Here's a new one: rule to limit spending would actually HURT the Royals

Here's a new one: rule to limit spending would actually HURT the Royals

(The above picture has no relevance here, other than being AWESOME. I mean, honestly. My favorite part of the picture isn't the two rings on his hand, or the contemplative pose in front of an old truck, or even the impressive mullet-beard combination. No. My favorite part is that before his buddy took the picture, our man had a brilliant idea: "You know what this pose really needs? Me chewing on some hay.")

There sure seems to be a growing feeling within baseball that major draft overhaul is on the way, most likely with a strict slotting system.

The owners are sick of paying amateurs more than All-Stars, and big league players are becoming more and more vocal about their agreement on this, a rare bit of harmony between labor and management.

Markets like Kansas City are a big part of the roots of this issue, of course, with the Royals essentially sitting out a few years' worth of drafts when they ran out of money after the first five or so rounds.

There have been too many years where J.D. Drew or Rick Porcello or some other superstud slips in the draft as teams shy away from high bonus demands, the players usually selected and signed by big money teams, turning the entire purpose of the draft on its head.

And here's the irony: a strict slotting system -- at least initially -- will actually hurt the Royals as they currently operate.

It's a bizarre thing that a rule designed to curb spending could actually hurt the Royals. But it's true.

The rule may or may not have helped the Royals two years ago, when Porcello and Matt Wieters were available when the Royals instead took Mike Moustakas. Porcello and Wieters each signed for significantly more than Moose's $4 million, though one person close to Wieters swears the Royals' reasons were not money.

Either way, the Royals set an all-time record on their draft spending last year, more than $11 million going to a class led by Eric Hosmer. The Royals were aggressive again this year, using their first three picks on players widely known to be seeking more than MLB's recommendended slot payments.

And that's the point.

Dayton Moore talks all the time about how he sees a strong farm system as the only way to improve the Royals long-term. He wants 60 percent of his big league roster to be homegrown players*, pointing out that even the Yankees didn't win their 1998 championship until committing to the farm system and stopped winning when they went away from it.

* I've never been clear as to what, exactly, people mean when they talk about "homegrown players." Are these only the guys a team drafts and promotes through the minor league system, like Zack Greinke? Or can they be minor leaguers acquired by trade who still make their big league debut with your team, like Mark Teahen?

If it's the Greinke group, the Royals only have five of those right now on the 25-man roster (Alex Gordon would be six). If we count the Teahen group, the Royals have eight (Gordon would be nine).

So you see an aggressive draft strategy in which each of the last fourth-round picks get more than a million dollars, an effort to stock the minor leagues with not only high-ceiling prospects, but a lot of them. In the international market, the Royals haven't been serious bidders on the most expensive prospects the last two years*, preferring to spread their money a bit more.

* RHP Michael Inoa signed for $4 million with Oakland last year, a record for international prospects that Miguel Angel Sano is trying to break this year.

Well, if a strict slot system is part of the next CBA like so many believe, the 2012 versions of Tim Melville and Chris Dwyer will be selected long before the Royals can play Captain Save-A-Throw with seven-figure offers for fourth-round picks.

In short, the Royals won't be able to spend their way to good drafts.

They'll have to outscout everybody else, to make better projections and better decisions.

It's still far too early to tell whether the current leadership is doing that -- though if what we hear about the reasons for Moustakas-over-Weiters are true, it's a bit of a dubious beginning.

At least at the moment, the Royals have a loophole of sorts in which they're infusing the organization with more than their fair share of talent. It may or may not materialize, but it's at least a rare and encouraging sign.

If the next CBA includes a hard slot system, the Royals will have to find another way to do it, their already daunting "process" becoming even more so.

Submitted by Sam Mellinger on August 20, 2009 - 7:04am.
| login or register to post comments | thumbnail | original
Submitted by crawford on August 24, 2009 - 11:39am.

if their going to slot the draft, they have to create a "in or out rule", and that in itself will cure a lot of the problems the Royals have in the draft. They have to overspend because no one wants to play for this sorry franchise.

Nevertheless they were going to overhaul the draft in the last CBA, but steriods took all of their time. Which is kind of strange to me, you know, it highlites why baseball struggles the way it does, just sit down and work at it untill a deal gets done.

