PDA

View Full Version : David Glass: Royals will contend in 07



HumnHilghtFreel
01-19-2007, 09:05 PM
I guess he's a "Glass" half full kind of guy.


By DOUG TUCKER, AP Sports Writer
January 19, 2007

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) -- The owner of the most woeful major league team this century made a bold promise Friday to long-suffering fans.

The Kansas City Royals will not just be better in 2007, David Glass said at the team's annual forecast luncheon -- they'll be contenders in the AL Central.

ADVERTISEMENT


"I think all of us can look forward to a competitive team this year," Glass said. "We've not had good teams in recent years, but the fans have hung in there. All we want is to have a competitive team, where every time we go out to the park we feel we have a chance to win. And I think that's what we've got this year."

Glass, who allowed his team to make moves in the free-agent market, said his peers seemed miffed when he saw them at Thursday's owners' meeting in Phoenix.

"We listened to the commissioner berate all of us for the escalating salaries and what we're doing to the economics of baseball," he said. "But all of them were all on my case complaining about the things that we're doing, we're overly aggressive, that we've got all these things going on. The more they complain, the better I like it, because they'll pay the price later on in the season."

Kansas City has lost 100 or more games in four of its last five seasons, including a 62-100 finish last year. The Royals then gave a $55 million, five-year contract to 28-year-old right-hander Gil Meche, a $5 million, one-year deal to reliever Octavio Dotel and a $2.25 million, one-year contract to reliever David Riske.

Prospect Alex Gordon seems poised to take over at third base, and hard-throwing right-hander Luke Hochevar is climbing through the system after being taken as the overall No. 1 pick in last year's amateur draft.

"I may need a scorecard to figure out who all the new players are," Glass said. "This is perhaps the most exciting team Kansas City has fielded in a long time."

New general manager Dayton Moore also has added 13 front office positions in the baseball department.

"The thing I'm most excited about is the leadership team we've put in place," said Moore, who was hired last June to replace the fired Allard Baird.

"I've told a lot of people throughout the process we did have some success in making some trades that we're excited about, acquiring free agents," Moore added. "But the leadership team we've put in place and the processes we have gone through ... that's been the most gratifying for me."

Meche is 55-44 with a 4.65 ERA in six seasons, all with the Seattle Mariners. He missed the 2001 season with a rotator cuff injury and spent 2002 in the minors.

He was 11-8 with a career-best 4.48 ERA last year and probably will start Kansas City's opener.

"Once we get to a point where we have two to three players every year come through our farm system who can compete for a spot on our 40-man roster, we'll have the potential to sustain some consistency at the major league level, without a doubt," Moore said.

"The economics of the game are what they are," he said. "It is very competitive. Certainly it's great for the players. But at the same time for us to be able to manage our payroll effectively, we have to have a great farm system. It takes four, five years to develop your farm system and get that steady flow. But there's no doubt that we'll be able to do that."

Handofdeath
01-19-2007, 09:32 PM
I guess he's a "Glass" half full kind of guy.

If signing Gil Meche to an 11 million a year contract makes him hopeful then he is indeed as clueless as people say. Kansas City fans deserve better than this pompous buffoon.

jmac
01-19-2007, 10:25 PM
To "contend" in the AL, you need to be very very good.
In other words.....probably better than Gil Meche as your opening day guy.
Dont get me wrong....it is good to be optimistic.
However considering our top 2 starters vs theirs and plus the royals having to play the likes of Oakland...NY....Bosox...White Sox....Detroit....etc , I like our chances better of contending than theirs.

Chip R
01-19-2007, 10:32 PM
Contend for what, Miss Cogeniality?

Redsland
01-19-2007, 10:35 PM
Contend for what, Miss Cogeniality?
http://www.trueviewevents.co.uk/images/Groucho-Clapper-board.jpg

oneupper
01-19-2007, 11:55 PM
Time to short Wal-Mart.

