Still a bad trade.

Still a bad trade.

Yup. When your GM feels compelled to make a statement defending a trade, you know it's for ####.

Of course, Kevin Towers will need a 3-hour prime time special to explain his monstrosity.

Moore acquired former All-Star James Shields, fellow right-hander Wade Davis, (and the promise of a minor-league coordinator job after he gets laughed out of KC) from Tampa Bay in a six-player deal Sunday that sent top prospects Wil Myers and Jake Odorizzi, along with two other minor leaguers, to the Rays.

Of course, Kevin Towers will need a 3-hour prime time special to explain his monstrosity.

Towers really did a nice job of taking the heat off of Moore.

I'd love to see a look back at other landslide trades in history, ones that got decisively panned by Primates, to see how they turned out. Giambi/Mabry, Kazmir/Zambrano, etc.

Mabry for Giambi

Andy Marte/Edgar Renteria

We got Andrew Bailey for Josh Reddick wrong.

Josh Hamilton/Edinson Volquez was kinda panned. I was one of the few that defended it for the Reds, because I didn't believe in Hamilton.

Napoli/Wells worked out just as well as could be expected for the Angels.

Milledge/Schneider/Church ended up being crappy for everyone involved.

Dan Haren to the Angels seemed like a terrible haul, but Corbin and Skaggs are decent now.

Colby Rasmus for Edwin Jackson (and lots of other players). Panned for the Cards, but they won it all, while Rasmus has been pretty disappointing.

Granderson/Scherzer/Jackson trade. Panned, but people seemed to hate it for all three teams.

If you've been an A's fan long enough, you learn that it is sometimes darkest right before the dawn. Looks like it'll be a #### year, but seeing which of the kids pans out has an interest to it and it's still MLB. It's no worse that when Brent Gates was the hope for the future or the Dave Kingman years.

That was my comment on the Bailey trade. I hate that I'm getting old enough to start being sort of right about things.

Yeah I remember panning the Braves for trading Marte for Renteria. Little did we know Renteria went on to post consecutive ~4 WAR seasons at SS for Atlanta while Marte went into the sucktitude oblivion. Score another one for Schuerholz.

The Alfonso Soriano for Brad Wilkerson trade was also panned, but as it turned out, in the wrong direction.

As usual, Joe Pos has a great interview/piecce on the trade and Dayton Moore.

As usual, Joe Pos has a great interview/piecce on the trade and Dayton Moore.

Honestly, as I like Pos and hate to go in this direction, but I can't help but shudder a bit when he starts talking about what's in Dayton Moore's heart.

Honestly, as I like Pos and hate to go in this direction, but I can't help but shudder a bit when he starts talking about what's in Dayton Moore's heart.

Concur. As he started talking about how his friend would never do something like this, I tuned out. He should be self-aware enough to know he can't honestly evaluate the motives of someone he views as a close friend. He's just not objective.

Oh man, Brent Gates. Gross.

Hey! Brent Gates looked like a good player, briefly. Check out the line on Lance Blankenship from 1993. a .367 OBA but he still only managed a 74 OPS+! And Ruben Sierra with one of the worst 100 RBI seasons ever. What a fun and wacky team those 1993 A's were.

13 / 14, I beg to differ. You can choose to disagree or disregard Pos' piece, but he was clear as to any possible biases in regards Dayton Moore.

13 / 14, I beg to differ. You can choose to disagree or disregard Pos' piece, but he was clear as to any possible biases in regards Dayton Moore.

He's clear, but those biases render his opinion pretty meaningless. I'm not going to take his good friend's word that Moore is so much better a person than the 100 other GMs who have made a trade to save their jobs. I'm sure their friends and family thought 90% of them had "great hearts".

From that Poz piece:

Moore tells a great story about the first time he was in a key Braves meeting; he was sitting next to legendary GM John Schuerholz, who asked him a baseball question about whether a guy could hit in the big leagues. Moore told Schuerholz it depended on numerous factors like what kind of coaching he got. Schuerholz grunted.

