Originally Posted by jojo
The point is that results-based analysis is a flawed approach to evaluating decisions because stuff happens and stuff confuses the issue. .
Some people called the Hamilton trade a bad one on the day it happened.
Some said the Reds made out like bandits getting Volquez.
Both were using information at the time... Seems like a contradictory way to judge trades, and very subject to people's opinions/prejudicies.
Trades and player projections are an inexact science.. It's not as if we can input information into a computer and get some kind of score to guarantee a good trade (other than a freak injury)..
You probably had the Toronto GM loving Stewart, while the Reds were kind of meh on him.. That's how trades happen. In that case, one person has to be wrong.
In the long haul, the GM's primary job is to increase the talent base of the organization.. Even with some bad luck, most good GMs succeed in doing this. Bad GMs , even when given a lot of money, tend to see the team's win differential, W-L record, etc decline over time.
If you can't judge GMs on results.. I am not sure how you can judge them, because every trade can be rationalized as good "at the time".
DanO thought signing Milton was a good idea at the time. Many on Redszone disagreed, but he thought it was a good move..