ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Royals 2014 Royals Repository (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=279729)

sedated 02-13-2014 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth (Post 10431266)
The Soria deal was actually fantastic.

Agreed. That deal fit right in with the sweetheart deals for Jamaal Charles and Salvy Perez.

mr. tegu 02-13-2014 01:17 PM

Opening day needs to hurry up and get here.

WhawhaWhat 02-13-2014 01:39 PM

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Ned Yost does not expect any players to be delayed from tomorrow&#39;s report date by either weather or visa issues.</p>&mdash; Andy McCullough (@McCulloughStar) <a href="https://twitter.com/McCulloughStar/statuses/434031383619457024">February 13, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

TLO 02-13-2014 01:48 PM

Just heard on 610 that some Vegas odds maker that the over/under is set at 85.5 wins for the Royals.

tyton75 02-13-2014 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Smoke (Post 10431670)
Just heard on 610 that some Vegas odds maker that the over/under is set at 85.5 wins for the Royals.

wow, that's actually pretty impressive that Vegas would set the number that high.

alnorth 02-13-2014 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyton75 (Post 10431738)
wow, that's actually pretty impressive that Vegas would set the number that high.

Yeah, especially considering that most random gamblers in Vegas would go in presuming "the Royals always suck", so to have to set it that high is encouraging.

Strongside 02-13-2014 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth (Post 10431802)
Yeah, especially considering that most random gamblers in Vegas would go in presuming "the Royals always suck", so to have to set it that high is encouraging.

That's pretty impressive. I'd have thought 78 would have been the number...somewhere in there.

mr. tegu 02-13-2014 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strongside (Post 10431840)
That's pretty impressive. I'd have thought 78 would have been the number...somewhere in there.

It was 79 last year. It would be really strange to set it the same after proving they can win last season with only one significant loss but a few big upgrades.

Prison Bitch 02-13-2014 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strongside (Post 10431840)
That's pretty impressive. I'd have thought 78 would have been the number...somewhere in there.

Exactly. Greg Holland ain't converting 47/50 this year. He has to come a bit back down to earth, even doing 40/50 would be an amazing year and that's 3-4 more losses we'd have to make up elsewhere. We do lose Frency & Getz but that's partially offset by losing Santana. I also don't see Chen pitching anywhere near like he did. Plus we were really healthy last season.

I'm guessing 79 is where we finish.

blake5676 02-13-2014 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch (Post 10431892)
Exactly. Greg Holland ain't converting 47/50 this year. He has to come a bit back down to earth, even doing 40/50 would be an amazing year and that's 3-4 more losses we'd have to make up elsewhere. We do lose Frency & Getz but that's partially offset by losing Santana. I also don't see Chen pitching anywhere near like he did. Plus we were really healthy last season.

I'm guessing 79 is where we finish.

I'm more optimistic than you. Hopefully he doesn't have 50 save opportunities again to begin with. It'd be nice to win a couple more games comfortably with a less anemic offense this year. Because it is true that our overall pitching will likely be a little down from last year.

Chiefspants 02-13-2014 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch (Post 10431892)
Exactly. Greg Holland ain't converting 47/50 this year. He has to come a bit back down to earth, even doing 40/50 would be an amazing year and that's 3-4 more losses we'd have to make up elsewhere. We do lose Frency & Getz but that's partially offset by losing Santana. I also don't see Chen pitching anywhere near like he did. Plus we were really healthy last season.

I'm guessing 79 is where we finish.

10 blown saves would be absolutely horrendous for any closer.

blake5676 02-13-2014 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefspants (Post 10431924)
10 blown saves would be absolutely horrendous for any closer.

Yeah, 80% loses you your job most of the time. Hell, most fans wanted to throw Holland away after his first blown save against Philly last year. Can you imagine if he had 5 or 6 by the break??

Chiefspants 02-13-2014 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blake5676 (Post 10431934)
Yeah, 80% loses you your job most of the time. Hell, most fans wanted to throw Holland away after his first blown save against Philly last year. Can you imagine if he had 5 or 6 by the break??

To put this in perspective, Jim Johnson, the man we (and Orioles fans) trashed throughout 2013, converted 50 of 59 save opportunities last year.

Prison Bitch 02-13-2014 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefspants (Post 10431924)
10 blown saves would be absolutely horrendous for any closer.

80% would be phenomenal, given the league-wide conversion rate the past few years has been only 68%. If Holland drops to league average that's 34/50, or 16 blown.

Closing out games at this level is damn hard.
http://rotosynthesis.rotowire.com/Bu...rs-BBD3904.htm

lewdog 02-13-2014 04:46 PM

TRADE FOR JIM JOHNSON


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.