Gload for Sisco?

Not sure about this

You'd think there has to be something more coming to the Royals, unless Sisco is a Ryan Anderson clone and just won't pan out(although it's too early for that). I don't get this deal if it's a one for one thing, unless there are deals coming involving Huber, Sweeney, Sanders, and Brown....I don't understand this. Maybe Moore knows more than all of us....for Royals fans I hope so.

I don't get enjoyment out of reading baseball books. I'd rather watch a sci-fi movie on TV. -Joe Morgan, Emmy winning BASEBALL analyst

by gatling on Dec 16, 2006 1:15 PM EST 0 recs

bad trade for Royals

I just think the team soured on Sisco, perhaps a bit too early, but they could have at least gotten a useful part for him, like Cintron maybe? Maybe that's asking for too much, but I while I think Moore has made some good moves this is certainly not one of them.

Hey fish, leave those kids alone!

by The Congo Hammer on Dec 16, 2006 1:19 PM EST 0 recs

Wowza

Terrible deal for KC. They deal a pretty bad reliever for a bad hitter who is just going to rot on the bench. If you're gonna deal Sisco, go arm for arm.

by kramerica1515 on Dec 16, 2006 1:56 PM EST 0 recs

Bad Hitter?

Regardless of how bad you think the trade is, Gload is a good hitter. .327/.354/.462 last year. I wish I was a "bad" hitter.

by doublestix on Dec 16, 2006 2:03 PM EST 0 recs

Sure

Because what KC needs right now is that veteran bat off the bench to get them over that 95 win hump.

by Lunkwill Fook on Dec 16, 2006 2:22 PM EST up 0 recs

Gload will start at 1B!

They made the trade because Sisco is an innefective pitcher who helps you lose and Gload is a good line drive hitter and lefty bat at 1b for a team who was very bad there (Mientkiewicz bad) and will help you win. Good trade for the Royals, being what they are, since they CANT develop pitchers there. Sisco may rebound with the Sox. ken Williams even spoke of ASKING Sisco if he wanted to start or relieve and if he wanted to start he could go back to AAA and learn. I think it is a classicly good trade for BOTH teams.

casedog

by casejud on Dec 17, 2006 4:45 AM EST up 0 recs

Smart

One year after Burgos and Sisco combine to be two of the most exciting young relief duos in the league, they're traded for a starter with a K/BB ratio below 1.00 and a 30-year-old bench bat.

Nice.

by limozeen on Dec 16, 2006 2:27 PM EST 0 recs

By "exciting"

Do you mean keeps you at the edge of your seat because you're worried they'll give up 3 runs in an inning?

Sisco was bad last year. His velocity was down, his walks were up, his strikeouts were down, and his previous year's performance was better than one might expect based on his recent minor league performance. Burgos was a bit better, but if Bannister turns out to be an average #4 starter, then it's probably a net upgrade for the Royals. I suspect that this trade was dumping Sisco for what they think they can get, because they think he won't turn it around.

by Brickhaus on Dec 16, 2006 9:17 PM EST up 0 recs

hmm

Giving up on guys after one bad year is not good news. See: Morneau, Justin

by limozeen on Dec 17, 2006 12:57 AM EST up 0 recs

He;s not going to be on the bench

All you have to do to turn a guy from a "bench bat" to a "starter" is to play him. He can hit. He will start. He will help them win. Way to do SOMETHING Royals. Bravo! Beats getting your ass kicked 100 times a year. A step in the right direction if you ask me.

casedog

by casejud on Dec 17, 2006 4:47 AM EST up 0 recs

This is an awful trade

What is wrong with Dayton?

by future on Dec 16, 2006 2:59 PM EST 0 recs

I think we

may not want to jump the gun here. The right question may be what's wrong with Sisco... He had some behavior issues when he was in the Cubs system. They didn't seem all that major to me at the time, and they still don't really - he's no Elijah Dukes anyway. That said, they chose to leave him off the 40-man a few years ago, allowing him to be taken in the Rule 5. They definately had room for him, but still didn't put him on the 40-man. Kind of makes you wonder now that KC has let him go for a player of Gload's value...

