I don't think you understand trades. The goal is to get the better of the other team. So no, optimally, we wouldn't be getting other duds in return. The goal is to get better players in return, while shedding duds, and there are no doubt teams out there who think they can fix them or who will suffer less from having a .220-.230 hitter in their lineup (eg the currently struggling clubs). For those teams, Vientos, Baty etc. would fill the role of "holding down the fort," not the role of "holding up the potential of winning more games," which they're currently doing for New York. I don't agree with this at all. I'd be surprised if GMs all think that way. The goal is to obtain a player to fill a hole or improve in an area, not screw over another team. Trades that help both teams are fine. They don't necessarily need to be David Cone for Ed Hearn. Walt Terrell for Howard Johnson types of deals seem to help both teams well enough. The Mets aren't looking to trade one of these players becuase they think they are duds, it's because they have a surplus of infielders that other teams find attractive because of ability plus lower salaries and team control. They can deal from that surplus because they need a centerfielder and relief help.