Buhner Dot Com Est. 2000, which is like 1947 in Internet years.

The death of a trade

I mentioned earlier a few of the suggestions for good trading practices. One of the main reasons I wrote that is because I've been burned and frustrated countless times by other owners who don't keep the same rules in mind. And while it's one thing to say "well, that just didn't work out", if it happens too often then that person in your league becomes one less person you can approach for a deal. And if he does it to too many people, he becomes a pariah in the league, and essentially useless the day after the draft.

Watch carefully as a deal that seemed to work for both parties dies a horrible death, and think about what could have happened if the other party had followed the guidelines I talked about earlier.

One of my leagues uses a Yahoogroups mailing list for leaguewide announcements, specifically for keeping records of announced trades and the like. It's meant to be a discussion list, so it defaults to replying back to the rest of the league. This works great when there's a discussion about league rules, but when someone starts looking for or shopping players, there's bound to be a reply meant for just that one person but sent to the entire league. Such a thing happened three weeks ago, when an owner (let's call him "Apple") responded to a request for pitching, making it known that Randy Johnson and Jason Jennings - two pitchers who had been on the DL this season but were back - were available.

Now, Apple has been in the league for a few years and been classified as a "future" owner; Apple loves the prospects and the great cheap contracts for young players. As a result, his teams are usually this horrible mixed bag of a few high priced name players and guys in AA. This usually gets him in trouble, and two losing seasons (70-92 and 74-88 respectively) have proven that, mainly because his teams have no depth. An injury here or there results in no backup to turn to, and in some cases he leaves the draft without a starter at multiple positions. This year's draft was a little different in that he didn't get in on the huge contracts (which can be difficult to trade mid-season with our cap structure) and scooped up some good value contracts when the rest of the league spent big early, but at the same time he went huge on players with zero track record in the league who weren't guaranteed to be playing in the majors this season. Often, a rookie player or a top prospect will get bid up to $500,000 - this is the highest a contract can be that can be extended at the $100k level. The threat is that if the other person wants the player so bad, they have to bid $600,000, and that player's second year of their contract becomes a $1.1 million deal - a bit much for an unknown quantity. Apple didn't just hit that $600k barrier for one player - he did it for several, including a $2 million contract for catcher Miguel Montero, who had six games of major league experience, and only 36 games of AAA. Despite the high final bid, he still gave Montero a three year contract, meaning he was obligated to $2 million this season, $3 million next season, and $4 million the season after that. For perspective, I drafted Jorge Posada in this league this past draft for $3.9 million. Four time all-star .866 OPS last season Jorge Posada.

[Side note: Montero's batting .218 with a .643 OPS, losing a platoon with Chris Snyder, who is batting .221 with a .671 OPS. Snyder was drafted for $500k.]

So in Apple, you have an owner who is addicted, seemingly, to the thrill of having the breakout guy, who likes Christmas shopping better than Christmas Day. So it didn't surprise me that he was shopping two veterans and looking for draft picks and prospects. What did surprise me is that upon closer look, Apple had a winning record, only a few games behind the first place team in his division, and if the season had ended that day, a wild card entry into the playoffs.

And he was selling for next year.

So between the announcement to the whole league that major players (who were affordable) were available and the time ticking down before Apple realized that he could be buying instead of selling, I had to jump on the opportunity. I sent him an email:

Saw you were shopping Randy Johnson and I'd be interested in working out some kind of deal. I have my future FA picks, and I'm not sure if you have any interest in my minor league guys - I know there isn't that much to pick from there.

Let me know - I'd be willing to talk about Jennings as well if Johnson is already gone, but I'd prefer Randy.

Granted, it kind of goes against my rule of approaching with an offer in hand, but Apple is an extremely tough read (and you'll see why later), and I did approach with specific names and what I was offering, not just a "what would you want for him?" Note too that I was stating the difference in interest between Johnson and Jennings. While I could use Jennings, it was Johnson who was my top choice, and I wanted to make that clear. Often owners like to mix together numerous players and treat them similar despite their not having similar interest in the players in an effort to camouflage the player they truly want in case the other owner wants to run up the price. This results in a lot of unwanted substitution - when you go to turn the talk towards the player you really wanted, the other owner will end up replacing that player if they (like you) feel that the player that you really wanted is better than the other player. This results in a lot of wasted time and frustration.

