The Art Of The Deal

OK, let's say you're a GM and you had to choose one of two players:

Player A is an excellent defensive player, an average hitter, and would cost you cash and a very good minor leaguer in addition to his salary.

Player B is an excellent defensive player, an average hitter with the potential to be above average, and would cost you just his salary, probably slightly more than Player A.

If I were GM, I would choose Player B, largely because the cost:benefit ratio of acquiring him is less than that of Player A. We would still have the minor leaguer in our system and, regardless of whether he ever makes it to Shea, he would still be available for future trades.

The bottom line here is this: There was no reason to make this trade when a less costly option was still out there. Blade may not become a big time player but he's still a chip, a chip that could be used in the future to get something better than a replacement level defensive specialist. Furthermore, every chip you have serves as a buffer against your top prospects; the less you have, the more likely it is that you'll have to throw in a Yusmeiro Petit or a Lastings Milledge to get a deal done.

This has also been the Yankees problem the last few years, trading away every prospect they have for easily replaceable players. And their well has now run dry.

I got a ton of e-mail over at AA on Minky and Blade. We can argue until the cows come home over who is better Minky or Lee, but the bottom line is that Travis Lee was the better deal and Omar passed it up.