Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-08-2012, 08:32 PM #526
automagsrule
LOIC
 
automagsrule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Monkey Island
I agreed it could happen. But possible doesnt mean likely.
__________________

“If it is true that we need a degree of certainty to get by, it is also true that too much of the stuff can be lethal”
-Terry Eagleton
automagsrule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 08-08-2012, 09:11 PM #527
madgoat
Troll_Extraordinaire
 
madgoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Homewood, IL
madgoat has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by automagsrule View Post
I agreed it could happen. But possible doesnt mean likely.
so a team that just went to two straight WS and in win now mode woulda sat on 50 mil they were willing to spend and not tried to sign a top of the rotation starter? I find that very unlikely.
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs
madgoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 10:14 PM #528
toolbandfan
The dude abides
 
toolbandfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
toolbandfan is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
toolbandfan is playing at Living Legends VII
Pittsburgh is trying very hard to lose this game. One of the most valiant efforts I've ever seen.


EDIT: Damn, didn't try quite hard enough.
__________________
MY FEEDBACK!

Last edited by toolbandfan : 08-08-2012 at 10:22 PM.
toolbandfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 10:33 PM #529
Reginald Perrywinkle (Banned)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat View Post
That's bull****. I said that it should count because it COULD have been spent on another expensive(read:better) pitcher and you argued with me that it COULDN'T.

Also, where is giantsfan to post more about "sunk cost", a term he's using/misusing in an irrelevant fashion?
the police hate me.


It's a sunk cost, the avg of his contract over the remaining years is simply the size of the contract. Including a fee they already completely played in a projection of avg cost over the future is retarded, it's a sunk cost.
Reginald Perrywinkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 10:37 PM #530
madgoat
Troll_Extraordinaire
 
madgoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Homewood, IL
madgoat has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reginald Perrywinkle View Post
the police hate me.


It's a sunk cost, the avg of his contract over the remaining years is simply the size of the contract. Including a fee they already completely played in a projection of avg cost over the future is retarded, it's a sunk cost.
googled "sunk cost" for you. Just because its spent doesn't make it irrelevant.
http://36chambers.wordpress.com/2007...ot-vice-versa/
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs
madgoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 10:37 PM #531
Reginald Perrywinkle (Banned)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Also my team is better than yours and it's best players are clearly better than your best.
Reginald Perrywinkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 10:38 PM #532
madgoat
Troll_Extraordinaire
 
madgoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Homewood, IL
madgoat has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reginald Perrywinkle View Post
Also my team is better than yours and it's best players are clearly better than your best.
same record and the sox have a much better run differential playing in a superior league. Sox>>>giants
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs
madgoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 10:39 PM #533
Reginald Perrywinkle (Banned)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat View Post
googled "sunk cost" for you. Just because its spent doesn't make it irrelevant.
http://36chambers.wordpress.com/2007...ot-vice-versa/
Jesus I can't believe you've actually done any economics. I never said it was irrelevant in general. I said it was irrelevant in the context of your state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost

Quote:
In economics and business decision-making, sunk costs are retrospective (past) costs that have already been incurred and cannot be recovered. Sunk costs are sometimes contrasted with prospective costs, which are future costs that may be incurred or changed if an action is taken. Both retrospective and prospective costs may be either fixed (continuous for as long as the business is in operation and unaffected by output volume) or variable (dependent on volume) costs. Note, however, that many economists consider it a mistake to classify sunk costs as "fixed" or "variable." For example, if a firm sinks $1 million on an enterprise software installation, that cost is "sunk" because it was a one-time thing and cannot be recovered once expended. A "fixed" cost would be monthly payments made as part of a service contract or licensing deal with the company that set up the software.
I am right you are wrong please stop.

they sunk 50 mil in the japanese club to have a right to negotiate

Last edited by Reginald Perrywinkle : 08-08-2012 at 10:42 PM.
Reginald Perrywinkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 10:40 PM #534
Reginald Perrywinkle (Banned)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat View Post
same record and the sox have a much better run differential playing in a superior league. Sox>>>giants
Sweet you couldn't deal with my statement.

AL Central is the NL East of the AL.
Reginald Perrywinkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 10:41 PM #535
madgoat
Troll_Extraordinaire
 
madgoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Homewood, IL
madgoat has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reginald Perrywinkle View Post
Jesus I can't believe you've actually done any economics. I never said it was irrelevant in general. I said it was irrelevant in the context of your state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost



I am right you are wrong please stop.
no your not. I never argued they should consider it in future decisions regarding darvish, I said that its absolutely relevant when considering his cost:performance compared to other pitchers. Besides, if you want to make the false argument that sunk costs shouldn't count for hist cost:performance, the rangers still coulda signed a big name guy and frontloaded the **** out of the contract(if that works per the cba). You're 100% wrong and its amusing that you're still arguing.
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs
madgoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 10:43 PM #536
madgoat
Troll_Extraordinaire
 
madgoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Homewood, IL
madgoat has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
ill be back to continue this in like 10 min after the sox lose
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs
madgoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 10:44 PM #537
Reginald Perrywinkle (Banned)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat View Post
no you're not. I never argued they should consider it in future decisions regarding darvish, I said that its absolutely relevant when considering his cost:performance compared to other pitchers. Besides, if you want to make the false argument that sunk costs shouldn't count for hist cost:performance, the rangers still coulda signed a big name guy and frontloaded the **** out of the contract(if that works per the cba). You're 100% wrong and its amusing that you're still arguing.
Fixed it.

