why the royals suck

[KowboyKoop 0]

I typed up a VERY long response to Hobbes posts' and GOD DAMNIT, my computer shut off without warning when I was on the last paragraph, so I'll type it all again some other time, I can't bring myself to do it all again...but here is a summary:You are saying that bad teams should just throw minor leaguers out there until they "get good" in the Major Leagues. I say that we should allow those minor leaguers to "get good" in the Minor Leagues until they are READY for the major leagues, and thus signing a few veterans to both improve our team and to allow those Minor Leaguers to develop properly is a good thing and, in the Royals case, is a MAJOR step in the right direction.

[Fphillips 0]

Just curious,Why are you guys putting this much effort towards this thread?It's the friggin Royals. I doubt they play .500 ball this year.You can't polish a turd.

[princeof56k 0]

Studies have shown that improving to .500 has no impact on fan attendance.  Especially with teams that have been bad for a long time, it takes a playoff appearance to get the fans to show up the following year.  And even then the team must continue to play well or the fans will go away again.

What studies are you looking at? I highly doubt this because1. the majority of .500 teams usually make the playoffs2. those that dont make it are usually in playoff/wildcard contentionThe study your looking at was probably done before the wildcard came around and that changes things a lot. This year there were 15 teams that were .500 or better and I would call that an unusally competive year (I usually expect around 13). And you had teams like Phili and Cleveland that were in contention right down to the last week. The study probably doesnt take into account how being .500 in one year can affect attendance the next year (as in giving fans hope).Reaching .500 has long been a measure of a team headed in the right direction. I dont see why that should be different now.

[KowboyKoop 0]

Just curious,Why are you guys putting this much effort towards this thread?It's the friggin Royals.  I doubt they play .500 ball this year.You can't polish a turd.

they'll be close to a .500 team, I guarantee it. P.S. Don't come back asking me to bet money on it, you know I don't bet on sports........

[KowboyKoop 0]

Studies have shown that improving to .500 has no impact on fan attendance.  Especially with teams that have been bad for a long time, it takes a playoff appearance to get the fans to show up the following year.  And even then the team must continue to play well or the fans will go away again.

What studies are you looking at? I highly doubt this because1. the majority of .500 teams usually make the playoffs2. those that dont make it are usually in playoff/wildcard contentionThe study your looking at was probably done before the wildcard came around and that changes things a lot. This year there were 15 teams that were .500 or better and I would call that an unusally competive year (I usually expect around 13). And you had teams like Phili and Cleveland that were in contention right down to the last week. The study probably doesnt take into account how being .500 in one year can affect attendance the next year (as in giving fans hope).Reaching .500 has long been a measure of a team headed in the right direction. I dont see why that should be different now.

I can GUARANTEE that if the Royals even played .475 ball, we would have a very noticable increase in attendance. I don't know what kind of fair-weather fans there are on the West Coast, but here in KC, we don't need a "playoff team" which has success over a long period of time in order to support them. Sure, the attendance isn't that great when we are a 56 win team, but a .500 team would turn KC back into the baseball town that it truly is. Sure, we wouldn't be "satisfied," but we would at least notice that the team is going in the right direction, and I do truly believe that our team is going to be a pretty good team in the upcoming years.

[Hobbes 1]

Studies have shown that improving to .500 has no impact on fan attendance.  Especially with teams that have been bad for a long time, it takes a playoff appearance to get the fans to show up the following year.  And even then the team must continue to play well or the fans will go away again.

What studies are you looking at? I highly doubt this because1. the majority of .500 teams usually make the playoffs2. those that dont make it are usually in playoff/wildcard contentionThe study your looking at was probably done before the wildcard came around and that changes things a lot. This year there were 15 teams that were .500 or better and I would call that an unusally competive year (I usually expect around 13). And you had teams like Phili and Cleveland that were in contention right down to the last week. The study probably doesnt take into account how being .500 in one year can affect attendance the next year (as in giving fans hope).Reaching .500 has long been a measure of a team headed in the right direction. I dont see why that should be different now.

