We're arguing whether, when judging whether a trade was good, we should care about whether what matters is what happens only after the trade (G-Dawg, blue corner) or what happened before and after the trade (Santa Claus, red corner).
Both pugilists seem to hew closely to WAR and ignore the bigger picture: they seem to agree, as the standings make totally unambiguous, that this team sucked before the trade; it sucks more after; and most of the guys traded were leaving anyway after the season finished sucking.
Although both look at the Nats as they were at the trade deadline. The Nats sank throughout July, after Schwarber got hurt, after Castro was dismissed for domestic violence, and after Rainey was hurt and Brad Hand, the prized closer, blew game after game. At no time did Corbin look like a number 3 starter. In July, it also became clear that Strasburg would not return this year. Our new friend from LA seems to have a notion of how the Nats played in June, when they were very good. By the trade deadline, they were 8 games back. The Mets, incidentally, lost about six or eight games in the standings, regained them, and have then lost some. The Mets, note, have more of a pitching staff than the Nats. Hard to see the Nats -- one great starter and a bunch of guys like Fedde -- gaining those 8 games.
If the Nats had kept Max and Trea, Hudson, Harrison and Gomes, they'd have won a few more games. Might well have won every game Max started, and several in which Hudson would have pitched rather than, say, Sam Clay. Still, the Nats had no starting pitchers following Max. Still have no starters, although there is hope for Josiah Gray.
Adding up WAR might not be the right basis for this argument, but the result is about the same.
