Author Topic: The Royals  (Read 5889425 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 40576
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26575 on: October 09, 2014, 10:36:35 AM »
James was our 3rd best starter and will be 4th best if Finnegan moves into the rotation. I don't think 5 for 80 makes any sense.

argued this this morning with my bros. he did have the lowest ERA and most innings among the starters. hes consistent... however, i agree with you. 5 years is too much for a 32 year old and $16M is too much for the Royals. id do 4 for 50 and thats probably as high as id go.

Duffy and Ventura had lower ERAs.

Ventura has a 0.01 lower ERA and yes, Duffy's was lower. He didn't show up bold as a starter for some reason on ESPN... my bad.

Duffy did not pitch enough innings to be bolded

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 19148
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26576 on: October 09, 2014, 10:38:25 AM »
James was our 3rd best starter and will be 4th best if Finnegan moves into the rotation. I don't think 5 for 80 makes any sense.
Listen bud. I'm going crazy over Finnegan as well, but wait for him to have a full season under his belt before claiming he's better than big game James.

Probably not today, but over the next 5 years I'd take Big Game Brandon
That is highly optimistic pseudo-crazy talk
:adios:

Offline mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 40576
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26577 on: October 09, 2014, 10:38:39 AM »
i am a stats guy and i do not like intangibles, but my god how can you not appreciate shields being in the ear of the young pitchers every single time they walk into the dugout after an inning?

Offline The Tonya Harding of Twitter Users Creep

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9740
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26578 on: October 09, 2014, 10:39:56 AM »
its semantics here. for an entire season, hes undoubtedly our best pitcher. is he our best option in a one game playoff? idk. you could argue ventura or duffy and id listen to that. but hes our horse and hes worth quite a bit of money if we can resign him. just dont know if hes worth 5 for 80 kind of money... but that kind of offer says billy is 100% gone and theyre putting the money in shields trying to save one of the two.
I think what my friend Mitch is trying to say is that true love is blind.

Offline Cartierfor3

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 27694
  • I just want us all to be buds.
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26579 on: October 09, 2014, 10:41:11 AM »
Listen, I'd love to have James on the team next year. I just think 5 for 80 is too much for us.

Offline mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 40576
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26580 on: October 09, 2014, 10:43:02 AM »
if it came down to keeping shields or butler, who would you keep? playing GM is such a fun slash horrifying dream slash nightmare

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38025
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26581 on: October 09, 2014, 10:43:26 AM »
I would love to see the Royals get Shields back, regardless of the cost. It is time for Glass to put all of his chips on the table and win a World Series. I don't really care if the whole thing falls apart and we go back to being one of the worst teams in baseball in 4 or 5 years.

Offline The Tonya Harding of Twitter Users Creep

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9740
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26582 on: October 09, 2014, 10:45:20 AM »
Listen, I'd love to have James on the team next year. I just think 5 for 80 is too much for us.

no one is arguing that part of your post. im talking about the "shields is our 3rd best starter..."
I think what my friend Mitch is trying to say is that true love is blind.

Offline The Tonya Harding of Twitter Users Creep

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9740
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26583 on: October 09, 2014, 10:46:33 AM »
if it came down to keeping shields or butler, who would you keep? playing GM is such a fun slash horrifying dream slash nightmare

shields and its not even close. would take billy if he took a pay cut.
I think what my friend Mitch is trying to say is that true love is blind.

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26584 on: October 09, 2014, 10:48:50 AM »
I'm all for keeping James. I agree that 5 for 80 would be pushing it quite a bit, but I like it as a sign of commitment to winning.

Offline mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 40576
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26585 on: October 09, 2014, 10:49:03 AM »
shields

pros: great nickname, devastating changeup, outstanding mental toughness

cons: looks terrible without a hat on

Offline Cartierfor3

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 27694
  • I just want us all to be buds.
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26586 on: October 09, 2014, 10:50:48 AM »
Listen, I'd love to have James on the team next year. I just think 5 for 80 is too much for us.

no one is arguing that part of your post. im talking about the "shields is our 3rd best starter..."

I stand by that post. He was our 3rd best starter this year. He was much more durable and threw more innings than Danny or Yordano, which is very very important. He's as durable as they come and a big key to our success. But Danny and Yordano when on the hill were better.

Offline Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17891
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26587 on: October 09, 2014, 10:51:31 AM »
Guys, Shields is good.  Billy sucks.  It's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to even ask the question.

Offline PIPE

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
  • Always a pessimist
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26588 on: October 09, 2014, 10:53:26 AM »
Didn't Billy make like 12 mil this year? :sdeek:

He is worth like 1/12th of that.....offer him a 2 year/2 mil deal, otherwise see ya.

Shields, no more than a 3 year deal.
Awaiting the inevitable KITN

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26589 on: October 09, 2014, 10:59:18 AM »
When is @#life going to come in here and tell us how big of a dumb eff he is?

Offline mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 40576
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26590 on: October 09, 2014, 10:59:56 AM »
i had this whole Friday night watch party planned and now what am i going to do?  :curse:

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 19148
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26591 on: October 09, 2014, 11:00:36 AM »
5 for 80 is a pretty good deal & hometown discount. Remember when we gave Gil Meche 5 for 55? Our payroll is 200% of what it was then...
:adios:

Offline mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 40576
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26592 on: October 09, 2014, 11:01:05 AM »
8MP is throwing fire today ITT

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38025
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26593 on: October 09, 2014, 11:02:03 AM »
i had this whole Friday night watch party planned and now what am i going to do?  :curse:

Well, you still have a 10% chance of there being no rain, so just keep your fingers crossed, mocat.

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26594 on: October 09, 2014, 11:03:21 AM »
I will be lost this weekend if we end up with no Royals or qatz.  :frown:

Offline The Tonya Harding of Twitter Users Creep

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9740
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26595 on: October 09, 2014, 11:04:31 AM »
Listen, I'd love to have James on the team next year. I just think 5 for 80 is too much for us.

no one is arguing that part of your post. im talking about the "shields is our 3rd best starter..."

I stand by that post. He was our 3rd best starter this year. He was much more durable and threw more innings than Danny or Yordano, which is very very important. He's as durable as they come and a big key to our success. But Danny and Yordano when on the hill were better.

take out Venturas 1.2 IP against Detroit and just count his starts, he has a higher ERA as a starter than Shields.  :whistle1:
I think what my friend Mitch is trying to say is that true love is blind.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38025
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26596 on: October 09, 2014, 11:07:29 AM »
Who is going to be available in free agency? Anyone even close to as good as Shields?

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 19148
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26597 on: October 09, 2014, 11:07:50 AM »
What's next, are we going to talk about batting averages?
:adios:

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 19148
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26598 on: October 09, 2014, 11:09:17 AM »
Who is going to be available in free agency? Anyone even close to as good as Shields?
Not at $14M for next year. Assuming 5/80 is back loaded
:adios:

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: The Royals
« Reply #26599 on: October 09, 2014, 11:10:43 AM »
8MP is throwing fire today ITT

Yes. He's like the James Shields of Royals thread posting right now. :D