Originally Posted by dougdirt
Of course this all gets back to the idea that you shouldn't base a trade based on what happens after, but what happened when it happened. No one expected Wood to be what he was and no one expected Marshall to be injured.
What, what? Of course you should judge a trade AFTER it happens. Usually about 5 years after the fact is best, so we're still 2-3 years away from that for the Wood/Marshall trade, but I'm confident in saying the Cubs won that one big time.
Doug, your rationale is baffling. It would be akin to a college football or college basketball fan saying "You don't judge a recruiting class on what they accomplish after they sign with the school, you judge the recruiting class based on what they did in high school."
Or, to use a professional sports example, it would be like you saying, "You don't judge a free agent signing on what happens after the signing, you judge it based on what happened before the contract was signed." Because, I'm sure the Angels are loving all those stats Pujols put up for the Cardinals. That sure is helping them now that he stinks.
I will say whoever was responsible for trading Frank Robinson years ago is fully on board with not judging trades after they happen.
Wow, Doug. Will give you a mulligan on this one I suppose. But of course the best way to judge trades is after they happen. And sports fans/media do it all the time. We look back on trades and judge who won. Example: The Latos trade. We won that one.