I haven't followed the story of the new ballpark real close since it's possibly nearly 10 years away, but have they talked about the dimensions of the proposed new ballpark? It can't be as big as The K because they don't have as much room to spread out downtown. ha ha
I would say it’s far closer than 10 years. I’d bet they’re playing there by 2028 at the latest. But no, nothing on dimensions yet. The overall footprint may not be as big as The K, but keep in mind that the difference between big parks and small parks can be like 20 feet here and there around the walls. The space the stadium can take up likely has very little to do with dimensions unless it backs to something like a river or bay and there is literally no more room to build.
I’ve always thought the most amazing Billy Butler stat was a season with 50...50! doubles — NONE of which, ahem, were “legged out”. Billy hit the ball on the screws.
I hope the new coaching staff is worth 10 games. That would be great, if so. 5 seems like a more realistic number. Agree with your HOF votes, that's the 3 I voted for. I have think there is one fairly big trade still coming in the offing. Merry Christmas to you and your family, Mr Lesky.
David, I find your source’s comments very interesting. Which I think you probably thought I would. I guess my thought is that 1.) Its an easy comment to say with no real backup. 2.) I actually find myself more irritated by that comment. If you think that gets you to 77 wins….and you still aren’t going out and getting a solid pitcher, two, or reliever that could possibly get you to .500 and in the playoff race. Are you really trying yet? You know what I mean? If you honestly believe that upgrade gets you 10 wins (seems extreme) why aren’t you doing more to improve the roster?
The more that gets out about how it is all the previous coaches fault…I find myself thinking JJ isn’t the guy. That shouldn’t be the message from the top of an organization. Its way too early to say that. But if you honestly are going to throw it ALL on the previous coaching staff and you go out and win 70 games next year. His leash needs to be short!
Well, first of all, I think 10 wins is probably pretty high on that. I'd guess more like five. That was someone not in the organization now in any capacity saying it, so it isn't the viewpoint of the front office, at least not to my knowledge. That puts them at 70 wins. Let's say you feel good about your young guys improving to bring them to 72 or 73. They still need like 15 more wins.
I do think the leash is shorter than I'd like it to be. It's not that I think JJ is the savior or going to be a great GM or anything, but I feel like you either believe in your guy or not and if his leash is short, I don't like that from Sherman.
Yeah, I mean i find that surprising from Sherman as well. I kind of think JJ has put himself in that corner though as well. If the message your organization is going to send is that development ISNT a problem and it all the top level coaches that are the problem. He’s put himself in a corner I don’t think he ever needed to. Maybe he already knew the leash was short so he didn’t have time to see minor league development results. I just find the messaging so odd that you’d blame everything on a few coaches, bring back the same group, and leave yourself no wiggle room.
I think it's a little weird too for sure. But maybe he really does agree with the person I spoke with. Or maybe he spoke with that person too. I have no idea. And if he's right, well, all is good. But it's certainly interesting and odd.
All JJ had to do was release Ryan O’Hearn. It wasn’t a high bar to clear David. It wasn’t high at all for a good offseason. THAT was the moment all doubt crept back in. He had so much goodwill equity used up on the coaching changes and that is what he used it on.
I haven't felt this apathetic about the Royals in years, since maybe 2010 or so. I think it's because of all the big $$$ being spent by a few teams. It just seems hopelessly stacked in their favor--like a poker game where one guy starts out with $100 and another guy with $10. Sure, the guy with $10--with some luck and a lot of skill--can win, but the odds greatly favor the guy with $100. To me, the sport seems broken. I'm all in favor of the players getting every penny they can, but maybe it's time for a hard salary cap? The union will never accept it, of course, so should the owners try to impose one in the next bargaining session, we would have a long strike. In short, I don't see any way out of a sport in which the rich get richer.
The players would absolutely accept a cap. They were negotiating about it this last CBA. But they rightly want a salary floor with it. The bigger issue, to me, isn't teams spending. It's teams not spending. Every "small market" team starts the year with roughly $100 million from revenue sharing and television deals. That's before a ticket is sold, before a shirsey is bought and before a hot dog is grilled (or weirdly warmed up in a microwave for you Aramark fans). There is literally no reason for teams to running some of the payrolls out that they do. Put a salary floor in and the players will agree to a salary cap as well. The money is there and I maintain the players are right for wanting it to be spent and not pocketed.
