Options
Official Royals thread
kcballboy
Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Why not? Every other team has one. Why not one for the worst of the worst.
Here's to two #1 draft picks in a row!
Here's to two #1 draft picks in a row!
Travis
0
Comments
Ive been watching so many highlights of the great Yanks vs. Royals games lately. I love when Brett was asked about it. He said something like, " The players on the Yankees TRULY hated the Royals, and the players on the Royals TRULY hated the Yankees " Those were true rivalries and not some of todays media contrived rivalries.
-- Yogi Berra
"Yeah, kids, I remember when the Royals lost 120 games, and just seven short years later, they broke .500. Man KC was going crazy that year."
Just kidding. I really hope Dayton Moore having total control and getting Dan Glass' nose out from where it doesn't belong is the answer.
Ever time I see the Lou Gehrig photo in your signature line, it leaves me mesmerized. Great choice!!
Remember these Chuck Norris Facts
1. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down
2. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, Chuck Norris can actually roundhouse kick you yesterday
3. There are no such things as lesbians, just women who have not yet met Chuck Norris
We'll see what the new GM can do with the new Glass brothers policy of "open wallet and closed mouth".
I did some math, and if they go 72-31 from here on out, they have a good shot at the post season.
I think I'm going to get a cardboard cutout of David Glass, and every time the royals win a game, I will remove a piece of the cutout. After I remove all 72 pieces, you will have a cutout of David Glass in a bikini, al la Major League.
Does anybody have a cardboard cutout of David Glass in a bikini that they would like to sell?
..look in Allard Baird's dumpster
Seriously, what a great way to welcome our new GM - that press-conference was a total PR nightmare for them. I'm glad those damn reporters had their credentials pulled.....there's a time and a place for everything - and that conference was not a place to attack David Glass! (although they were valid questions).
I hear the new GM already is working on getting some young arms in the minors.....and getting some of his scouts and development personel from the braves organization to jump ship after the season.
I think they have a real good shot at 120 though once they have to trade Stairs, Sanders, Grudzielanek, and Mientkiewicz.
On the bright side, it appears some minor league time lit a fire under Teahan's ass
Time to enjoy the KC T-Bones for the next couple of years!
I couldn't resist and got the address I wanted: makethebleedingstop@kansascity-royals.net
Surprised it was still available
Forget blocking him; find out where he lives and go punch him in the nuts. --WalterSobchak 9/12/12
Looking for Al Hrabosky and any OPC Dave Campbells (the ESPN guy)
This guy has to be the worst everyday player in baseball. Just all around not good at his job. Giving him the 4 year contract was one of the worst moves that Allard Baird ever made. And yes I do remember the multitude of trades, terrible draft picks, and Juan Gonzalez.
KC has won 14 of their last 21 and are playing some good ball lately. Did the same thing last year right after we got a new manager. Doubt they will keep it up, especially since we are going to have to start unloading guys like Sanders, Minenkiewicz, Grudzielanek, Stairs Etc... Anybody need ay good veteran experience for their postseason runs?
Forget blocking him; find out where he lives and go punch him in the nuts. --WalterSobchak 9/12/12
Looking for Al Hrabosky and any OPC Dave Campbells (the ESPN guy)
They need a change in ownership fast -- preferably a group committed to Kansas City and not some carpetbagger. Last I checked, the KC area wasn't exactly poor, so I would think it would challenging to field a competitive team, but do-able (check the team at the other end of the state!).
Not to derail the thread, but when the new MLB baseball negotiations start up again, one of the new terms should be to penalize cheap team owners who do not plow some luxury money back into their teams. When does the existing contract end?
<< <i>They interviewed George Brett, who seems depressed about the situation, and every local journalist they interviewed said that Glass is a cheapass, pocketing revenue sharing money
Not to derail the thread, but when the new MLB baseball negotiations start up again, one of the new terms should be to penalize cheap team owners who do not plow some luxury money back into their teams. When does the existing contract end? >>
They won't do it because big market teams (boston, ny, etc.) don't want these teams spending money, that's the truth.
The revenue sharing money is essentially 'hush' money, to keep these teams from fielding competitive clubs. They'd rather the small market teams have rosters full of players who will lose 100 games a year and assure the big market teams of playoff spots every year.
It's pretty easy to see that's the case. How often are you hearing Red Sox ownership complaining about the Marlins or D'Rays spending so little on payroll?
They aren't...they want as few teams competitive as possible, to assure their clubs maintain a distinct and undeniable advantage year in and year out.
<< <i>Well Selig and MLB should get some backbone then and insist on luxury tax spending by cheap owners rather than going after steroid users after the horse is out of the barn. >>
Absolutely not.
If the big market owners want to spend $200 million in payroll, then the small market owners should absolutely get to do whatever they want with the money.
