Originally Posted by Mecca:
Dayton Moore seems to be under this impression that the Royals aren't a tanking team so that right there throws in a wrench.
Dayton Moore is a fucking idiot, it just took him hiring Matheny for more people to get on board with him not being all that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
Seriously, can you at some point f*** off about this dumb topic?
We don’t want to read this shit all year long. We don’t want you BFIBs coming over here every time we lose a goddamn game (which will be a lot) with your lame as Matheny bitching.
And I swear, Duncan, If you continue obliging this stupidity to clutter up the thread, people should start blocking you.
Block Duncan, a rational and knowledgeable person with valuable insight, or block your dumbass. I think that's an easy choice. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
Seriously, can you at some point f*** off about this dumb topic?
We don’t want to read this shit all year long. We don’t want you BFIBs coming over here every time we lose a goddamn game (which will be a lot) with your lame as Matheny bitching.
And I swear, Duncan, If you continue obliging this stupidity to clutter up the thread, people should start blocking you.
Originally Posted by OKchiefs:
Dayton Moore is a fucking idiot, it just took him hiring Matheny for more people to get on board with him not being all that.
Since the WS win he's pretty much been awful at big league decisions, he was bad at minor league ones for awhile before that. He is one of those guys who won't trade his good players when they are a 100 loss team with guys who will be declining when any sense of a turnaround happens just because...because ticket sales, because of attachment.
The Royals have always overvalued their own players and they continue to do it to this day. Dayton Moore also seems to not realize a purposeful tank is a quicker way to rebuild than this shit he's doing. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigRedChief:
I know you know all the bad stuff about Matheny, the arrogance and his my way or the highway approach to young players.
Have you heard anything about him changing? Learned from the firing that his approach on young players was whack? Real change not press conference change?
He talked about changing in his press conference. I’ll believe it when I see it.
Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla:
Why wouldn’t the royals grab him? We’re not contending.
They should. Goodbye Cheslor Cuthbert.
Originally Posted by OKchiefs:
How is it possible in today's day and age to build a system that loaded? From the perspective of a Royals fan it seems impossible.
Draft high (and hit). Spend a lot in international free agency (and hit). Rape some teams in trades.
They got Tatis for Shields’ godawful contract. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla:
Why wouldn’t the royals grab him? We’re not contending.
Baseball isn't charity, I get it.
But there's just something shitty from an organizational standpoint about saying "yeah, we know that we suck and we KNOW that this is going to be really bad for this kid's development....but we're gonna do it anyway."
There have been a fair number of players who have been ruined by the Rule 5, IMO. They have a hot season in the low minors, get snapped up, get buried at the back of a big league roster where they're overmatched, go back down to A+ or AA the following year and take forever to knock the rust off. If they ever do at all.
Prospect's are as delicate as butterfly wings, man. It takes so very little to bump those guys off course. And besides, the Royals wouldn't just need to find space on the 26 man (I'm pretty sure that goes into effect this year) but also their 40.
If they want him that badly, surely they can find some kid who's not Rule 5 eligible yet who is 6'4'' and throws 90 mph with poor command who the Padres think "Well hell, there's a 10% chance he develops into a 6th inning guy someday and we don't have to keep him on our 40 while we find out..."
You flip that organizational depth arm to the Padres for Ruiz, you put Ruiz on your 40 and you option him to A+ where he can actually develop. Otherwise you're just being a dick to both the player and an organization that probably won't forget next time you give them a call. [Reply]
They also got Chris Paddock for Fernando Rodney in 2016, because they were willing to take a guy further away they got a higher ceiling guy and now look who he is. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
They also got Chris Paddock for Fernando Rodney in 2016, because they were willing to take a guy further away they got a higher ceiling guy and now look who he is.
Never understood how a team that was smart enough to trade for Chris Paddack was dumb enough to dump Trae Turner for Wil Myers and some spare parts.
Or how the hell the Nationals got him for a strikeout artist like Steven Souza Jr. Like, was Mike Rizzo sitting at home when the Rays and Padres got him on a conference call and were like "Hey, we need a 3rd team to complete this deal, wanna give us that dude who dove to save a no-hitter in exchange for a 1st round pick at SS who's played exceptionally well but in such a short period of time that we can't even legally trade him to you yet?"
You look at all the pieces that went back and forth between the Padres and Rays and you KNOW that the Nationals were just put in that deal to finish the trade off. Because somehow the Rays just HAD to have Souza.
