John Sherman may want Royals run differently than how they’ve operated for past decade
The first offseason of the rest of the Royals’ existence is beginning, slowly, subtly, but that’s only if you stop at the surface. Look below, and you can feel the ground shift.
Baseball’s winter meetings concluded without the Royals making headlines. Stephen Strasburg signed for more money than any pitcher in history, at least for a few days, before Gerrit Cole got even more. The Royals have never been a factor for either player, and how could they be?
Together, those deals are worth more than half of what a group led by John Sherman just paid for the franchise.
Sherman’s transition to sports fame has been planned carefully. When Kansas City Star beat writer Lynn Worthy and I approached Sherman at the owners meetings in Texas last month, Sherman was gracious, polite and talked informally for a few minutes, but he made clear he would do no interviews.
He gave a brief statement at a news conference in Texas but waited until the Royals introduced him formally in Kansas City to speak publicly. The intention was deliberate. Sherman would wait in line, know his place and present an image of stability.
When he did speak further, he was well-prepared. He’d studied questions that might be asked and rehearsed the answers he wanted to give.
When the formal introduction came, Sherman complimented former owner David Glass and the Royals’ baseball operations team led by general manager Dayton Moore. He was a Royals fan, is the message intended, and he would continue to be one with more of a voice and the franchise’s ultimate power.
That’s a good story to tell, and it’s not untrue.
It’s just not the whole truth.
Changing structure
All changes in ownership come with changes in strategy and structure. That’s as true in sports as it is in business, and it would be true with the Royals even if Glass had given the team to his son Dan, the longtime club president.
The most obvious change for the Royals will be in structure. Baseball decisions had been streamlined in the old ownership. Moore was given a budget, and as long as he stayed inside of it he maintained autonomy.
He would run everything by Glass, but managerial changes were the only baseball decision the owner might veto. Moore even carried a strong track record in bumping up payroll and spending on amateur talent.
Until Sherman goes into more depth on his goals — and, much more importantly, until we have more of a track record to look at — it’s impossible to know how he’ll want the Royals to operate.
But we do have some clues, some of which are likely to be embraced by all, and others that could cause friction and will require a resetting of strategy.
Let’s start with the stuff that’s likely to be embraced.
Sherman held a minority stake in the Cleveland Indians for four years. During what is still his only public comment since taking over here, he was asked his biggest surprise about major-league ownership.
He talked about how interesting the business was, and specifically mentioned sports psychology. Somewhat privately, the Royals had been building a behavioral-science department for most of the last year.
Behavioral science had been discussed privately as an important new initiative from a baseball-operations standpoint, and — again — while that was not untrue, it also was not the whole truth. We can now see it came directly from Sherman and his experience with the Indians. The reason the Royals wouldn’t talk specifically about it wasn’t that the program was new; it was to keep the sale secret.
The Royals probably should have been doing more with behavioral science already. They (like the Indians) aren’t going to be in on negotiations for top free agents, and their payroll isn’t going to approach those of some of their rivals.
Investment in behavioral science is an attempt to find an edge to help players become the most productive version of themselves and help the front office spend smarter. It also happens to combine two of Moore’s greatest passions — baseball and development.
But other changes might not be as smooth. In his introductory news conference, Sherman talked a lot about sustainability. About having a team that has a chance to win every year. That’s a great soundbite, and it’s something Moore has mentioned in the past.
But it’s not the way the Royals have operated.
This is dripping with nuance, but a team guided by sustainability will generally cut the peaks in exchange for avoiding the worst of the valleys. A team focused on winning 85 games every year will operate differently than one that’s OK losing 100 because it wants to win 95 down the road.
To put it in Royals terms: if sustainability was the ultimate goal, they would not have traded Wil Myers and Jake Odorizzi for James Shields and Wade Davis in 2014 (which worked), or traded pitching prospects for Ben Zobrist and Johnny Cueto in 2015 (which worked), or traded Esteury Ruiz and Matt Strahm for Ryan Buchter, Trevor Cahill and Brandon Maurer in 2017 (which did not work).
Additionally, if sustainability was the goal the Royals would have traded Eric Hosmer, Mike Moustakas, and Lorenzo Cain after the 2016 season for prospects who could provide a more — wait for it — sustainable future.
Depending on how far you want to go with this, sustainability is in direct opposition to how the Royals have usually operated.
The Oakland A’s provide a good contrast. They are the small-market club with the most proven sustainability — 10 postseasons, 12 winning records and just two seasons with fewer than 74 wins this century. But they’ve only made one ALCS and no World Series during that time with a roster philosophy that treats each player as a commodity.
Just in the last six years, the Royals have won two American League pennants and lost more than 100 games twice with a roster philosophy that treats each player as family.
There are reasonable cases to be made for and against each approach. So the issue right now isn’t about the Royals’ best path.
The issue is that the new owner may want his team run in a way that is fundamentally different than how the current front office has operated for more than a decade.
Let’s look at Cleveland
Sherman talked a lot about his time with the Indians, and he should.
They won at least 91 games and made three postseasons in Sherman’s four years. It’s the place he knows, and his experience as a minority owner in a relatively small market is by definition relevant to how he’ll run the Royals.
But what he didn’t talk about is how the Indians are often criticized for not spending enough.
And what he didn’t talk about is how an investor roster 17 deep is a sign that the collective group doesn’t have the kind of cash to outspend Kansas City’s market size.
Which would make success — whether through sustainability or the go-for-broke roster management style Moore’s front office has implemented — more difficult.
Make your jokes. They’re probably funny. Yes, the Royals have been running uphill against a financial landscape tilted against them for decades. So the point here isn’t that Sherman is taking the Royals back to the days when their minor-league teams didn’t have enough equipment. But they’re not headed toward being the Yankees, either.
The Royals should have more flexibility from their new TV contract, which will be finalized soon, but any celebration of the sale on the grounds that new ownership will stretch the budget further is based on blind hope and not tangible evidence.
Sherman’s ownership is only a few weeks old. He’s a blank canvas. What we know is all positive, but what we know is also outweighed by what we don’t.
Learning about Sherman’s leadership will be one of the most important stories of the coming years with the Royals. But at the moment, the likeliest long-term scenario is that their roster management will change significantly ... and payroll won’t.
This story was originally published December 13, 2019 at 12:37 PM.