The reason why people hate this trade is because they think it does not get the Royals close enough to convention to be worth the great prospects they gave up. They won't be close to contention because the great prospects already brought up haven't quite panned out yet.
The Royals are expecting Hosmer and Moustakes to pop up to 3 WAR levels, while the people who hate this trade are expecting them to stagnate. That is the difference between sabr contention and mediocrity, and both of them were regarded even better than Myers just 2 years ago.

And hope that at least 1 Hamilton replacement comes from among Ackley, Montero, Saunders, Seager, Smoak, Franklin, Zunino, Hultzen, Paxton, Walker, Ramirez, Catricala, Miller, etc. before Hamilton declines?
Sounds like a good case to be made there.

I saw the first report of Myers+ for Shields and Davis and thought "Hm, that's pretty good return. Better than I was expecting Moore to do. Wonder who the + is... can't be that much, right?" Then I saw it was Odorizzi, Montgomery and Leonard and my jaw hit the floor. I mean, what? Wade Davis (or Charlie Furbush) is a nice player, but that's an absurd haul for him. Odorizzi is basically Danny Hultzen, but closer to MLB-ready. Montgomery is Maurer, if Maurer had gotten injured again last year. Leonard is the hitting equivalent of Victor Sanchez. No way, no WAY would I give that up for a good reliever who can double as a fringy starter. Odorizzi probably projects as a better starter than Davis in 2013. What gives?
And it's not like they won huge on Myers for Shields. I'm not sure I buy the idea promulgated in Part I, that Shields is a true ace. Is he a nice pitcher? Very much so. Great #2. But those home/road splits are terrifying if I'm Moore. Shields is the classic example of a pitcher where you have to look a bit beyond WAR, a dude who plays in a real pitcher-friendly park with a top-tier defense behind him. His career road numbers? 4.54 ERA, 4.38 FIP... that's worse than the Royals' #5 starter last year. Stuff or no stuff, Shields is not the kind of pitcher you throw into Kauffman and expect to acclimate well.
As for subtracting the WAR, this is a good point well-argued and it's why I am in favor of moving Nick Franklin. But it doesn't apply to Myers. Why not? Because the guy behind Myers is Jeff Francoeur, who was quite literally the worst starter in baseball last year. This is, as others have said, the definition of robbing Peter to pay Paul. This isn't trading Ackley and filling in with Franklin, it's trading Erasmo and filling in with Noesi. In Myers' case the performance of the guy behind him is actually negative and should've disincentivized trading Wil even further.
You set up an analogy in this post: this trade is akin to Seager for Weaver, and fill in with Franklin/Liddi. But I don't buy Shields as Weaver once he moves to KC, the Royals have no Franklin or Liddi behind Myers and are filling in with the worst regular in MLB, and Myers has a higher ceiling than Seager does.
As for the Royals specifically making this deal... when people say "some teams can make this trade and get away with it", they're not necessarily saying this deal is balanced. The Dodgers could've gotten away with this, easy. In fact, they did, in the middle of last year, because they're close to contention and they've got owners willing to throw cash around indiscriminately enough that they can afford to replace all of their prospects through free agency. That doesn't mean they won the trade on talent & cash--methinks they lost big in that respect. But you can afford to lose trades on overall talent in order to improve your MLB roster if you can easily replace that minor league talent through free agency, like the Dodgers. The Royals, having no cash, cannot afford to do this. The Royals must build through the draft. Prospects have more value to them.
But you know what, that Shields-for-Myers deal is still not indefensible. I might do Myers for Shields straight up--it's a little weird considering the Royals' financial situation (they're already overbudget and now may be forced to deal Butler or Gordon) and their proximity to contention, but it's not like Shields is a Boras client who won't re-sign and like you said Myers could bust or the Royals could like him less than others do. It's the other half of this deal that's inexcusable to me. That's way too much of a prospect haul for a guy like Charlie Furbush.
Am I cool with Taijuan Walker for Billy Butler straight up? Yeah, I guess, in a vacuum that ignores the Mariners' roster crunch. Am I cool with Danny Hultzen, Victor Sanchez and Brad Miller for Wade Davis? Nononononono.

