You're able to pull up stats better than I can, so I have a question. How many times last year did the bullpen cough up a three-run (or more) lead heading into the 7th inning? How does that compare with the MLB average? Maybe how it would compare with the 2014 Royals, an elite bullpen? In short, I'm trying to understand just how atrocious last year's bullpen was and how it has likely improved.
That would take some time to figure out, but I did look up something similar a few weeks ago and they were something like 8 games worse than an average bullpen and 13ish worse than the best bullpen.
With that, there’s more to a bad bullpen than the relievers. A lot of it is guys wearing down because the starters were so bad and then also guys getting traded because they were so bad to start the year. I don’t know if this is the point you’re getting at or if you’re just curious but that’s exactly why I’d have probably liked the trade more if not for other moves that already addressed a lot of the bullpen issues by getting better relievers and more reliable starters.
Yeah, that was my curiosity, thanks. I don't know how big you are on intangibles, but maybe the front office showing the team that they can be confident going into the late innings has to boost the morale. It has to be emotionally devastating to keep losing games that the average team would win because of a horrific bullpen.
I'm a huge believer in the role of winning in development. And even more so, the role of not losing when you should win. And that's why I've liked the moves they've made even if they have zero obvious impact beyond 2025ish.
There’s still a chance that these minor moves lead to a bigger one, so it’s possible to change my opinion here, but yeah. Schreiber isn’t adding more than a win to this team. And the odds are that he isn’t even adding that. I don’t know. It’s not a terrible move and I do understand the thought process. I just don’t agree with it.
A lot of trades and spending a lot of $. Done to improve the organization for years to come, or to convince voters for a new stadium? We’ve signed a bunch of older players for a lot of $, who most likely will not be around for more than 1-2 years. Now we are trading a higher rated minor leaguer from a thin group. Doesn’t sound like we are looking very far down the road. Most often when it flies, waddles and quacks, it’s actually a duck. Talk to me in May when we at least will be able to see if the short term plan is working. (Should be around .500 by then)
I think you can make an argument that they like the direction of the development path (obviously remains to be seen in a big way, but the advanced metrics at least show big improvement on the pitching side) and felt the need to bridge a gap with a bunch of these guys. I also think you can make an argument that a lot of it was done to get a yes vote, but I also think that if guys like Wacha and Lugo are changing people's minds, then they didn't need to do anything more than sign Witt long-term, which they did. I'm not saying that's not why they've made all these moves and I'll definitely need to see it beyond this winter, but I think it's at least plausible that there are baseball thoughts behind these moves and not just business thoughts.
While I agree these moves could be part of a push for a new stadium, can the moves just be discussed without someone jumping in and saying the stadium issue is the sole reason for every move? I'd like to give Sherman the benefit of the doubt and actually believe he wants to put a winner on the field. Would all the coaching/scouting changes have been made in addition to roster changes if all he cared about was a stadium?
I agree that while the stadium is certainly part of the equation, they’re clearly doing much more than trying to get a yes. And that’s ignoring that I’d bet it would be a yes regardless because of the Chiefs involvement.
I'm also a little tired of the wags ( no one here ) that bring up the whole "this is only happening because of the vote" theory, like they just cracked the friggin' code. Of course some of this is political. Everything in life contains some degree of politics. Duh doy, Slappy.
I think your final point is the most important one:
"That’s a good thing for a baseball team that didn’t elicit much of anything for the last couple of seasons."
I tend to agree with your "60%" evaluation of the trade. I probably wouldn't have done it, but the argument against it is that there's a small (25% or less) chance Sandlin ends up being a #3 starter someday. JJ clearly doesn't think he will or he wouldn't have made that trade, but the Rangers didn't think Cole Ragans would be AL Pitcher of the Month in August or they wouldn't have traded him for a few months of Aroldis Chapman.
What I like about the trade, however, is that it is another example of JJ being much more transactional than Dayton was. Many of us complained that the old guy was too reluctant to make deals. Now that the new guy is showing he's willing to take a few shots that may or may not work out, I'm happy to take a wait and see approach as long as they're not indefensible.
