Re: Royals Sign Bloomquist: 2 YR 3 Million
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KowboyKoop
I stopped reading when I saw he gave the ChiSox offseason an A-.
Instant credibility loss.
I'd go even earlier, to where he says:
Quote:
They continued by signing third baseman Dayan Viciedo, Cuban defector. Viciedo, 19, has already garnered comparisons to Babe Ruth.
1) I've never ever heard anybody compare Viciedo to Ruth.
2) Whoever did so should be immediately fired from his job (assuming it's within the player evaluation realm) because nobody should ever make comparisons to Ruth until the players put up strings of 200 OPS+ seasons in the major leagues.
And with some help from Google, I've found it:
Quote:
Hyped by his agent as having walked away from a chance to become “the Babe Ruth of Cuba,”
I wonder if this author would write of Oliver Perez that he's "garnered comparisons to Sandy Koufax." After all, the comparisons in Perez's and Viciedo's case came in the same context - his agent looking to up his price, without any basis in fact.
Re: Royals Sign Bloomquist: 2 YR 3 Million
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
I'd go even earlier, to where he says:
1) I've never ever heard anybody compare Viciedo to Ruth.
2) Whoever did so should be immediately fired from his job (assuming it's within the player evaluation realm) because nobody should ever make comparisons to Ruth until the players put up strings of 200 OPS+ seasons in the major leagues.
And with some help from Google, I've found it:
I wonder if this author would write of Oliver Perez that he's "garnered comparisons to Sandy Koufax." After all, the comparisons in Perez's and Viciedo's case came in the same context - his agent looking to up his price, without any basis in fact.
LMFAO....I didn't actually read any of the article..my eyes just went right to the line I mentioned and I immediately clicked off the article. Yours trumps mine though...trying to compare a 19 year old to Babe Ruth.
EPIC FAIL.
Re: Royals Sign Bloomquist: 2 YR 3 Million
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/...s_city_royals/
Quote:
So far, I'd have to give a qualified no to the second question. You can't run a poor-to-middling team in the same manner that you would run a truly competitive team. The risks a team in the Royals position should be willing to take are far greater than those that a team like the Red Sox should be willing to take.
The Red Sox or Yankees aren't able to do a whole lot of high-risk plays. Neither can afford to aggressively promote a Kala Kaaihue or a Carlos Rosa or give Ryan Shealy a shot to see where he is. A good team might, if the structure of the team calls for it, need to acquire Mike Jacobs or Coco Crisp or sign Jose Guillen or Kyle Farnsworth or even Horacio Ramirez (I'm not sure even a team in Italy could really justify signing Willie Bloomquist). The Royals are not that team - the value they get from known mediocrity is just about zero. If Tony Pena had merely been bad instead of downright horrible, Mike Aviles probably doesn't get a shot to shine. That's not what poor teams should be doing. The advantage of being in the position of the Royals or Orioles or Rangers is that you can dare to do things that the big dogs can't.
Re: Royals Sign Bloomquist: 2 YR 3 Million
The first sentence discredits the entire article.
"Dayton Moore has had a mixed record in Kansas City."
He has?? Hmm...let's see, since he took over, we've gotten better every single year, the farm system, by all accounts, has improved every single year, and we've increased spending in every single facet of the organization (the draft, international spending, payroll, minor leagues, scouting, literally every single aspect of professional baseball). We've gone from a 56 win joke with literally no good players and no farm system whatsoever to a team that is probably an 80ish win team with plenty of young talent that is actually being locked up and a farm system loaded with arms and two top 20 hitting prospects.
Oh...but his evidence that DM has a "mixed record?" A hypothetical situation where if TPJ had only been bad and not historically bad, Aviles wouldn't have been the SS. Something that DID NOT EVEN HAPPEN.
Looks like I win again. Not every single move DM makes is a good one, but I am STILL waiting for any one of these critics to actually show me what bad has resulted from what DM has done in his tenure in KC. We have improved in every single aspect of the organization EVERY SINGLE YEAR...and I beg one of these fools, or anyone, to show me different.
..and don't worry, I'm not "mad" or "worked up," I just type a lot of words.