Jesus christ you can only make giant straw man and red herring arguments this is sad.

You never said they should consider it, YOU ADDED THE 50 MILLION TO THE SIZE OF HIS CONTRACT AND THEN SAID THEY WILL PAY ON AVG x MILLION PER YEAR. THE 50 MIL HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID, IT'S FALLACIOUS TO INCLUDE IT IN AN AVG OF FUTURE PAYMENTS. FACT.


caps should help you.
Reginald Perrywinkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 10:52 PM #538
madgoat
Troll_Extraordinaire
 
madgoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Homewood, IL
madgoat has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reginald Perrywinkle View Post
Fixed it.

Jesus christ you can only make giant straw man and red herring arguments this is sad.

You never said they should consider it, YOU ADDED THE 50 MILLION TO THE SIZE OF HIS CONTRACT AND THEN SAID THEY WILL PAY ON AVG x MILLION PER YEAR. THE 50 MIL HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID, IT'S FALLACIOUS TO INCLUDE IT IN AN AVG OF FUTURE PAYMENTS. FACT.


caps should help you.
actually, I quoted my exact post.


Quote:
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.
I said "cost of a #1, performance of a #3/4". 100% correct statement, and you're 100% wrong. I was very deliberate with my wording too. You'd maybe have a point if i said he was PAID like a #1, but I didn't, i said he cost the rangers the same as a #1, and he does/did
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs

Last edited by madgoat : 08-08-2012 at 10:54 PM.
madgoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 11:27 PM #539
Reginald Perrywinkle (Banned)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat View Post
actually, I quoted my exact post.




I said "cost of a #1, performance of a #3/4". 100% correct statement, and you're 100% wrong. I was very deliberate with my wording too. You'd maybe have a point if i said he was PAID like a #1, but I didn't, i said he cost the rangers the same as a #1, and he does/did
Like I said, straw mans and red herrings. That wasn't the post I quoted when I disputed you, you know that. That's a completely different argument than the one made in the post I quoted of you.

http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.p...4#post76315854
http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.p...9#post76323599
http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.p...2#post76324322


In each of those three posts I tell you what I was disputing. You lost, keep flailing if you want.

http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.p...2#post76344242

Even when I make it explicitly clear you fall back to a part of the post that I never quoted nor originally disputed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madbutthurt
darvish is going to cost an average of ~18.5mil over the next six(factoring in the like 50 mil the rangers had to pay to even negotiate a contract).
Factoring it in to future costs is fallacious, which you did in that statement.

Last edited by Reginald Perrywinkle : 08-08-2012 at 11:32 PM.
Reginald Perrywinkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 11:52 PM #540
razz
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
razz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
damn giants put the hurt on the cards tonight
__________________
\\'estcoast
razz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2012, 12:29 AM #541
Reginald Perrywinkle (Banned)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Giants have the second highest amount of runs scored on the road in the majors, behind only the Angels.

Goddamn is this really the Giants?
Reginald Perrywinkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2012, 12:33 AM #542
madgoat
Troll_Extraordinaire
 
madgoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Homewood, IL
madgoat has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reginald Perrywinkle View Post
Like I said, straw mans and red herrings. That wasn't the post I quoted when I disputed you, you know that. That's a completely different argument than the one made in the post I quoted of you.

http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.p...4#post76315854
http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.p...9#post76323599
http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.p...2#post76324322


In each of those three posts I tell you what I was disputing. You lost, keep flailing if you want.

http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.p...2#post76344242

Even when I make it explicitly clear you fall back to a part of the post that I never quoted nor originally disputed.



Factoring it in to future costs is fallacious, which you did in that statement.
There's no point in rebooting the argument because everyone can see you were wrong the whole time. ****, you even know it because you didn't come to rebut my last posts after you had to make a new account. I'm not wasting any more time on it because everyone knows you're wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat View Post
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
That's all I need, because its fact, you're wrong, accept it.
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs

Last edited by madgoat : 08-09-2012 at 12:38 AM.
madgoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2012, 12:46 AM #543
Reginald Perrywinkle (Banned)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat View Post
There's no point in rebooting the argument because everyone can see you were wrong the whole time. ****, you even know it because you didn't come to rebut my last posts after you had to make a new account. I'm not wasting any more time on it because everyone knows you're wrong.



That's all I need, because its fact, you're wrong, accept it.
Which is why no one in this thread has supported the claim I disputed, and why AMG disagreed with you.

It's k, old trolls fall off the map quick

P.s. I wasn't able to post in here on my new account. And I came back to refute your posts. Face it, the only way you can say I'm wrong is by creating a straw man, that I disputed anything other than what I quoted from you which is why you never link back to that exact quote.
Reginald Perrywinkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2012, 12:48 AM #544
KyIsBack
Flim Flam
 
KyIsBack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Room 502
It's silly how wrong madgoat is. Home run!
__________________
We Forgot
STGDTPartyBusTour2010
Twitter

POW
KyIsBack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2012, 12:49 AM #545
ngroat70074 (Banned)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
lol madgoat cant get **** right.
ngroat70074 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2012, 12:53 AM #546
Juice of Shale (Banned)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
I don't think I have ever seen someone as wrong as Madgoat.
Juice of Shale is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump