This is a horrible mis-characterization. If Davis gets injured tomorrow and never plays again, does that make this a good trade? Point being that hindsight is 20/20. When Davis was traded, he was a decent power bat who struck out a ton and was a liability in the OF. The return was one of the better catching prospects in the game and a sleeper with potential upside. That actually seems like a pretty fair deal to me. If we are going to judge a trade well after the fact, then at least let it play out. Just because said trade does not fit a particular narrative about how one believes the franchise should move forward, and is reinforced by some flakey scouting report, does not make it a mistake. If you want, look back on my posts at the time of the trade. Davis' value hadn't yet been maximized but I sensed he'd put up exactly the type of season he did. It was totally predictable if he stayed healthy for the full season. I compared unloading him to the Bucs not getting value for Bautista and the Reds giving up on Encarnacion, before either's power had fully emerged. Nottingham can of course still make the trade even out but power hitters like Davis don't grow on trees. As for his defense, well Schwarber is a defensive liability for the Cubs too but they are a better team with his bat in the lineup.