|
|
Post by bojacksoxfan on Aug 6, 2024 8:30:31 GMT -5
Yes, of course it’s the acquisition cost and not any future salary commitment to Grissom. According to FG’s simplistic value model Sale’s production has been worth ~33M. Toss in the 17M the Sox paid the Braves and they are in the hole 50M. That is a rather humongous sunk cost. But I would be surprised it had that much of an impact on the Sox future actions with respect to Grissom. It helps that it’s a one year unicorn situation. Right, but the economics term "sunk cost" is based on the bygones principle. It means you've already spent that, make the best of the situation, don't try to recoup costs. See more* below. As Chris alluded to, trading Yorke BECAUSE of the Sale/Grissom trade would actually be an example of the "sunk cost fallacy", specifically the irrational outcome the sunk cost principle is trying to avoid. All that said, besides the point, because we still believe Grissom is better than Yorke, and THAT's the real reason for both trades. *sunk cost example: you buy Red Sox tickets, but it's cold and drizzly. The sunk cost fallacy would be that you should go even if you'll hate it because you spent the money already. But the sunk cost (principle) is that you should probably watch the game at your buddy's place where the beer is cheaper rather than throwing good money (and time) after bad -- or do whatever would be most enjoyable with the those three hours. Micro econ was possibly my favorite course in college (it was unrelated to my majors). Check out the links (or google it). Parsing this beyond necessary, but... the actual quote from the story referred to both Story and Grissom as sunk costs blocking the Sox MI. It wasn't a quote just about Grissom or even primarily about him. Sunk cost is obviously a better fit for Story and he was just including Grissom, who is directionally correct, in there as well. One way of accounting would suggest that the Sox have invested ~190M for the 2025 Sox MI to be Story/Grissom and it's organizationally difficult to move off that investment. That is generally true even if the Sox likely think Story and Grissom will be their best options anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Aug 6, 2024 9:14:41 GMT -5
Right, but the economics term "sunk cost" is based on the bygones principle. It means you've already spent that, make the best of the situation, don't try to recoup costs. See more* below. As Chris alluded to, trading Yorke BECAUSE of the Sale/Grissom trade would actually be an example of the "sunk cost fallacy", specifically the irrational outcome the sunk cost principle is trying to avoid. All that said, besides the point, because we still believe Grissom is better than Yorke, and THAT's the real reason for both trades. *sunk cost example: you buy Red Sox tickets, but it's cold and drizzly. The sunk cost fallacy would be that you should go even if you'll hate it because you spent the money already. But the sunk cost (principle) is that you should probably watch the game at your buddy's place where the beer is cheaper rather than throwing good money (and time) after bad -- or do whatever would be most enjoyable with the those three hours. Micro econ was possibly my favorite course in college (it was unrelated to my majors). Check out the links (or google it). Parsing this beyond necessary, but... the actual quote from the story referred to both Story and Grissom as sunk costs blocking the Sox MI. It wasn't a quote just about Grissom or even primarily about him. Sunk cost is obviously a better fit for Story and he was just including Grissom, who is directionally correct, in there as well. One way of accounting would suggest that the Sox have invested ~190M for the 2025 Sox MI to be Story/Grissom and it's organizationally difficult to move off that investment. That is generally true even if the Sox likely think Story and Grissom will be their best options anyway. Sorry, I didn't realize BA writers were the ones mistreating "sunk cost". Just read it. They got it 100% wrong in exactly the way Chris and I described. Regardless, your points are all understood and I'm not arguing them. Apologies for the hijack. Carry on. |
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Aug 6, 2024 10:16:05 GMT -5
Parsing this beyond necessary, but... the actual quote from the story referred to both Story and Grissom as sunk costs blocking the Sox MI. It wasn't a quote just about Grissom or even primarily about him. Sunk cost is obviously a better fit for Story and he was just including Grissom, who is directionally correct, in there as well. One way of accounting would suggest that the Sox have invested ~190M for the 2025 Sox MI to be Story/Grissom and it's organizationally difficult to move off that investment. That is generally true even if the Sox likely think Story and Grissom will be their best options anyway. Sorry, I didn't realize BA writers were the ones mistreating "sunk cost". Just read it. They got it 100% wrong in exactly the way Chris and I described. Regardless, your points are all understood and I'm not arguing them. Apologies for the hijack. Carry on. Shouldn't it be "sunken" cost? |
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Aug 7, 2024 11:00:27 GMT -5
Sorry, I didn't realize BA writers were the ones mistreating "sunk cost". Just read it. They got it 100% wrong in exactly the way Chris and I described. Regardless, your points are all understood and I'm not arguing them. Apologies for the hijack. Carry on. Shouldn't it be "sunken" cost? i don't know if you're actually asking, but no. The economics term is "sunk cost": To be fair to everyone, this is a common mistake, and people IN THE ECON CLASS got it 100% backwards constantly. "Retrospective cost" appears to be an alternative that might scare away people who haven't looked up the definition, so maybe we should all start using that???