Just read this: Will "small market" teams get priced out of the market? You're gonna have to explain the Padres if you're going with that line of thinking. The San Diego market is one of the smallest in Major League Baseball (here's a study that has only Kansas City, Cincinnati and Milwaukee smaller among MLB cities). The Padres are running a payroll of well over $200 million heading toward 2023 and they don't seem interested in paring down the operation.
Hey this is a great piece and you bring up some good points. I did some research on park factors, because as you said, over the past few years, it has been a hitter-friendly park beyond HRs. It is interesting though when I did my own data diving, from about 2013-2018 it was slightly more pitcher friendly or pitcher neutral. Now, I know there can be reasons for that: dead ball era during that time, especially. However, the Royals also had an elite defense at that time, so I thought that was an interesting correlation.
I do find it funny though that KC has not been able to leverage that "reputation" on the pitching end in FA, which I felt they were able to do from that 2013-2017 time frame. Jeremy Guthrie was a prime example of a guy who was pretty bad at Coors, came to KC and became really serviceable. It also seemed like they were able to attract guys like Edinson Volquez who had a mixed track record in other parks, but found "some" success in KC. As you said, they have to improve their defense to make things more attractive to pitchers, but considering their pitching issues, I am curious to why they do not leverage this more in negotiations with pitchers (or if they do, why it doesn't resonate as much as the reputation does with hitters).
I honestly don't know either. Because, you're right. Either pitchers believe what they're saying and want to sign in KC because of how great of a park it is or they don't buy it because they realize how much space there is for hits to fall and hitters should know that too and want to sign in KC. But I really think the pitching side is about the defense. They know it's a big park but the Royals haven't had the great defense to back them up. I don't know. Like I said, just thinking out loud on all of this.
Do you also think the Royals' rough history with pitch framing comes into play with possible FA pitchers, especially as players become more aware and educated about this data?
On his last "Corner" podcast, Rany said that the fact the roster has changed so little suggests that the front office (but maybe not Dayton Moore!) saw Matheny & Eldred as the problem, which aligns with what you've heard. I guess we'll see how much of the damage they caused is fixed with new coaching and how much--if any--is lasting.
Oh absolutely. Seeing how much is reversible is interesting but also how much is accurate. If they go out and win 80 games with this roster, it'll be very telling.
I *really* hope Beltran earns a spot in the team’s Hall of Fame. He’s the most talented and dynamic Royal I’ve ever seen. Heck, I think he belongs in Cooperstown.
Oh I absolutely believe he deserves to be in the team HOF as well. It's just being limited to three is what led me to not vote for him. And yeah, I think he belongs in Cooperstown too.
For me the changes are not just about direct wins and losses, it is about changing the culture that was created by Dayton Moore. His role in the WS victory asside, this team hit rock bottom not only on the field but in terms of the organization... peaking with the vacination fiasco. I see the changes benefiting this team on the field with wins and losses, but also off the field. The improvement in the off field culture helps us sign future free agents, get our players votes for awards, aids signing the best coaches and personal, and halts the snickering of my friends who know I am a Royals fan!
I agree 23' is about change from within... I also had Ventura, Yost and Butler....
David! Vance Wilson is back as the third base coach. It’s literally the same cast of characters as the last movie. This is starting to feel like a bad sequel!
Is it really that big a deal…..No of course not. But a little surprised both Vance and the first base coach are back. How common is that when a new manager comes in? Maybe Vance wasn’t as bad as I remembered……but man I remember the bad ones were really bad. Lol.
They said from the start that Damon Hollins was going to be back on the staff. He's the outfield coach and the outfielders were generally the strength defensively. I don't know why Vance Wilson is back. I wouldn't have brought him back, not as the third base coach, but I also don't care that much.
