The Royals are on the cusp of mathematical elimination from the postseason, causing many fans to shift their focus to the club’s chances in 2017. With that in mind, a few notes on the reigning World Series champions…
- MLB.com’s Jeffrey Flanagan discusses a number of 2017 roster decisions in his latest Royals Inbox, including multiple questions on Cheslor Cuthbert‘s role next season. The 23-year-old has had a solid rookie season at the plate in Kansas City, slashing .277/.322/.415 with 11 homers. However, with Mike Moustakas set to return to the club next year after having suffered a torn ACL earlier this summer, Cuthbert won’t be getting everyday at-bats at the hot corner. Flanagan also writes that Cuthbert isn’t likely to move to second base, either, as the Royals plan to have internal options Raul Mondesi, Christian Colon and Whit Merrifield compete for that gig. Defensive prowess will be the most heavily weighted factor in that position battle next spring, per Flanagan, who writes that each of the three candidates he listed is considered to be a better defensive option than Cuthbert. All of that, it seems, would leave Cuthbert without a regular role on next year’s Royals, so perhaps his ultimate fate will be returning to Triple-A to try to hone his skills at the hot corner (Flanagan points out that Cuthbert has had issues consistently making accurate throws and issues charging balls as well). Moustakas, after all, is a free agent following the 2017 campaign.
- Also included in Flanagan’s column is a look at next year’s right field mix, where both Billy Burns and Jarrod Dyson will be considerations. The Royals, he notes, love speed and contact-oriented players, and both Dyson and Burns fit that mold well. While there’s the potential for some redundancy there, Dyson doesn’t figure to be overly expensive from an arbitration standpoint this winter, and Burns won’t be arbitration eligible this offseason. As such, it doesn’t seem like the Royals need to make a “one or the other” type of decision, and Kansas City could also simply carry both on the roster, as the switch-hitting Burns would give manager Ned Yost some matchup options.
- Yahoo’s Jeff Passan writes in his latest 10 Degrees column that the Royals will “almost certainly” make a qualifying offer to Kendrys Morales on the heels of his impressive summer power surge. I examined the possibility of that scenario last week when looking at Morales’ free-agent stock, noting that it’s a risk for the Royals, considering Morales’ history with the qualifying offer system. After being burned by a QO on the heels of a nice season with the Mariners in 2013, a now-older Morales strikes me as a likely candidate to accept. The downside of Morales on a one-year deal worth about $16.7MM isn’t crippling, but it’s an overpay in a market that has become less rewarding for players with such pronounced defensive limitations. Passan, too, notes that Morales may accept a QO if tendered such an offer by Kansas City.
- While the Royals are restricted on the international market this year thanks to last summer’s spending spree, assistant GM Rene Francisco tells Rustin Dodd of the Kansas City Star that he’s still happy with the talent the Royals have been able to bring in for relatively marginal bonus figures. “I think we did good with what we got,” the AGM said. “We gave $50,000 here, $100,000, $75,000, $150,000 — we just kind of spread out the money.” And, as Dodd points out, the Royals have a history of landing premium talent for rather unremarkable bonuses. Salvador Perez, Yordano Ventura and Kelvin Herrera were each unearthed by the Royals’ international scouting department and signed for bonuses south of $100K. Kansas City will also be barred from signing players for more than $300K in the 2017-18 signing period.
At first I was saying how the qualifying offer system needs to change, but then I flipped and started thinking that agents and their clients need to better examine their market. Everyone was expecting players to decline a few years ago, but now that a couple players have in the past year, they are starting to realize no team wants to give a first rounder for a fringe player who might not be worth a pick to teams
Then that depresses the market. The whole point behind free agency is to give players the best opportunity to choose where they would like to play and obtain a multi year contract. I’m not saying that the whole system needs to change but it should be fixed. Teams already get about 11 years of team control for high school kids and 10 for college kids if they are placed on the 40 man. They also can’t obtain free agency until 6 season in the minors if left there. So they could essentially string out a player who is afraid that he won’t get a job if he denies the QO. I like the idea of a 3-4 year commitment upon extending the QO. Such a system excludes teams from just QOing players to obtain picks and it also give players a somewhat long term commitment. I get the need for obtaining compensation, but I’m also pro players especially those that’ll never get that one huge contract.
Can someone make less in arbitration than they did the year before? Is that even possible or do they have to make the same/more than they did the year before
If they’re injured I believed they can make no less than 20%. I’m not exactly positive.
They almost always get salary raises in arb