It;s funny to watch New York whine and moan under these circumstances.  It's kind of like watching them complain to the on-field ump about Felix (hypothetically) putting pine tar on his best pitches... only to have them break a bat on one, leaving cork all over the infield.

All the news reports throughout the entire bidding process were talking about how 'the Yankees are out on Lee', 'New York is kicking the tires but is not serious,' or 'the Yankees are waiting until the offseason to get Lee (as they assuredly will).'  Steinbrenner and co did everything they could to MINIMIZE the market for Lee - to project the image that they didn't want Lee all that badly right now, and that even if they did there was no way someone of Montero's caliber was going to be involved in a trade.

Now, does that make sense?  Of course!  You want to get what you can at the best price possible in high-business scenarios - that's your job.  Don't pay more than you have to.  But in the end, Montero was always going to be the asking price... and the Yanks were trying to keep an artificial cap on the market price.  Should they really be surprised if Jack Z shopped their best offer around (if indeed that's what he did... sounds like Texas is the one who came on strong!) once they finally made it?

If New York hadn't been actively working to keep Montero's name out of the 'reasonable' speculation, Texas would have had to put Smoak on the table much earlier to be taken seriously.  Maybe New York would have had a chance to respond to Texas' heavy offer, rather than having the Adams injury cripple their bid at the last moment with no reaction time.  Or maybe New York just wouldn't have had so much egg on their face when Seattle went with their preference of Smoak.  Either way, it's not hard to argue that the Yankees sit in a disappointment of their own making.  Sometimes going the extra mile to keep prices down (denying almost all interest whatsoever, then jumping straight to the 'here's Montero' offer as if that was the plan all along) can backfire painfully into your face.

I'm thinking the "position" questions with Montero are screwing up his projections from scouts.

Everything I've read to date says he is NOT (yet) a major league competent catcher ... not even up to the minimalist standards of Mauer and VMart, (most are unaware that Mauer's WP/PB numbers aren't far removed from Rob Johnson's).

It's impossible to "completely" divest oneself of defensive value.  Even at 1B there is variance in defensive ability.  Even when you opt to put Jose Canseco's monster bat in LF, you *KNOW* he's giving back some runs with his glove.

Montero, (I believe), is currently viewed by baseball as a "long shot" to stick at catcher.  But, (just as Tampa did with Upton), you want to give a KID a pretty long incubation period of instruction before you throw in the defensive towel.  He's obviously got "some" of the tools needed to BE a decent catcher ... he's just not doing it.  And THAT is a problem.  Until they try him in LF - or at 1B -- NOBODY knows where he'll land on the defensive spectrum ... and that *HAS* to hurt his value ... because with the generic uncertainty of any prospect, it's "comforting" to be "certain" about something.  Defense tends to be a variable where scouts reach firm conclusions QUICKLY.

Knocking the steak, because the salad sucked may not be fair ... but it's human.  We know how much Clement's stock plunged when it was decided he was never going to be a catcher.  Didn't change his bat ... but it DID change his value.  (And, there is the argument that telling an uber-prospect, "Sorry, you're just not good enough" - defensively - can have unintended consequences on that bat.

But, if you're judging bat A ... with a solid track record of plus defense at 1B ... versus bat B ... with zero track record at 1B ... (and failing grades at catcher) ... if the bats are comperable ... then I think the defensive situation could easily tip the scales for most GMs.