I can GUARANTEE that if the Royals even played .475 ball, we would have a very noticable increase in attendance. I don't know what kind of fair-weather fans there are on the West Coast, but here in KC, we don't need a "playoff team" which has success over a long period of time in order to support them. Sure, the attendance isn't that great when we are a 56 win team, but a .500 team would turn KC back into the baseball town that it truly is. Sure, we wouldn't be "satisfied," but we would at least notice that the team is going in the right direction, and I do truly believe that our team is going to be a pretty good team in the upcoming years.

You say the Royals attendance will increase if the team plays better and then in the next sentence try to make fun of fair-weather fans on the West Coast. I'll either post links or type up excerpts from various studies about fan attendance (and also the free agent market and its affect on teams performance) tomorrow or Monday when I have time to go find them.

[KowboyKoop 0]

Studies have shown that improving to .500 has no impact on fan attendance.  Especially with teams that have been bad for a long time, it takes a playoff appearance to get the fans to show up the following year.  And even then the team must continue to play well or the fans will go away again.

What studies are you looking at? I highly doubt this because1. the majority of .500 teams usually make the playoffs2. those that dont make it are usually in playoff/wildcard contentionThe study your looking at was probably done before the wildcard came around and that changes things a lot. This year there were 15 teams that were .500 or better and I would call that an unusally competive year (I usually expect around 13). And you had teams like Phili and Cleveland that were in contention right down to the last week. The study probably doesnt take into account how being .500 in one year can affect attendance the next year (as in giving fans hope).Reaching .500 has long been a measure of a team headed in the right direction. I dont see why that should be different now.

I can GUARANTEE that if the Royals even played .475 ball, we would have a very noticable increase in attendance. I don't know what kind of fair-weather fans there are on the West Coast, but here in KC, we don't need a "playoff team" which has success over a long period of time in order to support them. Sure, the attendance isn't that great when we are a 56 win team, but a .500 team would turn KC back into the baseball town that it truly is. Sure, we wouldn't be "satisfied," but we would at least notice that the team is going in the right direction, and I do truly believe that our team is going to be a pretty good team in the upcoming years.

You say the Royals attendance will increase if the team plays better and then in the next sentence try to make fun of fair-weather fans on the West Coast. I'll either post links or type up excerpts from various studies about fan attendance (and also the free agent market and its affect on teams performance) tomorrow or Monday when I have time to go find them.

YOU are the one saying that fans won't show up unless a team is a playoff contender. I ain't saying KC fans are perfect either, but they aren't NEARLY as "fair-weather" as that. All that is needed for the attendance to go up in K.C. is a team that at least can be competitive with a GM/owner that at least seem like they care. They don't need to have had a .500 season the previous season or be a legit playoff team,like you are saying.Truse me, things are a lot different here in K.C. then on the West Coast. Yes, of course the goal is to win the World Series, and we won't be "satisfied" until we do. But you act like a team and their fans should just do absolutely NOTHING about improving a team until the team is ALREADY a playoff contender???? That is just flat out retarded. If we see players who we think can make us better WHILE AT THE SAME TIME KEEPING IN TACT OUR CORE GROUP OF YOUNG PLAYERS, which is exactly what we did, then that is what we are going to do. And that is exactly what we did. You don't have to like the particular players we signed, that's fine, I think they are "good," but of course they aren't "great" players. However, to blindly say that the Royals need to "develop from within" first and should not do ANYTHING to otherwise improve the team, is just retarded. Plus, we already HAVE developed a lot of young players form within, and many of them will be key components of next year's team, and they will all continue to improve. Yeah, the last couple of years haven't been great, but don't just state that our organization is really far away from being a contender....we have established a plan and haved moved pretty far on that plan so far, and we will be getting better sooner than later. Also, let me remind you that in 2003, we were a playoff contender for pretty much the entire year, and that was with a freakishly large amount of injuries to our pitching staff...so don't act like our organization has no clue...we'll be a .475-.500 team next year, and the year after, I think we will be a pretty solid team.

[HoosierAlum 0]

The White Sox are World Champs.The White Sox added Jim Thome and Javier Vasquez to a World Championship roster.The Royals will blow balls again this year.

