Saint Doug Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 I keep hearing about value this, value that. So let's talk basics about "value." Value is in the eye of the beholder, or the buyer. Take houses. I don't care if 100 websites say that your house is worth 400K. What matters is how much you can sell it for. And it goes both ways. You may sell it for more, or less. Your selling price is the TRUE value of the house. Look at stocks. They are only valued at what you can sell them for, not what the media thinks the company is worth. Look at cars. You may see the biggest POS driving down the street and say "that car must have a value of $150." However, this is wrong too. What if the person driving it depends on it to get to work everyday and without it, they would be unemployed. To him or her, this car is priceless. My point: people saying "I don't have any problem with our picks, just the value in which we picked them" is ridiculous. Tell me, what are these picks true value? I can tell you. Whitner was worth an 8th and McCargo was worth a 26th. This is basic economics 101, supply and demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a player to be named later Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Maybe if you took economics 201 you'd learn about things called "market failures"... One of the various market failures is asymmetric information, meaning not everyone has complete information on a good or service... Thus a products value is known only by the person or persons that have the most information about it. I'm pretty sure the Bills management has more information than most. Its kinda like going to get your car fixed. If you don't know a ton about cars you are at the mercy of the mechanic because he has more knowledge than you and can charge you whatever he wants. I guess its just not as simple as econmics 101... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Maybe if you took economics 201 you'd learn about things called "market failures"... One of the various market failures is asymmetric information, meaning not everyone has complete information on a good or service... Thus a products value is known only by the person or persons that have the most information about it. I'm pretty sure the Bills management has more information than most. Its kinda like going to get your car fixed. If you don't know a ton about cars you are at the mercy of the mechanic because he has more knowledge than you and can charge you whatever he wants. I guess its just not as simple as econmics 101... 684267[/snapback] well, you don't have it right either. if you learn enough about economics you will learn that value is subjective, although in the NFL we can assume that all teams are after a championship. if we can opperate under that assumption then yes where players are picked and how valuable they are (wrt to winning a championship) can vary, but the players value to each team can vary as well. all that said, market failures are a misnomer and Ackerleys market for lemons is a weak strawman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a player to be named later Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Well there ya go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 well, you don't have it right either. if you learn enough about economics you will learn that value is subjective, although in the NFL we can assume that all teams are after a championship. if we can opperate under that assumption then yes where players are picked and how valuable they are (wrt to winning a championship) can vary, but the players value to each team can vary as well. all that said, market failures are a misnomer and Ackerleys market for lemons is a weak strawman. 684313[/snapback] Economics 401? Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socalfan Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Economics 401 says that when all else fails, you hire a new GM, scouts and coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Glad I didn't go to whatever college we're talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiffler Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 I was so happy to see an Economics 101 post as an Economics major... and then I soon realized I was dealing with someone that clearly was in over his head. First of all, neither "supply and demand" nor "value" were the overriding economic principles in play at the draft. The ECON the the Bills needed to concern themselves with, and unfortunately neglected, was opportunity cost: Opportunity Cost is the cost of an alternative that must be forgone in order to pursue a certain action. Put another way, the benefits you could have received by taking an alternative action. The Bills passed on a trade that would have landed them draft picks better than those received by St. Louis in a trade with the Broncos. Let's say a third and a fourth rounder. In such a deep draft (as compared with last year's), those picks are valuable (see TBD gushing over Youboty and Ko). So, we had three possiblities at #8: a) Draft Donte Whitner. b) Trade. (If available) Draft Donte Whitner + Youboty-quality player + Ko-quality c) Trade. (If not available) Draft (near)-Donte Whitner-quality player + Youboty-quality player + Ko-quality By choosing A, we passed on B or C. I would have prefered either B or C (even if we weren't able to get a 4th from Denver). And based on the fact that such quality guys as Youboty, Jean-Guills, Pope, Watson, etc. were still around in the 3rd and 4th rounds, I think most would agree. Another economic principle at play here with some of you TBD folk is Value of Ownership, where people value an object (or a player) more than the market simply because it (he) is theirs. (A little girl wouldn't sell her beloved ragged, stuffed animal for $1,000.) Everyone now loves Donte Whitner, and while this is great, and makes everyone feel all warm inside, the value some of you are placing on him is artificially high because now he is ours. If we had drafted Tye Hill or Chad Greenway, everyone surely would be gushing at our guy. I like Whitner. But let's not lose focus of the mistake made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ1 Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 The Bills passed on a trade that would have landed them draft picks better than those received by St. Louis in a trade with the Broncos. Let's say a third and a fourth rounder. 