04/16/24
December 16, 2005
Royals add 4 Free Agents: It appears that the Royals are actually spending that new found payroll in an attempt to turn around their dismal skid.
that's if you consider elmer dessens "solid."
posted by ninjavshippo at 01:37 PM on December 16, 2005
It's to bad they'll be last place in their division again.
posted by sadsadcubsfan at 01:46 PM on December 16, 2005
Mientkiewicz is a back-up-middle-infielder playing at 1B. Having him there is like having a giant sinkhole (offensively) in your lineup. You need a LOT of power in the rest of your lineup to make up for his wet-noodle bat. Grudzielanek is another sub-par bat, but he's got the most hope of the three. So he won't be making up the slack for Mientkiewicz. Bako has never even come CLOSE to being even an average hitter in the major leagues. So he won't be making up for the hitting deficit that the first two provide. Elarton hasn't been an above average pitcher since 1999. So, in summation, the Royals picked up 3 below-average hitters and a below-average pitcher. So he won't be helping the pitching staff to make up the slack when the hitting disappears because of the first three signings. It appears that the Royals are actually spending that new found payroll in an attempt to turn around their dismal skid. It appears that the Royals are actually spending that new found payroll in an attempt to turn their dismal skid into an all-out flaming-wreckage crash. Other people's take on it.
posted by grum@work at 02:11 PM on December 16, 2005
hope it helps them put people in the ballpark...and maybe we will see teams like this (low market) start to be on the rise again..instead of the same teams time and time again.. and you know WHO im talking about. good for them...hope you have a good year this year ROYALS fans...something to look foward to for a change.
posted by no band waggon at 02:23 PM on December 16, 2005
Its funny- the players they signed suck- but theyre twice as good as who they have playing now- its sad really.
posted by redsoxrgay at 02:25 PM on December 16, 2005
Yeah, the Royals are adding a couple of wins at low cost, but they were 62-100 last year. They're not a 90 win team trying to get over the hump, they're a 65 win team trying to stay in contention past May. Meh.
posted by mbd1 at 02:29 PM on December 16, 2005
Seems like they have the 2001 AL Central wrapped up.
posted by yerfatma at 02:45 PM on December 16, 2005
hope it helps them put people in the ballpark...and maybe we will see teams like this (low market) start to be on the rise again..instead of the same teams time and time again.. and you know WHO im talking about. In this decade world series winners are: 2000 Yankees 2001 Diamondbacks 2002 Angels 2003 Marlins 2004 Red Sox 2005 White Sox So no, I don't know WHO you're talking about. Who are these same teams winning over and over again?
posted by justgary at 04:27 PM on December 16, 2005
hey now they will only have 96 loses
posted by barry from h-town at 04:30 PM on December 16, 2005
justgary- it's true that a different team has won the world series in the last six years. However, how about the fact that the Yankees and Red Sox have finished 1-2 in the AL East in every year that you mentioned (plus '99 and '98)? 8 years in a row with the same team in first place in a division AND the same team in second place. One word: Boring. By the way, it wouldn't be as boring if it wasn't largely (if not wholly) based on the payrolls of these two teams.
posted by DudeDykstra at 05:12 PM on December 16, 2005
There have been 6 different teams win the World Series in the past 6 seasons. There have been 10 different teams make the World Series in the past 6 seasons. There have been 18 different teams make the playoffs in the past 6 seasons. The fact that two teams seem to dominate one of the six divisions isn't really that important. Every other division has had at least 3 different teams make the playoff during that time (the NL West has had 4), including the AL Central, where KC resides. Kansas City has already had their time (making the playoffs 7 times in 10 years). It's the fact that they make terrible roster decisions year after year since then that keeps them (and Detroit) out of the playoffs. Minnesota, Cleveland and Chicago have had similar bad runs, but they've made the playoffs after rebounding. KC doesn't know how to "rebound". Blaming their misfortune and mistakes on the Yankees and Red Sox is just wrong. By the way, it wouldn't be as boring if it wasn't largely (if not wholly) based on the payrolls of these two teams. ...which also explains the playoff dominance of the Los Angeles Dodgers and New York Mets.
posted by grum@work at 08:17 PM on December 16, 2005
Grum, you missed my point. I was only explaining that even though 6 different teams have won the series, the Yankees (and if second place counts, the Red Sox) do keep "winning over and over again" for what has now been 8 consecutive years. And if you say that money has nothing to do with the Yankees success, than you're in some serious denial. I never made any point about the rest of major league baseball, which is what your entire post was about.
posted by DudeDykstra at 09:02 PM on December 16, 2005
DudeDykstra: Yankees and Red Sox have finished 1-2 in the AL East in every year that you mentioned (plus '99 and '98)? 8 years in a row with the same team in first place in a division AND the same team in second place. One word: Boring. Not to get in the way of your ill-informed rant, but there are still some of us alive from 2003-4 who didn't think it was all that boring.
posted by yerfatma at 09:06 PM on December 16, 2005
The bottom line here, is that the AL Central will be the Toughest, most competive division in the MLB this upcoming year
posted by daddisamm at 10:09 AM on December 17, 2005
And if you say that money has nothing to do with the Yankees success, than you're in some serious denial. I never made any point about the rest of major league baseball, which is what your entire post was about. If it was only about money, then the Yankees would have won the World Series every year. Or the Red Sox. Or the Los Angeles Dodgers. Or the New York Mets. The Yankees have done well (in the past) because they used money AND smarts to build their teams. Now, they seem to have abandoned the "smarts" part and are going strictly with the "money" part. They were dominating in the late 1990s because they used their brains with the money. The Red Sox and the Yankees have dominated the AL East equally because of brawn (money) and brains. The Blue Jays, Orioles and (most of all) Devil Rays have not been very competitive in the past 6 years because they haven't really been that smart (or were in the part of the development cycle where you aren't competitive just yet). And the only way that the Yankees or Red Sox affect the Royals' chances of making the playoffs is by denying them a shot at the wild card spot. It doesn't stop KC from winning their own division.
posted by grum@work at 01:27 PM on December 17, 2005
the Yankees (and if second place counts, the Red Sox) do keep "winning over and over again" for what has now been 8 consecutive years. You must absolutely hate Bobby Cox, then.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 08:51 PM on December 18, 2005
The bottom line here, is that the AL Central will be the Toughest, most competive division in the MLB this upcoming year Unlikely. The Indians and White Sox will be great to good. That's about it.
posted by yerfatma at 06:24 AM on December 19, 2005
All 4 players are experienced and while none are really superstars, they are strong at their positions considering the money that they cost the Royals. Grudzielanek and Mientkiewicz will shore up first and second with solid defense and consistent bats (Both of which the Royals desperately need). Elarton has been around but he put up solid numbers last year and figures into the rotation, while Bako will be Buck's backup, Buck needs all the help can get to help him learn. All told these look great for the Royals and way to go. About time they get some solid players.