After the meeting, Schuerholz pulled him aside and explained, in no uncertain terms, that when he asked a question, he wanted and expected and needed a direct answer. Yes. No. That's it. He didn't have time for equivocations, and wasn't interested in talking philosophies. Baseball is a success and failure business. Moore never made that mistake again.

That explains a lot. No nuance. Yes or no. Black or white. And always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom.

Chuck Lamar and Frank Wren have also proved much better at identifying talent than at putting together teams. I wonder if Schuerholz had a bad effect on all of them.

13 / 14, I beg to differ. You can choose to disagree or disregard Pos' piece, but he was clear as to any possible biases in regards Dayton Moore.

I'm not sure I get your point here. I'm disregarding Pos' assertion that he knows what's in Dayton Moore's heart because I think he is biased.

18, there have been hundreds of Pos pieces were he discloses his biases/wears them on his sleeve, and he still writes a damn insightful piece.

Heck, a great deal of the value (fun?) of reading Pos ARE his biases.

21, I was probably wrappping you into a position that you hadn't necessarily ade (it was more of a Snapper comment that I was reacting to).

Heck, a great deal of the value (fun?) of reading Pos ARE his biases.

I think it might be too soon for me to take his word about someone's character, is all. I still read him and admire his craft, but I have that distance between myself and his work that wasn't there before. He's a very seductive writer but I resist the seduction now, fair or not.

He's a very seductive writer

Agreed,

Let's say that Poz really does know what's in Moore's heart. Do pure motives make the deal that much more defensible?

Do pure motives make the deal that much more defensible?

I think you can defend the trade for baseball reasons. I wouldn't, but I think you can, but I rate Shields pretty highly and I also am higher on Wade Davis than most. I think there's a decent chance the Royals are next year's version of the Orioles. I'd say like 1 in 5? That seems about right. The young players step up a bit, the rotation is more settled and the team wakes up and replaces Frenchy before it's too late. Speaking of which...any chance the Royals could afford Cody Ross?

I'll ask this question though: why do we care whether Moore (or any GM) made a trade in an effort to save his job? Leaving aside that we have even less info about Moore's motivations than Poz, why does it matter to us and why are some of us (including me at times) ready to impugn someone's character by saying that is their motivation?

It was a bad trade. We haven't questioned what the Rays' motives were (they're cheapskates! they're throwing the 2013 season!) ... I'm not sure we ever consider the motives of the trade "winners."

Moore made a bad trade, maybe even a downright stupid trade.* He might even be an incompetent MLB GM. Whether he has achieved those with good or bad character should be beside the point.

* As some above examples show, the trade might of course work out for the Royals in the end. That's not the point and never has been of trade evaluation. The point is that, in today's market, two prospects like Myers and Odorizzi usually bring a lot more back. These are the sorts of players teams have virtually refused to trade except in deals for true stars. Maybe that market value or prospects is starting to shift as the FA market dries up or maybe, as some rumors have claimed, nobody in MLB is really that impressed with Myers.

But, Myers for Shields straight up would have been an overpay. Odorizzi for Davis straight up would have been an overpay. Once you take money into account, Odorizzi (and maybe one of the other mlers) for Shields sounds about right.

I also dislike the way Poz starts the article by describing the trade as "Myers (and others) for Shields (and others)". First, Odorizzi is a damn fine prospect on his own, maybe as good as Wade Davis right now. And Davis himself is a pretty good pitcher, probably a solid #4 starter, maybe a #3. In many ways it's the inclusion of Odorizzi that makes this a real head scratcher.

I think you can defend the trade for baseball reasons. I wouldn't, but I think you can, but I rate Shields pretty highly and I also am higher on Wade Davis than most.

You've always been a really good squinter, except for the time you mistook that onion for an apple.

27 sort of skids around something I was thinking of yesterday after hearing Dave Cameron on the Fangraphs' podcast: it has been widely asserted that Moore pulled off this trade to save his job. But that sort of implies that the Royals ownership is incredibly stupid and won't realize that (gosh darn it) Moore pulled off a trade that HELPS HIM (Moore), but hurts THE TEAM (and by extension, the owners of that team).

