I don't believe- and we have had this argument before- that people value this trade the right way.
We wanted Sacha off of our roster. There may have been a better time to deal the reigning two-time assist leader, but, we (the message board) don't know what other offers were out there. It's easy to say "We should've traded him to Team X for a bag of gold and $1M in allocation money, but what if everyone knew we were trying to off-load him cheap, and there were no other takers? He was coming off of a really ugly playoff exit, and a really great regular season. It seems like, without BWP finishing his chances & a system helping him defensively, he isn't as effective in Orlando as he was here.
So, saying 'Rivas & Reading suck' is kind of an incomplete argument. Kaku seems pretty dope. There isn't a Kaku with Sacha still here. It would've been bad to trade him to TFC or NYCFC for nothing, so we traded him to Orlando for nothing. Where he's been going downhill, which we assumed would happen at some point, which is why we traded him.
There's an old HR joke that goes "What happens if we invest in our employees, and they leave? The response: What if we don't, and they stay?" So, yes, the trade looks bad in a vacuum, but what if we didn't make the trade, didn't get Kaku, and Sacha started declining here, now, this season? Is that better than having Rivas & Reading producing nothing? Probably not, since we're able to enjoy the upgrade of a younger Kaku in Sacha's place.
I think there's a 10-15% chance that either Reading or Rivas end up being useful role players at some point. I think there's a 85-90% chance that they just continue to fade into oblivion and the trade looks awful as a straight up trade in hindsight.
But, if we're lifting a cup in December, then the "but what about getting nothing for Sacha" argument doesn't really matter. Only, it's July, so we can't answer December questions yet.
Yes, the trade looks bad now. Yes, it will likely always look bad. But, that's really only if you know that we were offered something better by Dallas or LA (etc.) for him, and turned that down (an unknown), and it possibly ignores that losing Sacha was addition by subtraction. Dan made the argument before that "Well, we could've gotten good role players instead of shitty ones." I totally agree with that- as long as someone was willing to trade us two good players instead of two shitty ones. But, I don't know that, so I can't kill the team for making the trade just yet.
*Alls* I'm saying is, consider more than 1 side to this trade.
I think this is absolutely correct. But I will say I thought Rivas would have been more involved, at least in the 18, as he was here from the pre-season on (even if the pre-season was odd with CCL). I think Rivas will be a very good part of the team eventually, but the short-term results of JUST the trade assets themselves (again isolated from the other elements, kaku, salary, etc), haven't been as much as expected. I only say this because right now the team has one critical weakness: BWP's health. He's been durable, but he's not getting any younger. Last year with Veron, I knew if BWP became injured, the Argentine would be able to step in and we wouldn't miss a beat. DE7 obviously has grown into the sub role, but he's not polished on the field in terms of runs, and what not. Rivas has disappeared from the 18. For me this is where my concerns are with Rivas.