PDA

View Full Version : Scott Sullivan a ROYAL!


MHOUSE
12-09-2003, 03:28 PM
2 years with an option for a third. No dollar amounts posted. Per ESPN.com. Their bullpen just keeps getting better. If they can add an ok starter or two then they're looking good.

LINK (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1682296)

Rocky Soprano
12-09-2003, 03:44 PM
Good pick-up for the Royals. Good weapon to have in their bullpen.

Damn its looking worse and worse for the Sox!

MHOUSE
12-09-2003, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Rocky Soprano
Good pick-up for the Royals. Good weapon to have in their bullpen.

Damn its looking worse and worse for the Sox!

I want to know how much they gave him. If it's near or higher than what his option was then I'll be upset that we didn't make a bigger play for him.

Benitez, Nelson, and Rhodes still available!

Rocky Soprano
12-09-2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by MHOUSE
I want to know how much they gave him. If it's near or higher than what his option was then I'll be upset that we didn't make a bigger play for him.

Benitez, Nelson, and Rhodes still available!

I would be willing to bet that what they paid for him, would be out of our reach.

If its something fair then I agree, I would also be upset that the Sox didnt put up a fight to pick him up.

Wake the hell up Kenny!

Foulke You
12-09-2003, 04:48 PM
Ok, now THIS pisses me off. :angry: KC getting Stairs I can handle but this guy was swiped right from our own team and now is going to be going up against us 19 times a year. ARRRGH!!! What a crappy offseason so far. Anyone notice that we are losing free agents to cities like Anaheim and Kansas City??!!! Not exactly two large market booming cities with lots of TV revenue.

:reinsy
"Obviously, we never had a shot to sign Sullivan. How can we expect to compete against the large market teams like Kansas City?"

bobj4400
12-09-2003, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Rocky Soprano
I would be willing to bet that what they paid for him, would be out of our reach.

If its something fair then I agree, I would also be upset that the Sox didnt put up a fight to pick him up.

Wake the hell up Kenny!


It's the freakin' Royals!!! They are in podunk Kansas City. Until this team starts acting like they are based in the third largest city in this country, they shouldnt be allowed to attach Chicago to the name of the team. :angry:

Hangar18
12-09-2003, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by MHOUSE
2 years with an option for a third. No dollar amounts posted. Per ESPN.com. Their bullpen just keeps getting better. If they can add an ok starter or two then they're looking good.

LINK (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1682296)

Now this is Truly becoming an Unbelievable offseason.
Was the Sox Bullpen SO GOOD that we could just afford to STRENGTHEN our Rivals? I hope he does Excellent for them .....

FarmerAndy
12-09-2003, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
Ok,. Anyone notice that we are losing free agents to cities like Anaheim and Kansas City??!!! Not exactly two large market booming cities with lots of TV revenue.



I agree with your sentiments about Kansas City, but Anaheim is in the 2nd largest market.

hold2dibber
12-09-2003, 05:52 PM
This is truly upsetting news. The Royals are making some surprisingly astute moves. They still need starting pitching in a bad way, but they're definitely improving themselves this off season.

Foulke You
12-09-2003, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by FarmerAndy
I agree with your sentiments about Kansas City, but Anaheim is in the 2nd largest market.

According to the 2000 Census:

Anaheim, California: Population- 328,014

Kansas City, Misouri: Population- 441,545

Chicago, Illinois: Population- 2, 896, 016


I think that population stat qualifies the city of Anaheim as a small market. I am aware that Anaheim is within striking distance to LA but it is still not close enough to be considered part of LA. Most people in LA root for the Dodgers anyway. So at best, it is a comparable situation to the White Sox playing second fiddle to the Cubs. I stand by my small market statement.

MisterB
12-09-2003, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
According to the 2000 Census:

Anaheim, California: Population- 328,014

Kansas City, Misouri: Population- 441,545

Chicago, Illinois: Population- 2, 896, 016


I think that population stat qualifies the city of Anaheim as a small market. I am aware that Anaheim is within striking distance to LA but it is still not close enough to be considered part of LA. Most people in LA root for the Dodgers anyway. So at best, it is a comparable situation to the White Sox playing second fiddle to the Cubs. I stand by my small market statement.

And we all know every major league team draws their fans only from within the city limits of the city they play in.

Try this on for size:

Metropolitan Area Populations (1998)

1. New York City/Northern NJ/Long Island - 20 million
2. Los Angeles/Orange Co./San Bernardino - 15.8 million
3. Chicago/Gary/Kenosha - 8.8 million

jeremyb1
12-09-2003, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
Ok, now THIS pisses me off. :angry: KC getting Stairs I can handle but this guy was swiped right from our own team and now is going to be going up against us 19 times a year. ARRRGH!!! What a crappy offseason so far. Anyone notice that we are losing free agents to cities like Anaheim and Kansas City??!!! Not exactly two large market booming cities with lots of TV revenue

There's no reason to be upset KC took Sullivan from us. There's no way we could've had him for the same amount of money KC ended up signing him for. If we'd offered arbitration the least we could've paid him would've been over 2.5 million and he's not worth that much. I'm sure his agent didn't want to agree to less money on that because in the event we somehow did decide to offer arbitration, he would've been out of a lot of money.

If you want a reason to get upset, become upset that we apparently haven't even been in on the bidding at all for guys like Beck and Lightenberg.