The other writers at Royals Review already Jacob wrote about Royals Rally<\/a>. Tickets went on sale yesterday.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Connor wrote about an upcoming stadium deadline<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Nothing new at The Star today. Nor at MLB.com.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n There\u2019s a decent bit of chatter ahead of the winter meetings that start, let\u2019s say\u2026 Sunday (yup, that\u2019s it<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n At ESPN, Bradford Doolittle checks in on every team<\/a> ahead of the meetings:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Kansas City Royals<\/strong><\/p>\n Win average: 84.5 (Last: 82.5, 14th) So far:<\/strong> The Royals re-signed catcher Salvador Perez, tendered a contract to and re-signed infielder Jonathan India, and traded for outfielder Kameron Misner and starter Mason Black.<\/p>\n To do:<\/strong> The Royals\u2019 new deal with Perez probably means the future Hall of Fame catcher (yes, he is) will probably finish his career with the club, as it should be. The decision to bring back India on a one-year, $8 million deal to avoid arbitration was a head-scratcher. It\u2019s not so much that India can\u2019t recover his past value, but given the Royals\u2019 roster and apparent reluctance to stretch payroll much further, it seems like that money could have been better stashed for an outfield upgrade that the team desperately needs. The Royals can hope Jac Caglianone makes a leap after his first look at the majors, but they need more than that. Rumors suggest a swap of a starting pitcher to address the need. That can work, but it also depends on which starter you\u2019re talking about. But the Royals can\u2019t come up empty in this pursuit again, after a season when the need was so apparent in nearly every game they played.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n Aside: This is why you should call BS on every writer who wants to pretend that payroll and market size don\u2019t matter in MLB. If, say, the Mets or Dodgers signed a 2B that was projected to be worth 1.0 to 1.5 WAR for $8M – that would basically be market value or even a slight bargain. But since the Royals are doing it, they can wrap it in \u201cwell, the Royals don\u2019t have much money so they need to be smarter about it\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n MLB.com does similar, asking a \u201cburning question<\/a>\u201d for each team:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Royals: When will they make a move for a bat?<\/strong><\/p>\n The Royals haven\u2019t been quiet about their desire for a bat or two that can impact the middle of the order or provide reliable depth at the bottom. An outfielder or versatile utilityman are the likeliest paths for an addition. What has been quiet, though, is actual action. They added outfielder Kameron Misner after the Rays designated him for assignment, but that was purely a depth move. The Royals have pitching depth to trade for a bat if they can find a match with another team. Sometimes those conversations move slowly — or they can pick up at a moment\u2019s notice.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n Lots of little rumors abound.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The Royals are mentioned in this Darragh McDonald MLBTR post<\/a> about the Rangers:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n There\u2019s also the trade market. Both aforementioned columns speculate on various possible trading partners. Grant specifically calls out Carter Jensen of the Royals as a player the Rangers have long been interested in. Jensen is one of the top Royals\u2019 prospects and one of the top catching prospects in the game. He hit .290\/.377\/.501 in the minors this year and then .300\/.391\/.550 in a 20-game major league debut. He just turned 22 in July.<\/p>\n The Royals probably don\u2019t have a ton of interest in trading him, though there\u2019s at least a case for them to consider it. They have Salvador Perez signed through 2027. He has been spending more time as a first baseman and designated hitter in recent years but has still been catching about 90 games per year for Kansas City. Jensen could share the catching duties with Perez but the Royals also have another strong catching prospect lurking. Blake Mitchell was the eighth overall pick in 2023 and will likely start 2026 at Double-A.<\/p>\n Since the Royals need upgrades and don\u2019t appear to have a ton of spending power, perhaps they would consider trading from a position of relative depth, but that doesn\u2019t mean they\u2019d give Jensen away. Grant speculates that the Rangers might have to give up a prospect of similar value such as Sebastian Walcott.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n Jeremy has the most commented (non-Rumblings) article this week<\/a> when talking about the rumor that the Red Sox were wanting to trade for Cole Ragans. Over at Talk Sox, Alex Mayes proposed some trades from a Boston perspective<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Well, that may be out the window with the Red Sox trading for another pitcher last night. They sent Jhostynxon Garcia and others<\/a> to the Pirates for Johan Oviedo. O\u2026 kay. That is indeed a trade of baseball players. I\u2019m not even sure what to make of it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n How about I subtly transition (were you one of those kids who got \u201cgood transitions\u201d on their papers in school?) that to the active Royals blog community.