Yes, for sure. Being willing to make moves is important. Dayton was afraid to do it way too often. I like Sandlin, but let’s not pretend he’s a sure thing. So I get it. Just don’t like it.
I’ll gladly take a veteran bullpen over what this team was sending out there the past few years for club morale alone. If Schreiber pans out to be the guy we saw in 2022, then JJ looks like a genius and Schreiber probably gets flipped for a top prospect at one of the upcoming trade deadlines. I know it’s easy to evaluate trades in a vacuum but I’m ok with not winning every trade head to head if it makes the big league club better.
I would also gladly take a veteran bullpen over what we saw. But as I said, I’d like this a lot more if they didn’t already acquire three others to go along with two rotation pieces that will also help the bullpen. In a vacuum, I get this trade a lot more than I do in the context of the offseason. The flip side is that if three veterans are good, four is better. I just don’t agree with that.
Seems about right.... Low but real chance this is a horrible trade and Sandlin becomes a good starter. Most likely, neither pitcher moves the needle much. The bullpen is getting very deep with arms that have or at least can get MLB hitters out and that's important because the SP consists of guys who aren't "innings eaters" with the exception of Lyles and his 6+ ERA.
Innings eater is relative. They now have five guys who averaged more outs per start than average. Everyone was about 17+ outs with league average at just over 15.
I'm so glad you wrote about this because it has definitely become a debate. I do think it makes this year's team slightly better, but for a team coming off 100+ losses and no impact starting pitching depth, I just can't quite come to grips with it. The Royals Weekly bro's mentioned why a move like this couldn't be done around the trade deadline if the team is really competitive. Why trade Sandlin now for a reliever that doesn't have a lengthy track record? I guess at this point I will trust JJ. I appreciate the aggression. I just hope like you they don't leverage too much future for insignificant needle movers on a team that is most likely average (which all hardcore royals fans will greatly appreciate).
I think my issue with the deal, which again I'm not hellbent against, is that I don't like Sandlin for Schneider specifically. But they do have a bunch of starters similar to him, so the odds of it hurting aren't huge, but they also aren't zero.
Completely get it. I think it would be much more palatable for me if Schreiber was healthy last year and performed similar, or even slightly worse, than 2022. After the deal, looking at his numbers, didn't love it. But, we can hope they see something like they did with Ragans +Mcarthur. I do understand the move. They are trying to compete, which is hard to be upset about. I would hope that maybe they held David down and don't have much confidence in him being a starter. The improvement of the minor league pitching development will continue to be something I have my eye on.
I don’t think they held him down at all. He had been promoted a couple weeks before the oblique injury and I think there’s a pretty decent chance he’d have ended the year in AA if he stayed healthy. But yes, hard to be too upset with effort to improve.
I guess I have a hard time getting worked up over it. We can’t have it both ways where we are like “be transactional” and then complain about a trade that is probably pretty fair for both sides. We have a bottom tier farm system and least consensus thinking. So why is anyone complaining about getting major league talent back? IDK, I fine with it. It’s a major league arm. Yes, Sandlin has more potential. But I’m also kinda past potential. Win games, and for the most part, I’m willing to believe things are changing. IDK if it will work, but we will have more Sandlin’s this year, and more next year. I’m kinda ready to move on from A ball potential. It is what it is, it’s one where if we don’t like it so be it. Just can’t take the other side and complain about not being transactional. I’m willing to give JJ the benefit of the doubt with the horse trading. Clearly he saw something he liked, or they made a decision with Sandlin on the future. That’s fine. Nothing to really get worked up about here.
I’m not saying anyone is wrong about being worked up about if they really don’t like it. I just don’t see it as that much of a needle mover to be honest. Just clarifying.
