Author Topic: Lerners are Cheap - 2017  (Read 16174 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Elvir Ovcina

  • Posts: 2154
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #50: January 20, 2017, 06:47:32 AM »
Lane Kiffin? Chip Kelly?

Given their career arcs and track records, I can't see any reason either of them should be getting consideration for an NFL head coaching job.  Now, if one of them is willing to eat the other in order to get the job, it might be worth talking about. 


Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19478
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #52: January 20, 2017, 09:32:02 AM »
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2017/01/20/12031/washington-post-doesnt-understand-basic-stadium-economics-free-agent-spending-twitter/

If they view it as a business, then viewing the st overruns as a sunk cost makes sense, if they view it as a hobby then hobbies have budgets

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 12028
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #53: January 20, 2017, 10:23:32 AM »
Given their career arcs and track records, I can't see any reason either of them should be getting consideration for an NFL head coaching job.  Now, if one of them is willing to eat the other in order to get the job, it might be worth talking about.
I was being sarcastic!

Offline Elvir Ovcina

  • Posts: 2154
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #54: January 21, 2017, 09:06:00 AM »
I was being sarcastic!

But I've heard you're Philly's biggest cheerleader on here,  so I thought you'd be wishing The Curse of Nick Foles' Coach upon the Skins!  Please accept my apologies.  But anyway, I stand by my assertion that it might be worth talking about hiring one of those guys if he is willing to eat the other.

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 12028
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #55: January 21, 2017, 12:32:08 PM »
But I've heard you're Philly's biggest cheerleader on here,  so I thought you'd be wishing The Curse of Nick Foles' Coach upon the Skins!  Please accept my apologies.  But anyway, I stand by my assertion that it might be worth talking about hiring one of those guys if he is willing to eat the other.
I don't hate the Skins like I used to years ago.  And my son is a Skins fan; my hate is fully focused on the Cowboys. 

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33088
  • Hell yes!
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #56: January 21, 2017, 12:37:27 PM »
If they view it as a business, then viewing the st overruns as a sunk cost makes sense, if they view it as a hobby then hobbies have budgets

The author doesn't understand what a sunk cost is, it means already incurred.

In this case, they may be committed or feel they have to spend the money but haven't yet - thus it may in fact be relevant to other costs if they want to shift funds from other spending to mitigate the overrun and remain neutral in terms of cash outflows.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 56989
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #57: January 21, 2017, 05:27:44 PM »
The author doesn't understand what a sunk cost is, it means already incurred.

In this case, they may be committed or feel they have to spend the money but haven't yet - thus it may in fact be relevant to other costs if they want to shift funds from other spending to mitigate the overrun and remain neutral in terms of cash outflows.

Keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeriste, that's the way I do the family budget.    I didn't realize all the shufflin' was a professional thing.    :)

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19478
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #58: January 21, 2017, 05:51:02 PM »
Keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeriste, that's the way I do the family budget.    I didn't realize all the shufflin' was a professional thing.    :)

There's another way to budget :shrug: I though when my dentist made me go over for the month the money fairy just made up the difference

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 56989
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #59: January 21, 2017, 05:57:37 PM »
There's another way to budget :shrug: I though when my dentist made me go over for the month the money fairy just made up the difference

I didn't realize rich people shuffled money around too.    I thought they had some accountant/money manager pay the bills out of their $4,000,000,000 checking account.     :)

BTW   Maybe you would/maybe you wouldn't be surprised at how many simply do not have a budget of any kind.     I truly believe the missus used to think "If there's checks in the checkbook, there's money in the bank."      The boy seemed amazed when I told him how much money he could save by simply putting $5 a day away.     Apparently, they ain't geniuses like us.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33088
  • Hell yes!
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #60: January 21, 2017, 09:11:47 PM »
Keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeriste, that's the way I do the family budget.    I didn't realize all the shufflin' was a professional thing.    :)

The author pissed me off, he got all high and mighty with this:

Quote
Basing an entire article on one stray remark from a guy paid to come up with bulk-size opinions on camera is bad enough, but this report also displays a stunning failure to understand the concept of sunk costs.