I don't buy it.

Getting back to Walt Davis' ACTUAL point, what would be the problem in Moore getting an actual instruction from Royals' ownership to go all in now (i.e., for 2013) and executing that instruction? It's been widely reported that Brian Cashman was hamstsrung in this way many times with the Yankees, but nobody seems to get all sorts of upset if Cashman ends up signing Soriano (for example) because he was instructed to do so.

21, I was probably wrappping you into a position that you hadn't necessarily ade (it was more of a Snapper comment that I was reacting to).

My only point was I tuned him out, and stopped reading the article the moment he got into how great a heart his dear friend had, and that Moore would never possibly act in a self-serving way. He lost me. I've give zero credence to his opinion. If anything, it makes me more suspicious.

I've seen too many people praised to high heavens by their friends and associates turn out to be absolute scumbags. Every "How dare you question so-and-so, he's a pillar of the community and his integrity is beyond reproach" seems to be shortly followed by news that the in question guy steals from orphans and diddles little girls.

“I’m going to take my chances on an athlete in the middle of the field — and if he doesn’t stick in the middle of the field, then he has to move to a corner — rather than a guy who starts on a corner and has little to fall back on.

Nothing IMO -- putting aside questions of whether Moore/Cashman (if they strongly disagree) should just refuse and offer their resignation. But that's the thing with this trade -- it's not clear it achieves that purpose so I'd still argue Moore did a bad job of achieving that objective.

First, to think this substantially improves the 2013 Royals, you have to think Francoeur is going to be decent or at least as good as Myers in 2013-14. Otherwise the upgrade to Shields/Davis is mostly wiped out by Frenchy.

Second, based on trades going back several years now, this is the sort of package (or an even lesser package) that brings back a Halladay or Santana or Lee. If this had been for Felix or Price or Dickey, you could easily see it. A similar trade we've seen recently would be Beckett and Lowell (and Mota) for Hanley, Anibal Sanchez and two others. That worked out fine for both sides although I'll note that, since the trade, Beckett and Sanchez have the same ERA+, Beckett with 400 more IP. Of course without the second 200 of those 400 and Lowell, no 2007 WS for the Sox.

So I'm making the Royals my early favorite for the 2014 WS.

EDIT: having found the good comp to this trade, this one is also similar to Colon for Lee, Sizemore and Phillips and Colon had performed substantially better than Shields prior to the trade. But Colon did pitch very well for the Expos (and White Sox the year after on that contract) so they got what they wanted, they just misjudged their chances and gave up way too much talent.

We got Andrew Bailey for Josh Reddick wrong.

Reading through that thread, it seems like the non-Boston fans got it wrong, and the Boston fans were mixed between "Reddick could be an All-Star" and "yeah, but we're fanboys".

Dale's #11 in that thread was just about perfect:

they are assembling one awesome bullpen for 2012.

I hear that every year...I'll believe it when I see it. Melancon has minuses coming in, Bailey has injury isssues...etc...etc..

I think Reddick has a ton of upside, he wasn't allowed to hit lefties enough in the MLB, and mostly succeeded when he did. I like his arm and his range. He was unlucky a bit last year and then got rookie jitters when the #### hit the fan in Sept. That's my story and I'm sticking with it. I hope him and Lowrie start the 2012 AS game.

Is Sweeney supposed to be the starting RFer? Holy #### the Sox may have two of the weakest corner OFers in baseball.

For the record, Posnanski, while defending Moore's integrity re: this trade, is still critical of the deal. He's Posnanski-esque about it (I understand, the logic makes sense, KC has been so bad for so long, etc.), but he is absolutely not saying, "I like Daytie-poo, I know he has a good heart, therefore, I believe this is a good trade."

