Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Gather The Old '62 Mets -- The 2006 Royals Are Making A Run

Send an APB out for Marv Throneberry. I think Roger Craig is around somewhere -- find him. Heck, even Choo-Choo Coleman is kicking it someplace, I believe.

Or, if that's too hard, I'll just seek out Jeremy Bonderman or Brandon Inge from the Tigers clubhouse inside Comerica Park.

The '62 Mets (40-120) and the 2003 Tigers (43-119) may have met their match -- and more.

The 2006 Kansas City Royals aren't just off to a slow start, at 5-19. They're not just a team that's trying to find itself as it stumbles out of the gate -- with the talent to "rally" to 70 or so wins.

The Royals are as putrid as any baseball team that's slung on flannels or double-knits over the past 100 years. They are a disgraceful ballclub that might not win even 40 games this season. They are 0-11 on the road after being whipped twice by the Tigers in Detroit. They are a team bereft of hope, pathetic in its ineptitude.

Last season, the Royals lost 19 in a row, and already in 2006, before the calendar turned to May, they've authored an 11-game skid. They're making Manager Buddy Bell's 1996 Tigers team, which went 53-109, look like the 1927 Yankees.

This is a bad, bad team, folks.

I don't think it's overly dramatic to suggest that the Royals will struggle to win 40 in '06. Already buried, they find themselves playing out the string before Mother's Day -- a situation all-too-common in Detroit in recent springs. They'd have to go 35-103 to reach the 40 win plateau, and if you think that should be a walk in the ballpark, think again. The Royals are playing at barely a .200 clip currently, and they still have a host of games with the Red Sox and Yankees -- not to mention a bushel full with the White Sox, Indians, and -- gulp -- Tigers, to play.

Watching the Royals' season in '06 will be akin to witnessing the slowest, most drawn-out train wreck imaginable. We'll cringe, wince, and keep one eye closed and the other open as the dog days of summer arrive. Days and days will go by when the Royals' total in the left-hand column in the standings will be exactly the same -- no movement. In fact, their win total might be, at times, the most constant, static figure since Mike Tyson's IQ.

The Royals, who play in a beautiful ballpark, used to be a model franchise. They won, and the fans were loyal, and the stadium was aglow with aesthetic attractiveness. Now, only the ballpark is worth seeing, and the good people of Kansas City have seen it for 33 years, and counting. Surely that alone is not enough to put fannies into the seats.

Maybe the Royals will indeed crack 40 wins this season.

But I wouldn't bet on it.

Calling Chris Cannizzaro!


Blogger Ozz said...

Between the (shudder) '96 (cringe) Tigers and this year's Royals, I wonder if Bell is re-thinking his decision to become a Major League manager!

9:37 AM  
Blogger Ozz said...

I do feel bad for those in KC. I remember when the Royals were good back in the George Brett era. He hit against everyone, but it seems like he was extra-good against us (especially Milt Wilcox).

9:38 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home