James Shields and Wade Davis traded to Kansas City

[Patrick Bateman]

Thinking about this trade for longer, I feel the points raised in this thread make for a strong narrative as to the reasons why the Royals did this now, and the ways that this could help, perhaps even beyond face value. Also, I didn't consider the Davis factor much... I mean, still with youth on his side, his strong results in relief really could also be a sign of a pitching advancement than just a role change. If the scouts see something they like with him, the option years on that contract could turn into the most valuable thing in that trade. He certainly would not be the first talented pitcher that took some time to become a rotation force, heck he wouldn't even be the first guy involved in this trade that fits that description.

At the same time, the Reds didn't give up the top hitting prospect in baseball for Rolen. They essentially gave up some stuff that seemed overhyped at the time, and in hindsight, the players looked even worse. Time might very well tell the same for the package the Rays received, especially Montgomery, and Leonard, but, I think a team like the Royals needs to take the chance on the Myers' of the world, because for a smaller market team, guys like that gives a team the best chance to be a sustainable force.

Perhaps becoming sustainable is a few zipcodes out of the dictionary for the Royals considering they still need to make a few steps just to become relevant again, but man, if Myers is that good, this is going to hurt 10 times worse than the success they could get out of it on the other side of the coin. Also, the timing of this could be woldly inappropriate. Two years from now if Hosmer/Moustakas and co. establish themselves as being able to turn the Royals into big time contenders, maybe trading the high end prospects to get the cherry on top makes more sense. Or maybe with their system they can do both? It certainly would seem much more palatable right now if Francouer was actually a 'thing' rather than being a replacement level part. This certainly wasn't quite the same "trading from a positional surplus" that the Reds did in the Latos deal. The timing of the Latos trade, and the parts we gave up certainly seemed to fit perfectly with the rest of the puzzle that Jocketty had put together.

I can't argue much with what the Rolen comparison did for the Reds. If Shields is able to do the same for the Royals, then they are not going to regret this one. But I feel like there must have been a cheaper price to pay for that effect without removing one of their best chips that also fit their roster well (but at the same time, I can't think off the top of my head another available piece that could have performed that role so well).

[Johnny Footstool]

Originally Posted by Strikes Out Looking

According to Andrew Friedman (Rays GM) they had been discussing it off and on since October.

Fair enough. We really only started hearing about Myers being shopped a couple of weeks ago, but I'm sure there were a lot of discussions prior to that.

[klw]

I like the move by the Royals. It is risky but getting Davis and shields should be a huge boost to the team and help set it on the right path. Just because there are free agent pitchers out there doesn't mean they can get them without Gil Meche type deals.

Here is another reason:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/mi...d=wood--002ric

Myers success in AAA this year does not mean it will translate going forward.

[dougdirt]

Brandon Wood had plate discipline problems until he was in his second year of AAA. Wil Myers has no such problem, nor has he ever shown it. Poor reason for a comparison.

[powersackers]

Did I stumble in Royals Zone by accident? Damn smartphone.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by powersackers

Did I stumble in Royals Zone by accident? Damn smartphone.

Predictive text will get you every time....

[Blitz Dorsey]

Keith Law thinks it's an obvious win for the Rays.

So, the Royals have that going for them. Law thinks anytime veterans are traded for prospects that the team who got the prospects was the winner. Check Law's comments on the Latos trade. Hey Keith, that's called "being wrong" bud. He made it seem like the Pads fleeced the Reds. Haha. Try again.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey

Keith Law thinks it's an obvious win for the Rays.

So, the Royals have that going for them. Law thinks anytime veterans are traded for prospects that the team who got the prospects was the winner. Check Law's comments on the Latos trade. Hey Keith, that's called "being wrong" bud. He made it seem like the Pads fleeced the Reds. Haha. Try again.

Far to early to call that a win for the Reds.

I loved the trade the day that it happened. I still love it. But I could see where the Reds "lose" that trade in the long run. The Padres have two of their starting 8 out of the deal and control them for the next 5 years, a #4 starter with Volquez and a bullpen arm with upside who has already given good returns in the Majors, though with questions on how long it can last without better control.