<< <i>Whatever you say. Say, aren't you that Dungeons and Dragons chap? >>
What does that have to do with anything ? When your argument falls apart, resort to some namecalling?
Why should the owners of the D'rays be forced to spend $80 million on payroll when his team is still going to finish far behind teams spending $130 and $200 million in his own division?
That doesn't make any sense, and the big market owners love the current system.
If, in fact, MLB doesn't care about any of this, why not shaft these poor small market all the way and say screw you, you don't spend that's up to you, and we're not going to reward you for not doing so? Why reward these owners at all? At least Steinbrenner is willing to spend his millions on his team (and I'm a Mets fan), some of these small market owners treat their teams like the latest hedge fund. Look at the Pirates; they get a beautiful new stadium, they're right on the east coast in a sports-crazy town, but their team is an absolute embarrassment.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Well, if MLB doesn't compel the small market teams to put some of that luxury back into the product (team) they expect their citizens to shell out money to come see, what's the point of the luxury tax in the first place???
If, in fact, MLB doesn't care about any of this, why not shaft these poor small market all the way and say screw you, you don't spend that's up to you, and we're not going to reward you for not doing so? Why reward these owners at all? At least Steinbrenner is willing to spend his millions on his team (and I'm a Mets fan), some of these small market owners treat their teams like the latest hedge fund. Look at the Pirates; they get a beautiful new stadium, they're right on the east coast in a sports-crazy town, but their team is an absolute embarrassment. >>
Why?
Because the big market teams that dominate the landscape want it exactly the way it is now.
Steinbrenner would just as soon pay his tens of millions in payroll if it means half the teams won't be competitive. Same with Red Sox ownership. Same with every big market team with an unnatural advantage in revenue.
Say you're the owner of the Royals, and you have no revenue coming in, you have a TV deal that pays you nada, and you have teams that can pay well over $100 million in payroll. What's your incentive to go from $30 to $80 in payroll? You still aren't going to do better than .500, and if you do develop a top level prospect, he's just going to get picked off by the big market clubs anyways.
Also, there have been a number of successful "small market" teams that have both reached the postseason and been successful the last few years. That argument that only the big market teams make the playoffs is not entirely accurate anymore. Text
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>If it's such a losing proposition to own a small market MLB team then, why are there are no shortage of prospective owners when a team comes up for sale? Or, if you're an owner and truly agree with the reality presented above, why even pretend that you're interested in winning in the first place? You're doomed from the get-go. >>
There are so many prospective owners because MLB teams make MONEY. Millions and millions of dollars. In addition, how cool is it to say 'I own a baseball team'?
<< <i>Also, there have been a number of successful "small market" teams that have both reached the postseason and been successful the last few years. That argument that only the big market teams make the playoffs is not entirely accurate anymore. >>
Can you please tell me which small market teams have made the postseason consistently, oh, say, the last decade or so? I did a year by year analysis of this for the seasons through 2001, and determined that (a) only one team in the bottom half of team payroll even made the postseason in that time (Twins in either 02 or 03), and no team outside the top 10 consistently made the playoffs.
It happens that small market teams beat the system and are successful for a year, but they fall the next year, either due to their overacheivement the year before coming back to where they should be, or their top talent being signed away by big market teams.
There were a couple very good points raised.
1 - Small-market teams SHOULD put the money from revenue-sharing back into the team, either thru signing players, scouting, or player development. It should not be pocketed. Forbes reported that KC made a nice profit last year, all while I had to watch David Glass field a big, smokin turd-of-a-team....actually about 15 years of turds.
2 - Something has to be done about a team spending 200 million, and being able to cover-up their drafting and player development mistakes, by tossing more money at a problem......while other teams do not have the luxury of tossing money at their big-time misses.
3 - Baseball needs to open it's financial books. It should have an impartial auditing firm give us some numbers about what is actually going on with the teams payrolls.
There is a reasonable position on both sides of the fence here, whether you're a small or a large market franchise. Both sides have valid points. I'm not saying anything is drastically wrong, but common-sense would tell you that there is definitely a better economic model for baseball to utilize.
One thing is for sure, as long as Bud Selig is in office, baseball will continue to ignore ANY problem, whether financial or not, until forced to take action, by the fans, by the media, or by congress.
<< <i>There are so many prospective owners because MLB teams make MONEY. Millions and millions of dollars. In addition, how cool is it to say 'I own a baseball team'? >>
And how do you know this? Have you seen the books that even Congress can't get their hands on?
While some teams make money, MOST lose money on a yearly basis. Not until there is a sale, extending into the playoffs, or a "fluke" winning season from a team that has zero in payroll, most teams are in the red.
The last time numbers were in the open was back in 2001, when baseball was forced to discuss finances with Congress due to anti-trust hearings.