Apple got back to me later that day:

I am always interested in draft picks and I can move either Johnson or Jennings. I also like Encaracion and Hamilton but I don't think we could work out a deal for either one of them. Let me know your thoughts.

I will be in and out all day but I will keep checking my e-mail.

Edwin Encarnacion and Josh Hamilton are my two biggest bargaining chips as we go towards the trade deadline. Both have favorable contracts (Encarnacion with one more cheap year @ $600k, Hamilton with 3 more years @ $200-400k), but the catch is that both are currently starting for me, and playing pretty well. Trading either of them means having to replace them in the lineup, which would be tricky because it would mean taking on more contracts. Johnson, despite being affordable, has a salary just around my remaining cap room ($4.7 million), while Jennings sits at another three and a half. If I were to trade for either of these players, I couldn't take on any more contracts. But, Apple himself seemed to understand this as he stated that he didn't think we could do anything with them, so I came back with an offer that ignored Encarnacion and Hamilton but still worked for my cap number. It was probably shooting a little high, but it got us past vague offers into something solid to work from:

I'd be interested in either of them, and I'd be curious if you'd be open to dealing both. I'd be willing to offer two FA picks of your choice, and for salary reasons I'd have to offer you Brett Myers as well.

Would that be something you'd be interested in? Two FA picks of your choice and Myers for Randy Johnson and Jason Jennings?

Myers, whose demotion to the bullpen really hit my team hard, was on the DL at this point but scheduled to come back in a month. It wasn't that I necessarily wanted to lose him, but his $5.7 million contract was definitely movable. It allowed me to take on both Johnson and Jennings, and still have a couple of million in cap room to make a few more deals later on if necessary. While I hoped that the deal would get accepted, I wasn't optimistic. Note too that I left it open to him which FA picks he wanted; allowing the other GM to "craft his own deal" makes him feel more comfortable about it.

I wasn't too surprised at the email I got back:

Just out of curiosity would you possibly move either of the players I mentioned?

So like five seconds after saying that he didn't think we could do anything for those players, he asks about them. What he was really saying when he mentioned them the first time is a ploy I've done in the past just to throw out a player who you'd think is untouchable; you talk to someone about a backup first baseman, and in the talk you mention something like "well, I'd like to have Pujols manning first, but that's not going to happen", because your trading partner has Albert Pujols. You do it in the hopes of a reply like "yeah, the only way I'd trade Pujols is if you sent me [player]", and then the mega-trade talks start.

However I didn't do that, and it backfired on him. But that didn't stop him from bringing it up anyway. Should he have been more straightforward? Probably, but even if he said "geez, I sure do like those guys", it wouldn't have mattered to me unless he gave me a reason to deal those guys off. I tried to be nice though and explain my position:

Maybe a little bit later, but not right now - both are starting for me right now and if I were to deal them I'd need an upgrade at those positions. It'd be one thing if they were on my bench, but my depth sucks.

Come the deadline, I'll definitely keep you in mind, especially with Hamels on your roster.

In the email I also mentioned that I was going to see a Carolina Mudcats game (I have a mini-plan of tickets for a handful of games this season) and by sheer coincidence one of his players was making a rehab start and that I'd give him the "inside information" about that start to sweeten any deal we ended up doing.  In reality there wasn't any real "inside information" I could give him outside of my opinion of the guy's start, but since I was going with my wife and my 3-year-old son, it's not like I was going to be doing pitch counts or anything.

Not seemingly understanding the "not dealing them right now" part of my email, he sent me a counteroffer (which I can't remember right now and don't have in front of me, but it did include at least one if not both players), along with about three other emails to which I didn't respond to after the game (exhausted) or for that weekend (annoyed).  Part of me thought that by not responding to the emails, he'd get the hint that this wasn't the direction I wanted to go in.  He responded by noting in his last email to me that he wasn't trying to be "hard to deal with", but that he was trying to get the best possible deal that he could.  Understandable, but it's a fine line to tread, especially when you're seemingly miles apart.

I conceded to his request for the players, remembering that I did want to win this year, and that I couldn't overvalue guys with good contracts when I'm trying to win.  The other problem was that in my league, we have a hard salary cap, so trading a big contract for a prospect or two leaves the one team trying to somehow fit this huge contract under their cap.  In this case, I was looking for two players who had multi-million dollar contracts, and since I had to replace one (or both) of the good contract guys who were starting for me, I likely had to take on two more.  Feeling a little bad about not getting back to him (and guilty since he thought I was mad at him for being "hard to deal with", I sent him back a feeler, with one of the players I was protecting who had the good contract.

