They did get lucky that he became (has become, for six weeks at least) the best hitter on the team and in that time one of the best in baseball by virtually every metric. If he simply started hitting AT their expectations of him (800-ish OPS hitter) while Schwarber was injured, he would have lost an enormous amount of playing time to Schwarber and/or Shaw, subsequently. That was the stated intention of the Schwarber trade. And Shaw was brought in when it looked like Schwarber wasn't healthy enough, or adapting quickly enough, to play first base, presumably because they felt they needed a platoon partner for Dalbec. But Dalbec kept hitting at an over 1.000 OPS rate, and has staked out more playing time for himself. Neither S or S have gotten many starts at first.I genuinely thought I was trying to clarify a difference of perspective — i.e., talk about baseball — rather than "get" someone. I am sorry if it came across otherwise.
And the first sentence is not at all what I said. I think you're exactly right that ON JULY 28, Dalbec didn't look great to the FO or anyone else, but I just think it's strange to say that they "got lucky" when the guy they chose to be their starting 1B in the offseason turned out to produce quite close to his projections, just saving the bulk of that production for August and later.
That question of the volatility of expectations is also key to a disagreement in the other thread. I guess I hoped you'd say more about why you see it that way.