Bad trade, but Mike Sirotka does not approve of your hyperbole.
Awful at the time, awful in hindsight.
Not a good trade, but Napoli exceeded expectations and didn't have a place on the team (also, he was basically free in the Wells deal)
This was a fantastic trade at the time. Halladay had made it clear that he was leaving the team and getting 3 guys with that kind of upside was a steal.
3yr/$10M is peanuts in baseball, and Izturis would have been a fine utility infielder at that price.
There are almost no assets in the preceding that will make any sort of MLB impact. Yes, Happ is overpaid for what he is.
The Marlins deal was great for the Jays for the most part, I've already covered the Dickey move above.
Davis is a fine bench piece, but $10M/2yr is a little more than I would personally have been comfortable paying him to pinch run, since our outfield is pretty solid and we have Gose as well.
Relief pitchers are so incredibly volatile that this was impossible to predict. This seems like a very small issue.
a) Aviles is making $3.5m/year, Izturis is making $3. Gomes wasn't really a guy who anyone saw being more than a fringe MLB backup guy with some positional versatility.
Just... No. You know who moving expensive/complaining/fan antagonizing Rios made room for in Right Field?
He was terrible here, everyone wanted him gone. I certainly don't miss him.
These are all pretty good things, I agree (though, you sort of shat on the Marlins deal earlier in your thread...)
Drafting is a crapshoot. And I'm not really sure you can fault a guy for taking high upside pics and not signing them and also fault him for taking guys who would sign who are lower upside... *shrug* I'm also not sure you can say "he drafted this guy in front of a guy he also drafted" as though that's a bad thing, that's simply strategy.
When I used to follow drafts more closely, my board always looked far different from what any team drafted.
This is nonsense.
It takes two to tango, and I think the "we could have had Santana if we'd wanted him" myth has been tackled repeatedly. I do think the Darvish thing was quite dumb, as was not ponying up a bit more for Chapman...
Gibbons is a much better in game manager than the last 2 guys we've had... I'm not crazy about how he uses his bullpen, but he has limited tools with which to work.
Anyway, I'd be totally indifferent with firing him, as long as he was replaced by an improvement... I can't really say for sure that is a thing that is likely to happen... Last time we all wanted a GM gone it was Ricciardi and when AA came in he was seen as a saviour etc.
It would have been really nice had he addressed the bench in the off season, perhaps if one of those rumoured trades involving Santos had actually happened we'd be in a better spot, but those fell through because of medical issues (or so the story goes...) so "trade your closer for a pitcher who failed his physical" is probably a worse move than "keep your closer" on paper...
Is he perfect? Not by a wide margin (I felt this past off season, in particular, was incredibly weak) but keep things in perspective, a lot of your points just don't jive with the way I see things (again, all opinion, but my opinion is the best one, dammit!)