GG Posted April 24, 2005 Posted April 24, 2005 Anyone who's ever been used car shopping knows to look up the car's blue book value in trying to gauge the market price. Invariably, when you actually get to the dealers' lots, you find a wide disparity between blue book value and market value (the value that the dealer will buy the car from you or will sell the car to you) Folks, you have just witnessed our own version of blue book in the failed Travis Henry trade. Henry's blue book value, as a multiple 1,300 yard rusher and Pro-Bowler was anywhere between a low first rounder and a second rounder. Henry's real market value was around a 4th-5th round, based on his known downsides. Donahoe had to bridge the two and strike a deal that would net the Bills something closer to blue book. The side chair prognosticators who are railing on TD for not pulling the trigger are living in a fantasy world, where it's not their money on the line. The reality is that both Henry and Shelton are damaged goods, with only real interest coming from Arizona & Buffalo. You would figure that if Jonas Jennings was able to get a $10 mil + signing bonus, a quality left tackle earning $3mil/year would jump off a team's trade board in a heartbeat. Oddly, only Bills remained in contention for Shelton's services and only offering Henry, for whom there was little quality demand in an off-season filled with RB moves. One also has to wonder why the only other reported interest in Shelton came from Chicago, who needed to replace Mike Gandy who signed with..... You can draw your own conclusion if Chicago didn't think that Shelton was a worthy enough successor to Gandy to trade draft picks. Then we ask why didn't TD just trade one malcontent for another? My guess is that there is no guarantee that Shelton will make the starting roster, and paying $3mil to a backup is a tall order for TD. That's why he would have rather traded Henry for Philly's 3rd rounder (if that trade was available to him) So there you have it. The market has spoken. Henry is worth bubkus. But he's a steal in your blue book.
Coach Tuesday Posted April 24, 2005 Posted April 24, 2005 Shelton also has been out of shape for the last few years. Not exactly McNally/Mularkey's type of player...
IndyMark Posted April 24, 2005 Posted April 24, 2005 The best take on TH yet....this is the smartest post to date and your second to last line pretty much is the truth as evidenced by the last 72 hours. Well said!
Tipster19 Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Henry is worth bubkus NOW. Your CURRENT estimations are correct but unlike an automobile, Henry is not a depreciating asset. If you want to compare Henry and market values than I suggest that you compare him to the stock market. A buyer for an automobile buys for either need or appeal. Right now Henry possesses neither of these traits. When the gas prices go thru the roof then buyers trade their trucks and suvs and go to little 4 cylinders. But guess what? When the crisis is over they always go back to the bigger and better vehicles. Always. No, he's more comparable to the stock market. When there's a lull, people sell and they don't buy. Well, depressions don't last forever and you can expect HAPPY DAYS again. So whoever thinks that Henry has little or no value then all I have to say is, sit on it Potsie.
Phlegm Alley Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Henry is worth bubkus NOW. Your CURRENT estimations are correct but unlike an automobile, Henry is not a depreciating asset. If you want to compare Henry and market values than I suggest that you compare him to the stock market. A buyer for an automobile buys for either need or appeal. Right now Henry possesses neither of these traits. When the gas prices go thru the roof then buyers trade their trucks and suvs and go to little 4 cylinders. But guess what? When the crisis is over they always go back to the bigger and better vehicles. Always. No, he's more comparable to the stock market. When there's a lull, people sell and they don't buy. Well, depressions don't last forever and you can expect HAPPY DAYS again. So whoever thinks that Henry has little or no value then all I have to say is, sit on it Potsie. 317386[/snapback] It is completely based on supply and demand. If there is a high demand for RBs (oversaturation of a market) then prices typically become cheaper. Seeing as how there were so many RBs inundating the market, Henry's value was nothing or not fair to what he is actually worth. His price will go up as soon as some team loses their #1 guy to injury, it happens all the time and when that time does happen, TD will get fair market value for TH.
