PDA

View Full Version : Royals Call Up Hosmer


DirtySox
05-05-2011, 06:49 PM
Kila was optioned to Omaha. I would post a link but I'm on my phone.

Pretty excited to see him play. Considered an elite prospect who should hit immediately. He was absolutely beasting in AAA.

soltrain21
05-05-2011, 07:02 PM
Kila was optioned to Omaha. I would post a link but I'm on my phone.

Pretty excited to see him play. Considered an elite prospect who should hit immediately. He was absolutely beasting in AAA.

Elite prospects. Those must be fun to have.

KMcMahon817
05-05-2011, 07:18 PM
Elite prospects. Those must be fun to have.

The Royals have had 3 winning seasons since 1990. In those three seasons, the Royals were a COMBINED 10 games over .500. That must be fun to watch. :rolleyes:

Excited to see what Hosmer can do. Royals fans had to be pretty disapointed with with Kila. His minor league numbers are quite good. I suspect Moustakas will join him before the end June.

johnnyg83
05-05-2011, 07:22 PM
The future is bright. Prospects are prospects but the city is pretty excited.

DirtySox
05-05-2011, 07:26 PM
The future is bright. Prospects are prospects but the city is pretty excited.

The system has been real fun to follow. I might be spending my Sox money on another trip to KC this summer.

soltrain21
05-05-2011, 07:36 PM
The Royals have had 3 winning seasons since 1990. In those three seasons, the Royals were a COMBINED 10 games over .500. That must be fun to watch. :rolleyes:

Excited to see what Hosmer can do. Royals fans had to be pretty disapointed with with Kila. His minor league numbers are quite good. I suspect Moustakas will join him before the end June.

I wasn't aware that playing bad baseball and having elite prospects go exclusively hand in hand. Plenty of good teams call up prospects that are pegged as "elite."

I wasn't talking specifically about the Royals. Just the anticipation of an elite prospect being called up is exciting.

So :rolleyes: yourself.

Moses_Scurry
05-05-2011, 07:42 PM
I have to say that if the Sox can't turn it around this season, I'm pulling for the Royals. I hate the twins and Indians, and I don't really like the tigers much either.

KMcMahon817
05-05-2011, 07:48 PM
I wasn't aware that playing bad baseball and having elite prospects go exclusively hand in hand. Plenty of good teams call up prospects that are pegged as "elite."

I wasn't talking specifically about the Royals. Just the anticipation of an elite prospect being called up is exciting.

So :rolleyes: yourself.

Well, they kind of do. Homser was selected 3rd overall in the 2008 draft. The Royals other top prospect, Mike Moustakas, was selected 3rd overall in 2007. You don't get those draft picks playing good baseball. The way some posters here talk about 2007, in which the SOX got the 8th overall, two straight years of being able to pick 3rd overall is some VERY BAD baseball. Therefore, they do go hand in hand.

pythons007
05-06-2011, 11:41 AM
Second coming of Alex Gordon. I think they might have rushed him up to the bigs. He's only 21 and hasn't had a lot of at bats.

Look at Beckham....

johnnyg83
05-06-2011, 02:26 PM
Second coming of Alex Gordon. I think they might have rushed him up to the bigs. He's only 21 and hasn't had a lot of at bats.

Look at Beckham....

Comparing any of those guys to each other is specious.

Hosmer's had double the time in the minors before the Bigs than either Gordon (both Alex and Beckham) and he's hitting .400+ ... should they wait till he's hitting .500? And they have a need at 1B.

They have a great hitting team, so he's protected as he can be. Alex Gordon was surrounded by an anemic offense when he debuted.

And Alex Gordon is playing great now. I hope Beckham finds his swing like Alex did.

DirtySox
05-06-2011, 06:43 PM
Buster_ESPN Buster Olney
Hosmer impact:Royals sold over 4,600 tickets during the business day,which does not count whatever walk-up they are getting before the game.
1 minute ago Favorite Retweet Reply

soltrain21
05-06-2011, 06:46 PM
Buster_ESPN Buster Olney
Hosmer impact:Royals sold over 4,600 tickets during the business day,which does not count whatever walk-up they are getting before the game.
1 minute ago Favorite Retweet Reply

Royal Fever. Catch it.