Sure, you want transactional and you definitely have it (general you here) with what he's done this winter, but it doesn't mean that just because you want trades it has to mean you like every single one of them. As I wrote, I don't think this trade is terrible, it's just one I wouldn't have made, and to pick apart your comment, you mention being past potential. Schreiber has proven he's a good big league pitcher before, but he's also only done it once. He's had a season (max 2.50 ERA, 28%+ K rate, <8% BB rate, 50+ innings) that has happened 46 times since 2016. So very good, but also not crazy and he's only done it once. Schreiber, to me, is only slight less about potential than Sandlin after a rough 2023 season with shoulder issues. If that's the market for Sandlin, so be it, but then I just wouldn't trade him and would sign Ryne Stanek or whatever.
And I think it just hit me too that if Sandlin makes it big in Boston, many of the same people saying that trading prospects for big leaguers is fine will not be happy that they moved Sandlin. I know the whole mantra of being in the get it right business and it's not our job to have to stick to an opinion, but I also think it's only fair to say that if you're fine with making this move, you're fine with Sandlin developing into a big league starter and not being upset about it.
It's more about probabilities to me, I guess. If the Royals think there's a 50% chance they can contend in the weak AL Central, it probably makes sense to them to make this move. And as a fan, if I (generic "I") think there is an 80% chance Sandlin doesn't develop into a legit big-league starter, then there's an 80% chance I end up being fine with the move and I accept the 20% chance that it is looked back upon with regret. No crystal balls in this game or life, though we often respond when looking back as if there should've been.
I suppose. But I’d argue that if they think there’s a 50% chance they contend, they aren’t seeing this team clearly. There is absolutely a chance but there is no way it’s 50/50. The players can believe what they want and they should, but the front office needs to be more objective than the players.
Edit: I want to add that I love most of their offseason and think they’ve put themselves in the conversation. But the last time the division was won with fewer than 90 wins before last year was 2012. The likelihood is that one of the good teams actually wins 91-93 and not 85-87 and that makes it even harder.
That's true, and they definitely need to have that objectivity / self-awareness of where they actually are. That's clearly been an issue in the past. I picked that number out of the air, but I'm sure the true probability would be lower than 50% based on what they currently have (and without making a bunch of best-case scenarios for breakout seasons). Great article, David. And kudos to you for having a community here that has civil and spirited dialogue in the comments. Can you spread that to the rest of the world somehow?
I totally agree just sign Stanek and not make this trade. But I kinda think this moves shows that for whatever reason Stanek isn’t coming here. IDK if you’ve heard anything or no….but the more reasonable move is just sign Stanek. I just don’t think that is really in the cards for whatever reason because they did this move. Think every GM….or at least like to believe….would just sign the FA in this situation.
Maybe. Or maybe they don’t want Stanek for whatever reason. I just would rather have Sandlin than Schreiber, which is my whole reason for not liking this move.
I am actually more on the positive side of this trade. JJ signed Chapman (no-one liked it if I recall), traded a few months of his rental for a potential starter and a lottery ticket (not many loved that either), and in general has aggressively tried to build a more competitive team. So while I think there was some luck involved with Ragans, it causes me to give the new regime the benefit of the doubt more often than not. I enjoy reading the opposing views, because sometimes a couple good points will change my mind, but that Kiley McDaniels tweet stuck in my craw a bit.
Agree that Wacha and Lugo may not move the needle much for the vote, but I have to wonder if opting for Wacha v trading Vinnie was a little more of a political move. I love Pasquatch, but I would have been pretty happy with a shiny new pitcher, and as I think you recently alluded to - Vinnie isn't a fully proven commodity yet.
I don’t think choosing Wacha over a Luzardo trade had anything to do with anything beyond preferring to keep Vinnie, who I think is a top-30 hitter in baseball. I’m not sure when I’ve alluded that he isn’t proven other than saying I could see the Royals wanting to be sure he’s fully healthy before offering an extension.
I think it was regarding the extension. I interpreted it to mean that he's not 100% proven as he still hasn't had full season and the health (this is why I am not a writer because I can't use my words :). I am a little wary of this sure thing status he has, so I was probably reading more of my own prejudices into it
You're able to pull up stats better than I can, so I have a question. How many times last year did the bullpen cough up a three-run (or more) lead heading into the 7th inning? How does that compare with the MLB average? Maybe how it would compare with the 2014 Royals, an elite bullpen? In short, I'm trying to understand just how atrocious last year's bullpen was and how it has likely improved.
