Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Explaining Jeremy Lin's Early, Surprising Success

Mike Moustakas to attend USC

I don't know if this is just posturing but it's pretty disheartening news for us Royals fans.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/233027.html

The first real bit of news about the Royals' negotiations with No. 2 overall pick Mike Moustakas come in the form of a message to The Kansas City Star from Scott Boras, who is advising Moustakas.

"As far as I understand from the family," Boras said, "he's returning to school."

Moustakas did not immediately return a phone message.

Moustakas previously signed a letter of intent with USC. If nothing is done by 10:59 tonight Kansas City time, the Royals would receive the No. 3 pick in next year's draft as compensation.

Comment 95 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

This is why KC will never win
They should of taken a pitcher and not a 3rd baseman who wanted to be paid a lot.  They could of taken Vitters, this makes KC have egg on their face.

by Bravesin07 on Aug 15, 2007 7:00 PM EDT reply actions  

I think they were trying to
plug him in as a SS... but yes KC should have stayed away from Moustakas and gotten a SP.  L. Hochevar looks pretty bad as a number 1 Overall pick

by Darce on Aug 15, 2007 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Bravesin07
You don't take a pitcher. You take THE BEST PLAYER. Obviously they thought Moustakas was THE BEST PLAYER.

If you think KC will never win because they refused to give a high school player a major league contract, your an idiot.

by doublestix on Aug 15, 2007 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

+1
There is no way the Royals can RISK that much money on a high school player.  He could very well flame out and the Royals just lost a boatload of money and a high draft pick.

by adschofield on Aug 15, 2007 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Didnt
know he was asking for that type of money. Yea, I agree its way to risky to hand that kind of money to a HS player.

by Darce on Aug 15, 2007 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

To be honest
I could care less what we pay him...give Moose 6.5 million bucks. I just don't want to put an 18 year old kid on a major league roster. That's not good business for a small market team.

by doublestix on Aug 15, 2007 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

BS
So the Royals can "risk" that much money on Reggie Sanders but not Moustakas?

by sungod7 on Aug 15, 2007 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hmmm
One has over 300 MLB HRs, while the other is still learning to shave.  Fair comparison...

by Bowser on Aug 15, 2007 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't think Bravesin07 needs to think...
...that KC will never win because they refused to give a high school player a major league contract to prove his idiocy.
"then at All-Star Fanfest, the Upton-bros will proceed to beat Carlos Gomez and Jose Reyes in a 3-legged race around the bases." -daveh33

by uga007 on Aug 15, 2007 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

should have
not should of.

Not picking on you.  Just that I've seen the "should of" phrase used a lot here recently, and as an english teacher, it gets me.

continue.

by Curtis Pride on Aug 15, 2007 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

Bear in mind...
This is Boras saying this.  That's not to say he doesn't mean it, but it could well just be posturing.  Of course, if I were KC, I'd pony up the cash.  But what do I know...?  Clearly the KC front office is smarter than I...
"People think it must be fun to be a super genious, but they don't know how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world." - Calvin

by RVachon on Aug 15, 2007 7:05 PM EDT reply actions  

I don't think
It's money that's holding this up. Boras wants a major league contract.

by doublestix on Aug 15, 2007 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Response
On the other hand, he probably wants a major league contract because the type of money he's looking to secure in this deal just won't work under a simple minor league deal with signing bonus.

by mrkupe on Aug 15, 2007 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

They should have taken a college pitcher
They need guy who can get to the majors and pitch.  I don't think they will take a HS pitcher for a while due to Greinke's struggles and Griffen being a bust.  They made a big mistake and now look like fools.

by Bravesin07 on Aug 15, 2007 7:12 PM EDT reply actions  

Come on
Who should they have taken? There was no college pitcher that made sense at #2. Moskos...no way. He's more likely a setup guy than anything. Detwiler? Pff, you would have said KC was stupid for taken him, as they would have been.

