The Kansas City Royals extended the contract of GM Dayton Moore through 2014 on Monday. The Royals have a record of 256-360 since Moore's arrival in 2006, including a gaudy 50-80 mark thus far this year. Am I missing something here? Does Dayton Moore have the Royals on the right track or is this just bad money?
As most in the sabermetrics community (or, better, the community of those who live on Earth and possess IQs above room temperature) have noted, Moore is hopelessly backwards (anyone who insists that Yuniesky Betancourt, one of the worst all-around players in the majors, is a plus defender whose offense will come around is probably more properly termed "insane"), elevating bizarre subjective judgments over plain objective realities. I was amongst those who thought the Royals might return to relevance this year, finishing around .500 in a division that I supposed would be won with a win total in the mid-80s, but I am suitably chastened and will return them to the recesses of my mind in which the Pirates (sorry, Kramer; be happy, at least, that, as a headline story in the MLB section of ESPN.com noted a few days ago, the Royals have lost more games across the past decade than have the Bucs--even more striking is that if their current winning percentage persists over the full season, they will lose 100 games and draw equal with the 1930s St. Louis Browns in most losses by a franchise in an intact decade) and Nats reside.
They looked pretty good in April and May, but it never lasts long. I think they believed Alex Gordon would have fewer injuries and much greater production.
The only thing that can save his reputation is if he can get a couple of big names to produce runs for Greinke. Then they can start to turn things around. Then again, everyone has been saying the same thing for about 3 years now and it has failed to happen. It seems like the Royals are doomed to being the Pirates of the AL for a long time to come.
Comment!