I can't believe I'm defending Francoeur either, but he was pretty good in 2011, and still only 29. I'm guessing he projects to a 95-100 OPS+ with ok defense next year. I doubt Myers will be much better in 2013 at least.

Last five years, OPS+
72
93
85
119
81

2011 was a huge outlier. I'm guessing he'll rebound slightly from last year, but probably put up a sub 90 OPS+.

BTW, B-R has him with a -2.1 DWAR last year. Could he really have been that bad in RF?

This is inaccurate. Hosmer and Frenchy had almost exactly the same OPS+ last year.

I think OPS+ alone overvalues Frenchy. For one thing, it overvalues slugging, and any offensive value he provides will always be founded on that. He was 4 for 11 on the bases and worse in RF than you would expect Myers to be (he played mostly CF). I'm not a big proponent of dWAR, but Frenchy was -2.1 last year, and -2.6 over the last two years combined.

Frenchy was -2.1 last year

It's amazing you can lead the league in outfield assists and still be that bad defensively.

He was average according to TZ, so I'm not sure I trust that number.

But Myers could struggle hugely in his first major league season. He wouldn't be the first highly-regarded prospect to do so. I think the Royals made a bad trade here, in the long term. But for 2013, it's a defensible deal. And FWIW, I was a big believer in Travis Snider, so there's a little bit of that shaken faith underpinning my lack of confidence in Myers.

He'll be in the rotation, but he's not likely to be better than Odorizzi.
I don't think that this is true for 2013. Odorizzi needs to tighten up his command and/or find a more dominant pitch. Prior to last year (when he was a good reliever), Davis was 25-22 with an ERA+ of 92 as a big league starter - that's a #4. I like him better as a reliever, but think he can edge a bit ahead of that ERA+ in the rotation for KC.

Travis Snider really has little to do with Myers.

I agree with Moore. We shouldn't me questioning his integrity.

Just his competancy.

I think the thing that even the critics are not paying attention to is Montgomery. I am not sure I see Davis as an upgrade, which makes the trade even worse. (And I LIKE Wade Davis...)

Montgomery has yet to be average for his league above A-ball (last year: 6.07 ERA between AA and AAA). He's a worthwhile lotto card, absolutely (and BA's #1 KC prospect a year back, ahead of Myers) but keeps not producing. Montgomery has a higher ceiling, absolutely, but I don't think you can say he has a higher median outcome, particularly in the short run.

I agree with Moore. We shouldn't me questioning his integrity.

Just his competancy.

I think the thing that even the critics are not paying attention to is Montgomery. I am not sure I see Davis as an upgrade, which makes the trade even worse. (And I LIKE Wade Davis...)

I agree that it's far Moore likely that Moore is just really bad as an MLB GM, but it's got to be one of 3 things.

1) Moore is misevaluating the value of the talents involved, or
2) Moore is making a short-sighted trade to save his job, or
3) Glass ordered him to make a short-sided trade to win now.

Only 3) reflects decently on Moore.

You know, *we* could be misevaluating the value of the talents involved.

4) Myers really does have a problematic hole in his swing
5) Moore values a 25% chance of winning the division more than a 50% chance at winning the division in 3 years (or whatever numbers you want to use)

You know, *we* could be misevaluating the value of the talents involved.

That's just crazy talk.

And FWIW, I was a big believer in Travis Snider, so there's a little bit of that shaken faith underpinning my lack of confidence in Myers.

Meyers could bomb out, but Snider's whiff problem was bigger. He doesn't walk or homer enough to make up for BAs south of .250, which is what he tends to put up in the bigs.

You know, *we* could be misevaluating the value of the talents involved.

Even if we're doing the appeal to authority thing, I trust Friedman way more than Moore

4) Myers really does have a problematic hole in his swing
5) Moore values a 25% chance of winning the division more than a 50% chance at winning the division in 3 years (or whatever numbers you want to use)

Even if 4) is true, Myers is a top-5 prospect, you shouldn't need to throw in another top-100 prospect, one former top prospect and a lottery tickets to get 2 years of a slightly below-market James Shields.

How is 5) different than my 2)?

How is 5) different than my 2)?

It's not really, but yours implies that he's wrong to value the present over the future. I'm not sure he is.

How is 5) different than my 2)?