[KowboyKoop 0]

The White Sox are World Champs.The White Sox added Jim Thome and Javier Vasquez to a World Championship roster.The Royals will blow balls again this year.

yeah, adding players always equals success...just go ask the Yankees how that continues to work out...also, the Royals will be better. They won't "blow."

[HoosierAlum 0]

The White Sox are World Champs.The White Sox added Jim Thome and Javier Vasquez to a World Championship roster.The Royals will blow balls again this year.

yeah, adding players always equals success...just go ask the Yankees how that continues to work out...also, the Royals will be better. They won't "blow."

So you're saying the White Sox won't win the AL Central next year?

[kers2 0]

The White Sox are World Champs.The White Sox added Jim Thome and Javier Vasquez to a World Championship roster.The Royals will blow balls again this year.

Hoosier I want to know your opinion of trading Rowand for Thome. I didnt like the trade when I heard it but I'd like the opinion of someone who knows the Sox better than I do. I hardly follow the Sox but it seemed like he was a very key role player/clutch hitter type guy for that team. And he played great defense. Unless they have a definite guy they were going to put in center anyway, it seemed like a bad trade to me.Enlighten me if I am wrong also

[princeof56k 0]

yeah, adding players always equals success...just go ask the Yankees how that continues to work out...

Not to de-rail this thread, but I'm glad you brought that up. Everyone always thinks you need to add players every year. You dont. There's something to be said for team chemistry. The Astros are facing that this year. Once the Astros lost the World Series, all the fans here are saying that they need to add a big bat (of course this was before Clemens wasnt offered arbitration). People failed to realize that for a good part of the year Berkman was hurt (and didnt play), and we had 2 rookies in the outfield (Taveras and Burk). It's no coincedence they caught fire late in the season. How about staying with what you have for another year? Have some patience.

[KowboyKoop 0]

yeah, adding players always equals success...just go ask the Yankees how that continues to work out...

Not to de-rail this thread, but I'm glad you brought that up. Everyone always thinks you need to add players every year. You dont. There's something to be said for team chemistry. The Astros are facing that this year. Once the Astros lost the World Series, all the fans here are saying that they need to add a big bat (of course this was before Clemens wasnt offered arbitration). People failed to realize that for a good part of the year Berkman was hurt (and didnt play), and we had 2 rookies in the outfield (Taveras and Burk). It's no coincedence they caught fire late in the season. How about staying with what you have for another year? Have some patience.

that's exactly my point. When you have success, which the ChiSox clearly did, why mess with it?? Adding a big bat doesn't just "make things better" all the time. I am not saying the ChiSox WON"T win the AL Central, but I am saying it is no sure thing, as Cleveland gave them a serious run last year and will do so again next year, and things NEVER go exactly according to plan in baseball. The ChiSox were good last year, but they were also relatively injury free and had a lot of things go their way, while next year, they may have a ton of injuries and have really bad luck. I'm not saying the ChiSox are going to be "bad" or anything next year, but I am saying that adding Jim Thome doesn't make you a better team necessarily

[HoosierAlum 0]

The White Sox are World Champs.The White Sox added Jim Thome and Javier Vasquez to a World Championship roster.The Royals will blow balls again this year.

Hoosier I want to know your opinion of trading Rowand for Thome. I didnt like the trade when I heard it but I'd like the opinion of someone who knows the Sox better than I do. I hardly follow the Sox but it seemed like he was a very key role player/clutch hitter type guy for that team. And he played great defense. Unless they have a definite guy they were going to put in center anyway, it seemed like a bad trade to me.Enlighten me if I am wrong also

Well, Im not the best person to give you an unbaised answer. Aaron Rowand was my favorite player on the White Sox, so I was very upset to hear he was traded. He is a top 3 defensive center fielder in the league, and a consistent hitter. The part about Rowand's game that I loved so much was the fact that he played hard, every single night. He is the type of player to run out every single ground ball, and he goes balls out towards every ball hit in the outfield, no matter the score. However, I can see what Kenny Williams was thinking. The Sox can now move Podsendik to center field(his natural positon), and the young Brian Anderson can play left. Anderson has a ton of talent and could be a star. No matter what people said, the White Sox were a power-hitting team last year. They had 200 home runs, and despite what the media said, they were still mainly a team that relied on the homerun. I can only think that the addition of Thome in the middle of the White Sox lineup will make this team even more dangerous.

