One thing I can say with confidence is they worked hard enough. My question is if their valuation of the players was consistent with the rest of the league, which has long been an issue for them. They've tended to place a higher value on their guys than most teams do, which I think the record speaks for itself on whether they're justified in that or not.
In our front office’s eyes. As soon as players join the 40 man roster they gain 25% in value automatically. You would think that someone….at some point….after years of losing…and being 20 games under this year…..would realize our players are not that good compared to the rest of the league. If you had players that were valued where our FO has them….we’d be at least .500 by now.
I don't know if I'd fully agree with that. I think there are a lot of assumptions that sort of fit into the "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" idea, but I think it's more that they believe in their people so much that they must be right. It's a flattering ideology of your employees, but also not great when being calculating in running a team.
I will say this. I’m moving farther and farther to the lines of I’m ready for a new FO. I saw a comment JJ made about Whits comments about the vaccination having no part in trading him yesterday. Apparently I’m stupid and don’t know it? Why? Why even say that? You expect me to believe that? Of course you traded him for that AND THATS OK. I don’t understand why they don’t just tell the truth more often.
But what does that accomplish to say it played a part? There's nothing to be gained from that other than gaining some satisfaction from people who were mad about it. I think I said this when I wrote about how fed up I was with them back a couple of months ago. Actions speak louder than words, but in the absence of action, words are all we have. This time, though, they acted. They moved him. Who cares what he says about it?
The Cardinals were looking for pitching and the Royals have an abundance right now. Seems odd to me that neither team could pull a trigger on a deal with each other.
St Louis doesn't want any of the arms that the Royals have. Most of the Royals' pitchers are below average. The Cardinals need pitchers that get hitters out, not walk home runners. The Royals staff is horrible. Singer is looking good, the rest are just a bunch of fillers. Keller, has one good game, two bad games, Bubic has mostly bad games, Lynch has mostly bad games, Greinke is older and sometimes he can fool hiters but mostly he can't. I am a Royals' fan but also a Cards fan. I am glad the Cards didn't trade for any cannon fodder owned by the Royals.
But maybe the Cardinals coaches could work better with the Royals pitchers than Eldred. Hopefully the pitchers traded to the Redbirds will help them into the playoffs.
I guess I'm not sure who would have been a target of the Cardinals. I'll give you some of the bullpen arms, but they got two starters who are better than Brad Keller. Did they really need Keller to add to that list? I just don't know where the deal would have been with them.
I'm just hoping for another Royals World Series and I'd have loved to get some of the prospects the Cardinals have, but I just don't think it would've worked much for them.
Very good article, I very much enjoyed it. In my opinion, the Royals got very little for what they traded. The rating of the trade will only be known in a couple years. As a Royals fan I want to believe these trades will be good for the team, however, in all probability the Royals will end up with but a few players that stick in the bigs, whether long term or short term. The rest of them will be minor league filler. It will end up just like most of the trades that are made by Moore & Company, it has a shadowy likeness of a good trade but the players returned will dissipate into nothingness before the end. Trading for just for the thrill of trading usually ends up like this.
Here's the question I'd ask you. Who did they trade who should have gotten back surefire big leaguers? Before you say Andrew Benintendi, I'll remind you that he was traded with 63 games left in the Yankees season and a .079 ISO. Yes, he has a high average and a high OBP, but he's also not an especially good base runner. I'm not saying he doesn't have value, but two months of that isn't worth nearly as much as most (myself included) thought. Look at the David Peralta deal. He's a similar outfielder, though he trades some average/OBP for power in the comparison. He brought back a catcher in rookie ball. That's notoriously the slowest and worst developing position and he brought someone back who is four plus steps away from the big leagues and that's it.
Santana wasn't bringing anything back. Merrifield would have if they had traded him two or three years ago, but they didn't. Gallagher is a good backup catcher, but he's still a backup catcher. The bigger issue with the Royals is that they don't ever have the piece to trade that actually can restock the system. And when they did, they decided to go for it instead of trading them. Which I support because I believe you have to try to win when you can win. But their most valuable pieces are a bunch of players who aren't getting traded right now. And Scott Barlow. They very likely should have moved Scott Barlow.