Submitted by chattube on August 25, 2009 - 4:57pm.

thanks for information admin. this is the so much good post. this are the best famous Chat and çet sites of http://www.chattube.net and the last one is the best Chat Sohbet site. have a nice day. see u later (:

Submitted by howboutthemcowboys on August 20, 2009 - 7:52pm.

c'mon, you can't tease people like that, saying you know the reason they took moose over weiters and not put it out there. if you know something like that and print a tease, that's just being irresponsible. either shut up about it and not mention a thing, or spill it.

Submitted by weaselbill on August 20, 2009 - 9:39am.

What a terrible argument from whoever posted "Blow it up." The European soccer system is only slightly more out of whack in terms of competitive balance than baseball. I can name four of the top six English soccer teams every year by looking at nothing more than the name on the jersey (Man U., Chelesa, Liverpool, Arsenal). Why, because they have the MONEY and the big city fan bases. They win because they can outspend. The lower class of teams fights relegation, which keeps their seasons interesting, but they never fight for the championship.

So basically by using that as a model, we'd get New York, Boston and a few other huge market teams winning each year. Oh yeah, that's what we already have in baseball...

Submitted by curtisruder on August 20, 2009 - 10:33am.

Arsenal and Tottenham are within ten miles of each other. If Arsenal has more money, it is from greater success, not a larger fan base. They develop their revenue streams by building bigger and better teams. (If push comes to shove, they will occasionally poison their rivals with a bad lasagna...) Manchester is hardly a big city compared to others in the league, and even if it were Gotham, that hardly explains why ManU is so much better than Man City year in and year out. Competence should be rewarded.

What baseball has is 30 owners looking out for the interest of those 30 owners. It doesn't matter how much your club sucks, year in and year out, if you are in the club, you get to stay in the club.

I for one am sick of having teams where for the second half of the season, I am half-hoping they lose because I am hoping for a better draft slot.

Keeping their seasons interesting is a whole heck of a lot better than anything the Royals have had in a long time.

Submitted by lap on August 21, 2009 - 9:58pm.

If you doubt the influence of money in European soccer, look no further than Chelsea. This was a good-but-not-great club until Roman Abramovich came along a few years ago and sunk millions upon millions of pounds into it. Suddenly, Chelsea was winning the Premiership (for the first time since the '50s) and playing in a Champions League final.

Now, money isn't everything--look at Man City, arguably the richest club in the Prem after last season's takeover, or at QPR, which hasn't yet bought its way out of the championship despite massive investment from new owners. Excellent management is critical to success as well. Money alone doesn't bring championships. But the lack of it can keep a club from truly being able to compete (check the last time Arsenal, not the wealthiest of clubs, actually, won the Prem--it has been a while.)

The same goes for baseball. The Yankees have had a dry decade while outspending everybody else by a considerable margin, but the Rays managed to get to the World Series last year with one of the smallest payrolls in baseball. So, money isn't everything. However, the Rays probably won't make the playoffs this year, and the Yankees will--again. They almost always do, and if they don't, they go out and find the players they need to get back to the postseason. Contrast that to, say, the Marlins or Indians, who can only complete sporadically.

The Red Sox were mostly also-rans until the current ownership took over. Once the ownership team found the right manager (it wasn't Grady Little) and GM, things started to click, and the rest is (incredibly obnoxious) history. The Red Sox got it right--money and management make for a consistent contender and an occasional champion.

Unfortunately, the Royals don't have either of those things right now. The management they might be able to do something about. But the money? Well, that's up to the ownership, Mr. Glass, but consider that $70 mil is a record payroll for the Royals, and that's not even half of Boston's payroll this season. (I don't think it's even a third of the Yankees' payroll.)

Can the Royals compete on a $70 mil payroll? Once in a while, sure, if they draft very well and have exceptionally good scouts. Can they be what they were in the '70s and '80s? Nope--those days are gone for most small-market teams. All teams like the Royals can hope to do is catch lightning in a bottle once in a while. Unfortunately, right now, they don't even have a lightning bug.

Submitted by jtuck123 on August 20, 2009 - 11:39am.

I'm not a huge European Soccer fan, but my two cents on Arsenal would be: It might be that the "more money" is based on the greater success of the team. I would interject that the success of the team might just be based on the "more money"...it works both ways.
JT

Submitted by wichitachiefsfan on August 20, 2009 - 9:34am.

Given the Royal's track record (both short- and long-term,) I would be really worried if they had to depend on outpicking the other teams...

Submitted by JMGesling on August 20, 2009 - 9:31am.

Did some research (*GASP*) and of the starting lineups at this year's all star game, 10 of the 18 players were first rounders. of those 10, all but David Wright were drafted above the 17th spot.