[76clubs 0]

If the Royals didnt have a cheap owner, and could spend the money to actually keep an ocasional great player such as Damon Dye Beltran etc., they mite not suck. Even though I have been to many Royals games, and I live in the midwest, I would never consider myself a fan of theirs just because I know in the end they will be the ones selling the good players instead of buying.

[KowboyKoop 0]

If the Royals didnt have a cheap owner, and could spend the money to actually keep an ocasional great player such as Damon Dye Beltran etc., they mite not suck.  Even though I have been to many Royals games, and I live in the midwest, I would never consider myself a fan of theirs just because I know in the end they will be the ones selling the good players instead of buying.

They do have a cheap owner, that is true, but not being able to "keep the big stars" on your team doesn't automatically mean you have to be a bad team. The Royals are heading in the right direction, even if you think this may not be so. Also, how about Mike Sweeney, we had the money to keep him, why didn't you mention him??? He is better to have on our team than all three of those players, please show me a year where Beltran has had numbers deserving of the big contract he has...you won't find it, he will never live up to the potential. Hell, Emil Brown had a better year for us last year than Beltran did for the Mets, and was WAY cheaper. I feel sorry for you, b/c when the Royals are good again, which is going to be sooner than you think, you will try to call yourself a Royals fan again, but you'll know deep down that you weren't willing to stick it through the bad times. You can say what you want about me, but I like the Royals and I am going to stick with them no matter what, at least I am not some fair-weather fan like you and MANY others.

[Hobbes 1]

Studies have shown that improving to .500 has no impact on fan attendance. Especially with teams that have been bad for a long time, it takes a playoff appearance to get the fans to show up the following year. And even then the team must continue to play well or the fans will go away again.

What studies are you looking at? I highly doubt this because1. the majority of .500 teams usually make the playoffs2. those that dont make it are usually in playoff/wildcard contentionThe study your looking at was probably done before the wildcard came around and that changes things a lot. This year there were 15 teams that were .500 or better and I would call that an unusally competive year (I usually expect around 13). And you had teams like Phili and Cleveland that were in contention right down to the last week. The study probably doesnt take into account how being .500 in one year can affect attendance the next year (as in giving fans hope).Reaching .500 has long been a measure of a team headed in the right direction. I dont see why that should be different now.

I can GUARANTEE that if the Royals even played .475 ball, we would have a very noticable increase in attendance. I don't know what kind of fair-weather fans there are on the West Coast, but here in KC, we don't need a "playoff team" which has success over a long period of time in order to support them. Sure, the attendance isn't that great when we are a 56 win team, but a .500 team would turn KC back into the baseball town that it truly is. Sure, we wouldn't be "satisfied," but we would at least notice that the team is going in the right direction, and I do truly believe that our team is going to be a pretty good team in the upcoming years.

You say the Royals attendance will increase if the team plays better and then in the next sentence try to make fun of fair-weather fans on the West Coast. I'll either post links or type up excerpts from various studies about fan attendance (and also the free agent market and its affect on teams performance) tomorrow or Monday when I have time to go find them.

YOU are the one saying that fans won't show up unless a team is a playoff contender. I ain't saying KC fans are perfect either, but they aren't NEARLY as "fair-weather" as that. All that is needed for the attendance to go up in K.C. is a team that at least can be competitive with a GM/owner that at least seem like they care. They don't need to have had a .500 season the previous season or be a legit playoff team,like you are saying.Truse me, things are a lot different here in K.C. then on the West Coast. Yes, of course the goal is to win the World Series, and we won't be "satisfied" until we do. But you act like a team and their fans should just do absolutely NOTHING about improving a team until the team is ALREADY a playoff contender???? That is just flat out retarded. If we see players who we think can make us better WHILE AT THE SAME TIME KEEPING IN TACT OUR CORE GROUP OF YOUNG PLAYERS, which is exactly what we did, then that is what we are going to do. And that is exactly what we did. You don't have to like the particular players we signed, that's fine, I think they are "good," but of course they aren't "great" players. However, to blindly say that the Royals need to "develop from within" first and should not do ANYTHING to otherwise improve the team, is just retarded. Plus, we already HAVE developed a lot of young players form within, and many of them will be key components of next year's team, and they will all continue to improve. Yeah, the last couple of years haven't been great, but don't just state that our organization is really far away from being a contender....we have established a plan and haved moved pretty far on that plan so far, and we will be getting better sooner than later. Also, let me remind you that in 2003, we were a playoff contender for pretty much the entire year, and that was with a freakishly large amount of injuries to our pitching staff...so don't act like our organization has no clue...we'll be a .475-.500 team next year, and the year after, I think we will be a pretty solid team.

