Add new comment

I will admit that my take on the Lee trade was one where it seemed like Toronto's take "smelled" financially desperate.  (seems like an awful little return for trading a likely Hall of Famer in his prime). That initial trade to me really did feel like Phillies take was about right -- but Seattle won large, and all Toronto netted was salary relief. 
More likely, I'm just channeling ego-driven echoes from the greatest "called shot" of my baseball trade history - (calling Beltran to Houston after they swapped Hidalgo for Weathers, when none of the Houston press was even murmuring about Beltran as a possibility).
Of course, in that scenario, the Houston/Mets trade didn't involve anyone from the trade which came through exactly one week later.  But, when Houston dumps a salary-stupid OF, for a completely unneeded reliever and the next week adds an All Star OF, while sending away one of its two closers ... well, kinda hard to NOT believe the two deals were not only linked, but that the details for that second trade (as far as Houston was concerned) had been pretty clearly laid out.
You're correct that in the real world, there would be a temptation to double-cross or attempt to excuse your way out of the vaporish "other" trade mentioned, but not solid.  But, that would be a move that you get to employ precisely once.  And historically, if a GM is viewed as acting in bad faith -- the damaged party WILL make his displeasure known publically.  (Atlanta recently had a flare up with the Dodgers.)  Different scenario, of course, but when your entire pool of negotiating partners is 29 deep, a reputation for acting in "bad faith" could become a major hinderance.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether he was part of the original deal - or a completely separate item that just arose during talks.  In the end, both trades were made, and all the exchanged parties go into the pool of receipts and outlays for Captain Jack.