Risk

TheIncredibleRox · 05-05-2007, 07:33 PM

Interesting article at The Hardball Times:

The New Inefficiency -- The Hardball Times

It's an interesting and quite likely correct theory.

The reason I post it here is because it articulates the frustration I've expressed here once or twice regarding our last offseason. Except we fit into the paradigm in perhaps the least desirable place of all-- the low-risk, low-value talent (Fogg and Lopez are the prime examples). So basically, we're paying a premium for the absence of risk, for guys for whom the worst manifestation of that risk wouldn't be all that bad-- for example, if Josh Fogg completely imploded, he's already close enough to replacement level that it would barely matter; we could recoup 90%-95% of what we thought he would provide via somebody freely (and inexpensively) available. Yet, we paid a huge premium for the fact that the guy seems very unlikely to implode. Joy.

05-05-2007, 07:33 PM	#1 (permalink)
TheIncredibleRox Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 268	Risk Interesting article at The Hardball Times: The New Inefficiency -- The Hardball Times It's an interesting and quite likely correct theory. The reason I post it here is because it articulates the frustration I've expressed here once or twice regarding our last offseason. Except we fit into the paradigm in perhaps the least desirable place of all-- the low-risk, low-value talent (Fogg and Lopez are the prime examples). So basically, we're paying a premium for the absence of risk, for guys for whom the worst manifestation of that risk wouldn't be all that bad-- for example, if Josh Fogg completely imploded, he's already close enough to replacement level that it would barely matter; we could recoup 90%-95% of what we thought he would provide via somebody freely (and inexpensively) available. Yet, we paid a huge premium for the fact that the guy seems very unlikely to implode. Joy.