With decent coaching this team should win more games. If the rookies step it up a notch they should win more games. Both are unknowns. But, without a big improvement in pitching both starters and relievers, they could be even worse. If the pitchers start to pitch anywhere near what the royals thought they would be they could win a lot of games. I think what has to happen is that the starters have to pitch farther into games. They need to get at least 7 innings out of their starters. Using 5 or 6 relievers a game is ridiculous. You can almost guarantee that a least one of those relievers is going to get lit up. I believe in the saying that the more moving parts you have you increase the chance of one or more breaking down. I still think they need at least one possibly two good veteran hitters in the lineup. I don't undress their reluctance to sign one or two hitters. They could easily free up a lot of money by getting rid of some of the older players making over 4+ mil a year. Especially guys like mondesi, ohearn, Taylor and dozier. These guys can all be replaced cheap. It still think they should be open to trading Perez because of his 20 million dollar salary next year. I just don't think he's worth it but teams would jump at him. Except for the 48 home run year he really hasn't done much the last few years and he's been hurt a lot. He won't get better. It's downhill from here
As far a the HOF thing goes. I'm just not into it all that much. I'm into winning ball games. Everything else are distractions. That being said I would never put ventura in there. I know it was a bad deal when he died but he didn't play long enough and showed signs of a pitcher that wasn't going to last very long. That plus the fact he was a problem player. I don't think his head was screwed on right. He was troubled and very immature so I just don't think he deserves to get in there.
This would be an interesting question, both for Sherman/JJ and to debate in another post: What SHOULD the dimensions of the new park be? Should the Royals build a bandbox with unique nooks and crannies, retain something close to the Kauffman dimensions, or something in the middle? And what effect would that decision have on their ability to attract free agents?
I haven't followed the story of the new ballpark real close since it's possibly nearly 10 years away, but have they talked about the dimensions of the proposed new ballpark? It can't be as big as The K because they don't have as much room to spread out downtown. ha ha
I would say it’s far closer than 10 years. I’d bet they’re playing there by 2028 at the latest. But no, nothing on dimensions yet. The overall footprint may not be as big as The K, but keep in mind that the difference between big parks and small parks can be like 20 feet here and there around the walls. The space the stadium can take up likely has very little to do with dimensions unless it backs to something like a river or bay and there is literally no more room to build.
I’ve always thought the most amazing Billy Butler stat was a season with 50...50! doubles — NONE of which, ahem, were “legged out”. Billy hit the ball on the screws.
Ha, you’re absolutely right. The man could hit. Somehow is very underrated, in my opinion.
I hope the new coaching staff is worth 10 games. That would be great, if so. 5 seems like a more realistic number. Agree with your HOF votes, that's the 3 I voted for. I have think there is one fairly big trade still coming in the offing. Merry Christmas to you and your family, Mr Lesky.
Yeah, I think 10 was probably a little too much, but I thought it was VERY interesting to hear that.
Happy holidays, Paul!
David, I find your source’s comments very interesting. Which I think you probably thought I would. I guess my thought is that 1.) Its an easy comment to say with no real backup. 2.) I actually find myself more irritated by that comment. If you think that gets you to 77 wins….and you still aren’t going out and getting a solid pitcher, two, or reliever that could possibly get you to .500 and in the playoff race. Are you really trying yet? You know what I mean? If you honestly believe that upgrade gets you 10 wins (seems extreme) why aren’t you doing more to improve the roster?
The more that gets out about how it is all the previous coaches fault…I find myself thinking JJ isn’t the guy. That shouldn’t be the message from the top of an organization. Its way too early to say that. But if you honestly are going to throw it ALL on the previous coaching staff and you go out and win 70 games next year. His leash needs to be short!
Well, first of all, I think 10 wins is probably pretty high on that. I'd guess more like five. That was someone not in the organization now in any capacity saying it, so it isn't the viewpoint of the front office, at least not to my knowledge. That puts them at 70 wins. Let's say you feel good about your young guys improving to bring them to 72 or 73. They still need like 15 more wins.
I do think the leash is shorter than I'd like it to be. It's not that I think JJ is the savior or going to be a great GM or anything, but I feel like you either believe in your guy or not and if his leash is short, I don't like that from Sherman.