Anyway, I'm really sorry, I wasn't trying to ruin the baseball discussion, this is just one of my favorite not-entirely-intuitive econ principles and I think everyone should know it to help them make good decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Aug 7, 2024 11:10:56 GMT -5
Shouldn't it be "sunken" cost? i don't know if you're actually asking, but no. The economics term is "sunk cost": To be fair to everyone, this is a common mistake, and people IN THE ECON CLASS got it 100% backwards constantly. "Retrospective cost" appears to be an alternative that might scare away people who haven't looked up the definition, so maybe we should all start using that???
Anyway, I'm really sorry, I wasn't trying to ruin the baseball discussion, this is just one of my favorite not-entirely-intuitive econ principles and I think everyone should know it to help them make good decisions.
Sunken = adjective Sunk = past participle Economists ≠ grammarians |
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Aug 22, 2024 12:42:04 GMT -5
Priester with a nice day of swing & misses: 15 through 3IP
Hat tip to RSS.
|
|
|
|
Post by bojacksoxfan on Sept 16, 2024 14:32:21 GMT -5
Reports that Yorke is getting promoted. He managed to keep up his WooSox production after the trade and bizarrely added defensive versatility.
Congrats to a guy who seemed a little lost a couple months ago in Portland.
I hope the Pirates play him every day and all over the diamond.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 16, 2024 14:43:23 GMT -5
Reports that Yorke is getting promoted. He managed to keep up his WooSox production after the trade and bizarrely added defensive versatility. Congrats to a guy who seemed a little lost a couple months ago in Portland. I hope the Pirates play him every day and all over the diamond. Fwiw "got played at a bunch of positions" isn't the same as being versatile. Through conversations, I've gotten the sense they were just seeing what it looked like at different spots. I'd be surprised if he got used like that in MLB. |
|
|
|
Post by bojacksoxfan on Sept 16, 2024 14:49:56 GMT -5
Reports that Yorke is getting promoted. He managed to keep up his WooSox production after the trade and bizarrely added defensive versatility. Congrats to a guy who seemed a little lost a couple months ago in Portland. I hope the Pirates play him every day and all over the diamond. Fwiw "got played at a bunch of positions" isn't the same as being versatile. Through conversations, I've gotten the sense they were just seeing what it looked like at different spots. I'd be surprised if he got used like that in MLB. Yes, perhaps inarticulately said, but I intended the emphasis more on bizarrely than versatile. Still, it would be fun to see him at SS or roaming CF in the majors for a game or two. |
|
|
|
Post by bishop on Sept 16, 2024 14:51:09 GMT -5
Reports that Yorke is getting promoted. He managed to keep up his WooSox production after the trade and bizarrely added defensive versatility. Congrats to a guy who seemed a little lost a couple months ago in Portland. I hope the Pirates play him every day and all over the diamond. Interesting how they are playing him but I don't think he added anything. The Sox clearly didn't think he could handle a utility role defensively considering how many other prospects and AAAA guys they've played at those tougher positions while never giving Yorke an in game chance. Hope we do see him in a bunch of spots, hope for his sake he proves them wrong and is adequate enough at some of them and has a long career, but I'm skeptical he can do it as a utility guy I think it is more likely as a bat first 2B/LF. |
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Sept 16, 2024 15:57:58 GMT -5
Fwiw "got played at a bunch of positions" isn't the same as being versatile. Through conversations, I've gotten the sense they were just seeing what it looked like at different spots. I'd be surprised if he got used like that in MLB. Yes, perhaps inarticulately said, but I intended the emphasis more on bizarrely than versatile. Still, it would be fun to see him at SS or roaming CF in the majors for a game or two. Love Yorke and wish him well. And would fully love him playing either position against Boston the entire series. |
|
|
|
Post by bojacksoxfan on Sept 16, 2024 16:22:48 GMT -5
Starting tonight at 2B and batting 7th. Hopefully he gets his first hit quickly and can settle in for a couple weeks.
|
|
