Deion Branch: Patriots vs. Seahawks stats comparison

[emoney_33]

I understand it just fine, Deus. YOU don't. You don't at all.

To run this by another set of ears, I asked my econ major husband, who never misses a chance to tell me I'm talking out of my butt. You're wrong. Sorry.

The first thing he asked is if a dollar to me is worth the same as a dollar to a homeless guy. Gasp. Context!

The value of a fourth rounder to the New England Patriots who have too many picks to know what to do with is less than the value to a team without many high round picks. What is overpaying to one team is not to another.

You think everything has ONE value PERIOD. Haven't you ever bought trading cards? I did and I sold artwork too. The value of a signed picture was what someone would pay for it, what it was worth to them.

Not to mention, your whole car analogy is pretty narrow. If a car is priced at 10,000 and you pay 9 grand for it, you didn't get a steal if the car craps out and won't run. You may as well have paid a buck. What happens after a transaction matters.

Anyone with a basic understanding of economics, or even logic, can see the point. But Deus' only goal is to argue, a debate about global warming would inevitably dwindle down to Deus arguing about the sky being blue.

 

[tobias funke]

Your favorite food/game/toy/tool costs $X at 9 of the 10 stores in your town. It costs $2X at the 10th store. There may be perfectly valid reasons for you to purchase it at that 10th store (hometown story v. mega stores, friend's store, "always shop there because other prices are lower", etc...), and you may be perfectly content with paying the extra money for one of those reasons, but you still overpay, when compared to what you could have paid, if you buy it at store #10.

No offense, but you sound like a moron comparing an individual athlete to a bag of chips. There aren't 8 of him hanging out in every street corner convenience store, and to suggest otherwise makes it seem like you have a very poor grasp on reality.

I personally have nothing against you, but it's odd that every time I read a thread you happen to be posting in, you're taking a contrarian viewpoint that often doesn't mesh with reality. Why do you think this is? Is it because you're so much smarter than everyone else?

My problem with your posts is that it rarely seems like you even believe what you're arguing (otherwise you'd be doing a much better job supporting yourself). I enjoy a good discussion/argument as much as anyone, but honestly it doesn't seem like those are things you participate in.

I've never understood why certain people on the internet have such a problem with admitting they were wrong about something. It certainly seems like a security issue to me, as if they're afraid no one will ever pay attention to their posts if they admit that they aren't right 100% of the time.

I personally respect someone much more when they're able to swallow their pride, admit they were wrong, and move on to something else. I have no doubt you'll toss this post aside with a bunch of pretend-economics like you do with every post that disagrees with your basic assumptions, but much like a 4th-round draft choice, I'm going to take a flyer and hope it pans out.

 

[Kontradiction]

Give:
Randy Moss, a fourth rounder, and a seventh.

Get:
Deion Branch and a third rounder.

I can certainly see how people would think that we overpaid. However, we'll most likely get a fourth rounder back anyway. And, knowing our draft trades, it will probably be in a better position than our previous fourth rounder.

 

[Bella*chick]

Anyone with a basic understanding of economics, or even logic, can see the point. But Deus' only goal is to argue, a debate about global warming would inevitably dwindle down to Deus arguing about the sky being blue.

You and Tobias are right. I don't know why I'm arguing when I KNOW the guy can't admit he's wrong. I should probably put this energy elsewhere, like cleaning the 6000 plates from Thanksgiving dinner which beckon.:bricks:

 

[Deus Irae]

I understand it just fine, Deus. YOU don't. You don't at all.

To run this by another set of ears, I asked my econ major husband, who never misses a chance to tell me I'm talking out of my butt. You're wrong. Sorry.

The first thing he asked is if a dollar to me is worth the same as a dollar to a homeless guy. Gasp. Context!

The value of a fourth rounder to the New England Patriots who have too many picks to know what to do with is less than the value to a team without many high round picks. What is overpaying to one team is not to another.

You think everything has ONE value PERIOD. Haven't you ever bought trading cards? I did and I sold artwork too. The value of a signed picture was what someone would pay for it, what it was worth to them.

Not to mention, your whole car analogy is pretty narrow. If a car is priced at 10,000 and you pay 9 grand for it, you didn't get a steal if the car craps out and won't run. You may as well have paid a buck. What happens after a transaction matters.

Actually, I don't think everything has one value. As I've noted, there can be valid reasons to overpay. You keep ignoring that. Value and cost are not the same thing.

And, yes, you DID get a steal if you pay $9k for a $10k car, in terms of comparative cost, regardless of whether that model car is a lemon. We're discussing overpay/underpay, not the future quality of the car. In fact, given that I was fine with the "car" (Branch), that's not an issue that's even on the table, since we agree on it.

Or, to put it another way, trading a player for a draft pick is a good/bad value regardless of whether or not the pick pans out. You're trading for an opportunity, not a "known" player quantity. That's the difference between trading for picks and trading for players.

