Are the Royals cursed?
Posted by Andy on July 24, 2010
The Royals have made plenty of bad decisions over the last 20 years, but you can't blame them for this. David DeJesus is out for the year after tearing a thumb ligament while diving to catch a fly ball that ended up as an inside-the-park homer for Derek Jeter. The terrible part of this for the Royals is that numerous teams were making competing offers to acquire him and the Royals could've gotten a couple of good young players in exchange. Now they'll get nothing although they at least have an option on him for next year.
July 24th, 2010 at 11:14 am
What can i say, i have been a Royals fan since the day i was born and i actually think this is a blessing in disguise. I never liked the idea of trading one of the better Royal players and i am glad he is still hear and hope he can get healthy and help some of these young studs we have in AA/AAA in the coming years. Now if we could just dump Gullien i would be even happier, slightly gitty lol
July 24th, 2010 at 11:56 am
It would be hard to say that anyone is "cursed" who has had such standout players as Brett, Saberhagen, et al; but let's face it, the ghost of Charlie O. might just be as long-lasting as the Great Chicago Goat.
July 24th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
The Royals are in a difficult situation because of the economics of baseball changes drastically during the late 80's-early 90's. They're in one of the smallest media markets and don't receive enough revenue from the local and cable t.v. contracts to compete with the big boys.
The best thing would be for the Royals to move into the NY market in New Jersey or Connecticut. This would accomplish two things: One, dramatically increase the revenue stream for the team. Two, lower the economic advantage the Yankees and Mets have on the rest of the league. But this will never happen because baseball is exempt from anti-trust violations so the Yankees and Mets would never allow another team coming into the market.
The Royals seem to lack any kind of vision for what their goals should be. It's almost as if their team goals are to win 83 games and then they go back to losing 95 games a year. Also they don't take enough risks for a team in their position. They should try things like an "all defensive team", four man rotations. etc.
Also the Royals make a lot of questionable and dumb moves for a team with limited resources. They gave Gil Meche $55 million dollars and Jose Guillen $36 million dollars. That's $91 million dollars for those two guys. They produced 9.3 WAR for 7 seasons with the Royals.
Seriously the Royals would have been much better off to spend $100-110 million on a 7 year contract for Carlos Beltran back in 2005. The difference between Beltran vs. Meche & Guillen was about $10-20 million spread out over 7 years. In baseball terms 20 million over 7 years is nothing, basically what you pay a back-up infielder.
And what's the best they got for Beltran in that 2004 trade? Buck and Teahan?? Buck is a lousy catcher who's basically a back-up at best, Teahan is a horrible fielder who has a career 97ops+ who's basically a replacement level player.
And why do they still have Soria?? Jokim Soria on the Royals is like having an awesome jacuzzi for an old broken down house. Trade the Jacuzzi for some new doors and windows.
July 24th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Is being the third wheel in the NY market really any better than being in KC?
I don't think anybody has ever liked the Guillien signing, but up until his injuries, Meche was living up to his deal.
I think may be a little behind the times on the Beltran deal as neither of those guys play forbid anymore. And that "lousy","back up at best" catcher was an all star this year and one of the better offensive catchers this year.
July 24th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
It was the strike that ended the 1994 season that really cursed the Royals. KC was just a few games back of the Indians and White Sox when 8/12/94 occurred, and the Royals have never been the same. Since Selig took over as commissioner, the Royals have had only 3 winning seasons (1993, 1994 and 2003). Kansas City, Pittsburgh and Montreal were the strongest teams in baseball when Bowie Kuhn was commissioner, now Kuhn's dead, the Royals are horrible, the Pirates haven't won since Selig has been commissioner and the Expos are in D.C. And dare I say that the Blue Jays have never been in the playoffs since Bud realigned the divisions? Fire Bud Selig, hire someone who could give MLB a salary cap so KC can compete with the Yanks and make MLB fun again for all 30 teams so we can forget about high salaries and steroids.
July 24th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
You had some great points Hugh but I may be in the minority when I say I hope baseball never gets a salary cap. It makes for some great David vs. Goliath match-ups.
July 24th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
I don't think they're cursed because I don't believe in that stuff.
July 24th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Been a Royals fan since Quisenberry (favorite player of all time for me)
I think having Herk Robinson as GM for so long was what caused the curse. That guy had to have been the worst GM ever. At least the worst to make it to 10 years at one job.
The Jermaine Dye deal got me to stop pulling for the Royals for a year. When I heard about it, I was a bit excited initially because I heard of Jose Ortiz and a couple other prospects in the deal (neither Ortiz nor I dont think the others panned out, but anyway). Then I heard that it was a 3 team deal and those prospects were going to Colorado. We were getting Neifi Perez. What the heck Neifi Perez?! At that point, I got to thinking they were actually trying to lose. So, I didnt want to hear about them the rest of that year and on through the winter and spring training. I came back but I do often feel like I am in a bad relationship, LOL.