Wanted to get your thoughts on what it felt like. What I mean is…..some of the trades before yesterday felt like maybe JJ was a little different. However, yesterday they did the bare minimum in my eyes….which I’m glad they did at least that….but yesterday felt a whole lot like a DM trade deadline to me. It continues to be the same MO…hold on to a valuable reliever for a losing team at a volatile position. Chances are decent he won’t be as valuable to us next year. The point I’m getting to is did you feel like enough changed to tell if JJ is much different than DM? Where some good signs….but a lot of the same.
The only way this makes sense to me (not trading Taylor, Barlow, Keller, etc) is that they KNOW they have to compete next year for their job (assuming they still have it). They have to be .500 a year from now. It just smells to me like they know they don’t have much rope here. Which also means to me if this team is to hover around .500 a top of the rotation arm is coming this offseason. A trade that hurts. At this point, alot would have to go right to be around .500 a year from now. It’s possible….and it will ride on the pitching and health. So second question….does this smell like a deadline where they knew they couldn’t get too creative because feet are to the fire….OR they just aren’t a creative FO anyway.
I think what we have to remember when we talk about a JJ deal vs. a Dayton deal is that these two have been together forever. They clearly value a lot of the same things or else I don't think they'd have been able to maintain that working relationship the way they have. I think simply trading Merrifield says JJ was in charge, which may not be fair but Dayton hasn't exactly jumped at the chance to ever trade him before. Even with guys like Massey and Garcia ready and up (I'm assuming Massey comes up today), you can't convince me he'd have traded Merrifield if it was solely his call.
I will say the one issue that I have with the idea that not trading players will help them be more successful moving forward is I question what it is about a team pacing for 90+ losses that makes people think this group of players is the answer to saving jobs? I just don't think it goes that deep. I think they didn't get the offers they wanted to move players who can still be moved later.
Oh I completely agree that the idea that this group of players is the answer to saving jobs. But its the only thing that makes sense to me on why they didn’t move Barlow in this reliever market. Clearly they were looking for a Hader type deal. If it was a one year thing no big deal. It’s just a repeated pattern with relievers with this group that has gone on for years. The freakin Orioles FO has a better grasp of value and that irritates me. LOL
I agree. It’s more the idea of trading a reliever at highest possible value. Yes, the royals should be trying to find market inefficiency….but sometimes the market is right. Trading relievers is where the royals and Rockies are wrong. Lol.
Oh, no disagreement there. While I think the offers were likely far better than what the Orioles got for Lopez, the fact that the deal for him did exists at least provides the possibility that they weren't. And if that's the case, I'd much rather have Barlow than the Lopez return. That's all I'm saying.
I was listening to an MLB show yesterday around the trade deadline, and while I'm surprised Barlow didn't move, their comment was they were surprised at how little movement was done on relievers in general.
Also, in keeping with poorly the Royals develop pitchers, Jorge Lopez brought back a good haul for the Orioles. Not bad for a DFA'd pitcher a couple of years ago.
There really weren't that many traded. Fewer than in years past, but those who were moved brought back a good amount. But like I said to Joel above, if the Royals got for Barlow what the Orioles got for Lopez, I'd have been annoyed at that return. It was good for a guy who had three good months, though.
More than I expected less than I hoped. 3 of the 10 are gone, which I'm happy for. This was JJ's first trading deadline, and I hope he has started putting irons in the fire. It will be interesting how the up coming off season goes. Relationships drive action in this league. Hopefully he has established new ones with GM's across the league. Relationships that may lead to other moves before and after the winter meetings. He has got his feet wet. Let's see what he can do to drive this team towards another championship run.
That's a good point. While I generally get annoyed with the idea of only trading players who "have" to be traded, i.e. those heading for free agency, the only players they didn't trade who are only under team control for one more year who I think they could have gotten something for are Taylor and Keller. Barlow is through 2024, Staumont through 2025, Clarke through 2025, Dozier through 2024. The opportunity to trade all of them still exists before Opening Day 2023. I'm not sure I expect many or any of them to be moved (maybe Taylor if Waters finishes the season as well as he's started it for Omaha), but they still can be.
Good work as usual Lesky. I'm still not wasting my time watching the Royals until Cal is gone - just can't justify time away from my family to watch a movie where I already know the ending. That said, I never tune out of ITC, just don't like to comment unless I'm actively watching. But I'm still reading every article.
