Royals ‘season of evaluation’ suggests it’s time for something to give: their wallet
Routinely enough, alas, the Royals on Thursday at Kauffman Stadium tumbled to 42 games under .500 (28-70) with a flat 3-0 loss to Detroit. Yet another of those numbing nothing-to-see-here days — their 12th shutout of the season, in fact — accelerated their trajectory toward the most dismal season in club history.
With that record at a measly 106 losses in 2005, they are careening towards 116 defeats. Heck, it’s not such a stretch to think they’re in contention to break the record for the most losses in an MLB season (120 by the ‘62 Mets) since the advent of the 162-game schedule in 1961.
So nearly 100 games into this so-called “season of evaluation,” a smart euphemism for please bear with us because we’re a ways off, sad to say the logical appraisal is that there is scant evidence this will be much different next season.
Never mind that we’ve seen snippets and snapshots. And parts and potential pieces emerge, such as Bobby Witt Jr., Maikel Garcia and the injured Kris Bubic and Vinnie Pasquantino.
And, yes, a number of others have flashed for promising but fleeting moments — a dynamic that reflects the fact that the group is built around many players in the same fickle development phase all at once.
Those might add up to some vague sense of hope. But that isn’t the same as reason for conviction ... or even faith.
So even if there are a few other substantial breakthroughs by the end of the season, and we don’t rule that out at all, the Royals still likely are going to be stuck grasping at what this core really constitutes.
Something’s got to give. And here it is:
Assuming their evaluation is an audit of all phases of the operation, from scouting to drafting to development, the Royals should consider and engage a philosophical shift from the top down.
With the parent club stranded where it is and the supply chain still sparse and a nucleus standing to benefit from stronger support around it, the Royals need to spend in the offseason to (relatively) ensure steps back towards competitiveness, build a more secure bridge to the future and make a good-faith gesture to fans.
A few such moves also would shift the context, and thus the pressure on, the young players the Royals identify as their future.
Now, even if they could with their limited revenues in this market, the point here isn’t that they embark on some reckless spending spree.
Such a splurge assures nothing, as the New York Mets and their MLB-leading $348 million-plus payroll and losing record (45-51 as of Thursday) are illustrating anew.
On the flip side, four of the six teams below the Royals in payroll (24th at just over $93 million) are in playoff contention. Two of those (Baltimore and Tampa Bay) possess the second- and third-best records in baseball as of Thursday because they have better frameworks in place.
Sputtering as they are, the Royals need to do something significant to revive the roster as they presumably are making such developmental advances.
At this stage, they’ve got to prime the pump, to mix metaphors, to at least tread water.
Pony up for a 1-2-type starter, a credible late-innings man in a reconstructed bullpen and one proven big bat and, presto, this takes on a different complexion.
Yep, this is a complete oversimplification of the point. That’s all entirely easier said than done, for reasons from persuading stars to play for a struggling franchise to identifying the realities of these idealist scenarios to being fiscally responsible even while wanting to improve.
Also: It’s always easy to spend other people’s money.
But this also is about something more: the spirit of an implied contract with the fans that has some serious win-win for the Royals in embracing the thinking and executing it.
Most immediately and directly, it would be a bold message to the faithful rightly exasperated by a franchise that by season’s end will have averaged well over 100 losses over the last five full seasons (excluding the pandemic-shortened 2020 season).
More generally and even generationally, it would be a fine statement to make toward one argument among those taking issue with the club’s intention to build a $2 billion ballpark district in either downtown Kansas City or North Kansas City.
Never mind that the points are so disparate as to be apples and oranges. A common complaint about the prospect of the move, which will seek either an extension of the current Jackson County sales tax or a new tax in Clay County among city, state or county expenses, essentially goes like this:
Why should I want to help a team that won’t help itself?
More specifically, some conflate what they see on the field with the expense of the ballpark district and thus suggest they’d be against voting for taxes that support such a move.
“Why does a perpetual last-place team deserve a new $2 billion stadium?” came the first question for Sherman at the first stop on the Royals’ listening tour about the project. “If you won’t invest in the team, why should we invest in you?”
With the matter likely being put on a ballot next year, spending meaningfully in the offseason at least would speak to that base even as it puts what will remain a young and largely contract-controlled team in a better position to perform.
When Sherman answered the aforementioned question that December night at the Plexpod Westport Commons, he initially pointed to the tens of millions the Royals had spent bringing the likes of Andrew Benintendi, Carlos Santana and Michael A. Taylor to Kansas City.
“That really didn’t work out for us, right? … The objective was to accelerate our growth and our development,” he said. “(But) the young core of this team wasn’t ready, and the pitching didn’t develop.”
Under new management and a new manager, he said then, the plan was to develop this young team, “and when the time is right we’re going to invest very, very significantly to win on the field.”
A year later, the Royals are on pace to lose nearly 20 more games than they did in last season’s 65-97 finish. And it might be said that the core of this team still isn’t ready and certainly that not enough pitching has yet developed.
So no matter how much building and change is going on behind the scenes or through the system, something that in itself is hard to measure from the outside looking in, the status quo is intolerable.
Sherman that night likely meant that he’d be ready to spend “very, very significantly” when the Royals are on the cusp of contention ... not in a situation like this.
But the regression makes this offseason the right time to demonstrate what that commitment looks like and at least create tangible traction in that direction.
This story was originally published July 21, 2023 at 6:30 AM with the headline "Royals ‘season of evaluation’ suggests it’s time for something to give: their wallet."