I was a fan of getting Verlander in that I thought he'd be better than his pre-trade performance, but given the contract and his age the player cost was steep. Verlander was never either/or with Quintana(if he was, I'd take Quintana) since those rumors persisted through August, and even if Darvish is actually dead instead of having a Kershawian run of health this year, you can still use position player excess to trade for a SP that has 2019+ expectations that are not terribly different than 37 year old Verlander at a much lower salary. In other words, if you had asked me last August, again in December, and then again in April to pick between Verlander and Darvish for 2018 alone, I would've taken Darvish every time, and apparently rolled snake eyes on that. For 2019 and beyond, Darvish's age and the saved trade assets mean the odds of getting better performance than Verlander for those years are still very strong. So I'm bothered that they didn't trade for Verlander in the same way I'm bothered they didn't sign Daniel Murphy instead of Zobrist so 2B would've been so much stronger in 2017. Yes he's a good player and yes you can make the logic for it in hindsight, but you don't always bat 1.000.