Right yes. That is absolutely zero context. The funny thing though is you are still wrong without context. Would the trade have somehow gotten better for the Jays if you took the two prospects out and it was just Hutch for Liriano? This is actually hilarious.
If you want to argue that they didn't do enough at that deadline that is fair. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Liriano trade was a good deal or not though.
You do also realize it takes 2 GM's to make a deal right? And, I would hope my teams GM doesn't just give the opposing teams GM whatever they want for an impact player which would;ve made certain fans and media happy. If they had traded Vlad for say Verlander would you be pleased with the deal? Smart GM's make trade that make sense for their teams short and long term and don't always do what media and fans pressure them to do. That context always matters.
How? How did the Liriano trade do anything to dissuade them from making another trade to improve the roster?
You are talking yourself in circles. At first you said it was a "rubbish move" and now you are saying you could care less whether we won the deal because you didn't like our deadline. Stop moving the goal posts. If we are discussing the Liriano trade how does the rest of the Jays deadline whether you deem it to be good or bad have anything to do with the outcome of this trade? I am honestly curious. The Jays were objectively better at the major league level that season with Liriano instead of Hutch. That is really the bottom line.
Drew Hutchison had essentially no trade value. He's the equivalent of Jurickson Profar today, but with even less trade value. And again, the fact they didn't want to trade prospects doesn't mean the trade itself was bad, it means you disagree with their vision of the team.
