ColoradoBear said:
calumnus said:
golden sloth said:
StillNoStanfurdium said:
Seems like a good time to bump this. I'll the first to say that I firmly believed that the only way the Rams won this trade is if they won the Super Bowl. Looks like it certainly wasn't a bad move for them in hindsight.
I'd like to think that Goff could do something similar if he could lean on OBJ and have a transcendent Cooper Kupp, but there's something to the consideration that Stafford is really good at elevating his No. 1 WRs.
It is also possible that the trade could work out for both teams. There could be two winners depending on how the lions do with their drafting.
In classical economics, all trades or purchases make both parties better off.
Sports are not classical economics as they are a zero sum game - number of wins is a constant so for every winner is a loser.
From an economic standpoint, sports are not a zero sum game. There is enough money to go around so that everyone is a winner. And there is a very complex relationship between winning and money, depending in part on the sport and the CBA and revenue sharing among owners (if any) in that sport.
But if we assume that trades are only about winning, it has always been the case that a "good" trade can improve both teams. If team A has a surfeit of major league quality catchers, and a lack of major league quality first basemen, and team B has a surfeit of major league quality first basemen and a lack of major league quality catchers, both teams can improve with a trade. Both teams can be winners. If the result is that instead of being 4th and 5th place finishers, they are 1st and 2nd, yes, one ends up better than the other. But still, both win.
Some teams care more about making money than about winning, so different teams view "winning" a trade differently, which also means both sides can win.