JermaineDye05
05-06-2011, 07:31 PM
When's Moustakas coming? He's rotting on my bench.

soxnut1018
05-06-2011, 07:38 PM
I hate that I'm envious of the Royals.

DirtySox
05-06-2011, 07:40 PM
When's Moustakas coming? He's rotting on my bench.

He has started somewhat slowly in AAA. Not awful, but nowhere close to Hosmer's performance. If Moose starts raking and KC is still in contention, he might get there in the latter part of the season. I suspect Duffy or Montgomery will be the next prospect in line for promotion.

Edit: Walks in his first AB. Not the easiest thing to do against a Gio curveball.

Marqhead
05-06-2011, 07:48 PM
I hate that I'm envious of the Royals.

What have the Royals done to deserve your envy? All they've done is draft in the top 10 for the last 10 years. They suck now, they'll probably still suck in the future just with younger, better prospects. When those prospects amount to anything they'll be traded or sold away on the FA market.

There's a CHANCE that this is the beginning of a new era for the Royals, but I'm not buying into it until I see them develop the talent, keep it and spend in free agency.

DirtySox
05-06-2011, 08:10 PM
What have the Royals done to deserve your envy? All they've done is draft in the top 10 for the last 10 years. They suck now, they'll probably still suck in the future just with younger, better prospects. When those prospects amount to anything they'll be traded or sold away on the FA market.

There's a CHANCE that this is the beginning of a new era for the Royals, but I'm not buying into it until I see them develop the talent, keep it and spend in free agency.

I'm envious of their farm system. Not that I would have wanted to endure all those losing years myself, but it's damn good. Even if you take out Moose & Hosmer, they have incredible depth. It of course remains to be seen how Dayton will assemble an accompanying cast, but I don't think the Royals teams of coming years should be completely dismissed.

sox1970
05-06-2011, 08:13 PM
Hosmer already has two more walks than Brent Morel.

tstrike2000
05-06-2011, 08:42 PM
Hosmer already has two more walks than Brent Morel.

:(:

KMcMahon817
05-11-2011, 08:14 PM
Hosmer just hit his first ML home run at Yankee Stadium. No doubter into the upper deck in RF. His parents were there to see it, and it was actually a pretty cool moment. You can see the highlight on the MLB gamecast linked below.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2011_05_11_kcamlb_nyamlb_1&mode=gameday

johnnyg83
05-12-2011, 10:20 PM
And his 2nd tonight ... Hosmermania is running wild in KC! First Royals series win in NY since 1999.

Gavin
05-12-2011, 10:29 PM
Hosmer just hit his first ML home run at Yankee Stadium. No doubter into the upper deck in RF. His parents were there to see it, and it was actually a pretty cool moment. You can see the highlight on the MLB gamecast linked below.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2011_05_11_kcamlb_nyamlb_1&mode=gameday

Interesting to hear an announcer NOT LOSING HIS ****ING **** when a rookie call-up hits his first career homer.

doublem23
05-12-2011, 10:35 PM
What have the Royals done to deserve your envy? All they've done is draft in the top 10 for the last 10 years. They suck now, they'll probably still suck in the future just with younger, better prospects. When those prospects amount to anything they'll be traded or sold away on the FA market.

There's a CHANCE that this is the beginning of a new era for the Royals, but I'm not buying into it until I see them develop the talent, keep it and spend in free agency.

Thank you.

We were disappointed in last year's Sox showing... 88 wins. The last time the Royals had that kind of a season, I was 6 years old.

johnnyg83
05-13-2011, 07:22 AM
Thank you.

We were disappointed in last year's Sox showing... 88 wins. The last time the Royals had that kind of a season, I was 6 years old.

That's a coping technique -- using past results to justify some sort of current superiority. I think you'd find a very small crowd who'd say that the Sox future is brighter than the Royals, that means very little of course until the seasons are played, but to dismiss them because they sucked in the past doesn't really wash.

Marqhead
05-13-2011, 09:03 AM
That's a coping technique -- using past results to justify some sort of current superiority. I think you'd find a very small crowd who'd say that the Sox future is brighter than the Royals, that means very little of course until the seasons are played, but to dismiss them because they sucked in the past doesn't really wash.

