Yostie´s mouth is back

So far this year the airtight baseball manager logic hadn't yet flowed out of Ned Yost's mouth in any clearly damaging capacity. That was until yesterday. Lets take a quick look at his justification for not leaving James Shields in after pitching eight scoreless innings of two-hit baseball (obviously, I'm not the one who noticed):

“In a one-run game,” Yost said, “(if) you send (the starter out) out, he’s either going to win it or lose it. So you let the closer go out and try to do his job.”

Okay...get ready because we are about to tumble deep down the well of Yostian logical incompatibilities regarding this new gem of  a quote. So, first of all, his justification relies on the utterly meaningless win-loss stat, kind of (we´ll come back to this). Further we can only assume that it also relies on that managerial psychology Yost so famously employs to protect his player's psyche. We are then to assume that a starter losing a ball game after pitching eight scoreless innings would be so damaging to his mental state that the repercussions would be nearly fatal. If James Shields had gone out and given up a run or two in the ninth, he might retire from baseball and move to a Tibetan monastery and never speak again. We must stop to point out that apparently this rule is only applicable in a one-run game, given the previous statement, the fact that Jeremy Guthrie was allowed to close out his game a few days ago and this response from James Shields:

"...and I think if we scored another run right there [in the previous inning], he (Ned Yost) was gonna leave me out there."

We're getting pretty deep down the well here, so lets stop and review. In a one run game you don´t leave your starting pitcher in to finish it because starting pitchers can´t handle losing ball games that are so close. This is also James Shields, the guy we gave up our best hitting and best pitching prospect to get two years of potential nine inning complete game shutouts and, yes, WINS!!! However, obviously this is irrelevant when you arrive at the Yostian One Run Lead Axiom of Managerial Bullpen Usage Theory. This is also closely related to the Yostian One Run Lead Existential Dread Theory of Fragile Starting Pitcher Mental Stability. We also need only dig into Ned Yost, Ph.D.'s research a few games back to see how clear this theory is. Four starts prior in Toronto, in the EXACT same situation, Ned Yost let this very James Shields pitch the ninth inning. However, this was when he was already losing the game, so clearly he had already been mentally conditioned to the prospect of losing a close game and therefore Ned's previous two theories are no longer applicable.

Once we have understood this concept, we then must move to the conclusion: none of these rules apply to relievers. Obviously this has to be true or you could only use them in two-run lead situations and therefore only position players would be allowed to pitch with one-run leads in the ninth. Parsing through his quote some more we are to understand that it is the JOB of  a closer to pitch with one run leads in the ninth, but this is clearly not the JOB of a starting pitcher. Not Even the Ace of the staff, the Veteran Leader and certainly not the guy who led the league in Complete Games two years ago. No the mental state of a reliever with two years experience and an already erratic year, he is the guy you trust, because that's his JOB.

We're here, at the very bottom. Because we must now conclude that it is only a starter's JOB to win baseball games when the lead is greater than one run in the ninth inning. If a starter pitches a great game and holds the team without scoring over eight innings, but his team happens to only score one run, then and only then is when a starting pitcher loses his job of winning baseball games and it now becomes the job of the closer to SAVE games. It has nothing to do with pitch counts, nothing to do with the quality of a starting pitcher, nothing to do with how he is pitching in the game, no when the game is 1-0, you pull the starting pitcher because...I´m sorry but I can´t go on.

“(if) you send (the starter out) out, he’s either going to win it or lose it." Yes, Ned, this is exactly what happens EVERY TIME a starting pitcher, or a baseball team for that matter, walks out on the field. You either win or lose (presumably Ned was actually trying to do the former) and the best way to win is to LEAVE YOUR BEST PITCHER IN THE GAME!!!!!! Don't make up ridiculous rules that have nothing to do with the actual game situation. This is Ned Yost, this is the stuff that comes out of his mouth constantly and these are the decisions which lead to Royal losses. 

