Well, you seem to keep getting hung up on the fact that players would love to have won a slam, where they did not -- and that's simply not the argument; so there's no reason to continue beating that horse. The only clarification I'm asking is why, from your so-called "players perspective," winning three slams in X order is better than winning three slams in Y order, particularly given Federer not only went one better by reaching the other final, but also dominated in a historical fashion to boot.
Edit: By the way, Borg was asked whether he would trade one of his Wimbledons for a U.S. Open title. Guess what his response was?
Sorry, but if I haven't been able to articulate my point well enough by now, I'm probably not going to be able to do it all...
Regarding Borg, though, he could have "traded" for Fed's 2006 without giving up his Wimbledon title.
By the way, I hope it's obvious that I wouldn't expect any player to want to actually trade for something someone else has accomplished. Not only is there no tennis genie that can grant that wish, but it wouldn't mean anything if you didn't actually have to do the work. It's really more like "if your own efforts could have produced any result, what would you have wanted those results to be"? But in this case, for the sake of argument, limiting the possibilities to mirror a result actually produced by a tour player during a certain timeframe.
I don't think Borg is lying for one second when he said he wouldn't trade. I also don't think for one second that he wouldn't love to have a USO title. Borg is one of my all-time favorites, by the way. I personally put him in my top echelon of all-time greats, but I digress...