You can't compare Greinke and Griffin to this situation. Greinke has had psychological issues, no one could have predicted that. Griffin? That was just a stupid pick, and everyone knew it at the time. Who made that pick? Oh yea, Allard Baird.

by doublestix on Aug 15, 2007 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

This why they need trading draft picks
like all the other sports.  They could have KC offer the 2nd pick for another pick and possibly a prospect or a MLB ready player.  It would make sense.

by Bravesin07 on Aug 15, 2007 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

Obviously they did make a big mistake...
What were the Royals thinking trying to draft one of the better players in the draft. Of course they should know better than to try and do something like that with the second pick. The best players fall to the Tigers, Yankees, and other large market teams... what a bunch of idiots they are.

by Angels and Demons on Aug 15, 2007 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Congratulations, Bud
For denying cheap, bad teams their fair share of the talent pool. On behalf of all the Red Sox (and Yankee, and Tiger) fans, thank you. Since none of your bosom pals with fat wallets and slim IQs will be winning the World Series any time soon, I'm sure that All-Star Game in 2014 or whenever will make up for all the stars who will end up playing elsewhere in their low-cost, productive MLB years. When will all these a-holes die off so that people like Mark Cuban can take the sport to the next level?

by igreen01 on Aug 15, 2007 7:12 PM EDT reply actions  

+1
Agreed. My theory for why baseball has taken a backseat to football and basketball in this country is because small market teams cannot compete

by adschofield on Aug 15, 2007 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

OK
Thanks for your opinion and that witty insight. I obviously enjoy baseball more than basketball, but the majority of this country seems to think the opposite.  

by adschofield on Aug 15, 2007 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

And that's been...
...taken care of.

The draft is a problem...

...and it hasn't been taken care of.

by doublestix on Aug 15, 2007 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

Uh
One of the most respected sports franchises in America (and from one of the smallest major sports markets) and one of the most successful commissioners in American sports history need... take care of? Huh?

by knightgalt on Aug 15, 2007 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

well they cheated a way to a title
the stupidest rule in pro sports leaving the bench took two of the Suns best players out.

by Bravesin07 on Aug 15, 2007 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm no Spurs fan
...but you can't say they cheated their way to a title. Everyone knows the rule. It's not new. When a fight breaks out, players know by now that if they come off the bench, the league is going to come down hard. Ignoring the rule in a playoff game is just stupid.

And your criticism of Stern is still unexplained and off-base.  He's not perfect, but he took a sport that was barely considered a major sport in America (I believe that the NBA Finals weren't even televised when he became commissioner) and has cultivated it into an exceptionally profitable and popular enterprise.

by knightgalt on Aug 15, 2007 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

+1
And also, Stern had no choice whatsoever in this particular issue.  Maybe the rule should be changed now, maybe it should have been changed beforehand, though I strongly disagree.  But this was a very specific rule with a very specific penalty, and no leeway either way.  The commissioner cannot simply waive a rule when he chooses.  That would, in fact, be the opposite of his job.

by abbreviatedman on Aug 15, 2007 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

+2
The Spurs just played the games and won them.  They got a generous boost from the commish, sure, and one of their wins was officiated by Ted Donaughey, but the Spurs didn't do anything except play like professionals.  They were the best team in the NBA last season, and if Bravesin07 thinks otherwise, well...he obviously doesn't watch that much basketball.  The Spurs are a dynasty and one of the best franchises in American pro sports.

I AM a Spurs fan, by the way, so feel free to call me biased, but...yeah.  Quit talking crap about the Spurs.

by ajohnst1 on Aug 15, 2007 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

If you gonna give out MLB deals to prospects
a guy like Wieters would be good enough, not a guy like Moustakas who's coming out of High School.

by NYYLover1000 on Aug 15, 2007 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

That story was completely overblown by the
media. And to be honest it wasn't that big of a deal.