I am sure, I just brought painful memories for other Royals fans.
July 24th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Although it's a bummer that he is out for the year, I agree with comment #1 that it's a good thing that he won't be traded. The Royals seem to like to trade their good players for prospects (see Dye, Beltran, Damon, and recently Callaspo), but the prospects they receive never seem to pan out. I was worried they would do the same with DeJesus. In my opinion, the Royals have enough prospects now, and they just need to give them time to develop. Maybe in 5 or 10 years, we will be contenders with Aaron Crow, Noel Arguilles, Eric Hosmer, and Mike Moustakas, but this will only happen if we can hang on to our good players, such as Butler, Greinke, DeJesus, and Soria.
July 24th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Baird traded Dye. What killed them was no owner, then an owner who wanted to recoup his investment. Going cheap on the draft an international market is what left the system in shambles. The team had to be rebuilt from the ground up when Moore took over, and he was able to do that because he convinced Glass to spend money on the draft. Now they have the best system in baseball. Probably 8-10 guys in the top 100 prospects to start next year. They don't need to move, and they don't need a salary cap. They are going to be just fine, and for a long, long time as long as they continue to build from within.
July 24th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
John Buck has played 7 years in the majors and has a career .300 on base percentage with a lifetime .241 batting average, he's not a good defensive catcher....so yeah I would say he's a lousy catcher who's having a bit of a fluky season with the bat.
July 24th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Yeah, I do know Baird traded Dye. I didnt think he was much better overall. Though, he did seem to have his occasional coherent moments.
July 24th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
What killed the Royals was Baird not being competant (and being allowed to have that many seasons as GM) and a lack of ownership willing to do anything with the club. Kauffman's death caused everything to go haywire.
I feel that the Royals are on a decent path back to respectability. Callaspo is a backup infielder on a good team who has a good stick for a middle infielder but no middle infielder instincts, and a poor bat for a corner infielder. The two prospects they got back for him could pan out (I saw Smith compared to Joe Saunders, and if they get someone like that in return for Callaspo, excellent). DeJesus getting injured does hurt (I apologize for the slight pun), but this could turn out to be a positive as well. Gordon is back in the majors and playing the outfield, so now they can evaluate whether or not he can ever give them anything. If they can trade Guillen, then maybe Kila gets his shot to see if he can become a productive major leaguer.
I also feel that they can unload Farnsworth and possibly Podsednik as well. There are a number of teams that could use another outfielder, especially one that can play all three positions. And every team is looking for relief help this time of yea. Plus it helps that Napalm Kyle is pitching well.
Like Groundball above, I became a Royals fan because of Dan Quisenberry when I was growing up. It's been a long 25 years, with the random exception of 2003 when they caught lightning in a bottle and almost pulled it out. I think it's going to be another couple years, but I can't wait for the payoff in the end.
July 24th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
In Response to John Q @12:12 P.M.
For a team that has been as terrible as the Royals have for the last 25 years, I think they draw pretty well. While they competed in 2003, the crowds were large and enthusiastic. I do not think their problems would be solved by becoming the Newark Gnats or the Hartford Horned Frogs.
Also, why would someone in Dayton Moore's position take risks, especially large financial risks. As your post pointed out, the Royals have paid two eight-digit contracts in the last 4 years, and both have been widely criticized as ill-advised moves. Carlos Beltran would not have helped the Royals.** The Mets have certainly spent money in the last decade and put an expensive team around Beltran, and it has yielded very little return for them.
**As a sidenote, there was no way Beltran was going to resign with the Royals after 2004.
However, as far as Buck and Teahen go, I could not agree more. Those guys blow. Every time I think of "John Buck, All Star" it makes me want to vomit.
July 24th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Kmcmc,
I used to love the Royals when I was a young. They were one of the best-run organizations in baseball. It's extremely sad to see what's happened to that franchise.
The Royals draw well but the name of the game is local t.v. contracts and the Royals would suddenly be a mid/big market team in New Jersey playing in the A.L. East. There's tons of people in the N.Y. area that hate the Yankees so they could get a following. It doesn't really matter anyway because the Yankees and Mets would never allow such a thing.
They might have signed Beltran if they offered him $110 million. My point about Beltran is they didn't sign him because he was Too Expensive and then they went out and spent $91 million dollars on two players that gave them 1/3 of the production that Beltran has produced.
My point about the Royals taking risks is not about salary because they can't, I mean they should be thinking radically outside the Box, for example: four man rotations, Make an extreme pitcher's park, something like 375 feet down the lines, An all defense team, setting the batting order by descending on-base percentage, etc.
