Royals Sign Willie Bloomquist

whoopdeefreakindoo.....once again, the Royals sign players very similar to players they already have....see German, Esteban; Callaspo, Alberto;

If he's a starter that's bad but he's great as a utility infielder off the bench. He had a .377 OBP last year. I fail to see how this is a bad signing.

Jesus.

Ahhh, so it is K.C. that wins the Willie Bloomquist sweepstakes.

Why the heck is everyone griping about this move? We gave a decent utility infielder 3 million bucks to be an insurance policy incase Callaspo flames out and/or gets another DUI or assault charge.

It beats brining Joe McEwing or Jason Smith back...

Callaspo is so far superior to Bloomquist at 2b, and the Royals seem to have plenty in the outfield so the Bloomquist "versatility" to play both MI and OF seems irrelevant here.

Another odd signing by a team I always want to find a way to root for but somehow foils all endeavor to do so.

"Jesus.

Posted by: chiefRoyal1 | January 09, 2009 at 12:43 PM "

You said it man...nobody f*#ks with the Jesus!

"

Callaspo is so far superior to Bloomquist at 2b, and the Royals seem to have plenty in the outfield so the Bloomquist "versatility" to play both MI and OF seems irrelevant here.

Another odd signing by a team I always want to find a way to root for but somehow foils all endeavor to do so."

I totally agree.

I just don't see how this deal helps them, considering that Bloomquist's .377 OBP seems to be a fluke.

The guy had never posted an OBP over .321 in his previous five seasons, during which he had between 171 and 253 at bats each of those seasons. As you can see as well, Bloomquist never has had any power either.

Bloomquist has a career OPS+ of 74, isn't a great defensive player, and will bring little else to the team.

I don't get this deal at all.

as tvators said, he's got ZERO pop. I think it took willie about half the season before he registered an XBH. something ridiculous like that. they couldn't wait to get rid of him over in seattle.

I, too, thought dayton moore would be great, but it really hasn't seemed like that at all. jacobs, guillen, bloomquist, etc.

Proof positive Dayton Moore is smoking some serious bud this offseason.

"I, too, thought dayton moore would be great, but it really hasn't seemed like that at all. jacobs, guillen, bloomquist, etc."

first off you're an idiot for judging Jacobs and Bloomquist when they have yet to step up to the plate once in a Royals uniform.

Second, we got exactly what we expected from Guillen last season, 20 HR's 90 RBI's and absolutely nothing else (except maybe his arm strength in RF).

Third, Dayton's questionable moves have been far outweighted by his good ones, (i.e. drafting Joakim Soria in the rule five, the Gil Meche signing, sending Burgos to the Mets for Bannister, how he handled Zack Greinke, the Kyle Davies trade is starting to yield results, trading for Ramon Ramirez and then flipped him to Boston for Coco Crisp, etc. etc.)

*Proof positive Dayton Moore is smoking some serious bud this offseason.

Posted by: PL | January 09, 2009 at 01:23 PM

Funny. The first thing I did when I read this was reached for my bong. I needed help absorbing the news.

RoyalBlue, there's no need for invective. Was I calling you names? Did I even call Dayton Moore sometime?

More importantly, I am judging Jacobs based on his career stats. There's no reason that he would become George Brett once he puts on the Royals uniform, and same thing with Bloomquist. Perhaps you believe in the magical powers that the uniform imparts, but until you do the research and see who you're talking about, you'll be left behind. Jacobs has a CAREER .318 OBP, last year was under .300. He's 28, what makes you think that will change? Bloomquist has a CAREER .646 OPS. THAT'S WORSE THAN ADAM EVERETT!!! And Bloomquist is not even a defensive wizard.

Guillen is a waste of money - if the Royals put that money towards scouting, international expansion, etc. they would get much more for their buck. 20 HRs and a bunch of doubles is great, 23 walks to 100 strikeouts is NOT.