Nevertheless, I really hope for the Royals to sign Moustakas. That's really unfortunate. Nevertheless If I was the Royals I would of drafted Matt Wieters and take my chances of giving him a MLB deal.

by NYYLover1000 on Aug 15, 2007 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

Response
The basic flaw with MLB's thinking is that they're far, far too preoccupied with appealing to fans in NY, Boston, Chicago, etc. They haven't figured out yet that fans in those cities are ALWAYS going to be diehard, dedicated fans. The popularity of baseball in such cities says very little about the overall health of the game.

Now take a look at the popularity of baseball in places like KC, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay . . .well, we have quite a different story. And we know the sports fans are out there in these places, it's just that baseball has basically totally ignored them.

The overall well-being of the game is not going to be won in New York or Boston. It's going to be won in the small markets.

by mrkupe on Aug 15, 2007 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

+1
Completely agree.

Look, I'm scared for baseball in 5 or 6 years if something isn't done about the draft. Not only will the big market teams have a huge payroll, they will have the best players in the draft as well.

by doublestix on Aug 15, 2007 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Response
This probably seems like common sense, but I'll post this anyways just so that there's no argument based on conjecture. I've actually done some research into the relationship between the DRays' on-field success and their home attendance . . .the fans are ready and willing to come as soon as they get a product worth paying for. The Tampa/St. Pete's market is pretty fair weather as far as the fanbase goes relative to most other places - this goes for all sports there and not just baseball - but getting this team competitive over the long-term is going to pay off big time.

by mrkupe on Aug 15, 2007 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

LOL
-Infinity

People have been sounding the death knell for baseball since the turn of the 20th Century.  I wish I had a nickel for every prophet of doom  ...  Mahalo

Matt

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

by WayneCampbell05 on Aug 15, 2007 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm more worried about 20-30 years
Or even longer than that. Basically, the time when my generation is controlling most of the spending in this country. People my age (early-mid 20s) just prefer football or basketball (hell, or NASCAR or whatever) to baseball. And I'm firmly of the opinion that the NFL and NBA have a better competitive structure that doesn't give teams with more financial leverage an on-the-field advantage. So basically, I'm worried that people my age are looking at MLB, seeing an inferior product, and will spend their money/time on other things.

And then there's the fact that MLB seems to make short-sited decisions that benefit ratings/attendance in the short term but dilute their product in the long-term. Stuff like inter-league play is a perfect example; ratings for inter-league games are basically similar to intra-league games. The All-Star game is another example. Bud's thought process must have been something like, "OH NOS!!1 I'm taking heat because of a completely freak occurance that has occured ONCE in the history of the AS-game (or however often; the point is "rarely")! Better do something drastic like determining home-field advantage for the LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIP in an exhibition! That seems like it'll get people to stop complaining about me!" So now we've got this stupid "now it counts" BS where AS-game managers use their pitchers just like they were before so it really did nothing to address the problem. Ugg.

So now that I've turned this completely into a rant, I'll just say that I think baseball currently offers an inferior product in basically every aspect besides the game itself.

by mraver on Aug 15, 2007 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

No
I was listening to ESPN Radio a few days ago and there were saying how bad Basketball has gotten since Jordan left with fans getting beaten up, referees cheating, etc. Baseball kicks the crap out of Basketball in all forms (ratings, marketing, ticket sales, revenue, etc.). I'm 25 and that may just be your perception but you're very wrong. Basketball is quickly going to the way of the NHL. The NFL is king right now but the NBA is not even close to as profitable and desirable as the MLB.

by Havok1517 on Aug 15, 2007 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

world series ratings
disagree
Todd Frazier for President

by FrazierFan on Aug 15, 2007 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

Query
What do you mean that MLB is preoccupied with placating us Cubs' fans?

