I don't know. The only explanation for this %$#rape of a trade I can think of is that Moore bought into the meathead view of Shields as a "clutch" pitcher who finishes games, and was starstruck by his 2011 season and overlooked the rest of his career. Garza is at least as good, but I'm not sure that popular perception reflects that. At this time yesterday I'd have said popular perception doesn't matter to executives, but now I'm not so sure, at least in the case of one Dayton Moore. Shields is much better than Garza. Whether he is an ace is questionable at best, but he's on a different level from Garza. He's good, but not the type of good you pay what the Royals paid for. Garza and Shields are very comparable pitchers. They've posted similar numbers (k/9, bb/9, hr/9, FIP, xFIP, ERA) throughout their careers. The only thing you can point to is the glut of CG Shields accrued in 2011. He most certainly is not "on a different level". Shields has been consistently better than Garza, and is a pretty clear cut better asset than Garza. But I do agree that King overstated things with the "on a different level" comment.