by slurve on Dec 16, 2006 3:24 PM EST up 0 recs

Yep

Absolutely. Sisco was reluctant to go to the Mexican League this winter, he didn't think he needed to go. DM is bringing in winning players with good attitudes. He'll fill in nicely in the "Matt Stairs" roll.

by doublestix on Dec 16, 2006 4:29 PM EST up 0 recs

Re: Sisco Behavioral Issues

You should check out BP's Unfiltered post here: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=104

Even if he's got serious dedication issues, you're still talking about a promising young pitcher for a bench player the Royals don't need because a) they already have a bunch of corner IF/OF/DH guys, and b) they're the Royals, they don't need a bench, they need starting talent.

Really, they should be trading #5 starters and bench guys for young promising arms, not the other way around.

Yet another depressing offseason for Royals fans. At least there's Gordon and Butler and Hochevar.

by abbreviatedman on Dec 16, 2006 5:28 PM EST up 0 recs

depressing

hardly? I'm ecstatic.

by wildthang on Dec 16, 2006 5:54 PM EST up 0 recs

A team

With so little pitching like the Royals shouldnt be making deals like this.

by goalieguy on Dec 16, 2006 6:15 PM EST up 0 recs

In the land of the blind

the one eyed man is king.

Losing Sisco is addition by subtraction for the Royals bullpen.

by eazyb81 on Dec 16, 2006 10:00 PM EST up 0 recs

yeah

what it looks like is that moore is conducting an attitude-based purge. runelvys, now sisco. that's what the unfiltered post implies. he may give away a little bit of talent in the process but i have to say at the end of the day he might be right about this.

by wily mo on Dec 16, 2006 7:47 PM EST up 0 recs

Exactly

People complain about these trades, but you have to understand that Moore is trying to change the culture of KC; he doesn't want to bring up Gordon, Butler, Hochevar, and the other prospects into a culture of losing. Moore is getting rid of the clubhouse cancers, the high-upside guys like Sisco and Hernandez who think they can put it on cruise control just because they have talent and are pitching for the worst team in baseball. Well, no more...

by ajohnst1 on Dec 16, 2006 8:00 PM EST up 0 recs

he doesn't want a "culture of losing"?

Well if he keeps giving away promising players for pennies on the dollar just because they have some personality issues and using all of his extra payroll to sign guys like gil meche, I don't know what culture they'll have besides a losing one.

by AucklandGM on Dec 16, 2006 8:57 PM EST up 0 recs

Right

If Moore keeps getting rid of pitchers with a 68+ ERA and replacing them with multi-position players that put up .817 OPS and above average defense, he will be sorry.

by eazyb81 on Dec 16, 2006 9:59 PM EST up 0 recs

Multi-position player?!

Yeah, Gload plays multiple positions. But they're all taken, some twice or thrice.

From the excellent Unfiltered post:

"And then there's the little matter of Ryan Shealy at first base. And Mike Sweeney at DH. And David DeJesus in centerfield. And Shane Costa, Joey Gathright, Emil Brown, and Reggie Sanders in the outfield corners. And Justin Huber, who ought to play somewhere. And Alex Gordon, who probably will force Mark Teahen to rightfield on Opening Day. That's 9 OF/1B/DH candidates already, most of whom are out of options, for a maximum of 7 roster spots. And now you add a 10th player to the mix?"

And sure, Sisco was TERRIBLE last year. But who's got a chance to help you in three years when the Royals may theoretically be a competitive team, Sisco or Gload? Gload does little for you now, given the logjam, and nothing for you in a couple of years when he's in his mid-30s. Sisco may be out of baseball then, if last year is a new trend performance-wise instead of an abberration and he doesn't fix his attitude problem. But he also may be an excellent reliever or even an excellent starter, as many scouts believe he can be.

by abbreviatedman on Dec 16, 2006 10:07 PM EST up 0 recs

And?

Will Shealy and the corner OFs never take a day off and/or never get injured?

And Rany's point is a bit silly at this time. DeJesus and Teahen will be in the OF, but Sanders, Brown, and Gathright could all easily be traded before April. Costa and Huber aren't all that good at this point.

