What did we give up in the RW Trade?

[kmd24]

Presumptuous to think that they based what to trade for Roy Williams on how they valued such trade material?

No, it's presumptuous to think that Dallas was looking around to get the best value for their 1st and 3rd round pick. I don't think they were looking for any receiver. I think they were specifically looking for RW, and what they gave up was the price that Detroit set.

The question of RW's worth isn't that interesting. He's worth a 1st, 3rd, and a swap of late round picks, because that's the price that an inefficient market set.

It was obviously worth it to the Cowboys because they made the trade.

In the end, the interesting issue is who set the price, and I think it's clear that Detroit did. Despite that, I still think Dallas got good value for their draft picks.

 

[dstew60105]

No, it's presumptuous to think that Dallas was looking around to get the best value for their 1st and 3rd round pick. I don't think they were looking for any receiver. I think they were specifically looking for RW, and what they gave up was the price that Detroit set.

The question of RW's worth isn't that interesting. He's worth a 1st, 3rd, and a swap of late round picks, because that's the price that an inefficient market set.

It was obviously worth it to the Cowboys because they made the trade.

In the end, the interesting issue is who set the price, and I think it's clear that Detroit did. Despite that, I still think Dallas got good value for their draft picks.

And that's really the key issue. Dallas did get good value. How many 1st, 3rd round draft picks turn into total busts.(Bobby Carpenter come to mind). People need to give this a rest and let it play out. Without the RW trade, do you think Jerry would have cut ties with TO? Look at the situation in it's entirety, not just one player at a time. That trade improved this team.

 

[theogt]

All you are saying is that there is a market for WR, a point I fully agree with.

However, I was directly addressing the idea that there is a "set" price for WR's. Volume affects whether there is an "agreed upon" value for an item. When there is little volume, the price is influenced mostly by the individual's perception of the value. When there is a lot of volume, the price is influenced mostly by what all the other sellers are asking and what the buyers are paying. That's market efficiency, and you need volume to achieve it.

That's why saying that the market has set the price of a WR is at X doesn't make sense.

I was the one th at brought up the gold comparison. If you were addressing Thumper's misunderstanding of my analogy, then I apologize. We're both saying the same thing here.

The big question is who's perception of RW's value influenced this trade the most. The way things went down, I think it's pretty obvious that Detroit's perception was the dominant influence.

No, it's presumptuous to think that Dallas was looking around to get the best value for their 1st and 3rd round pick. I don't think they were looking for any receiver. I think they were specifically looking for RW, and what they gave up was the price that Detroit set.

The question of RW's worth isn't that interesting. He's worth a 1st, 3rd, and a swap of late round picks, because that's the price that an inefficient market set.

It was obviously worth it to the Cowboys because they made the trade.

In the end, the interesting issue is who set the price, and I think it's clear that Detroit did. Despite that, I still think Dallas got good value for their draft picks.

This is a nonsensical thing to say. Very clearly both teams set the price. It's an agreed upon price. The Lions wanted more for their receivers. They eventually came down to a price that Jerry agreed to. Dallas set that price as much as Detroit did. Unless you have some evidence that Dallas was coerced into the trade, this makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[kmd24]

This is a nonsensical thing to say. Very clearly both teams set the price. It's an agreed upon price. The Lions wanted more for their receivers. They eventually came down to a price that Jerry agreed to. Dallas set that price as much as Detroit did. Unless you have some evidence that Dallas was coerced into the trade, this makes no sense whatsoever.

How is it nonsensical? Suppose that Detroit given Dallas a take-it-or-leave-it offer. Wouldn't that be setting the price? Do you think markets work without someone setting a price?

Of course there were negotiations, and I expect that both sides gave up ground. I don't know exactly how the negotiations went, but there's a lot more circumstantial evidence that Jerry gave up more in the negotiations than Detroit did.

If you are arguing semantics about my use of the phrase "set the price," feel free to substitute the alternative phrasing I used: "Detroit's perception was the dominant influence" in determining the price.