That would take some time to figure out, but I did look up something similar a few weeks ago and they were something like 8 games worse than an average bullpen and 13ish worse than the best bullpen.
With that, there’s more to a bad bullpen than the relievers. A lot of it is guys wearing down because the starters were so bad and then also guys getting traded because they were so bad to start the year. I don’t know if this is the point you’re getting at or if you’re just curious but that’s exactly why I’d have probably liked the trade more if not for other moves that already addressed a lot of the bullpen issues by getting better relievers and more reliable starters.
Yeah, that was my curiosity, thanks. I don't know how big you are on intangibles, but maybe the front office showing the team that they can be confident going into the late innings has to boost the morale. It has to be emotionally devastating to keep losing games that the average team would win because of a horrific bullpen.
I'm a huge believer in the role of winning in development. And even more so, the role of not losing when you should win. And that's why I've liked the moves they've made even if they have zero obvious impact beyond 2025ish.
Agree 100 percent. I just don’t understand these minor moves at the stage the Royals are at.
There’s still a chance that these minor moves lead to a bigger one, so it’s possible to change my opinion here, but yeah. Schreiber isn’t adding more than a win to this team. And the odds are that he isn’t even adding that. I don’t know. It’s not a terrible move and I do understand the thought process. I just don’t agree with it.
A lot of trades and spending a lot of $. Done to improve the organization for years to come, or to convince voters for a new stadium? We’ve signed a bunch of older players for a lot of $, who most likely will not be around for more than 1-2 years. Now we are trading a higher rated minor leaguer from a thin group. Doesn’t sound like we are looking very far down the road. Most often when it flies, waddles and quacks, it’s actually a duck. Talk to me in May when we at least will be able to see if the short term plan is working. (Should be around .500 by then)
I think you can make an argument that they like the direction of the development path (obviously remains to be seen in a big way, but the advanced metrics at least show big improvement on the pitching side) and felt the need to bridge a gap with a bunch of these guys. I also think you can make an argument that a lot of it was done to get a yes vote, but I also think that if guys like Wacha and Lugo are changing people's minds, then they didn't need to do anything more than sign Witt long-term, which they did. I'm not saying that's not why they've made all these moves and I'll definitely need to see it beyond this winter, but I think it's at least plausible that there are baseball thoughts behind these moves and not just business thoughts.
While I agree these moves could be part of a push for a new stadium, can the moves just be discussed without someone jumping in and saying the stadium issue is the sole reason for every move? I'd like to give Sherman the benefit of the doubt and actually believe he wants to put a winner on the field. Would all the coaching/scouting changes have been made in addition to roster changes if all he cared about was a stadium?
I agree that while the stadium is certainly part of the equation, they’re clearly doing much more than trying to get a yes. And that’s ignoring that I’d bet it would be a yes regardless because of the Chiefs involvement.
I'm also a little tired of the wags ( no one here ) that bring up the whole "this is only happening because of the vote" theory, like they just cracked the friggin' code. Of course some of this is political. Everything in life contains some degree of politics. Duh doy, Slappy.
I think your final point is the most important one:
"That’s a good thing for a baseball team that didn’t elicit much of anything for the last couple of seasons."
I tend to agree with your "60%" evaluation of the trade. I probably wouldn't have done it, but the argument against it is that there's a small (25% or less) chance Sandlin ends up being a #3 starter someday. JJ clearly doesn't think he will or he wouldn't have made that trade, but the Rangers didn't think Cole Ragans would be AL Pitcher of the Month in August or they wouldn't have traded him for a few months of Aroldis Chapman.
What I like about the trade, however, is that it is another example of JJ being much more transactional than Dayton was. Many of us complained that the old guy was too reluctant to make deals. Now that the new guy is showing he's willing to take a few shots that may or may not work out, I'm happy to take a wait and see approach as long as they're not indefensible.
