New York's Newsday reported earlier this week that "multiple industry sources" say the Royals have been "signaling their intent to seek retribution against the Mets" on Opening Day at Kauffman Stadium.
This hints of the sensational, complete with a link delivered via Twitter headline stating that "the Mets better pack their flak jackets."
The Royals dismissed the report. Opening Day starter Edinson Volquez told reporters in Arizona that he's too old for that kind of nonsense, while manager Ned Yost said, "Some buffoon writes something and you guys are gonna jump like little monkeys in a cage for a peanut."
Soundbites aside, it's a timely call to look at what the Royals should be thinking about as the Mets come to Kansas City to play in the first World Series rematch in an opener in baseball history.
Among the numerous subplots will be the potential Royals' retaliation for Noah Syndergaard's premeditated cheap "trick" up his sleeve, which he had announced before he fired a 97 mph fastball near the head of Alcides Escobar to open Game 3 of the World Series.
Syndergaard unleashed this caveman schtick, cheered lustily by Mets fans in the name of old-school baseball protocol, because Escobar had had the gall to keep swinging at the first pitches of games.
Now, it would seem the Royals already extracted the best vengeance of all, puncturing the Mets' souls by rallying to win four times on the way to their first World Series title in 30 years ... perhaps all the more deliciously because it was clinched at Citi Field.
So it's hard to know what "signaling their intent to seek retribution" might mean _ planning to beat the Mets some more? _ or why they would be flashing signs if they do intend to do something more sinister.
But if it turns out they are thinking that way ... they shouldn't be.
For many reasons _ including the fact it would be a stain on the game in itself, possibly create an Opening-Day (or Tuesday) brawl and reinforce a false stigma that shrouded the Royals last season.
Instead, the Royals should summon the character they flexed from the time of the incident.
They stayed focused on the higher calling of winning the World Series that they didn't strike back in the traditional frontier-justice way of baseball and risk individual punishment or distraction from the primary purpose.
In fact, containing and channeling their ire seemed to steel their determination.
It might have been assumed then, though, that they would deploy their response in a less momentous scenario.
And it's true that not to do something might be perceived as allowing Syndergaard to operate with impunity.
Especially since baseball took no measure to discipline him for basically announcing he would throw near Escobar's head ... or for doubling down after the game when he said if the Royals don't like it "then they can meet me 60 feet, 6 inches away."
What is this, boxing? The NHL? A back alley?
Afterward, MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred shrugged it off, saying Syndergaard's comments merely had suggested he threw a pitch "for a competitive purpose, not with an intention to hit anyone. Good, hard baseball. It really does not concern me."
Against that backdrop, then, the Royals are being told to police this their way within the "unwritten" rules of the game: that calls for eye-for-an-eye and typically leads to escalation.
They could do that, of course, and infuriate the Mets and their fans, which would make for hilarious hypocrisy given the fury that's already been unleashed just by the insinuation the Royals might respond in kind.
Oh, OK, so old-school is only appropriate when the Mets do it?
Sorry, but you can't defend Syndergaard and then chastise the Royals for entertaining a reprisal.
If you applaud the first action, then you have to embrace the equal and opposite reaction. It's not just Sir Isaac Newton's third law of motion but the time-honored logic of baseball.
But here's the thing:
"Purists" may not like it, but the Royals should continue to stand above all this by wiping the slate clean on a new season for a game that will begin after a brief video tribute to ... the Mets.
When the ump says "play ball" on Sunday, the Royals should stick to just that, and not stoop to hooliganism.
Yes, there was a time when it was not only acceptable but condoned in baseball to throw dangerously close to someone's head (and anything within a foot is just that, especially when there's no accounting for a slight misfire or how someone might move in reaction).
But just because something was once OK doesn't mean it should stay that way.
And there are plenty of other places to send a purpose pitch that backs people away from the plate without risking their livelihood, and even their life.
There's something more at stake here, too: the Royals' reputation.
Because of several repulsive episodes last season, including Yordano Ventura repeatedly making like a confrontational brat and Kelvin Herrera brazenly pointing to his head after throwing 100 mph behind Oakland's Brett Lawrie, some branded the Royals dirty.
They indeed had several incidents to own, ones that were easy to brand them with.
But there was more to that superficial view than meets the eye.
At least if you care to examine it.
After the Royals absorbed an early spree of being hit by pitches, yes, they then started responding disproportionately.
Yet let's remember, for instance, that Lawrie triggered a weekend of mayhem with his slide into Escobar _ and Oakland's Scott Kazmir extended the fireworks when they were over by hitting Lorenzo Cain.
Whether because of their role as defending American League champions or the exuberance with which they play, the Royals seemed to be target practice for others early in the season. They were hit by pitches 24 times in the first 31 games and 77 times overall _ third-most in Major League Baseball in 2015.
By contrast, they hit just 52 batters _ 15th in MLB.
This doesn't make them angels, of course, and they unfurled a handful of indefensible moments.
But beyond a few Ventura provocations, which had subsided by season's end, the idea the Royals were instigators just wasn't true.
That doesn't pardon volatile responses to being goaded or targeted, but it's not the same as being rabble-rousers.
Some don't get that or might scoff at it, though.
So this setting makes for a fine chance for the Royals to demonstrate otherwise.
What Syndergaard did, in the immortal contemptuous words of former Royals right fielder Alex Rios, was "just weak, I would say."
And this series against the Mets is the time for the Royals to avoid that sort of pettiness and show the admirable strength of restraint _ whatever they may or may not be contemplating or signaling.