Falls City Beer
01-19-2007, 11:59 PM
See, I read articles like this and can't help but feel a little sad: it's a different city, sure, but KC's no more deluded or off-track than the Reds are, really. It's just that the NL Central sucks donkey turds, so the Reds can hang around for a bit into the summer.

RedsBaron
01-20-2007, 02:12 AM
Sounds as if he has been drinking a lot from that "half filled" glass.

KronoRed
01-20-2007, 03:40 AM
Come on guys, he says "competitive" that's code for "We're gonna suck but at least we have some guy the fans might know" ;)

Jpup
01-20-2007, 04:12 AM
See, I read articles like this and can't help but feel a little sad: it's a different city, sure, but KC's no more deluded or off-track than the Reds are, really. It's just that the NL Central sucks donkey turds, so the Reds can hang around for a bit into the summer.

you are joking right?

Ron Madden
01-20-2007, 05:43 AM
I guess he's a "Glass" half full kind of guy.


Like so many around here... God Bless'em

Ltlabner
01-20-2007, 06:39 AM
See, I read articles like this and can't help but feel a little sad: it's a different city, sure, but KC's no more deluded or off-track than the Reds are, really. It's just that the NL Central sucks donkey turds, so the Reds can hang around for a bit into the summer.

Lets see...in 2006 KC finished 62-100.

The Reds finished 80-82. Which of course was a gift because they didn't play a single team outside of the "donkey turd sucking" NL Central. :rolleyes:

Yep, so much in common.

redsmetz
01-20-2007, 07:12 AM
Lets see...in 2006 KC finished 62-100.

The Reds finished 80-82. Which of course was a gift because they didn't play a single team outside of the "donkey turd sucking" NL Central.

Yep, so much in common.

Well we were so bad in our own division, we had the best won/loss record
(46-38), not to mention a winning record against the East (17-15, best in the division). Unfortunately, we weren't bad enough to have had a winning record in the West or in Interleague play (which was, afterall, our downfall).

MrCinatit
01-20-2007, 08:46 AM
Well, I will give Glass a little bit of credit - at least he is attempting to draw fans in, no matter how bad the team.
I remember Carl Linder's comments about the Reds about this time of the year in '04...........



No...seriously. Stay away. Stay away. Stay away. We stink.
I mean...I have no idea who's managing right now. Seriously. Boone? Knight? Miley? You tell me.
Our freaking GM...he held a press conference to announce the signing of John Vander Wal. John Freaking Vander Freaking Wal!
He's showing so much man-love for some dude named Ramano, both are showing signs of morning sickness!
Ah well. At least Milton went to Philly. If we'd got him, I would have freaked.

Ltlabner
01-20-2007, 08:56 AM
Well we were so bad in our own division, we had the best won/loss record (46-38), not to mention a winning record against the East (17-15, best in the division). Unfortunately, we weren't bad enough to have had a winning record in the West or in Interleague play (which was, afterall, our downfall).

No kidding. The Cards get tons of man love here as being an excellent, well run orginization and being WS champs. Until, of course, it comes to when the Reds beat them. Then, somehow, those wins don't coun't because the Cards suck eggs.

And I'm tired of the "weak division" is the only reason for any Reds success talk. That's just a cheep way of digging at the Reds, IMO. It certinally helped that the rest of the division worked as hard as the Reds to avoid winning it and give the illusion of competition. However, we beat some teams in other divisions. We beat some teams in other leages. We even beat some teams that are significantly better than we are. Every one of those wins counts no matter how badly someone wants to dismiss them.

Our record last year was, at best, mediocre and we've got a long, long way to go to be truely successful, no doubt about that. But a few folks here want to give credit for anything the Reds do right on the playing field to the other team. It was because they sucked. Or the pitcher had an off night. Or beacuse anybody should be able to catch that ball. It's always the other team giving us the hit/play/game not the Reds doing anything to make those events happen. I don't understand that line of thinking.

sixfigure
01-20-2007, 05:14 PM
No kidding. The Cards get tons of man love here as being an excellent, well run orginization and being WS champs. Until, of course, it comes to when the Reds beat them. Then, somehow, those wins don't coun't because the Cards suck eggs.

