Should Johnny Damon be put in the Royals' Hall of Fame? Answer below (hint: it's "yes")We talked the other day about Johnny Damon's Hall of Fame case the other day, and that probably missed the more relevant question to Kansas City, which is whether he's a ROYALS Hall of Famer.

The team Hall of Fame received a huge makeover in the stadium renovations, going from a glass case in the back of a concourse to an impressive 6,800-sq-foot building behind the left field wall. Despite all the struggles of the last 15 years, the Royals do have a proud history, and take their Hall of Fame more seriously than many teams.

It is headlined by George Brett, of course, but Frank White and Dick Howser also have their numbers retired. Hal McRae is in the team Hall, along with Willie Wilson and Dan Quisenberry and Bret Saberhagen. The place may have lost some cache in some circles when Mark Gubicza was put in, but this is the best and most prestigious way the Royals have of honoring their past.

Cedric Tallis needs to be inducted. That one's long overdue, and has been for years. Bo Jackson is a personal pick for the memories and national juice he gave Kansas City, but I'm also aware these words are being typed by someone who, as a 12-year-old, had his walls covered with Bo posters.

Mike Sweeney is a no-brainer to be inducted, and after that, Johnny Damon and Carlos Beltran head the next wave of possibles where the Royals will need to consider uber-talented stars that the team just couldn't afford to keep into free agency. These are reminders of some of the Royals' inadequacies, so it'll be uncomfortable for some, but these are terrific players who are part of the team's past.

Damon still -- nine years after he left Kansas City -- gets booed whenever he plays at Kauffman Stadium, but that's also a sign of respect. Without knowing how the Royals will handle these cases, Damon should be in.

He is, by far, the Royals' best top-of-the-order hitter since Willie Wilson. He's working on a Cooperstown case in which his best individual seasons were in Kansas City.

That last point can be argued (Damon actually set a career high with a 123 OPS+ in 2009) but how about this line from 2000: .327/.382/.495 with 16 HR, 88 RBI, 136 R, 46 SB, 42 2B, 10 3B.

That's Damon's career high in average, on-base and slugging percentage, runs, doubles, RBIs and steals. He's in the team's all-time top 10 in runs, hits, steals, batting average, on-base and even slugging (among players with at least 3,000 plate appearances, which, sadly, includes just 16)

Damon hit at the top of the Royals' most explosive offenses, and the argument that he didn't stick around long enough is weak for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that NOBODY plays their entire career in one place, especially Kansas City, so if the Royals can't celebrate a player they drafted and helped turn into a star, who can they celebrate?

The argument against Damon is an argument against the best players, or an argument against the system. Besides, there are only 10 players with more plate appearances for the Royals than Damon*, and all of them but two (Carlos Beltran and Joe Randa) are already in the team Hall.

* Though David DeJesus is just two behind.

We talked a little about this the other day, but for me, Hall of Fame arguments should go well beyond stats and into questions about impact. There's a question I like to ask, which is, can the complete story of the Royals be told without mentioning this person?

The answer to that question is why Tallis' exclusion is egregious, and why Bo should be included. It's also an argument for Damon, who was such a key part of some of the Royals' best offenses and has proven to be one of a sadly small handful of star players drafted and developed by the Royals in the last 20 years.

The booing is not an insignificant issue, because it'd be an ugly scene if Damon were booed by fans while being honored by the team.

But assuming that can be massaged, the Royals would be remiss at best not to put Damon in the team Hall of Fame.