that lost 90 games as recently as 2012.  Kind of gives you hope.

[TheLeviathan]

I still disagree with the methodology but the results are there, that's for sure. Good for the Royals. That fanbase needed a shot in the arm and I'll be rooting for them through the playoffs, as they're the ONLY team other than the Dodgers that I don't despise and are still in the hunt.

 

And I don't despise the Dodgers because Vin Scully. That's it.

 

Sometimes the baseball gods smile upon those that dare to be daring.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

I think it's ok for the Shields trade to be the right move for the Royals to make, while a similar move for other teams (the Twins included) could be the wrong move.

 

The Royals had a string of bad luck developing Aces in house, some flamed out, the ones they did manage to develop they had to trade away because they were getting to be too expensive. So trading for one with at least a couple years left made a lot of sense for them. Trading a pair of top prospects was certainly hard, but the positions those prospects played were covered by talented major leaguers.

 

The Twins, in theory, still have a couple arms that are in process of developing, and in theory (there it is again) can spend on signing a free agent Starter where KC cannot.

 

I think the Royals can hang with Baltimore - I've been impressed with Showalter as a manager in the Detroit series, as well as his record with the Orioles the last few years, so it will be interesting to see if managing decisions affect the outcome of the ALCS.

[Steven Buhr]

Saw the video of Hosmer and others partying at a KC bar with fans after the game. The players bought out an "open bar" for an hour and ran up a $15,000 bart tab and ended up spraying champagne out over the crowd.

 

It was a scene I can certainly imagine a handful of the Twins players doing at a Warehouse District bar if/when that opportunity ever presents itself following a clinching game at Target Field. I just hope they get that opportunity some year soon.

[Mike Sixel]

It proves that you can go from 90 losses to competitiveness. ....that you don't have to wait until there is only one hole to fill. ....that what is most likely, is that of you wait, you don't compete, if you try to won, you might.

[Brock Beauchamp]

It proves that you can go from 90 losses to competitiveness. ....that you don't have to wait until there is only one hole to fill. ....that what is most likely, is that of you wait, you don't compete, if you try to won, you might.

Well, that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at it. My issue wasn't with the premise of the trade itself, it was that the Royals forced the issue prematurely.

 

I'd say that the trade proves you can't force the issue if your players aren't ready. The Royals took two years to go from 90 losses to the playoffs. That's great for them but it's not entirely uncommon, either.

 

My primary issue with this trade is that it's really hard to go from 90 losses to the playoffs in a single year and forcing the issue is often going to lead to wasted resources in the short-term.

 

Maybe it's good for the fanbase. Maybe it brought the Royals additional revenue in the short-term. There are plenty of ways to approach this situation and really, it all boils down to opinion and personal strategy preferences.

[Mike Sixel]

I said it was possible, others here say it is not possible and should nevr be done. I don't think it is likely to work, but this proves it is possible.

[drjim]

It proves that you can go from 90 losses to competitiveness. ....that you don't have to wait until there is only one hole to fill. ....that what is most likely, is that of you wait, you don't compete, if you try to won, you might.

 

I'm not sure KC proves this point. It can pay to be aggressive, but the team has to be ready. It wasn't like the Royals were good for a while, had one bad season and then were really aggressive, it was a slow build.

 

Wins since 2003: 58, 56, 62, 69, 75, 65, 67, 71, 72 (acquired Shields as young talent was maturing), 86, 89. Now, even though they will lose Shields, they will probably have a decent run of sustained success.

[TheLeviathan]

I'm not sure KC proves this point. It can pay to be aggressive, but the team has to be ready. It wasn't like the Royals were good for a while, had one bad season and then were really aggressive, it was a slow build.

 

Wins since 2003: 58, 56, 62, 69, 75, 65, 67, 71, 72 (acquired Shields as young talent was maturing), 86, 89. Now, even though they will lose Shields, they will probably have a decent run of sustained success.

 

One of the major flaws in the arguments against the Shields deal were that they failed to appreciate the fact that Moore was investing in the players he believed were going to become ready.  He had to take a leap of faith in the young talent they had.

