Royalties & Cardinalate

At the Star Web site is a poll regarding the stadium issue. Go there and vote. Right, of 578 votes, 45% think the Royals were wrong versus 39% who think they did the right thing. You can't also vote 'Don't care' (1%) and 'It doesn't matter - put a winning team on the field' (14%). It's a small, skewed sample size, but I don't see any overwhelming support as Glass claimed.

What exactly were the Royals thinking when they announced yesterday that they had no interest in moving downtown? As I see it, there are several possibilities.

First and most likely is that the Glass family saw this route as the most feasible way to tap into the public coffers. If the team had thrown its weight behind the downtown ballpark plan, there would be no chance for a quarter cent sales tax to pass. Indeed, it wouldn't even have gone up to for a vote. That's $80 million to go by the wayside. By denouncing the ballpark idea, the tax has a chance to pass. Not a good one, mind you, but a chance.

If they get that $80 million, then they'll slap a coat of paint on the K and maybe put in a new Jumbotron. They won't be able to introduce any new structure into the stadium that will have any meaningful impact on revenue. Indeed, if you read into what the Glass family says, that ship has sailed. Hopes for reaching what they consider to be economic equality with the larger market teams rests on more comprehensive revenue sharing in Major League baseball. Good luck with that one, fellas.

Now, what happens if the sales tax fails? That's a real possibility. Voters around these parts, when it comes to their local sports teams, are notably fickle. If the teams do well, fans will fashion a Tower of Babel for them. If the teams suck, you couldn't get public funds to buy a plunger for an overflowing toilet at Arrowhead Stadium. This year's Royals aren't going to be very good. By August, the losing will have become tiresome and training camp will have started for the Chiefs. Yessir, there is a real possibility the August referendum will fail.

What then? If the county can't upgrade the stadiums by a minimal amount by 2007, then both the Royals and the Chiefs can leave town. Both franchises say they won't do that, but who knows? A defaulting lease agreement would also enable MLB to contract the Royals, if they so desired. Dan Glass "guaranteed" (not sure if he put the Justin Wilson inflection on that) contraction won't happen. That's fine. But the Glass's also have habit of making bold statements that come back to bite them in the ass. They mean well, though, of that I am pretty sure.

Maybe if the tax referendum fails, we can resume talks about a downtown stadium and do it soon. If the Royals didn't like what they were hearing about the current movement, then we can come up with something better. At first, I felt sort of wiped out by yesterday's surprise announcement. But, after looking into it, all we have to do is vote down the referendum. Then we can resume dialogue about downtown.

One thing that both David and Dan Glass said repeatedly yesterday was that they were responding to the overwhelming will of their fan base. Horseshit. This a spin job, through and through. Did they conduct any meaningful study to determine what the fans want? I doubt it.

Besides, it doesn't matter what the fans want. People are resistant to change, especially around these parts. If you ask them whether they'd want something new or for things to stay the same, they are always going to opt for the status quo, unless the issue being discussed is about something that is completely and obviously screwed up. Of course, at that point, you are being reactive instead of proactive. (That about sums up Kansas City, eh?) But the Royals can't afford to think short term. They can't afford to pander to stagnant fan opinion. The Glass family needs to act in the best interests of the franchise and, if their apparent sense of civil responsiblity is sincere, in the best interests of Kansas City.

This is not about Kauffman Stadium, which I love and have fond memories there that date back a quarter of a century. This isn't even about the Royals and what the Glass family wants. And it sure the hell isn't about what the cake-eaters in Johnson County want. This is about downtown and building an urban core that makes sense and that we can be proud of.

There are a lot of good things happening downtown but there is still an awful lot of blight. I read recently that 30,000 new residents moved into the downtown area in the last year or two. That's awesome. By having a real heart in our city, we can build back up the distinctiveness and character that defines so much of our past. We can establish a thriving community.

I honestly feel that, in Kansas City, we are on our way to building the kind of city I want to live in. As a Royals fan, I don't want them to be left out. Maybe they can scratch by at the Truman Sports Comlex for another five years. Or ten years. But the momentum for a downtown renaissance is aflow right now. In ten years, it might be too late. Or, worst case scenario, the Royals won't exist at all.

The hand of opportunity was being extended to the Royals by downtown leadership. Inexplicably, they have slapped it away.

Right on the front of today's Kansas City Star was Bob Dutton's piece about the Royal's 2005 payroll. Apparently, the club is going to enter the season with a payroll about $9-$10 million lighter than last season.

My suspicion is that too many fans are going to read this and say something like, "The Royals can't get any good players because that tightwad Glass won't spend any money." Unfortunately, the headline on the story will probably fuel that perception: A cash slash for Royals.