Also, maybe the popularity of those three cities you mention (KC,Pittsburg,TB) has more to do with the horrific ownership than any MLB policy.  Mahalo

Matt

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

by WayneCampbell05 on Aug 15, 2007 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

+1
I'm very disappointed...

by Dfarth on Aug 15, 2007 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

there's always next June?
Royals could have two of the top five picks next year. I'm sure that's not much consolation to their fans right now, though.

by jeck on Aug 15, 2007 7:29 PM EDT reply actions  

According to everything I've read
The Royals have no leverage in the compensation pick next year (which will be pick 2A).  If they fail to sign that pick twice in a row, they lose that pick.  

In other words, they will have to overdraft a player at 2A to guarantee he signs.  If they don't, the player can just hold out for a huge contract and know that the Royals will be forced to give in.  It's a really crappy situation for Royals fans...

by Dfarth on Aug 15, 2007 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

The problem is...
not the money, it's the fact that Moustakas wants a ML deal.  All DM has to do is find two guys who don't want a ML contract or someone who deserves a ML contract.

by adschofield on Aug 15, 2007 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

Or another option...
that I just thought is to draft Matt Wieters next year (assuming he doesn't sign, which it looks like he won't)...that eliminates leverage for both sides.

by adschofield on Aug 15, 2007 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

No Way
You think Wieters is going to turn down $5M (per reports) this season and then sign for slot next year?

by Dfarth on Aug 15, 2007 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Again...
DM has no problem signing over slot, he just doesn't want to give a HS player a ML Contract.  Also, reports have said that Wieters and the Orioles are about 5 million dollars apart concerning the bonus.

by adschofield on Aug 15, 2007 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

what
I'm talking about how the Royals will have no leverage next year.  They will get absolutely no compensation if they do not sign whoever ends up being pick 2A next year.  That means there is no way they can pick a top talent with pick 2A- because the player's agent can make a huge demand and the Royals will be left with the choice of 1 paying the huge demand or 2 losing the draft pick.  

I agree that they shouldn't make a stupid deal with Moustakas...I just think they they should have known better when they drafted him 2nd overall...

by Dfarth on Aug 15, 2007 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yea...
I think they'll be much more comfortable giving a guy like Justin Smoak or Brian Matusz a major league contract, however.

The second pick will probably be a bit of an overdraft, however. Which is fine, it will still be an excellent prospect.

by doublestix on Aug 15, 2007 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah and then they won't sign them either
David Glass is an idiot, one of the worst owners in pro sports behind the Bidwells, Nuttings, and the Ford family.

by Bravesin07 on Aug 15, 2007 7:33 PM EDT reply actions  

Royals' fault: - and other FO's stupidity as well
For turning down Vitters because they wanted a guy they could sign, then not signing him.  The #2 overall pick.  Very, very sad day.

Even more so, why the hell is David Glass listening to Bud Selig at all?  Rank stupidity, letting teams like the Tigers, Yankees, and Red Sox run roughshod over the slotting system while you hold the line and cost your team a LOT of money down the line, for the sake of what amounts to a pittance now.

It's total Game Theory.  When a system is broken and a minority of the players start taking advantage of a loophole to post huge gains, a loophole that has only minor consequences, the rest of the players must follow suit or be left behind.  That this is in particular a system that affords the most benefit to those most behind, and that the players taking advantage of the loophole are those most ahead, makes this even more glaring.  The fact that most teams are playing the drafting game so incredibly sub-optimally is a sign of the rank stupidity among front offices.