JDG Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 GG - It is not quite accurate to say that "Travis Henry is worth bubkus." In actuality, what we have just seen is that Travis Henry is worth more to the Bills than to any other team. JDG
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 I'd agree with the stock market analogy. The time wasn't right to sell because no one wanted to buy at the stated price. So best to keep him and hope his value goes up, like if a team suffers an injury or has a RB who would rather be a pothead. Oh and Alexander and James weren't traded either, even though neither would have cost a 1st round pick, much less a top-5 pick, and are INFINITELY more proven than the guys who WERE selected in the top-5, and who will be making similar money. The market doesn't know any better than anyone else what a player is truly worth, it's just a market.
dave mcbride Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Anyone who's ever been used car shopping knows to look up the car's blue book value in trying to gauge the market price. Invariably, when you actually get to the dealers' lots, you find a wide disparity between blue book value and market value (the value that the dealer will buy the car from you or will sell the car to you) Folks, you have just witnessed our own version of blue book in the failed Travis Henry trade. Henry's blue book value, as a multiple 1,300 yard rusher and Pro-Bowler was anywhere between a low first rounder and a second rounder. Henry's real market value was around a 4th-5th round, based on his known downsides. Donahoe had to bridge the two and strike a deal that would net the Bills something closer to blue book. The side chair prognosticators who are railing on TD for not pulling the trigger are living in a fantasy world, where it's not their money on the line. The reality is that both Henry and Shelton are damaged goods, with only real interest coming from Arizona & Buffalo. You would figure that if Jonas Jennings was able to get a $10 mil + signing bonus, a quality left tackle earning $3mil/year would jump off a team's trade board in a heartbeat. Oddly, only Bills remained in contention for Shelton's services and only offering Henry, for whom there was little quality demand in an off-season filled with RB moves. One also has to wonder why the only other reported interest in Shelton came from Chicago, who needed to replace Mike Gandy who signed with..... You can draw your own conclusion if Chicago didn't think that Shelton was a worthy enough successor to Gandy to trade draft picks. Then we ask why didn't TD just trade one malcontent for another? My guess is that there is no guarantee that Shelton will make the starting roster, and paying $3mil to a backup is a tall order for TD. That's why he would have rather traded Henry for Philly's 3rd rounder (if that trade was available to him) So there you have it. The market has spoken. Henry is worth bubkus. But he's a steal in your blue book. 317252[/snapback] great post, gerry. not to crow or anything, but i did say a while back that i'd be shocked if the bills got anything higher than a 4th for him (i figured he was worth about a 6th). for once in my life, i was right!! woo hoo!
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 great post, gerry. not to crow or anything, but i did say a while back that i'd be shocked if the bills got anything higher than a 4th for him (i figured he was worth about a 6th). for once in my life, i was right!! woo hoo! Yeah, woo hoo! I think you'll die a painful death. If I'm right, woo hoo!
Tipster19 Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 You can't mention Edge and Alexander not being worth a 2nd rder! OMG, you're destroying all the credibility of bashing Donahoe. When we didn't get FAIR MARKET VALUE, then we should of just panick and traded him for whatever that Fat Bastard wanted over there in Philly. Then we could then turn around and draft a scrub. Get real! Sometimes you have to slow down to speed up. There will be a need for Henry before this season runs out. Count on it.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 You can't mention Edge and Alexander not being worth a 2nd rder! OMG, you're destroying all the credibility of bashing Donahoe. Sorry, my bad.
dave mcbride Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Henry is worth bubkus NOW. Your CURRENT estimations are correct but unlike an automobile, Henry is not a depreciating asset. If you want to compare Henry and market values than I suggest that you compare him to the stock market. A buyer for an automobile buys for either need or appeal. Right now Henry possesses neither of these traits. When the gas prices go thru the roof then buyers trade their trucks and suvs and go to little 4 cylinders. But guess what? When the crisis is over they always go back to the bigger and better vehicles. Always. No, he's more comparable to the stock market. When there's a lull, people sell and they don't buy. Well, depressions don't last forever and you can expect HAPPY DAYS again. So whoever thinks that Henry has little or no value then all I have to say is, sit on it Potsie. 317386[/snapback] i disagree, and here's why. even good rbs have an extremely short shelf life as a feature back in the nfl, with guys like curtis martin truly exceptional. the best backs have about 4 to 5 good years at most, and then decline sets in - a loss of half a step, nagging injuries, etc. some are good for 7-8 years (marshall faulk), but most start to hit the skids after year five. given that, why take a guy who has one more good year (according to this logic) before decline sets in? it almost always does, and henry not only was a horse at tennessee, racking up lots of carries, but has been nicked up in 3 of his 4 nfl seasons (with the injuries this past season being the worst). if i'm an opposing gm looking at henry, the thing that strikes me the most is the mileage on his treads. i'd conclude that he doesn't have much left at all as a top shelf back. same goes for edgerrin james, by the way.