Cautious Pessimism

Two and a half games into the season I was just about ready to forgo the PBR's brief brush with a glass half full stance on the season and start in on full ridicule mode. Then, somehow they scratched together a few trash runs, Jeremy Guthrie struck out nine batters and the Royals have gone 6-1 since being on the verge of a sweep at the hands of the White Sox to open the season. However, while it's nice to know that we can sweep a really bad team and kick another team when they're down (or old, in the case of the Phillies), there is still a lot worry about. So until we start taking two of three from the Tigers, Rangers or any team in the AL East, we're going to implement the PBR's new mantra of cautious pessimism and go over a few reason why this won't continue:

Still Not Playing Long Ball: When CoCo Crisp has as many home runs as your entire team nine games into the season, we can cry small sample size fluke all we want, but it still isn't pretty. The main concern would be the double zeros from Hosmer and Moose; we're not going to get too worked up about this yet because at least Hosmer has been hitting relatively well, but that sophomore slump isn't going to be forgotten until a few fly balls reach the seats. As for Moose, despite being happy that he's proven to be a good third baseman defensively, he's currently no more valuable than Alberto Callaspo and is still miles away from being the guy to break Steve Balboni's Hank Aaron-like Royals HR record. They fired Kevin Sitzer, gave his job to two people and Ned Yostie spoketh, but still the team looks to be reliant entirely upon singles and doubles and it's hard to say if that will ever be enough to win.

James Shields (Veteran Leader Extraordinaire): We love the early season hype for the leadership abilities and such, but the fact is that right now he's not an ace (though almost no ace has been an ace so far) and he'll need to have  a couple more games like his first outing (when he got beat by an ace) to really get back on track to being the #1 we all waned to see. Not the good, but not great pitcher he was criticized for being at the time of the big trade.

Wade Davis (5th starter Extraordinaire?): Dark Horse, Break out candidate, potential, mystery, or just plain 5th starter? He got hit hard one day and threw a very suspect shutout the next time versus the worst team in baseball. We need to see more to believe he's any better than Jake Odorizzi (or even Bruce Chen), we've got plenty of time, but the dream of a third starter will die quickly if he can't get better soon.

The Schedule:  Unfortunately, I think we can safely assume that the Sox, Phillies and Twins are the easiest nine games we'll play for a long time. We've got every one's preseason World Series favorites coming to town this weekend, but the Atlanta-Boston-Detroit road trip after that will be what really sets the tone for early season optimism.

I have this strange feeling that at the exact moment we finally believe in the Royals and they're playing good baseball for a stretch, they'll pull the rug out and collapse in fantastic fashion. So until game 162 is in the books and the Royals have won the division, we're sticking with being cautiously pessimistic.

27 Years and counting...

New Year´s Resolution: Stopping the counting at 27 years

The 2013 Royals are here and while we keep our fingers crossed that instead of the Rays being led to the playoffs by Rookie of the Year Wil Myers, we hope that a 90-win James Shields led Royals team can stop the PBR from writing about about year number 28. However, the real question this year might be if winning the division/wild-card is really a necessity?

One of the main criticisms about the biggest trade in Royals history was that it seriously overestimated the quality of the current roster and instead makes them a possible 80+win team with delusions of grandeur. Unfortunately for the fans of the trade, this logic is pretty sound. Entertaining the idea of winning the division takes some serious leaps of faith; first it has to be an absolute given that James Shields is who we think he is, second at least one of either Santana or Guthrie has to resemble a #2/3 starter. Then there has to be a surprise from the current rotation; be it 180 innings and a 3.8 ERA from Wade Davis, a surprise dominant 80 innings down the stretch from Paulino/Duffy, a miracle from Bruce Chen or a trade for Roy Halladay, something like this is key. Oh and by the way, the bullpen has to be even better than last year, which will be hard to accomplish.

You can see that we're already starting to take on some pretty big 'ifs' to get to 90 wins, but we're not done yet. Assuming that the pitching goes as designed above, the offense needs the ghost who possessed Eric Hosmer's body last year to be exercised and for him to get back on the future-star track. Then Sal Perez, Lorenzo Cain, Mike Moustakas and Alcides Escobar all have to be good, oh yeah AND healthy. Of course all of this also assumes that neither Billy Butler nor Alex Gordon will regress even one half of one percent and that they too will stay healthy. And finally there has to be a competent major league baseball player occupying 2nd base and/or right field this year; we can´t have the worst player in baseball  in RF and potentially the worst platoon in baseball of Getz and Miguel Tejada playing 2B.

It's a long list and I submitted it to Sana Clause, but he never got back to me.

New Years Resolution: Reality sinks in

Okay, so now a some time has passed and we didn't get around to buying that gym membership, we just ate take-out for the 3rd night in a row and we're still at the same job. The reality is that all of the above might not happen. So would playing a sold out series at the K against the Detroit Tigers on the first weekend in September be a good year, even if in the end we finish a distant second in the division?