</rant>

by abbreviatedman on Aug 15, 2007 7:52 PM EDT reply actions  

Vitters
The Royals never wanted Vitters...Moustakas was their guy from about April to the day of the draft, but they didn't tell the media because of posturing.  Again, the sticking point is not the bonus money, the Royals are fine with giving him the money, it's the fact that Boras wants a ML deal...so Glass really isn't listening to Selig at all.

by adschofield on Aug 15, 2007 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

Exactly
This argument that the Royals aren't willing to spend money is ridiculious. In '05 they gave Gordon a $4 million signing bonus... who happened to be a much better prospect at that time than Moustakas is. In '06 they gave Hochevar a $3.5 million signing bonus and a major league contract. They just raised their payroll up to $67 million. The issue is the fact that the Royals find it way too risky to give a high school player a major league contract... and nearly $7 million. Who's to say they didn't throw out a $4 - $5 million signing bonus towards Moustakas? Which should be enough to sign the kid. Instead, Boras knows that he could probably get another team to sign Moustakas for about $7 million... so they choose to wait.

by Angels and Demons on Aug 15, 2007 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

I agree with most of the things you said that said
if that was the case then Take Matt Wieters who was a better talent than Moustakas and was coming out of college. If they did that then they wouldn't be so shy of giving out MLB contracts. Again I agree that it was to risky to give out MLB contract to HS players.

Nevertheless, it would have been a little bit easier to give out a MLB contract to a polish college player who has a ton of ability and more than Moustakas. That way, if you drafted wieters, the Royals organization wouldn't really thought twice to give out a MLB contract. Hey the royals was willing to give out the big bucks, but they shot them selves in the foot in picking the wrong player.

by NYYLover1000 on Aug 15, 2007 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Thanks for the correction.
My rant on the other 25 or so stupid teams stands.

As to Moustakas, it's still the Royals fault for passing up better talents (if not in everybody's eyes, obviously, but at least similar talents) for one they thought they could sign, but not doing the research necessary to see if they actually would want to sign him for what he was asking.  I actually understand and kind of agree with the notion that you don't give a high school player a ML contract.  Although, at this point, it might be better to bite the bullet and sign him, rather than take the 3rd overall pick next year with no leverage.  Also, you know that ownership won't just add the money you would have spent on Moose to next year's draft budget.

But the point is, you don't spend the #2 overall pick on a high school position player asking for a ML contract and then not sign him because he's a high school position player asking for a ML contract.  Or, apparently, you do.

by abbreviatedman on Aug 15, 2007 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re:
"But the point is, you don't spend the #2 overall pick on a high school position player asking for a ML contract and then not sign him because he's a high school position player asking for a ML contract.  Or, apparently, you do."

This is the truth.  

by Dfarth on Aug 15, 2007 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

I see..
your point, but before the draft all signs pointed to the fact that Moustakas didn't want a ML contract and just wanted a bonus around 3-4 million dollars

by adschofield on Aug 15, 2007 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

What?
Do you really believe Moustakas told the Royals beforehand that he wanted an MLB deal, and they took him knowing they wouldn't give him that?  I think that's total BS.

by Bowser on Aug 15, 2007 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

All players...
pretty much tell teams what they are looking for, that's why some great players fall really, really far.

by adschofield on Aug 15, 2007 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

And again
Do you really believe the Royals took Moustakas knowing that he wanted an MLB deal, and they knew they would not give him one?  

by Bowser on Aug 15, 2007 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Lack of leverage
Draft a college senior.  Problem solved.

by BlueEyesAustin on Aug 15, 2007 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

just so you know
in a draft-analysis context it's very confusing to suddenly start referring to the clubs as "the players"

i mean i get what you're saying but it took a second

by wily mo on Aug 15, 2007 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

I realized that halfway through.
Would've gone back and changed it, but dinner was steaming on my plate and my wife was steaming next to it.

by abbreviatedman on Aug 15, 2007 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

+1
And he has next to nothing to gain.  Best case scenario: He moves up one slot in the draft, which is very unlikely.

by adschofield on Aug 15, 2007 8:03 PM EDT reply actions  

Good point
I have no problem with Boras trying to get his clients the most he can but he is messing with kids lives here.  To be honest, Moustakas shouldn't even be allowed to go to school.  It's BS they call it an agent an advisor until he signs so he can keep his eligibility.  Hopefully the Royals can sign a guy like Smoak with 2A next year and forget all about this.

by jfish26101 on Aug 15, 2007 8:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

Or
Boras is able to push him down to the Detroit Tigers in the 2010 draft.

by Bowser on Aug 15, 2007 8:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not Over Yet
I don't think KC fans should give up just yet.  I read the link and it only says that Boras sent a message to the KC Star that says something along the lines of "as I understand it, Mike is going to college."  You have to remember that this is Boras and that move puts pressure on KC to meet his demands...

