- Status
This is just a nonsense narrative.
Chris Tanev was signed as an UFA.
If we traded him away tomorrow for nothing, would it matter whether he was signed as a UFA or as a #1 pick or we'd traded Cam Neely for him?
No, of course not. All that would matter is that we had a good asset and we gave it away.
Unfortunately, that wasn't the even close to my argument. But points for trying nonetheless.
Addison Rae
Registered User
Yeah, that's exactly your argument. You're condeming moving a good player on a good contract away because he was a UFA signing.
As MS said would you be interested in moving Tanev for a 4th?
Addison Rae
Registered User
intelligent posters are perceiving it that way, maybe you're not doing a good enough job of delivering your argument.
thats fine. what you intended isn't relevant or meaningful. those were the only important implications to your argument.
No, that literally is exactly your argument.
You're saying the #2 pick we gave up somehow has less value because there is less sunk cost in it.
Which is exactly the same thing is saying you'd think Chris Tanev has more trade value as a #1 pick vs. being a UFA signing despite being exactly the same player.
Ho Borvat
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2009
- 7,374
- 0
Tinhorn1
Registered User
- Aug 7, 2007
- 1,111
- 329
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.
Quotes?
No one agrees that overpaying for crap players is justified because we aren't competing.
you're right. that its so similar to whatever thing you brought up suggests you're just making it up as you go
why on earth would i waste my time looking for quotes when you just told me that garrison was a "free asset and therefore not a loss" when we traded him for a worthless asset
It's really not that difficult. I'm just trying to explain the difference here when a poster suggested Vey was a sunk cost.
There's sunk cost.
And then there's a sunk cost fallacy.
Samzilla
Prust & Dorsett are
- Apr 2, 2011
- 15,297
- 2,151
My lottery comment was more about things people have said regarding Garrison in the aftermath of the deal to get Vey. People saying things like (paraphrase): "he was a free asset so it doesn't matter that we blew value in the trade because we originally got him for cheap."
That's poor reasoning. Benning would do well to learn how to fail efficiently since he fails so often.
Samzilla
Prust & Dorsett are
- Apr 2, 2011
- 15,297
- 2,151
Pretty sure Bowie Horvat has made this exact argument. That being cap conscientious doesn't matter because we're not competing. Maybe it was Jimson Hogarth though. Possibly both.
MS didn't say that vey was a sunk cost. he said the 2nd was the sunk cost. do i need to quote him? here i'll do it:
in fact, nobody has said vey is a sunk cost. obviously if they did, and we werent being weirdo pedants, it wouldn't matter because the implication is sufficient
both of them have done it along with a few others. jimson has never said it explicitly, but he's implied it. bowie has said it explicitly multiple times
in fact, nobody has said vey is a sunk cost. obviously if they did, and we werent being weirdo pedants, it wouldn't matter because the implication is sufficient
both of them have done it along with a few others. jimson has never said it explicitly, but he's implied it. bowie has said it explicitly multiple times
Free Edler
Enjoy retirement, boys.
Vey just isn't that good. Had Benning been patient he could have grabbed him for free off waivers this time last year. Instead he blew a top-60 pick (the sunk cost) on a guy who could be in Switzerland in 8 months.
Powder
Watch out, I bite.
I never said Vey was the sunk cost. What I implied was that the 2nd rounder we used to acquire Vey is the sunk cost. My point was that the trade should have nothing to do with the decision of whether or not to waive Vey. You cut your losses, try to improve your team in the present, and move on.
Saying losing Vey to waivers is okay because we acquired Garrison as a free agent is not only considering the original sunk cost (2nd rounder), but also considering the sunk cost of that sunk cost (Garrison). As MS said, this is mental gymnastics.
you're right. that its so similar to whatever thing you brought up suggests you're just making it up as you go
why on earth would i waste my time looking for quotes when you just told me that garrison was a "free asset and therefore not a loss" when we traded him for a worthless asset
We disagree. That's ok.
Fair enough and that's no problem.
I was responding to Ski Powder about sunk cost with Garrison and Vey. I implied it was more of a sunk cost fallacy.
I don't follow either posters close enough to know, which is why I wanted Verviticus to quote. Thanks for clarfying regardless.
Powder
Watch out, I bite.
How do you get me changing my stance from that? And doesn't my second quote answer your question? The fallacy lies in considering sunk costs in future decisions when they shouldn't be considered in the first place. I'm not sure where the misunderstanding is coming from.
- Status