I know it's hard to believe, but I think there's a small chance that Moore may know who is on his team right now, and he may know who won't be there come April.

Also, I think Moore's moves this offseason indicate that he isn't interested in looking ahead 3 years in hopes of being competitive; he wants to be competitive now. People can mock that if they want, but at some point you have to go with performance over potential.

Finally, I think people are building up Sisco's "potential" a bit too much. He has one MLB pitch at this point, and it lacks movement. His velocity has dropped, he has an awful work ethic, and he threw a public temper tantrum when KC wanted him to play winter ball. Does his youth give him a bit of upside? Sure. But what are the odds that he actually has the talent AND the work ethic to reach it?

by eazyb81 on Dec 16, 2006 10:16 PM EST up 0 recs

Sure, they'll take a day off.

And Gload will add a bit to the offense on the days they do. But to sacrifice a guy with upside for a bench player on a team that has no shot at competing? Also, I don't see how you can argue that Sisco doesn't have potential; read his scouting report from last year, before his TERRIBLE year. His '06 performance takes away (in my opinion) from his CHANCE at reaching his potential, but not his potential itself. Then again, I've always been high on Sisco going back to his Cubs days, and it's possible my judgement's clouded on him.

Either way, you don't throw away a guy with potential, hell, ANY potential, for Ross Gload, on a team with too much Ross Gload already, and on a team that is pretty far from the "some point" at which you decide to be competitive. Same is true for trading a potential future closer for a potential now #5.

by abbreviatedman on Dec 16, 2006 10:45 PM EST up 0 recs

Again

the only "potential" that Sisco has is based on his age. He is not a good pitcher, and most scouting reports people are basing this trade on are from a couple years ago when he was in BA's Top 10 for the Cubs. He does not come close to 100, he has only one pitch, and it has no movement. As a guy who watches most Royals games and knows a good deal about pitching, Sisco is not some "hidden treasure" that some are making him out to be. I've said it before, but if he wasn't tall and left-handed, no one would know his name.

I just don't get the idea that you never trade away a guy with any potential; that makes no sense to me. At some point, you have to go with performance over any perceived potential. What are the odds that Sisco ends up as a stud starter or even a very good loogy with his crappy work ethic? 10%?

by eazyb81 on Dec 17, 2006 9:41 AM EST up 0 recs

Heh

the only "potential" that Sisco has is based on his age. He is not a good pitcher, and most scouting reports people are basing this trade on are from a couple years ago when he was in BA's Top 10 for the Cubs. He does not come close to 100, he has only one pitch, and it has no movement. As a guy who watches most Royals games and knows a good deal about pitching, Sisco is not some "hidden treasure" that some are making him out to be. I've said it before, but if he wasn't tall and left-handed, no one would know his name.

Sounds sort of like what Mariner fans were saying about Matt Thorton at the time of the Thorton for Joe Borchard deal. Well, except for the fact that the Mariners gave Thorton many chances to "hang himself", while Moore only gave Sisco one shot.

by CWSKeith on Dec 17, 2006 3:12 PM EST up 0 recs

Thornton, Thornton, Thornton....

Jeez, i've probably heard the name Matt Thornton 20+ times in the last 24 hours from White Sox fans. Yes, Cooper turned him around, but does that now mean that he will turn around EVERY pitcher that has not performed, regardless of the variables involved?

All I can say is good luck to the White Sox fans, hopefully someone in your organization can light a fire under Sisco.

by eazyb81 on Dec 17, 2006 5:45 PM EST up 0 recs

wow

I just don't get the idea that you never trade away a guy with any potential; that makes no sense to me. At some point, you have to go with performance over any perceived potential.

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS. How does this work: 60 bad innings proves that Sisco will never be any good, and 70 bad innings proves that Burgos will never be any good... but 815 bad innings proves nothing, and Meche is the next Chris Carpenter who deserves $55 million over five years?? Does performance matter, or doesn't it? I guess it depends on whether the Royals are bringing the guy in or shipping him out?

You're a fanboy. You start with the conclusion that everything the Royals do is right, and then try to justify why it's right. That's not analysis. It's not even worth bandwidth.

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Dec 17, 2006 5:11 PM EST up 0 recs

Huh?