That said, I DID watch the trade deadline and came away impressed and believe you're right, it smells more like JJ work than DM work. Adding 6 top 30 prospects, which is 20% is probably the best we could hope for and IMO solid. I'd say an A- with rationale below...
We've already promoted and lost (on the list) BWJ and Melendez and Pratto and Vinnie will be moving off the list soon. So, I would MUCH rather add talent that has been developed by Yanks, Blue Jays and Braves than try and do the same thing with the draft. And what did we give up? 2 months of Beni (no biggie, we weren't a playoff team with him and won't be without him), Cam (great guy but you and me both finally got to be right), Carlos (thank the Lord), Whit (who everyone was angry about) and Rivera - although I didn't like that trade at all. Oh yeah and a comp pick for a possible 5 tool guy (more on that later).
I feel good about the bats trades in general b/c that is, perhaps, the one thing we can trust the Royals to develop at this point (and if Waters keeps this up ALL look back fondly at this trade season). As for the arms trades - well, we better get a LOT of them b/c we need so many that Cal and crew can't screw them all up.
Now, can you pull a few strings and get Cal his walking papers so I can watch a game again???
I think you'll be very happy, but not until after the season ends. I've said this on a couple of radio spots, but I believe the Royals agree with the majority that Cal isn't the answer. Where they disagree is in the level of harm with him staying until after the season vs. getting fired now. I believe he's doing damage. They believe he's not. So we'll have to wait.
For a guy with only 21 MLB IP, Max Castillo looks promising, at least on paper. 20 K's vs 5 BB with a WHIP of 0.968 is a nice way to start a big-league career. 6.5 hits per 9 IP will work, too. 4 HR in 21 IP is slightly concerning, but the sample size is way too small to draw any conclusions. The video clips you posted look intriguing.
His minor-league numbers are a little less attention-grabbing but still decent: 517 IP, 8.2 K's per 9 IP, 1.247 WHIP.
The acquisition of Brent Rooker, with his OPS+ of 91 in 241 career MLB AB's at 27 years old, doesn't exactly make me tingly all over. Usually when the Twins give up on a guy in his mid-20s there's a good reason why, as the Padres learned. But who knows, maybe with the new bevy of hitting coaches something can be done with him.
Rooker's minor-league numbers give at least some basis for hope. Ditto-plus for Samad Taylor.
Michael A. Taylor will never again have the trade value he had at this year's deadline. I feel quite confident that Dayton's overvaluing of him prevented a successful deal. How disappointing. But hardly surprising.
David - after a very impressive start, Pratto's numbers have fallen off pretty dramatically lately. His OPS is down 200 points from two weeks ago and his BA is getting perilously close to the Mendoza line. His 32% K rate is about what we all expected, I guess. I realize how small the sample size is. It's probably nothing more than normal rookie variability. But I was just wondering if you've noticed opponents pitching him any differently now than they did when he first came up….
I haven't dug in very much, but the difference from him leaving a game hitting .280/.387/.520 and what he's done since is 25 plate appearances (plus one today).
Fair enough. It just got me to kinda wondering if MLB teams develop a "book" on a young hitter that quickly. Probably not but I wouldn't know for certain.
After the first pitch of the 5th inning to Salvy last night, I got the sense that Ryan was sorely tempted to say "....and it's high and outside for strike one." I wish he had.
I usually poke fun at fans, even fans of my own teams, for complaining about umps/refs. But this strike zone crap that the Royals are having to take from seemingly every home plate umpire is getting really freakin' old. And as you documented so well, David, it's a real thing.
For God's sake, please, bring on the laser beams and the robo-umps! (If there really is a fair and consistent strike zone next year, the Yankees are gonna have some major adjustments to make, both on the mound and at bat. They've never had to deal with that before.)
Amazing how hard it is to get optimistic about any pitcher they draft or acquire as long as Cal and the other pitching coaches/development folks are still around!
I think we spend so much focus on Cal that we forget the minor leaguers are having a terrible season too. This is from top to bottom, not just top. They need to make big changes.
