That's a pretty goofy example given that he got hurt and there's no way to reliably predict injuries in players without a history of them.
But sure, you can cherry pick rankings that miss the boat on a guy. But most of the time they don't. Most of the time significantly better-ranked players outperform significantly lower-ranked ones. That's not a coincidence. And we're talking about a massive gap in both rankings, well beyond the vagaries that might place someone higher or lower in a given range.
There are tons of examples where this hasn't been true, and I'll bet I can come up with a dozen offers that fit this criteria that you'd reject. And the kinds of things you'd use to decide who's a "name guy" are the same kinds of things people base rankings on.
Nor are all "name guys" at the same level. Apparently you think Granderson qualifies somehow, but that obviously doesn't put him in the same league as a McCutchen or a Trout. So what use is the category of "name guy" if it can house players of such wildly different value?
Any trade could work out, but that doesn't make them good retroactively. Risky bets don't become smart ones if they work out.
Nor are all "name guys" at the same level. Apparently you think Granderson qualifies somehow, but that obviously doesn't put him in the same league as a McCutchen or a Trout. So what use is the category of "name guy" if it can house players of such wildly different value?
Any trade could work out, but that doesn't make them good retroactively. Risky bets don't become smart ones if they work out.