How bout, Huntington's an idiot, he values tools goofs like Gorkys Hernandez and guys who throw hard and can't control it like the A-ball guy. What constitutes more depends on what the individual values. When Dave Littlefield traded Rajai Davis for Matt Morris and his awful contract could he not gotten more for Rajai Davis.(Yes, he could've just released him) When Jim Duquette(Or Jeff Wilpon or Rick Peterson or Al Leiter or whoever pushed that trade through) traded Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano, was that the best deal he could get for Kazmir, or did whoever pushed for the trade irrationally overvalue Victor Zambrano/irrationally hate Kazmir. Look let's say Huntington sold McLouth for the baseball equivalent of $1. It's been suggested in this thread that some other team would've gladly offered him more than $1, which strikes me as foolish and naive. There's no need to argue whether the actual players involved are actually worth $2 or 2 cents. The Pirates rated them at $1, and more to the point, they didn't have another offer over $1 out there, or else they would've taken it. So you're gonna ignore my 2 real world applicable question and make a bad analogy. Baseball players aren't evaluated the same across the board. Neal Huntington may feel the 3 "prospects" he got in return are worth the hypothetical $1. Jim Hendry may feel those 3 are worth $.05, while thinking some offer the Pirates turned down was worth $4. Your definition of value says that every trade ever made was all a GM could get because the GM in question valued the return as equal to that which went out. It's absurd.