KC Royals: Four Years After Trading For James Shields And Wade Davis: How Do You Like Me Now?!

  • http://kingsofkauffman.com/2016/12/09/kc-royals-four-years-trading-james-shields-wade-davis/?utm_campaign=FanSided+Daily&utm_source=FanSided+Daily&utm_medium=email

    From Fansided Dec 12, 2016

    "The KC Royals traded top prospect Wil Myers, along with three other minor-league players, to Tampa Bay in return for pitchers James Shields and Wade Davis on Dec. 9, 2012. Pundits and analysts across baseball largely pummeled the Kansas City Royals front office for the deal. KC gave up super-prospect Wil Myers, pitchers Jake Odorizzi and Mike Montgomery, along with rookie league player Patrick Leonard. But, most analysts thought the Royals weren’t close enough to contending to make such a deal and that general manager Dayton Moore was merely trying to prevent owner David Glass from giving him the axe.   Former Toronto Blue Jays exec turned baseball writer Keith Law said: “The deal reeks of a GM feeling pressure to improve short-term performance to keep his job,” Law wrote, “which is a terrible situation for any executive both personally and for the way it can inhibit his ability to make rational decisions.”

    Moore told USA Today’s Bob Nightengale on Dec. 10, 2012: “To me, that’s insulting,” Moore tells USA TODAY Sports. “That’s very insulting. Very, very insulting. I don’t get too bent up about criticism, and I want to take the high road here, but that’s insulting my integrity.” “If something happened, I couldn’t get another job in baseball? Is that what people think?”

    No One Questions Dayton Moore’s Decision Now You know what? Four years later, Dayton Moore stands completely vindicated. His team was indeed on the verge of winning, finishing 86-76 in 2013 before reeling off two straight American League pennants in 2014-15. The young KC Royals desperately needed the leadership James Shields provided. And, the team didn’t come into their own until veteran role player Raul Ibanez infused his teammates with self-belief in a clubhouse speech in July of 2014.

    I guess that’s why Keith Law writes about baseball, and Dayton Moore is on his way to getting elected to the MLB Hall Of Fame. Don’t laugh. If the Royals win one more World Series, Moore has a very good chance."

  • Hell yeah!

  • @Crimsonorblue22 Not sad at all Crims…Look at what he helped us to live through…it’s really all good. This is what he said.

    "Now it’s time to move on. The next part of the journey awaits. “Everything’s been a little bit of surprise,” Davis said. “All in good ways.”

  • @globaljaybird that didn’t help!

  • @Crimsonorblue22 Sorry I can’t make it better.

  • @globaljaybird did we lose holly too?

  • @Crimsonorblue22 Good question-Heaven’s lets hope not.

  • @Crimsonorblue22 She is NOT giving up ! I said NOT !!

  • @globaljaybird 😬

  • @Crimsonorblue22 She was just in the news again this week but I did not want to post a link & make you sad again-keep your chin up. She is .

  • @globaljaybird I meant holland, sorry!

  • You can have James Shields back if you’d like for a couple of your top prospects.

  • @wissox no

  • @wissox My take from here on is one of damage control for virtually every small market team out there. With the CBA changed to eliminate a first round pick from the team losing a top player when another signs him, there is absolutely nothing to hold ANY FA to his employer. Best you can do now is cross your fingers & hope if you are losing several key guys at once … or amiably just bend over & kiss your teams’ rear goodbye… JMO

  • @globaljaybird 💋

  • @globaljaybird it’s not completely eliminated. Contracts over $50m still get 1st rd picks. And then the big market teams who sign a QO player lose a 2nd round pick and $1m in their foreign players budget.

    It basically doesn’t change anything for superstar players. Any big market team is willing to give up a pick for a stud regardless.

    I think it actually helps small market teams in many scenarios. It might drive down borderline guys to a reasonable salary. If a guy is going to be right at the $50m mark, he is likely to not get offers from big market teams who don’t want to give up a pick for someone right at that threshhold. So his best offer may very well be from his own team just because of the pick.

  • @Kcmatt7 I respectfully have to disagree with your last paragraph. If the players or their union thought this to be the case, why would they wish to restrict earnings of any FA’s? Collective bargaining has to represent all of their membership & there are many, many more of the FA’s in this category than the first. The rich will get richer & the small market teams will struggle even more to sell tickets. JMO

  • @globaljaybird we can agree to disagree.

    Either way, its the way baseball is now and the cards the Royals are dealt. We can still win with the rules. More than anything it is our owner hampering us. He got his World Series so now he wants to back off a little bit. I don’t have a problem with an owner doing what they want with a team. I am glad we will see another season of competitive baseball. And I think times like this make a GM become much more careful and much more creative. They find trades and explore paths they wouldn’t have if they could have just resigned a guy or bought a free agent. If Dayton really is a hall of fame level GM than he will keep us competitive and in playoff races for the next 5 or 6 years.

  • @Kcmatt7

    Unfortunately, the Royal;s cannot compete with the big market teams. The only way to have a competitive team is to develop players early, by finding diamond in the rough as it were, and then watching them move to richer teams when they develop into superstars. Royals TV contract ~ $21M in 2016, Dodgers TV contract ~ $230M in 2016…can’t really compete with the big boys money-wise.

  • @JayHawkFanToo said:


    Unfortunately, the Royal;s cannot compete with the big market teams.

    Didn’t I just watch the Royals in back to back World Series recently?

