So let me get this straight...if you believe OKChiefs "source" and that we were offered Joey Wentz (which....good gawd...WHY?), then you surely believe far more credible sources than OKChiefs that said they were being asked to eat 20 million of Kennedy's salary. So you're telling me that you would pay 20 million outright to secure Wentz' rights / controllable years, were he available?
[Reply]

You're paying that money if you keep him anyway....what you're saying is that getting a borderline top 100 prospect for Ian Kennedy is worse than just keeping Kennedy.
[Reply]

It ain't my source, just posting what I saw on Twitter. I sure as hell don't have any sources.
[Reply]

Royals Farm Report is reputable. They have been around a while and do solid work. I trust that they were told this. Like I said, if true, there’s no excuse.

Yes, I would pay $20 million to secure the rights of a player who was a consensus top 100 player just 16 months ago, who fits in nicely with KC’s group of young arms, who was a supplemental first round pick, who is from the KC area, and who hasn’t even dented his 6.75 years of control yet.

The Braves turned around and shipped him out for Shane Greene (plus another prospect), so yeah, I think they would have sent him to KC 1x1 if KC was willing to eat the money.

KC wasn’t, so Greene was a better option.
[Reply]

Some people probably just dont understand that in baseball, unlike football, the contracts are 100% guaranteed.
[Reply]

THIS. I'm flummoxed that SMART baseball guys on here don't see this.

Josh Vernier and Ron Hugely were talking about this planted rumor earlier...and predictably, Vernier was the voice of reason while Ron says get rid of Kennedy at any cost. Ron is carrying your water guys. RON HUGELY. Let that sink in.
[Reply]

The Royals do a lot of things that make me think this next rebuild is going to be a disaster and Dayton Moore is a lucky SOB who's luck wore off.
[Reply]

It's because Wentz is a good prospect, a year later and the offer will likely be worse.
[Reply]

Well...this is consistent, then. That's you're conviction, then cool. But don't act like 29 other executives and owners would do this deal and we happen to have the one tandem that won't. When it's your 20 million, you can make that decision. Ultimately....we can compare notes when Wentz is a world beater in 5 years for the Tigers or mediocre to washed-out of baseball. Pitching "prospects", after all...
[Reply]

Pure speculation. You literally have no way of predicting this...especially when you're talking pitching prospects.
[Reply]

It doesn't even matter if he doesn't turn into a good MLB player. The bottom line is that there is a chance that he can and there's no chance that Ian Kennedy is going to mean a damn thing in the grand scheme of Royals baseball through 2020.

It's the same reason I ****ing hated the Cubs trading Jorge Soler for Wade Davis.
[Reply]

Uhh, that's not the right question. The Royals have a $20 million dollar liability. For that $20 million, the can keep Kennedy and hope to contend next year, they can trade him next year, or they could have flipped him for Wentz. Cutting Kennedy and saving $20 million is not an option so the premise of your question is flawed.
[Reply]

In terms of making the playoffs? Of course not. I'm interested in the continued development of our starters and stabilizing of the bullpen beginning with 2020. If you don't believe Kennedy is a plus in that...or don't care about stabilizing the bullpen or just think we have an equal to better chance stabilizing for less money without Kennedy for at least half of a season...then OK.
[Reply]

29 other? I don’t know. But a lot of teams eat money to move players and improve their return. It’s a good way to acquire young talent, which is harder to do than ever due to the hard slots in the amateur draft and IFA.

Ron Hughley isn’t carrying the water on this. Jeff Passan is. If amateurs were actually paid like what they’re worth on their initial contracts, acquisition costs of amateur talent would be drastically higher. Passan stuck a $40 million estimate on Witt and Rutschman when asked, so $24 for a guy like Wentz is right in line with that (if it even was that much).

As far as return on that value, even if Wentz only ends up becoming a solid reliever for KC, all it needs to get out of him to break even on the cost here is 3-4 wins above replacement. 6.75 years of solid reliever easily tops that.

Wentz doesn’t have to reach his upside (good No. 3 starter) to make that deal a sound financial decision, long-term.

Wentz would slot in around Kris Bubic in terms of prospect rankings, possibly higher. This is a legit guy and I can’t see a team offering more without the pressure of playoff availability. Reliever prices are usually best at the trade deadline.
[Reply]

Guess I just dont understand why you care about "stabilizing" a bullpen that ultimately doesn't matter today, tomorrow, or next year.
[Reply]