The best I can do right now is:

I receive:

Randy Johnson ($4.2)
Jason Jennings ($3.4)
Adrian Beltre ($3.6)

You receive:

Edwin Encarnacion ($0.5)
Brett Myers ($5.7)
Jeff Weaver ($0.7)
June FA pick
August FA pick

This was basically the same deal he sent me, taking out Hamilton and Gary Matthews.  Matthews was his replacement for Hamilton, and while it wasn't a bad compromise, the move above just barely fit in my cap space - the nearly $2 million difference between Matthews and Hamilton (added into the fact that I really didn't want to deal Hamilton) made it undoable on several levels.  I didn't mean to put that much pressure on him (I sent him the offer on Monday, when our deadline is for weekly lineup cards), but it just happened to be when I came up with the deal.

He countered a few days later with this:

Just tossing this out there..

Tavarez .3 or Mathews 1.8
Beltre 3.4
R.Johnson 4.2
Jennings 3.4

FOR

Encarnacion .5
Hamilton .1
B.Myers 5.7
June FA Pick

"Tavarez" is Willy Taveras, who has a few things going for him - speed, average, and center field range.  He also had an extra year on his contract, meaning he'd be .4 next season and signed.  Unfortunately from an offensive standpoint, he doesn't bring much else to the table other than singles, and there were concerns from my side that Colorado wasn't interested in playing Taveras full time for whatever reason.  [Gary] Matthews was more appealing, as he brought more offense to the table while still giving a good center field range and speed, but for the reasons mentioned before, fitting him under the cap was going to be difficult.  Either way, this trade couldn't be done anyway, due to the cap.

So I took a different approach.  I could see that anything being done with him would have to involve both of my key bargaining players (Encarnacion and Hamilton), so I shot big.  Plus, I had to figure out some way to get everything under the cap.  So I sent him an inquiry more than an offer, just to see what could possibly bite:

I only have 4.5 million in cap room, so I'm still trying to figure out what would work for me - unfortunately I don't have any other "big" contracts that I'm not using

A few questions - do you plan on DITRing Peralta, and would you consider dealing Putz in a deal, even a possible deal where I'd trade him back to you after the season is over?

Admittedly, there was some creativity or deception going on here, depending on how you look at it.  Two more names get thrown into the mix here - JJ Putz and Jhonny Peralta.  Putz has been lights out for Seattle this season, and was a player I could have really used; however his usefulness wasn't my #1 thought for him in asking about him.  Peralta I was actually outbid for in this season's draft by Apple because we both felt he was going to have a good rebound year (which he has been).  I managed to shrug off my disappointment by picking up Edgar Renteria, who is having a better season (HA!).  My thought with Peralta (and Putz) was that I could deal for them, swapping them for starters that I currently had who were making more, and making up some of the cap room that way.  Peralta would have been swapped for Ray Durham (with Renteria probably sliding over to 2B), saving a whopping $300k, while Putz would have been swapped for Bobby Howry, a major improvement while also saving $1.7 million in cap room.

The issue with both of these guys was the Diamond In The Rough rule (DITR, as referenced above).  The rule states that you can take one player at the end of each season and extend his contract by a year, just as long as you originally drafted him at our auction draft.  Peralta was making $3 million this season, and while I didn't think he was necessarily "worth" it at $4 million, Apple could have extended that contract knowing he'd have a productive shortstop with good range for next year.  Putz, while not at the end of his contract, was originally drafted by Apple, so he could DITR him either this year or next adding on one more year of one of the top closers in the game at a bargain $500k (considering top closers have been going for over $3 million in previous drafts).  Even if I traded back Putz to Apple, he'd lose his DITR eligibility since he was traded from his original team.