Legitimate question. How is Brent Rooker a better option in the MLB than Emanuel Rivera? Rivera is 26 and Rooker 27. Both with fantastic AAA numbers and middling MLB numbers. Rooker 1B/DH and Rivera 3B. Last I checked we don't have a 3B tree and we do have a 1B/DH tree. Rivera still has 5 years of team control. Even if he was stuck at AAA as the "break glass in case of emergency" fill in, that has value. I also really liked the way Rivera was trending up in July and (I assume) making adjustments at the plate. I know they were not in the same trade but this really feels like Rooker is the organizational replacement for Rivera.
As I said on Twitter, I think it's about the fact that they didn't see a spot for Rivera. And in their opinion, Rooker and Weaver were better than Rivera and no Weaver. I don't know that I agree with that, but I also don't think it's going to be something that makes much of a difference long-term.
Can add as many top prospect as they want, won’t do them any good at the major league level as long as this managerial and coaching staff is in place. Players excelling at AA and AAA mediocre in the major. Great talent poorly managed and coached. Switch the AAA/AA staffs for the major league staff. No motivation under Matheny. You keep banging on Dozier, he has always been solid defensively no matter where you play him. Looks like Matheny pulled his line up out of a hat again today. When are they going to DFA O’Hearn, taking up a roster spot.
Vinnie and Isbel have two of the top four average exit velos among rookies, but have VERY little to show for it. Do you see that as just the normal variability of luck in hitting? Or are they maybe hitting the ball to easily predictable places on the field, making them unusually easy to defend? Your thoughts, David?
That's reassuring. I still have hopes that an Isbel/Oliveras platoon can be a potent one. Assuming that we get a manager who is willing to put players in the best possible position to succeed. And who is able to understand what that is.
David, I enjoyed your take on the trades. I also wondered about whether upper management worked hard enough to trade some of our other players.
One thing I can say with confidence is they worked hard enough. My question is if their valuation of the players was consistent with the rest of the league, which has long been an issue for them. They've tended to place a higher value on their guys than most teams do, which I think the record speaks for itself on whether they're justified in that or not.
In our front office’s eyes. As soon as players join the 40 man roster they gain 25% in value automatically. You would think that someone….at some point….after years of losing…and being 20 games under this year…..would realize our players are not that good compared to the rest of the league. If you had players that were valued where our FO has them….we’d be at least .500 by now.
I don't know if I'd fully agree with that. I think there are a lot of assumptions that sort of fit into the "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" idea, but I think it's more that they believe in their people so much that they must be right. It's a flattering ideology of your employees, but also not great when being calculating in running a team.
I will say this. I’m moving farther and farther to the lines of I’m ready for a new FO. I saw a comment JJ made about Whits comments about the vaccination having no part in trading him yesterday. Apparently I’m stupid and don’t know it? Why? Why even say that? You expect me to believe that? Of course you traded him for that AND THATS OK. I don’t understand why they don’t just tell the truth more often.
But what does that accomplish to say it played a part? There's nothing to be gained from that other than gaining some satisfaction from people who were mad about it. I think I said this when I wrote about how fed up I was with them back a couple of months ago. Actions speak louder than words, but in the absence of action, words are all we have. This time, though, they acted. They moved him. Who cares what he says about it?
Ultimately nothing I guess. But what bad comes from just telling the truth?
The Cardinals were looking for pitching and the Royals have an abundance right now. Seems odd to me that neither team could pull a trigger on a deal with each other.
St Louis doesn't want any of the arms that the Royals have. Most of the Royals' pitchers are below average. The Cardinals need pitchers that get hitters out, not walk home runners. The Royals staff is horrible. Singer is looking good, the rest are just a bunch of fillers. Keller, has one good game, two bad games, Bubic has mostly bad games, Lynch has mostly bad games, Greinke is older and sometimes he can fool hiters but mostly he can't. I am a Royals' fan but also a Cards fan. I am glad the Cards didn't trade for any cannon fodder owned by the Royals.
But maybe the Cardinals coaches could work better with the Royals pitchers than Eldred. Hopefully the pitchers traded to the Redbirds will help them into the playoffs.
I guess I'm not sure who would have been a target of the Cardinals. I'll give you some of the bullpen arms, but they got two starters who are better than Brad Keller. Did they really need Keller to add to that list? I just don't know where the deal would have been with them.
I suppose. I was hoping both teams could get stronger from trading with each other. I'm always hoping for another I-70 World Series.
