I say the Phillies lost the original trade, because they derived no actual benefit from it. They wanted to acquire a hitter to advance them deeper in the playoffs than they had achieved the prior season. They didn't need regular season help, so the extra two wins they likely got from adding Pence were worthless. They did very poorly in the playoffs, so the purpose of the trade was not met. THis equals loss.
Secondly, Pence cost them more than another acquisition would have, both because of his age and being under contract the next season Such players cost more in trade than an older player on an expiring contract. The Phillies dumped Pence cheaply during the following season, thus not getting the extra value they paid for in acquiring a younger guy still under contract. That is another fail.
. As with the Halladay/Lee fiasco, this was a case of the owners and GM either not being on the same page when the deal was made or the owners suddenly becoming more concerned with budget and backing out on their agreement with GM.
Just as a returned Rule 5 pick can have his development thrown off course, to the detriment of his career, the prospects in a trade may be helped or hurt by moving to a different organization, with different development philosophy and coaching. We can guess, but can't know for certain, how these guys we traded for Pence, or received for Lee, would have performed if they had not been traded.
I remember that at the time of the trades, Houston's return for Pence was regarded as excellent and that the Phillies return for Lee was regarded as embarrassingly little.
