The problem is because you don't know what a sunk cost fallacy is, which is what I was responding to Ski Powder about. That's why it's confusing.
There's no such thing as 'less sunk cost' nor was that what I meant.
And the lottery ticket example is just silly. Sunk cost implies that the asset you invested in declines-which the lottery example is the complete opposite of what sunk cost means.
No, you're the one that has it backwards.
You're implying that our own 'earned' 2nd round pick has more value than a 'free' 2nd round pick obtained by trading UFA signing Garrison. Thinking a 'free' asset has less value than a 'paid for' asset of the same book value because of sunk costs is the definition of this fallacy.
Then you're making a second logical breakdown by taking those steps into the background to determine that Vey is 'free' somehow and has no sunk costs.
If I get a 'free' $50k inheritance, invest it wisely to get $250k, buy a house with that money, and then trade the house for a rock that keeps away tigers, I haven't gotten the rock for 'free'.