I had to chuckle a bit: "....but they've looked a lot less hopeless..."
Every wistful fan's lament, right? Not that I blame you - it was doubtless the right thing to say - but I couldn't help but wonder how many tens of millions of sports fans have said or thought that (accompanied by a sigh) over the years.
Mostly interested in your trade commentary here over the games this weekend but at least they looked respectable. So you hated it huh. IDK, I certainly didn’t like it. Maybe Reagan’s turns into something but at 25 already with 2 Tj’s under his belt….Love Cabrera even if it doesn’t work…hate the insistence on major league ready arms back. Felt light on what was expecting.
Here’s my big question though. I really thought going into this trade season they would find a way to get a top 100 prospect back to at least help with starting to get high end talent in the pipeline. But…I assumed(hoped really) they’d package Chapman with someone to get that. Now that they have moved Chapman….IDK what to think of Barlow. Clarke isn’t helping his case yet. I guess does this change your opinion about the Royals getting a top 100 guy back at all? They have to get creative…I’m just not sure they will at this point.
I didn’t say I hated it. I did at first but after seeing the velocity increase for Ragans and also talking with someone with far more knowledge of the negotiation than me, I became pretty meh on it. I don’t know that they necessarily insisted on major league ready arms. Like I wrote, they talked prospects and the Rangers didn’t seem to be budging on the ones the Royals wanted. I think Ragans provides unique upside for someone with his age and experience though he definitely comes with baggage and concerns. That’s why I can’t say I loved or even liked the trade but it was fine.
I think they can get a top 100 guy for Barlow and yeah, they probably could have gotten one if there was a package with Chapman, but this is also why I really prefer to judge a whole deadline rather than one trade. If they can get back a 2025 rotation arm for Barlow and they got one for Chapman, then I’m good with it all.
They need more than rotation arms back for these guys. If we just get back meh rotation pieces for next year….what are we doing here? I’m not going to roast anyone yet. You are absolutely right we need to wait till it’s all over. But the FO needs to find a way to get a top 100 guy in the system…plus one in the draft. Gotta be able to sell future in this spot a whole lot better. I do wonder if the expectations for Barlow need to come down a bit though after this. Either we are overvaluing our guys and the rest of the market is like…nope. Or Chatman’s history did catch up to it in the end. Not quite as hopeful on a big return on Barlow…but maybe we can wait till the last minute and get someone desperate.
I do find it interesting the guy you talked too. Sounded like the Royals settled a little bit. Which whatever, it is what it is…but was nobody else beside the Rangers interested in Chapman?
I don’t think they settled. I think they compromised, which is generally how a trade works. A guy like Chapman, who doesn’t do back to back days much, is older (in baseball terms, of course) and has already had minor injuries this year is sort of a ticking time bomb. It’s hard to say they should trade him ASAP and then think they also should have waited for something better. I appreciate that they got back a guy like Cabrera in addition and if Ragans is what they think, he’s under team control through 2028. Who cares if it’s a top 100 if they get a legitimate rotation piece for five years for three months of a reliever?
I think the flexibility of Barlow to go back to back and to go more than one inning helps. Plus, his extra year of control is big too. I don’t know if he gets back a top 100 or not, but I also think that’s a somewhat arbitrary list that does matter. It probably matters a lot more than some think and a lot less than people who swear by the lists think.
I don’t swear by the list by any means. But I do however, think it is a very good guideline on who can be “difference makers” if that makes sense. It’s not the end all be all and guys like Salvy can defy it. But most of the time….it gives you a good idea.
Let me rephrase a little bit. Top 25 lists are pretty much gold. Top 50 lists are great. After you get past 50, there's a whole lot of subjectivity involved. I looked at the American League All-Star roster that was announced yesterday. It includes 32 players, so I looked to see the highest ranking on any of the three main lists of these players. This is the breakdown:
1-25: 12
26-50: 2
51-75: 5
76-100: 2
Unranked: 11
That's not to say that a random sampling of one team that includes players who have to be selected due to the one player per team rule is meaningful, but I would also point out that of the seven from 51-100, four of them only appeared on one of the three lists and they only appeared once.
My point here is that I don't think the Royals have anyone they're trading right now who will bring back a top-50 prospect. That's where the lists are much more meaningful to me. And where they'd be shopping with some of these guys, at least based on this year's AL All-Star team, there are more guys who were never ranked than guys from 51-100.
I’ll say this about the bunts: I’m an almost-never-bunt guy, and I imagine Quatraro is too. However, consider what Bobby Witt Jr. said recently.
