Royals getting Shields and Wade Davis for Wil Myers and other prospects

[CA-ORIOLE]

If Myers becomes the next Felix Pie and Odorizzi becomes the next Adam Loewen, and KC makes a run at the playoffs in 2013, would you still think the Rays got the better end?

It's ridiculous to declare a winner or loser at this point. It was a fair trade for both teams. There's risk with all trades.

Of course you never know how things are going to work out with young players/propsects (even with vets), but this trade looks far more favorable for the Rays at this point than it does for KC, at least imo.

[eb45]

Yeah - if they handed out rings for "could" and "should", the Rays definitely got the better end of this deal.

This line of reasoning is always, without exception, asinine. There is risk on both sides. James Shields is not a certainty. The risk is weighted towards the Rays, yes, but "which team took on less risk" is not how you judge a trade.

Shields is better then any SP'er we have.

Yes, and? I wouldn't give up Dylan Bundy and Jonathan Schoop for him. Also at least rate-wise, Jason Hammel was almost as good in 2012. And most pitchers the O's could count on were better in 2012 than Shields' 2010.

With all due respect, Shields IS a frontline starter. His respective era over the last five years has been 3.21, 3.67, 3,46, and 3.84, and his career average era is 3.68. He's among the league leaders in strikeouts each year (averaged over 8 per 9 innings for the last three years) and with the exception of 2010, has maintained a very respectable WHIP. And he's done all this in the best division in baseball. If this is what you consider "pretty good," then what's great? Tom Seaver?

As many have side, time will tell who "won" the trade, but there's no questin that it filled a need for both teams. Both teams traded from what the perceived to be a position of strength to fill a need, with KC looking to win now and Tampa having a bit more of an eye towards the future.

Okay, upon looking at more advanced stats (curse you, Fangraphs, for not having the easy interface BR does, and curse you, BR, for not having SIERA), Shields is better than I initially made him out to be. But the fact remains: he's not Justin Verlander, Roy Halladay, or Felix Hernandez, and he's only under team control for two years. Shields also has a consistent trend of pitching worse than his peripherals, possibly due to a tendency to give up lots of HRs. This tendency is only likely to amplify as he moves from an extreme pitchers' park to a neutral one.

He's certainly not someone I'd consider trading Wil Myers for two years of. luismatos4prez has it right, I think: It's a desperate move that won't get the Royals to the playoffs, made by a GM who decided there's no point in building for the future if he won't be there for it and he might as well go all in on this year.

[mark_beckens]

Yes, and? I wouldn't give up Dylan Bundy and Jonathan Schoop for him. Also at least rate-wise, Jason Hammel was almost as good in 2012. And most pitchers the O's could count on were better in 2012 than Shields' 2010.

Where did I say anything about trading anyone for him? You were the one saying he was average at best. A #4 or 5 starter on a good team. If he's that, we're in big trouble! Hammel made 20 starts last year, pitched 118 innings, had his lowest ERA for his career, by far last year. You sure you really wanna use him? I mean you are the one who is saying if you look closely at Shields stats, he isn't as good. How can you look at Hammels and say he is better or even close? Hammel's lowest ERA before last season was 4.33, Shields 2.82, Hammel has never pitched over 200 innings in a season, Shields has done it 6 times.

[Bradysburns]

Yeah and if the Orioles traded Dylan Bundy and Jonathan Schoop and Kevin Gausman for Bruce Chen and Jonathan Sanchez then they could have done that too. This argument holds no water.

I do not understand the love affair all of baseball seems to hold for James Shields. He is a #3 starter, a #4 on a good team. When he's good, he's very, very good, but when he's not, he's mediocre. If you only look at his good starts, then maybe you can squint your way into seeing him as being worth Wil Myers and Jake Odorizzi. But a pitcher is not only his good starts, especially when he's 31 and has a track record of being generally just "pretty good" with occasional years where everything breaks right and he's an ace, but just as many years where everything breaks wrong and he isn't an ML pitcher. Wade Davis is a back end guy who now has to readjust to starting after being in the bullpen for a full year.

The Royals got two years of Shields, who isn't a frontline starter, and three or four of Davis for six or seven of Wil Myers, who could very well be a stud, and Jake Odorizzi, who should at least be Wade Davis and could be Jeremy Hellickson.

It's funny, because we just had the discussion about how the Royals were maybe the only team in baseball that uses stats to back up scouting rather than vice versa, and this is the kind of deal you only make if that's how you're looking at it. Because James Shields is only this good if you ignore his entire body of work to focus on his occasional great games, which is what you do if you don't look at stats first.

I assume most people would say the Orioles were a good team last year. So Shields would have started in the Yankee playoff series behind who, exactly?

