I agree but that isn’t the point or the reason I brought it up. The point is that when people evaluate deals they tend to ONLY evaluate the player received, not the value of what was given up or the salary they acquired along with the player. The Blanton deal looks better now than it did before but the true evaluation of it would have to include other factors like how long Blanton is controlled, what he will cost per win relative to the wins he will add, and what the prospects surrendered are likely to turn into, etc.

Let’s say that Meche is worth an extra 2 million dollars over what he’s being paid now. And let’s say that the Royals value a win at 3 million. That means that after 1 year they’re paying 5 million over what he’s worth to them.

However, if he has a great first season then you can get that 2 million over 4 additional years back on the market theoretically, by pointing out that his actual value is 2 million/year over his salary. And that’s ‘free money’ for almost all intents and purposes because they didn’t have to give up prospects to get him.

Basically, they pay 5 million in the first year to get 8 million back, in theory. Of course the market isn’t perfect, and there are a lot of caveats, but it’s hard to say that signing a player to an under-market deal is a poor choice unless it’s entirely impossible to leverage that added value.