At which point he went on to display a stunning failure to understand the concept of sunk costs.    :roll:

A simple Google of "sunk costs" would have been a help to him, but he thought he was an expert.  And his example couldn't have been more muddled.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33088
  • Hell yes!
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #61: January 21, 2017, 09:15:45 PM »
I didn't realize rich people shuffled money around too.    I thought they had some accountant/money manager pay the bills out of their $4,000,000,000 checking account.     :)


 :rofl:

Where in the hell is MDS when you need him?   He can tell us how it's done.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12312
    • Twitter
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #62: January 21, 2017, 10:04:56 PM »
A simple Google of "sunk costs" would have been a help to him, but he thought he was an expert.  And his example couldn't have been more muddled.
I did a simple Google search on "sunk costs" but I added "MLB contracts", and found pages of references to future contracts as sunk costs. I even found this comment someone who did the exact same search to counter the same point:

Quote
Even though you are factually correct, if a number of people use a word in an incorrect way it becomes correct by the volume of usage.  A simple search for "sunk cost contract mlb" in Google returns almost 33,000 results.  It is widely accepted in discussion of large contract for under-performing players..."Fixed Cost" does not adequately distinguish between costs of contracts for people that are performing (ex. Dozier) vs those that are not performing (ex. Nolasco, Mauer, ect...).  Right or wrong, "sunk cost" has been accepted as shorthand for that.
http://twinsdaily.com/topic/19858-the-definition-of-sunk-cost-vs-stunk-cost/page-2

So I'll agree with this guy that guaranteed money is a sunk cost based on popular usage of the term. However, I will disagree with deMause's use of "sunk cost" in the context of Bowden's tweet, the Nats could cut corners on completing the ballpark and the Nats could decide to stand pat on payroll, so neither cost is fixed much less sunk.

The question arising from Bowden's tweet is whether the Lerners are mixing the ballpark budget with team payroll. deMause says that would be "incredibly stupid", and he is undoubtedly correct, although he doesn't follow the Nats as closely as I do.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19478
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #63: January 22, 2017, 09:13:51 AM »

So I'll agree with this guy that guaranteed money is a sunk cost based on popular usage of the term. Howe
The question arising from Bowden's tweet is whether the Lerners are mixing the ballpark budget with team payroll. deMause says that would be "incredibly stupid", and he is undoubtedly correct, although he doesn't follow the Nats as closely as I do.

Why is he correct? If there's an overall budget, over runs in one are are going to impact other areas. As fans, we may think winning is the goal, as owners, I'm guessing they preface it as winning within the budget

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12312
    • Twitter
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #64: January 22, 2017, 09:47:34 AM »
Why is he correct? If there's an overall budget, over runs in one are are going to impact other areas. As fans, we may think winning is the goal, as owners, I'm guessing they preface it as winning within the budget

It would be foolish to cut costs on team payroll because of ballpark overruns and vice-versa. Both are separate investments intended to return money to the Lerner family and should not be viewed as one affecting the other. If money was a limited resource then hard choices would need to be made, but clearly there is no lack of funds. The money they are spending on the ballpark is almost certainly tied to enhancing revenue returns, adding signage and concessions, as was done in 2007/8. The money spent on payroll increases attendance and the chances for making the playoffs, less of a sure thing, but still very much done with revenue returns in mind.

On the other hand, while all of that makes economic sense, we are dealing with the Lerner family, and this exact situation came up in 2006 when ballpark development was noted as a factor in low payroll for 2007. I'm not convinced that this was an honest statement from the team or just their excuse for making big $$$ on the old revenue sharing formula while fielding a crap team, but that was the official company line.

