This is an important point. As several posters on this board who take issue with the Cubs decisions, are basing their conclusions with the knowledge of hindsight, not based on the circumstances at the time and how outcomes change when you change the past. I get the same unease when people are thankful we never signed Yu Darvish, as if he was destined to have an injury no matter what team he signed with (if that was a given no matter what situations he pitches under then it should be a trait that can be estimated or predicted and I don't see any GM having a injury predictor in their toolset). Just because we know now that these trades didn't turn out as intended when they were done, it doesn't mean that if they were never made, the same outcomes would have occurred (i.e. without Chapman the Cubs would still win). The Cubs didn't go against the grain and trade for Quintana. He was pretty much the universal best SP option on the market at the trade deadline last year. The fact he didn't turn out went against what many expected. Same as the minor league draft. Most players don't work out, but does that mean every GM is stupid for participating in the draft? Is it smarter to not invest in a system where the return is so poor (I've not seen a team yet skip the draft)? Were the Devil Rays and Brewers stupid to draft Delmon Young and Rickie Weeks #1/#2 when neither developed into a superstar? Every scouting sight had them #1/#2 that year. There's a lot that goes into the outcomes from a transaction, much of which is only relevant in hindsight and not at the time. It would be good to adjust our criticism to incorporate some understanding of the impact of hindsight.