The assumption being made is that Barret, or any of the names in the article had better value than at the time of their departure from Chicago. Yes these folks were all sold low, some inescapably IMO. However, none of them had tremendous value to begin with, and even had they been sold high, it's unlikely the returns would have been much better than at the low point. Only Patterson and Choi from the article were guys expected to be on the upswing (and I would add Dubois, who wasn't named). All the other guys were average players or journeyman on the downswing of the age/production bell curve. My point is this: there is too much being made of perceived value vs. actual value, regardless of 'high' or 'low'. To illustrate, Jacque Jones value in the offseason was high, as his production exceeded salary and he represented a good value on paper for any low/mid market team. Still Hendry couldn't move him or chose not to move him, as the rumored returns weren't much more than the deal recently quashed. His 'high' value wasn't much more than his current 'low' value. I think folks are right to more upset about his original deal, as he probably deserved a 1-2 year deal, not a 3 year deal.