I certainly subscribe to the don't-defecate-where-you-imbibe theory so I'm not going to crack on the Star, which I know from a very good vantage point works extremely hard to cover the Royals and does an excellent job of it. However, in this instance, I wish we had gone with a little different head.

My purpose here is not to criticize my employer. I just want to make sure that anybody who sees this entry actually goes and reads text of the story. As usual, Dutton has written a thorough and balanced piece. It's undeniably true that the Royals will have less payroll. It's also true that Glass has said that they expected to keep the payroll at the same level. So you have a discrepancy here and a story that needed to be written.

But before you freak out and start sputtering some of Bud Selig's party lines, you should be aware that the Royals are doing exactly the right thing.

Last year's payroll was about $47.6 million and, after the season, Glass said that the club roughly broke even. So, fine. Let's call that our over/under for payroll committment. Attendance certainly has an effect on that number but attendance last year was up early and waned because of all the losing. Based on the disappointment of last season, it is difficult to forecast an attendance leap for 2005 so the break-even point should be about the same.

It is a pillar of my baseball economic philosophy that an owner not be expected to lose money over a period of, say, five years. However, I don't feel like owners should enter in the sport to make a larege profit, either (I'm talking to you, Mr. Pohlad.) It's a public trust. So whatever the natural break even point is in payroll - that is what they should be expected to spend (on average). I don't think we can ask for more.

It's not that I give a damn about whether some rich guy loses money or not. I just feel that it's best for the overall economic health of the game for teams to commit payroll in this fashion. For all the whining about the Yankees payroll, they aren't losing money. (They are spending inefficiently but that is another story.) I don't know if the Orioles or the Mets are going to lose money but they certainly have the sort of economic model that is dangerous for the game in the long run. That's why I hate them so.

Now, the Royals payroll was as high as it was last year because of the presence of veteran players like Matt Stairs, Benito Santiago, Carlos Beltran, Joe Randa and Juan Gonzalez. Management thought the roster could win the division and added payroll to make that push. When that plan flopped like a mating salmon, the next step was to shed those players who aren't going to be around the next time you can realistically hope to contend. You don't need to be squandering the money on their contracts and you don't need to be blocking the development of your homegrown talent.

Because of this necessary shedding of fat, payroll will drop. You're playing younger players and younger players don't cost as much. (I would have trimmed more than the Royals did, using free talent to fill the left field spot and taking a pass on Jose Lima.) As these younger players grow, they become more expensive. Your payroll rises.

In theory, you put the surplus from the years your payroll was below break even and put it into keeping the talent core intact. As the talent core matures you, hopefully, win more games. Attendance will increase. You have a little more revenue to commit to players. When you're at the point of contention, then you might even spend over the break-even point to patch the last few holes that will put the team over the top.

That's the way it goes, folks. It's called the winning cycle and the Royals are stuck on the development phase of that process. To spend back up to the break-even level, the Royals would have been blowing money on players whom they don't need and who would block the development of talent already in-house.

It's not a payroll slash. David Glass isn't 'going cheap'. The team is doing the right thing. Give it up for them. Really.

All this said, they still need a right fielder.

I'm partial to the name Hunter. Hunter S. Thompson is a writer who I greatly admire. In fact, my dog - Hunter - was named after him.

The Royals today signed Brian L. Hunter to a minor-league contract. That's the fast Brian Hunter, not the chunky one who played for the Braves. The chunky one could hit a little. This one can't. Never could. Last year, he was cut by the Redbirds at the end of spring training and sulked like a petulant child. He has a history of doing little annoying things like misjudging easy flyballs and not scoring from second when he should. In 65 minor-league at-bats last season, he did not get an extra base hit and was successful on just one of three stolen base attempts.

The idea of signing a righty-hitting centerfielder who could occasionally spell David DeJesus against lefties and serve as a corner outfield defensive replacement is a good one. Signing Brian L. Hunter isn't. Sigh....

My latest post over at the ESPN fantasy site is up. It's about Zack Greinke's little gopher problem. D-Kaegel quoted Greinke as saying "I was getting sick to my stomach watching myself throw those garbage pitches." He had been watching video of himself. I hope he didn't watch any of the other pitchers. He probably would have to be hospitalized.

They're doing a pretty cool thing at ESPN.com, at least from my standpoint. On the Royals' clubhouse page, they are including a link and the first paragraph to my postings, which before were confined exclusively to the fantasy site.

In other news, I continue to slog through my 2005 projections. Player by player. Team by team. I'm getting ready to start onthe Yankees - which explains why I'm writing this post instead.

Also, I met Bill James.