[eb45]

Where did I say anything about trading anyone for him? You were the one saying he was average at best. A #4 or 5 starter on a good team. If he's that, we're in big trouble! Hammel made 20 starts last year, pitched 118 innings, had his lowest ERA for his career, by far last year. You sure you really wanna use him? I mean you are the one who is saying if you look closely at Shields stats, he isn't as good. How can you look at Hammels and say he is better or even close? Hammel's lowest ERA before last season was 4.33, Shields 2.82, Hammel has never pitched over 200 innings in a season, Shields has done it 6 times.

This is massively irrelevant to anything I've said in this thread. Where do you get this post out of "at least rate-wise, Jason Hammel was almost as good in 2012"? Hammel's rate stats in 2012 were comparable to Shields' in 2012. Rate stats. In 2012. That means that the number of innings pitched, number of starts, and anything outside of 2012 are all irrelevant. Which is everything you mentioned in this post. Do you dispute that Hammel's rate stats were not far off from Shields' in 2012?

Also the Orioles are absolutely in trouble if you don't believe their best pitchers in 2012 can sustain their performances in 2013. I never said they weren't. In fact, if you think the Orioles couldn't have used James Shields, then you're silly. He's a good pitcher who upgrades any rotation, because there's lots of value in a #2/#3 starter who eats a lot of innings with a slightly above average ERA+. But he's not a major game changer. The Royals paid for a game changer when what I think they'll get is a complementary piece at best, particularly away from Tropicana Field. And this thread is about trading Wil Myers and Jake Odorizzi for James Shields and Wade Davis (who will be used as a starter, which is silly because he's bad as a starter), so if you want to bring the Orioles into it, then you'd better be prepared to say who you'd trade to get them. And if you think this trade was okay for the Royals, then you'd better be prepared to trade Dylan Bundy and Jonathan Schoop, plus let's say Nick Delmonico and Jake Arrieta. Because that's about what the Royals gave up.

Bradysburns: I don't think the Orioles had necessarily a great rotation last year (though Hammel, Tillman, Gonzalez got better results than Shields). Shields is a #3 starter on a team like the Rays, Dodgers, Angels, White Sox, Tigers, Phillies, Nationals, Reds, Giants, etc. The Orioles might be the only 2012 playoff team where Shields might have been the #1 starter. And even then... I don't know.

[mark_beckens]

This is massively irrelevant to anything I've said in this thread. Where do you get this post out of "at least rate-wise, Jason Hammel was almost as good in 2012"? Hammel's rate stats in 2012 were comparable to Shields' in 2012. Rate stats. In 2012. That means that the number of innings pitched, number of starts, and anything outside of 2012 are all irrelevant. Which is everything you mentioned in this post. Do you dispute that Hammel's rate stats were not far off from Shields' in 2012?

Shields 2012 TB 33 33 15 10 0 0 0 3 2 227.2 208 103 89 25 58 223 3.52 1.17 .239

Hammel 2012 BAL 20 20 8 6 0 0 0 1 1 118.0 104 48 45 9 42 113 3.43 1.24 .234

Considering Hammel threw 109 less innings, I'd say Shields was better! Who knows what Hammel would have done with more innings. Could have been better, could have been worse. Thing is Shields has a track record of pitching 200+ innings per season, Hammel doesn't!

Also the Orioles are absolutely in trouble if you don't believe their best pitchers in 2012 can sustain their performances in 2013. I never said they weren't. In fact, if you think the Orioles couldn't have used James Shields, then you're silly. He's a good pitcher who upgrades any rotation, because there's lots of value in a #2/#3 starter who eats a lot of innings with a slightly above average ERA+. But he's not a major game changer. The Royals paid for a game changer when what I think they'll get is a complementary piece at best, particularly away from Tropicana Field. And this thread is about trading Wil Myers and Jake Odorizzi for James Shields and Wade Davis (who will be used as a starter, which is silly because he's bad as a starter), so if you want to bring the Orioles into it, then you'd better be prepared to say who you'd trade to get them. And if you think this trade was okay for the Royals, then you'd better be prepared to trade Dylan Bundy and Jonathan Schoop, plus let's say Nick Delmonico and Jake Arrieta. Because that's about what the Royals gave up.

Reading comprehension. The Orioles are in trouble if Shields is no better then a #3 or #4. Since he would be our BEST pitcher! Shields is a #1 on most teams and a solid #2! I never said the O's should trade for him. I just commented on your illogical rant about how Shields is overrated and average at best, if you squint at his good stats and look past all his bad starts. ALL pitchers have good and bad starts. Based on his stats, Shields is among the best SP'er. Is is worth what the Royals gave up, probably not. But who am I say other wise. We'll see where each team is and what the players do over the next couple years to determine that.

