Add new comment

I saw the first report of Myers+ for Shields and Davis and thought "Hm, that's pretty good return. Better than I was expecting Moore to do. Wonder who the + is... can't be that much, right?" Then I saw it was Odorizzi, Montgomery and Leonard and my jaw hit the floor. I mean, what? Wade Davis (or Charlie Furbush) is a nice player, but that's an absurd haul for him. Odorizzi is basically Danny Hultzen, but closer to MLB-ready. Montgomery is Maurer, if Maurer had gotten injured again last year. Leonard is the hitting equivalent of Victor Sanchez. No way, no WAY would I give that up for a good reliever who can double as a fringy starter. Odorizzi probably projects as a better starter than Davis in 2013. What gives?
And it's not like they won huge on Myers for Shields. I'm not sure I buy the idea promulgated in Part I, that Shields is a true ace. Is he a nice pitcher? Very much so. Great #2. But those home/road splits are terrifying if I'm Moore. Shields is the classic example of a pitcher where you have to look a bit beyond WAR, a dude who plays in a real pitcher-friendly park with a top-tier defense behind him. His career road numbers? 4.54 ERA, 4.38 FIP... that's worse than the Royals' #5 starter last year. Stuff or no stuff, Shields is not the kind of pitcher you throw into Kauffman and expect to acclimate well.
As for subtracting the WAR, this is a good point well-argued and it's why I am in favor of moving Nick Franklin. But it doesn't apply to Myers. Why not? Because the guy behind Myers is Jeff Francoeur, who was quite literally the worst starter in baseball last year. This is, as others have said, the definition of robbing Peter to pay Paul. This isn't trading Ackley and filling in with Franklin, it's trading Erasmo and filling in with Noesi. In Myers' case the performance of the guy behind him is actually negative and should've disincentivized trading Wil even further.
You set up an analogy in this post: this trade is akin to Seager for Weaver, and fill in with Franklin/Liddi. But I don't buy Shields as Weaver once he moves to KC, the Royals have no Franklin or Liddi behind Myers and are filling in with the worst regular in MLB, and Myers has a higher ceiling than Seager does.
As for the Royals specifically making this deal... when people say "some teams can make this trade and get away with it", they're not necessarily saying this deal is balanced. The Dodgers could've gotten away with this, easy. In fact, they did, in the middle of last year, because they're close to contention and they've got owners willing to throw cash around indiscriminately enough that they can afford to replace all of their prospects through free agency. That doesn't mean they won the trade on talent & cash--methinks they lost big in that respect. But you can afford to lose trades on overall talent in order to improve your MLB roster if you can easily replace that minor league talent through free agency, like the Dodgers. The Royals, having no cash, cannot afford to do this. The Royals must build through the draft. Prospects have more value to them.
But you know what, that Shields-for-Myers deal is still not indefensible. I might do Myers for Shields straight up--it's a little weird considering the Royals' financial situation (they're already overbudget and now may be forced to deal Butler or Gordon) and their proximity to contention, but it's not like Shields is a Boras client who won't re-sign and like you said Myers could bust or the Royals could like him less than others do. It's the other half of this deal that's inexcusable to me. That's way too much of a prospect haul for a guy like Charlie Furbush.
Am I cool with Taijuan Walker for Billy Butler straight up? Yeah, I guess, in a vacuum that ignores the Mariners' roster crunch. Am I cool with Danny Hultzen, Victor Sanchez and Brad Miller for Wade Davis? Nononononono.