|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 9, 2022 11:03:51 GMT -5
The one thing about the "none of the prospects ever came back to bite us in the rear" line of thinking is that it ignores that prospects have present day value. That value is tied to a future protection, sure, but it is a current value.
If you sell $50 of stock for $40, and that stock depreciates to $20, yes, you, in theory, came out ahead. However, you also probably should have either only sold $40 of stock or received $50 for it.
The criticism of Dombrowski's trades is not that the (prospect) stock was worth more later than what he got. Rather, it was arguably worth more at the time. These are the folks who wondered if Logan Allen really needed to be included in the Kimbrel trade, if they really needed to move ALL of those guys for Thornburg, asked why there was never a B player coming back, etc. Now, at the individual trade level, that's not a huge deal. But in the aggregate, you get exactly what happened in that the cupboard wound up pretty bare.
Is this a "Dombrowski is awful!" level criticism? Of course not. It's a one-grade drop maybe. B+ to C+ or something. But that's the criticism to be made of his trading. No, you're probably not going to let the inclusion or not of Josh Pennington blow up a trade, but if you do that 5 or 6 times... you get the picture.
He was actually a pretty good evaluator. He wrongly gets credit for not including Devers in the Sale deal because that ask was made on top of Moncada and Kopech (in other words, madness), but he did have the wherewithal to refuse to include Mata as one of the guys who wound up being Basabe and Diaz. He also had an uncanny knack for trading guys at peak value when he did move them.
|
|