2023 – A new beginning for the Royals. Matt Quatraro era begins. A year to see which of our young players will make up the core going forward. Can Bobby Witt Jr become a superstar SS or will go to the hot corner? Will Brady Singer take the next step forward? Will Salvy be Salvy? Will Big Vin or Pratto take first base? Will they find a position for MJ? Who else emerges from the youth movement? Not to mention the development of the new downtown stadium.
Free Agents/Trades Acquisitions
Jordan Lyles, RHP
Ryan Yarbrough, LHP
Josh Taylor, LHP
Aroldis Chapman, LHP
Top 10 Prospects from Baseball America
1. Gavin Cross, OF
2. Cayden Wallace, 3B
3. Drew Waters, OF
4. Ben Kudrna, RHP
5. Frank Mozzicato, LHP
6. Maikel Garcia, SS
7. Tyler Gentry, OF
8. Nick Loftin, OF/3B
9. Angel Zerpa, LHP
10. Carter Jensen, C [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
They rigged the draft for...Cleveland?
That seems unlikely.
I'm definitely not a conspiracy guy and don't actually think this was rigged, but if it was, Cleveland and Cincy make a ton of sense if you correctly understand what the draft was implemented for. Cincy was awful the year before, got better, and got rewarded with the second pick. This is a dream scenario for MLB, because it shows that there is no reason to tank multiple years in a row. In fact, you might get rewarded by being better.
As for Cleveland, they are a logical pick as a harmless team that won't bring out the conspiracy crowd like the Yankees or Red Sox would, but accomplishes the real goal and why the draft was put in place: to punish bad teams. It's not about funneling players to certain teams, which is why people saying "why Cleveland that's dumb" are wrong in that assesment. They don't really care where the #1 pick goes. They just care that the top 3 teams don't pick #1, and dropping the As and Royals is great for them. I'd bet anything I own that Manfred would want this to be the outcome of the draft every single year, and so would the players union. Don't reward teams who tank, reward teams who spend money and drive up salaries. Again, I don't think this actually happened and it's unfortunate royals had the same odds to pick sixth as they did to pick first basically, but saying "they would never do this for Cleveland and Cincy" isn't any sort of proof that it wasn't rigged. [Reply]
Originally Posted by SithCeNtZ:
I'm definitely not a conspiracy guy and don't actually think this was rigged, but if it was, Cleveland and Cincy make a ton of sense if you correctly understand what the draft was implemented for. Cincy was awful the year before, got better, and got rewarded with the second pick. This is a dream scenario for MLB, because it shows that there is no reason to tank multiple years in a row. In fact, you might get rewarded by being better.
As for Cleveland, they are a logical pick as a harmless team that won't bring out the conspiracy crowd like the Yankees or Red Sox would, but accomplishes the real goal and why the draft was put in place: to punish bad teams. It's not about funneling players to certain teams, which is why people saying "why Cleveland that's dumb" are wrong in that assesment. They don't really care where the #1 pick goes. They just care that the top 3 teams don't pick #1, and dropping the As and Royals is great for them. I'd bet anything I own that Manfred would want this to be the outcome of the draft every single year, and so would the players union. Don't reward teams who tank, reward teams who spend money and drive up salaries. Again, I don't think this actually happened and it's unfortunate royals had the same odds to pick sixth as they did to pick first basically, but saying "they would never do this for Cleveland and Cincy" isn't any sort of proof that it wasn't rigged.
What? Why would Manfred want salaries of players high? Cincy was just a bit ahead of the Royals in spending and Cleveland was the 3rd lowest in spending. You make 0 sense. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dlphg9:
What? Why would Manfred want salaries of players high? Cincy was just a bit ahead of the Royals in spending and Cleveland was the 3rd lowest in spending. You make 0 sense.