It's certainly not looking good but I still think there's a chance this gets done...

by Dfarth on Aug 15, 2007 8:08 PM EDT reply actions  

+1
That's what I said in the original post

by adschofield on Aug 15, 2007 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

And that's
...just the worst case scenario.  It could be that he's just underwhelming in his performance.  Then maybe he's a sixth round pick the next time he's eligible.

If I'm the Royals, I make sure I take him the next time around and thoroughly enjoy offering him a $75,000 contract (or whatever 6th round slot is).

by knightgalt on Aug 15, 2007 8:10 PM EDT reply actions  

Wieters in 08
I think it would be hilarious if KC drafts Wieters at 2A next year and gives a big FU to Boras.  As a college senior Wieters would basically have to take any reasonable deal a team offered.  

by Bowser on Aug 15, 2007 8:19 PM EDT reply actions  

Like Hochevar?
There's no way Wieters turns down the above slot deal that has been offered to him this year and takes less money next year...

by Dfarth on Aug 15, 2007 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Huh?
Hochevar signed the 2nd time around.  He spurned the Dodgers as a junior.  

This would be similar to the LaPorta situation.

by Bowser on Aug 15, 2007 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

True
but again, I think that was a different situation.  Hochevar fell originally because of signability concerns (that proved to be correct), and he was offered just shy of $3 mill.  He made more as the #1 overall pick, but it was more in line with what he should have made.  

by Bowser on Aug 15, 2007 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Wieters..
probably won't sign.  Boras and Baltimore are 5 mill. apart concerning the signing bonus.

Link:http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-wieters0814,0,6316833.story

If the Royals, draft Wieters, Wieters loses his leverage, and will have to take any offer above slot money.

by adschofield on Aug 15, 2007 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

I Disagree
He can still sit out a year and play Indy ball like Hochevar.  Boras wouldn't turn down a big contract and then sign for slot or slightly above the next season.  His job is to get the most money for his clients and he is very good at doing that.  Yall are crazy if you think that Wieters turns down $5M+ this year and then signs for slot at 2A next year (which should be around $3M)...  

by Dfarth on Aug 15, 2007 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not necessarily slot
but I don't think he is guaranteed this big payday next year because he passed on Baltimore's offer.  

What does he do if a team gives him a firm offer next year at slot or slightly above?  Turn it down, play another year of indy ball, and cross his fingers for the next season?  That's quickly going into Matt Harrignton territory.

by Bowser on Aug 15, 2007 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

Another Reason
He would also lose 2 years of developmental time.  He would be 23 years old by the time that Draft Day 2009 rolls around.  Figure two years at the bare minimum to get to the Majors and then 6 more years to burn his arbitration years, that would make him 31 and on the downside of his career before he could get to free agency.  Mahalo

Matt

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

by WayneCampbell05 on Aug 15, 2007 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well
That Indy league thing isn't working out that well for Hoch at the moment....

by BlueEyesAustin on Aug 15, 2007 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

He Got the Money
It doesn't matter if he's hit a bump in AAA...

by Dfarth on Aug 15, 2007 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

Looks like a deal might still be possible
Jack Harry, from one of the local tv stations was reporting the Royals were offering $3.5 million and Boras has been asking for $5 million. If this is true then a deal still might be possible. I would think probably likely...

by Angels and Demons on Aug 15, 2007 8:31 PM EDT reply actions  

And BA
Says the Royals offered 4 and Boras wants 7...and no word on the contract issue.

by BlueEyesAustin on Aug 15, 2007 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

Why is Moustakas
... responsible for small market teams.  If they can't afford to play ... maybe they shouldn't exist.  Anyway, I can't blame the guy for wanting to stay in sunny southern california (in his hometown, no less) than try to work his way the the paradise that is Kansas City.

