Originally Posted by Kc61
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.
That's fair as well. It does make your stomach knot up a bit knowing what he has now become, but as I mentioned, it is hard to see him getting to that point as a Red or the Reds cashing him in for a much better haul.