Yes, for sure. Being willing to make moves is important. Dayton was afraid to do it way too often. I like Sandlin, but let’s not pretend he’s a sure thing. So I get it. Just don’t like it.
I’ll gladly take a veteran bullpen over what this team was sending out there the past few years for club morale alone. If Schreiber pans out to be the guy we saw in 2022, then JJ looks like a genius and Schreiber probably gets flipped for a top prospect at one of the upcoming trade deadlines. I know it’s easy to evaluate trades in a vacuum but I’m ok with not winning every trade head to head if it makes the big league club better.
I would also gladly take a veteran bullpen over what we saw. But as I said, I’d like this a lot more if they didn’t already acquire three others to go along with two rotation pieces that will also help the bullpen. In a vacuum, I get this trade a lot more than I do in the context of the offseason. The flip side is that if three veterans are good, four is better. I just don’t agree with that.
Seems about right.... Low but real chance this is a horrible trade and Sandlin becomes a good starter. Most likely, neither pitcher moves the needle much. The bullpen is getting very deep with arms that have or at least can get MLB hitters out and that's important because the SP consists of guys who aren't "innings eaters" with the exception of Lyles and his 6+ ERA.
Innings eater is relative. They now have five guys who averaged more outs per start than average. Everyone was about 17+ outs with league average at just over 15.
I'm so glad you wrote about this because it has definitely become a debate. I do think it makes this year's team slightly better, but for a team coming off 100+ losses and no impact starting pitching depth, I just can't quite come to grips with it. The Royals Weekly bro's mentioned why a move like this couldn't be done around the trade deadline if the team is really competitive. Why trade Sandlin now for a reliever that doesn't have a lengthy track record? I guess at this point I will trust JJ. I appreciate the aggression. I just hope like you they don't leverage too much future for insignificant needle movers on a team that is most likely average (which all hardcore royals fans will greatly appreciate).
I think my issue with the deal, which again I'm not hellbent against, is that I don't like Sandlin for Schneider specifically. But they do have a bunch of starters similar to him, so the odds of it hurting aren't huge, but they also aren't zero.
Completely get it. I think it would be much more palatable for me if Schreiber was healthy last year and performed similar, or even slightly worse, than 2022. After the deal, looking at his numbers, didn't love it. But, we can hope they see something like they did with Ragans +Mcarthur. I do understand the move. They are trying to compete, which is hard to be upset about. I would hope that maybe they held David down and don't have much confidence in him being a starter. The improvement of the minor league pitching development will continue to be something I have my eye on.
I don’t think they held him down at all. He had been promoted a couple weeks before the oblique injury and I think there’s a pretty decent chance he’d have ended the year in AA if he stayed healthy. But yes, hard to be too upset with effort to improve.
I guess I have a hard time getting worked up over it. We can’t have it both ways where we are like “be transactional” and then complain about a trade that is probably pretty fair for both sides. We have a bottom tier farm system and least consensus thinking. So why is anyone complaining about getting major league talent back? IDK, I fine with it. It’s a major league arm. Yes, Sandlin has more potential. But I’m also kinda past potential. Win games, and for the most part, I’m willing to believe things are changing. IDK if it will work, but we will have more Sandlin’s this year, and more next year. I’m kinda ready to move on from A ball potential. It is what it is, it’s one where if we don’t like it so be it. Just can’t take the other side and complain about not being transactional. I’m willing to give JJ the benefit of the doubt with the horse trading. Clearly he saw something he liked, or they made a decision with Sandlin on the future. That’s fine. Nothing to really get worked up about here.
I’m not saying anyone is wrong about being worked up about if they really don’t like it. I just don’t see it as that much of a needle mover to be honest. Just clarifying.