With all other options (for both sides) closing to some degree, it looks like Swisher may become an M......and at a somewhat discounted price.
I'm WAY good with that.
And if a M trade is still out there, it wouldn't surprise me if Seager is the guy who goes. But I suspect we get our basher and then go with the guys we have. Saunders-Wells/Guti-Swisher is a nice OF guys.
I would love to see us get Franklin into the game and IF he must stay in Tacoma then we better be finding a way to see him ditch the RH swing.
I like the KC deal...for the KC perspective, btw. They have tons of young bats. They just added two proven MLB arms. They'll be competitive in their division.
Moe

Odorizzi was their top starting prospect, and MLB-ready, and 13 is right to comp him to Hultzen.  That's a significant loss.
He's also right that KC doesn't have a pipeline of OF, so their alternative is to keep rolling Francouer out there (which is why I thought they'd be unlikely to trade Myers in the first place -- wrong).
But I also recognize that sometimes the front office wants to send a "we're not in AAAA anymore" message to the troops. Is that overrated?  Maybe, but it depends on the personalities involved.
I think they think that the Butler-Gordon-Hosmer-Moose core needed pitching help and a "we're ready to do battle" message more than it needed another young member.
In other words, they believe that "overpaying" is "worth it" -- and sometimes it is.
When you factor in the non-Myers guys, they did "overpay," but it will be interesting to see if it works out.  I do think Hosmer and Moose are much better bets to bust out (and really bust out) than, say, Smoak.
 

Great points by Doc with wonderful counter by 13.
I would not that one of my generic rules for team improvement is it is easiest to improve where you are currently worst.
For the Royals, this is tricky. Yes, their offense isn't good, (96 OPS+ ranking 11th in the AL). But, their pitching wasn't good either (96 ERA+ ranking 9th in the AL).
But, when I look at their 2012 roster, I see ZERO regulars over the age of 28. That is a foundation poised to improve. The pitching side of things, all of the strength was in the bullpen. The rotation was a disaster. I can definitely see from the Royals perspective that they were more desperate for a stabilizing starter.
In general I agree with the 13 notion that the Royals probably aren't "yet" in a position where this move makes a lot of sense. But, after a 72-90 season and with Salvador Perez, Hosmer, Escobar and Moustakas as young as they are, I can certainly see where an expectation of leap forward from the youth is not completely unreasonable.
One of the reasons I believe trading for starters tends to have FAR more beneficial impact on improving a team is that a new starter always replaces the WORST starter. *Sometimes* a regular will replace your worst regular, but certainly not always, (and sometimes you have to do weird positional dances to make moves fit. Rotation changes tend to be cleaner.
Shields may not be a "true" #1. But, he is likely replacing a true #5, (or #6).
Doesn't mean it's a good deal, or even a deal that KC should have made. But, I can certainly see an argument for it.
That said, I will just throw out that Baltimore made the post-season last year, but didn't make any significant move to acquire any big names, (they actually dumped big names). While the Dodgers, who added Hanley Ramirez and AGON during the season missed the post-season completely.
When I look at the "recently arrived" teams from 2013, (Nats, Reds, Giants, Braves, Baltimore, Oakland) ... I see a pattern ABSENT expensive, big name trades or FA signings.
I continue to believe that the notion that acquisition of BIG imports to "push-you-over-the-top" is a myth that does not reflect that actual reality of the how and when teams do turn things around and make the significant move from loser to post-season team. The big names continue to help some of the teams that ALREADY are competitive, but I stand by my view that transition teams make the transition if/when youth blossoms - and/or cheap discard pile pickups surprise.

In 2011 Francouer had 71 extra-base hits.
He isn't dead meat just quite yet.

