 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Can the Kansas City Royals be saved?
sycophantman
First and foremost, the ownership of the Royals is a continuing affront to the proud legacy of Ewing Kauffman and everything he stood for. Kauffman was an intelligent and fascinating man who built himself out of nothing. He gave Kansas City a baseball team to be proud of, and made it is mission at the end of his years to find an owner who would do right by the people of Kansas City. While I'm sure he thought he had a winner in David Glass at the time, it's looking more and more like the poor man was fooled and suckered into a deal with the proverbial devil.
Did I say proverbial? Maybe I should revisit that, based solely off of the now infamous Dateline interview in 1992. This is the interview where the former President and Chief Executive Officer of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. said, when asked about children in Asia working in sweatshop conditions, "You and I might, perhaps, define children differently," and then said that since Asians are quite short, one can't always tell how old they were. Glass was shown photos of a factory that had burned down with the children still locked inside. He responded, "Yeah...there are tragic things that happen all over the world." Glass stormed out of the interview at that point. While most would assume this was a red flag, he managed to become the Chairman of the board of directors for the Royals in 1993. Later the board (which he selected personally in that time) elected him to take ownership of the franchise. True to his Wal-Mart roots, he's slashed budget, personnel and funds, all at the expense of maximizing his own personal gain.
Now that his son is running things for the most part, it seems the Glass family is prepared to run the Royals as their own personal profit machine, and to hell with the stupid fans of this great franchise. Kansas City deserves so much better than this oily family of suits. But what to do? Even with revenue sharing, does anyone actually believe that things would be different? Even the most optimistic among us cannot actually believe that the new stadium renevations recently approved by the voters will result in anything but more money for the Glass family. Of course, while the tax will raise $425 million over the next 25 years, the Glass family was benevolent enough to kick in an astounding $25 million of their own money. How generous!
What can be done? Baseball is left far worse for not having Kansas City as any kind of factor at all. It's obvious that the Royals have no intention to ever change their cheap ways, maybe it's now time for a new age where owners are held to a higher standard? Sports teams aren't simple profit margins for suits with an insatiable need for ever more money. It's about more than mere business, teams are public trusts, they are of the people. Laws need to be made where a populace can seek to overthrow ownership when they so clearly are abusing that trust, and the Glass family is definitely one of the worst in all of sports on this call.
Enough of my ranting. What do you guys think?
Can the Kansas City Royals be saved?
November 16, 2006 at 02:33PM View BBCode
I've been a life-long Cubs fan, first off, and in spite of a crisis of faith here and there I remain a Cubs fan. But most of all I'm a fan of baseball, and the ongoing tragedy of what was once a proud franchise worries me. I'm referring to the Kansas City Royals, which once stood as an example of how to run a baseball club that connects with the community and is a success in the standings. Nowadays, the club is mired in a 'rebuild' that shows no signs of ever paying off. It seems an impossible situation in many ways, and I was just curious if anyone here had any bright ideas about what they would do to fix this dilemma?First and foremost, the ownership of the Royals is a continuing affront to the proud legacy of Ewing Kauffman and everything he stood for. Kauffman was an intelligent and fascinating man who built himself out of nothing. He gave Kansas City a baseball team to be proud of, and made it is mission at the end of his years to find an owner who would do right by the people of Kansas City. While I'm sure he thought he had a winner in David Glass at the time, it's looking more and more like the poor man was fooled and suckered into a deal with the proverbial devil.
Did I say proverbial? Maybe I should revisit that, based solely off of the now infamous Dateline interview in 1992. This is the interview where the former President and Chief Executive Officer of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. said, when asked about children in Asia working in sweatshop conditions, "You and I might, perhaps, define children differently," and then said that since Asians are quite short, one can't always tell how old they were. Glass was shown photos of a factory that had burned down with the children still locked inside. He responded, "Yeah...there are tragic things that happen all over the world." Glass stormed out of the interview at that point. While most would assume this was a red flag, he managed to become the Chairman of the board of directors for the Royals in 1993. Later the board (which he selected personally in that time) elected him to take ownership of the franchise. True to his Wal-Mart roots, he's slashed budget, personnel and funds, all at the expense of maximizing his own personal gain.
Now that his son is running things for the most part, it seems the Glass family is prepared to run the Royals as their own personal profit machine, and to hell with the stupid fans of this great franchise. Kansas City deserves so much better than this oily family of suits. But what to do? Even with revenue sharing, does anyone actually believe that things would be different? Even the most optimistic among us cannot actually believe that the new stadium renevations recently approved by the voters will result in anything but more money for the Glass family. Of course, while the tax will raise $425 million over the next 25 years, the Glass family was benevolent enough to kick in an astounding $25 million of their own money. How generous!
What can be done? Baseball is left far worse for not having Kansas City as any kind of factor at all. It's obvious that the Royals have no intention to ever change their cheap ways, maybe it's now time for a new age where owners are held to a higher standard? Sports teams aren't simple profit margins for suits with an insatiable need for ever more money. It's about more than mere business, teams are public trusts, they are of the people. Laws need to be made where a populace can seek to overthrow ownership when they so clearly are abusing that trust, and the Glass family is definitely one of the worst in all of sports on this call.