I'm dismissing them because of their past organizational philosophy, which has yet to be proven has changed, as well as the past failure of their top prospects.

doublem23
05-13-2011, 09:21 AM
That's a coping technique -- using past results to justify some sort of current superiority. I think you'd find a very small crowd who'd say that the Sox future is brighter than the Royals, that means very little of course until the seasons are played, but to dismiss them because they sucked in the past doesn't really wash.

That would actually have some relevance in this discussion if the Sox and Royals had sort of equal pasts (you have to remember, I'm 27, so I don't remember the old glory Royals days of the 70s). So, sure, am I a little jealous of all the talent they have in the minors? Absolutely. Do I wish I had spent my life as a Royals fan instead of a Sox fan? Absolutely not.

I'm dismissing them because of their past organizational philosophy, which has yet to be proven has changed, as well as the past failure of their top prospects.

Yeah, let's go with the baby steps here. Just like it's prudent to say, "I'm not going to get convinced of this Sox turnaround until they're at .500 or whatever benchmark you want to use", I'm not exactly going to shake in my boots over the Royals until, I don't know, they prove they can win 80 games per year consistently. Maybe that's too high... 75?

BringHomeDaBacon
05-13-2011, 09:38 AM
It's good for baseball and interesting from a fan's perspective when teams like the Royals can compete.

If I was an impartial observer, I would be pulling for them in the AL Central. Since I am not, I hope they finish a distant second.

johnnyg83
05-13-2011, 09:58 AM
That would actually have some relevance in this discussion if the Sox and Royals had sort of equal pasts (you have to remember, I'm 27, so I don't remember the old glory Royals days of the 70s). So, sure, am I a little jealous of all the talent they have in the minors? Absolutely. Do I wish I had spent my life as a Royals fan instead of a Sox fan? Absolutely not.

The poster said he was envious of the Royals. He didn't say "historically I'd rather be a Royals fan than a White Sox fan." That's the relevance to this conversation.

But, if your point is history, I'll entertain it. And a quick glance tells me that the Royals have been to the postseason 7 times in 41 seasons, the Sox 9 in 109. And since their first year, they've been the WS twice as much as we have.

Saying the Royals will be bad because they've been bad is like saying the Rays will always be bad because before 2008 they were. Teams/seasons change year to year. Past performance is no indication of future results. That's why they play the game.

doublem23
05-13-2011, 10:47 AM
The poster said he was envious of the Royals. He didn't say "historically I'd rather be a Royals fan than a White Sox fan." That's the relevance to this conversation.

But, if your point is history, I'll entertain it. And a quick glance tells me that the Royals have been to the postseason 7 times in 41 seasons, the Sox 9 in 109. And since their first year, they've been the WS twice as much as we have.

Saying the Royals will be bad because they've been bad is like saying the Rays will always be bad because before 2008 they were. Teams/seasons change year to year. Past performance is no indication of future results. That's why they play the game.

OK, but there's still nothing to be envious about the Royals, all they have is the unfulfilled promise of tomorrow, which is great, I guess, but I really don't care about it. I don't get jacked up when the Knights or Barons are good.

As for the history thing, again, relating to me, I was born in 1983, I don't really remember anything baseball-wise before 1990, so I don't give a **** about anything that happened before then. I don't care the Sox went to the World Series in 1959. I don't care the Royals won the World Series in 1985. It's all irrelevant to me.

Players change, but as long as the organization is the same old, inept and bumbling guys as before, I'm not holding my breath. Maybe these players will be too collectively good to screw up, I don't know. The Rays rise to prominence isn't quite the same thing here, their rise wasn't just about the players, it also coincides with the sale of the team from their original, inept owner to smart people who know what they're doing.

I'm just not buying this Kansas City thing until they actually, you know, do something.

johnnyg83
05-13-2011, 11:24 AM
I think I get what you're saying:

1) Nothing matters if it happened before I cared
2) Having a strong minor league system (many say the No. 1) is not something that matters (at least you and KW think alike)
3) Historical results are important, but only during the historical period I deem important

Saying you'll believe in a team after they've won something doesn't really mean anything. It just means you can read the results.

Marqhead
05-13-2011, 11:29 AM
I think I get where you're coming from, you're just ignoring everything we've said to replace it with your own generalizations.

The Royals have the best minor league system in the majors. GOOD FOR THEM. In the MLB, the only thing that really matters is major league results. I hope it leads to them being a competitive major league team, I'LL BELIEVE IT WHEN I SEE IT.