I was hoping to find more sub-first rounders to justify the scouting idea. I guess it still applies...gotta scout those first rounders!

BTW...Hanley Ramirez, Pujols, Ibanez, Yadier Molina, Jason Bay, and Ichiro are the non-first rounders.

heh...looking back at all our first rounders and the ones we missed...thank gawd that Moore is putting some extra money in scouting.

Submitted by JMGesling on August 20, 2009 - 9:43am.

using baseball-reference.com, it's sad to see what players we passed on...looking at first round only. Players like Biggio, Delino Deshields, ManRam, Shannon Stewert. Wow..we've been going down hill for a while. Never realized it until now.

Submitted by weptiger on August 20, 2009 - 1:47pm.

What troubles me is that the Royals first rounders from this decade that have made it to the big league team, with the exception of one*, have not been real impact players. Here is the list of pics:

2000 - Mike Stodolka (minors)
2001 - Colt Griffin (historical bust)
2002 - Zack Greinke *
2003 - Mitch Maier (back up OF)/Chris Lubanski (minors)
2004 - Billy Butler (jury's still out)/Matt Campbell (arm injury)/JP Howell (shipped to Rays)
2005 - Alex Gordon (minors)

I realize Moore has a better reputation as a GM than Baird did, but right now (today) you have nothing that makes you feel like the selections of Hochevar, Moose, Hosmer, Crow, etc. are going to work out any better than those selections made in the first half of the decade. I've been a DMGM fan, but I see no end in sight to this team's poor play and lack of organizational talent.

Submitted by drewfuss on August 20, 2009 - 9:16am.

Isn't the draft pretty close to a crapshoot? I don't think spending millions on 3rd and 4th round picks is any more likely to boost the royals big league chances than getting lucky on the odd 14th or 21st round choice that blossoms into an all-star... if you look at baseball america's draft database, the club signed a lot of college seniors at a flat $100,000 in the first ten or twelve rounds (presumably) to make up for the big payouts up top... The point is, the whole thing is so unpredictable that I think they'd still be better off with set bonuses, because, while they waste plenty of money on certain contracts, at least those players DO contribute at the big league level.

Submitted by ksuatheart on August 20, 2009 - 11:07am.

Another commenter mentioned that 10 out of the 18 All star starters were 1st round picks (I'd like to see the numbers for all players on both rosters, and how many multi-year All stars were from each round). When you figure the number of players in the All Star game vs the years they were drafted in, you're probably looking at 3-5 All Stars per year.

Even if each individual 1st round pick that you pick only has a 30% chance of being a future starter, and 10% chance of being a multi-year all star, if you want an All-Star player, your best chance is to get first round talent. If the Royals can get 2 or 3 first round talent guys by spending over slot in later rounds, then they have 2 or 3 chances to get hit that jackpot. You know not every pick is going to hit, you just want to make as many picks as you can to make sure you get some of the ones that pan out, and consider the missed ones as the cost of doing business.

Submitted by curtisruder on August 20, 2009 - 9:14am.

If we really want to maximize competitive balance, we will blow the whole thing up. Get rid of the anti-trust exemption and free the minor leagues from the yokes of their major league masters. Get rid of the draft and let all teams in the majors sign whatever players they can from the minor league teams. Introduce relegation and promotion so that the worst four major league teams get demoted to the minors, and the four best teams in each level get promoted up a notch.

There is a perfectly good model just across the pond ....

Submitted by cpass on August 20, 2009 - 8:39am.

"They'll have to outscout everybody else, to make better projections and better decisions."

Anybody else think that might make for a good plan even if a hard slotting system isn't implemented?

By the way, the guy above looks like he's naked. I'm glad the picture doesn't go any lower.

Submitted by CMLachky on August 20, 2009 - 8:37am.

"They'll have to outscout everybody else, to make better projections and better decisions."

Isnt' that the way it's supposed to be?? Isn't that the way that the draft is supposed to work?? If what you're saying is true, than the Roayls are being successfull in the draft, not by having a competent scouting department, but by swindling the system to their advantage.

Not that I don't disagree with you, but if that is the case, your point is more an indignation of the Royals front office than of the draft.

PS - My favorite part of the picture is the lack of sideburns. I want to see that beauty of a mullet w/out the beard...talk about magical...

Submitted by cpass on August 20, 2009 - 8:41am.

...by two minutes. I see I'm not the only one thinking that way.

Submitted by Karte on August 20, 2009 - 8:16am.

