Also a very good read connected to the article:
It's a really interesting question to ask IMO, and as Neyer suggests there's probably no real concrete answer. Young players are very valuable nowadays and teams try to develop their own, but at the same time you see good teams turning that on teams and landing good, young veteran talent (Curtis Granderson, Adrian Gonzalez, Jimenez, Garza, Pence come to mind) because of how much teams value the young player.
What does this mean? Is this even anything new, or has it always existed and this is just a story taking note of the situation in current times?
Also worth reading is the Verducci article linked in the post:
Game's shifting strategies leaves Beane, sage of Moneyball, behind
Who doesn't find this interesting:
Beane and Towers both played professionally, and bring a certain competitiveness -- an understanding of the rules of engagement -- to trade talks. They operate, as ballplayers do, without a fear of failure. This year Beane found too many phone calls that came his way that sounded like this: "I have interest in one of your players and this is what I'm going to give you for him."
"That's not deal-making," Beane said.
It's name-your-own price. The art of the deal has been replaced by the science of the deal, like an internet-savvy car shopper walking into a dealership with a research folder -- the buyer gives the seller a price.