[SrMeowMeow]

Where's that dude bragging about his contacts in the Royals front office? Kansas City just picked their own pocket because Dayton Moore's on the hot seat.

[eb45]

Shields 2012 TB 33 33 15 10 0 0 0 3 2 227.2 208 103 89 25 58 223 3.52 1.17 .239

Hammel 2012 BAL 20 20 8 6 0 0 0 1 1 118.0 104 48 45 9 42 113 3.43 1.24 .234

Considering Hammel threw 109 less innings, I'd say Shields was better! Who knows what Hammel would have done with more innings. Could have been better, could have been worse. Thing is Shields has a track record of pitching 200+ innings per season, Hammel doesn't!

do you know what rate stats are

are you familiar with that concept

do you understand what "close in rate stats" means

Reading comprehension. The Orioles are in trouble if Shields is no better then a #3 or #4. Since he would be our BEST pitcher! Shields is a #1 on most teams and a solid #2! I never said the O's should trade for him. I just commented on your illogical rant about how Shields is overrated and average at best, if you squint at his good stats and look past all his bad starts. ALL pitchers have good and bad starts. Based on his stats, Shields is among the best SP'er. Is is worth what the Royals gave up, probably not. But who am I say other wise. We'll see where each team is and what the players do over the next couple years to determine that.

Kind of big of you to say "reading comprehension" when I've understood what you're saying perfectly from the beginning while you still haven't figured out that I'm just saying Hammel's rate stats were close to Shields' in 2012, not that Hammel was or is a better pitcher.

And yes, the Orioles should be worried! I don't know how you'd think otherwise! If James Shields would be their best pitcher, they are probably not a playoff team! James Shields is not an average pitcher, I don't know where you got that I think that. I said he was a #3 or #4 starter, which is not average. He's not an ace unless EVERYTHING goes right for him (like it did in 2011), and I don't think he's even a #2 outside of the extreme pitchers' park that is Tropicana. I'm not saying the Royals shouldn't have traded for him, because there's value in a guy who can throw lots of innings and not be bad. But to give up what they gave up for a guy with a 4.50+ ERA outside of his cavernous home park? That is foolish. As is using Wade Davis as a starter. And the fact that the Orioles' rotation is unproven doesn't change that in any way.

[CA-ORIOLE]

do you know what rate stats are

are you familiar with that concept

do you understand what "close in rate stats" means

Kind of big of you to say "reading comprehension" when I've understood what you're saying perfectly from the beginning while you still haven't figured out that I'm just saying Hammel's rate stats were close to Shields' in 2012, not that Hammel was or is a better pitcher..

If you're lucky he'll put you on ignore.

[SrMeowMeow]

Kind of big of you to say "reading comprehension" when I've understood what you're saying perfectly from the beginning while you still haven't figured out that I'm just saying Hammel's rate stats were close to Shields' in 2012, not that Hammel was or is a better pitcher.

And yes, the Orioles should be worried! I don't know how you'd think otherwise! If James Shields would be their best pitcher, they are probably not a playoff team! James Shields is not an average pitcher, I don't know where you got that I think that. I said he was a #3 or #4 starter, which is not average. He's not an ace unless EVERYTHING goes right for him (like it did in 2011), and I don't think he's even a #2 outside of the extreme pitchers' park that is Tropicana. I'm not saying the Royals shouldn't have traded for him, because there's value in a guy who can throw lots of innings and not be bad. But to give up what they gave up for a guy with a 4.50+ ERA outside of his cavernous home park? That is foolish. As is using Wade Davis as a starter. And the fact that the Orioles' rotation is unproven doesn't change that in any way.

I didn't read this whole thread but I don't really get your argument. How is Shields not a solid pick for a #1 starter? He was ninth in the AL in WAR last year and twelfth in ERA (among qualified starters). And this was his "non-ace year where everything didn't go right for him". In 2011 he was eighth in WAR and third in ERA. He's a very good pitcher who is a very good candidate to be an ace on many teams. Ace doesn't mean "best pitcher in baseball". And to short-circuit a whole semantic wrangle, let me just say that calling James Shields a "#3 or #4 starter" is crazytime. And also, how would you describe an average starter if not as a #3/#4 guy? If that's not average...are average starters #5 guys? I'm not following.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I didn't read this whole thread but I don't really get your argument. How is Shields not a solid pick for a #1 starter? He was ninth in the AL in WAR last year and twelfth in ERA (among qualified starters). And this was his "non-ace year where everything didn't go right for him". In 2011 he was eighth in WAR and third in ERA. He's a very good pitcher who is a very good candidate to be an ace on many teams. Ace doesn't mean "best pitcher in baseball". And to short-circuit a whole semantic wrangle, let me just say that calling James Shields a "#3 or #4 starter" is crazytime. And also, how would you describe an average starter if not as a #3/#4 guy? If that's not average...are average starters #5 guys? I'm not following.