Dr. K Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 GG's post is good, but I would only add taht there is another gauge of value than "market value" and that is what Henry can do on the football field. As someone above said, Henry is worth more to the Bills than to anyone else bidding right now. Let Mcgahee go down with an injury, and then how valuable would it be to have Henry on the roster? That's a value that isn't measured by Arizona's or other teams' unwillingness to give up much for him. He the kind of tough runner who could step in and play, and run well enough to keep the defenses honest if Willis goes down. It depends of course on Henry getting his head straight enough to play football for the Bills, and I suppose Donohoe could say some things that might help Henry save his self-respect (which is what his discontent is really about, not money, it seems to me). Whether Henry can be brought around, and whether Donohoe is willing to say those things, in an open quesiton.
dave mcbride Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Sorry, my bad. 317416[/snapback] just to throw this out -- are those guys worth second rounders? or is decline setting in (as it always does with running backs after 4-5 years)?
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 just to throw this out -- are those guys worth second rounders? or is decline setting in (as it always does with running backs after 4-5 years)? Maybe in James' case, because he's had a major knee injury, but not with Alexander IMHO. Great players usually find a way to stick around for awhile. But again, the market doesn't know the true value of a player, and also cannot know how much longer a player has left in him.
Tipster19 Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 This Henry situation is just like looking at stats. You can draw whatever conclusion you want. The one thing that always rings true is money. When you look at all the possible canidates at RB who may be available then there is no disputing that Henry is the most contract friendly of the bunch. I'm going to shelf this never ending, on going, great debate on Henry's value for now. I'll be happy to resume this topic hmm let's say by October 31st, that is the trade deadline isn't? Fear and confusion derives from ignorance. Does Donahoe look scared or confused?
dundy249 Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Henry is worth bubkus NOW. Your CURRENT estimations are correct but unlike an automobile, Henry is not a depreciating asset. If you want to compare Henry and market values than I suggest that you compare him to the stock market. A buyer for an automobile buys for either need or appeal. Right now Henry possesses neither of these traits. When the gas prices go thru the roof then buyers trade their trucks and suvs and go to little 4 cylinders. But guess what? When the crisis is over they always go back to the bigger and better vehicles. Always. No, he's more comparable to the stock market. When there's a lull, people sell and they don't buy. Well, depressions don't last forever and you can expect HAPPY DAYS again. So whoever thinks that Henry has little or no value then all I have to say is, sit on it Potsie. 317386[/snapback] I have to disagree. RB in the NFL are a depreciating asset. As they get older and run more they are less effective. With the right offensive line any RB can look like a star..Example Denver?
beausox Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Henry is worth bubkus NOW. Your CURRENT estimations are correct but unlike an automobile, Henry is not a depreciating asset. If you want to compare Henry and market values than I suggest that you compare him to the stock market. A buyer for an automobile buys for either need or appeal. Right now Henry possesses neither of these traits. When the gas prices go thru the roof then buyers trade their trucks and suvs and go to little 4 cylinders. But guess what? When the crisis is over they always go back to the bigger and better vehicles. Always. No, he's more comparable to the stock market. When there's a lull, people sell and they don't buy. Well, depressions don't last forever and you can expect HAPPY DAYS again. So whoever thinks that Henry has little or no value then all I have to say is, sit on it Potsie. 317386[/snapback] Wrong. Players -and especially players who will either sit out a year or pout for a year- are depreciable assets though only in anti-trust free baseball are they allowed to account in that category. Nonetheless half backs who log 20 plus carries per game have a short life span. If you want longevity value draft o-line men. Actuaries will confirm they have the longest careers and shortest lives.
The Jokeman Posted April 25, 2005 Posted April 25, 2005 The market has spoken. Henry is worth bubkus. 317252[/snapback] Didn't bubkus play LB for the Bears and then go on to be a star in the TV Series "My Two Dads"?
Recommended Posts