I'm just hoping for another Royals World Series and I'd have loved to get some of the prospects the Cardinals have, but I just don't think it would've worked much for them.
Very good article, I very much enjoyed it. In my opinion, the Royals got very little for what they traded. The rating of the trade will only be known in a couple years. As a Royals fan I want to believe these trades will be good for the team, however, in all probability the Royals will end up with but a few players that stick in the bigs, whether long term or short term. The rest of them will be minor league filler. It will end up just like most of the trades that are made by Moore & Company, it has a shadowy likeness of a good trade but the players returned will dissipate into nothingness before the end. Trading for just for the thrill of trading usually ends up like this.
Here's the question I'd ask you. Who did they trade who should have gotten back surefire big leaguers? Before you say Andrew Benintendi, I'll remind you that he was traded with 63 games left in the Yankees season and a .079 ISO. Yes, he has a high average and a high OBP, but he's also not an especially good base runner. I'm not saying he doesn't have value, but two months of that isn't worth nearly as much as most (myself included) thought. Look at the David Peralta deal. He's a similar outfielder, though he trades some average/OBP for power in the comparison. He brought back a catcher in rookie ball. That's notoriously the slowest and worst developing position and he brought someone back who is four plus steps away from the big leagues and that's it.
Santana wasn't bringing anything back. Merrifield would have if they had traded him two or three years ago, but they didn't. Gallagher is a good backup catcher, but he's still a backup catcher. The bigger issue with the Royals is that they don't ever have the piece to trade that actually can restock the system. And when they did, they decided to go for it instead of trading them. Which I support because I believe you have to try to win when you can win. But their most valuable pieces are a bunch of players who aren't getting traded right now. And Scott Barlow. They very likely should have moved Scott Barlow.
Wanted to get your thoughts on what it felt like. What I mean is…..some of the trades before yesterday felt like maybe JJ was a little different. However, yesterday they did the bare minimum in my eyes….which I’m glad they did at least that….but yesterday felt a whole lot like a DM trade deadline to me. It continues to be the same MO…hold on to a valuable reliever for a losing team at a volatile position. Chances are decent he won’t be as valuable to us next year. The point I’m getting to is did you feel like enough changed to tell if JJ is much different than DM? Where some good signs….but a lot of the same.
The only way this makes sense to me (not trading Taylor, Barlow, Keller, etc) is that they KNOW they have to compete next year for their job (assuming they still have it). They have to be .500 a year from now. It just smells to me like they know they don’t have much rope here. Which also means to me if this team is to hover around .500 a top of the rotation arm is coming this offseason. A trade that hurts. At this point, alot would have to go right to be around .500 a year from now. It’s possible….and it will ride on the pitching and health. So second question….does this smell like a deadline where they knew they couldn’t get too creative because feet are to the fire….OR they just aren’t a creative FO anyway.
I think what we have to remember when we talk about a JJ deal vs. a Dayton deal is that these two have been together forever. They clearly value a lot of the same things or else I don't think they'd have been able to maintain that working relationship the way they have. I think simply trading Merrifield says JJ was in charge, which may not be fair but Dayton hasn't exactly jumped at the chance to ever trade him before. Even with guys like Massey and Garcia ready and up (I'm assuming Massey comes up today), you can't convince me he'd have traded Merrifield if it was solely his call.
I will say the one issue that I have with the idea that not trading players will help them be more successful moving forward is I question what it is about a team pacing for 90+ losses that makes people think this group of players is the answer to saving jobs? I just don't think it goes that deep. I think they didn't get the offers they wanted to move players who can still be moved later.
Oh I completely agree that the idea that this group of players is the answer to saving jobs. But its the only thing that makes sense to me on why they didn’t move Barlow in this reliever market. Clearly they were looking for a Hader type deal. If it was a one year thing no big deal. It’s just a repeated pattern with relievers with this group that has gone on for years. The freakin Orioles FO has a better grasp of value and that irritates me. LOL
I'll say this. If the Royals got offered for Barlow what the Orioles got for Lopez and took it, I'd say that's a terrible trade.
I agree. It’s more the idea of trading a reliever at highest possible value. Yes, the royals should be trying to find market inefficiency….but sometimes the market is right. Trading relievers is where the royals and Rockies are wrong. Lol.