“Constantly going back and asking myself, ‘What could I have done here to help in what type of way?’ Right now, I feel like we have to do everything perfect to get things going. So I’m trying not to do that because it doesn’t help.”
Part of this is getting Bobby and the rest of the guys to try less, understand that they belong up here and focus on contributing.
Oh sure. Witt's swing in that fourth inning yesterday was a perfect example of that. I also think his sacrifice bunt in the first was a not great attempt to bunt for a hit. If bunting leads to an improvement in fundamentals that can help them when they're actually able to do the big things, I'm all for it. I just don't want to see Witt sacrifice bunting in the first inning unless he's feeling totally helpless up there, which brings up another problem, but that's for another day if it ever happens.
Daniel Lynch with ten 3-ball counts in the first four innings. No wonder he ended up averaging nearly 22 pitches per inning! Somebody should probably tell him that's not a good idea no matter what team you're facing.
He definitely needs to be more efficient at times. I think the second inning just really got away from him. Six of those three-ball counts were then. Doesn’t make it better, but I appreciated making the in-game adjustments that we rarely saw the last couple years with him.
Baseball is just so full of variables that it makes every game or small set of games a crapshoot, if you will. The Royals have only won four series all season, and three of the four are against the three California teams in the NL West. They finished 8-7 against the NL West overall; they're 1-7 against the NL Central and 1-8 against the NL East. Just weird and probably meaningless that they've had a modicum of success against the NL West.
They also haven't hit a home run in their last 63 innings, but they're playing some of their "least bad" ball--even borderline good--during this stretch. Also interesting.
Yep, who knows what it is about those west teams? Good to see any success against anyone, I guess. Timing is something too. They got the Braves when they were playing in one of their lowest stretches. Marlins too. Not that their high stretches are particularly high, but we’ve seen the depths they can reach.
Back to fun baseball! That series against the Dodgers was fun. idk, maybe Bobby is hurting, but I am appreciating that he seemed to be trying to get runs in versus swinging for the fences and thinking it was on him to win the game. If this becomes a team who relies on everyone, 1-9, what a fun team to watch (assuming they win occasionally)
I actually really like the Chapman trade. I know it goes against the grade, but if we can even possibly get a starter for 2024 I am in (and then maybe even beyond??)! Y its a gamble, but I think its a smart bet, and an upside lottery ticket? Y I actually love this trade.
We are so desperate for starters! We need starting depth for now and '24, period.
Optimistic on Marsh - tough team to face and he looked okish
Lynch was shown in dugout during first- he looked absolutely terrified that he was going into game with a 5 run lead (and he might blow it). Almost did, but props to him for sticking it out
Singer, Y I am still skeptical, but he got the win with his 2 pitches, maybe he knows something we don't
So where are we on Pratto now? I was generally a defender, but I don’t understand what he’s looking at when he watches a fat fastball in the middle of the plate go by. I am a fan of seeing some pitches as you work out your approach, but lately, he just looks frozen. Are there signs of life, or is he headed back to AAA?
He probably needs to be a little more aggressive at the plate. Some called third strikes are to be expected with someone who takes so many pitches, but what he’s done has been excessive. I do think it’s important to note that sometimes a fastball down the middle looks awfully hittable (and it is), but if you’re sitting slider or whatever, there’s nothing you can do about it.
Uh David, I just listened to Mike Sweeney and Hud compare Ragan to and I quote to what a Royals scout said….”A YOUNG COLE HAMELS”. I walked in and heard that and almost lost it. I hope they make a change this offseason. The sales job by Hud and Sweeney here is crazy. If this is really what the scouts are talking about then the whole scouting department needs overhauled. I mean they do anyway, and I hope that is coming but still. A young Cole Hamels. Just say they really like him. Don’t insult me because Cole Hamels was starting at the age of 22 and had 4 full seasons with an era under 4.22 by the same age Ragans is. Sigh, I just have to watch on mute.
Would we feel better about the Chapman trade if it wasn’t with the Rangers at the end of the day? Why does it have to be with the team DM is on now? That just sucks. Lol.
I had to chuckle a bit: "....but they've looked a lot less hopeless..."
Every wistful fan's lament, right? Not that I blame you - it was doubtless the right thing to say - but I couldn't help but wonder how many tens of millions of sports fans have said or thought that (accompanied by a sigh) over the years.
Hey, we take what we can get.