684848[/snapback] How do you know this? Marv said after the draft that they could not make a value trade in the time alloted. Marv does not lie, therefore the rest of your argument is fallacious, which by the way, coincides completely with the media position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 I was so happy to see an Economics 101 post as an Economics major... and then I soon realized I was dealing with someone that clearly was in over his head. First of all, neither "supply and demand" nor "value" were the overriding economic principles in play at the draft. The ECON the the Bills needed to concern themselves with, and unfortunately neglected, was opportunity cost: Opportunity Cost is the cost of an alternative that must be forgone in order to pursue a certain action. Put another way, the benefits you could have received by taking an alternative action. The Bills passed on a trade that would have landed them draft picks better than those received by St. Louis in a trade with the Broncos. Let's say a third and a fourth rounder. In such a deep draft (as compared with last year's), those picks are valuable (see TBD gushing over Youboty and Ko). So, we had three possiblities at #8: a) Draft Donte Whitner. b) Trade. (If available) Draft Donte Whitner + Youboty-quality player + Ko-quality c) Trade. (If not available) Draft (near)-Donte Whitner-quality player + Youboty-quality player + Ko-quality By choosing A, we passed on B or C. I would have prefered either B or C (even if we weren't able to get a 4th from Denver). And based on the fact that such quality guys as Youboty, Jean-Guills, Pope, Watson, etc. were still around in the 3rd and 4th rounds, I think most would agree. Another economic principle at play here with some of you TBD folk is Value of Ownership, where people value an object (or a player) more than the market simply because it (he) is theirs. (A little girl wouldn't sell her beloved ragged, stuffed animal for $1,000.) Everyone now loves Donte Whitner, and while this is great, and makes everyone feel all warm inside, the value some of you are placing on him is artificially high because now he is ours. If we had drafted Tye Hill or Chad Greenway, everyone surely would be gushing at our guy. I like Whitner. But let's not lose focus of the mistake made. 684848[/snapback] Great Economics post! Marv does not lie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Doug Posted May 5, 2006 Author Share Posted May 5, 2006 Economics 401? Anyone? 684335[/snapback] Wow, I really didn't expect to create a showroom for peoples economical intellect, especially on a buffalo bills chatroom of all places. I guess I should have dumbed down the title of the thread to "value" Anyways, about value; besides what can be regurgitated from textbooks, who here knows where you can find a list of where our current draft picks should have been selected? Also, where we can find what an adequate "control" GM would have done with the draft. Should we ask Donahoe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 They wanted him. They got him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiffler Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 How do you know this? Marv said after the draft that they could not make a value trade in the time alloted. Marv does not lie, therefore the rest of your argument is fallacious, which by the way, coincides completely with the media position. 684864[/snapback] Both the Broncos and Vikes were calling. The Broncos gave up a 3rd round pick up move up to 11. The would have given up that or more to move to 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 There was also the potential cost of TAKING the opportunity in that by trading down to 15, they miss out on BOTH Whitner AND Bunckley, leaving them with the 3rd best S (Allen, who is definitely not as good as Whitner), and crap for value. McCargo would have been too high at that time and no one else was worth a pick at 15. Marv and co. handled this perfectly. Maybe in an alternate universe they were able to trade down a spot or two and still get who they wanted, but when Oakland took Huff, the Bills HAD to do what they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbyte Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 Here is my problem, you are now paying a SAFETY slot 8 money. Why? What does that do to other player demands? Safeties do not dominate games like other players on defense DE - LB- CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 Safeties do not dominate games like other players on defense DE - LB- CB 685110[/snapback] Polamalu, Ed Reed, and Sean Taylor can and do. Whether Whitner will be good enough to be included in this group remains to be seen, but for a #8 pick, I hope he at least comes close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts