Originally Posted by sedated:
Was Houston not at their pinnacle? Or could they only win after the KC dynasty was gone?
They were actually a year early that year, they gave the Royals a huge test and honestly without the bad hope that went over Correira's glove the Royals were not in a good spot.
Glad it worked out the way it did but that was a tense series. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rudy tossed tigger's salad:
Less to do with KC, and more to due with Verlander and Bregman.
Those two have taken them to the next level.
It’s why I respect the hell out of Jeff Luhnow. Many GMs in his situation would have sat tight instead of paying the prospect price for Verlander, and many would have caved to Allard (which would have prevented them from getting Bergman).
He’s the best GM in baseball. People can talk about Friedman all they want, but he hasn’t adjusted to working in a big market. He’s still acting like a small market GM who can’t afford to move prospects. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
Houston is not married to any player/prospect either, the Royals have some of that issue, Houston will move anyone if the deal is right.
Here's an extremely long but very interesting read on the Astros model:
The latest KC Star article is full of interesting tidbits on the trade deadline:
- Royals wanted major league ready talent on any pieces with multiple years of control (despite not being close to contending)
- The Royals were reluctant to throw in money to facilitate trades
-The Royals want to build depth in the minors
All of those are obvious and are already well known, but there's a lot of contradiction in there. How do you build depth in the minors without being willing to trade anyone of value and without being willing to throw in some money here or there? [Reply]
Originally Posted by OKchiefs:
The latest KC Star article is full of interesting tidbits on the trade deadline:
- Royals wanted major league ready talent on any pieces with multiple years of control (despite not being close to contending)
- The Royals were reluctant to throw in money to facilitate trades
-The Royals want to build depth in the minors
All of those are obvious and are already well known, but there's a lot of contradiction in there. How do you build depth in the minors without being willing to trade anyone of value and without being willing to throw in some money here or there?
They wanted Brett Phillips types that they could hold in AAA to delay their service time. [Reply]
Originally Posted by OKchiefs:
The latest KC Star article is full of interesting tidbits on the trade deadline:
- Royals wanted major league ready talent on any pieces with multiple years of control (despite not being close to contending)
- The Royals were reluctant to throw in money to facilitate trades
-The Royals want to build depth in the minors
All of those are obvious and are already well known, but there's a lot of contradiction in there. How do you build depth in the minors without being willing to trade anyone of value and without being willing to throw in some money here or there?
The contradiction is because he’s in general GM speak, which needs to be taken with a grain of salt rather than at face value.
Like “MLB ready talent.” People assume that means guys who have debuted. It doesn’t mean that, necessarily. It just means players who are close (AA and AAA would count). [Reply]
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
The contradiction is because he’s in general GM speak, which needs to be taken with a grain of salt rather than at face value.
Like “MLB ready talent.” People assume that means guys who have debuted. It doesn’t mean that, necessarily. It just means players who are close (AA and AAA would count).
The Royals seem to always overvalue their own players, they had this issue even in the good years. [Reply]