  • @dylans

    Exactly my point. The Royals won mostly with players they acquired while they were inexpensive and prospects they developed themselves and before they became stars. Now that they are bona fide stars, they will likely be gone since the organization cannot keep them all at the salary they now command and they will have to start the process all over again. With their income, the Royals can keep maybe two high end players and the rest need to have much lower salaries. The TV contract for the Royals allows to pay 2 players $10M per year, the one for the Dodgers allows 11 players at $20M per year.

    While a few owners keep their teams as a hobby and don’t mind losing some money, most are businessmen that do not want to lose money but want a return on their investment, i.e. profit instead. It is really Business 101, you cannot spend money you don’t have…unless you are the Federal Government…of course.

  • @JayHawkFanToo or Donald trump

  • @Crimsonorblue22 who, in a strange twist, now runs the Federal Government

  • @Crimsonorblue22

    How do you figure that?

  • @JayHawkFanToo how many bankruptcies?

  • @Crimsonorblue22 oh c’mon with that nonsense. These are rules put in place to protect investors and owners alike. Chapter 11 bankruptcy is literally just saying they took on too much of an investment, or debt, and we need to adjust some things to make investors happy. Instead of filing a Chapter 7 which would mean they closed the doors and everyone involved lost everything.

    Do we want to bash him for not paying taxes as well? Even though I’m sure nobody on this forum pays more in taxes than they are required to do. What people who don’t understand the tax code don’t realize is that the rich pay far less taxes than we think. “Raise the tax rate on the rich.” Unless the plan is for it to be a flat tax with no deductions, good luck with that. Rich guys that hire accountants can get their taxes down to almost nothing. Between depreciation and donations alone, large corporations and the upper class can cut their taxes almost in half. It is called being smart and playing by the rules. It’s not his fault the rules are written the way they are. And what better person to try to fix these rules than the person who has been taking advantage of them for decades?

    As much as I hate that we elected Trump, as he seems like an arrogant, awful person, I am excited to see what a guy with business acumen can do with a budget. If anything, he has WAY more experience in dealing with debt than any other President. He has way more experience with a budget than any other president. So, either Trump proves what a smart businessman can do when given the chance in the White House or he proves that politicians are better for the presidency. I wish it wasn’t Trump and another tough businessman, but he is the guy who ran. He is the guy who wants to change the U.S. and leave a legacy. What other billionaires are doing that? Are we actually so cynical we think this 70 year old billionaire just wants to “help his own business and friends?” His family is set for generations because of the wealth that he has built. He doesn’t have any reason to take this job without actually trying to just do a good job. So, how about we give him a shot, yea?


    I think you will be surprised how many headlines you will see like this in the next couple of years.

  • @Crimsonorblue22

    All using legal means and laws enacted by Congress; Standard Business Practice. Bankruptcies lose money from investors that knew the potential risks (and rewards) going in; we have no say in how the Federal Government spends the taxpayers money.

    Term limits and having Congress do away with their own retirement and health insurance plans and joining Social Security and Obama Care like the rest of us would fix the problem in a hurry.

  • @Kcmatt7 It is always invigorating to see what excitement the hope and optimism of youth can bring. I am a bit more pessimistic. I always am, by the way, at the begining of any new presidency. Especially ones like Obama’s and Trump’s, both of whom seem convinced that their elections were mandates for extreme policy positions just because they have the power edge–temporarily. The Republic needs compromise on both sides.

    We will check back in 4 years to see if the new guy, who thinks he is so smart he doesn’t need to listen to anyone with experience, succeeds as a leader any better than the old guy, who thought being really smart meant listening to way too many people and so he gave away too much policy-making power to his long-entrenched experienced allies rather than unifying as he had promised.

  • @mayjay Absolutely right. Until we compromise on issues, it doesn’t really matter who is president… Problem is that we haven’t found a way as a people to fix the problem. Someone needs to develop a moderate third party and start building it from the ground up right now. Really get involved at the smaller levels first and then work their way up. Nab a few seats in Congress. Get some people with experience. And then actually make a push for a presidency. I’m talking 20-30 years before even running for president. We need a voice of reason.

  • @Kcmatt7 said:

    I’m talking 20-30 years before even running for president. We need a voice of reason.

    Well, crap. I will be way too old to run by then. Y’all youngsters might have to figure this out by your lonesomes.

    On a serious note, the internet has exponentially expanded the amount of information available to everybody, but most studies show that most people look for information (or opinions or even “fake news”) that confirms their already held opinions. Thus, what could be a tool has become a set of self-imposed blinders instead.

  • @mayjay said:

    most studies show that most people look for information (or opinions or even “fake news”) that confirms their already held opinions.

    Did you just look at the studies that confirmed your opinion, or did they just study the phenomena that confirmed their opinions?

    Be careful how you answer, or I may have to move to a site that confirms my prior opinion…

  • @mayjay I have actually talked to my friends about this.

    There will need to become a federally funded new station at some point (after we have room in the budget for it). We will have to find a way to separate it from the control of federal government (so we don’t look like Russians) and allow it to act independently. We need to do this because they won’t have any reason to report biased news because they wouldn’t be driven by clicks and subscriptions. We might be able to actually create a real news source again.

  • @ParisHawk

    But…it was in the Interwebs so it must be true, right?

  • @ParisHawk I discovered the Truth by gazing into my navel. It is not a web site in the usual meaning, and I don’t really recommend it.

Log in to reply