P.S. Since your husband is an econ major, he should remember value-based versus cost-based. That's really what this discussion has become about.

 

[Deus Irae]

No offense, but you sound like a moron comparing an individual athlete to a bag of chips. There aren't 8 of him hanging out in every street corner convenience store, and to suggest otherwise makes it seem like you have a very poor grasp on reality.

I personally have nothing against you, but it's odd that every time I read a thread you happen to be posting in, you're taking a contrarian viewpoint that often doesn't mesh with reality. Why do you think this is? Is it because you're so much smarter than everyone else?

My problem with your posts is that it rarely seems like you even believe what you're arguing (otherwise you'd be doing a much better job supporting yourself). I enjoy a good discussion/argument as much as anyone, but honestly it doesn't seem like those are things you participate in.

I've never understood why certain people on the internet have such a problem with admitting they were wrong about something. It certainly seems like a security issue to me, as if they're afraid no one will ever pay attention to their posts if they admit that they aren't right 100% of the time.

I personally respect someone much more when they're able to swallow their pride, admit they were wrong, and move on to something else. I have no doubt you'll toss this post aside with a bunch of pretend-economics like you do with every post that disagrees with your basic assumptions, but much like a 4th-round draft choice, I'm going to take a flyer and hope it pans out.

Certain realities here.

1.) I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. Along that same vein, though, I'm still waiting for a whole lot of homers to admit they were wrong about a whole bunch of moves the team made last season.

2.) Value does not equal cost.

3.) Your assertion re: contrarian is ludicrous.

4.) When I make statements just to 'argue/tweak', I make them pretty clear. I tend to either say "just for argument's sake", post a picture of someone fishing, or make the comment something that's obviously not meant ("Brady's a slacker").

5.) Your evaluation of my posting will be taken under advisement, with the full understanding of who it came from. I suspect I'll take a "Value" approach to this one....

 

[Bella*chick]

I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG!

And other observations.

A novel by Deus Irae.

 

[tobias funke]

I guess that means the alternative is true: he really does believe what he's posting?

Not sure if that's better or worse than coming off as an obvious troll.

 

[unoriginal]

In this case, though, with Deion Branch -

The car is custom-build basically for your scheme. It might be worth -less- to someone else who doesn't need those features, but since it has everything you want and need, you're quite willing to pay for it.

Too often in back-and-forth threads the perfect response goes unquoted.

 

[Bella*chick]

Too often in back-and-forth threads the perfect response goes unquoted.

Not to Deus. See what that post describes is context and that concept doesn't exist on his planet. Only the phrase, "YOU'RE RIGHT! WE OVERPAID" makes any sense to him and his keen grasp of economic reality.

 

[Pessimistic Pete]

Deus isn't saying he's not worth a 4th round pick, he's saying that (he thinks) they could of technically got him for less than a 4th round pick.

But to that I ask, how? Do you think the Patriots should of waited longer to get him? Do you think they negotiated wrong? What could of they had done to get him for cheaper?

These are valid questions for this argument, you guys keep going back and fourth on the cost/value stuff.

 

[tobias funke]

It's purely subjective reasoning. There is no chart that says a player of a certain age, with X injury history, putting up Y production, who is used to Z offense is worth a __ round pick.

A cursory look at the history of players-for-picks trades bears this out. Roy Williams went for a first and a third. Maroney went for a 4th.

We can all have a visceral reaction to a tradesayin 'that was too much' (or too little) and then let the production finish the argument. But that part is purely subjective in the end.

 

[eagle eye]

Imo he cost too much for what he had achieved in his years in Seattle. I think it was a huge risk bringing him back to New England. Not only that but Seattle were getting a player on big wages off their books.

Clearly it can still become a bargain trade if he keeps up what he has been doing since he came back. But thats in hindsight.

 

[MassPats38]

If the Seahawks would take a fourth in trade and only a fourth, that is what Branch is worth subjectively to the Seahawks.

If any team in any situation would offer a third, then objectively that is his value in the market. The NFL doesn't set a market, so that is a subject for pure speculation and really offers no resolution. Anyone who claims to know value in that sense apparently doesn't grasp that concept as there is no data on value given the unique skill sets of individual players. There is no player commodity market. Players are not pure commodities (they have tangible and intangible characteristics), and teams will rarely dislose bottom lines as it makes them predictable in future dealings. As such, there is no ascertainable value in exchange unless you have data on nearly identical players and the value teams were willing to pay in that transaction. It simply doesn't exist. Argue comparables in previous transactions, but those players have to be comparable.

Absent that standard, there is subjective valuation/value in use. Branch may be worth little to the Seahawks while under contract, but may have skill set uniquely adapted to the Patriots system making him a high value acquisition for the Pats. Similarly, the fourth round pick may not be highly coveted by the Pats given the number of draft picks they have, so the transaction could be a steal to them. The only question there is did the Pats throw the pick away, or was that the Seahawks' bottom line to facilitate the trade. If so, the Patriots subjectively made an intelligent decision and are now reaping the benefits of the deal.