I never said the fans shouldn't show up, I said the fans don't show up until after you make the playoffs. I never said a team should do absolutely nothing; I said free agency is a bad way to build a team. Why can't you understand this? Why do you keep saying that I am saying the team should do nothing when all I've ever said is signing those free agents weren't good moves? This thread interested me for a while, but your rebuttals keep focusing on things that I've never said; now it's just boring. If you want to learn more about baseball, a good starting point is baseballprospectus.com. Then you can branch out. Rob Neyer on ESPN.com insider is pretty good. And, of course, Bill James has some good reads too.

[KowboyKoop 0]

Studies have shown that improving to .500 has no impact on fan attendance. Especially with teams that have been bad for a long time, it takes a playoff appearance to get the fans to show up the following year. And even then the team must continue to play well or the fans will go away again.

What studies are you looking at? I highly doubt this because1. the majority of .500 teams usually make the playoffs2. those that dont make it are usually in playoff/wildcard contentionThe study your looking at was probably done before the wildcard came around and that changes things a lot. This year there were 15 teams that were .500 or better and I would call that an unusally competive year (I usually expect around 13). And you had teams like Phili and Cleveland that were in contention right down to the last week. The study probably doesnt take into account how being .500 in one year can affect attendance the next year (as in giving fans hope).Reaching .500 has long been a measure of a team headed in the right direction. I dont see why that should be different now.

I can GUARANTEE that if the Royals even played .475 ball, we would have a very noticable increase in attendance. I don't know what kind of fair-weather fans there are on the West Coast, but here in KC, we don't need a "playoff team" which has success over a long period of time in order to support them. Sure, the attendance isn't that great when we are a 56 win team, but a .500 team would turn KC back into the baseball town that it truly is. Sure, we wouldn't be "satisfied," but we would at least notice that the team is going in the right direction, and I do truly believe that our team is going to be a pretty good team in the upcoming years.

You say the Royals attendance will increase if the team plays better and then in the next sentence try to make fun of fair-weather fans on the West Coast. I'll either post links or type up excerpts from various studies about fan attendance (and also the free agent market and its affect on teams performance) tomorrow or Monday when I have time to go find them.

YOU are the one saying that fans won't show up unless a team is a playoff contender. I ain't saying KC fans are perfect either, but they aren't NEARLY as "fair-weather" as that. All that is needed for the attendance to go up in K.C. is a team that at least can be competitive with a GM/owner that at least seem like they care. They don't need to have had a .500 season the previous season or be a legit playoff team,like you are saying.Truse me, things are a lot different here in K.C. then on the West Coast. Yes, of course the goal is to win the World Series, and we won't be "satisfied" until we do. But you act like a team and their fans should just do absolutely NOTHING about improving a team until the team is ALREADY a playoff contender???? That is just flat out retarded. If we see players who we think can make us better WHILE AT THE SAME TIME KEEPING IN TACT OUR CORE GROUP OF YOUNG PLAYERS, which is exactly what we did, then that is what we are going to do. And that is exactly what we did. You don't have to like the particular players we signed, that's fine, I think they are "good," but of course they aren't "great" players. However, to blindly say that the Royals need to "develop from within" first and should not do ANYTHING to otherwise improve the team, is just retarded. Plus, we already HAVE developed a lot of young players form within, and many of them will be key components of next year's team, and they will all continue to improve. Yeah, the last couple of years haven't been great, but don't just state that our organization is really far away from being a contender....we have established a plan and haved moved pretty far on that plan so far, and we will be getting better sooner than later. Also, let me remind you that in 2003, we were a playoff contender for pretty much the entire year, and that was with a freakishly large amount of injuries to our pitching staff...so don't act like our organization has no clue...we'll be a .475-.500 team next year, and the year after, I think we will be a pretty solid team.

