This is why it's a good move for them, they don't have anything to lose. They're giving up a fungible asset and they have nothing to live up to from last year. On the other hand, the "this is why the Cards win championships" stuff is really overblown. You can make the argument that Greene isn't great defensively(or at the very least not consistently good), and it's a very easy argument that he's a gamble to be an asset with the bat. It could pay off in both aspects, one, or backfire in both and they get no improvement at all. It's a risk worth taking with their current SS situation and what they had to give up for him, but make no mistake it's a gamble nonetheless. TT the problem is that even if the trade did happen, what did the Cards trade to get Greene? The Pads were asking for Olson from the O's at the trade deadline last year. The story doesn't name who the players are. Without knowing who was traded how can any person say that it was a "good move" for them? Maybe after we know who was actually involved in the trade we can make an assessment of the trade, but until we know the players it is a little premature. It would be equivalent to saying the Cubs traded to the Marlins for Gregg and only had to give up 1 relief prospect. Kinda relevant who that relief prospect is, isn't it?