For me the answer is yes. Obviously if Wil Myers does blow-up and becomes the Rookie of the Year while James Shields is on the DL, this might be different. However, I'm willing to accept that an 80+ win season is worth a lot of risks from the fans point of view. The most memorable season for the Royals in the last 20 years was when Lima Time was a Cy Young candidate, Angel Berroa was the ROY and Tony Pena (Sr.) was designing tee-shirt slogans. That was ten years ago. This is the starvation of a Royals fan.

The people who were vehemently against the trade believe that giving up Wil Myers to get to 81-81 is insanity. This may be true, but wasn't waiting around to see if Wil Myers is really the savior also the same insanity that we've been subjected to as Royals fans for the last 20+ years? Convincing us that we are just one superstar prospect away from being good has been the motto of this organization for a while, but now we're getting a new message: the young guys are here, we just need a few proven players and we'll be able to contend. Again, this may also be delusional, but changing the message is exactly what had to be done in my opinion. The way it was done could have disastrous consequences if Wil Myers is awesome, but Wil Myers could also have been awesome on a 75 win team, we've seen it before (Sweeney, Dye, Beltran, Gordon, Butler, etc.).  

So let's just assume that this is who we are. Unfortunately it took giving up one of the top five prospects in baseball just to get to be in the middle of the pack. That's how bad it's been for the Royals and I'm okay with what it took to get there, others think it was crazy and that's okay. However, if we accept that this may just be the first step and winning the World Series isn't the true goal of the 2013 Royals then we're able to put a little perspective on the situation. Taking the giant leap to a 90+ win division champ is going to be difficult, but making the first baby steps to becoming a .500 team is perfectly acceptable for me.

This Year's Resolution: Progress is progress

I think that at the end of the season, if we end up with some excitement, hope and a few interesting games in August and maybe into September, most people will be okay with that even if we're 7 games back of the Tigers at 82-80. Was it necessary to give up Wil Myers just for that? We have to agree to accept the fact that we'll never know. However, I'm in the camp of people that think it was  necessary to do something fairly drastic for the sake of progress. If the Royals fail this year, it probably won't be because they didn't have Wil Myers. This team is more than qualified to be a .500 team and at least make the Tigers sweat a little. From a fan's perspective this seems worth the risk to me. Nothing is guaranteed, claiming that the Royals gave up on some sort of dynasty team by letting go of Wil Meyers is one kind of insanity, even if believing that James Shields makes this year's team a contender is another form of insanity. However, the worst kind of insanity is doing nothing and telling yourself over and over again that one day it will come.

Analysis: I love it!

After ingesting more internet information in connection with a Kansas City Royals' baseball move than I ever thought humanly possible, my jaw has been scraped up off the floor and I'm a KC Royals fan again. I didn't think Dayton had it in him, I really didn't. He listened to me, finally. I don't think it's brilliant, I don't think it's smart, but I do think it's AWESOME. There seems to two camps which have emerged from this trade:

The Thumbs-uppers: We say it had to be done, we're thrilled to have the most legitimate pre-season hype for the Royals in a long time, we don't care about age 26 Wil Myers because even if he is Ryan Braun we would have been Dodgers fans by then, we ignore the James Shield bashers and think this is about the best we could do and we've already renewed our MLB TV subscriptions.

The Thumbs-downers: The Royals gave up WAY too much, there are prospects and then there are Wil Myers prospects, you could have had Anibal Sanchez and kept Wil Myers, Wil Myers over Francouer is the same as adding James Shields and James Shields still isn't enough.

Since I'm giving it two thumbs up let me try to address those who thought it was more Godfather III than Part II:

The Royals gave up WAY too much

Obviously, but I really don't care. The 'what if' scenarios are unlimited so I'm not going to go into 20 years of baseball trades and analyze the ramifications of these types of moves. The only reality is that they had to beat the next guy and this is what it took. Time will tell.

Wil Myers is not your average top prospect

That's possible, but it's also possible that he's much more like Jesus Montero and Justin Smoak than Mike Trout. The bottom line for me is that there is an equally likely probability that James Shields is Justin Verlander in 2013 as there is for Wil Myers turning into Ryan Braun immediately.