Re: Royals Sign Bloomquist: 2 YR 3 Million
The evidence of the mixed record is that he has vastly improved the farm system, but some of the moves he's made at the major league level are not good (Jose Guillen, Kyle Farnsworth, and the like). So, some good, some bad.
Re: Royals Sign Bloomquist: 2 YR 3 Million
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
The evidence of the mixed record is that he has vastly improved the farm system, but some of the moves he's made at the major league level are not good (Jose Guillen, Kyle Farnsworth, and the like). So, some good, some bad.
So, you are saying a better GM would have KC as a 85-90 win team in three years after taking over an organization with no farm system and coming off a 56 win team.
A couple of financially inefficient moves isn't even CLOSE to being enough to cancel out all the good he has done. Not every move is perfect, but the list of good things he has done is FARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR bigger than the list of bad moves.
Re: Royals Sign Bloomquist: 2 YR 3 Million
Nobody's said that (at least, I haven't, nor did the article Filihok just posted).
Re: Royals Sign Bloomquist: 2 YR 3 Million
Also, a major theme of all the Royals bashing..of which this is just another in the endless list of examples, is that DM's moves aren't going to be good enough to take the team from a mediocre/average team to a playoff team. That criticism is operating under the MAJOR assumption that DM is going to be making the same types of moves and using the same strategy every offseason. That's retarded.
Does Billy Beane have the exact same strategy every offseason/season? I don't think so. He evaluates his team and makes the moves he sees necessary at the time, but I'm sure there's some flexibility there. It's obvious to see, but when it comes to DM, they all seem to think that if he signs a mediocre player now, he'll do it in five years when our top prospect is manning the position. Completely ridiculous.
Criticizing DM for the moves they assume he'll make in three years based on assumptions doesn't seem to hold much weight. All I know is, nobody can point to anything in our organization that hasn't improved DRAMATICALLY since DM got here...and until he actually does start doing a poor job..I think it's safe to say DM has done a good job and will continue to do so. I'm not saying DM is going to build a dynasty soon, but I'd rather actually see him have one bad year before thinking that he's not good enough.
Re: Royals Sign Bloomquist: 2 YR 3 Million
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Nobody's said that (at least, I haven't, nor did the article Filihok just posted).
Well, if DM "isn't the guy for the job" or whatever everyone seems to say, then wouldn't it make sense that a better GM would have KC in a much better spot in the same amount of time?
Which is it? Either DM is doing as good a job as he can do and no other GM would have KC in better shape, or DM isn't the "guy for the job" and thus KC would be a perennial contender right now if 10-15 other GMs were the GM of KC. Which is it???
Re: Royals Sign Bloomquist: 2 YR 3 Million
The article says:
Quote:
it's still a very open question as to whether he's the right man to guide the team towards the next step of becoming a team capable of competing for the playoffs.
And the author thinks that, based on what he's done so far in terms of big league moves, that he's not.
Re: Royals Sign Bloomquist: 2 YR 3 Million
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
The article says:
And the author thinks that, based on what he's done so far in terms of big league moves, that he's not.
Yes, I know..and based on what he's done so far, what bad has happened that shows DM can't keep building the team and improving it??? No one can show anything bad about our organzation the past three years. It's gotten so much better in literally every way...but oh, some guy doesn't like a few moves (which is fine) and that all of a sudden overrides everything else.
Re: Royals Sign Bloomquist: 2 YR 3 Million
Dayton Moore's moves at the major league level have not been very good. Doling out significantly sized contracts to mediocre players is a trademark of a GM that doesn't know how to build a winning team well (see: Sabean, Brian). Is there still time for Moore to reverse that course? Yes, obviously, but based on what we know now (ie. the moves Moore has made), the author holds the opinion that Moore is a GM of that sort, and I don't think it's unfair. Moore obviously has put the Royals on the right track...but is he the man to steer them into sustained contention? I don't know about that. We'll have to see. If he continues making big league moves like he has, the answer is no.