Mostly interested in your trade commentary here over the games this weekend but at least they looked respectable. So you hated it huh. IDK, I certainly didn’t like it. Maybe Reagan’s turns into something but at 25 already with 2 Tj’s under his belt….Love Cabrera even if it doesn’t work…hate the insistence on major league ready arms back. Felt light on what was expecting.
Here’s my big question though. I really thought going into this trade season they would find a way to get a top 100 prospect back to at least help with starting to get high end talent in the pipeline. But…I assumed(hoped really) they’d package Chapman with someone to get that. Now that they have moved Chapman….IDK what to think of Barlow. Clarke isn’t helping his case yet. I guess does this change your opinion about the Royals getting a top 100 guy back at all? They have to get creative…I’m just not sure they will at this point.
I didn’t say I hated it. I did at first but after seeing the velocity increase for Ragans and also talking with someone with far more knowledge of the negotiation than me, I became pretty meh on it. I don’t know that they necessarily insisted on major league ready arms. Like I wrote, they talked prospects and the Rangers didn’t seem to be budging on the ones the Royals wanted. I think Ragans provides unique upside for someone with his age and experience though he definitely comes with baggage and concerns. That’s why I can’t say I loved or even liked the trade but it was fine.
I think they can get a top 100 guy for Barlow and yeah, they probably could have gotten one if there was a package with Chapman, but this is also why I really prefer to judge a whole deadline rather than one trade. If they can get back a 2025 rotation arm for Barlow and they got one for Chapman, then I’m good with it all.
They need more than rotation arms back for these guys. If we just get back meh rotation pieces for next year….what are we doing here? I’m not going to roast anyone yet. You are absolutely right we need to wait till it’s all over. But the FO needs to find a way to get a top 100 guy in the system…plus one in the draft. Gotta be able to sell future in this spot a whole lot better. I do wonder if the expectations for Barlow need to come down a bit though after this. Either we are overvaluing our guys and the rest of the market is like…nope. Or Chatman’s history did catch up to it in the end. Not quite as hopeful on a big return on Barlow…but maybe we can wait till the last minute and get someone desperate.
I do find it interesting the guy you talked too. Sounded like the Royals settled a little bit. Which whatever, it is what it is…but was nobody else beside the Rangers interested in Chapman?
I don’t think they settled. I think they compromised, which is generally how a trade works. A guy like Chapman, who doesn’t do back to back days much, is older (in baseball terms, of course) and has already had minor injuries this year is sort of a ticking time bomb. It’s hard to say they should trade him ASAP and then think they also should have waited for something better. I appreciate that they got back a guy like Cabrera in addition and if Ragans is what they think, he’s under team control through 2028. Who cares if it’s a top 100 if they get a legitimate rotation piece for five years for three months of a reliever?
I think the flexibility of Barlow to go back to back and to go more than one inning helps. Plus, his extra year of control is big too. I don’t know if he gets back a top 100 or not, but I also think that’s a somewhat arbitrary list that does matter. It probably matters a lot more than some think and a lot less than people who swear by the lists think.
I don’t swear by the list by any means. But I do however, think it is a very good guideline on who can be “difference makers” if that makes sense. It’s not the end all be all and guys like Salvy can defy it. But most of the time….it gives you a good idea.
Let me rephrase a little bit. Top 25 lists are pretty much gold. Top 50 lists are great. After you get past 50, there's a whole lot of subjectivity involved. I looked at the American League All-Star roster that was announced yesterday. It includes 32 players, so I looked to see the highest ranking on any of the three main lists of these players. This is the breakdown:
1-25: 12
26-50: 2
51-75: 5
76-100: 2
Unranked: 11
That's not to say that a random sampling of one team that includes players who have to be selected due to the one player per team rule is meaningful, but I would also point out that of the seven from 51-100, four of them only appeared on one of the three lists and they only appeared once.
My point here is that I don't think the Royals have anyone they're trading right now who will bring back a top-50 prospect. That's where the lists are much more meaningful to me. And where they'd be shopping with some of these guys, at least based on this year's AL All-Star team, there are more guys who were never ranked than guys from 51-100.
Bunts, steals, sac flies, and defense beat the Dodgers. That was the best they’ve executed fundamentals all year.
Yep, Dave Roberts thought so too. Though I’d much prefer fewer bunts. The rest I’ll take forever.
I could hardly agree with you more about preferring fewer bunts. This team is nowhere near good enough to be giving away free outs.
I’ll say this about the bunts: I’m an almost-never-bunt guy, and I imagine Quatraro is too. However, consider what Bobby Witt Jr. said recently.