Enough of my ranting. What do you guys think?
drunkengoat
Unis, baby.
November 16, 2006 at 03:58PM View BBCode
Bring back baby blue, and you have yourself a dynasty.Unis, baby.
lvnwrth
I am a life-long Cardinals fan, having grown up in St. Louis. Besides, if you can be a Cardinal fan, why would you want to be anything else? But since I live in Kansas City 8-1/2 months of the year, I do follow the Royals, so I'll share some of my thoughts.
I suppose I'll start by asking you the same question I ask "affronted" Royals fans: Just how much of his own money is David Glass supposed to lose every year so Kansas City fans can have a winning team? He is not running a public utility, nor is he operating a not-for-profit agency. He paid nearly $100 million for the Royals. Does he not have some expectation to realize an annual return on his investment?
And those who are not from around here may not realize - those from here too easily forget - that no one else wanted this team. No one. A guy named Miles Prentice put together a conglomeration of 40+ minority partners, and his ownership plan was rejected by MLB...or rather, if I recall correctly, their plan was so lacking in substance that MLB never even considered it. And remember, here's what Prentice had to say in 1999: "The Royals can't continue to operate the way they have the last few years. One of the knocks on this team was that it was losing money all the time. It was losing money, in my opinion, because it wasn't run as a business."
Lamar Hunt and Westar Energy made a lowball bid that never had a chance of being accepted, just to say they made a bid. The Brett brothers looked at it, and didn't bid. No one...no one...wanted to own the Kansas City Royals. Re-enter David Glass.
Glass was Kauffman's second "first choice' to own the team, or have you forgotten Avron Fogelman? Fogelman, of course, got caught up in some real estate scandals in Memphis, and had to sell his share of the team back to Kauffman. So, hoping to ensure the Royals stayed in town, Kauffman set up a trust to run the Royals until a local buyer could be found. Almost as soon as the succession plan was approved by MLB, Kauffman announced that he had cancer. Coincidence? Anyhow, Glass wound up chairing the board that would run the team until an owner could be found.
But after running the team for six years, Glass was already hated here for not spending millions of dollars the team did not have (no ownership, remember...they were operating out of a trust fund), Glass did not participate in the bidding process for the Royals. Only after every other avenue failed, did Glass step up and buy the team. There are those who complain that he undermined Prentice's effort to purchase the team for $120 million, so he could buy it for $96 million. But let's not forget that Prentice later tried to buy the Boston Red Sox and was rebuffed the same way. His group was simply not credible.
While this may be illustrative of the business practices of Wal-Mart and Glass, I'm not sure it's germane to a discussion of the Kansas City Royals and their problems. Last I knew, they were in full compliance with U.S. labor law. No underage minors locked in the concession stands, selling those $8 beers.
See earlier discussion. There were ZERO other credible bidders for the Royals. He didn't "manage" to become chairman of the board, he was hand-picked by Kauffman. And the budget was pretty well slashed BEFORE Glass took over, the result of being owned by a trust fund, instead of being owned by an actual owner. Also, while accountants can do whatever they want with figures, there is little evidence that the Royals actually make money. So unless you have access to Glass's tax returns, I'd hesitate to say that he's maximizing his personal gain.
Again, there's no irrefutable evidence the Royals are making money. And if they are, its probably far less than the Glass's could be making with a $100 million investment elsewhere.
The Hunts could have bought the Royals. They made a low-ball bid.
The Brett brothers could have bought the Royals, but apparently it didn't make business sense for them to do so.
The Hall Family (Hallmark Cards) could've bought the Royals. No thanks.
William Esrey (Sprint CEO) could've headed up a group to buy the Royals. No interest.
Someone from Yellow Roadway or H&R Block, other Fortune 500 companies headquartered locally, could have put together a bid. No interest.
Well, you get a liitle bit right in this part, anyway. Without SUBSTANTIAL (NFL-style) revenue sharing, the Royals face a difficult road to success. A few years ago there was a study done (maybe by Andrew Zimbalist...don't recall for sure) and it showed that if the New York Yankees had nothing but their local TV/radio contracts as their only source of revenue, they would make more money than the Royals do from all sources combined. Think about that - if the Yankees sold ZERO tickets; not one hot dog or beer or popcorn; no hats, jackets or pennants; no parking; no share of the MLB national TV and radio contracts; no share of MLB.com revenues - they would still make more money than the Royals.
When you talk about the stadium improvement tax issue, you conveniently ignore that more than half of the money raised is going to Arrowhead Stadium, home of the Chiefs, who also put up some piddling matching amount. A little integrity goes a long way when you're trying to make a point.
I'm guessing you don't vote in Kansas City, so I can assure you: Glass did not put a gun to the city's head. We voted for the sales tax increase because we wanted to keep the Royals and the Chiefs here. In terms of any "strong arm" tactics, the Chiefs were far more vocal on the issue than the Royals were.
Baseball revenues continue to climb. Attendance is growing. How, exactly, has baseball been left far worse?