You could have had Anibal Sanchez AND kept Wil Myers

Let's just assume that big spender David Glass would have approved this signing (That's a BIG if). Let's also assume that James Shields and he are both 200 inning 3.5 ERA guys over the next two years (good #2s, but not King Felix). Let's keep going and consent that Shields wasn't enough for the Royals to make the playoffs in 2013 or 2014, but they're on the doorstep. Whatever you think Myers will be, would you rather have that and a back loaded Anibal Sanchez contract with 4yrs and 60-65$ million left starting in 2015 or James Shields for two years and that money to pick-up whatever is needed to get the Royals to the next level? I really don't think having Anibal Sanchez at 6yrs/$90 mil is the answer.

Wil Myers over Francouer is the same upgrade

Let's be clear, I hate the fact that Frenchy will be our starting RF this year, and there is no other good solution, but after having written 51% of all PBR posts dedicated toward negative Frenchy analysis, I'll give you something positive. Frenchy is just as likely to put up 2011 Frenchy numbers as is Wil Myers of putting up those same numbers. Frenchy was awful last year, but in 2011 he was above respectable and counting on Wil Myers to have an .805 OPS with 20 HRs and 20 SBs right out of the gate is just as probable as it is that Frenchy will bounce back this year. There it is, the most positive I have been or ever will be toward Jeff Francouer. When the Ryan Ludwicks and Jason Kuebels of the world go for modest prices, Wil Myers has to be one hell of a RF to regret trading three years down the road.  

James Shields still isn't enough

Maybe not, granted. However, if he wasn't enough then no James Shields was going to make 2013 another year where we were waiting to see what trade could be made in July so as to have few more prospects for NEXT year instead of possibly seeing the Royals doing the buying at this year's trade deadline. I might not have been around to care about 2014 if 2013 didn't get a lot better than 2012. If you want to fight for hours over the semantics of whether or not James Shields is a true ACE, it could go on for hours depending on your side of the argument. The easiest logic for me to follow is this: the Royals obviously didn't have anyone even close to that discussion before, and now we do.

Is 2013 Finally OUR TIME???

I think I love this trade because it is really the first thing the Royals have done to look like a winner which I have ever witnessed. I never thought that it would be possible for Dayton to give away a prospect like Myers and the fact that I'm surprised for the first time in his tenure is what makes me love this trade so much. Maybe I'm blind and this is the trade equivalent to signing Jason Kendall (well known good clubhouse guy and leader of men), but Dayton I applaud the move. Dayton Moore has absolutely earned the right to save his job by trading the very prospects he groomed. Whatever we may think of him, there is little doubt that those were his prospects being traded. He earned that currency and if he was fired for another disappointing team in 2013, someone else would have reaped whatever benefits Wil Myers gave the 2014-2018 Royals. So this is his trade to live-and-die by, and he will.  

PULL THE TRIGGER!

After falling into a comatose state of Royals boredom sometime toward the end of last year, I've been awoken to rumblings that Dayton Moore is about to launch Our Time 2.0, and this time he means it. Rumor this, rumor that, a signing here and a trade there and suddenly I find myself once again interested  in this team known as the KC Royals. After being put to sleep by Frenchy ground-outs and Hochevar blowouts last season the PBR is back. Lets face it, if we didn't weigh in on this little tidbit, we'd have to retire our blogging press credentials.

I'll admit it, one of the few reasons I decided to jump back in now was the remarkable prescience of a certain blog post from last February. Who could have possibly imagined that being locked in to paying $12 mil to Frenchy and Chen this coming season might affect future events?:

“The truth of the matter,” Moore said, “is if we add another pitcher … there wouldn’t be room to add that individual unless we got rid of somebody else.”

So let's just forget about the fact that paying B. Chen and Jeff Francouer might be preventing us from having James Shields as our opening day starter, the real issue is Moore's logic. The best we can assume is that Dayton needs to mentally prepare himself for the speech he's going to give Luke Hochevar when he's released and once we add this big time #1 starter, he'll tell Luke that we just couldn't afford to keep him around. Because if not, the obvious question to ask Dayton would be: IF MONEY WERE SUCH A BIG CONCERN, WHY DID YOU NEED TO ADD BOTH GUTHRIE AND SANTANA SO SOON???????????????????????