No. 5 ascribed no sinister motivation.

Moore was asked a question yesterday that essentially asked if the Royals needed to go to the playoffs for the trade to be a success.

Moore answered no to the question. That could just an easy way of him avoiding being cornered with expectations but he did go on to elaborate about how the Royals need to change the culture (I'm not sure if he used the actual word) from a team that is developing to a team that is winning. I took that to mean .500 baseball or better, playoffs not necessarily in the mix. And then he went on to elaborate about how the team needs to have a winning atmosphere in the clubhouse because that begets more winning. I realize this last sentence is worthy of derision on this site. But ignoring whether or not that is a worthy goal, it seemed to me that this team probably was a "good trade" for the Royals in that I think it probably brings the Royals closer to this goal. So when he says he finds the criticism to be insulting, that makes a lot of sense. Not just because nobody likes to be criticized, but also because most of us (me included) are using a different set of goal posts to evaluate the trade.

The other thing that he didn't explicitly say in the presser -- but wasn't too hard to connect the dots -- is that he has the utmost faith in his organization to be producing a steady stream of talent to the big league club. So come 2015 when Shields is no longer in the system, there will be new prospects that either (a) can replace Shields or (b) can be the basis for the next Shields trade. Giving up four prospects isn't that big of a deal when you've got a number of other guys that will be coming through the system in the next couple of years. (Personally, I think this he's way too confident in his system, but it does explain where he's coming from.)

I can't say that like this trade any more after hearing Moore explain it, but I do think I have a better feel for why he would make the trade in the first place.

It's not really, but yours implies that he's wrong to value the present over the future. I'm not sure he is.

No. 5 ascribed no sinister motivation.

OK, fair. But, it's hard to think of another reason for favoring the present heavily over the future.

I mean, he's been there 6+ years, and they've sucked for 20 years. Why the sudden urgency? That looming contract is just too coincidental for my tastes.

Why the sudden urgency?

Opportunity and perception. The Tigers won the division with 88 games in 2012. The Royals can realistically think they have a shot if they can get to the high-80s, the bar was set kind of low. Also, Baltimore and Oakland made it a little less palatable for teams to argue they can't compete. If I'm a Royals fan I've got a "why not us" attitude.

I keep seeing people saying the Royals could have signed pitcher X to a 4 year/$60 million contract and been ahead of the game. That's making a big assumption - that pitcher X wants to play in KC. Maybe they do end up signing there if all other options go away, but it's not the most desirable destination and there's no guarantee that X doesn't sign a shorter deal or one for slightly less money with a team that they think has a better shot at winning. Sure, there is a chance they could get someone out of Sanchez/Dempster/Jackson at some point, but it's likely to cost them more money than Shields, with a longer commitment and none of those guys are as good as Shields. And while I love Brandon McCarthy, he's pitched 170 innings once in his career.

Do I think this was a poor trade? Yes. I'd have hung on to Myers, etc. But saying they could have thrown money at their pitching problems is a huge assumption. If anything, Glass should open up his pocketbook now, after the trade, and they'd possibly have a better shot at signing one of the remaining FA starters and an even better shot at the playoffs in the next two years. They actually look serious now about a playoff run, where they didn't before.

Eh, what's he supposed to say? "Yeah, it was pretty bad. They should fire that guy."

If I'm a Royals fan I've got a "why not us" attitude.

One reason why not would be Dayton Moore.

As I suspected, Giambi had more WAR post trade than Mabry.

Montgomery has always underwhelmed in the pros, even when he was posting good ERAs in the low minors. There was nothing impressive about his peripherals at any point. I do think a move to the pen could help him though, and the above was sort of the same thing for Halladay until he figured things out.

If I'm a Royals fan I've got a "why not us" attitude.

So KC decided to nip that kind of attitude in bud by reminding the fan base that their management is so incompetent we are sitting here debating whether it goes beyond that and into immorality?

As I suspected, Giambi had more WAR post trade than Mabry.

4 straight years of negative WAR can do that to a guy, huh? I never realized how bad Mabry was at the end.

Watch this be another Giambi-Mabry trade.

A trade where both players are basically just footnotes after the year of the deal?

I keep seeing people saying the Royals could have signed pitcher X to a 4 year/$60 million contract and been ahead of the game. That's making a big assumption - that pitcher X wants to play in KC.