Weird trade values this offseason. The D-backs helped the Reds get Choo for a year, coughed up Bauer and a coupla bullpen arms, and got:
Didi Gregorius, a light-hitting, mediocre OBP SS who "reminds Towers of Derek Jeter." Didi in the minors: .270/.325/.375. Jeter: .310/.385/.420. Didi is also a defensive SS, more like a Brendan Ryan than Jeter ever was in the field.
Not a comparison I would make unless I was trying to explain to my fan-base why I just traded the ace we drafted for a 2nd-tier shortstop. Can't say, "He reminds me of Brendan Ryan" unless you want to get a bunch of paper cups tossed your way.
They also got back Lars Anderson (aka a bowl of Cheetos) and a bullpenner to offset the two they sent out.
For Bauer. Yeesh. The D-Backs were obviously not okay with his (known to be unique BEFORE the draft) throwing program, and he's a cocky, semi-abrasive guy. So's Roger Clemens, who also had a weird workout program. Luckily for Roger, he was the right height and didn't get a bit wild in his first pro season.
Weird to see the D-Backs throwing him overboard at the first opportunity, though. Is he due for a Pineda-style surgery problem shortly, or was he really Hultzen with some eccentricities and that was enough for them to bail on him?
Hopefully if we decide to trade our Hultzen, we get back a little more. A LOT more.
~G

It kind of undermines your credibility to call Shields/Davis for Myers/Odorizzi+ one of the worst trades of the decade and thwn turn around and say the Mariners should trade Franklin and Paxton for RA Dickey.

http://mynorthwest.com/?sid=2150785&nid=651
------------ While there has been a lot of interest shown in the Mariners' young players, he isn't seeing the return he would need to see on the young pitchers in particular to pull the string on a trade. Right now, teams are offering players with one or two years control and Zduriencik is not willing to give up top prospects for that. ------------
 
So teams really are offering up 31 year old platoon OFers for Taijuan Walker.  I don't blame Z for not taking that offer, and if he's going down he wants it to be swinging with the players he believes in.
 
------------ The lack of return is not the only reason we might not see Zduriencik trade his pitching this winter. He spoke at length about maximizing their value, which he believes will not happen until they make it to the big leagues. As for the players already in the big leagues, it didn't sound like he wanted to move them either. I asked him if he had his druthers, would he like to hold onto what he has now and give it another year to grow?
"That is probably not the popular thing to say because I would love to be able to do something right now, love to be able to do it, and maybe we will through free agency," he answered. "There are a lot of factors that go into why a player chooses a certain city to come to and play, but we are going to listen, we will continue to have talks, but at the end, we have a pretty good thing going right now and to throw it away for a short-term fix? I don't believe is going to be the right answer." -------------
 
So they're prepping us to return most of the core and let em grow another year.  I don't have a problem with that.  I do have a problem with ticket prices staying the same but the salary figures bottoming out.  Why not pay for 1 or 2 years of Mark Reynolds at 6 per?  Why not pay a closer and let Wilhelmsen out into the rotation?
Yes, it's possible to field a competitive team at $65 mil - see the As, and the Rays.  But we don't HAVE to.  Pay a guy to do something you don't have a prospect for, like playing 1B or LF.
Grr.  Again, if we're trading for Lo-Mo or Myers like we did for Montero, then I understand the salary thing not being where you projected. "We were gonna sign Reynolds, but got Lo-Mo instead.  Similar production levels, cheaper player, whatcha gonna do."
But it looks to me like - if Swish doesn't sign here - that it'll be Vargas plus yet another salary cut.  Which is stupid. There were 1 or 2 year placeholders if we needed em to solidify the roster and keep salary high enough to convince fans AND PLAYERS that we weren't kidding about competing.
~G

Dickey is better than Shields, carries fewer red flags and will be open to an extension well below market value. Franklin and Paxton are very nice prospects but Myers and Odorizzi outclass them by a pretty considerable margin. Where's the issue?