For the record, Posnanski, while defending Moore's integrity re: this trade, is still critical of the deal. He's Posnanski-esque about it (I understand, the logic makes sense, KC has been so bad for so long, etc.), but he is absolutely not saying, "I like Daytie-poo, I know he has a good heart, therefore, I believe this is a good trade."

100% correct. He is purely defending his motives, not the trade.

27 sort of skids around something I was thinking of yesterday after hearing Dave Cameron on the Fangraphs' podcast: it has been widely asserted that Moore pulled off this trade to save his job. But that sort of implies that the Royals ownership is incredibly stupid and won't realize that (gosh darn it) Moore pulled off a trade that HELPS HIM (Moore), but hurts THE TEAM (and by extension, the owners of that team)

They're not stupid just apathetic.

Seriously though, I don't think Dayton is in any kind of jeopardy of losing his job. Ownership barely pays attention to what is going on. I think he did this because he's tired of losing and wants to win right this second.

First, to think this substantially improves the 2013 Royals, you have to think Francoeur is going to be decent or at least as good as Myers in 2013-14. Otherwise the upgrade to Shields/Davis is mostly wiped out by Frenchy.

Not sure I agree with this. First of all there is the possibility they could get a low cost replacement level or slightly higher RF for next year. That would be a 2-3 win improvement over what Frenchy did last year alone even without Myers. Even Frenchy bouncing back slightly to replacement level could add 1.5-2 wins.

Then Sanchez AND Davis combined are probably 5-7 wins better than say Jonathan Sanchez and Luke Hochevar (or Bruce Chen, whoever loses the 5th starter job). Don't underestimate just how god awful some of the Royals starting pitchers were last year.

I think this was a stupid trade, but it undoubtedly makes the Royals better in 2013, perhaps even by 5-6 wins. But that just gets them from 74 win territory to .500 territory, so consider me unimpressed.

When your GM feels compelled to make a statement defending a trade, you know it's for ####.

He didn't "feel compelled to make a statement." USA Today contacted him to get his reaction to the specific criticisms against him. He gave them his response. "Making a statement" is drafting a written release that is disseminated to all media, or getting up in front of a roomful of media and issuing a prepared speech.

Then Sanchez AND Davis combined are probably 5-7 wins better than say Jonathan Sanchez and Luke Hochevar (or Bruce Chen, whoever loses the 5th starter job).

But Odorizzi might well be as good as Davis. Pitchers like Shields are readily available on the FA market and there are several you could trade for at probably a lower price (e.g. Odorizzi for Garza probably goes down).** And Myers might well be 4 wins better than Frenchy 2012 (that only requires Myers to be league average). Sure, the 2013 Royals will be better than the 2012 Royals but that was already true. The question is whether the Dec 11, 2012 Royals are better than the Dec 10, 2012 Royals. I think that's pretty close and any improvement was not worth the extra money and the damage to the 2015-18 Royals.

Part of what I'm saying is that the 2013 Royals rotation was already going to have Santana (terrible last year but 810 IP with a 107 ERA+ from 2008-11 ... i.e. Shields) and Guthrie (600 IP, 100 ERA+ 2010-12) which already probably improved the starting rotation by something like 3-4 wins. And all Santana cost was Brandon Sisk, a 27-year-old minor-league reliever and the willingness to pay 1/$12. They could have added Odorizzi who might be as good as Guthrie/Davis right now.

And people say he couldn't have signed an FA pitcher this offseason. Sorry, I simply don't buy it. No, he couldn't beat the Greinke offer but

Shields: $10 M
Santana: $12 M
Guthrie: 3/$25 M (he was an FA)
Davis: $3 M
Hochevar: about $4 M

That was a lot of money he had to spend this year. Too late now, but they're also flushing $12 M on Frency and Chen. And the mystery as to why, if they knew they were going to trade Myers for pitching, they tendered Hochevar. I mean tendering Hochevar made no sense anyway but it's bizarre now.

** Tommy Hanson only cost a reliever; if he thinks ahead, Wandy Rodriguez only cost the Pirates 3 low-level guys who don't appear anywhere on BA's list.