This is a fair point. But if the Royals have such a hard time getting pitchers to play for them, they should have submitted huge bids for Yu Darvish and Hyun-Jin Ryu. If they win these players' rights, the player can't choose a different MLB team over them.

I keep seeing people saying the Royals could have signed pitcher X to a 4 year/$60 million contract and been ahead of the game. That's making a big assumption - that pitcher X wants to play in KC.

I agree, but I also think its a large assumption that if the Royals offered very competitive contracts to say Brandon McCarthy, Edwin Jackson, Anibal Sanchez, Kyle Lohse, and Ryan Dempster that all of them would turn KC down.

There's an assumption underlying a lot of the arguments here that only playoff berths are worthwhile, and that a team that isn't going to make the playoffs should shoot for 43-119 seasons to rack up #1 draft picks. Most days, I could buy into this, but in the case of the Royals, I'm not convinced an 81+ win season isn't worthwhile to show the fans you're capable of being a cromulent major league baseball team, and excite them (relatively speaking).

I keep seeing people saying the Royals could have signed pitcher X to a 4 year/$60 million contract and been ahead of the game. That's making a big assumption - that pitcher X wants to play in KC. Maybe they do end up signing there if all other options go away, but it's not the most desirable destination and there's no guarantee that X doesn't sign a shorter deal or one for slightly less money with a team that they think has a better shot at winning. Sure, there is a chance they could get someone out of Sanchez/Dempster/Jackson at some point, but it's likely to cost them more money than Shields, with a longer commitment and none of those guys are as good as Shields.

There are two points here. The first is that the Royals would have difficulty attracting a good FA pitcher. Well they attracted Gil Meche and paid a lot. Why can't they do that with Jackson, Sanchez or Dempster? There's also Ryu.

The second point is that these guys would cost more than Shields and be worse. Well maybe they cost more dollars but not more Dollars + Players. If you add the value of Myers then Shields costs more. That's not even counting the other 3 guys.

5) Moore values a 25% chance of winning the division more than a 50% chance at winning the division in 3 years (or whatever numbers you want to use)

Another source of risk to the "future" strategy: the risk that your competitors will be materially better in, say, 2015 than they project to be in 2013.

Also Jackson and Sanchez are as good as Shields.

[Davis will] be in the rotation, but he's not likely to be better than Odorizzi.

Odorizzi has serious issues with giving up outfield fly balls. There weren't very many starters that pitched in MLB in 2012 with a similar batted ball profile, but collectively they were worse than 5th starter quality (as a singular entity would rank about 220th among starters in ERA+). If you add starters that pitched at AAA with that profile to the collective (running an MLE on their numbers) the rank drops to 320th. Now, Odorizzi does have some strengths that make him better than the latter rank, but they only leave him looking like that MLB collective.

Davis had problems in 2010 and 2011, pitching no better than what Odorizzi looks like he can do next year, but he took a serious step forward in 2012, well beyond what you would typically expect from a SP to RP conversion. If you back convert that performance (using typical RP to SP conversion factors) it looks like 2nd starter quality. I don't expect that to hold for 2013, especially when factoring in his 2010-2011 performances, but he could be 3rd starter quality.

I think it's fair to assume that Davis will be better than Odorizzi for the next couple of years.

in the case of the Royals, I'm not convinced an 81+ win season isn't worthwhile to show the fans you're capable of being a cromulent major league baseball team

They won 83 in 2003. I know that's going to be 10 years now, but how excited were people in KC then (I'm genuinely asking)? And of course, if you follow up that one kinda-good season with three straight of 100+ losses, you lose anything you gained with the fans. I think the strategy has to be to build a contender from within, and add a piece here and there to show you are trying to improve.

I keep seeing people saying the Royals could have signed pitcher X to a 4 year/$60 million contract and been ahead of the game. That's making a big assumption - that pitcher X wants to play in KC. Maybe they do end up signing there if all other options go away, but it's not the most desirable destination and there's no guarantee that X doesn't sign a shorter deal or one for slightly less money with a team that they think has a better shot at winning.

So, you offer them one year longer than the best offer.

If Sanchez gets a 5/70 offer elsewhere, you go 6/85, if Jackson gets 3/40, you offer 4/55.

Players rarely turn down the extra year.