Way to completely dodge the topic at hand.

Sisco sucks because of all his combined issues, not just his disaster of a season in 06. I'm not going to rehash everything for you, hopefully you can read the other posts in this thread.

Also, not sure why you're bringing up the Meche deal, they are two completely separate issues. Royals need a dependable starter who can give them league average results and has the potential to do more...hence, the Meche deal. But the Royals certainly don't need a lazy LOOGY who can't get out lefties, has only one pitch, and has shown ZERO desire to improve.

by eazyb81 on Dec 17, 2006 5:50 PM EST up 0 recs

Meche

I'm not even going to argue that "a dependable starter who can give them league average results and has the potential to do more" is not anything close to what the Royals need. I'm not even going to argue that "a dependable starter who can give them league average results and has the potential to do more" is not anywhere close to worth $55 million, even in this market. Instead, I'm just going to point out how absurd that characterization is.

Meche is NOT dependable. The guy's innings pitched the last three years go 127.2, 143.1, 186.2. I guess you can be happy there's a progression there, but with his injury history he could just as easily end up with him on the DL half the contract.

And "league average results" would be an ERA+ of 100. Granted, he was almost there last year, at 97. But he was at 86 and 85 the previous two years, with ERAs over 5 in a pitcher's park. He will very likely do worse than that at Kaufman.

It's amazing how much people's opinions of a player change when he signs with their team. If you had asked a Royal fan before Meche signed if they would want him for the next five years at $11 million a year, they would have said no. I guess it makes sense, you want to feel good about your team, but face it, Royals fans, while Moore certainly has time left to prove himself, he's not doing very well so far.

by abbreviatedman on Dec 18, 2006 6:00 PM EST up 0 recs

I'm no

Royals fan, and I kind of like the deal. Who else were they going to sign? Right now, they need to overpay like Detroit did a few years ago to get people into town. Looks like it worked out pretty well for the Tigers from my house. He's got a very live arm and is young. He hasn't been a model of health, but that's a risk you take with all pitchers. KC had to assume some risk here in an attempt to get things moving towards winning. I think Moore has a done a fine job so far.

by slurve on Dec 19, 2006 7:49 AM EST up 0 recs

Runelvys Hernandez is a NO TALENT!

What talent? Hes a BUM!! Sisco was a TOTAL bum last year. Gload is a 30 year old, veteran pinch hitter and AAA star and he has more talent then either of these guys. I like a GM who is saying here is a guy who we can use on our team in a certain way to help us win instead of permanent, abstract, talent gathering! Bravo!

casedog

by casejud on Dec 17, 2006 4:54 AM EST up 0 recs

Uh, agreed?

Ha, I think you were responding to me, and I agree with you, though I said Runelvys had talent, I was correct, but you'll notice I never said he had PITCHING talent. Aha, a loophole!

by ajohnst1 on Dec 17, 2006 9:55 AM EST up 0 recs

unfiltered

For someone who plays Strat-O-Matic, I'm actually a bit surprised that Rany didn't find any column space to mention that of all the players "blocking" Gload from playing time, only one bats left-handed (Teahen), and he's yet to show that he can play a corner outfield spot. Clearly, I'm understanding that a Royals fan would be upset if he believes that Sisco is going to be good... I had similar upset when the Cubs left him available for Rule V(!) But look at the guys "blocking" Gload from playing time (in order I think they should try to trade them):

Sweeney
Sanders
Huber
Brown
Shealy
(I don't count JoeyG, since he and Gload do very different things.)

I'm not going to say Gload is great, and I wouldn't really start him ahead of any of those 5 guys. I don't think he can play outfield defense well enough to start there except in emergencies (For an example, Ozzie was openly despairing over Podsednik's production last year, and yet Gload didn't bump him as the LF vs. RHP). I don't think he can hit better than Sweeney or Shealy, and Huber may become a better hitter than him soon. But having a lefty bat around is a great idea.

