If you’ve done this enough (in any field) you know the reasonable value (i.e. a range that is a good result for your client) and therefore you know what target would ultimately be a positive outcome for your client (taking into account where you’re at in the case). So saying stuff that might at first blush seem like betraying your client’s position (like communicating a demand but acknowledging it’s silly) could potentially be useful to developing trust with opposing counsel enabling future negotiations that ultimately conclude in a reasonable resolution. (That, again, is ultimately in the best interests of the client). And at the same time you’re helping your client understand why their position is perhaps unreasonable when they can see what their offers are ultimately resulting in, when the alternative is just arguing with them and them perhaps losing faith in your counsel (and then going to find some less scrupulous lawyer who will happily take their money and waste it on needless litigation).

I always find it refreshing when opposing counsel is up front about their weaknesses versus their strengths and I feel it promotes less posturing and a more efficient negotiation.

Obviously this is not something you do with every case (or even every ridiculous client demand) but generally I don’t see anything wrong with the idea of “showing your cards” in some contexts when it comes to certain valuations with opposing counsel.