Oh, no disagreement there. While I think the offers were likely far better than what the Orioles got for Lopez, the fact that the deal for him did exists at least provides the possibility that they weren't. And if that's the case, I'd much rather have Barlow than the Lopez return. That's all I'm saying.
Yep completely agree
I was listening to an MLB show yesterday around the trade deadline, and while I'm surprised Barlow didn't move, their comment was they were surprised at how little movement was done on relievers in general.
Also, in keeping with poorly the Royals develop pitchers, Jorge Lopez brought back a good haul for the Orioles. Not bad for a DFA'd pitcher a couple of years ago.
There really weren't that many traded. Fewer than in years past, but those who were moved brought back a good amount. But like I said to Joel above, if the Royals got for Barlow what the Orioles got for Lopez, I'd have been annoyed at that return. It was good for a guy who had three good months, though.
More than I expected less than I hoped. 3 of the 10 are gone, which I'm happy for. This was JJ's first trading deadline, and I hope he has started putting irons in the fire. It will be interesting how the up coming off season goes. Relationships drive action in this league. Hopefully he has established new ones with GM's across the league. Relationships that may lead to other moves before and after the winter meetings. He has got his feet wet. Let's see what he can do to drive this team towards another championship run.
That's a good point. While I generally get annoyed with the idea of only trading players who "have" to be traded, i.e. those heading for free agency, the only players they didn't trade who are only under team control for one more year who I think they could have gotten something for are Taylor and Keller. Barlow is through 2024, Staumont through 2025, Clarke through 2025, Dozier through 2024. The opportunity to trade all of them still exists before Opening Day 2023. I'm not sure I expect many or any of them to be moved (maybe Taylor if Waters finishes the season as well as he's started it for Omaha), but they still can be.
Good work as usual Lesky. I'm still not wasting my time watching the Royals until Cal is gone - just can't justify time away from my family to watch a movie where I already know the ending. That said, I never tune out of ITC, just don't like to comment unless I'm actively watching. But I'm still reading every article.
That said, I DID watch the trade deadline and came away impressed and believe you're right, it smells more like JJ work than DM work. Adding 6 top 30 prospects, which is 20% is probably the best we could hope for and IMO solid. I'd say an A- with rationale below...
We've already promoted and lost (on the list) BWJ and Melendez and Pratto and Vinnie will be moving off the list soon. So, I would MUCH rather add talent that has been developed by Yanks, Blue Jays and Braves than try and do the same thing with the draft. And what did we give up? 2 months of Beni (no biggie, we weren't a playoff team with him and won't be without him), Cam (great guy but you and me both finally got to be right), Carlos (thank the Lord), Whit (who everyone was angry about) and Rivera - although I didn't like that trade at all. Oh yeah and a comp pick for a possible 5 tool guy (more on that later).
I feel good about the bats trades in general b/c that is, perhaps, the one thing we can trust the Royals to develop at this point (and if Waters keeps this up ALL look back fondly at this trade season). As for the arms trades - well, we better get a LOT of them b/c we need so many that Cal and crew can't screw them all up.
Now, can you pull a few strings and get Cal his walking papers so I can watch a game again???
I think you'll be very happy, but not until after the season ends. I've said this on a couple of radio spots, but I believe the Royals agree with the majority that Cal isn't the answer. Where they disagree is in the level of harm with him staying until after the season vs. getting fired now. I believe he's doing damage. They believe he's not. So we'll have to wait.
For a guy with only 21 MLB IP, Max Castillo looks promising, at least on paper. 20 K's vs 5 BB with a WHIP of 0.968 is a nice way to start a big-league career. 6.5 hits per 9 IP will work, too. 4 HR in 21 IP is slightly concerning, but the sample size is way too small to draw any conclusions. The video clips you posted look intriguing.
His minor-league numbers are a little less attention-grabbing but still decent: 517 IP, 8.2 K's per 9 IP, 1.247 WHIP.
The acquisition of Brent Rooker, with his OPS+ of 91 in 241 career MLB AB's at 27 years old, doesn't exactly make me tingly all over. Usually when the Twins give up on a guy in his mid-20s there's a good reason why, as the Padres learned. But who knows, maybe with the new bevy of hitting coaches something can be done with him.