Re: Royals Sign Bloomquist: 2 YR 3 Million
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Dayton Moore's moves at the major league level have not been very good. Doling out significantly sized contracts to mediocre players is a trademark of a GM that doesn't know how to build a winning team well (see: Sabean, Brian). Is there still time for Moore to reverse that course? Yes, obviously, but based on what we know now (ie. the moves Moore has made), the author holds the opinion that Moore is a GM of that sort, and I don't think it's unfair. Moore obviously has put the Royals on the right track...but is he the man to steer them into sustained contention? I don't know about that. We'll have to see. If he continues making big league moves like he has, the answer is no.
You don't think the contracts of Meche, Greinke, and Soria are good contracts?? I'd argue those three deals are of WAYYYY more value than Farnsworth and Bloomquist and Horacio Ramirez.
The only truly bad move DM has made is Jose Guillen.
Placing more importance on a couple million dollars given to bench players or relievers than keeping our top two pitchers, both of whom are very good, and perhaps the best young closer in teh game (if not the best overall closer soon) for a long time....I'll put more weight on the guys who are going to be longer.
The good of locking up those three players easily outweighs given a couple million too much to Farnsworth and others like that. Also, there have been plenty of other moves that have worked out just fine for Moore, at both the major league and minor league levels.
When we signed Bloomquist, it was made a HUGE issue everywhere and was the talk of the internet for a while..and is still talked about. We lock up Greinke..everyone just talks about it for a day and then brush it aside and start talking about Bloomquist again. Just another example.
Re: Royals Sign Bloomquist: 2 YR 3 Million
I haven't said that he's made nothing but bad moves. I've said he's doled out significant cash for mediocrity, and he has. Has he made good moves? Yes. I'd argue, though, that Guillen isn't the only "truly bad move." Was it his worst? Yeah, probably...but giving Kyle Farnsworth the largest contract given to a non-closer reliever this offseason is a truly bad move. The bad moves aren't necessarily detrimental to the Royals success, but a bunch of bad and/or mediocre moves is....bad. Again, only time will tell if he's a truly good overall GM or if he's a GM in the Sabean-mold when it comes to big league moves.
He's obviously improved the Royals as a franchise, and nobody's disputing that. They're disputing the moves he has made, and his moves this offseason , overall, have NOT been good.
Re: Royals Sign Bloomquist: 2 YR 3 Million
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
I haven't said that he's made nothing but bad moves. I've said he's doled out significant cash for mediocrity, and he has. Has he made good moves? Yes. I'd argue, though, that Guillen isn't the only "truly bad move." Was it his worst? Yeah, probably...but giving Kyle Farnsworth the largest contract given to a non-closer reliever this offseason is a truly bad move. The bad moves aren't necessarily detrimental to the Royals success, but a bunch of bad and/or mediocre moves is....bad. Again, only time will tell if he's a truly good overall GM or if he's a GM in the Sabean-mold when it comes to big league moves.
He's obviously improved the Royals as a franchise, and nobody's disputing that. They're disputing the moves he has made, and his moves this offseason , overall, have NOT been good.
Well, you yourself say that the moves aren't necessarily detremental to the team's success. Bottom line, it's about wins and losses. The Royals have improved in that way every single year and are poised to do so again, while waiting for DM's drafts to start having an influence. I have still not seen any valid criticism of anything DM has done with our organization. Sure, the Guillen and Farnsworth contracts are bad. I have no problem with that..but that is the ONLY basis that people can come up with to say that DM is not a good GM...and that's just ignorant. Not one of the "mediocre signings" has blocked a young player, with the exception of the Jacobs trade, which will block Kila Ka'aihue for one year (maybe).
If DM starts giving out "big money" that blocks prospects, then I'll be upset about them. Giving big money to players to fill huge holes on the team where we have no alternatives (due to the complete wasteland our farm system was when DM took over...our AA/AAA teams are still almost completely empty) might not be the best possible move...but you yourself even said they aren't necessarily going to hurt the team.
DM has done NOTHING but help the team so far. That's a fact...yet all these bloggers and critics act like DM is not going to do a good job..or already is doing a bad job. No basis for it. We've improved in every single way possible, yet people still think he's not very good. That makes zero sense. ZERO.