Yeah, I mean i find that surprising from Sherman as well. I kind of think JJ has put himself in that corner though as well. If the message your organization is going to send is that development ISNT a problem and it all the top level coaches that are the problem. He’s put himself in a corner I don’t think he ever needed to. Maybe he already knew the leash was short so he didn’t have time to see minor league development results. I just find the messaging so odd that you’d blame everything on a few coaches, bring back the same group, and leave yourself no wiggle room.
I think it's a little weird too for sure. But maybe he really does agree with the person I spoke with. Or maybe he spoke with that person too. I have no idea. And if he's right, well, all is good. But it's certainly interesting and odd.
All JJ had to do was release Ryan O’Hearn. It wasn’t a high bar to clear David. It wasn’t high at all for a good offseason. THAT was the moment all doubt crept back in. He had so much goodwill equity used up on the coaching changes and that is what he used it on.
Yeah, that was a concern. Honestly, even tendering some of the other guys made sense, especially given the market. O'Hearn never has.
I haven't felt this apathetic about the Royals in years, since maybe 2010 or so. I think it's because of all the big $$$ being spent by a few teams. It just seems hopelessly stacked in their favor--like a poker game where one guy starts out with $100 and another guy with $10. Sure, the guy with $10--with some luck and a lot of skill--can win, but the odds greatly favor the guy with $100. To me, the sport seems broken. I'm all in favor of the players getting every penny they can, but maybe it's time for a hard salary cap? The union will never accept it, of course, so should the owners try to impose one in the next bargaining session, we would have a long strike. In short, I don't see any way out of a sport in which the rich get richer.
The players would absolutely accept a cap. They were negotiating about it this last CBA. But they rightly want a salary floor with it. The bigger issue, to me, isn't teams spending. It's teams not spending. Every "small market" team starts the year with roughly $100 million from revenue sharing and television deals. That's before a ticket is sold, before a shirsey is bought and before a hot dog is grilled (or weirdly warmed up in a microwave for you Aramark fans). There is literally no reason for teams to running some of the payrolls out that they do. Put a salary floor in and the players will agree to a salary cap as well. The money is there and I maintain the players are right for wanting it to be spent and not pocketed.
Just read this: Will "small market" teams get priced out of the market? You're gonna have to explain the Padres if you're going with that line of thinking. The San Diego market is one of the smallest in Major League Baseball (here's a study that has only Kansas City, Cincinnati and Milwaukee smaller among MLB cities). The Padres are running a payroll of well over $200 million heading toward 2023 and they don't seem interested in paring down the operation.
That's the perfect example. Teams can afford it. They choose not to. But they need to.
Hey this is a great piece and you bring up some good points. I did some research on park factors, because as you said, over the past few years, it has been a hitter-friendly park beyond HRs. It is interesting though when I did my own data diving, from about 2013-2018 it was slightly more pitcher friendly or pitcher neutral. Now, I know there can be reasons for that: dead ball era during that time, especially. However, the Royals also had an elite defense at that time, so I thought that was an interesting correlation.
I do find it funny though that KC has not been able to leverage that "reputation" on the pitching end in FA, which I felt they were able to do from that 2013-2017 time frame. Jeremy Guthrie was a prime example of a guy who was pretty bad at Coors, came to KC and became really serviceable. It also seemed like they were able to attract guys like Edinson Volquez who had a mixed track record in other parks, but found "some" success in KC. As you said, they have to improve their defense to make things more attractive to pitchers, but considering their pitching issues, I am curious to why they do not leverage this more in negotiations with pitchers (or if they do, why it doesn't resonate as much as the reputation does with hitters).
Thanks!
I honestly don't know either. Because, you're right. Either pitchers believe what they're saying and want to sign in KC because of how great of a park it is or they don't buy it because they realize how much space there is for hits to fall and hitters should know that too and want to sign in KC. But I really think the pitching side is about the defense. They know it's a big park but the Royals haven't had the great defense to back them up. I don't know. Like I said, just thinking out loud on all of this.
Do you also think the Royals' rough history with pitch framing comes into play with possible FA pitchers, especially as players become more aware and educated about this data?