The Putz "offer" was also complicated because of its ethical nature.  Conditional trades are going to happen, and they're not illegal in terms of the constitution (in fact, there's something in there stating their legality).  However conditions need to be stated at the time of the deal, as a matter of letting the league know the actual full trade (in order to protest if it's not on the up-and-up) and to have something in writing if a conflict should arise once it comes time to act on the condition.  That said, a "trade back" wouldn't fly if announced to the league.  It's basically renting a player and would open up a huge can of worms in the future if it were allowed and accepted.  This isn't to say that it hasn't been done before, but generally it has been kept quiet in such a way that the rest of the league would not suspect that such a deal has been done.  The thing was that I wasn't trying to screw over the league - my ethical issue was that I never intended to offer the trade back.  I'll get into this later.

While I was making this offer, Apple was sending out an email to the rest of the league letting them know that Johnson and Jennings were still available.  The following day, Johnson went on the DL, and Apple sent out another email to the league stating that some people had contacted him about Johnson and Jennings, that Johnson was still on the DL, but if anyone was still interested in talking about them to contact him.

I (as nicely as I could) forwarded him the email I had sent to him earlier asking about Putz and Peralta.  It was obvious to me that he was looking to build up the demand for the two players, which wouldn't have been as bad if he wasn't ignoring my email.  Finally, I get a reply:

I am debating on who I will make my DITR. It will either be Peralta or Hamels. Peralta is cheaper but a 2008 rotation of Hamels, Hill, Martinez, Liriano and J.Johnson with Owings in the wings is tempting. I have two other offers on Peralta so I am weighing my options.  As for Putz, I have not thought about that at all. It may be something I may look into later. Let me know what you have in mind.

I understood the dilemma.  Cole Hamels made more money than Peralta, and a DITR on him would mean an $8.7 million price tag on him for next season, but $8.7 million for a top 10 pitcher (which Hamels was showing signs of at the time, and still only 23) seemed like a good risk.  I had mentioned Hamels as possible trade bait in the past with him, but with his contract being that much more than Johnson or Jennings', it never panned out.  I sent him an email telling him that I would probably lean towards putting the DITR on Hamels, not because I wanted to get Peralta so much, but being honest.

He responded by putting out another email to the league saying that Peralta might be available.  For those of you keeping score at home:

• I asked about the player
• He said he wasn't sure if he was keeping him for next year
• I said that if it were me, I wouldn't extend him for next year
• He went to the league and told them he was available

Common courtesy would have been to at least keep discussing him with me until talks broke down, then to announce to the rest of the league that he was available.  Whatever - I could see that Peralta would be too much trouble than it was worth (especially to get all of $300k in cap room), so I shrugged it off and made another offer:

I was thinking:

Gary Matthews (1.8)
Adrian Beltre (3.4)
Randy Johnson (4.2)
Jason Jennings (3.4)
J.J. Putz (.3)

FOR

Edwin Encarnacion (.5)
Josh Hamilton (.1)
Brett Myers (5.7)
Bob Howry (2.0)
Eric Duncan (.3)
June FA pick

Difference of 4.5, which I have 4.5 of cap room.  Thoughts?

This would be the first time (and next to last time) I would offer both Encarnacion and Hamilton in a deal.  In it, I would get the pitchers I was requesting, the replacements for the starters with good contracts I was asking for in Matthews and Beltre, and in including Putz and Howry into the deal, making up the cap space it would have taken me to take those four contracts on, while also greatly upgrading my bullpen.  Note that there's no mention in that offer of trading back Putz.  That was intentional, since in that offer I had no intention of trading back Putz.  Call it whatever you will, but that was my offer.

I would end up receiving this:

How about this:

Mathews 1.8
Jennings 3.4

for

Hamilton .1
Howry 2.0
Your June & August FA Picks

Let me know or send a counter

Note a few things here.  First, we've essentially ignored the previous offer.  The only thing that triggered, apparently, was me sending Howry in that deal (in order to get Putz and open up cap room), so suddenly Howry became "player on the block".  Also, we've added another FA pick, we've made Hamilton the focus of the deal for him (my top bargaining chip), and we've dropped the offer to the second-tier pitcher in Jennings.  That's one of the problems in larger deals - names that get brought up in order to "even" a deal end up getting confused for actual demand, and level of demand gets centered across the board.  The thought here was to strip my earlier deal down to just a few players on both sides, but for whatever reason to think that I would forget who I most wanted, or who I wanted to keep most.  That wasn't happening, and I could see that the deal was starting to slip away.  My frustration showed with my next offer, which was basically doing what he did to my earlier mega-deal except for my advantage:

It's not worth it to me to deal off one of those guys (Encarnacion or Hamilton) just for Jennings.  How about:

