Nice. You just took this campaign to the next level.

Our 2014 payroll is now going to be over $94MM. Both of those guys want big 4-5 year deals.

Because Garza isn't very good and Ubaldo's a huge wild card.

Seriously, I just don't understand the Matt Garza thing. He's a 2-pitch pitcher with a pretty straight fastball (with velocity that's been heading steadily downhill the last several years). He's not terribly durable. He's not a staff leader kind of personality. He was acquired to help the Rangers get over the hump and he largely spit the bit.

He's probably a 4.00 ERA guy. The Royals could get that down a little by virtue of their defense, but if you're going to have to give him 4 years and $55-60 million, you'd be far better served going dumpster diving and using your defense to help out a much smaller ticket item (this is what Dave Duncan did with Cardinals pitchers for much of the early/mid 2000s).

Garza's just not a smart signing for a team that has to worry about a budget. There's nothing but downside in the deal, IMO.

Apparently the Yankees plan to blow through the $2-2.5MM limit on bonuses for international players (mostly 15-16 year olds), and spend somewhere around $15MM on them next offseason, because it won't impact their goal to get under $189MM on payroll, and the penalties for blowing through the cap on draft bonuses are too steep.

If they do that, they will pay a 100% tax on those international bonuses, and they will be prohibited from giving any international player more than a $300k bonus for 2 years, so they'd really need to make it count. (If MLB chooses to go to an international draft in 2015, then the penalty will change to forfeiting their 1st round pick for 2 years)

I wish we would have signed Sano. There were only two teams in on him and he went for like 3.2 mil. :shake: Where are our DR scouts GMDM?

Hindsight at play.

There were a lot of questions about Sano when he was a FA. His age was widely called into question. He wanted record international money to sign (initially). Some questioned his ability to hit for average - his power was always evident.

Eh. I recently watched a documentary on the subject, can't recall the name. The documentary made it pretty clear that he was not fabricating his age, but that information was being buried by an MLB inspector who was involved with the Pirates scout down there.

not being sarcastic here, but can you elaborate on the "an MLB inspector who was involved with the Pirates scout down there".

is there something more to that, or did i read that statement wrong?

The MLB inspector in the DR who was investigating Sano's age was basically telling Sano to sign with the Pirates and he would make the whole investigation go away. At least, that was the documentary's assertion.

Despite the fact that the MLB had bonescans, DNA tests, appropriate birth documentation, and schooling documentation, the MLB investigator did not confirm Sano's age. It appeared to be totally underhanded and unethical.

The documentary is available on netflix and was definitely worth watching.

Ballplayer: Pelotero

Anyone want to put up their super-early predictions? We all can reserve the right to change our minds up to the end of spring training.

Last year I said they were roughly an 85-86 win team and would barely miss the 2nd wild card. I do not believe the Royals over or underachieved (though they were unusually healthy), a few players did well and a few did poorly but overall it was pretty much as expected. (Though if you want to be glass half-full, throw away May and look how good the record is then)

I believe that on paper, if there are no other significant moves, then the Royals have improved by about 3 games even with the Loss of Santana. Replacing our 2B black hole with a credible hitter makes an enormous difference, and we also won't have to watch a few months of Frenchy. Vargas probably helps mitigate some of the loss in the rotation. Those moves are probably worth about 4 wins, and I knock one win back off by assuming we won't be as lucky with the DL this season; someone important will miss some time.

So, 88-89 wins. I also think the Tigers got worse on paper, but it won't be quite enough. (though this season we won't need to be quite as lucky to catch them as we needed in 2013) The division race will not be lost until September, the Royals will grab the last wild card and play for the right to face whoever the best team in the AL ends up being in the ALDS, probably Texas.

Prediction for next year:

Offense makes strong improvements due to following factors...

• Gordon and Butler rebound
• Hosmer continues to hit for the entire season the way he did from June 1 on
• Better production out of leadoff spot (Gordon produced just a .320 OBP in that spot)
• Fewer holes in the lineup

This offsets a small step back in the starting pitching from the No. 2 spot (2013 Santana vs. 2014 Vargas). Vargas performs at slightly better than his career averages, pitching in KC and with that defense behind him, to post a 3.80 ERA and 1.20 WHIP. Both numbers trump Santana, who has a fall-back year for the team that signs him. Shields and Guthrie are themselves.

The starting pitching also is improved at the 4 and 5 spots, with one of the young pitchers (Duffy, Ventura or Zimmer) providing a major upgrade over what was received out of those spots in 2013.

Overall: I'll call 91-71. It's aggressive, but I think the offense has improved more than many think and I think the starting pitching takes a smaller step back than many think.

I want to know how much production we get from 3b, SS, and 2b. It has to get better, right? Right?

Two positive predictions from two of my favorite Royals posters. I, too, think the offense will rebound and the pitching will not suffer too badly. I wonder how much better the Indians will be, though...