Also - many predicted Brian Bannister would regress after his stellar first year, and lo and behold, 5.76 ERA his second year. Yeah, that's great. Don't get me wrong - I'm a huge fan - he seems thoughtful and knowledgeable about the game - but he's not a good pitcher.

I'm calling you an idiot right now for believing in this magical power of the Royals uniform. Sure, some of his moves have been OK. The majority have not.

Kswissreject:

The Royals are better this year than they were last year. And as an organization they're better than they were in their fluke year of 2003. That's all a reasonable Royals fan could ask for.

I too am baffled by this signing - another backup for a team full of backups...but nonetheless despite the negativity of people the organization is moving in the right direction.

We can always hope that Seitzer with his .370 career OBP can help instill some discipline in these batters...and by the way 28 is considered MLB prime. If Jacobs had been on the Royals last year and did what he did for the Marlins we would have been over .500.

It's a small step but it's all I could expect at this point. Will Guillen and Jacobs combine for 40+ homers and 200 RBIs this year? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's the first time in a long time we have even had players capable of that.

Not 100% up to date with what the Royals have for reserves, but this guy Bloomquist is the ultimate supersub. he plays 7 positions, SS,2B and OF positions well, hits some and runs very well so what's not to like about 2 years and 3 million for him? He would have looked NICE in Boston, without the hapless/clueless Julio Lugo and have a feeling that is only reason he ended up elsewhere. The guy is just that super tool, exactly along the lines of Alfredo Amezaga of Florida and those types are rare. Moore should be given a heads up for this nice pickup.

I love all the "disappointment" over Dayton Moore by some of the posters on here....

Royals record PRE-Dayton Moore

2005 = 56-106

Royals record POST-Dayton Moore (came mid-season 2006)

2006 = 62-100 (6 game improvement over previous year)

2007 = 69-93 (7 game improvement over previous year)

2008 = 75-87 (6 game improvement over previous year)

Yeah...that crazy Dayton Moore doesn't know what the hell he's doing....

hmm 4 years and they have a shot at the playoffs if they keeping improving by 6-7 games each year.

My argument is that the Royals justified their ticket price increase for 2009 by saying they wanted to increase player payroll. Willie Bloomquist is what they were talking about for my $25 Outfield Reserved seat? These same seats go for $17 in San Francisco. Even the Yankees in their new stadium have $12 bleacher seats.

"isn't a great defensive player"

Alright, I can see why people are upset about this. He is not too good. but I have always like Willie. He gives his all, and he is not as bad as everyone says..

but this statement.. Not a great defender... you obviosly don't know what you are talking about, he is actaully a very fine defender.

They had increased payroll long before Willie Bloomquist. He is actually a cheap signing.

The big names that have added to our payroll this offseason has been Mike Jacobs and Coco Crisp.

And here's a newsflash for you. If you don't want to pay $25 for the outfield seats, there are still tickets that only cost $7, $9, $13, $16, and $18. Don't try to act like they've totally priced you out of going to the ballpark.

Most teams don't seemingly improve by 6-7 wins pers season. They make greater jumps than that or they hover.

I would be flat pissed if I lived in Jackon County after paying higher taxes for their stadium renovations.

Milwaukee's average ticket price-20.98

Minnesota-While maybe decently priced now, are expecting to have an average ticket of $33 when their new stadium opens in 2010.

St. Louis-$29.79

The Royals are still easily one of the cheapest teams to go see play.

Willie Freaking Bloomquist isn't the reason your ticket prices are going up. Heck, even Jose Guillen isn't the reason.

The reason is because they can. Many fans will come out to the ballpark just for the sole reason of seeing the renovated ballpark. It's not unlike Milwaukee when they opened up Miller Park, or Minnesota jacking up their prices when they move to their new stadium. They do it cause they know people will pay those prices. Many teams bark and howl about how raising prices will allow them to increase payroll, but it's all hogwash. If they hiked up prices and enough people decided not to go, they'd lose money, not gain money!

Bingo.....it'a the new ballparks.

I'm a baseball fan. I go to watch the game and take my 5 year old son who doesn't get a discount.