If KC (or any ball club) can have three guys a year make the MLB squad out of the minor league system, then we will have a smashing success.

Three guys a year means that we can sign the best (like Butler) to long-term deals, while trading away the also-rans. Surplus cash goes to free agents that fill gaps at the MLB level.

Rich teams can make do with 1 or two guys a year, but a small-market team like KC need more.

Submitted by Jayhawk226 on August 20, 2009 - 7:53am.

People forget it took a long time for the Royals to get this bad and it'll take them as long or longer to pull out of it. Sure overspending to restock their farm system helps, but let's be honest no team hits on ALL their draft picks.

I, for one, will know we are doing alright when each draft doesn't talk about one or two players being the "savior" of the franchise.

While the new system could possibly hurt the Royals, by the time it takes affect we won't need to hit on 3 top picks to fill our Major League roster, right now.

We won't mind if Hosmer or Moose aren't hitting well in the minors. We'll know they have time to develop.

Submitted by weptiger on August 20, 2009 - 8:14am.

Love the Joe Dirt-esque photo.

For once, it does at least appear that the Royals have an actual strategy for acquriing minor league talent through the draft and are paying a lot of money to accomplish it. Hey, how often do you see the words "Royals" and "paying a lot of money" in the same sentence.

While Gordon pre-dates Moore you have to hope that Melville, Dwyer, Moose, or Hosmer don't go the way of Gordon or total busts such as Colt Griffin.

I'd love to know the Royals reasons behind choosing Moose over Weiter. If not money or signability, then what? Talent?

Submitted by sfury on August 21, 2009 - 12:00am.

I believe he was making reference to the fact Weiters was judged as more inconsistant in his junior year and some scouts backed off him.. I think some may have thought he was too big for the catcher position too.. The following quote is comments form MLB.com made around draft day in 2007. (Comments: Wherever he's been, Wieters has hit. That continued to be the case in his junior season, though he was a little more inconsistent than he had been in the past. The big, switch-hitting catcher has power from both sides and those who like him think he'll hit plenty at the next level. He's got very good arm strength behind the plate - he was the team's closer in the past as well - and most people think that while big for the position, he should be able to stay there. For a player as highly thought of as Wieters is by some, though, it's interesting to note that several scouts did not evaluate him as positively during the 2007 season). Moustakis had just broken the HS records for single season HR's in California and jumped up the draft boards. Who really knows why they passed on him other then DM..

User login

Recent comments

Interviews

Gil Meche: The older brother of the Royals' rotation talks bowling, collecting baseball cards, and sliders

Gil Meche: The older brother of the Royals' rotation talks bowling, collecting baseball cards, and sliders

Very good first-day turnout on Twitter. Thank you. If you're on and haven't found me, I'm at "mellinger." Let's join up, we'll have fun.

You may have noticed we didn't have an MGD update after the weekend, and that's because of a bonus weekend post on SI coverboy/comedian Zack Greinke, and that Davies' start on Thursday means we won't miss a week with an MGD update.

READ MORE...

Submitted by Sam Mellinger on April 28, 2009 - 7:52am.
| read more | 6 comments

Zack Greinke: Ball Star's most requested interview subject talks trucks, fighting, and trash

Zack Greinke, for a lot of reasons, might be the most interesting player on the Royals roster, and this is a team that includes an outfielder who owns lions and ostriches and likes to be slapped in the face, a pitcher who was knighted by his native Aruba, another who works construction in the offseason, and a reliever who body slams opposing players and prides himself on his baking.

Greinke is the most-requested interview for this blog, and if you act now, you can read a bonus interview where Kyle Davies defends himself against what he alleges is Greinke's slander. All in good fun.

READ MORE...

Submitted by Sam Mellinger on March 26, 2009 - 8:41am.
| read more | 11 comments

Army Maj. Michael Lalor: Rooting on the Royals from Iraq

Confession time. That "contest" we ran here
was officially won by Tom Barkwell from Madagascar, and I loved both his words and the fact that he sent them from an island nation in the Indian Ocean, but I gotta tell you, it wasn't my favorite letter.

Nope, my favorite came from Army Maj. Michael Lalor, whose words came from Iraq.

I didn't mention this in the original contest because I wanted to give Michael his own post. He was kind enough to answer some questions over e-mail, which we're turning into the latest interview. His letter is below our e-mail exchange.

READ MORE...

Submitted by Sam Mellinger on September 19, 2008 - 7:07am.
| read more | 12 comments

Royals Gear