I never said the fans shouldn't show up, I said the fans don't show up until after you make the playoffs.Exactly. YOU are saying they won't show up until AFTER a playoff run is made. I am saying they will show up as soon as the team is somewhat competitve. That is the difference in what we are saying. I never said you said the fans will NEVER show up or anything like that. You are the one not understanding what I am saying. Oh, and I am right, trust me. I never said a team should do absolutely nothing; I said free agency is a bad way to build a team. Why can't you understand this? Why do you keep saying that I am saying the team should do nothing when all I've ever said is signing those free agents weren't good moves? This thread interested me for a while, but your rebuttals keep focusing on things that I've never said; now it's just boring. Why can't you understand that we are NOT "building our team" through free agency??!?!? PLEASE go look at our organization and look at all of the young players that are already on the MLB team and that are being developed for the future. Adding a few veterans to give those youngsters time to develop is NOT building a team. It is allowing our "youth movement," to proceed at a proper pace without rushing all of the prospects and ruining them. You are a fool if you think signing a few veterans to one or two year contracts (mostly one) WHILE AT THE SAME TIME NOT LOSING ONE SINGLE PROSPECT is "building a team." We know exactly what young player we want at each positiong. However, some of those young players aren't ready, so these veterans are a way to give those prospects time to develop and to help us be competitive so that we can attract some really good free agents down the road.Again, AGAIN, if we had gotten rid of a bunch of our young prospects in order to acquire these average players, then yes, you would be right, but we have kept EVERY SINGLE prospect and just given them the proper amount of time to develop,while at the same time taking a step toward being a competitive team. You are saying NOTHING as to why you think these particular players are not that great in their own right. Instead, you are just blindly saying "the Royals shouldn't sign free agents, they should develop young players," without knowing that that is what we have been doing for the past two years, and now we are taking the next step in our youth movement.If you want to learn more about baseball, a good starting point is baseballprospectus.com. Then you can branch out. Rob Neyer on ESPN.com insider is pretty good. And, of course, Bill James has some good reads too.

Oh, there is stuff on the internet and such to read about baseball?? Boy, I didn't know that, I was just cutting and pasting stuff from KCROYALS.COM!??!??!?! Boy, I sure feel dumb..........wanker.

[allinbluff35 0]

go twins

[KowboyKoop 0]

go twins

What do you think about the Twins next year??? They were alright last year, and they did pick up Castillo for 2B, but other than that, I don't think they added anyone significant, and I'm pretty sure Jacque Jones is gonna be a Royal next year (either way, he isn't going back to Minny), and from the looks of it, Joe Mays is gone too, and J.C. Romero is out...what do ya think...seems like they might just be an average team next year....then again, with that 'Santana' guy, you still got a lot to work with?Thoughts?

[allinbluff35 0]

go twins

What do you think about the Twins next year??? They were alright last year, and they did pick up Castillo for 2B, but other than that, I don't think they added anyone significant, and I'm pretty sure Jacque Jones is gonna be a Royal next year (either way, he isn't going back to Minny), and from the looks of it, Joe Mays is gone too, and J.C. Romero is out...what do ya think...seems like they might just be an average team next year....then again, with that 'Santana' guy, you still got a lot to work with?Thoughts?

I don't like the looks of it at this point. The royals will probably be better than them but we'll see if anything significant happens with trades within the next few weeks and I can make a better judgement but at this point unless there is at least one big signing we're playing the tigers for last in the central.

[KowboyKoop 0]

go twins

What do you think about the Twins next year??? They were alright last year, and they did pick up Castillo for 2B, but other than that, I don't think they added anyone significant, and I'm pretty sure Jacque Jones is gonna be a Royal next year (either way, he isn't going back to Minny), and from the looks of it, Joe Mays is gone too, and J.C. Romero is out...what do ya think...seems like they might just be an average team next year....then again, with that 'Santana' guy, you still got a lot to work with?Thoughts?