 

[theogt]

How is it nonsensical? Suppose that Detroit given Dallas a take-it-or-leave-it offer. Wouldn't that be setting the price? Do you think markets work without someone setting a price?

Of course there were negotiations, and I expect that both sides gave up ground. I don't know exactly how the negotiations went, but there's a lot more circumstantial evidence that Jerry gave up more in the negotiations than Detroit did.

If you are arguing semantics about my use of the phrase "set the price," feel free to substitute the alternative phrasing I used: "Detroit's perception was the dominant influence" in determining the price.

Yes, all of the above is non-sensical. If Dallas' perception was not that he was worth a 1st and a 3rd, then the trade would not have happened.

Any transaction takes two parties. Both parties set the price. Neither has more influence over the price than the other. The price is the price. If one doesn't agree, it isn't the price.

If you think Dallas came up more than Detroit came down (which is a very different concept than what you're actually conveying), I think that's probably a bit of a stretch. We know for a fact that they wanted a 1st and Ware for Calvin Johnson before he played a single game in the NFL. Their sights were astronomical -- a 1st and Ware is, of course, much higher than a 1st and a 3rd. Actually a 1st and a 3rd is closer to them just giving Roy to us than a 1st and Ware.

 

[kmd24]

Yes, all of the above is non-sensical. If Dallas' perception was not that he was worth a 1st and a 3rd, then the trade would not have happened.

Any transaction takes two parties. Both parties set the price. Neither has more influence over the price than the other. The price is the price. If one doesn't agree, it isn't the price.

So if, hypothetically, Detroit suggested the exact parameters of the trade in, say, July 2008, and Dallas balked at those parameters up until October 14, you don't think that would constitute Detroit setting the price? Because Dallas had to agree to it?

That's priceless.

 

[theogt]

So if, hypothetically, Detroit suggested the exact parameters of the trade in, say, July 2008, and Dallas balked at those parameters up until October 14, you don't think that would constitute Detroit setting the price? Because Dallas had to agree to it?

That's priceless.

You're exactly right. In you scenario, in July 2008, the price wasn't a 1st and a 3rd. And on October 14, 2008 the price was a 1st and a 3rd. Neither party would or could have set the price individually.

Your point appears to simply be that Detroit started negotiations closer to the agreed upon price, which as I point out in the last paragraph to my last post, is not likely give the facts we know.

 

[kmd24]

We know for a fact that they wanted a 1st and Ware for Calvin Johnson before he played a single game in the NFL. Their sights were astronomical -- a 1st and Ware is, of course, much higher than a 1st and a 3rd. Actually a 1st and a 3rd is closer to them just giving Roy to us than a 1st and Ware.

They also knew that the player Dallas really wanted was RW because Jerry had been asking about him since November 2007. I see the entire Calvin Johnson scenario as a tool for justifying the high asking price for RW.

 

[theogt]

They also knew that the player Dallas really wanted was RW because Jerry had been asking about him since November 2007. I see the entire Calvin Johnson scenario as a tool for justifying the high asking price for RW.

What? There were incessant reports that Jerry wanted Calvin Johnson before the draft and was looking to trade up for him. I think Jerry actually hinted at it before the draft.

Of course, there are incessant reports that the Cowboys want every big ticket player. But it seems like you're just selectively remembering the facts to fit your perception that the Cowboys gave up more in negotiations than the Lions.

 

[kmd24]

You're exactly right. In you scenario, in July 2008, the price wasn't a 1st and a 3rd. And on October 14, 2008 the price was a 1st and a 3rd. Neither party would or could have set the price individually.

Your point appears to simply be that Detroit started negotiations closer to the agreed upon price, which as I point out in the last paragraph to my last post, is not likely give the facts we know.

Do you think you can't have a price without a transaction?

What is a stock price? Who sets it?

 

[theogt]

Do you think you can't have a price without a transaction?

What is a stock price? Who sets it?

Of course you can't have a price without a transaction. That's why it's hilarious for you to say the Lions set the price. That's the "non-sensical" part. Unless there's some sort of duress involved, one party can't set the price. Both parties set the price.