|
|
#1
05-25-2006, 05:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
The Kansas City Royals... Worst team since the \'62 Mets?
After surrendering a 6-0 first inning lead (along with everything else I've seen this season), I certainly think so.
Heck, they may even give the '62 Mets record (40-122) a run for its money. The Royals have only won 10 games and we're definitely more than 1/4 of the way done with the season. Thoughts? 
|
|
#3
05-25-2006, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Kansas City Royals... Worst team since the \'62 Mets?
I think they have a definite shot. The most immediate comparable is the 2003 Tigers. The Royals probably have even less talent than that horrendous team and the AL Central (actually, the AL as a whole) is much tougher this year.
|
|
#4
05-25-2006, 06:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Kansas City Royals... Worst team since the \'62 Mets?
The comparison to the tigers isn't a very good one.
The tigers were doing it with with guys who weren't ready for the big leagues yet, the royals are doing it with guys who don't belong in the big leagues anymore. Someone needs to tell about half the team to retire. Mike Maroth got some valuable experience while losing 20, I don't think anyone is going to think that Scott Elarton needs the experience since he is already 30 years old.
|
|
#5
05-25-2006, 06:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Kansas City Royals... Worst team since the \'62 Mets?
[ QUOTE ]
The comparison to the tigers isn't a very good one. The tigers were doing it with with guys who weren't ready for the big leagues yet, the royals are doing it with guys who don't belong in the big leagues anymore. Someone needs to tell about half the team to retire. Mike Maroth got some valuable experience while losing 20, I don't think anyone is going to think that Scott Elarton needs the experience since he is already 30 years old. [/ QUOTE ] The comparison is for the sake of figuring out what shot the team has of losing more than 122 games. That is an assessment of current talent relative to competition Whether the players are young or old, or whether or not the front office has any plan, isn't really relevant for these purposes.
|
|
#6
05-25-2006, 09:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Kansas City Royals... Worst team since the \'62 Mets?
40-120. They mercifully didn't reschedule two rainouts.
Richie Ashburn hit .306, in an era when .306 meant something, for them and decided he had seen enough and retired.
|
|
#7
05-26-2006, 06:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Kansas City Royals... Worst team since the \'62 Mets?
[ QUOTE ]
The comparison to the tigers isn't a very good one. The tigers were doing it with with guys who weren't ready for the big leagues yet [/ QUOTE ] the 03 tigers had one guy under 25 in their everyday lineup, and he was 23 (and i doubt he will ever be 'ready for the majors'). the best young player on that team was released before this year. much of the team was made up of other team's rejects (alex sanchez, warren morris). i see plenty of similarities with the 06 royals, who do have some good young talent (gordon, butler, huber, greinke) but absolutely no supporting players. the difference is that the tigers were willing and able to overpay for marquee names (ordonez, pudge), made a couple of good trades (guillen, polanco), a rule 5 pickup (shelton), a fast-tracked top draft pick (verlander). the royals are not a good enough organization to get these things done, and i don't know if any big-name free agents would be willing to sign there for any amount of money.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