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Over at Royals Keep, Philip Ruo also writes about the Red Sox and Royals matching up on potential trades<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Also at Royals Keep, Kevin O\u2019Brien writes about why the Royals \/shouldn\u2019t\/ sign Cody Bellinger<\/a>:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The main problem with Bellinger is two-fold: his pop is questionable, and his bat speed isn\u2019t encouraging.<\/p>\n In terms of the former, it doesn\u2019t seem likely that Bellinger\u2019s profile would fare well in Kauffman Stadium\u2019s spacious dimensions. According to Statcast\u2019s<\/a> xHR by Park measurement, only 22 of his 29 home runs would\u2019ve been gone at the K last season. Over his career, only 158 of Bellinger\u2019s 235 home runs would be out at Kaffuman. The only park with lower xHR was Oracle Park in San Francisco (138)\u2026<\/p>\n The batted-ball percentiles and bat speed don\u2019t paint a pretty picture for Bellinger\u2019s outlook in Kansas City either. Even though he nearly hit 30 home runs, he seemed to outperform his exit velocity, barrel, and hard-hit metrics. His average exit velocity ranked in the 28th percentile, his barrel rate ranked in the 35th percentile, and his hard-hit rate ranked in the 28th percentile. His hard-hit percentage rolling chart also showcased him regressing heavily in the second half after a bit of a spike in the beginning of June.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n David Lesky ($) also writes about how \u201cThe Royals Are Named as a Fit For a Lot of Guys<\/a>\u201d:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n I don\u2019t know that I\u2019ve ever written something like this that\u2019s totally in response to something written elsewhere. But I saw some buzz around it and thought it might be an interesting exercise. Yesterday, Jeff Passan and Kiley McDaniel teamed up to release a ranking of players who could be traded and who might be good fits for them. I\u2019ll let you read their article, but I found it interesting that 13 hitters were listed and nine were connected with the Royals. The Royals have not been shy about the fact that they need a bat or three.<\/p>\n Last offseason, the need was there as well (though somehow it wasn\u2019t as large of a need as it is now) and they chose to be responsible in passing on both trades and free agent contracts that could have worked out poorly. I understood the approach, appreciated the approach, and I disagreed with that approach. Part of why I disagreed is that if it didn\u2019t work, they wouldn\u2019t have that luxury again. Well, here we are.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n Here\u2019s a pair of entries from Caleb Moody at KOK:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n At the end of the first half and the end of the year, I like to do a recap of all of our OT topics for the year. For instance, here is the one<\/a> from the first half of this year. Here are<\/a> the couple<\/a> from last year, and so on.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n But, SI, it\u2019s only December 5th? Yeah, about that. This is my last Rumblings for the year. I\u2019m going to be packing next Thursday and then out of town for a couple of weeks over the holidays. My next Rumblings won\u2019t be until January 16th, you lucky ducks.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n So let\u2019s take a look back at what we\u2019ve covered in the second half:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 2025.07.11 Tri-Cornered Baseball Game<\/a><\/strong> (\u201cCity\u201d – SimCity)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 2025.07.18 Final Fantasy VI<\/a><\/strong> (\u201cOpera Scene\u201d – FF6)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 2025.07.25 Asia Baseball Midseason Notes<\/a><\/strong> (\u201cBattle at the Big Bridge\u201d – FF5)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 2025.08.01 Sci-Fi Movie reviews<\/a><\/strong> (\u201cGet Lucky\u201d – Daft Punk from Piece by Piece<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 2025.08.08 New WordPress SBNation<\/a><\/strong> (\u201cBattle 2\u201d – FF4)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 2025.08.15 Birthday Celebrations<\/a><\/strong> (\u201cLavos\u2019 Theme\u201d – Chrono Trigger)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 2025.08.22 Godzilla movie reviews<\/a><\/strong> (\u201cGodzilla\u201d main theme)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 2025.08.29 Weird Al album rankings<\/a><\/strong> (\u201cAmish Paradise\u201d – Weird Al)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 2025.09.05 Foundation, Part I<\/a><\/strong> (\u201cNew Frontier 1\u201d – Scribblenauts)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 2025.09.12 Foundation, Part II<\/a><\/strong> (\u201cMain Theme\u201d – Xenoblade Chronicles)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 2025.09.19 Foundation, Part III<\/a><\/strong> (\u201cEmptiness and\u201d – The World Ends With You)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 2025.09.26 Box Score Oddities<\/a><\/strong> (\u201cAerith\u2019s Theme\u201d – FF7)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 2025.10.03 90s Movies with Needless Sequels<\/a><\/strong> (\u201cEnd Titles\u201d – David Arnold from Independence Day<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 2025.10.24 Halloween Rant(s)<\/a><\/strong> (\u201cBlack Mist\u201d – The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 2025.10.31 Abandoned Royals Review bookmarks<\/a><\/strong> (\u201cThriller\u201d – Michael Jackson, Guitar Hero 3 version)<\/p>\n<\/div>\nstole<\/s> wrote about the \u201cbig\u201d stories from yesterday.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
In the playoffs: 45.7% (Last: 11.3%)
Champions: 2.6% (Last: 0.2%)<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n