|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jan 28, 2017 12:15:06 GMT -5
That would be, like, textbook sunk cost fallacy right there. If the Red Sox have Pomeranz ahead of Rodriguez or Wright it's because they think he's better (or suited to the role on an optimized staff), not because they feel the need to retroactively recoup value. I would normally agree with you and think "well the trade is done, nothing the Sox can do about it now" but Dombrowski has gone on record of defending this trade more times than really any other trade he's made here. I just think there's a lot of save face aspects to this trade. I love Pomeranz in this rotation and this trade makes me torn because I actually like both Espinoza and Pomeranz. Let me ask you one legitimate question though, out of the 3 in the rotation of Wright, Pomeranz, and Eduardo, who do you think will be given the longest leash to fail? It has to be Pomeranz, right? I think the trade is a huge part of that. Just my take on it. This is a perfect example of what I was referring to. You state "Just my take on it", yet you offer no evidence to support your claim at all other than "Dombrowski has gone on record of defending this trade more times than really any other trade." Where is the evidence of that, I think you just made that up to support your unsupported "take on it". It's one thing if you did this on occasion but you (and 1 or 2 others) post a ton and say the same thing over and over and over, the difference is the other 2 will at least substantiate their take even if I disagree with it. You often don't have any evidence other than to say "I feel". Others have explained to you, that if DD behaved as you feel he wouldn't last long. I'll add to that by saying he'd never even had reached the level of a GM many years ago if he behaved and thought as you think he is. You are trying to make the narrative fit your preconceived thoughts and won't consider that you need to reconsider. If you could care less about advancing the discussion then you are whether it's intentional or not trolling. I've said my piece and moving on.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 28, 2017 16:48:57 GMT -5
I would normally agree with you and think "well the trade is done, nothing the Sox can do about it now" but Dombrowski has gone on record of defending this trade more times than really any other trade he's made here. I just think there's a lot of save face aspects to this trade. I love Pomeranz in this rotation and this trade makes me torn because I actually like both Espinoza and Pomeranz. Let me ask you one legitimate question though, out of the 3 in the rotation of Wright, Pomeranz, and Eduardo, who do you think will be given the longest leash to fail? It has to be Pomeranz, right? I think the trade is a huge part of that. Just my take on it. This is a perfect example of what I was referring to. You state "Just my take on it", yet you offer no evidence to support your claim at all other than "Dombrowski has gone on record of defending this trade more times than really any other trade." Where is the evidence of that, I think you just made that up to support your unsupported "take on it". It's one thing if you did this on occasion but you (and 1 or 2 others) post a ton and say the same thing over and over and over, the difference is the other 2 will at least substantiate their take even if I disagree with it. You often don't have any evidence other than to say "I feel". Others have explained to you, that if DD behaved as you feel he wouldn't last long. No you just have had a problem with me in general. I have never asked to be the GM of the Sox, and nor do I ever care to be in the future. Okay you think I'm making things up, let me be here to accommodate your thoughts of singling me out on a limb- Here is Dombrowski on the trade after it happened- fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2016/07/14/dave-dombrowski-details-why-red-sox-traded-for-drew-pomeranz/Here is Dombrowski 2 months later on Pomeranz and the fallout of the trade situation- fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2016/10/11/dave-dombrowski-hints-drew-pomeranz-may-have-been-pitching-hurt/You think he had to do this with any other trade he's ever done? Now you can probably say you said your 2 cents and walk away but really the last 5 out of your last 8 posts it seems like have been centered around the fact that you think I troll here. I haven't got one message from anyone else regarding this. Nor has anyone but you has singled out my posts. In fact the mods have come out and warned you about your continued posts toward me. I have no idea what to tell you at this point. Don't like my posts, then ignore them. It's no big deal from my end, I have a hard time comprehending your posts to begin with because of the grammar issues.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 28, 2017 23:34:00 GMT -5
Let's move on. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 30, 2017 15:19:55 GMT -5
Re: the supposed "sunk cost" fallacy of Pomeranz: it's more complex than that. Since he continues to have value as a trade chip, not starting him further erodes his value. He's not a sunk cost but a (volatile) asset. He's only sunk cost if one considers strictly his on-field value. Now, obviously, the team isn't going to start him if they think that they have a substantially better option. But if the team looks at their options, and Pomeranz is roughly similar to (or even slightly worse than) the others, there's incentive to start him with the hopes of trading him, minimizing value lost, and inserting the remaining option in his spot.
|
|