Latest out of Justin's reliable sources?  Characterize the O's and M's in a standoff — with the Rangers either (a) close to intercepting the pass or (b) Baltimore representing such, to try to get the Mariners to go the last yard.

…………………. 

Baltimore offers:

Bedard (& sweetener?) for

1 Jones, 2 Morrow (or Clement), 3 Sherrill, 4 Wlad or the other half of the Morrow / Clement pair.

.

Seattle counters with:

Bedard (& sweetener?) for

1 Jones, 2 choice of Morrow or Clement, 3 Sherrill, 4 another player not Wlad or the other half of Morrow / Clement.

The sources are pretty confident that this is the situation as we write, and they buy into Balmer's representation of Texas being close on a deal.

……………………

There comes a time when you pay too much.  That time is not "when the price is embarrassing" and that time is not "when you're paying 20% above what the last guy paid for something similar."  Those cliches are for chat boards, not for real-life closing tables.

Just because the last guy bought a commercial acre in Bellevue for $750k doesn't mean that you should pass on the next commercial acre for $850k. 

Yet we see this comment all the time:  since Oakland and Arizona made Deal X, the Mariners shouldn't embarrass themselves by paying more than Arizona did (since obviously those last two teams had to have made the "correct" deal.)

You pay too much when you take your position backwards.  You pay too much when the price hurts your organization more than the assets are going to help it.  That's what paying too much is.

…………………….

The Mariners are in a distinctive situation:  they have earned a reputation for trying just hard enough to lose the game.  This situation has been echo'ed in a few division races and in a few ballparks the last few years…

If I'm Bill Bavasi, I consider myself in an urgent situation.  A year is a lifetime for me if I'm running the Mariners.  Which is why I suspect that good old Chuck & friends are "collaborating" on the max prospects price for Mr. Bedard.

……………………..

I'll tell y' how bidnessmen solve problemos like this, for those interested in technical-type details.

Rather than asking Baltimore to take fewer of your players, you give them what they want and then you ask them to add to the deal.  

Once they are stuck in a face-saving scenario, which they probably are by now, it is 100 times harder to ask them to pull off of Jones + Wlad, than it is to get them to add to the deal.  Yet from the Seattle perspective there's no reason not to structure it that way.

Sigh.  OK, you want both Jones and Wlad?  Tell us about this Luke Scott dude.  Or what about Garrett Olsen, how well are his skills going to translate to the majors do you think Andy?  Or tell us about this Radhames Liz guy…  oh, c'mon.  You want everybody I got, Andy.  I'll give them to you, but throw me a band-aid back and you can take all the goodies home.

Olsen is asking too much?  OK, if you do add Olsen or Scott we'll get you a 5th guy just to finish it off.  Does Chen fill a need for you?

……………………..

We remind negotiators of this, and they go, "Well, no duh."  They are aware of the idea, but then you sit and watch them go ahead and direct 80% of their discussion time towards trying to subtract from their side of the deal.  It's human nature. 

It is the guy who spends 90% of his time on the opposite paradigm — "what does the deal look like if you get everything you want" — who gets deals closed. 

Not that any of the M's suits listen to advice on this kind of stuff … but for D-O-V readers following the script?  You may want to pay more attention to what Baltimore would be willing to kick in (a realistic hope), than to whether they're willing to cave in on Wlad (probably not a realistic hope). 

……………………..

Bavasi makes a handsome living.  Time for *him* to come up with a little RBI bingo.