Oh that's interesting. I don't know why that didn't really cross my mind, but I would think it could at least.
“unless it backs to something like a river or bay”
You mean like: “Hit one into the Witt Waterway”, “the Brett Beach”, “a Salvy Splash”, “a Seitzer Soaker”, “the Cain Drain” or the “Patek Pond”?? 😊
Ha, yes, something like that.
On his last "Corner" podcast, Rany said that the fact the roster has changed so little suggests that the front office (but maybe not Dayton Moore!) saw Matheny & Eldred as the problem, which aligns with what you've heard. I guess we'll see how much of the damage they caused is fixed with new coaching and how much--if any--is lasting.
Oh absolutely. Seeing how much is reversible is interesting but also how much is accurate. If they go out and win 80 games with this roster, it'll be very telling.
I *really* hope Beltran earns a spot in the team’s Hall of Fame. He’s the most talented and dynamic Royal I’ve ever seen. Heck, I think he belongs in Cooperstown.
Oh I absolutely believe he deserves to be in the team HOF as well. It's just being limited to three is what led me to not vote for him. And yeah, I think he belongs in Cooperstown too.
For me the changes are not just about direct wins and losses, it is about changing the culture that was created by Dayton Moore. His role in the WS victory asside, this team hit rock bottom not only on the field but in terms of the organization... peaking with the vacination fiasco. I see the changes benefiting this team on the field with wins and losses, but also off the field. The improvement in the off field culture helps us sign future free agents, get our players votes for awards, aids signing the best coaches and personal, and halts the snickering of my friends who know I am a Royals fan!
I agree 23' is about change from within... I also had Ventura, Yost and Butler....
Yeah, that's a fair point. They need to change the whole mindset in the organization for sure.
David! Vance Wilson is back as the third base coach. It’s literally the same cast of characters as the last movie. This is starting to feel like a bad sequel!
Is it really that big a deal…..No of course not. But a little surprised both Vance and the first base coach are back. How common is that when a new manager comes in? Maybe Vance wasn’t as bad as I remembered……but man I remember the bad ones were really bad. Lol.
They said from the start that Damon Hollins was going to be back on the staff. He's the outfield coach and the outfielders were generally the strength defensively. I don't know why Vance Wilson is back. I wouldn't have brought him back, not as the third base coach, but I also don't care that much.
With decent coaching this team should win more games. If the rookies step it up a notch they should win more games. Both are unknowns. But, without a big improvement in pitching both starters and relievers, they could be even worse. If the pitchers start to pitch anywhere near what the royals thought they would be they could win a lot of games. I think what has to happen is that the starters have to pitch farther into games. They need to get at least 7 innings out of their starters. Using 5 or 6 relievers a game is ridiculous. You can almost guarantee that a least one of those relievers is going to get lit up. I believe in the saying that the more moving parts you have you increase the chance of one or more breaking down. I still think they need at least one possibly two good veteran hitters in the lineup. I don't undress their reluctance to sign one or two hitters. They could easily free up a lot of money by getting rid of some of the older players making over 4+ mil a year. Especially guys like mondesi, ohearn, Taylor and dozier. These guys can all be replaced cheap. It still think they should be open to trading Perez because of his 20 million dollar salary next year. I just don't think he's worth it but teams would jump at him. Except for the 48 home run year he really hasn't done much the last few years and he's been hurt a lot. He won't get better. It's downhill from here
As far a the HOF thing goes. I'm just not into it all that much. I'm into winning ball games. Everything else are distractions. That being said I would never put ventura in there. I know it was a bad deal when he died but he didn't play long enough and showed signs of a pitcher that wasn't going to last very long. That plus the fact he was a problem player. I don't think his head was screwed on right. He was troubled and very immature so I just don't think he deserves to get in there.
This would be an interesting question, both for Sherman/JJ and to debate in another post: What SHOULD the dimensions of the new park be? Should the Royals build a bandbox with unique nooks and crannies, retain something close to the Kauffman dimensions, or something in the middle? And what effect would that decision have on their ability to attract free agents?