Posnanski's KC Royals piece in SI

Can't seem to find a link to it on SI.com - I'm not sure if that's even available - but this week Posnanski wrote a piece about the Royals' minor-league system. Now, there is no question that the organization is absolutely stacked, but what I was more interested in is what everybody thought of how he approached the piece.

If you haven't read it yet, Posnanski utilized a gimmick in which he was writing a piece not today, but circa 2020, and looking back at 2011.

A couple samples:

Believe it or not, the Royals used to be terrible. ... You have to go back to the days when the Internet wasn't in 3-D, when the Reverend Sheen was hiding out in some place called Sober Valley Ranch, when President Jeter was still playing for the Yankees, when our cars didn't fly.

And:

We now know what happened: In the latter half of the decade the Royals won multiple World Series and became America's team. Kauffman Stadium filled up with Hollywood stars (actor and longtime fan Paul Rudd finally had company), every other team tried to follow their model. (The book Daytonball spent 23 weeks on The New York Times best-seller list.) And because we know what happened, it's hard to go back in time and remember just how bad the Royals were.

In between, we get a lot of real information about the way Dayton Moore has built the system, but all filtered through the story's main conceit. He really does a yeoman's job sticking with it.

Thoughts? Smart way to keep people reading a story about the Kansas City Royals' minor-league system? Or too cute by half?

 

I thought the conceit worked great. And here's the link:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1183370/1/index.htm

 

Too bad none of it will happen.

As soon as Moustakis, Hosmer, Crow, Montgomery, et al, become eligible for arbitration and/or free agency, his highness David Glass will trade them away for "prospects" while keeping the payroll at a bargain-basement level.

The only hope for the Royals is that they win in 2012 or 2013, which I don't see happening.

 

i love posnanski. i hate the construct.

he just as easily could've written a piece of science fiction projecting several of these young royals as busts, or injury-riddled, etc. you want to write a piece about how stacked k.c.'s minor-league system is? love it. report the heck out of it.

just don't give me a concocted novel. sidd finch was enough.

 

Is it so wrong to try something new?

You can read that story anywhere. This was original and fresh.

 

I think the approach worked.

 

They've spent a ton of money in the draft to even get these players. It took a while, but I think David Glass finally realized around the time Dayton Moore was hired that he can't keep insulting payrolls and expect the team to just win anyway.

Moore came on under the condition that he has more money to work with. And then he immediately put the money in the draft. And the Royals are about to see how beautiful that's going to work out.

 

And the Royals payroll hasn't been that low the past few years. The problem is paying Meche, Guillen, etc. didn't pay off at all.

As for the construct of the story, seems like a good situation to try something like that. To people in the know, the Royals farm system is worth writing/reading about, but how many regular fans are going to hear that SI wrote about a bad club's minor leaguers and think it sounds like an exciting story?

 

I loved it. Great idea. Great execution. It's fresh and it worked. I love experiments that pan out. Push the envelope. Trust your experience about what works.

 

So here's my question as I am reading it. It appears that Posnanski changed the tenses of his quotes. Did he explain to those quoted that this was going to do the story this way so they would answer in the past tense or did he simply take what they said and flipped it?

For example:

"I didn't just want good baseball people," Moore said. "I wanted people who understood that we're going to win a championship here. We knew exactly what we had to do. There was really only one way for us to do it."

Or when he interviewed Moore is this what he actually said?

"I don't just want good baseball people," Moore said. "I want people who understand that we're going to win a championship here. We know exactly what we have to do. There is really only one way for us to do it."

If he flipped it, does that no longer make it a "quote?"

 

These discussions are useless. Posnanski is beloved around here, and while he's certainly worthy of the overall praise he gets, anything he writes, in any format, is going to be received positively. He could write all his sentences backward and SI could print it from right to left and it would be hailed as fresh and innovative. OK, carry on.

 

Oh, I think there are more than a few here who live to stick it to anyone.