Beltre
Johnson

for

Encarnacion
Myers
June FA pick

Keep in mind too that Johnson is on the DL at the time I'm making this offer.  My goal in this deal is to minimize my risk if something should happen to Johnson.  I had made a deal several years ago where I picked up Wade Miller right before he was lost for the season (and his career pretty much ended), and when I did the deal, I was digging a hole for myself with the players I was trading away.  The trade ended up making me worse that season with Miller going on the DL, something that I swore I wasn't going to do again.  In making a deal like this, I was just hoping that Johnson would be healthy enough to give me good starts, but even if he didn't, I was getting an equal value player (or better) at the third base position, so all I was trading away was a draft pick and an extra year of a cheap 3B.  Could Encarnacion put together a better season than Beltre for the rest of the year?  Sure, it's possible, but it's a minimal risk.

I also had to state in that email my feelings towards Jennings, who I viewed clearly as a lower option than Johnson.  I couldn't rule out the potential confusion of Apple confusing my want for Jennings and Johnson since it had been mentioned more than a few emails ago, so I had to restate.

At the same time, I pulled a trick out of Apple's book and announced to the league that I was offering up Encarnacion and potentially Hamilton for starting pitching and bullpen help.  It might get me some other offers, and at the same time, it put my negotiations with Apple on the same level, since he was telling the league all of our offerings.

Further unraveling:

Let me know what you think. I am fielding offers from three teams trying to get the best deal possible

"Hi.  My price for my players is going up despite the one you want being 43 years old with a history of injuries and currently on the DL.  I know that you said that you didn't want to deal both of those players and that I had actually offered you a better deal earlier but I'm openly telling you that I'm working your deal with other people so feel lucky you're even still in the mix."

Yeah - he didn't actually say that, but he did with that deal.  As mentioned and linked, he had offered me a similar, better deal a week earlier whose only real issue was that it didn't fit under my cap.  This time though, he took out Jennings, Matthews, and Beltre and replaced them with Taveras and 28-year-old bench guy Greg Dobbs, who had started a whopping 25 games up to that point.  I'd learn why later.

I flipped out - not enough to be actually mad, but enough to be legit annoyed and to have a look on my face that my wife recognises as something being wrong.  I try not to tell her why (the mocking, the mocking) but I responded back with an offer, but not before my frustration:

The last offer I made was pretty much the initial offer you made me when we started discussions, just with one of the FA picks taken out to compensate for Johnson's injury and Myers added to even out contracts.  The deal that you're offering me now asks for both of my good contracts (including the very good Hamilton contract), reduces the amount of pitching being offered (previously Johnson and Jennings, now just Johnson) and brings in the lower quality replacements of Taveras (instead of Matthews) and Dobbs (instead of Beltre).  It'd be me taking a hit at two positions and losing two FA picks for the potential improvement of one player - a 43-year-old player currently on the DL.

I've given you pretty much all the possibilities I can think of.  I can't give up both Encarnacion and Hamilton without getting Johnson and another good quality starting pitcher back in return, plus players to cover those positions without taking an offensive hit.  Since Hamels isn't on the table (understandably), it then comes to Jennings.  Due to financial issues, I still need to move other salaries which is why I needed to bring in Putz in the deal (sending back Howry), with the understanding that if needed, I would send back Putz after the season was over in another deal so you had the remaining year on his contract for the 2008 season.

Those offers are pretty much the best I can do - I mentioned Peralta in a thought that I could potentially swap Durham for Peralta and play him at second base if you weren't going to DITR him next season (which would free up another $0.3 in cap in a deal), but that would be a minimal cap fix and you could probably find better value for Peralta if you were to deal him elsewhere.

This is pretty much the best I can do, with the biggest deal being:

Gary Matthews (1.8)
Adrian Beltre (3.4)
Randy Johnson (4.2)
Jason Jennings (3.4)
J.J. Putz (.3)

FOR

Edwin Encarnacion (.5)
Josh Hamilton (.1)
Brett Myers (5.7)
Bob Howry (2.0)
Eric Duncan (.3)
June FA pick
August FA pick <-- last time I offered this the August pick wasn't included

or something smaller, such as:

Beltre
Johnson

for

Encarnacion
Myers
June FA pick

That's something I can do.  I'm sorry if you feel the deals from those other teams are stronger than mine, but I've been basically working with the counters that you've given me and just tried to work out the salaries.

