When a team bails, it has two main responsibilities. The first is to improve their team for the following season by acquiring quality low-priced players in exchange for the players whose contracts expire at season's end (or as a result of FAAB, are so high that they are unprotectable i.e. $90 Carlos Beltran.)
The second is to make sure no matter what happens in 2005, on the day after the season ends, he has won the trade! This is the rationalization the other teams in the league use to salve the competitive wounds inflicted by losing the bail battles. Think about it. If someone trades an out-of-time Albert Pujols for a $7 Adam LaRoche, no matter what happens, the Laroche owner wins in October even if you offered $10 Matt Holliday and Jeremy Hermida for Pujols.
Where bailing goes wrong is when the 2nd responsibility is violated by bailing teams trading protectable players to those teams who won the bail battle.
When a bailing team does this, it gives the team who dealt the cheaper player a player that can used to trade, either later in the season or in the off-season, to improve their team even further. This makes the teams which lost the bailing wars to feel even more upset that they lost the bail battle because either their offers were not seriously entertained or pursued far enough by the bailing team.
And to make matters worse, if the bailing team deals a protectable player, he runs the risk of his side losing due to an off-season trade or injury. Think about it. If you deal an $19 Nick Johnson with one more year remaining for a $3 Willy Tavares, and Tavaras tears a hamstring in the off-season or Spring Training, the team with the $19 Nick Johnson wins the trade. If you had dealt an out-of-time Pujols or a $90 Beltran, then no matter what happens to player acquired by the bailing team, the other team cannot win the trade.
If bailing teams do not understand this 2nd responsibility, they will go a long ways towards wrecking the league or causing teams to stop playing.