Is this some sick joke?

[Solair Wright]

From west Missouri: Current streak: L11. Which is to blame here? Bad pitching, poor hitting, or the curse of George Brett? (almost every season except 2003 were losing seasons) This is unacceptable, they need something to raise the bar to help them recover from this deficit. My blame goes to the GM for not taking responsibility soon enough for the team.

[KingJ]

Write-in: The curse of Ewing Kaufmann dying and being replaced by a string of cheap owners and dumb GMs.

[brooklynboy]

Originally Posted by Solair Wright

From west Missouri: Current streak: L11. Which is to blame here? Bad pitching, poor hitting, or the curse of George Brett? (almost every season except 2003 were losing seasons) This is unacceptable, they need something to raise the bar to help them recover from this deficit. My blame goes to the GM for not taking responsibility soon enough for the team.

You mean the Royals actually have a GM???

:0

Amazin...Simply Amazin!!!

[Monzonater]

Originally Posted by brooklynboy

You mean the Royals actually have a GM???

:0

Amazin...Simply Amazin!!!

LMAO yea i kno they just are like the expos when they exsited
give this team away and make it somthing its a joke to baseball id rather be a ball boy for the devil rays then to say im a player on there team

[brewcrew82]

Originally Posted by Monzonater

LMAO yea i kno they just are like the expos when they exsited

What, owned by the other 29 owners?
Being made to play home games in other cities?
Not given proper opportunity to sign players?

Yeah, the circumstances are almost identical to the Expos.

The difference is, the Expos had an owner that stripped them dry, then ran for greener pastures leaving the franchise with NO owner, whereas KC had a good owner, who died and what followed were apathetic owners.

[KCGHOST]

Originally Posted by KingJ

Write-in: The curse of Ewing Kaufmann dying and being replaced by a string of cheap owners and dumb GMs.

The Royals have only had one owner since Kaufman died and just two GM's. The problem has not been cheapness, but lack of good leadership.

[grizzly451]

Originally Posted by KCGHOST

The Royals have only had one owner since Kaufman died and just two GM's. The problem has not been cheapness, but lack of good leadership.

It surprises me hear that about cheapness not being a problem. I agree with the lack of good leadership, but I've always thought that the Royals was a very cheap franchise. I assumed the owner just didn't want to put much money into the franchise (plus a small market?), which is compounded by the poor leadership into such a bad team.

David Glass is the owner of the Royals correct?

[KCGHOST]

Originally Posted by grizzly451

It surprises me hear that about cheapness not being a problem. I agree with the lack of good leadership, but I've always thought that the Royals was a very cheap franchise. I assumed the owner just didn't want to put much money into the franchise (plus a small market?), which is compounded by the poor leadership into such a bad team.

David Glass is the owner of the Royals correct?

Glass is the owner and he is frugal, but he does spend on a level comparable to the Twins, A's, and other small market teams. His problem is that he has kept on a GM who is out of his depth and he sends mixed signals as an owner to that GM. This year, in one of the worst years ever for free agent talent, he gave the GM about $20M to use for FA's. It was almost like why bother. If you recall after the Royals successful 2003 season Glass freed up some needed funds for FA's and it all blew up in his face.

Other years Glass will tell the GM we lost a bunch of games and we need to trim (not slash) the payroll. He needs to give the GM more rope than just a one-year budget. He needs to commit to a multi-year level of spending that permits a competent GM to make plans on how to assemble a team.

Fans of large market teams constantly make the mistake of thinking small market teams don't "invest" in their team when the fact of the matter is they invest a higher percentage of their gross income into the product than the large market teams. They also forget baseball is a zero sum game. Every game has a winner and loser. Thus on a fairly normal distribution of wins and losses you are going to have about 6 real good teams, 6 real bad teams, and 18 more or less middle of the road teams. It is easy to stay at least middle of the road when you can go to the market and spend discretionary income to buy a player that fills a hole. When you don't have that luxury you cannot afford any misfires on player development, what FA acquisitions you do make, long-term contract offers, etc.

[grizzly451]

Originally Posted by KCGHOST

Glass is the owner and he is frugal, but he does spend on a level comparable to the Twins, A's, and other small market teams. His problem is that he has kept on a GM who is out of his depth and he sends mixed signals as an owner to that GM. This year, in one of the worst years ever for free agent talent, he gave the GM about $20M to use for FA's. It was almost like why bother. If you recall after the Royals successful 2003 season Glass freed up some needed funds for FA's and it all blew up in his face.

Other years Glass will tell the GM we lost a bunch of games and we need to trim (not slash) the payroll. He needs to give the GM more rope than just a one-year budget. He needs to commit to a multi-year level of spending that permits a competent GM to make plans on how to assemble a team.

Fans of large market teams constantly make the mistake of thinking small market teams don't "invest" in their team when the fact of the matter is they invest a higher percentage of their gross income into the product than the large market teams. They also forget baseball is a zero sum game. Every game has a winner and loser. Thus on a fairly normal distribution of wins and losses you are going to have about 6 real good teams, 6 real bad teams, and 18 more or less middle of the road teams. It is easy to stay at least middle of the road when you can go to the market and spend discretionary income to buy a player that fills a hole. When you don't have that luxury you cannot afford any misfires on player development, what FA acquisitions you do make, long-term contract offers, etc.

Ah, see I had always assumed Glass was fairly tight-fisted the way the offseason normally goes for the Royals. Sounds like Glass has gotten kind of shy in going after free agents. So how would you rate Glass as an owner? Is he a very hands on owner or does he let the GM run the show as long as he stays in the budget? I don't know much about the guy other then he used to be an exec. at Wal-Mart.

To me its seemed like for years the Royals have done fairly little in the offseason or really even with trades during the season. I would assume that goes back to the GM.

Is it right to assume that little with change in the way the Royals finish each season until they get a new GM? I don't really even see much for Royals fans to look forward to in their farm system.

[#1SportsFan]

Originally Posted by KCGHOST

The Royals have only had one owner since Kaufman died and just two GM's. The problem has not been cheapness, but lack of good leadership.

Bingo. The question is how long before the owner actually smartens up?