I think it's fair to assume that Davis will be better than Odorizzi for the next couple of years.

Then they could have tried to limit the trade to Odorizzi for Davis or someone else like Davis. Adding Myers for Shields is the tail wagging the dog.

I think it's fair to assume that Davis will be better than Odorizzi for the next couple of years.

I agree. I actually like Davis a lot. A smaller trade (w/o Myers/Odorizzi) for just Davis would have made perfect sense for KC.

But, he costs real money $2.8M in '13, $4.8M in '14, $7M, $8M, and $10M options in '15-'17. Cot's doesn't say how they need to be exercised.

If he's just a RP, you're looking at a non-tender after '14, unless he becomes an awesome closer. Even if he makes if as an SP, he won't be cheap after '14.

Even if he makes if as an SP, he won't be cheap after '14.

Yeah he will. If he's a dependable 3/4 starter, those options are dirt cheap.

This is a fair point. But if the Royals have such a hard time getting pitchers to play for them, they should have submitted huge bids for Yu Darvish and Hyun-Jin Ryu. If they win these players' rights, the player can't choose a different MLB team over them.

Ryu is still a lottery pick and Darvish cost the Rangers over $110 million for 6 years when you count the posting fee. Yeah, the cost is just money, but Glass hasn't shown that he's willing to open the purse strings that much. And they obviously would have cost more than than the price the Rangers and Dodgers paid since the Royals would have had to beat the posting fees of those two teams.

I agree, but I also think its a large assumption that if the Royals offered very competitive contracts to say Brandon McCarthy, Edwin Jackson, Anibal Sanchez, Kyle Lohse, and Ryan Dempster that all of them would turn KC down.

Yes, they probably could have signed one of those. As I mentioned before, McCarthy, as much as I like him, isn't the guy you want to build a staff around because of his durability issues. The others? Maybe you're right. Like I said, I wouldn't have done the trade and played instead for 2014 and beyond. But now that they've made their play with Shields, I'd still try to pop for one of those guys and really give yourself a chance at a run. Anything to get Hochevar out of the rotation...

Yeah he will. If he's a dependable 3/4 starter, those options are dirt cheap.

That's a pretty good outcome you're projecting. Even so, $7M or $8M isn't cheap for a 4th SP on a team with an $80M payroll. If he's a 2WAR SP, he's worth ~$10M. So, it's a bargain if he's that good, but not cheap. The surplus value isn't all that much.

Davis's options are team options, so the Royals can go year to year with him after 2014, at potentially extreme bargain prices. It's a great contract to acquire.

Even so, $7M or $8M isn't cheap for a 4th SP on a team with an $80M payroll. If he's a 2WAR SP, he's worth ~$10M. So, it's a bargain if he's that good, but not cheap. The surplus value isn't all that much.

You're trying to have it both ways -- the payroll's not mentioned when overpaying Anibal Sanchez or Edwin Jackson, but a big concern when it comes to potentially getting a steal on Wade Davis.

If the Royals genuinely think they can make Davis a 3/4 starter, that's an awesome contract. Acquiring contracts from Tampa is a nice trade feature.

Players rarely turn down the extra year.

Wasn't the rumor at the Winter Meetings that the Royals and Dempster would have had an agreement if the Royals would have offered a third year?

They won 83 in 2003. I know that's going to be 10 years now, but how excited were people in KC then (I'm genuinely asking)?

I think there was quite a bit of excitement. They followed up that year by going out and getting Juan Gonzalez and Benito Santiago which seems stupid now, but at the time both seemed like decent bets. I think there was some apprehension that 2003 was a bit of a fluke, but by and large fans were fairly excited.

Odorizzi has serious issues with giving up outfield fly balls.

Agree. I'm not real high on Odorizzi. If the Royals weren't so starved for pitching, I'd probably be for trading him. His fastball is very straight and he leaves it up a lot. I've read he doesn't have a great "feel" for pitching so I don't think his ceiling is very high at all.

They won 83 in 2003. I know that's going to be 10 years now, but how excited were people in KC then (I'm genuinely asking)?

Tough one to answer. That team started 9-0 and then was 16-3 and then as the rotation started to fall apart in midseason signed Jose Lima from the independent leagues and Lima ended up going 7-0 in his first eight starts. On July 20th they were 54-42 and 6.5 games in first place. Eventually reality kicked in and they stumbled to finishing 7 games out of the race.

