Best/Worst of the decade

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=72257:date=Dec 18 2009, 02:19 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 18 2009, 02:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72236:date=Dec 18 2009, 01:52 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Dec 18 2009, 01:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72235:date=Dec 18 2009, 01:50 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 18 2009, 01:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Stupidest trade of the decade: Bradley for Silva.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have got to be fucking kidding me.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, it's a fanbole (hyperbole for sports fans) because it just happened, and, as rok said, this was the worst-case scenario for a Bradley trade. I'm sure that if you picked through the catacombs of the past decade, you could find a worse situation than what has transpired since Jim the GM set his sights on Milton Bradley.

But I'm biased. Let's see what others are saying:

From ESPN:
"Brilliant. Again.

Jack Zduriencik, Seattle's GM, I mean. The Mariners, at little or no additional financial expense, have traded a player who might be quite useful for a player who almost certainly will not be useful. Yes, baseball's a funny game. Silva's still a relatively young man, and might again pitch effectively some-
day. <i>But considering that Silva's been terrible in each of the last two seasons, and that Bradley was great in 2008 and decent in 2009, doesn't this seem like an incredibly lopsided deal, talent-wise?</i> "

Yes. Yes it does.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


OF FUCKING COURSE IT WAS. For God's sake KB. Is there anyone on the planet who DIDN'T know Bradley was going to be far more valuable to whomever traded for him than for the Cubs? This was a given. If you are going to base this trade on the idea that Hendry should have received equal value back for Bradley, I don't know what the fuck to tell you.

And that's not hostility. It's incredulity.