 

[Bella*chick]

If the Seahawks would take a fourth in trade and only a fourth, that is what Branch is worth subjectively to the Seahawks.

If any team in any situation would offer a third, then objectively that is his value in the market. The NFL doesn't set a market, so that is a subject for pure speculation and really offers no resolution. Anyone who claims to know value in that sense apparently doesn't grasp that concept as there is no data on value given the unique skill sets of individual players. There is no player commodity market. Players are not pure commodities (they have tangible and intangible characteristics), and teams will rarely dislose bottom lines as it makes them predictable in future dealings. As such, there is no ascertainable value in exchange unless you have data on nearly identical players and the value teams were willing to pay in that transaction. It simply doesn't exist. Argue comparables in previous transactions, but those players have to be comparable.

Absent that standard, there is subjective valuation/value in use. Branch may be worth little to the Seahawks while under contract, but may have skill set uniquely adapted to the Patriots system making him a high value acquisition for the Pats. Similarly, the fourth round pick may not be highly coveted by the Pats given the number of draft picks they have, so the transaction could be a steal to them. The only question there is did the Pats throw the pick away, or was that the Seahawks' bottom line to facilitate the trade. If so, the Patriots subjectively made an intelligent decision and are now reaping the benefits of the deal.

:rocker::rocker::rocker:

Yes to all this.

 

[Kontradiction]

Deus isn't saying he's not worth a 4th round pick, he's saying that (he thinks) they could of technically got him for less than a 4th round pick.

But to that I ask, how? Do you think the Patriots should of waited longer to get him? Do you think they negotiated wrong? What could of they had done to get him for cheaper?

These are valid questions for this argument, you guys keep going back and fourth on the cost/value stuff.

I wonder if we could have gotten him for a 5th or less had we pulled the trigger on the trade BEFORE Moss was traded. IMO, Seattle sniffed out our desperation and squeezed us for Branch.

 

[Deus Irae]

Not to Deus. See what that post describes is context and that concept doesn't exist on his planet. Only the phrase, "YOU'RE RIGHT! WE OVERPAID" makes any sense to him and his keen grasp of economic reality.

How is it possible for you to have missed the hypocrisy of your statements?

 

[aluminum seats]

Camp A: Deion Branch was worth the 4th round pick.

Camp B: Perhaps, but don't think he was worth the pick at the time.

Repeat arguments 100 trillion times.

Camp C: Everyone else, praying it will stop soon.

 

[TruthSeeker]

And, yes, you DID get a steal if you pay $9k for a $10k car, in terms of comparative cost, regardless of whether that model car is a lemon. We're discussing overpay/underpay, not the future quality of the car.

And this is indeed the reason why the two sides will never see eye to eye.

One side (pretty much everyone but Deus) thinks that the value of the item is inherently linked to how well it actually produces what it was bought for.

The other side (Deus) thinks that the value is not linked to actual production but is all about the free market cost at the time.

The reason the vast majority of us believe that the value of the item is indeed linked to future production is because we don't really know what the future production is until we see it. We can guess, but we don't know. It's not quite like buying an orange where one orange is about the same as another and there is enough of a market to set a known value at the time of sale. In this case, there is a real question about what a player's production will be in a particular system at a particular time. We have guesses, but don't know. If everyone knew what the player would actually be able to produce, then we'd be much closer to Deus' world where the value would be pretty well-defined at the time of sale. Not quite, though, because as has already been noted, the same player would still have different value to different teams because of a variety of reasons (e.g. amount of available draft choices to deal with, need at a particular position, how well the player fits in a particular system, etc).

What this all adds up to is that almost all of us see that the true value at the time of the trade can only be fairly ascertained well after the trade when the actual production of the player within the new system can be taken into account.

Who knows; perhaps the time will come when Deus will think that this makes sense as well.

 

[Digit]

I wonder if we could have gotten him for a 5th or less had we pulled the trigger on the trade BEFORE Moss was traded. IMO, Seattle sniffed out our desperation and squeezed us for Branch.

Doubtful - we'd have to cut someone to make room -for- Branch, and then hope that Minnesota would have had paid the same price, instead of offering less since we'd be carrying a surplus of WRs.

That's not even mentioning the potential circus that would've happened if Branch/Moss were on the same team. The Moss distraction would only have metasized at a rate that the Patriots might not have been able to handle.


One other point I wanted to bring up:

The Patriots made the deal essentially because Branch agreed to renegotiate his contract to something more agreeable to the Patriots.

So the contract that Seattle didn't want was amended to a more team-friendly contract the Patriots were willing to give up a fourth round pick for. I'm not sure the Patriots would have agreed to the fourth round pick if Branch hadn't renegotiated his contract to something more Patriots-friendly.