Basically, you know that the Lackey example derails your argument, and rather than apply your overly simplistic model of 'sunk costs shouldn't affect future decisions', you instead choose to make generic, ubiquitous insults.

No problem, Nox. Can't win 'em all.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why they should affect future decisions.

1.Romero
2. Morrow
3. Villineuva
4. Happ
5. hen/hutch (let them fight for it)

That would take some knowledge of how to run a team and some humility

It's Greenwood. He's right and there is no way your oppinion/reasoning makes his points look <retarded.

you have a better chance of convincing the Jays on your own to go after Hamels than to prove to him how dumb he truely is

"I'm still waiting for you to explain why they [sunk costs]should affect future decisions."

Let's say that you have a factory that produces straw men.
And you sign a 5-year lease, paid in advance.

But things don't work out in the first year, quite as planned.
But there is still a chance that things could turn around in the second or third year.

Do you think that as the owner, you might give up on your strawman factory a little earlier if you only had a six month lease, as opposed to a five year lease?

Hey Chief,

Here's a tip.
Hit the reply button under the post of the person you are replying to.

Then your sheepish replies will have some context.

"But there is still a chance that things could turn around in the second or third year."

That's not a sunk cost then <shithead lol

Hey chief,

I was replying to Nox's comment about you not actually proving anything you say has any merit

next time you make an outlandish post put some content into it

<Yeah, that's why I called it a strawman factory, shithead.

Because neither Romero or Lackey are sunk costs, either.

Where did I call Romero a sunk cost?

Oh you were trying to be ironic AND stupid this time. Interesting twist Adam!!

The players that project to be the best, should get the playing time. To argue that is a troll angle that you're not capable of pulling off. Sorry, but that's real talk.

Sigh.....

You seem to be assuming that what is done with Romero this year, has no bearing on future years.
Similarly, you seem to assume that what could have happened to Lackey in 2011, would have no bearing on future years.

Do you think that you can just have Romero pitch in AA for the remainder of this season, and then start in the rotation again, in 2013.

I answered your question, now please quit dodging the question I asked about Lackey.
What would you have done?

Here's a better Idea

don't sign a 5 year lease to make <fucking Strawmen

a.k.a don't pay a guy more then he's actually worth

Romero can and has pitched to warrant the money he's owed. It's a down year for him and the team has still managed to keep him at 8-6 and still lost his last two gems in CLE and NY.

He has only given up more then 4 ER in 4 of 20 GS and has gone at least 6 IP in 16/20 GS

He's not pitching as well as he has shown and still has given the team a chance to win almost every time he takes the mound

This:

"You seem to be assuming that what is done with Romero this year, has no bearing on future years.
Similarly, you seem to assume that what could have happened to Lackey in 2011, would have no bearing on future years."

Lacks all sense and cannot be responded to.

If Lackey is internally projected to be awful going forward, like replacement level bad, you have to cut the cord.

So, with the excpeptions of:

- injuries
- young players maturing
- old players declining

You believe that however a player is projected to perform for the rest of the season, is equal to how a player is projected to do in the next season?

"You believe that however a player is projected to perform for the rest of the season, is equal to how a player is projected to do in the next season?"

Lol...you think projection systems should change their outlook based on the arbitrary season endpoint? This is what you're saying?

There now. We have found the source of our disagreement.

I think that players have bad seasons, especially pitchers.
I think that a pitcher having a bad year, is more likely to continue struggling into the next month as opposed to the next year.

I expect Romero to be better in June 2013 than August 2012.

Streaks are just a popular narrative that are among the most thoroughly debunked fallacy in baseball.

It has nothing to do with projections

You make a decison based on what the guy can and has done in the past and have realistic expectatins for each new season.

A down year is just that, a down year. The Laffey example is an extreme case of fall off from the previous season. You can't use extremes to form your opinion on a player.

So, you have the same confidence in Romero's next start, as you do his first start in June, 2013?

Is it too much to ask your Ace to go out and give your team a chance to win every day regardless of how he's been pitching?