And I'm tired of the "weak division" is the only reason for any Reds success talk. That's just a cheep way of digging at the Reds, IMO. It certinally helped that the rest of the division worked as hard as the Reds to avoid winning it and give the illusion of competition. However, we beat some teams in other divisions. We beat some teams in other leages. We even beat some teams that are significantly better than we are. Every one of those wins counts no matter how badly someone wants to dismiss them.

Our record last year was, at best, mediocre and we've got a long, long way to go to be truely successful, no doubt about that. But a few folks here want to give credit for anything the Reds do right on the playing field to the other team. It was because they sucked. Or the pitcher had an off night. Or beacuse anybody should be able to catch that ball. It's always the other team giving us the hit/play/game not the Reds doing anything to make those events happen. I don't understand that line of thinking.
What if the nay sayers and negative annies are really not reds fans at all but use this forum to express their supreme man love for the Cardinals and Larussa,The Great One!! Maybe it is time for those to come out of the closet so to speak.......and MAN UP!!!

Falls City Beer
01-20-2007, 05:18 PM
Lets see...in 2006 KC finished 62-100.

The Reds finished 80-82. Which of course was a gift because they didn't play a single team outside of the "donkey turd sucking" NL Central. :rolleyes:

Yep, so much in common.

At the end of the last 11 seasons both teams have watched the playoffs from home.

And the reason for this has much more to do with the similarity of KC's and Cincy's team-constructing techniques than many folks on here are willing to admit.

corkedbat
01-20-2007, 05:22 PM
Nice to see Acid making a cmeback. :D

Matt700wlw
01-20-2007, 05:23 PM
Contend for what, Miss Cogeniality?

#1 pick?

MWM
01-20-2007, 07:24 PM
Lets see...in 2006 KC finished 62-100.

The Reds finished 80-82. Which of course was a gift because they didn't play a single team outside of the "donkey turd sucking" NL Central. :rolleyes:

Yep, so much in common.

Well, the Reds as an organization are a lot closer to the Royals than they are to the Cardinals or any of the other premiere organizations in the game. Outside Cincinnati, the Reds are much more likely to be lumped in the same group as the Royals, Pirates, D-Rays, etc.. than they are the Yankess, Red Sox, Twins, A's, etc...

Ltlabner
01-20-2007, 08:19 PM
Well, the Reds as an organization are a lot closer to the Royals than they are to the Cardinals or any of the other premiere organizations in the game. Outside Cincinnati, the Reds are much more likely to be lumped in the same group as the Royals, Pirates, D-Rays, etc.. than they are the Yankess, Red Sox, Twins, A's, etc...

I think there is actually a middle ground between the vast waste land that is a KC or Pirates and the Yanks, Red Socks, etc. That is where teams like the Mets, Detroit, Philly, Dodgers, Marlins, Cubs, Brewers, Astros, etc reside. They may approach the game differently but they all reside within the same general classification of franchises IMO. It's not just premier and suck. There is a sliding scale.

Have the Reds performed this century as we'd like them to? Obviously not. Have they become perpetual 100loss team that nobody takes serriously and consider them a glorrified AAA team? Not even close.

I'd rank them in the lower 1/2 of the middle of the road franchises. Obviously that's not good at all. But its hardly KC'ville.

Ltlabner
01-20-2007, 08:24 PM
At the end of the last 11 seasons both teams have watched the playoffs from home.

And the reason for this has much more to do with the similarity of KC's and Cincy's team-constructing techniques than many folks on here are willing to admit.

And nothing to do with decimated farm systems.
Or decimated scouting staffs.
Or negletected player development staffs.
Or an owner who didn't take an active interest in the team for far too many years.
Or a revoloving door of GM's.

None of that happened. It's all Wayne, "the trade" and well....Wayne.

Please.

Falls City Beer
01-20-2007, 10:21 PM
And nothing to do with decimated farm systems.
Or decimated scouting staffs.
Or negletected player development staffs.
Or an owner who didn't take an active interest in the team for far too many years.
Or a revoloving door of GM's.