<< <i>Selig kept repeating baseball is desperate for a new economic system of salary restraints and more revenue sharing. He said 25 of 30 teams lost money this year with the industry as a whole forecasted to lose $232 million, with that rising to $519 million when debt and depreciation are added in. >>
Link
<< <i>And how do you know this? Have you seen the books that even Congress can't get their hands on?
While some teams make money, MOST lose money on a yearly basis. Not until there is a sale, extending into the playoffs, or a "fluke" winning season from a team that has zero in payroll, most teams are in the red. >>
You are out of your mind if you think baseball teams aren't profitable. These men who own them are incredibly savvy businesspeople - they aren't going to sit around on an investment losing money.
hee haw
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>And how do you know this? Have you seen the books that even Congress can't get their hands on?
While some teams make money, MOST lose money on a yearly basis. Not until there is a sale, extending into the playoffs, or a "fluke" winning season from a team that has zero in payroll, most teams are in the red. >>
You are out of your mind if you think baseball teams aren't profitable. These men who own them are incredibly savvy businesspeople - they aren't going to sit around on an investment losing money. >>
Which shows that you know absolutely nothing about the business side of baseball.
For most of the Owners/pool of investors, they enjoy the perks of being an Owner and get to use the losses as write-offs. Additionally, they make their pop on a Sale.
Steinbrenner is the only Owner I am aware of in which the team is their primary business and that is only because of the empire it has become. Otherwise, every other Owner made their vast fortunes in other businesses and still continue to make their primary income from said businesses.
<< <i>[You are out of your mind if you think baseball teams aren't profitable. These men who own them are incredibly savvy businesspeople - they aren't going to sit around on an investment losing money. >>
That is the most inaccurate statement made by you in months.
Numerous teams have lost money year after year. Eventually they may run in the black but many have posted annual red numbers for long periods.
Some owners actually care less about the money and just want to own a team. They have plenty of money already and would rather invest in a winning line up.
Check your facts and stop drinking the conspiracy koolaid.
<< <i>There are so many prospective owners because MLB teams make MONEY. Millions and millions of dollars. >>
<< <i>You are out of your mind if you think baseball teams aren't profitable. These men who own them are incredibly savvy businesspeople - they aren't going to sit around on an investment losing money. >>
ax has just been
yet again
are you really as idiotic as you pretend to be here, or do you dumb it down especially for us?
Baseball owners didn't get to be megamillionaires by making bad business investments. Dumping tens of millions into a losing proposition like a baseball team bleeding money IS a bad business investment.
You think these rich guys lose money for the hell of it to say 'I own a baseball team'?
Talk about dense.
<< <i>stown-
are you really as idiotic as you pretend to be here, or do you dumb it down especially for us?
Baseball owners didn't get to be megamillionaires by making bad business investments. Dumping tens of millions into a losing proposition like a baseball team bleeding money IS a bad business investment.
You think these rich guys lose money for the hell of it to say 'I own a baseball team'?
Talk about dense. >>
Nice spin job once again.
You said baseball owners make "Millions and millions of dollars", we responded that most lose money yearly. They do make money, usually significant gains on their investment after the SALE of the ballclub.
So I guess Bud lied under oath to Congress, which is a federal offense, during the anti-trust hearings.
LINK for the real dense poster
<< <i>Selig testifies in antitrust hearing
He [Bud Selig] said 25 of 30 teams lost money this year with the industry as a whole forecasted to lose $232 million, with that rising to $519 million when debt and depreciation are added in. >>
First, your link was from 2001...really up to date there sparky. But if you want to go there, how about this?
" MLB claims it will lose $232 million from baseball operations this year. Yet Andrew Zimbalist, a Smith College economist and author of Baseball and Billions, isn't convinced that MLB even has operating losses. "If baseball had net losses it would be relevant to player salary constraint," he says. "But they haven't provided the detail to show net losses."
The most obviously hazy area comes when media companies own teams and use them as programming, such as AOL Time Warner and the Atlanta Braves, so a team's media revenues might not end up on the team's bottom line. MLB's data suggest the Braves make about $20 million on local media, but Zimbalist suggests that might actually top $50 million."
How you like them apples?
<< <i>Text
First, your link was from 2001...really up to date there sparky. But if you want to go there, how about this?
" MLB claims it will lose $232 million from baseball operations this year. Yet Andrew Zimbalist, a Smith College economist and author of Baseball and Billions, isn't convinced that MLB even has operating losses. "If baseball had net losses it would be relevant to player salary constraint," he says. "But they haven't provided the detail to show net losses."
The most obviously hazy area comes when media companies own teams and use them as programming, such as AOL Time Warner and the Atlanta Braves, so a team's media revenues might not end up on the team's bottom line. MLB's data suggest the Braves make about $20 million on local media, but Zimbalist suggests that might actually top $50 million."