Rooker's minor-league numbers give at least some basis for hope. Ditto-plus for Samad Taylor.
Michael A. Taylor will never again have the trade value he had at this year's deadline. I feel quite confident that Dayton's overvaluing of him prevented a successful deal. How disappointing. But hardly surprising.
David - after a very impressive start, Pratto's numbers have fallen off pretty dramatically lately. His OPS is down 200 points from two weeks ago and his BA is getting perilously close to the Mendoza line. His 32% K rate is about what we all expected, I guess. I realize how small the sample size is. It's probably nothing more than normal rookie variability. But I was just wondering if you've noticed opponents pitching him any differently now than they did when he first came up….
I haven't dug in very much, but the difference from him leaving a game hitting .280/.387/.520 and what he's done since is 25 plate appearances (plus one today).
Fair enough. It just got me to kinda wondering if MLB teams develop a "book" on a young hitter that quickly. Probably not but I wouldn't know for certain.
After the first pitch of the 5th inning to Salvy last night, I got the sense that Ryan was sorely tempted to say "....and it's high and outside for strike one." I wish he had.
I usually poke fun at fans, even fans of my own teams, for complaining about umps/refs. But this strike zone crap that the Royals are having to take from seemingly every home plate umpire is getting really freakin' old. And as you documented so well, David, it's a real thing.
For God's sake, please, bring on the laser beams and the robo-umps! (If there really is a fair and consistent strike zone next year, the Yankees are gonna have some major adjustments to make, both on the mound and at bat. They've never had to deal with that before.)
Good article, as usual. A few thoughts:
--In reading about Samad Taylor it sounds like we traded Merrifield for a younger version.
--Lots of talk about teams needing a CF, yet MAT stays here. I really thought they'd move him.
--Wonder what effect trading Rivera had on holding onto Dozier? Would they have been too thin at 3rd?
--I'm okay with Barlow, Clarke and Staumont staying, due to the control we have on them. I would have only moved them for a sure trade win.
--Got a number of pitchers back in these transactions. Better make some changes in personnel to coach them up -- looking at you Cal...
Amazing how hard it is to get optimistic about any pitcher they draft or acquire as long as Cal and the other pitching coaches/development folks are still around!
I think we spend so much focus on Cal that we forget the minor leaguers are having a terrible season too. This is from top to bottom, not just top. They need to make big changes.
Legitimate question. How is Brent Rooker a better option in the MLB than Emanuel Rivera? Rivera is 26 and Rooker 27. Both with fantastic AAA numbers and middling MLB numbers. Rooker 1B/DH and Rivera 3B. Last I checked we don't have a 3B tree and we do have a 1B/DH tree. Rivera still has 5 years of team control. Even if he was stuck at AAA as the "break glass in case of emergency" fill in, that has value. I also really liked the way Rivera was trending up in July and (I assume) making adjustments at the plate. I know they were not in the same trade but this really feels like Rooker is the organizational replacement for Rivera.
As I said on Twitter, I think it's about the fact that they didn't see a spot for Rivera. And in their opinion, Rooker and Weaver were better than Rivera and no Weaver. I don't know that I agree with that, but I also don't think it's going to be something that makes much of a difference long-term.
Can add as many top prospect as they want, won’t do them any good at the major league level as long as this managerial and coaching staff is in place. Players excelling at AA and AAA mediocre in the major. Great talent poorly managed and coached. Switch the AAA/AA staffs for the major league staff. No motivation under Matheny. You keep banging on Dozier, he has always been solid defensively no matter where you play him. Looks like Matheny pulled his line up out of a hat again today. When are they going to DFA O’Hearn, taking up a roster spot.
Other than those few minor details, it's been a great bleepin' year! 🤬
Vinnie and Isbel have two of the top four average exit velos among rookies, but have VERY little to show for it. Do you see that as just the normal variability of luck in hitting? Or are they maybe hitting the ball to easily predictable places on the field, making them unusually easy to defend? Your thoughts, David?
They're probably hitting to their tendencies, but hitting the ball hard will eventually yield results. I wouldn't worry too much about it.
That's reassuring. I still have hopes that an Isbel/Oliveras platoon can be a potent one. Assuming that we get a manager who is willing to put players in the best possible position to succeed. And who is able to understand what that is.
Call him "Joe Notmatheny."