Anyway, let me know.

I laid it all on the line.  Without giving away all my strategy, I told him where I was coming from and what I needed to do in a deal.  I stressed my needs, why I was asking about players, and what I thought was crap.  I was really annoyed at the "fielding other offers" crap, since trade discussions are like dating - you know that in all likelihood you're not exclusive, but you don't need to have it flaunted in your face.  I refused to back down from my earlier offers - the large one involving both Jennings and Johnson (and Putz - note that while I still mentioned trading him back, the offer didn't mention that at all) and the smaller one that was the last offer I had sent him prior to this email.  There just weren't any more possibilities, and with every effort I made to bring in new players resulting in the core of the deal being ignored by Apple, then I was going to be thick-headed and just restate what I thought was good, take it or leave it.  Or at the very least, worse as close as you can to it.  I even tried to give a little bit by offering the extra FA pick in the larger deal.

I really hate the "this is the reason your players suck, now trade them to me" strategy, but since it seemed that Apple was viewing Johnson with rose-colored glasses, I had to be realistic.  My reply was more apologetic than a counter, with Apple trying to imply that the other deals he was working on were in other leagues, and stressing again that he was trying to get the best deal for Johnson, and tried to lighten it up by asking how my 3-year-old liked the baseball game.  I replied back by telling him that I understood his position, knew that Johnson was his best bargaining chip, but restated my stance, explained my attachment to Hamilton (you have to state if you've got a non-statistical attachment to a player when it comes to trade negotiations, since people are going to be going on stats and potential and your value is going to be unnaturally higher), explained a scenario in where I might have done one of his offers, but held my offer(s) firm.  After I hit "send", I felt that was it - no more negotiation, and that if he wanted to act he would, but that I doubted he would.

About a week and a half passed with no discussion.  Maybe those trade talks Apple was having were in other leagues, because despite having multiple offers going at once, he made zero deals.  The June FA draft was approaching, however, so I felt that it might be a good time to start up talks as draft positions were established, so if Apple really did want my pick, he'd see where it was and be able to determine whether the player he wanted would be available there.  In addition, unlike previous drafts we started it early with people announcing their picks to the league via the mailing list.  A perfect opportunity to open up trade talks, since one could definately see whether or not their player would be available by seeing who other teams drafted.

When it came to my pick, I sent a message to Apple to see if he wanted to start talking trade again.  I figured that the June FA pick would be that much more appealing since it was the current pick.  I didn't really have any desire to keep the pick, since the only player I saw as an immediate help had gone in the pick previous.  He responded by saying he'd like to talk trade.  Yeah - no kidding.  A little help here?  I shot back an email noting my previous offers and stating that they were still open for discussion.  Johnson, at this point, was scheduled to come back off the DL that night.  I also asked about maybe doing a deal just for the pick - any immediate pitching help for the pick, quick and dirty.

I should have known better:

I would want to see if anyone else in the league would be interested in him but how about this:

M.Owings and W.Tavarez

FOR
J.Hamilton and June FA PICK

I know Hamilton is better than Tavarez but I thought Owings for the June FA pick might balance it.

Let me know what you think.

I think it sucks, Apple.  We're back on Hamilton again, whom I've now stated at least 3 times that I don't want to deal unless I get something really strong.  We're swapping him out for Willy Taveras, who we've already stated is a lot less appealing than Hamilton and makes my team worse as a result.  And despite us taking about Hamilton, we've not only taken out Johnson but Jennings as well, and bringing in 24-year-old Micah Owings, who coincidentally happens to be the guy losing his spot in the rotation as a result of Johnson coming off the DL in the first place.

This isn't to say that Owings wouldn't be a nice player to have.  Picked up in last year's FA draft by Apple, he's signed for another year after this for $500k.  While Owings' numbers on the surface looked like he'd be an immediate help for me (5-2, 3.84 ERA), in actuality he was treading water in most of his starts, rarely getting past the 6th inning with a WHIP of almost 1.4.  Two of twelve starts saw him record a game score higher than the 50s, but four below the 50s (with his last five starts reading 50, 52, 47, 42, and 51).  He's the type of player that you trade away for a player for this season, not one that you'd be trading for.  He'd also fit the profile of the type of player I'd be looking for in the FA draft, so I didn't view him that much stronger than a FA pick.  Once again, we're backpedaling, and I'd find out why later.