How you like them apples? >>
Yes it was from 2001, the last time MLB had a congressional hearing in regards to their anti-trust exemption. Bud testified under oath to Congress that 25 of the 30 teams lost money. If he lied, that would be a Federal offense, which would not only put him in a federal pen but would also revoke MLB's anti-trust status. So you are saying in just four short years (since you can't count this year just yet), 25 of 30 teams went from losing money to all making "Millions and millions of dollars" a year?
And by the way, that link you provied was from 2001 as well and an op-ed article. Great debating skills, ax.
If you had read my post (I know your reading skills are poor), you'd see I said:
"But if you want to go there, how about this?"
I am saying Selig didn't provide financial records to back up his claims that so many of the teams were losing money. I am saying I agree that the numbers can be skewed to show anything (hell, Enron books were cooked to show a profit).
<< <i>Stown-
If you had read my post (I know your reading skills are poor), you'd see I said:
"But if you want to go there, how about this?"
I am saying Selig didn't provide financial records to back up his claims that so many of the teams were losing money. I am saying I agree that the numbers can be skewed to show anything (hell, Enron books were cooked to show a profit). >>
Why must you continue to attempt throwing insults in a discussion?
If numbers were being skewed (saying 25 of 30 teams losing money is quite a serious claim), then Bud should be thrown in a Federal pen and MLB should have their anti-trust exemption ruled null and void. Just as I said...
<< <i>Bud testified under oath to Congress that 25 of the 30 teams lost money. If he lied, that would be a Federal offense, which would not only put him in a federal pen but would also revoke MLB's anti-trust status. >>
In regards to Enron, what happened when the lies were discovered? Oh yeah... Bankruptcy, record breaking fines, lawsuits, and jail time.
Congress, especially considering the steriods, would absolutely love nothing more than to revoke MLB's anti-trust status. What do you not understand about this?
if they truly cared about it, they would have forced MLB to open the books and see the real accounting.
They didn't, they don't, so baseball owners whine about losing money.
What was the last time a team changed hands? You think if teams are losing this kind of money, owners are going to sit on these money bleeders?
<< <i>stown-
if they truly cared about it, they would have forced MLB to open the books and see the real accounting.
They didn't, they don't, so baseball owners whine about losing money.
What was the last time a team changed hands? You think if teams are losing this kind of money, owners are going to sit on these money bleeders? >>
Do you understand what happens when something is anti-trust exempt?
Well, obviously you don't because you wouldn't have asked that question.
4 in a row after last night's pounding of the BJ's.
Either way its good to see them get on some sort of a roll. The fans deserve something to look forward to this summer.
-- Yogi Berra
I see the rresident derailer axhole is right in the middle of the
derailment.
Steve
Zack Greinke has had about 4 starts in AA Wichita, since getting back from his emotional issues.
2 decent starts, one crap start, and one really good start.
My guess is he'll be back with the club next year
Mark Mulder rookies
Chipper Jones rookies
Orlando Cabrera rookies
Lawrence Taylor
Sam Huff
Lavar Arrington
NY Giants
NY Yankees
NJ Nets
NJ Devils
1950s-1960s Topps NY Giants Team cards
Looking for Topps rookies as well.
References:
GregM13
VintageJeff
Note to the Yankees; Aaron Guiel is a hell of a hitter so don't waste him on the bench and minors like KC did. He could easily fill in as a full time outfielder. He's a little older (33 I think), but I never understood what he did to make management hate him. Must have been nailing one of Glass's girls.
<< <i>
<< <i>They interviewed George Brett, who seems depressed about the situation, and every local journalist they interviewed said that Glass is a cheapass, pocketing revenue sharing money
Not to derail the thread, but when the new MLB baseball negotiations start up again, one of the new terms should be to penalize cheap team owners who do not plow some luxury money back into their teams. When does the existing contract end? >>
They won't do it because big market teams (boston, ny, etc.) don't want these teams spending money, that's the truth.
The revenue sharing money is essentially 'hush' money, to keep these teams from fielding competitive clubs. They'd rather the small market teams have rosters full of players who will lose 100 games a year and assure the big market teams of playoff spots every year.
It's pretty easy to see that's the case. How often are you hearing Red Sox ownership complaining about the Marlins or D'Rays spending so little on payroll?
They aren't...they want as few teams competitive as possible, to assure their clubs maintain a distinct and undeniable advantage year in and year out. >>
Actually this is a valid theory --- a salary cap probably is needed to achieve some sort of competitive balance in the long run. And it may be better for the long term health of MLB -- the days of city and state governments handing out money for stadiums are over -- if the Royals eventually do not make it they will fold or get "contracted", setting up another battle with the player's union.