How is that obvious? By their refusal to go out an acquire free agents when they thought they had a chance to compete? Oh, wait...after 2003 (a winning season) they re-signed Joe Randa, Brian Anderson and Curtis Leskanic and went out an signed Juan Gonzalez and Benito Santiago. You can say that those didn't work out...they didn't...but you can't say that when they thought they had a chance to compete, they did nothing about it. Those were five of ESPN's "Top Fifty" free agents that winter, and the Royals signed them.
By their refusal to pay top dollar bonuses to Alex Gordon and Luke Hochevar? Oh, wait...they did that, didn't they? They've stopped drafting guys based on "signability".
In point of fact, that's exactly what they are.
No, they aren't. Teams...except the Green Bay Packers...are not publicly owned. They belong to private individuals who do business selling their product in your town. They are no different than any other entertainment business.
Because we identify with them, we like to think they are "public trusts", but they simply aren't.
The only thing that needs to happen is for professional sports to permit public ownership of the teams. Then the city can use our tax dollars to buy the team, build whatever stadiums they wish, sign whatever players they want. Every four years their could be a public election for the board of directors. It COULD work, but no professional league is going to allow it.
Professional sports owners are held accountable the way every other business is held accountable...by their clients. If you don't like the product, stop buying it. If enough people stop buying the product, one of three things will happen:
1) They will improve the product;
2) They will move to a place where they can sell the product as it is;
3) They will go out of business.
Now, from the client/fan/buyer's perspective, we are so scared of options 2 and 3 that we refuse to exercise option 1, choosing instead to rant and whine about the owner's civic responsibilities to lose tens of millions of his own money so we can enjoy a winning baseball team.
[Edited on 11-16-2006 by lvnwrth]
[Edited on 11-16-2006 by lvnwrth]
November 16, 2006 at 04:48PM View BBCode
Originally posted by sycophantman
I've been a life-long Cubs fan, first off, and in spite of a crisis of faith here and there I remain a Cubs fan. But most of all I'm a fan of baseball, and the ongoing tragedy of what was once a proud franchise worries me. I'm referring to the Kansas City Royals, which once stood as an example of how to run a baseball club that connects with the community and is a success in the standings. Nowadays, the club is mired in a 'rebuild' that shows no signs of ever paying off. It seems an impossible situation in many ways, and I was just curious if anyone here had any bright ideas about what they would do to fix this dilemma?
I am a life-long Cardinals fan, having grown up in St. Louis. Besides, if you can be a Cardinal fan, why would you want to be anything else? But since I live in Kansas City 8-1/2 months of the year, I do follow the Royals, so I'll share some of my thoughts.
First and foremost, the ownership of the Royals is a continuing affront to the proud legacy of Ewing Kauffman and everything he stood for. Kauffman was an intelligent and fascinating man who built himself out of nothing. He gave Kansas City a baseball team to be proud of, and made it is mission at the end of his years to find an owner who would do right by the people of Kansas City. While I'm sure he thought he had a winner in David Glass at the time, it's looking more and more like the poor man was fooled and suckered into a deal with the proverbial devil.
I suppose I'll start by asking you the same question I ask "affronted" Royals fans: Just how much of his own money is David Glass supposed to lose every year so Kansas City fans can have a winning team? He is not running a public utility, nor is he operating a not-for-profit agency. He paid nearly $100 million for the Royals. Does he not have some expectation to realize an annual return on his investment?
And those who are not from around here may not realize - those from here too easily forget - that no one else wanted this team. No one. A guy named Miles Prentice put together a conglomeration of 40+ minority partners, and his ownership plan was rejected by MLB...or rather, if I recall correctly, their plan was so lacking in substance that MLB never even considered it. And remember, here's what Prentice had to say in 1999: "The Royals can't continue to operate the way they have the last few years. One of the knocks on this team was that it was losing money all the time. It was losing money, in my opinion, because it wasn't run as a business."
Lamar Hunt and Westar Energy made a lowball bid that never had a chance of being accepted, just to say they made a bid. The Brett brothers looked at it, and didn't bid. No one...no one...wanted to own the Kansas City Royals. Re-enter David Glass.
Glass was Kauffman's second "first choice' to own the team, or have you forgotten Avron Fogelman? Fogelman, of course, got caught up in some real estate scandals in Memphis, and had to sell his share of the team back to Kauffman. So, hoping to ensure the Royals stayed in town, Kauffman set up a trust to run the Royals until a local buyer could be found. Almost as soon as the succession plan was approved by MLB, Kauffman announced that he had cancer. Coincidence? Anyhow, Glass wound up chairing the board that would run the team until an owner could be found.
But after running the team for six years, Glass was already hated here for not spending millions of dollars the team did not have (no ownership, remember...they were operating out of a trust fund), Glass did not participate in the bidding process for the Royals. Only after every other avenue failed, did Glass step up and buy the team. There are those who complain that he undermined Prentice's effort to purchase the team for $120 million, so he could buy it for $96 million. But let's not forget that Prentice later tried to buy the Boston Red Sox and was rebuffed the same way. His group was simply not credible.
