Originally Posted by kaldaniels
The fact that EE was put in waivers and didn't have many/high dollar FA suitors shows what his true value was during that period. Comping this to Votto vs a lousy minor leaguer isn't really fair...I know what you are trying to say, but the example is too much of a stretch.
Yes he bloomed, but well after the statute of limitations expired here. As mentioned above, he was not a valuable commodity at the time. And second, his defense and Votto would have prevented his emergence as a Red. Just one of those "What can you do" scenarios that really didn't have a good solution knowing what we know now.
This is sensible. I can see "discounting" EE's later development because it happened long after the trade. I can see an argument that EE would likely have been moved anyway, it's too long for the Reds to have waited, his near term results after the trade are more important.
But on the other hand, the Reds traded EE as a fairly young player. He still isn't quite 30 years old. The Reds had to consider his ultimate maturation and development.
Whenever you trade a young player, before they are fully formed, you take a risk that with maturation will come improvement. The Reds took that risk, and in that respect the trade did not succeed.
So it's fair, perhaps, to say that EE's subsequent development has to be "discounted" in evaluating the trade. But it can't be ignored altogether. It's a factor.