An MLB.com headline reads “History will decide victor of Cubs-M’s deal”. I find that to be completely untrue. Because let’s imagine Milton Bradley goes to Seattle and puts up outstanding numbers while Carlos Silva puts up dismal numbers in Chicago. Theoretically history would have Seattle as the winner. If Bradley does poorly and Silva does great then Chicago will be the “winner”. I just don’t think this trade works like that. Most do. But this one is different.
Bradley had to go. There was no way around it. And if he does perform well in Seattle that doesn’t change the fact that he was a problem in Chicago and would’ve become an even worse problem. Chicago got rid of Bradley so while it’s hardly a “win” it is something for them to be happy about. Anyone who follows up on Silva’s and Bradley’s following seasons to monitor who got the better of the deal is really missing the point. Whatever Bradley does in Seattle, he probably wouldn’t have done in Chicago, so it’s a moot point. Now maybe it’d be safe to say that Chicago is the victor if Silva does well while Bradley puts up poor numbers. But even then, it’s an AL pitcher moving to the NL. He can very well have success there that he would not have had in the AL. Switching leagues always seems to help pitchers, especially when they move the AL to the NL.
So whatever happens, happens. Both teams lost on this one when Bradley and Silva soured, and both teams won by parting with them. Everything that happens from here should be viewed on it’s own merit without having this discussion.