Rizzo had to see that as a gift from the heavens, man. That was a bizarre deal from the moment it was made. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Never understood how a team that was smart enough to trade for Chris Paddack was dumb enough to dump Trae Turner for Wil Myers and some spare parts.
Or how the hell the Nationals got him for a strikeout artist like Steven Souza Jr. Like, was Mike Rizzo sitting at home when the Rays and Padres got him on a conference call and were like "Hey, we need a 3rd team to complete this deal, wanna give us that dude who dove to save a no-hitter in exchange for a 1st round pick at SS who's played exceptionally well but in such a short period of time that we can't even legally trade him to you yet?"
You look at all the pieces that went back and forth between the Padres and Rays and you KNOW that the Nationals were just put in that deal to finish the trade off. Because somehow the Rays just HAD to have Souza.
Rizzo had to see that as a gift from the heavens, man. That was a bizarre deal from the moment it was made.
Looks like a brainfart from a couple of smart organizations there. But at the same time the Padres organization is full of high end middle infielders right now. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
Looks like a brainfart from a couple of smart organizations there. But at the same time the Padres organization is full of high end middle infielders right now.
I'm just not wholly convinced the Padres are truly smart. They might just be really damn lucky.
I mean...they signed Eric Hosmer to a deal that would've been insane had it been 2 years shorter and with a 20% lower AAV.
You sign Hosmer to a 6 yr/$85 million deal and you've STILL signed him to a dumb contract. Yet the Padres gave him 8/$144. That's just laughably idiotic.
They have some really stupid decisions on their ledger and it's the same group of guys. I don't think they've cracked a magic code - I just think they took a couple of chances that paid off. That's why I think teams should be more willing to deal their veterans for these seemingly 'paltry' returns.
Because they become Luis Castillo, Yordan Alvarez, Chris Paddack and Fernando Tatis Jr more often than you realize. Not frequently, mind you, but there's one of these deals a year that just go nuclear on a team.
You can't win if you won't play. So when you're sitting on a Homer Bailey and put him on the market, you have maybe a 10% chance of getting a valuable player in return long-term. But hey, 10% is better than nothing. Those crazy deals happen. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I'm just not wholly convinced the Padres are truly smart. They might just be really damn lucky.
I mean...they signed Eric Hosmer to a deal that would've been insane had it been 2 years shorter and with a 20% lower AAV.
You sign Hosmer to a 6 yr/$85 million deal and you've STILL signed him to a dumb contract. Yet the Padres gave him 8/$144. That's just laughably idiotic.
They have some really stupid decisions on their ledger and it's the same group of guys. I don't think they've cracked a magic code - I just think they took a couple of chances that paid off. That's why I think teams should be more willing to deal their veterans for these seemingly 'paltry' returns.
Because they become Luis Castillo, Yordan Alvarez, Chris Paddack and Fernando Tatis Jr more often than you realize. Not frequently, mind you, but there's one of these deals a year that just go nuclear on a team.
You can't win if you won't play. So when you're sitting on a Homer Bailey and put him on the market, you have maybe a 10% chance of getting a valuable player in return long-term. But hey, 10% is better than nothing. Those crazy deals happen.
The Padres just have so many numbers to throw at seemingly every position, it's hard not seeing them become a contender. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I'm just not wholly convinced the Padres are truly smart. They might just be really damn lucky.
I mean...they signed Eric Hosmer to a deal that would've been insane had it been 2 years shorter and with a 20% lower AAV.
You sign Hosmer to a 6 yr/$85 million deal and you've STILL signed him to a dumb contract. Yet the Padres gave him 8/$144. That's just laughably idiotic.
They have some really stupid decisions on their ledger and it's the same group of guys. I don't think they've cracked a magic code - I just think they took a couple of chances that paid off. That's why I think teams should be more willing to deal their veterans for these seemingly 'paltry' returns.
Because they become Luis Castillo, Yordan Alvarez, Chris Paddack and Fernando Tatis Jr more often than you realize. Not frequently, mind you, but there's one of these deals a year that just go nuclear on a team.
You can't win if you won't play. So when you're sitting on a Homer Bailey and put him on the market, you have maybe a 10% chance of getting a valuable player in return long-term. But hey, 10% is better than nothing. Those crazy deals happen.
Isn't that the argument for taking a Rule 5 guy (for absolutely nothing)? I get the developmental delay, but it's still a good asset. [Reply]