You can be as envious as you want of the Royal system and organizational position right now, I'll still take what the Sox have going for them 10 out of 10 times.

doublem23
05-13-2011, 11:40 AM
I think I get what you're saying:

1) Nothing matters if it happened before I cared
2) Having a strong minor league system (many say the No. 1) is not something that matters (at least you and KW think alike)
3) Historical results are important, but only during the historical period I deem important

Saying you'll believe in a team after they've won something doesn't really mean anything. It just means you can read the results.

Please please please please please please tell me why I should get all jacked up over baseball games that happened 10-20-30 years before I was born? I respect the good old days of Sox baseball, I wish I could have seen the Go-Go White Sox and Comiskey Park in its prime, but I don't go around wearing a "1917 World Champs" t-shirt. Same with the Royals, the only Royals I have known have been ABYSMALLY bad. Not just kind of bad. Horrible. All the time.

And if you want to believe past results don't mean everything and everyday is a new day and the 1st day of the rest of your life!!!!, good for you, but that's basically not true at all. Yes, I know the Rays got good employing the Royals strategy, be completely and embarrassingly awful for an extremely long period of time and hit a few HR in the Draft, but you're still completely overlooking the fact that they didn't get real good until they had a change in ownership and structure of the organization. Sure, they wore the same jerseys, but from top-down, the Rays rebuilt themselves. So pardon me if I don't exactly go goo-goo ga-ga crazy over this latest batch of amazing Royals prospects when the exact same people ran the last batch into the ground. Maybe these guys are the ones that will break that streak, I hope they do, I like when these small market teams make some noise, I'm just not holding my breath waiting for our new Kansas City overlords to rule the division.

The Royals have great prospects. Good for them, but the commodity that has generally proven to be the real difference maker in baseball, money, the Sox hold a gigantic advantage. So while it'd be nice to have their talent, again, I'm not exactly ready to start shaking in my boots. Oooo... Eric Hosmer hit a HR into that joke of a RF porch at Yankee Stadium, BETTER START MOLDING THAT BRONZE PLAQUE.

johnnyg83
05-13-2011, 11:58 AM
It's the way you say history doesn't matter and then you point to the history of the Royals being bad as proof of something. See the disconnect?

See how that would make a humble reader question your thought process? Maybe? No?

And just to be clear, you'd rather have our farm system than KC's, right?

Because if that's not true, it might put you in a spot where you'd have to ENVY them.

And if you think the Sox farm system is superior to the Royals, you don't know very much about baseball.

Marqhead
05-13-2011, 12:09 PM
It's the way you say history doesn't matter and then you point to the history of the Royals being bad as proof of something. See the disconnect?

See how that would make a humble reader question your thought process? Maybe? No?

I've been talking about recent history, things that happened decades before I was born are not relevant to today's Royals. Things that happened in the last 15 years? I'd like to think they are.


And just to be clear, you'd rather have our farm system than KC's, right?

Absolutely, and you'd rather have our ownership group than KC's, right?

Because if that's not true, it might put you in a spot where you'd have to ENVY them.

You can be as envious of KC's farm system as you want, I'm more concerned with the level of talent on the White Sox's major league squad.

And if you think the Sox farm system is superior to the Royals, you don't know very much about baseball.

Nowhere in any of mine or any other post have I seen anyone claim they'd rather have our farm system than KC's, so you're pulling this one out of thin air.

johnnyg83
05-13-2011, 12:18 PM
This is all in response to the guy who said, (paraphrase)"I don't envy anything of the Royals." Nothing else. I'm making no points about preference for ownership, history, or major league players. That all came after he tried to defend his positon on not ENVYing anything of the Royals. Anything.

To my point: If you don't ENVY their minor league system, then you don't know baseball or you define ENVY very differently than than I do.

Marqhead
05-13-2011, 12:27 PM
This is all in response to the guy who said, (paraphrase)"I don't envy anything of the Royals." Nothing else. I'm making no points about preference for ownership, history, or major league players. That all came after he tried to defend his positon on not ENVYing anything of the Royals. Anything.

To my point: If you don't ENVY their minor league system, then you don't know baseball or you define ENVY very differently than than I do.