Did I say proverbial? Maybe I should revisit that, based solely off of the now infamous Dateline interview in 1992. This is the interview where the former President and Chief Executive Officer of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. said, when asked about children in Asia working in sweatshop conditions, "You and I might, perhaps, define children differently," and then said that since Asians are quite short, one can't always tell how old they were. Glass was shown photos of a factory that had burned down with the children still locked inside. He responded, "Yeah...there are tragic things that happen all over the world." Glass stormed out of the interview at that point.
While this may be illustrative of the business practices of Wal-Mart and Glass, I'm not sure it's germane to a discussion of the Kansas City Royals and their problems. Last I knew, they were in full compliance with U.S. labor law. No underage minors locked in the concession stands, selling those $8 beers.
While most would assume this was a red flag, he managed to become the Chairman of the board of directors for the Royals in 1993. Later the board (which he selected personally in that time) elected him to take ownership of the franchise. True to his Wal-Mart roots, he's slashed budget, personnel and funds, all at the expense of maximizing his own personal gain.
See earlier discussion. There were ZERO other credible bidders for the Royals. He didn't "manage" to become chairman of the board, he was hand-picked by Kauffman. And the budget was pretty well slashed BEFORE Glass took over, the result of being owned by a trust fund, instead of being owned by an actual owner. Also, while accountants can do whatever they want with figures, there is little evidence that the Royals actually make money. So unless you have access to Glass's tax returns, I'd hesitate to say that he's maximizing his personal gain.
Now that his son is running things for the most part, it seems the Glass family is prepared to run the Royals as their own personal profit machine, and to hell with the stupid fans of this great franchise.
Again, there's no irrefutable evidence the Royals are making money. And if they are, its probably far less than the Glass's could be making with a $100 million investment elsewhere.
Kansas City deserves so much better than this oily family of suits.
The Hunts could have bought the Royals. They made a low-ball bid.
The Brett brothers could have bought the Royals, but apparently it didn't make business sense for them to do so.
The Hall Family (Hallmark Cards) could've bought the Royals. No thanks.
William Esrey (Sprint CEO) could've headed up a group to buy the Royals. No interest.
Someone from Yellow Roadway or H&R Block, other Fortune 500 companies headquartered locally, could have put together a bid. No interest.
But what to do? Even with revenue sharing, does anyone actually believe that things would be different? Even the most optimistic among us cannot actually believe that the new stadium renevations recently approved by the voters will result in anything but more money for the Glass family. Of course, while the tax will raise $425 million over the next 25 years, the Glass family was benevolent enough to kick in an astounding $25 million of their own money. How generous!
Well, you get a liitle bit right in this part, anyway. Without SUBSTANTIAL (NFL-style) revenue sharing, the Royals face a difficult road to success. A few years ago there was a study done (maybe by Andrew Zimbalist...don't recall for sure) and it showed that if the New York Yankees had nothing but their local TV/radio contracts as their only source of revenue, they would make more money than the Royals do from all sources combined. Think about that - if the Yankees sold ZERO tickets; not one hot dog or beer or popcorn; no hats, jackets or pennants; no parking; no share of the MLB national TV and radio contracts; no share of MLB.com revenues - they would still make more money than the Royals.
When you talk about the stadium improvement tax issue, you conveniently ignore that more than half of the money raised is going to Arrowhead Stadium, home of the Chiefs, who also put up some piddling matching amount. A little integrity goes a long way when you're trying to make a point.
I'm guessing you don't vote in Kansas City, so I can assure you: Glass did not put a gun to the city's head. We voted for the sales tax increase because we wanted to keep the Royals and the Chiefs here. In terms of any "strong arm" tactics, the Chiefs were far more vocal on the issue than the Royals were.
What can be done? Baseball is left far worse for not having Kansas City as any kind of factor at all.
Baseball revenues continue to climb. Attendance is growing. How, exactly, has baseball been left far worse?
It's obvious that the Royals have no intention to ever change their cheap ways, maybe it's now time for a new age where owners are held to a higher standard?
How is that obvious? By their refusal to go out an acquire free agents when they thought they had a chance to compete? Oh, wait...after 2003 (a winning season) they re-signed Joe Randa, Brian Anderson and Curtis Leskanic and went out an signed Juan Gonzalez and Benito Santiago. You can say that those didn't work out...they didn't...but you can't say that when they thought they had a chance to compete, they did nothing about it. Those were five of ESPN's "Top Fifty" free agents that winter, and the Royals signed them.
By their refusal to pay top dollar bonuses to Alex Gordon and Luke Hochevar? Oh, wait...they did that, didn't they? They've stopped drafting guys based on "signability".
Sports teams aren't simple profit margins for suits with an insatiable need for ever more money.
In point of fact, that's exactly what they are.
It's about more than mere business, teams are public trusts, they are of the people.
No, they aren't. Teams...except the Green Bay Packers...are not publicly owned. They belong to private individuals who do business selling their product in your town. They are no different than any other entertainment business.
Because we identify with them, we like to think they are "public trusts", but they simply aren't.
Laws need to be made where a populace can seek to overthrow ownership when they so clearly are abusing that trust, and the Glass family is definitely one of the worst in all of sports on this call.