I don't like the looks of it at this point. The royals will probably be better than them but we'll see if anything significant happens with trades within the next few weeks and I can make a better judgement but at this point unless there is at least one big signing we're playing the tigers for last in the central.

I'm not sure if the royals will be "better," but yeah, I do think it could be a relatively "down" year for the Twins. I don't think any team in the Central is going to be a "bad" team though, right now, I see the ChiSox as a 95 win team, the Indians as an 88 win team, Tigers at about 81 win team, Twins at 78 wins, and the Royals at 74 wins or so....of course a lot will change.....If the Royals aren't in the running for the division title (which we almost certainly won't be....I'll keep praying), then I'll be rooting for the Indians, I like the way they play. We'll see though...I can't wait for April 1 though...

[Hobbes 1]

Studies have shown that improving to .500 has no impact on fan attendance.  Especially with teams that have been bad for a long time, it takes a playoff appearance to get the fans to show up the following year.  And even then the team must continue to play well or the fans will go away again.

What studies are you looking at? I highly doubt this because1. the majority of .500 teams usually make the playoffs2. those that dont make it are usually in playoff/wildcard contentionThe study your looking at was probably done before the wildcard came around and that changes things a lot. This year there were 15 teams that were .500 or better and I would call that an unusally competive year (I usually expect around 13). And you had teams like Phili and Cleveland that were in contention right down to the last week. The study probably doesnt take into account how being .500 in one year can affect attendance the next year (as in giving fans hope).Reaching .500 has long been a measure of a team headed in the right direction. I dont see why that should be different now.

I can GUARANTEE that if the Royals even played .475 ball, we would have a very noticable increase in attendance. I don't know what kind of fair-weather fans there are on the West Coast, but here in KC, we don't need a "playoff team" which has success over a long period of time in order to support them. Sure, the attendance isn't that great when we are a 56 win team, but a .500 team would turn KC back into the baseball town that it truly is. Sure, we wouldn't be "satisfied," but we would at least notice that the team is going in the right direction, and I do truly believe that our team is going to be a pretty good team in the upcoming years.

You say the Royals attendance will increase if the team plays better and then in the next sentence try to make fun of fair-weather fans on the West Coast. I'll either post links or type up excerpts from various studies about fan attendance (and also the free agent market and its affect on teams performance) tomorrow or Monday when I have time to go find them.

YOU are the one saying that fans won't show up unless a team is a playoff contender. I ain't saying KC fans are perfect either, but they aren't NEARLY as "fair-weather" as that. All that is needed for the attendance to go up in K.C. is a team that at least can be competitive with a GM/owner that at least seem like they care. They don't need to have had a .500 season the previous season or be a legit playoff team,like you are saying.Truse me, things are a lot different here in K.C. then on the West Coast. Yes, of course the goal is to win the World Series, and we won't be "satisfied" until we do. But you act like a team and their fans should just do absolutely NOTHING about improving a team until the team is ALREADY a playoff contender???? That is just flat out retarded. If we see players who we think can make us better WHILE AT THE SAME TIME KEEPING IN TACT OUR CORE GROUP OF YOUNG PLAYERS, which is exactly what we did, then that is what we are going to do. And that is exactly what we did. You don't have to like the particular players we signed, that's fine, I think they are "good," but of course they aren't "great" players. However, to blindly say that the Royals need to "develop from within" first and should not do ANYTHING to otherwise improve the team, is just retarded. Plus, we already HAVE developed a lot of young players form within, and many of them will be key components of next year's team, and they will all continue to improve. Yeah, the last couple of years haven't been great, but don't just state that our organization is really far away from being a contender....we have established a plan and haved moved pretty far on that plan so far, and we will be getting better sooner than later. Also, let me remind you that in 2003, we were a playoff contender for pretty much the entire year, and that was with a freakishly large amount of injuries to our pitching staff...so don't act like our organization has no clue...we'll be a .475-.500 team next year, and the year after, I think we will be a pretty solid team.

