Add new comment

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.