Sure, you want transactional and you definitely have it (general you here) with what he's done this winter, but it doesn't mean that just because you want trades it has to mean you like every single one of them. As I wrote, I don't think this trade is terrible, it's just one I wouldn't have made, and to pick apart your comment, you mention being past potential. Schreiber has proven he's a good big league pitcher before, but he's also only done it once. He's had a season (max 2.50 ERA, 28%+ K rate, <8% BB rate, 50+ innings) that has happened 46 times since 2016. So very good, but also not crazy and he's only done it once. Schreiber, to me, is only slight less about potential than Sandlin after a rough 2023 season with shoulder issues. If that's the market for Sandlin, so be it, but then I just wouldn't trade him and would sign Ryne Stanek or whatever.
And I think it just hit me too that if Sandlin makes it big in Boston, many of the same people saying that trading prospects for big leaguers is fine will not be happy that they moved Sandlin. I know the whole mantra of being in the get it right business and it's not our job to have to stick to an opinion, but I also think it's only fair to say that if you're fine with making this move, you're fine with Sandlin developing into a big league starter and not being upset about it.
It's more about probabilities to me, I guess. If the Royals think there's a 50% chance they can contend in the weak AL Central, it probably makes sense to them to make this move. And as a fan, if I (generic "I") think there is an 80% chance Sandlin doesn't develop into a legit big-league starter, then there's an 80% chance I end up being fine with the move and I accept the 20% chance that it is looked back upon with regret. No crystal balls in this game or life, though we often respond when looking back as if there should've been.
I suppose. But I’d argue that if they think there’s a 50% chance they contend, they aren’t seeing this team clearly. There is absolutely a chance but there is no way it’s 50/50. The players can believe what they want and they should, but the front office needs to be more objective than the players.
Edit: I want to add that I love most of their offseason and think they’ve put themselves in the conversation. But the last time the division was won with fewer than 90 wins before last year was 2012. The likelihood is that one of the good teams actually wins 91-93 and not 85-87 and that makes it even harder.
That's true, and they definitely need to have that objectivity / self-awareness of where they actually are. That's clearly been an issue in the past. I picked that number out of the air, but I'm sure the true probability would be lower than 50% based on what they currently have (and without making a bunch of best-case scenarios for breakout seasons). Great article, David. And kudos to you for having a community here that has civil and spirited dialogue in the comments. Can you spread that to the rest of the world somehow?
Man, if I could, I would. We need it!
CRITICAL SPIRIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I totally agree just sign Stanek and not make this trade. But I kinda think this moves shows that for whatever reason Stanek isn’t coming here. IDK if you’ve heard anything or no….but the more reasonable move is just sign Stanek. I just don’t think that is really in the cards for whatever reason because they did this move. Think every GM….or at least like to believe….would just sign the FA in this situation.
Maybe. Or maybe they don’t want Stanek for whatever reason. I just would rather have Sandlin than Schreiber, which is my whole reason for not liking this move.
I am actually more on the positive side of this trade. JJ signed Chapman (no-one liked it if I recall), traded a few months of his rental for a potential starter and a lottery ticket (not many loved that either), and in general has aggressively tried to build a more competitive team. So while I think there was some luck involved with Ragans, it causes me to give the new regime the benefit of the doubt more often than not. I enjoy reading the opposing views, because sometimes a couple good points will change my mind, but that Kiley McDaniels tweet stuck in my craw a bit.
Agree that Wacha and Lugo may not move the needle much for the vote, but I have to wonder if opting for Wacha v trading Vinnie was a little more of a political move. I love Pasquatch, but I would have been pretty happy with a shiny new pitcher, and as I think you recently alluded to - Vinnie isn't a fully proven commodity yet.
I don’t think choosing Wacha over a Luzardo trade had anything to do with anything beyond preferring to keep Vinnie, who I think is a top-30 hitter in baseball. I’m not sure when I’ve alluded that he isn’t proven other than saying I could see the Royals wanting to be sure he’s fully healthy before offering an extension.
I think it was regarding the extension. I interpreted it to mean that he's not 100% proven as he still hasn't had full season and the health (this is why I am not a writer because I can't use my words :). I am a little wary of this sure thing status he has, so I was probably reading more of my own prejudices into it
You have Chris Stratton as not being a lock?
No, he’s a lock. Just a mistake of omission.