We're paying those two $17 mil this year, was there really some big concern that they (or their ilk) would get away if we didn't act fast? Obviously if we're considering trading our best prospect for another pitcher, Dayton feels the current staff isn't good enough to win next year, or why else would he be considering this type of trade? This seems like an admission that Guthrie and Santana are nice, but aren't really enough to get to the next level. Santana was going to be released by the Angels if we didn't grab him and I can't believe that Guthrie was knee deep in three year offers. Would some combination of 3 years and $37 mil (1yr $12 mil for Santana + 3yrs $25 mil for Guthrie) not get you Guthrie and Santana substitutes a month from now? The point is that Dayton knew these two weren't going to be enough, so why not wait and get the #1 you wanted and then go for the #3-#4 starters like Guthrie and Santana? Was he really scared that he was going to trade for a #1 starter and then wind up a Jeremy Guthrie short of the playoffs?

Quick draw McMoore has done his annual ADD early offseason player grab, all of which have worked out great in the past (See Mazzaro, Sanchez and Kendall) and now he throws out the above excuse for not being able to take it to the next level. Granted, you may fee that Wil Myers is golden and can't be traded, especially not for John Lester, but if you're considering going all in, don't tell me that salary is stopping you after you just spent 37 MILLION DOLLARS! I'll admit that I like seeing that there seems to be a pulse in Robot GM Dayton's body. However, don't tease us again, make a trade and live with the possibility that it could backfire, but at least you gave it a shot.

Dear Dayton, make it happen NOW! We can't blame you for trading a prospect in order to win, but we can blame you if your excuse for not getting a top tier pitcher is that you've spent too much money on Bruce Chen and you really want to give Hochever one last shot. We also can't blame you if Hosmer sucks, Gordon gets injured and Alcides goes back to a .230 hitter, but we can blame you if they're good and what we're missing is James Shields.

Feels good to get that off the PBR's chest!  

Ned Sense: If it aint broke, brake it

So if you haven't heard yet, Ned Yost confirmed his stupidity to the whole world yesterday, when he once again decided to tinker with his lineup. The team had won 10 of 15 and was playing good baseball in response to the culture shift implemented by big bad GM Dayton Moore. Then Ned just decides that Alex Gordon isn't "prototypical" enough to bat leadoff anymore. His logic seems to be that Alex was scoring too many runs and prefers him to get RBIs instead. Ned thinks there is a difference between the two, and that the whole problem this season has been the third spot in the lineup.

Yes, Ned, the middle of the lineup has been a problem, however it's because Eric Hosmer has sucked! Not because Chris Getz and Jarrod Dyson haven't been at the top of the lineup. You've tried this before Ned, it doesn't work. Yes, we would love for Gordon to be hitting third, but this isn't the important point, the important issue here is that you don't have a leadoff hitter. I love Dyson, but he's a fun nine hole hitter not Rickey Henderson. It's like Ned is the guy from Memento and can't remember when he's done something before.

This tells you that he shouldn't be given credit for putting Gordon leadoff; it was purely accidental. If you do something that works and then decide to change it, this means that you had no idea it was actually working. Move Billy Butler up, tell Hosmer to grow up and hit third or fourth, but don't change a strategy that has been working all year.

Lets hope this is the beginning of the end for Yosty. This is not the move of  a winning manager.

Trade Dud-line Special

In quite possibly the least surprising trade of D Moore's career, the Royals shipped Jonathan Broxton to Cinci for two players who at this point are capable of throwing the ball. That's it. Of course Dayton had to admit that he didn't get what he wanted...

“We tried to focus on bringing back a starting pitcher who could be in our rotation today,” general manager Dayton Moore admitted. “Or if not today, certainly next year. It just didn’t materialize for us.”

The going rate for two months of J Broxton was not worthy of a starting major league pitcher; Texas decided they didn't need Broxton that much. So apparently they settled for...

"...two pitchers that we like a great deal,” Moore said. “They’re at the upper levels, and we targeted close-to-ready major-league pitching as we possibly could. It was the deal that made the most sense and put us in the best position to move forward.”

Simple as that, move on. In an offseason that featured trading one of the best hitters in baseball for the worst pitcher in baseball and giving $13 mil to one of the worst everyday players in baseball, this is the highlight of Dayton's offseason. Broxton delayed the inevitable of Greg Holland becoming the closer while doing an adequate job of subbing for Joakim and in the end the Royals gained some organizational depth. Not trading Broxton would have obviously been idiotic, so Moore did the best he could and the Royals are probably better off for having made a nice by low acquisition like Broxton. So, good job Dayton, something went right this offseason.

It would have been great to be in the position of Pittsburgh looking to add players and make a run, but moving on is important too. It's been a bad year and not much can happen to change that. Now the Royals take their medicine and try to do something positive, starting with wining a few games.

Maybe next year will be our turn.