Originally Posted by REDREAD
By that logic, no one ever loses a trade.
In every trade, both GMs are making what they feel is a logical move based on the incomplete info they have.
People use this logic to say that the Reds didn't lose the Josh Hamilton-Volquez trade.. It really makes no sense. The actual results say that the Reds overwhelmingly lost that trade.
Likewise, the actual results say the Reds won the Rolen trade hands down.
The point is that results-based analysis is a flawed approach to evaluating decisions because stuff happens and stuff confuses the issue. In other words, good decisions can turn out poorly. Likewise, bad decisions can turn out spades. But simply viewing a trade through hindsight would lead to a wrong conclusion concerning the decision making process. The proper way to evaluate a trade is by evaluating the decision making process that led to the trade.
I agree with Doug 100% on his stance about evaluating decisions. That said, based upon evaluating what was known at the time, I reached a different conclusion about the trade than he did.
Concerning the Volquez trade, based upon what we knew at the time, I thought both teams were taking a risk to address needs but that the Reds were assuming much greater risk by swapping a position player for an arm. In hindsight it's perfectly obvious that Volquez was enigmatic and Hamilton wasn't going to relapse and his body wasn't going to break down before July and the trade looks like one of the dumber decisions ever. But the reality was that it was a tougher decision than results suggest.