 

Could he have turned out to be spectacularly wrong?  Absolutely.  But there is also something to be said for taking the leap before there is some notion of "now we're ready".  Baseball can be a funny thing and readiness is never a given and if you're holding out for that golden moment - you're going to miss out on all sorts of windows.

 

Luckily for the fans in KC - their GM didn't not wait for that magical moment, he made it possible and then watched it happen.

[kab21]

Well, that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at it. My issue wasn't with the premise of the trade itself, it was that the Royals forced the issue prematurely.

 

I'd say that the trade proves you can't force the issue if your players aren't ready. The Royals took two years to go from 90 losses to the playoffs. That's great for them but it's not entirely uncommon, either.

 

My primary issue with this trade is that it's really hard to go from 90 losses to the playoffs in a single year and forcing the issue is often going to lead to wasted resources in the short-term.

 

Maybe it's good for the fanbase. Maybe it brought the Royals additional revenue in the short-term. There are plenty of ways to approach this situation and really, it all boils down to opinion and personal strategy preferences.

 

Part of it is about projecting the team over the next several years.  The Twins are now on the rise and they should be adding 2-3 possibly above average prospects to the roster each year while other young players improve.  It's not difficult to see the Twins winning 80 games in two years w/o any major external additions.  I wouldn't consider that forcing the issue but rather a normal business decision based on projections.

 

Additionally I'm not too keen on eating up 2-3 years of Sano, Buxton and several others waiting for internal improvement.  there's no guarantee that anyone will resign and there are limited windows.  Sano and Buxton might bust but I would make plans that they and others succeed because if they don't the Twins will be in a decade+ rebuild anyway.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Part of it is about projecting the team over the next several years.  The Twins are now on the rise and they should be adding 2-3 possibly above average prospects to the roster each year while other young players improve.  It's not difficult to see the Twins winning 80 games in two years w/o any major external additions.  I wouldn't consider that forcing the issue but rather a normal business decision based on projections.

 

Additionally I'm not too keen on eating up 2-3 years of Sano, Buxton and several others waiting for internal improvement.  there's no guarantee that anyone will resign and there are limited windows.  Sano and Buxton might bust but I would make plans that they and others succeed because if they don't the Twins will be in a decade+ rebuild anyway.

Oh, for sure. There are upsides and downsides to each strategy.

 

My personal preference is that you set a goal of 80-ish wins through internal development. At that point, you evaluate projected performance, potential minor league additions, and then consider "going for it" and start adding pieces at the expense of your long-term development (ie. trading away pieces of the farm for MLB impact players).

 

It's reasonable to try to go from 80 wins to 90 wins in a season. Teams do it all the time. I don't think it's reasonable to try to go from 70 wins a season to 90 wins in a single season. That involves an abundance of dumb luck. I'm not a fan of relying on dumb luck as a strategy.

[drjim]

Part of it is about projecting the team over the next several years.  The Twins are now on the rise and they should be adding 2-3 possibly above average prospects to the roster each year while other young players improve.  It's not difficult to see the Twins winning 80 games in two years w/o any major external additions.  I wouldn't consider that forcing the issue but rather a normal business decision based on projections.

 

Additionally I'm not too keen on eating up 2-3 years of Sano, Buxton and several others waiting for internal improvement.  there's no guarantee that anyone will resign and there are limited windows.  Sano and Buxton might bust but I would make plans that they and others succeed because if they don't the Twins will be in a decade+ rebuild anyway.

 

I certainly agree with the second paragraph, not to waste 2-3 years of Sano and Buxton, but assuming they come up this year, it probably isn't until 2016 or 17 that the team is really ready to move, having those years be the equivalent of 13 and 14 for the current KC team.

 

As this relates to this offseason, I think it makes sense to do signings that fill holes (SP, OF), but maintain flexibility going forward in both roster space and payroll. One reason I am starting to think a big FA SP splash might best be delayed a year or two, and to instead pursue more upside, short term guys this offseason for the rotation.

 

I would also argue, and I'm sure you would agree, that it would be a bad time for the Twins to make a Shields trade, where they would trade one of their elite prospects for two years of a horse.

 

The lesson from the Royals is not that it is impossible to go from 90 losses to competitiveness, but that it is important to understand the talent cycle of an organization and to be aggressive at the right time. I still think the Twins are one or two years away.