In reading the articles and reader's posts about the trade, I have realized most everyone is considering this trade in the wrong light. The argument seems to go one of two ways.
A) We should have traded Samson Satele instead, because he's worse and costs more.
B) I trust Grigson to accurately analyze our players and needs, so therefore A.Q. Shipley is the better player to trade.
The flaw in both cases is centering our discussion around Satele. I agree that Shipley played better last season. But the true gauge of this being a good trade or not should be based on did we get better value in return; and it should not be based on who we should have traded instead. Also, we don't even know if Grigson did try to deal Satele, but the Ravens didn't want him because either A) he costs too much, or B) they wanted Shipley more. Or both reasons.
Instead, let's wait and see what quality of pick we are potentially getting. Then let's compare potential future talent in that pick to what we lost in Shipley. I believe this is the way to accurately gauge the quality of this trade.