None of that happened. It's all Wayne, "the trade" and well....Wayne.

Please.

Did I say any of what you said above? No. Let it rest.

I was only pointing out essentially what MWM clarified. A loser's a loser. No matter if you're splitting the hairs between 66 and 73 wins. When they cease being losers, the song will change.

To me it's ridiculous to lampoon the Royals when your own team is staring down a 75 win campaign. But that's just my opinion.

HumnHilghtFreel
01-20-2007, 10:47 PM
To me it's ridiculous to lampoon the Royals when your own team is staring down a 75 win campaign. But that's just my opinion.


Our own team isn't out making guarantees that look extremely hard to back up about our win totals either though.

Falls City Beer
01-20-2007, 10:51 PM
Our own team isn't out making guarantees that look extremely hard to back up about our win totals either though.

"I am not a patient man."

Ltlabner
01-21-2007, 07:02 PM
Did I say any of what you said above? No. Let it rest.

I was only pointing out essentially what MWM clarified. A loser's a loser. No matter if you're splitting the hairs between 66 and 73 wins. When they cease being losers, the song will change.

To me it's ridiculous to lampoon the Royals when your own team is staring down a 75 win campaign. But that's just my opinion.

No, you didn't say any of the above. That was the point. There are myrid reasons for why the team is where they are. You tend to dump it in Wayne's lap exclusivley.

His offseason has left much to be desired, to be sure, but the issues with the franchise didn't just start happening in February 2006.

Falls City Beer
01-21-2007, 07:27 PM
No, you didn't say any of the above. That was the point. There are myrid reasons for why the team is where they are. You tend to dump it in Wayne's lap exclusivley.

His offseason has left much to be desired, to be sure, but the issues with the franchise didn't just start happening in February 2006.

You missed my point: I don't blame it all on Wayne. I've never done so. I never will. You're inventing an argument. It just doesn't exist.

vaticanplum
01-21-2007, 07:54 PM
I think there is actually a middle ground between the vast waste land that is a KC or Pirates and the Yanks, Red Socks, etc. That is where teams like the Mets, Detroit, Philly, Dodgers, Marlins, Cubs, Brewers, Astros, etc reside. They may approach the game differently but they all reside within the same general classification of franchises IMO. It's not just premier and suck. There is a sliding scale.

While I agree with you that there is something of a middle ground, there is a vast difference between the Reds and most of the other "middle" teams you mention.

The Reds are not KC or the Yankees, true. But they're also, at present, nowhere close to a lot of those teams. They don't have position players/offense that the Mets do, they don't have the pitching that Detroit does, they don't have the farm systems that LA or the Marlins do. All those teams are closer to the Yankees than they are to the Reds.

Ltlabner
01-21-2007, 08:29 PM
While I agree with you that there is something of a middle ground, there is a vast difference between the Reds and most of the other "middle" teams you mention.

The Reds are not KC or the Yankees, true. But they're also, at present, nowhere close to a lot of those teams. They don't have position players/offense that the Mets do, they don't have the pitching that Detroit does, they don't have the farm systems that LA or the Marlins do. All those teams are closer to the Yankees than they are to the Reds.

I agree. That is why I said they were at the lower 1/2 of the middle of the pack group.

Certinally, they are dangerously close to becoming an afterthought in MLB, or the butt of a cruel joke. But a few shrewd moves for the short-term, or a total rebuild/huge investment of cash to retool the orginization for the long-term would quickly (or arguably reasonably quickly) get the orginization back to their winning ways. Can KC or Pittsburg say the same?

We can agrue over the "window of opportunity" but the Reds hold Harrang, Arroyo, Dunn, and EE all of which are recognized assets. Mix in some 2nd tier tallents like Ross, Phillips, Bray along with some solid prospects like Bailey, Votto and Bruce. Maybe they'll never put all the pieces together to compete, but that doesn't negate the value of those players. Can KC or Pittisburg lay claim to the same amount of player assets in their orginizations? Honestly, I don't know, but my perception is not.