I think it depends on how you look at Shields overall career, his away splits, peripheral stats, and his last two years. Also stats like rWAR/ERA+ (which I tend to like for SP's and others probably don't), which shows Shields having a career rate of 107 and significantly lesser WAR value than FIP based fWAR. I think he's closer to a number two myself. No doubt his durability increases his value.

[Frobby]

I said he was a #3 or #4 starter, which is not average. He's not an ace unless EVERYTHING goes right for him (like it did in 2011), and I don't think he's even a #2 outside of the extreme pitchers' park that is Tropicana.

2008: Tampa finished 2nd in the league in ERA. Shields was 2nd among the starters in ERA (Kazmir) and 1st in IP.

2009: Tampa finished 6th in the league in ERA. Shields was 3rd among the starters in ERA (Niemann, Garza) and 1st in IP.

2010: Tampa finsihed 2nd in the league in ERA. Shields was 5th among the starters in ERA (Price, Garza, Niemann, Davis) and 3rd in IP.

2011: Tampa finished 2nd inthe league in ERA. Shields was 1st among the starters in ERA and 1st in IP.

2012: Tampa finished 1st in the league in ERA. Shields was 3rd among the starters in ERA (Price, Hellickson) and 1st in IP.

I think the worst you can draw out of that is that he's a no. 2-3 starter on a good team. Tampa's been good that whole time, their pitching has been excellent, and Shields has led the team in IP four times out of five.

I place a lot of value on reliability. Shields rarely misses a start and he's up in the league leaders in IP every year. I'd rather have a guy like that than someone who occasionally has a good season but is injury prone or a 6-inning pitcher.

[SrMeowMeow]

I think it depends on how you look at Shields overall career, his away splits, peripheral stats, and his last two years. Also stats like rWAR/ERA+ (which I tend to like for SP's and others probably don't), which shows Shields having a career rate of 107 and lesser WAR value than FIP base fWAR. I think he's closer to a number two myself. No doubt his durability increases his value.

I think you can make a case for Shields as a #2, but #3/#4 is nutso.

[Bradysburns]

Also the Orioles are absolutely in trouble if you don't believe their best pitchers in 2012 can sustain their performances in 2013. I never said they weren't. In fact, if you think the Orioles couldn't have used James Shields, then you're silly. He's a good pitcher who upgrades any rotation, because there's lots of value in a #2/#3 starter who eats a lot of innings with a slightly above average ERA+. But he's not a major game changer. The Royals paid for a game changer when what I think they'll get is a complementary piece at best, particularly away from Tropicana Field. And this thread is about trading Wil Myers and Jake Odorizzi for James Shields and Wade Davis (who will be used as a starter, which is silly because he's bad as a starter), so if you want to bring the Orioles into it, then you'd better be prepared to say who you'd trade to get them. And if you think this trade was okay for the Royals, then you'd better be prepared to trade Dylan Bundy and Jonathan Schoop, plus let's say Nick Delmonico and Jake Arrieta. Because that's about what the Royals gave up.

Bradysburns: I don't think the Orioles had necessarily a great rotation last year (though Hammel, Tillman, Gonzalez got better results than Shields). Shields is a #3 starter on a team like the Rays, Dodgers, Angels, White Sox, Tigers, Phillies, Nationals, Reds, Giants, etc. The Orioles might be the only 2012 playoff team where Shields might have been the #1 starter. And even then... I don't know.

That's a fair point, regarding the Orioles. But it bolsters my original point even more. And that is... I believe that our starting rotation remains largely unproven, and it's unlikely to repeat its performance from last season. There is a significant risk that we will see serious regression from Hammel, Gonzo, Chen and Tillman. (Of course, they could all get better, too... they're on the shoulder of their prime years, for the most part). Likewise, Bundy and Gausman are prospects - and until they prove themselves at the higher levels and succeed here, they'll remain very talented prospects.

For many years, we assumed we couldn't win "next year"... or even three years from now. But today, we know we can win next season. So it would make sense to shift our acquisition strategies toward the "NOW" side of the spectrum, instead of the "five years from now" side... In other words, dealing for a player like Shields makes a lot more sense to me today than it would have even a couple years ago.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I think you can make a case for Shields as a #2, but #3/#4 is nutso.

Yeah, I think that's a reach. I could buy 2/3 on a good team, but 3/4 is a stretch.