“Constantly going back and asking myself, ‘What could I have done here to help in what type of way?’ Right now, I feel like we have to do everything perfect to get things going. So I’m trying not to do that because it doesn’t help.”
Part of this is getting Bobby and the rest of the guys to try less, understand that they belong up here and focus on contributing.
Oh sure. Witt's swing in that fourth inning yesterday was a perfect example of that. I also think his sacrifice bunt in the first was a not great attempt to bunt for a hit. If bunting leads to an improvement in fundamentals that can help them when they're actually able to do the big things, I'm all for it. I just don't want to see Witt sacrifice bunting in the first inning unless he's feeling totally helpless up there, which brings up another problem, but that's for another day if it ever happens.
Daniel Lynch with ten 3-ball counts in the first four innings. No wonder he ended up averaging nearly 22 pitches per inning! Somebody should probably tell him that's not a good idea no matter what team you're facing.
He definitely needs to be more efficient at times. I think the second inning just really got away from him. Six of those three-ball counts were then. Doesn’t make it better, but I appreciated making the in-game adjustments that we rarely saw the last couple years with him.
I thought Lynch executed the game plan well with so many fastballs just above the letters. The Dodgers, man. They will not swing.
Baseball is just so full of variables that it makes every game or small set of games a crapshoot, if you will. The Royals have only won four series all season, and three of the four are against the three California teams in the NL West. They finished 8-7 against the NL West overall; they're 1-7 against the NL Central and 1-8 against the NL East. Just weird and probably meaningless that they've had a modicum of success against the NL West.
They also haven't hit a home run in their last 63 innings, but they're playing some of their "least bad" ball--even borderline good--during this stretch. Also interesting.
Yep, who knows what it is about those west teams? Good to see any success against anyone, I guess. Timing is something too. They got the Braves when they were playing in one of their lowest stretches. Marlins too. Not that their high stretches are particularly high, but we’ve seen the depths they can reach.
Back to fun baseball! That series against the Dodgers was fun. idk, maybe Bobby is hurting, but I am appreciating that he seemed to be trying to get runs in versus swinging for the fences and thinking it was on him to win the game. If this becomes a team who relies on everyone, 1-9, what a fun team to watch (assuming they win occasionally)
I actually really like the Chapman trade. I know it goes against the grade, but if we can even possibly get a starter for 2024 I am in (and then maybe even beyond??)! Y its a gamble, but I think its a smart bet, and an upside lottery ticket? Y I actually love this trade.
(misclick)
We are so desperate for starters! We need starting depth for now and '24, period.
Optimistic on Marsh - tough team to face and he looked okish
Lynch was shown in dugout during first- he looked absolutely terrified that he was going into game with a 5 run lead (and he might blow it). Almost did, but props to him for sticking it out
Singer, Y I am still skeptical, but he got the win with his 2 pitches, maybe he knows something we don't
So where are we on Pratto now? I was generally a defender, but I don’t understand what he’s looking at when he watches a fat fastball in the middle of the plate go by. I am a fan of seeing some pitches as you work out your approach, but lately, he just looks frozen. Are there signs of life, or is he headed back to AAA?
He probably needs to be a little more aggressive at the plate. Some called third strikes are to be expected with someone who takes so many pitches, but what he’s done has been excessive. I do think it’s important to note that sometimes a fastball down the middle looks awfully hittable (and it is), but if you’re sitting slider or whatever, there’s nothing you can do about it.
Got a clutch hit today, so I'm temporarily appeased.
One tying homer later, consider me pacified. Whom should I pick on next? 😆
Uh David, I just listened to Mike Sweeney and Hud compare Ragan to and I quote to what a Royals scout said….”A YOUNG COLE HAMELS”. I walked in and heard that and almost lost it. I hope they make a change this offseason. The sales job by Hud and Sweeney here is crazy. If this is really what the scouts are talking about then the whole scouting department needs overhauled. I mean they do anyway, and I hope that is coming but still. A young Cole Hamels. Just say they really like him. Don’t insult me because Cole Hamels was starting at the age of 22 and had 4 full seasons with an era under 4.22 by the same age Ragans is. Sigh, I just have to watch on mute.
Stop paying attention to the broadcast. They’re just words. They can’t hurt you.
I have issues.
Would we feel better about the Chapman trade if it wasn’t with the Rangers at the end of the day? Why does it have to be with the team DM is on now? That just sucks. Lol.
I literally couldn’t care less about that.
Heck, makes me think it might even be better than I originally thought.