I know that we all look at the Royals and think that they won't be ready until 2009, but I'm quite sure that Moore is telling his staff that 2007 is the year. Their offense was good enough last year, if not great, and it's going to be much better this year, and especially in the 2nd half. Pitchers are unpredictable, and while I don't like any of the Royals starters, the best years of Odalis, Redman, and Meche are all pretty good. Crazy? Yes. But they didn't pay Dotel $5MM for one year to be content with 90 losses (I know, I know - he'll be trade fodder at the deadline).

Anyway, in Moore's shoes, I would have tried to get more for Sisco if sending him away. And I think the Royals desparately need to un-clog themselves of righty hitters with limited defensive ability, but they did need a strong lefty bat who could play 1b and backup in LF/RF.

by BobbyMac on Dec 17, 2006 1:50 AM EST 0 recs

Very evenhanded...

...assesment Bobby Mac. You see it like I see it pretty much. At least that there are a few different ways to look at it. Maybe the guy (Moore) is just what?...doing his job! Trying to build the best ballclub possible. Lord knows they have had enough top picks. They are all stocked up. Its safe to begin to attempt to win now guys. Signing Dotel for 5 mil appears kinda crazy though.

casedog

by casejud on Dec 17, 2006 4:59 AM EST up 0 recs

I agree

I made a comment a short time ago about the Royals shifting the way they do things and I think this is just the latest example. Trading Sisco isn't going to keep them from winning anything. The generation of "saviors" like Gordon/Butler is here. KC is a likely destination for David Price. Say Sisco starts to bond with one or all of these guys. The effects of a bad attitude can be immeasurable. If he doesn't fit in with where you're heading - see ya. I'm sure other GM's know he's been a bit of a problem, and coming off a poor year his value isn't exactly at it's apex, but at the end of the day like easyb said - addition by subtraction. That little ring on Gload's finger doesn't hurt either.

by slurve on Dec 17, 2006 9:39 AM EST up 0 recs

I'll just keep adding on here...

People complained about the Burgos trade for the same reasons about this one, but at least KC got a low upside YOUNG ARM in the trade. This trade is indefensible to many because of Gload...

But I see these trades as equal. Why? Because KC isn't trading away ANYTHING, in my opinion. Look back at all the high-upside arms KC has had in the last five years. NONE of them have amounted to ANYTHING, except for Zack Greinke, and the jury is still out on him. The chances Sisco would become a useful starter or even a good releiver FOR THE ROYALS were impossibly bad.

At the time Moore traded Jeremy Affeldt and Denny Bautista for Ryan Shealy and Scott Dohmann, a few people said, "KC can't make this trade. Affeldt and Bautista have the stuff to win 20 games." Not many people said that, but a few did. Well, guess what? They won four games last year for the Rockies between the two of them, putting up a combined ERA over 6. And the wins aren't going to come up, and the ERA is not going to come down.

Sisco and Burgos are easier to complain about, because they are younger. But they had been just as abused by the Allard Baird era. They were never going to amount to anything in KC. And Moore traded them while he could get anything back for them at all. Good luck to the Cubs and Mets, trying to fix those two...

by ajohnst1 on Dec 17, 2006 10:04 AM EST up 0 recs

hmm

To put it in TOLAX0R terms:

ONE BAD SEASON MAKES A BAD PLAYER. THAT PLAYER SHOULD BE TRADED AT ALL COSTS.

KC is going nowhere for a while...they might as well try to develop the young talent they have. This trade reeks of Joe Borchard for Matt Thornton (except Gload is old and predictable, not young and out of options).

by limozeen on Dec 17, 2006 10:23 AM EST 0 recs

Gload

Couldn't he be flipped for something young and useful for a team trying who suffers an injury early in the season?

Obviously Moore and the Royals didn't like Sisco's attitude, and he was sent home from the winter league for eating tacos in the concourse of the stadium pre-game.

Getting a professional hitter like Gload for somebody you don't want around isn't the worst thing the world. And if (when) the Royals are out of it Gload could certainly be an asset that gets another scratch it lottery pick arm from some other team, which really all Sisco is now.

I'm not in love with the trade but they certainly could have done worse.

"Strikeouts are good...groundballs are better. Home runs are okay...but walks SUCK!" Mike Caldwell

by Torncuff on Dec 17, 2006 11:58 AM EST up 0 recs