We act as if it the teams right to have these kids play for them.  I grew up in southern california too, I would hate to have to live in KC.  Obviously he's doing it for the money to a large (if not the entire) extent.

How about rather than bemoaning a franchise that shouldn't exist we congradulate the University of Southern California for putting together the best collection of amateur athletic talent in the country?

As a socal guy, and of greek descent, Im stoked that Moustakas is staying with his roots while also making some green.  He shouldn't have to apologize for that.

by sanchez101 on Aug 15, 2007 9:15 PM EDT reply actions  

Sure
Maybe the Royals shouldn't exist.  Hell, let's get rid of all small-market teams that can't keep up with the mega-markets.  In fact, why don't we get rid of everyone except teams that can routinely churn out $100MM+ payrolls year in and year out.  

I'm sure ESPN would drool over the thought of showing a NYY-Boston game 50+ times a year.  

by Bowser on Aug 15, 2007 9:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

don't they already
show them 50+?
Curtis Granderson fan

by jrose643 on Aug 15, 2007 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

LOL
I hear Reggie Bush has a nice condo available if Moose wants it.

by Bowser on Aug 15, 2007 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

I Think It's Funny
That he said Moustakas was going to stay near home while also making some green.  I thought college athletes were amateurs.  Maybe USC has decided to stop hiding their cheating...

by Dfarth on Aug 15, 2007 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

Also Posted on the Wieters Threat...
...but making players declare for the draft would end things like this, wouldn't it?  Either you're in the draft or going to school if you're Moustakas.  No more holding the franchise hostage (because, no, there's no way the Royals knew he'd demand a major league deal beforehand), or the city's fans.  

He wants to play pro ball, he declares, gets selected wherever, and goes and plays.  He wants to go to college and be Greek (which is relevant, apparently), he doesn't declare.  End of story, end of entitlement, end of Boras elevating greed to an art form in baseball.  (For the amateurs, anyway.  A-Rod's another story.)

by brawnyhombre on Aug 15, 2007 11:18 PM EDT reply actions  

Problem is...
MLB wants the best players in the big markets, that's why they'll never change the system.

by niespodj on Aug 15, 2007 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

so like
Spending millions on Matt Stairs and Reggie Sanders and Scott Elarton is cool, but spending money to get impact talent is IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS SO UNFAIR.  Right.

by limozeen on Aug 16, 2007 12:04 AM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Minor League Ball: Where the Future of Baseball is Discussed

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Catch-22: Is Travis D’Arnaud the ‘Next One?’
Bullpen_banter_logo_small
Bullpen Banter's Top 100 Prospects: 100-51
Hal2_small
AA and MLB hitting production by AA batters between 1995-2002

Recent FanPosts

Small
Community Pitching Prospect #62
Small
Community Positional Prospect #65
Small
Overall Community Prospect #93
Small
New Cubs Draft Strategy/Player Development
Small
Stride Length, release point, and Drag
Small
Community Pitching Prospect #61 RUNOFF
Small
Community Positional Prospect #64
Small
5 yrold Dynasty Fantasy League team openings
Ryan_pic_small
Super Sickels Keeper League has one more opening
Small
Overall Community Prospect #92

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

March2111_084_small John Sickels

Jeri_avatar_small mssickels

Authors

Headshot_small dougdirt

Mblpglogo_small Matt Garrioch

Small SethSpeaks

Osnation2_small Jordan Tuwiner

Img00006-20101226-1702_small Ray Guilfoyle

Lax-xl_small Marisa Ingemi

Small Marc Hulet

Moderators

Small mrkupe


Site Meter