You are missing the point completely which is why it makes no sense to you. Manfred wants salaries high as a byproduct of competitiveness. If hypothetically every team made it their absolute mission to be the best team every year regardless of future plans,then salaries will go up because free agency will be more competitive. This is basic supply and demand. He doesn't care about salaries in and of themselves he wants every team trying as hard as they can, which aligns with the players union complaining tanking teams aren't spending. [Reply]
It works great to discourage tanking...but it is bad for teams that are organically shitty, poorly run and cheap like the Royals. We aren't tanking, we are just bad from top to bottom with no end in site. [Reply]
Originally Posted by nychief:
It works great to discourage tanking...but it is bad for teams that are organically shitty, poorly run and cheap like the Royals. We aren't tanking, we are just bad from top to bottom with no end in site.
Oh please, we have $30million to spend!!!! Think of the 5 or 6 pieces of shit we'll be able to sign with that kind of coin! [Reply]
Originally Posted by SithCeNtZ:
I'm definitely not a conspiracy guy and don't actually think this was rigged, but if it was, Cleveland and Cincy make a ton of sense if you correctly understand what the draft was implemented for. Cincy was awful the year before, got better, and got rewarded with the second pick. This is a dream scenario for MLB, because it shows that there is no reason to tank multiple years in a row. In fact, you might get rewarded by being better.
As for Cleveland, they are a logical pick as a harmless team that won't bring out the conspiracy crowd like the Yankees or Red Sox would, but accomplishes the real goal and why the draft was put in place: to punish bad teams. It's not about funneling players to certain teams, which is why people saying "why Cleveland that's dumb" are wrong in that assesment. They don't really care where the #1 pick goes. They just care that the top 3 teams don't pick #1, and dropping the As and Royals is great for them. I'd bet anything I own that Manfred would want this to be the outcome of the draft every single year, and so would the players union. Don't reward teams who tank, reward teams who spend money and drive up salaries. Again, I don't think this actually happened and it's unfortunate royals had the same odds to pick sixth as they did to pick first basically, but saying "they would never do this for Cleveland and Cincy" isn't any sort of proof that it wasn't rigged.
But the Cardinals seem to believe they can push themselves into playoff position this year. So they're looking for some reasonably proficient BP arm. Do you guys even HAVE a reliever on the roster who managed an ERA below 4.5 over more than 30 innings last year?
Because a 4.5 ERA in relief is pretty much the bottom rung of roster worthy.
Jose Cuas looks like he might be something worth having in a middle relief role. Missed some bats, didn't walk the ballpark (though a BB/9 over 4 still sucks). If I had to pick somebody off your roster I guess it'd be Austin Cox but really we need a righty more than a lefty. Alec Marsh has interesting stuff but ZERO command.
Is James McArthur a thing? He doesn't appear to be; looks like a AAAA guy.
I mean the bottom line is that I'd spin the wheel and take my chances on Carlos Hernandez. I've always kinda liked Josh Staumont's stuff but if I'm swapping reclamation projects I'm not swapping a Gold glove power/speed LFer for a setup man. The respective degree of difficulties are identical but the upsides are far apart.
I just don't know what the Royals have to get it done. That big league roster is roooooouuuuuugh. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I just don't know what you've got.
I mean I'm not asking for Mariano Rivera here.
But the Cardinals seem to believe they can push themselves into playoff position this year. So they're looking for some reasonably proficient BP arm. Do you guys even HAVE a reliever on the roster who managed an ERA below 4.5 over more than 30 innings last year?
Because a 4.5 ERA in relief is pretty much the bottom rung of roster worthy.
Jose Cuas looks like he might be something worth having in a middle relief role. Missed some bats, didn't walk the ballpark (though a BB/9 over 4 still sucks). If I had to pick somebody off your roster I guess it'd be Austin Cox but really we need a righty more than a lefty. Alec Marsh has interesting stuff but ZERO command.
Is James McArthur a thing? He doesn't appear to be; looks like a AAAA guy.
I mean the bottom line is that I'd spin the wheel and take my chances on Carlos Hernandez. I've always kinda liked Josh Staumont's stuff but if I'm swapping reclamation projects I'm not swapping a Gold glove power/speed LFer for a setup man. The respective degree of difficulties are identical but the upsides are far apart.
I just don't know what the Royals have to get it done. That big league roster is roooooouuuuuugh.
Cuas is with the Cubs, traded last season for Nelson Velazquez.
McArthur, after his first game, was lights out. Staumont is a free agent. [Reply]
