If the Royals could sign just one player, would you pick Alex Gordon or Ben Zobrist?
Royals general manager Dayton Moore faces some tough decisions about the 2016 roster.
Here’s a hypothetical question that Kansas City Star sports editor Jeff Rosen posed on Friday:
If you can sign only one: Gordon or Zobrist?
— Jeff Rosen (@jeff_rosen88) November 6, 2015The debate is purely hypothetical but seems to break along line of sentimentality vs. practicality. Also, terms of contract would play role.
— Jeff Rosen (@jeff_rosen88) November 6, 2015Here is a sample of the answers:
@jeff_rosen88 Gordon: younger, more valuable. Leaving an OF devoid of productive corners is scary. They have Infante, if healthy (I know).
— Reese (@Deviator77) November 6, 2015@jeff_rosen88 I'll take Zobrist, let Gordon go get his big contract ($) somewhere else, he deserves to get PAID, he owes us nothing
— IgnaKCio (@juas003) November 6, 2015@jeff_rosen88 well that's just mean, Jeff.
— DaynaOG (@DaynaOG) November 6, 2015@jeff_rosen88 they are both on the downward slope based on age. Zobrist seems to be more favorable based on switch hitting. #2cents
— Brandon H. (@Gunner_KC) November 6, 2015@jeff_rosen88 Gordon; love Zobrist but he's not a plus defender anywhere on the field at this point, and at his age won't be again
— Chance Gardener (@ChanceBGardener) November 6, 2015@jeff_rosen88 Neither. Multi year, multi million $ contracts for mid-30's players is a bad plan for teams in the Royals position
— Sports n Balls (@hushpook) November 6, 2015@jeff_rosen88 In a vacuum: Gordon. But the real answer depends on the money and length of contract.
— Dave Shaw (@dave_shaw) November 6, 2015@jeff_rosen88 Probably Zobrist. Can plug him into the OF and 2B. Also is lower price meaning more $ for either free-agents or re-signs.
— Jon Schlitt (@jschlitt) November 6, 2015Now it’s your turn to vote. We’ll leave the parameters as this: You can spend as much and for as many years as you’d like, but you can only sign one.
Pete Grathoff: 816-234-4330, @pgrathoff