Quote
The team's ownership believes that spending on the new park and on player development should take almost complete priority over 2007 payroll. "We'll get through next season somehow. And we may not be as bad as people think," one team source said. "Then, '08 will be a whole new world."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122201353.html

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19478
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #65: January 22, 2017, 10:24:44 AM »
Both are investments in the team which is one portion of their overall portfolio

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33088
  • Hell yes!
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #66: January 22, 2017, 02:14:45 PM »

So I'll agree with this guy that guaranteed money is a sunk cost based on popular usage of the term. However, I will disagree with deMause's use of "sunk cost" in the context of Bowden's tweet, the Nats could cut corners on completing the ballpark and the Nats could decide to stand pat on payroll, so neither cost is fixed much less sunk.



So if enough people don't know what they're talking about it's okay?

Offline varoadking

  • Posts: 22968
  • This is Howie do it...
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #67: January 22, 2017, 02:53:51 PM »


Quote from: tomterp on Today at 02:46:18 PM
That exchange was unreal.

Too bad she didn't say "mindfacts".

They says it's not bad until you start answering yourself...

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33088
  • Hell yes!
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #68: January 22, 2017, 03:08:31 PM »
They says it's not bad until you start answering yourself...

I can't disagree.  I'm going to blame it on those two concussions.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 12312
    • Twitter
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #69: January 25, 2017, 05:31:02 PM »
Four of the six top NL teams are on this list of big spenders. The Nats are last in MLB with $1.4 million. Dusty will have plenty of time to tend to his winery in 2018.

Quote
@Buster_ESPN
Total $ spent in free agency this winter, so far: 1. LAD $192m 2. STL $113m 3. NYM $110 4. NYY $99m 5. COL $96m 6. HOU $82m 7. SF $65.3m

Offline Trea Burner

  • Posts: 287
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #70: January 25, 2017, 06:43:45 PM »
Four of the six top NL teams are on this list of big spenders. The Nats are last in MLB with $1.4 million. Dusty will have plenty of time to tend to his winery in 2018.

Ladies and gentlemen, please get on your feet once again for your Washington Nationals! (Part of the Washington Half-Ass Sports Teams Network).

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 14413
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #71: January 25, 2017, 06:48:12 PM »
Four of the six top NL teams are on this list of big spenders. The Nats are last in MLB with $1.4 million. Dusty will have plenty of time to tend to his winery in 2018.


"Cheapest team in 2016-17 free agency" banner going up on Opening Day

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 25284
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #72: January 26, 2017, 08:26:58 AM »
Four of the six top NL teams are on this list of big spenders. The Nats are last in MLB with $1.4 million. Dusty will have plenty of time to tend to his winery in 2018.

Mets money was all on Cespedes.  The Dodgers is Hill, Turner and Jansen, right?  Not really add ons.  Giants was almost all on Melancon, while the Cards put $113MM into Fowler and Brett Cecil.  Other than Melancon, I'm not sure those really improve the teams.  I'm not saying the Nats should get a pass for not adding more bullpen pieces, but had they spent about $15MM to add Feliz and Holland, I would have said they had improved their team more through signing than these other teams.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 44366
  • thanosdidnothingwrong
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #73: January 26, 2017, 08:29:37 AM »
Mets money was all on Cespedes.  The Dodgers is Hill, Turner and Jansen, right?  Not really add ons.  Giants was almost all on Melancon, while the Cards put $113MM into Fowler and Brett Cecil.  Other than Melancon, I'm not sure those really improve the teams.  I'm not saying the Nats should get a pass for not adding more bullpen pieces, but had they spent about $15MM to add Feliz and Holland, I would have said they had improved their team more through signing than these other teams.

You don't see how adding a 4+ WAR CFer improves the team?

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 25284
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Lerners are Cheap - 2017
« Reply #74: January 26, 2017, 08:37:10 AM »
You don't see how adding a 4+ WAR CFer improves the team?
What I meant is I don't see it as an improvement via free agency over last year's team.  I don't see this as a move to improve.  It is a move to maintain.  Melancon, OTOH, is an improvement for the Giants because they had a real weakness at closer last year and they filled it.