I'll disagree - look at K-Rod and what the Brewers got for him. The less money that is owed a player, the less risk in acquiring him, the more return you get in a trade. Look at the distribution of payroll and resources among teams. You have the Yankees/Dodgers/Angels/Red Sox and to a lesser extent Phillies and Tigers that will offer a top free agent pitcher $100M+ and not even blink. Then you have the next tier of the Giants/Rangers/White Sox/Blue Jays and to a lesser extent Cubs and Cardinals who will offer a guy $50-$75M and not even blink. The rest of the league knows they can't compete with that, so what if those teams need a good arm to get them over the top? Lohse on a 2-year, $22M contract the way he has been pitching suddenly looks like a bargain. You can't get a guy of that quality as a free agent for only $22M, and two years limits the risk. One year and $11M looks even better. This year the problem was competition. Despite the added wild card team, there were few teams competing for playoff spots. The NL Central practically has the two wild cards locked up. The NL East is just about over - Washington is 11.5 games out of first and 8 games out of the wild card. Arizona is five games out of the wild card and facing a Dodgers team that is red hot, getting their injured players back, and has a ton of payroll. I think Arizona was conservative in acquiring players because they felt they had little shot at catching the Dodgers or the wild card. In the AL Cleveland doesn't have the resources to acquire payroll and probably doesn't think they can stay with Detroit, thus their only acquisition was a guy the Cardinals DFA'd. Many of the big payroll teams - Yankees, Blue Jays, White Sox, Angels, Nats, Mets, Phillies, and Giants, the type of teams that would take on payroll to put them over the top - aren't in contention, thus no demand. As other have said, in the offseason when more teams think they have a chance, demand will be greater and thus returns will be higher.