Z has been around the block enough to know some basic principles.
Every other GM wants to get Cliff Lee for the least cost. Z wants the opposite. He's in a game of leverage. His biggest card: his ability to walk away from the table.
Once the other side thinks that you are so enamored with the idea of a deal that you won't walk away no matter what -- then you're cooked. You will never get the best return.
So, what might a really savvy negotiator do in a deal that can't be kept 100% secret?
1. Put out some "managed" PR with just enough credibility to keep the other side thinking. And what do we get? Shannon Drayer: Why the Mariners May Not Trade Lee (http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=374&sid=337372).
2. Make an "unrelated" deal that has more "PR" or "negotiation" significance than reality.
I think this might be the missing piece. The Branyan deal is just not that major. Matt, it just isn't. The minor leaguers were not important; they're fungible. The 29th-round draft pick at AA has a .366 OBP and a good glove. Branyan was cut loose last winter and can be cut loose again if Adrian Gonzalez lands on our doorstep, or even if Rich Poythress morphs into Pujols next spring. In terms of salary or stature, he's a role player; a guy that can be moved out of the way.
But psychologically? The Branyan trade reinforces the notion (and a notion is all it needs to be) that Z is still in a "win-now" mode and willing to walk away from a Lee trade.
Maybe Z does the deal anyway, but in terms of timing -- and coinciding with the timing of Drayer's "maybe they'll just keep good ol' Cliff" piece (not buying it for a minute) -- it reinforces the leverage, and that's the main thing Z has going for him.
Z has proven to be able to maximize value in trades. The Putz and Cliff Lee trades are great examples of that.
He NEEDS to trade Lee though. We need to do better than 2 draft picks.
I'm getting a little concerned with the lukewarm packages that are being offered, but this is one are where I really trust Z to find a good return.
I want to make clear if I wasn't -- I think all the "we're not shopping him"/"we might keep him" undercurrent is just smokescreen that is part of the dance. But they have to talk and act publicly as if it isn't just smokescreen. That's part of the dance, too. The "walk away" bluff has to be credible, but it does not have to be true.
I'd rather have the draft picks than the lousy packages that have been floating around. I, quite frankly, don't want the same kind of medicore players that we gave up for Lee. If Z can't do better than that then the 2 picks will net better players, just maybe further down the road.
(posted this on PBNW but worth a mention here.)
I believe it would take a package from the Mets along the lines of Mejia, Martinez and Reese to get Lee (+ a first round pick and a sandwich pick). I laugh when I read fans from other teams making trade proposals and not realizing the value of Lee for half a year, the playoffs and the picks.
Seriously, I think the general reaction will be shock when they look at the package Seattle finally ends up with. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was similar to what Seattle gave up for Bedard - maybe minus Sherrill. (Ie, a top pitching prospect, a top fielding prospect and a couple lower level B prospects.) So any talk of a deal that doesn’t include their best prospect or a top prospect already having a cup of coffee probably doesn’t happen. Otherwise, they are better off keeping Lee.
The M's don't NEED to trade Lee.
I again find myself taking Z at face value on this position. It's not that I don't think there are more covert machinations or hidden agendas behind what he says publicly. I just think there is no strong reason for him to not be up-front on the Cliff Lee situation. He's holding a straight flush, and everyone knows it. No need to bluff really...
Take a sheet of paper, make two columns, one with reasons to trade Lee, one with reasons to keep him. Maybe assign a point value 1-10 on how each should be weighted.
The reasons to trade Lee are obvious, stats-based sort of things. To get young players who are cheap and have upside and can help win your next pennant.
The reasons for keeping Lee, however, include some very intangible reasons. Things that Z has indicated, and Drayer has 'reported', and Jemanji and others have talked about. Like playing to win, always. Like establishing a culture of winning. Like keeping your best players as an organizational philosophy. Like keeping a good relationship with Lee so you can sign him in the offseason if you choose. Etc.
Those reasons add up to a lot, depending on how you weigh them. Z has shown, in his dealings with players, that those types of things are very important to him.
So rather than Z being in a position of trying to 'convince' the other parties that he's not desperate, he just actually isn't.