A has to win at some point though. Washington only averaged about 20,000 in a brand new park in 2008. Pittsburgh has a hard time selling. Milwaukee only started to sell well last season.

My question. Why do tax payers continue to approve funding for these new parks when it is quite obvious that the teams can afford them on their own. The local economic benefit to the community is highly questionable. Baseball Prospectus reported that it was hardly measurable.

They should have scrapped Kauffman Stadium and built a new park over in Johnson County where all of their yuppy fans live. At least it would cut down on the 435 traffic going to the game during rush hour.

Oh, and again you were wrong about Pittsburgh. In 2000, their last year in Three Rivers stadium, they averaged 21,591. In 2001, after moving into PNC Park, they averaged 30,834, an increase of 43%!

Now, after the first year, year and a half or so, theirs and the Brewers attendance did go down, but it had little to do with ticket prices. After the newness of the stadium wears off, the only other thing a team can do to bring fans in is WIN GAMES. As the Brewers have shown in the last few years, winning games draws fans just as much as a new stadium. Just in the last 2 years, when they have become playoff contenders, their average attendance has gone up from 28,835 in 2006 to 37,882 in 2008, an increase of 31%. I think it's safe to say they haven't lowered prices in those 2 years either.

Point is, right now, the Royals can get away with higher ticket prices cause many fans will pay it to come see the revamped ballpark. But, if they expect to continue to see that kind of revenue after next season, they need to put a winning product on the field. I think they are getting closer and closer to being able to do that.

I don't think a lame argument is made by saying that the taxpayers and fans are being screwed by the new stadiums.

MLB wants to move up to a higher class of patronage. That's fine. I just like baseball.

The seats just aren't worth what they are charging. Those outfield seats are $15-$17 tops right now and they want $25.

Why force people out of those seats and into lower priced seats in the upper deck? Seems that there is a strong likelihood that the Royals AREN'T maximizing their revenue. Would they rather have me at $17 in the outfield or $10 in the UD?

Well the Royals were playing the fans for fools then, although I've never once heard that argument myself and I follow the team quite closely.

And my numbers are accurate. Here's the links.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/brewatte.shtml

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/pitatte.shtml

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/montattn.shtml

I use the baseball almanac for my research. Not just my own conjecture.

And if those seats aren't worth what they are charging, then they'll be empty this year and that will force the Royals to drop prices the next year. But something tells me they have done their research and are a little more informed than you and I are.

I sat at a Marlins with 5,000 boisterous South Florida fans. The stated attendance was 21,000. They didn't get that on the entire homestand.

Yes, I'm aware of ticket price increases. My sole argument is that the outfield reserve tickets are over-priced. San Francisco, one of the most expensive places in America, sells these seats for $17. They seemingly have greater justification for more expensive tickets.

It's more than my own conjecture. You should know that teams report widely different figures.

Sure...tickets sold. But it should tell you something about the status of the team when there are less than 50% of the sold tickets actually in the seats.

You keep insulting me, and trying to stretch my argument out to something I'm not claiming.

In what way are those seats worth $25 Kansas City dollars? That was a 56% price increase.....ludicrous. And for a team that has spent 20 years in a rebuilding mode.

I'm guesing teams would eb VERY alarmed to have actual attendance drop TOO far below paid attendance. That is a lot of lost revenue in the form of parking, concessions....etc. It also is a forboding sign for future ticket sales.

I'm guesing that the Royals are trying to make some cash off of the people that like to move in from the outfield seats. KC has some wide open seating. Typically everything from the bases out and the upper rows of the infield boxes can be had after the game starts.

It is rather ballsy that the Royals now ask their fans to have faith in them after all this time. I'm not sure how much ticket revenue will actually help team payroll, or for that matter latin american scouting. Not when you got out and blow $11 mill on scrap like this offseason. Not when you go and blow 2 years on noted on base machine Willie Bloomquist.

It'dbe nice if they atleast would give my 5 year old son a ticket discount.