I never said the 52 million is inherently irrelevant, I said it's a sunk cost that does not factor into what they pay Darvish over each of the years on the contract.
Quit refusing to be wrong on something easy to understand.
except I was very clear with my wording:
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat
look at that whip. His other numbers are all pulling up to it. He'll be a mid 4 era guy by the end of the season. Cost of a #1-2, performance of a #3-4. Rangers woulda been better served with CJ, just like I said all along.
112 million over 6 years is the cost of a number 1 or 2 and so far he's performed like a #3 or 4. That post was 100% correct and you created a false position for me started arguing against it. I didn't say they paid him like a 1/2 i said he had the cost of a 1/2.
And average cost is just total/term. In this case, they paid 112 million for him and the term is 6 years. Therefore, the average cost of yu darvish is ~18.5 million a year. Its not the most relevant number since so much of the money was paid out up front, but, it just makes it easier to compare his cost:performance to other pitchers since per year numbers are what a lot of people use and i'm fairly certain most MLB contracts for high cost pitchers don't have too much disparity in the actual salary for each year. The only way you can make the claim that the 52 million shouldn't factor in to evaluating his cost:performance is if you completely disregard opportunity cost.
Also, here's a scale for the average cost of yu darvish per season if you want to get super technical with it. IMO, its more useful to just take the average overall for comparison purposes since this is pretty meaningless in that context.
year 1: 57.5 million
year 2: 33.5 million
year 3: 25.67
year 4: 21.75
year 5: 19.4
year 6: 18.5
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs
That's all I ever disputed, not the quote you provide.
You'll keep getting ****ed if you want to keep up your losing argument.
wrong again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat
except I was very clear with my wording:
112 million over 6 years is the cost of a number 1 or 2 and so far he's performed like a #3 or 4. That post was 100% correct and you created a false position for me started arguing against it. I didn't say they paid him like a 1/2 i said he had the cost of a 1/2.
And average cost is just total/term. In this case, they paid 112 million for him and the term is 6 years. Therefore, the average cost of yu darvish is ~18.5 million a year. Its not the most relevant number since so much of the money was paid out up front, but, it just makes it easier to compare his cost:performance to other pitchers since per year numbers are what a lot of people use and i'm fairly certain most MLB contracts for high cost pitchers don't have too much disparity in the actual salary for each year. The only way you can make the claim that the 52 million shouldn't factor in to evaluating his cost:performance is if you completely disregard opportunity cost.
Also, here's a scale for the average cost of yu darvish per season if you want to get super technical with it. IMO, its more useful to just take the average overall for comparison purposes since this is pretty meaningless in that context.
year 1: 57.5 million
year 2: 33.5 million
year 3: 25.67
year 4: 21.75
year 5: 19.4
year 6: 18.5
You're just flat out wrong. Total cost of darvish to the rangers was ~108(guaranteeed) ~112 total. They have him under contract for 6 years. Therefore the average cost per year is ~18.5. At best you're arguing semantics and nitpicking. At worst, you've just been flat wrong the whole time and are now posturing to try to save face after wasting like 4 days on this ****.
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs
Okay, so the ONLY way the viewpoint that the 52 million is irrelevant makes any sense is if you assume that that money would NEVER have been spent on ANYONE but darvish. Simple fact is, the OC of that money dictates that they have 52 less million dollars to spend on other players/stadium upgrades/scouting, etc...It absolutely does matter, and to claim otherwise is pure ignorance.
If "sunk costs" didn't matter, all teams with money would sign players to massively frontloaded deals/include huge signing bonuses.
I will say that the rangers shouldn't let the 52 million influence future decisions for darvish, but to claim that it shouldn't be included when evaluating his cost is just wrong.
Length of contract is only ever an issue because of money. Do you think they would be willing to sign him for 10 years 90 million? Yes, of course they would. Thing is, he wouldn't take it. Would they sign him for 10 years 200 mil? Sure doesn't sound like it. Whats the difference there? The money. But, its not necessarily the money per year that matters to them, its the TOTAL money. It sounds like they'd be willing to sign him for like 5 years 90 mil, but less willing to for 10 and 180. And I'm not sure I would want the Sox to sign him long term FOR A LOT OF MONEY, in large part because his age and health, but that doesn't change the fact other teams that don't care as much about money are going to offer him a long term deal worth a good amount of money.
The issue is money, don't kid yourself.
1. Wrong
2. Wrong
3. Finally
The issue is money if you really want to get technical, but they'd be willing to pay him If he could stay healthy and keep producing as he ages.
They don't want to sign someone as injury prone as him, compiled with his aging, deteriorating, brittle, drug plagued body. So no I don't really see money as the underlying issue
no, you're pretty much 100% wrong. They don't care about the length itself, they only care about the length as a function of how much money it will cost to sign him longterm. I gave an example of why length only matters as a function of the money, but you apparently ignored that.
The main issue is definitely money though, to think otherwise is just naive.
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs
Sound guy gets ejected from a minor league game for playing "Three Blind Mice"
ROFLCOPTER
yea I saw that. I also read that the last time a sound person was ejected was like an organist in the mid 80's for some other minor league team because he played 3 blind mice.
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs
Your Privacy Choices