Posnanski's KC Royals piece in SI

Let's push aside whether the construct works for a second. Should fiction ever be used?

 

Full disclosure, I haven't read Joe P's piece yet. However, this KC team appears to be something special. Glass will never be forgiven by a lot of KC fans if these players pan out and he lets them get away. Not only that, I think crowds will come out to see these guys once they're all in KC and they start to build winning streaks.

This team kind of reminds me of the Minnesota Twins circa 1999. Went to see them play Milwaukee at old County Stadium and they had little-known players named Corey Koskie, Cristian Guzman, Torii Hunter, etc. I thought this team could be terrifying if they ever came together at the same time. Next few years in Twins country weren't bad.

If even three or four of these guys produce, the Royals will have something special. If they all do, look out.

 

THIS was precisely the issue in my initial stance, which i later softened as a nod to joe p.'s effort. but it remains the primary problem with this construct; sure, IF these guys turn out to be the real deal, the piece will be further championed for its foresight. all too often, however, 'sure-fire prospects' disappoint, which is why i'm no fan of fictionalized speculation like this.

i'm more interested in what these kids have done to be thought of as the next big thang, rather than sharing in the presumption they click on all cylinders to dominate for years to come.

joe p. took a shot and made the best of it; i'm just not a fan of this particular attempt.

 

Perhaps, but how can you not love the handle? That's gold, Jerry - gold!

 

Sometimes a columnist's job isn't to tell you something you don't know.

It's to tell you something you already know, in a unique way. Give me something to read. Give me something interesting. Give me something I've never read before.

It doesn't matter if the prospects pan out or flop. The purpose of the column isn't to precisely predict the future. It's to entertain you.

So, you know, lighten up and be entertained.

 

It wasn't a column, it was a feature.

 

the virtues of the piece, for me

—it informed me that the royals farm system is so stocked that people are reaching for historic superlatives
—it had a fun graf reviewing the royals' recent comic ineptitude
—i had some fun with the conceit, particularly the line about remember when we used to think lebron would win championships?

so, i enjoyed the story. i wouldn't say it's anything incredible, but I would also say it was above average. for sure i enjoyed it more than I would have reading a story which was closer to a straight profile of the royals top prospects.

 

I thought it was brilliant. Story angles like this are why I read SI in the first place.

Kudos to Pos for trying something different, shooting for the stars, and executing it brilliantly. I loved it.

 

Completely agree. Journalism has become stodgy because few are willing to take risks. Can't understand why, when someone tries a new, fresh way of presenting a story, he gets slammed by the get-a-lifers on this board.

 

Really? How so? In what ways?

What would you consider a "risk"? Subject matter? Narrative device? (Like this one).

I read this criticism a lot from fresh graduates, and usually it just means, "More people should write like Bill Simmons." S.L. Price's takeout on John Calipari a week or two ago was as conventional a profile style as it comes, but because the reporting was superb and the structure meticulously attended to, it will probably earn a spot in next year's BASW.

 

If you can't figure out what "taking risks" entails, I can't help you.