The only thing that needs to happen is for professional sports to permit public ownership of the teams. Then the city can use our tax dollars to buy the team, build whatever stadiums they wish, sign whatever players they want. Every four years their could be a public election for the board of directors. It COULD work, but no professional league is going to allow it.
Professional sports owners are held accountable the way every other business is held accountable...by their clients. If you don't like the product, stop buying it. If enough people stop buying the product, one of three things will happen:
1) They will improve the product;
2) They will move to a place where they can sell the product as it is;
3) They will go out of business.
Now, from the client/fan/buyer's perspective, we are so scared of options 2 and 3 that we refuse to exercise option 1, choosing instead to rant and whine about the owner's civic responsibilities to lose tens of millions of his own money so we can enjoy a winning baseball team.
[Edited on 11-16-2006 by lvnwrth]
[Edited on 11-16-2006 by lvnwrth]
sycophantman
I fully agree with your final thoughts on making ownership responsible to the public through a vote every four years, but that's clearly a pipedream.
There, I don't think I posted anything that could yield a mean-spirited and condensending post, did I lvnwrth?
November 16, 2006 at 10:31PM View BBCode
They hurt my head a little bit too. You'll pardon me if I rant a little bit, but it's the situation in general that causes me to get a little overboard. I don't live in KC, so I don't have the whole story. I know only what I do from limited pieces here and there.I fully agree with your final thoughts on making ownership responsible to the public through a vote every four years, but that's clearly a pipedream.
There, I don't think I posted anything that could yield a mean-spirited and condensending post, did I lvnwrth?
lvnwrth
But the bottom line is this: owners are under no obligation to put a winning team on the field. For the last 30 years he owned the A's, Connie Mack regularly sold off his best players to turn a profit. Owners who field winning teams do so for a couple of reasons:
1) It maximizes profit, or;
2) They are true "sportsmen" at heart and want to win for their egos (see Steinbrenner); or
3) Both 1 and 2.
I don't know if Drayton Moore has a plan or not. I do know that the Royals AA affiliate at Wichita had the best record in the Texas League, and had three players on the AA All-Star team: 3b Alex Gordon, who was also everybody's Minor League Player of the Year; OF Billy Butler, who has been described by some scouts as the best power hitting prospect in the minors; and LHP Tyler Lumsden, a former "sandwich" pick of the White Sox, who was acquired for reliever Mike McDougal. Other top prospects at Wichita included OF Chris Lubanski (a former #1 pick); Luke Hochevar (this year's #1 pick); and Zack Greinke, who was rushed to the majors too young and literally had a nervous breakdown trying to cope with all the losing.
I know that the Royals acquired Joey Gathright, who has problems hitting the ball, but is one of the fastest players in the game. Mark Teahen finally played like the guy they talked about in MoneyBall (and the guy they thought they were getting), before ending his season early with shoulder surgery. Ryan Shealy hit .277 with a little bit of power after coming over from Colorado in the Jeremy Affeldt trade. Shane Costa played well enough that he is AT LEAST their 4th outfielder for the foreseeable future. Personally, I'd play him ahead of David DeJesus, who combines his lack of speed with a lack of power. Slow singles hitters make fine pinch hitters. Not so much as lead-off hitters.
The Royals are not hopeless. They have more talent in their organization than at any time in the last ten years. BUT, beyond Hochevar, Greinke, and Lumsden, there ain't a pitcher in sight. There were no starting pitchers on last year's team who figure to be in the majors in five seasons. Elarton and Redman are mediocre journeymen who eat innings...nothing more. Hernandez is a fat slob who was as bad in August and September as he was in April. It's one thing to start the season on the DL because you're recovering from an injury. It's another thing entirely to start on the DL because you showed up for spring training 50 pounds overweight and couldn't pitch through the third inning without blowing breakfast all over the dugout.
Odalis Perez pitched pretty well for LA a couple of years ago. He might be worth giving another shot to. Andrew Cisco and Ambriorix Burgos are two young guys who both pitched very well in 2005 and were just horrible last year. They are too young and showed too much a year ago to give up on them yet. But other than that, it's pretty bleak.
I'm willing to wait and see what Moore can do in 4-5 seasons. There are some decent pieces in place.
November 17, 2006 at 12:03AM View BBCode
Sorry, syco...if you had to listen to that same stuff every day on sports radio, maybe you'd understand my reaction a little better. Didn't mean to take it out on you.But the bottom line is this: owners are under no obligation to put a winning team on the field. For the last 30 years he owned the A's, Connie Mack regularly sold off his best players to turn a profit. Owners who field winning teams do so for a couple of reasons:
1) It maximizes profit, or;
2) They are true "sportsmen" at heart and want to win for their egos (see Steinbrenner); or
3) Both 1 and 2.
I don't know if Drayton Moore has a plan or not. I do know that the Royals AA affiliate at Wichita had the best record in the Texas League, and had three players on the AA All-Star team: 3b Alex Gordon, who was also everybody's Minor League Player of the Year; OF Billy Butler, who has been described by some scouts as the best power hitting prospect in the minors; and LHP Tyler Lumsden, a former "sandwich" pick of the White Sox, who was acquired for reliever Mike McDougal. Other top prospects at Wichita included OF Chris Lubanski (a former #1 pick); Luke Hochevar (this year's #1 pick); and Zack Greinke, who was rushed to the majors too young and literally had a nervous breakdown trying to cope with all the losing.