The city was incredibly excited about the team but that's in large part due to the fact that they were supporting a 110 win team that became a 100 win team that became a 90 win team that eventually ended up with 83 wins.

I'm not sure how excited the city would be about a team that went win-loss-win-loss-win-loss the entire season with a couple of extra wins in the mix. However, given the sorry state of the football team, it is quite possible that 83 wins in 2013 would excite the city quite a bit. I'm skeptical to that, but wouldn't be shocked to be wrong.

You're trying to have it both ways -- the payroll's not mentioned when overpaying Anibal Sanchez or Edwin Jackson, but a big concern when it comes to potentially getting a steal on Wade Davis.

If the Royals genuinely think they can make Davis a 3/4 starter, that's an awesome contract. Acquiring contracts from Tampa is a nice trade feature.

No, I'm just saying that Davis' salary in '15-'17 would pay a significant chunk of a good FA pitcher, while Odorizzi would be basically free for 4 years.

Giving Edwin Jackson, to pick a name, a 5/70 contract would have been largely paid for by what your not paying Shields and Davis. While Myers and Odorizzi wouldn't cost reall money until '17 at the earliest.

If the Royals genuinely think they can make Davis a 3/4 starter, that's an awesome contract. Acquiring contracts from Tampa is a nice trade feature.

Agreed completely. I'm just not that confident the Royals can do this. There development history with pitching sucks.

I still don't understand why most people on this board do not value Shields as highly as I have (and still do). He is being compared to guys like Sanchez, Dempster, Jackson, McCarthy, Haren, etc., but:

1) Dempster is a guy who turns 36 in early May, sucked in 2011, had a good half-season with the Cubs, then gets lit up with the Rangers. Shields is four years younger than Dempster, and Dempster is probably looking for a three or four year deal. Do you really think Ryan Dempster is going to be anywhere near as good (or as durable) in 2013-2014 as Shields?

2) I'll grant you than Sanchez, who is a few years younger than Shields, is a worthy comp. However, isn't Sanchez likely to command a four or five year deal for north of $12 million a season? And he hasn't been as good as Shields, and Shields will be cheaper the next two seasons. Would Sanchez cost a draft pick, too? While the Royals may not do this, there will probably be a difference in the Shields/Sanchez salaries of probably $6 million, total, for the two years. Could they not take that difference towards getting one of these starters on a shorter-term deal near the end of the FA off-season?

3) How anybody would equate Shields and McCarthy is beyond me. McCarthy is much less of a power arm, and is anti-Shields, in terms of durability. If the Royals want to see if McCarthy is available late in the FA season, and will take a one or two-year deal to re-establish his value, then go get it. Totally different, though.

4) Jackson: Not as durable, and hasn't pitched as well. One question I don't understand: Why doesn't anybody keep this guy for more than a year? Six teams in the last five years.

5) Haren: Signed for one-year, $13 million. Given how poor his 2012 was, signing him to a multi-year deal was seen as risky...and BTW, Shields is making less money.

Whatever. I think Shields is a more valuable commodity than he is being given credit for...

I agree with Moore. We shouldn't me questioning his integrity.

Just his competancy.

GM Bill Bavasi, I am convinced, traded with complete integrity in giving up Adam Jones, Chris Tillman, and spare parts for Erik Bedard. That and his other prospect-for-veteran trades back in the day were also made with complete sincerity in the bid to make the Mariners a winning, relevant team.

GMDM tries to make it seem as if critics are questioning his integrity. They are not. They are simply labeling him a fool and a blunderer likely to leave the 2017 Royals in as pathetic a state as the 2012 Mariners.

I still don't understand why most people on this board do not value Shields as highly as I have (and still do). He is being compared to guys like Sanchez, Dempster, Jackson, McCarthy, Haren, etc., but:

Last 3 seasons:

Shields 680 IP, 102 ERA+, 30 UER
Sanchez 588 IP, 109 ERA+, 28 UER
Jackson 599 IP, 100 ERA+, 20 UER
Dempster 591 IP, 102 ERA+, 27 UER

Are you seriously saying these pitchers aren't roughly comparable? Shields gives you an extra 30 IP p.a., but that's about it as far as difference goes.