I feel the need to explain my position again.  I'm not sure why at this point, but I guess it's more for clarity so that when I stop negotiating with the guy, he (maybe) understands why:

While I'd do Owings for the June FA pick without an issue, it doesn't make up for the difference between Hamilton on Tavarez, two year contract on Tavarez or not.  We're talking 150 OPS points difference, and that's not taking into effect the extra two years (potentially three for me with a DITR) for Hamilton.  The only thing Tavarez has going for him is the extra range, which isn't that big of a deal for me.  Owings at one year would be worth a little bit more than the pick - the fact that Owings has two years is his selling point, but not something that I need.  You'd probably be better off shopping him to another team looking towards next year.

I done with work, so I won't be online for an hour or so - if you can think of anything based on our past discussions with Jennings and Johnson, let me know.  Otherwise I'll make the pick.

I honestly thought having the pick live and waiting would get him interested, but no such luck.  I gave him a little time to get back to me, but I got nothing back.  He did, however, announce to the league that Owings was now available with Johnson and Jennings.

That's the Johnson and Jennings who Apple apparently refuses to speak to me about.

I went in a different direction with the pick, however, hoping to still keep something going between us, drafting a prospect (and signing him for four years) instead of drafting some temporary help for the bullpen.  Part of it was "best available player", part of it was "another bargaining chip", and part of it was "I hope this was the player you wanted to draft with your pick, Apple".  Another bit of schadenfreude was watching as Johnson had his worst start of the season that day, pitching only three innings and giving up six hits and four runs (three earned), walking two, and striking out two.

Two days later, a trade is announced between Apple and another owner.  Apple sent away Matthews and Peralta in the deal, which explains why Matthews has been off the table for several days.  Still not hearing anything back from Apple, I sent him an email a few days later attempting to open up discussions again:

Wanted to touch base with you to see if you were interested in rekindling the Randy Johnson/Jason Jennings talk.  I selected [Phillies prospect Carlos] Carrasco keeping you in mind because he was (I believe) the best available pitching prospect out there that I could have gotten 4 years for, especially one that might start at the major league level this season (maybe for a start or two) and have a legit shot at being in the '08 major league rotation.

If you're that protective/uncertain about Johnson, I'm willing to talk smaller about Jennings.  Let me know if the asking price has changed.  I'm really not that much more willing to deal Hamilton at this point without upgrading his position with his replacement (example - in early talks I had with [other owner], I mentioned the possibility of working Carlos Lee into a deal).

Anyway, let me know if you've thought of anything different.

Apple followed up by shipping off Jennings and Beltre in another deal for the four year contract of 27-year-old right-handed relief "prospect" Phil Stockman, the two year contract of Ryan Theriot (OPS at time of deal: .669), and two FA picks (and additional roster filler to make the cap work).  Seriously - I get hammered with demands for an outfielder with a four year contract pushing for Rookie of the Year thanks to a .914 OPS and the moment I take him out of the trade consideration I get cut off, yet offer a 27-year-old injury prone relief pitcher in AAA who has only pitched in 7 games this season thanks to injury along with one more year of a light-hitting utility infielder, and suddenly it's "where do I sign?"

The frustration with the deal isn't the value that Apple got for the players, but the hoops I had to jump through in order to get something that might work for both sides, only to have Apple seemingly take completely different approaches with my negotiations and those with other owners.  It seemed more obvious over time that Apple was getting confused attempting to "play the field", and he would eventually start taking players off the table once negotiations started with another owner whose main focus was to get that players.  In my negotiations, Johnson was the main player, and Apple attempted to work that to his advantage by shopping him to others in an attempt to better the offer I was giving him.  Unable to get anything better and losing value on Johnson by the second, he fielded other offers from people who were looking at other components of our larger deal, namely Matthews, Jennings, and Beltre.  He pulled Putz off the table (understandably) because he had value after this season, but when offers came from other teams for Matthews, Jennings, and Beltre, they too were taken off the table, leaving our original negotiations to break down from four major starters to just one, but the demand never went down despite the value across the board declining.  With a better team owner, those three never get pulled off the table until they're actually dealt in an attempt to get the best possible deal.  But with Apple, the focus gets lost because he tried to do too many things at once, and got in way over his head.