July 25th, 2010 at 2:25 am
Pardon me for being blunt, but the Royals aren't cursed. they just suck
July 25th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
@3 - Ask the New Jersey Devils about being the "3rd Wheel" in the New York market.
July 25th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Double Diamond,
The Irony in your statement is the Devils started out as the Kansas City Scouts and had to move because they weren't successful in K.C.
It's a Different sport anyway, there's no salary cap in Hockey, there's nowhere near the income disparity in hockey like there is in baseball. And besides the Devils are fine, they have a brand new arena that's much nicer than Madison Square Garden and that dump in Nassau County.
Plus what's your point? Since 1995, the Devils have made it to the Cup finals 4 times and won 3 of them. They've finished in first 9 times since 1995 and they've made it to the playoffs every year except 1996.
The Islanders haven't finished first since 1988, haven't made it to a cup final since 1984 and they only made the playoffs four times since 1995.
The Rangers haven't finished first or made it to a cup finals since they won in 1994 and since 1995 they've missed the playoffs 8 times.
July 25th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
I know this is off-topic, but I have a question. This last week, the Royals traded Albert Callaspo to the Angels for pitchers Sean O'Sullivan and Will Smith. Before the trade, O'Sullivan was the starting pitcher for the Angels in their game Tuesday at New York. Today, the Royals are playing at New York, and O'Sullivan is the starting pitcher.
So my question is this: How many times has a pitcher started 2 different games as a visitor in the same ball park in the same week? I'm guessing it's pretty rare. Is there a way to look this up? I'm not all that familiar with the Play Index or other available databases, but I would be curious to know. Thanks in advance.
July 25th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
KC got pounded 12-6 today. Why didn't Kauffman's family continue to own the Royals instead of David Glass? If the Royals keep on playing bad baseball, I'll never shop at WalMart again (Glass owns WalMart).
Would Dollar General be interested in buying the Yankees? LOL
July 26th, 2010 at 12:16 am
The Royals are far from cursed. They have had a lack of direction and a lack of a solid plan ever since Ewing Kauffmann died. Another mistake they made was when they refused to switch to the National League Central in the last round of expansion. The option was given to Kansas City first and when they did not jump at the chance, Milwaukee sure did. Now, the owner (David Glass) has been more focused on the bottom line instead of bringing in and paying for actual talent which in the end would improve the bottom line as well.
I am a Cardinal fan and lived closer to KC than St Louis for a good chunk of my life. The Royals were at one time the BEST run organization in the entire sport. Until 1996, the Royals had never finished in last place in their division (in their first year 1969, they finished 4th in a 6 team division, ahead of the Angels and the Seattle Pilots). This was despite playing in that same small market. The KC Market size did not change, so the change was in the management of the organization.
I hope to see the Royals get back on their feet. I also would like to see their NL equivalent (Pittsburgh) also become relevant again. They have showed signs of having an idea of how to do things, but still aren't there.
July 26th, 2010 at 9:19 am
I know this is off-topic but why in the world did a team need to move from the AL to the NLC? What is the rationale for having a 14- and a 16-team league, instead of two 15-team leagues with 6 divisions of 5-each? I call this kind of bizarre decision "Bud being Bud".
July 26th, 2010 at 9:24 am
You need to have an even number of teams in each league so that during regular (non-interleague) play, all teams can be playing. If you had 15 teams in each league, then one team would need to take off during each 3-game series, or be playing the team from the other league that is also off during that period.
July 26th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Kelly,
As Andy said, if you have two leagues with an off number of teams, you would either have one team off every weekend (not what MLB wants) or would have interleague play all year long (ugh).
July 29th, 2010 at 2:22 am
One of these days, MLB will get it right and realize they are, and have been for a while, one 30 team league, and not two seperate leauges which barring the DH discrepancy are pretty much obsolete in terms of their indentity. The more popular NFL doesn't treat inter-conference play as an attendance-driving sideshow.... why does MLB still do it with interleague play after 14 years?
July 29th, 2010 at 7:59 am
ES, that's an interesting point. Right now, the interleague play is basically the same in both leagues. In the NFL, teams play 8 games against the teams in their own division, 4 games again teams in another division within their conference, and 4 games against teams in another division in the other conference. In MLB, interleague play is primarily against one division in the other league, as well as games against your 'natural rival', which for the Phillies is the Red Sox--that makes a lot of sense, huh? I'd like to see MLB get rid of these 'natural rival' games and restrict interleague play to just one division from the other league, and rotate divisions each year. That's exactly what the NFL does. I am also a fan of the unbalanced schedule, also similar to the NFL, where each team plays more games against its own division rivals than the teams from other division within its own conference.