I never said the fans shouldn't show up, I said the fans don't show up until after you make the playoffs.Exactly. YOU are saying they won't show up until AFTER a playoff run is made. I am saying they will show up as soon as the team is somewhat competitve. That is the difference in what we are saying. I never said you said the fans will NEVER show up or anything like that. You are the one not understanding what I am saying. Oh, and I am right, trust me. I never said a team should do absolutely nothing; I said free agency is a bad way to build a team. Why can't you understand this? Why do you keep saying that I am saying the team should do nothing when all I've ever said is signing those free agents weren't good moves? This thread interested me for a while, but your rebuttals keep focusing on things that I've never said; now it's just boring. Why can't you understand that we are NOT "building our team" through free agency??!?!? PLEASE go look at our organization and look at all of the young players that are already on the MLB team and that are being developed for the future. Adding a few veterans to give those youngsters time to develop is NOT building a team. It is allowing our "youth movement," to proceed at a proper pace without rushing all of the prospects and ruining them. You are a fool if you think signing a few veterans to one or two year contracts (mostly one) WHILE AT THE SAME TIME NOT LOSING ONE SINGLE PROSPECT is "building a team." We know exactly what young player we want at each positiong. However, some of those young players aren't ready, so these veterans are a way to give those prospects time to develop and to help us be competitive so that we can attract some really good free agents down the road.Again, AGAIN, if we had gotten rid of a bunch of our young prospects in order to acquire these average players, then yes, you would be right, but we have kept EVERY SINGLE prospect and just given them the proper amount of time to develop,while at the same time taking a step toward being a competitive team. You are saying NOTHING as to why you think these particular players are not that great in their own right. Instead, you are just blindly saying "the Royals shouldn't sign free agents, they should develop young players," without knowing that that is what we have been doing for the past two years, and now we are taking the next step in our youth movement.If you want to learn more about baseball, a good starting point is baseballprospectus.com. Then you can branch out. Rob Neyer on ESPN.com insider is pretty good. And, of course, Bill James has some good reads too.

Oh, there is stuff on the internet and such to read about baseball?? Boy, I didn't know that, I was just cutting and pasting stuff from KCROYALS.COM!??!??!?! Boy, I sure feel dumb..........wanker.

Fine, you're bringing in these guys as place holders for your developing prospects. Is that a good use of the team's money? I don't think it is. Here is why these particular two aren't good:Mientkewicz: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/mientdo01.shtmlGrudzielanek: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/grudzma01.shtmlI didn't say, go look on the internet, I gave you a couple specific, easy to find examples. I'm not sure how continuing to call me names strengthens your argument. If it makes you feel better, then feel free to continue. This is my response to you calling me an idiot or wanker: :roll:

[KowboyKoop 0]

To show why you think Minty and Grudz are not good signings...you link me to a page with their STATS!??! Oh boy, I haven't thought to look up those before, I just though Doug M. was a career .324 hitter, BOY DO I FEEL FOOLISH! Seriously, again, noone said these are great players, but they are better than anything we can put on the field next year, and will improve our team, and are relatively cheap. Seriously, noone is saying these are the absolute best signings in the world. However, once we add Jacque Jones or another corner outfielder (which should happen relatively soon), it will be clear that we will have a better team while at the same time developing ALOT of young players. When the trading deadline comes, we will have a lot of good trade options, as we will likely trade a few of those veterans for some more near-ready prospects...and we SHOULD have more money to spend next offseason, so our organization is fine, despite what you may think. Yeah, the last two years have been pretty bad, but we've made it through the bad times and things are looking up. But to simply "give up" on this season and next season, which IS what you are saying, is simply foolish. Doing nothing in the free agent market until our young players "get good" is simply a sign that we aren't even TRYING to field a competitive team and we would NEVER be able to attract any good players at all......we're doing the best we can with limited resources, the players we signed are Major League quality players, which is better than fielding AA players at nearly every position.

[thrope 0]

i'm still hoping that angel berroa will remember how to hit the ball and not make an error every other gamehe was my boy when he won the ROTY, now he's a freaking dog (guess thats fairweather fan eh). seriously though, he went from an up and coming SS with a little power, to the worst defensive SS in the league and a .240 hitter :(maybe everything will actually come together for once in KC....