This "one good year" myth needs to end. It's not like he was some scrub in 2011 and 2010; he's been an ace for a while now.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/r-a-dickey-and-the-myth-of-one-...
For what it's worth his swinging strike percentages support the jump in strikeout rate. And Price's GB% spike and HR% drop are sort of equivalently valuable to Dickey's K% spike. The point of the article is that either they're both flukes or neither is. Just because Dickey is a knuckleballer doesn't mean he can't sustain success.

But despite the fact that Myers is the latest flavor of the Month (NO ONE was talking about him a month ago), I would definitely take Franklin + Paxton over Myers + Odorizzi. Paxton is probably a bit better of a pitching prospect than Odorizzi, and Myers might be a bit better hitting prospect than Franklin, but Franklin is a middle infielder and Myers is a COF, and Paxton has a TOR /#1 upside while Odorizzi probably is never going to be more than a good #3 possibly #2. I'll take the harder position to find sluggers at and the higher upside prospects every time.
However I am also a big fan of Dickey (been following him since his Ranger days), and would love to see the M's bring him back to the PNW, but I wouldn't give those two guys up for him...

As for the free-agent options, Matt Pitman asked what the involvement was with some of the premier names.
"Pretty heavy," Zduriencik said. "I had a lot of discussions this afternoon and morning. I can't make any promises because who knows where some of this will go. As we just saw with the Zack Greinke deal, that's a pretty spectacular contract. It is possible that along the way some player might say, 'Hey, I want to be in Seattle for all the reasons we talked about' and another guy might say, 'I'm taking the biggest contract.' There is not anything you can do about that. We will see what happens."

Sure sounds like what he is saying is that he wants Free agents to choose seattle and not the biggest contract...  What is wrong with SEATTLE being the biggest contract????  If the M's offer Hamilton 6 / 160 and he takes 5 / 125 from Texas anyways, well, there is not much you can do about it, but when was the last time (other than Chone Figgins, grrr....) that the M's offered the most???
Come on Z!  Stick it in the Rangers eye!  Take Hamilton from them, or make them pay a very uncomfortable sum to keep him!

Myers is the flavor of the month? He's been the prize of KC's system for a while now. If you go look up a prospect list I bet money there's not a single one out there that has Franklin above Myers. Or Paxton above Odorizzi, for that matter (Odorizzi is regarded as a much better bet to figure it out in MLB). That's not East Coast bias, since KC is hardly a big market. Myers was the MiLB player of the year; he is a veritable super-prospect and I actually have yet to see a preseason prospect list on which he's not MLB top 10. Conversely, I have yet to see a preseason prospect list on which Franklin IS top 25 or on which Paxton IS top 50. Myers slugged .600 in AAA. Yes, he's "just" a prospect, but he is one heckuva prospect. I bet if you walked into an unbiased forum somewhere and offered Paxton AND Franklin for ONLY Myers you'd get a fair number of refusals. In most non-Mariners-blog settings I don't think Paxton&Franklin vs Myers&Odorizzi is even a real debate.

Deleted. Look below

We have no idea what anyone has or hasn't offered for Dickey. We have no idea what the Mets' asking price is for Dickey. Of course they're lowballing their own pitcher; they want to extend him for as little money as possible. What's going on around Dickey doesn't tell us anything about how teams actually value him--and even if it did, appeal to authority is kind of a sketchy debating technique. Sometimes GMs know more than we fans do. Sometimes they offer Billy Butler for Yuniesky Betancourt. Besides, your "he isn't even good" comment just skirts around the fact that even in the 2010-11 seasons you disparage Dickey racked up a total of 5.3 fWAR--and knuckleballers are more valuable than WAR indicates because they generate weak contact and can suppress BABIP. Even if I'm wrong, and he's not an "ace", he's good. Very good.
Tell you what, let's make a bet. Winner gets 9,001 internet points. If Dickey is less than a top 30 pitcher next year, you win. If he's as good or better, I do. Shake on it?