Still looking for that post, because it doesn't exist.

canOcorn
05-13-2011, 12:31 PM
I'm dismissing them because of their past organizational philosophy, which has yet to be proven has changed, as well as the past failure of their top prospects.

You must have missed the memo that Allard Baird was fired after 2006. And was replaced with Dayton Moore, who has absolutely crushed the draft since he's taken over.

Marqhead
05-13-2011, 12:37 PM
You must have missed the memo that Allard Baird was fired after 2006. And was replaced with Dayton Moore, who has absolutely crushed the draft since he's taken over.

You must have missed the memo where the Royals haven't been competitive at the major league level since he's taken over, which is all anyone is talking about here.

I AM ENVIOUS OF THE ROYALS FARM SYSTEM, NOT THEIR ORGANIZATION. How hard is this to understand?

johnnyg83
05-13-2011, 12:38 PM
Still looking for that post, because it doesn't exist.

Is #16 not you asking what's enviable about the royals?

My apologies if I read too much into it.

Marqhead
05-13-2011, 12:47 PM
Is #16 not you asking what's enviable about the royals?

My apologies if I read too much into it.

But you say later that you'd take the Sox position 10/10 times -- that must mean you feel better about the Sox farm system than the Royals.

Or you're not counting farm systems?

Ok, if that's what you were basing this all on I can understand, but I have since clarified my position on the Royals farm system. My comment was what have the Royals organization -- as a whole -- done to deserve any of our envy? And the answer is nothing, they have yet to field a competitive team despite their high draft picks over the past decade. That may change, but I have little reason to believe it will based on the recent past.

My statement that I'd take the Sox position 10/10 times encompasses both teams farm systems, but that in no way means I feel better about the Sox farm system, I don't. I'd take the Sox position every single time because of the market they play in, they have an owner who is willing to spend money, and while the GM's transactions can be scrutinized and they haven't always worked there's a track record of spending prospects and money to acquire MLB ready talent rather than waiting years for minor league development to aid the team in areas of need.

Of course I want the Sox farm system to be better, but when you compare what each organization has as a whole there's no reason for anyone to pick the Royals over the Sox. None. While watching the development of a farm system and prospect is fun to watch, I feel there are some people on here who place way too much importance on this one area of the game.

The Royals are set up for success in the future, but it's going to take more than a loaded farm system to make that happen.

canOcorn
05-13-2011, 01:21 PM
I'm dismissing them because of their past organizational philosophy, which has yet to be proven has changed, as well as the past failure of their top prospects.

You must have missed the memo where the Royals haven't been competitive at the major league level since he's taken over, which is all anyone is talking about here.

I AM ENVIOUS OF THE ROYALS FARM SYSTEM, NOT THEIR ORGANIZATION. How hard is this to understand?

The man took over a desolate organization close to 5 years ago. You don't just turn around a 3 consecutive year 100 loss team in a couple of seasons. The philosophy has clearly changed and for the better. You say you don't care about the distant past so don't talk about the failure of top prospects that occurred before his watch. Moore learned from John Schuerholz, who helped build the Royals, in their heyday, before leaving and building the Braves.

I get it that you prefer our 25 man roster to theirs. So do I, but I fear that will not be the case in a couple of years.

Daver
05-13-2011, 02:55 PM
I get it that you prefer our 25 man roster to theirs. So do I, but I fear that will not be the case in a couple of years.

If, by chance, both the Sox and Royals are in contention at the AS break the Royals have a much better chance of improving their 25 man roster, where the Sox have almost nothing of value.

Marqhead
05-13-2011, 02:57 PM
The man took over a desolate organization close to 5 years ago. You don't just turn around a 3 consecutive year 100 loss team in a couple of seasons. The philosophy has clearly changed and for the better. You say you don't care about the distant past so don't talk about the failure of top prospects that occurred before his watch. Moore learned from John Schuerholz, who helped build the Royals, in their heyday, before leaving and building the Braves.

I get it that you prefer our 25 man roster to theirs. So do I, but I fear that will not be the case in a couple of years.

You're right, but it's 5 years and counting and I see very little to suggest a drastic rise in the standings over the course of the next 5 years. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I wouldn't bet my money on it.

And I'm absolutely with you on what we may find are the consequences of our lack of organizational depth, but luckily because of our market the White Sox should always be able to spend to acquire what the team can't develop. Whether they do that in the best way possible remains to be seen.