I know that the Royals acquired Joey Gathright, who has problems hitting the ball, but is one of the fastest players in the game. Mark Teahen finally played like the guy they talked about in MoneyBall (and the guy they thought they were getting), before ending his season early with shoulder surgery. Ryan Shealy hit .277 with a little bit of power after coming over from Colorado in the Jeremy Affeldt trade. Shane Costa played well enough that he is AT LEAST their 4th outfielder for the foreseeable future. Personally, I'd play him ahead of David DeJesus, who combines his lack of speed with a lack of power. Slow singles hitters make fine pinch hitters. Not so much as lead-off hitters.
The Royals are not hopeless. They have more talent in their organization than at any time in the last ten years. BUT, beyond Hochevar, Greinke, and Lumsden, there ain't a pitcher in sight. There were no starting pitchers on last year's team who figure to be in the majors in five seasons. Elarton and Redman are mediocre journeymen who eat innings...nothing more. Hernandez is a fat slob who was as bad in August and September as he was in April. It's one thing to start the season on the DL because you're recovering from an injury. It's another thing entirely to start on the DL because you showed up for spring training 50 pounds overweight and couldn't pitch through the third inning without blowing breakfast all over the dugout.
Odalis Perez pitched pretty well for LA a couple of years ago. He might be worth giving another shot to. Andrew Cisco and Ambriorix Burgos are two young guys who both pitched very well in 2005 and were just horrible last year. They are too young and showed too much a year ago to give up on them yet. But other than that, it's pretty bleak.
I'm willing to wait and see what Moore can do in 4-5 seasons. There are some decent pieces in place.
barterer2002
One of the largest problems that I saw in Kansas City was that it became overfilled with delusions of grandeur. A town the size of New York can handle a myrrid of entertainment options where sports teams etc are a part of the general landscape. A town the size of Columbus can't handle as much in entertainment because there aren't as many people spending the entertainment dollars. Kansas City's problem was that it had too much going on. The Chiefs have always been a huge draw in town and during the eighties the Royals drew fairly well but even in 1985, during the height of the Royals era, they were fifth in the AL in attendance. During the nineties the citizens of the city could go see indoor soccer, outdoor soccer, hockey, football, baseball, ice skating at the plaza, The American Royal, but the biggest killer for the Royals, IMO, was the introduction of the gambling riverboats. In short, by the mid to late nineties there just weren't the entertainment dollars to go around in KC. Since I was there the indoor soccer team has folded, and the hockey team has moved away. The Big 12 basketball tourneyment (which was held annually at Kemper until 2000) has relocated as has the annual FFA convention. There is a migration out of KC which may in the long time help the Royals but in the short term is merely demonstrative of the state of the KC entertainment market.
November 17, 2006 at 04:18AM View BBCode
I lived in KC in '98 and '99 working for the company that sells those "8 dollar beers" at Arrowhead and Kaufman although I worked over at Kemper Arena and the Starlight Theatre instead of at the stadium complex.One of the largest problems that I saw in Kansas City was that it became overfilled with delusions of grandeur. A town the size of New York can handle a myrrid of entertainment options where sports teams etc are a part of the general landscape. A town the size of Columbus can't handle as much in entertainment because there aren't as many people spending the entertainment dollars. Kansas City's problem was that it had too much going on. The Chiefs have always been a huge draw in town and during the eighties the Royals drew fairly well but even in 1985, during the height of the Royals era, they were fifth in the AL in attendance. During the nineties the citizens of the city could go see indoor soccer, outdoor soccer, hockey, football, baseball, ice skating at the plaza, The American Royal, but the biggest killer for the Royals, IMO, was the introduction of the gambling riverboats. In short, by the mid to late nineties there just weren't the entertainment dollars to go around in KC. Since I was there the indoor soccer team has folded, and the hockey team has moved away. The Big 12 basketball tourneyment (which was held annually at Kemper until 2000) has relocated as has the annual FFA convention. There is a migration out of KC which may in the long time help the Royals but in the short term is merely demonstrative of the state of the KC entertainment market.
scaffdog
November 17, 2006 at 11:39AM View BBCode
they gotta change thier name to the Monarchs to win baby
sycophantman
It's no problem at all. Clearly you take this far more seriously than I do, and I was simply shamed by your far more intelligent points and your play-by-play evisceration of my original post. This is a good thing, because your posts are far more interesting than my own, so anything that would get you to post more is a good thing...:)
November 17, 2006 at 01:09PM View BBCode
Originally posted by lvnwrth
Sorry, syco...if you had to listen to that same stuff every day on sports radio, maybe you'd understand my reaction a little better. Didn't mean to take it out on you.
