He's arguing that the winner is "to be determined". Yes, it looked bad for the Brewers for awhile. But that lopsidedness has sense faded considerably as Urias heats up and Lauer continues to look useful. No one here is calling the deal a surefire win for the Brewers, at least not yet. But plenty of said that the Brewers were raked over the coals on the deal. That take doesn't appear to be correct, either. I would like to point out though that even if we do "win" the trade in the end, that doesn't mean that San Diego didn't "win" as well. Grisham is obviously great, and Davies had a fantastic season for them which had value, and they helped parlay that into Darvish as well which definitely has value. I suppose if both teams can come out of this with something that made them better in the end, that's really what you want in a trade. Exactly right. It is totally OK for both teams to get what they want out of a deal. In fact, the only ones who "grade" trades and determine who "wins" and "loses" them are fans like us. Right now the Brewers are looking good with the Adames acquisition, along with the useful innings they got out of Trevor Richards before flipping him and Francis for Tellez. But Feyereisen has performed well as a Ray (up until the last week at least), and other than one poor outing, Rasmussen has looked good for the Rays. Yes, the Brewers gave up strong present value and future upside to both the Padres and Rays with Grisham, Davies (flipped), Feyereisen and Rasmussen, but there's also plenty of present value in Urias, Adames, Lauer and, to a lesser extent right now, Tellez. I think it's safe to say that all four of those guys have significant upside as well. I think the hot-takey error is in determining that not only did a team lose a trade in the short term, they have no way of winning it long term, either. Truth is we just don't know.