Franklin is very good, but has some issues.  I, myself, have moved Miller ahead of him.
Myers just hit 37 HR at 21, and he was considered one of the very top prospects at 19 (with Hosmer and Moustakas).  In fact, at the time Baseball America thought those three might be the best set of elite prospects in the same organization ever (or at least since BA has been ranking them).
Paxton is better than Odorizzi, but less "MLB-ready-looking."  Those of us "in the know" will rank Pax higher, but the general consensus would be about even or advantage to Odorizzi.
But I know what you mean, Seattle does, in fact, have a very good crop of young talent, and it sounds like Z is planning on keeping it unless he gets the right kind of deal.

If not as valuable as Myers/Odorizzi, perhaps 95% so.  And if the Royals adding Shields, Davis, Santana, and Guthrie, along with natural growth from Hosmer and Moustakes doesn't take the Royals from 72 to 85+, then how do we justify spending similar talent to acquire Dickey, who is not demonstrably more effective than Shields.

Suffice it to say that I really, really doubt your proposition that Paxton / Franklin are as valuable as "guy who is valued more highly than Paxton in most circles" and "MiLB player of the year". There is a huge gap between the ~#3 overall prospect (Myers) and the ~#30 (Franklin), even if you ignore the Paxton-Odorizzi difference or skew it slightly in James' favor. I don't have any evidence that GMs hold Paxton & Franklin in lower esteem than Myers & Odorizzi, other than Jack Z repeatedly saying he's getting offers of pennies on the dollar for them this offseason. I just know that most analysts think there's an enormous difference. I think if you walk up to the average analyst and say "value Paxton and Franklin and a percentage of Myers and Odorizzi", you're feeling good if someone says "75%". I see no evidence that GMs think differently.
Dickey is not demonstrably better than Shields? Come on, man. Dickey has a way better ERA+ than Shields in two of the last three years. He has a better FIP than Dickey in two of the last three years. By fWAR Dickey's been better in two of the last three years--but we can't trust fWAR in evaluating Dickey, because knuckleballers have a strong tendency to generate weak contact and thus outperform their FIP. Over the last three years of bWAR (which uses RA instead of FIP and is thus better at evaluating Dickey) Dickey's been better by SEVEN WHOLE WINS, 12.1 to 5.1. The only year of the last three in which Shields was more valuable than Dickey, it was pretty close. Dickey IS demonstrably more effective than Shields. He is demonstrably a LOT more effective than Shields.
The Royals adding Shields, Davis, Santana, Guthrie, and natural growth doesn't take them from 72 to 85+ because Santana is very bad, Davis is also bad, and Guthrie is mediocre. And consider what they gave up to do that--their starting RF for next year and a pretty darn good pitching prospect. Even in a vacuum, adding Shields/Davis/Santana/Guthrie to a team gives that team maybe 7 or eight extra wins. Except to do it they traded away their probably-3-WAR right fielder and replaced him with a probably-replacement-level-scrub. Plus Odorizzi is likely better than three of those four guys. When you look at the net plus from their offseason acquisitions, they've added maybe four wins and the other 14 to reach 90 ALL have to come from internal improvement. That's not where you want to be.
On the other hand, Paxton and Franklin would contribute far less to the 2013 Mariners than Myers and Odorizzi would've to the 2013 Royals. It's Myers-scrub + Odorizzi-scrub vs. Paxton-Vargas and Franklin-Ryan, and for the latter two it probably would've been only a half-season. Even if Myers and Odorizzi are only league average, in order for our guys to have as much impact for us as their guys would've had for them in 2013, they basically would've had to be immediate all-stars.
The Paxton+Franklin for Dickey proposal is not very similar to the Shields trade. It is a considerably lesser package to gibe up for a considerably greater return.