It's no problem at all. Clearly you take this far more seriously than I do, and I was simply shamed by your far more intelligent points and your play-by-play evisceration of my original post. This is a good thing, because your posts are far more interesting than my own, so anything that would get you to post more is a good thing...:)
lvnwrth
November 17, 2006 at 04:08PM View BBCode
Thanks for the nice words, syco, but there are many who disagree with you. :)
sycophantman
November 17, 2006 at 04:19PM View BBCode
George Bush doesn't care about black-hearted people...
lvnwrth
I am mostly in agreement with you here, Bart. But you're wrong about the Chiefs always being a "huge draw". Before Carl Peterson and Marty Schottenheimer arrived in 1989, fans could hear the echoes of their cheers resounding through Arrowhead. You could call two weeks before the season started and by a season ticket somewhere between the 40-yard lines. It's only been in the last 15 years...since the Chiefs got good again...that Arrowhead has become what it is today. This points to what I think is the biggest problem with KC sports teams:
We're a bandwagon town that thinks we're entitled to winners.
When the teams lose, people stay away in droves. If the Chiefs had three or four losing seasons in a row, Arrowhead would look like it did 20 years ago.
As for other sports:
NBA - the city is building the Sprint Center, in hopes of attracting an NBA and/or NHL franchise. Ain't happening anytime soon. Folks around here are college basketball fans. Given the choice between a KU game (Lawrence is less than an hour away...it's really almost part of the metro area now) and an NBA game, Kansas City fans will opt for Lawrence almost every time. A lot of them will drive the two hours to Columbia to see an MU game...or at least they would before Quinn Snyder trashed the program. The Kings have already failed here.
NHL - people in Kansas City are not sophisticated enough to appreciate hockey. At heart, we're still rednecks who haven't quite figured out the "city thing" yet. And yet, we fancy ourselves as a "major league" town, so even though the IHL Blades were very competitive and fun to watch, they couldn't draw. And let's not forget...the New Jersey Devils were once the Kansas City Scouts.
Arena Football - drew very well last year. We'll see what happens when the novelty wears off.
Indoor Soccer - was very popular here. Not sure why the Attack folded. There are some folks here who are very committed to indoor soccer and I think it will be back when the Sprint Center is done.
One of the things that hurts KC with regards to NHL, NBA, indoor soccer, any winter indoor sport...Kemper Arena is a dump, located in one of the least desireable parts of town. There is inadequate parking, and there is nothing...and I mean NOTHING...to do down there before or after a game. No bars. No hotels. No restaraunts. Nothing!
Kemper was supposed to be the 'centerpiece' of the renovation of the West Bottoms, the area of the old KC Stockyards, on the far west side of KC, MO, along the Missouri River. They built Kemper, but then they built nothing else. So it sets out there, ugly as all get out, in the middle of nowhere.
Kemper, with all its related issues, is why the FFA Convention left town. It's why the NCAA stopped using KC as a site for regional games. It's why the Big 12 dropped KC from the rotation of host cities for their basketball tournamnet. Allegedly there will be a four year rotation between Dallas-OKC-Denver-KC once the new arena is done.
And to come back to what Bart said, gambling has definitely hurt. People will complain all night about $8 GA tickets and $10 parking. But they think nothing of dropping $250 bucks at the boats. A dozen years ago, KC bought into the lie that gambling increases revenues. It doesn't. It simply rearranges spending.
Almost every dollar being spent at the boats...and its big money around here...is a dollar not going to the Royals or the Attack or the Blades or UMKC basketball, or the Uptown Theater, or the Midland, or the KC Symphony or the Starlight, etc.
Because we ARE NOT Las Vegas. We are a flyover city, not a destination city. Nobody comes here on vacation to spend their gambling dollars. All that money is money that was already in the community. It's just not being spent in the same places any longer.
November 17, 2006 at 04:37PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
I lived in KC in '98 and '99 working for the company that sells those "8 dollar beers" at Arrowhead and Kaufman although I worked over at Kemper Arena and the Starlight Theatre instead of at the stadium complex.
One of the largest problems that I saw in Kansas City was that it became overfilled with delusions of grandeur. A town the size of New York can handle a myrrid of entertainment options where sports teams etc are a part of the general landscape. A town the size of Columbus can't handle as much in entertainment because there aren't as many people spending the entertainment dollars. Kansas City's problem was that it had too much going on. The Chiefs have always been a huge draw in town and during the eighties the Royals drew fairly well but even in 1985, during the height of the Royals era, they were fifth in the AL in attendance. During the nineties the citizens of the city could go see indoor soccer, outdoor soccer, hockey, football, baseball, ice skating at the plaza, The American Royal, but the biggest killer for the Royals, IMO, was the introduction of the gambling riverboats. In short, by the mid to late nineties there just weren't the entertainment dollars to go around in KC. Since I was there the indoor soccer team has folded, and the hockey team has moved away. The Big 12 basketball tourneyment (which was held annually at Kemper until 2000) has relocated as has the annual FFA convention. There is a migration out of KC which may in the long time help the Royals but in the short term is merely demonstrative of the state of the KC entertainment market.