[lollipopcurve]

Far to early to call that a win for the Reds.

One postseason appearance in the books. The Reds are off to a good start with Latos in the rotation.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Far to early to call that a win for the Reds.

I loved the trade the day that it happened. I still love it. But I could see where the Reds "lose" that trade in the long run. The Padres have two of their starting 8 out of the deal and control them for the next 5 years, a #4 starter with Volquez and a bullpen arm with upside who has already given good returns in the Majors, though with questions on how long it can last without better control.

Disagree 100%. 2 of the 4 pieces were blocked on the Reds and therefore had no place to play. That's beyond expendable in my book. Sure, they had value...but they had FAR more value to another team.

In my opinion, that trade was a win for both teams. We lost very little that we needed and got a huge chip. They lost that huge chip but got a bunch of valuable pieces that they needed. Win-win.

[Blitz Dorsey]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Far to early to call that a win for the Reds.

I loved the trade the day that it happened. I still love it. But I could see where the Reds "lose" that trade in the long run. The Padres have two of their starting 8 out of the deal and control them for the next 5 years, a #4 starter with Volquez and a bullpen arm with upside who has already given good returns in the Majors, though with questions on how long it can last without better control.

I agree we won't know for a few years the final verdict on the Latos trade. But I think we can all agree right now that Keith Law behaving as if the Reds got taken to the cleaners in that deal was way off. Maybe the Reds end up winning the trade, maybe not. But in no way was it some home run of a deal for the Padres. Right now, the trade looks like a win for the Reds, especially with Yasmani's affection for the juice. Volquez was done in Cincinnati. He was the definition of a "throw-in." I didn't like losing Boxberger, but a right-handed middle reliever? The Reds got an even better one by trading Juan Francisco for JJ Hoover. The point is right-handed middle relievers or even set-up guys aren't extremely hard to find. They don't grow on trees, which is why I didn't like giving up Boxberger, but you have to give something to get something. Yonder Alonso was never going to play in Cincinnati due to Votto and his lack of HR power is alarming for a first baseman. He can rake some doubles though and part of the reason his HR numbers were so dreadful in 2012 was because of Petco, of course. I think the Reds always viewed Alonso as a trading chip in the back of their minds and they used said trading chip well.

Overall, the Latos trade looks like a big win for the Reds. We won't know for a few years for sure though. But Law looks clueless for pretending as if the Padres completely ripped off the Reds. I'm not going to link any of his stories -- most of them are Insider anyway. But I remember him ripping the Reds for the trade. Like I said, the next time Keith Law thinks a team trading prospects away wins a trade will be the first. He overvalues prospects in trades. Getting established Major League pitchers like Mat Latos and James Shields is very difficult, especially for small-market teams. I have Wil Myers in my fantasy keeper league and he's no sure thing by any means. He was great in 2012, but was pretty average in 2011 for big-time prospect standards. Many chalked that up to him moving from catcher to the OF, but the point is that it's not like Wil Myers raked every year he was in the minors. And he never showed this much power in previous years. I think it might be one of those trades that ends up being good for both sides. But I had to laugh at Keith Law predictably crowning the Rays as the winner of the deal.

[klw]

I think the Latos trade will likely play out as a win both sides. The Padres got multiple players with upside and the Reds got a TOR pitcher. This fit both of their needs nicely.

[mdccclxix]

I can't think of another ace that was traded with 4 years of team control left like Latos had. Any overpay likely had a lot to do with that. Latos made beans last year.

[RedEye]

Yeah, I think the Latos trade was pretty unprecedented in recent years in terms of getting a TOR arm that was already established at that level for such a long span of time.

[Blitz Dorsey]

Yeah, the financial aspect also makes the Latos trade look really good for the Reds, no question. That's another thing that was overlooked by Law and others that ripped the trade. The Padres did get three young players they can keep on the cheap for several years, but those guys aren't established Major League starting pitchers.