I am mostly in agreement with you here, Bart. But you're wrong about the Chiefs always being a "huge draw". Before Carl Peterson and Marty Schottenheimer arrived in 1989, fans could hear the echoes of their cheers resounding through Arrowhead. You could call two weeks before the season started and by a season ticket somewhere between the 40-yard lines. It's only been in the last 15 years...since the Chiefs got good again...that Arrowhead has become what it is today. This points to what I think is the biggest problem with KC sports teams:
We're a bandwagon town that thinks we're entitled to winners.
When the teams lose, people stay away in droves. If the Chiefs had three or four losing seasons in a row, Arrowhead would look like it did 20 years ago.
As for other sports:
NBA - the city is building the Sprint Center, in hopes of attracting an NBA and/or NHL franchise. Ain't happening anytime soon. Folks around here are college basketball fans. Given the choice between a KU game (Lawrence is less than an hour away...it's really almost part of the metro area now) and an NBA game, Kansas City fans will opt for Lawrence almost every time. A lot of them will drive the two hours to Columbia to see an MU game...or at least they would before Quinn Snyder trashed the program. The Kings have already failed here.
NHL - people in Kansas City are not sophisticated enough to appreciate hockey. At heart, we're still rednecks who haven't quite figured out the "city thing" yet. And yet, we fancy ourselves as a "major league" town, so even though the IHL Blades were very competitive and fun to watch, they couldn't draw. And let's not forget...the New Jersey Devils were once the Kansas City Scouts.
Arena Football - drew very well last year. We'll see what happens when the novelty wears off.
Indoor Soccer - was very popular here. Not sure why the Attack folded. There are some folks here who are very committed to indoor soccer and I think it will be back when the Sprint Center is done.
One of the things that hurts KC with regards to NHL, NBA, indoor soccer, any winter indoor sport...Kemper Arena is a dump, located in one of the least desireable parts of town. There is inadequate parking, and there is nothing...and I mean NOTHING...to do down there before or after a game. No bars. No hotels. No restaraunts. Nothing!
Kemper was supposed to be the 'centerpiece' of the renovation of the West Bottoms, the area of the old KC Stockyards, on the far west side of KC, MO, along the Missouri River. They built Kemper, but then they built nothing else. So it sets out there, ugly as all get out, in the middle of nowhere.
Kemper, with all its related issues, is why the FFA Convention left town. It's why the NCAA stopped using KC as a site for regional games. It's why the Big 12 dropped KC from the rotation of host cities for their basketball tournamnet. Allegedly there will be a four year rotation between Dallas-OKC-Denver-KC once the new arena is done.
And to come back to what Bart said, gambling has definitely hurt. People will complain all night about $8 GA tickets and $10 parking. But they think nothing of dropping $250 bucks at the boats. A dozen years ago, KC bought into the lie that gambling increases revenues. It doesn't. It simply rearranges spending.
Almost every dollar being spent at the boats...and its big money around here...is a dollar not going to the Royals or the Attack or the Blades or UMKC basketball, or the Uptown Theater, or the Midland, or the KC Symphony or the Starlight, etc.
Because we ARE NOT Las Vegas. We are a flyover city, not a destination city. Nobody comes here on vacation to spend their gambling dollars. All that money is money that was already in the community. It's just not being spent in the same places any longer.
barterer2002
November 17, 2006 at 05:14PM View BBCode
I would disagree only with the assessment that the Attack were well supported. They were lucky to draw 2500 to a game although they certainly had a loyal season ticket base that may be vocal the community as a whole did not support the team.
Smocko
The Bandwagon is actually a great movie.
November 17, 2006 at 05:16PM View BBCode
[url=http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=103009#pid608469]Syco admits to abandoning the Cubs for the White Sox. It's about halfway down.[/url]The Bandwagon is actually a great movie.
lvnwrth
Maybe it was the team that was here BEFORE the Attack. I know that at one time there was an indoor soccer team that regularly drew in the 7-8,000 range.
November 17, 2006 at 05:35PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
I would disagree only with the assessment that the Attack were well supported. They were lucky to draw 2500 to a game although they certainly had a loyal season ticket base that may be vocal the community as a whole did not support the team.
Maybe it was the team that was here BEFORE the Attack. I know that at one time there was an indoor soccer team that regularly drew in the 7-8,000 range.
FuriousGiorge
November 17, 2006 at 05:39PM View BBCode
Are you guys actually now talking about indoor soccer? This...this is the bottom.
lvnwrth
November 17, 2006 at 05:59PM View BBCode
No, somebody brought up Australian rules football in another thread.
FuriousGiorge
"We have decided, by a 2-1 vote, that Indoor Soccer is indeed lamer than Australian Rules Football. At least the Aussies hit each other."
November 17, 2006 at 06:06PM View BBCode
Hmmm.....I think we might need a ruling here. Judges?
"We have decided, by a 2-1 vote, that Indoor Soccer is indeed lamer than Australian Rules Football. At least the Aussies hit each other."
Isaiah4110
November 17, 2006 at 09:21PM View BBCode
There is no point in watching ballet. All the cute girls do gymnastics and ice skating.
max_fischer
"Veggie thinks I'm cute! Veggie thinks I'm CUTE!!"
November 17, 2006 at 09:25PM View BBCode
"Veggie thinks I'm cute! Veggie thinks I'm CUTE!!"
Pages: 1 2