Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed!

JKool · 04-28-2005, 06:11 PM

I stand corrected on the notion of recoverable:

Sunk Cost

Sunk costs refer to costs that are non-recoverable fixed costs. Digital products usually have significant sunk costs (when compared to other fixed costs) in the form of research & development and intellectual property (patents etc.) for the product. If the product is not successful in the marketplace, the costs associated with the the product development (intellectual property, labor) cannot be recovered. Thus when making pricing decisions about the product in the future, one should not factor in the sunk costs.

From: http://www.definethat.com/define/337.htm

Either way, my point stands. Sully\'s cost of 2 1st rounders and his signing bonus are sunk fixed costs - they cannot be recovered. The marginal (and variable) costs (such his current and future salary - as I noted above) those are still open to question.

JKool · 04-28-2005, 06:14 PM

Doesn\'t cutting T-buck send the message then?

Furthermore, I don\'t see why you\'d have to hurt yourself to send a message. In fact, by hurting the team\'s cap, you\'re actually saying that you\'re not willing to do what it takes to make the team better (since you\'re throwing away money that could be used to make the team better).

GumboBC · 04-28-2005, 06:18 PM

Either way, my point stands. Sully\'s cost of 2 1st rounders and his signing bonus are sunk fixed costs - they cannot be recovered. The marginal (and variable) costs (such his current and future salary - as I noted above) those are still open to question.

Okay ... now we\'re getting somehere. It\'s true Sully cost 2 first round draft picks. But is it realistic to expect Sully to amount to 2 first round draft picks. I think you take that out of the equasion. It wasn\'t Sully\'s fault SOMEone gave that much to draft him. And it\'s not realistic to expect him to live up to that.

You have to ask yourself these questions, IMHO.

1. How good do you expect Sullivan to ultimately be?
2. Is is \"worth\" what he costs?
3. How long do you stick with him before cutting him.
4. How much improvement should he show this year? Next year? The year after?

With th info. I have, I say it\'s in the best interest of the team to give him ONE more shot. If there are any major setbacks, we HAVE to get rid of him and move on.

[Edited on 28/4/2005 by GumboBC]

saintswhodi · 04-28-2005, 06:19 PM

Cutting T-Buck is part of sending the message. The message isn\'t just a change here or there. If I have three dogs, two of them bite people and one doesn\'t, and my neighbors complain they are being bit, and I am really upset over this, and I have the dog who is not biting put to sleep, that sends zero message correct? Then if they still complain, so I put one of the biting dogs to sleep, that sends a slight message correct? But if the other dog is not put to sleep, and he keeps biting, the message that I am really upset that my dogs have harmed people would never get across. By putting both biting dogs to sleep, I have sent a full message to my neighbors that I am sorry for the acts my dog committed. T-Buck was one of the heads that needed to be cut off, Sully is another. I guess like I said we are gonna just see the message different. No worries.

JKool · 04-28-2005, 06:25 PM

Billy, I think we\'re saying the same thing.

JKool · 04-28-2005, 06:28 PM

Whodi,

Why kill both dogs? Why not kill one and send a message to the other?

I don\'t think we\'re disagreeing on the message thing - I conceded that point before.

Still, it may be a bad way to send the message, when it can be done in other ways.

GumboBC · 04-28-2005, 06:28 PM

saintwhodi --

Cutting every player that has shown to be a consistent underachiever isn\'t a bad idea. In principle !!!

But, logically, it makes very little sense. If we did that, it stands to chance, that we\'d be getting rid of some players who might contribute significantly in the future.

Some draft picks pay big dividends in their 1st year. But that\'s not the rule-of-thumb.

Most any coach will tell you that it takes 3-years MINIMUM to effectively judge a draft pick.

What Sullivan has done is very troubling. But he hasn\'t \"stole\" anything. He\'s just been overpaid based on his \"effort.\"

Did Deuce \"steal\" by showing up out of shape? By your logic Deuce \"stole\" from the Saints. Just not as much as Sullivan.

Who\'s the bigger thief? Someone who steals a dollar or someone who steal a million dollars?

A theif is a theif!!!

FireVenturi · 04-28-2005, 06:47 PM

whodi --

I COULD ask what kind of message is being sent when you draft a convicted thief?

I COULD say that by drafting a convicted thief that it sends a message to the team that they\'ll be given another chance in New Orleans.

But, I\'m not!!

by drafting a guy that paid his dues in the arena league for on year and admitted what he did was wrong? Has fat a$$ ever admitted to being fat and lazy.....i dunno. I rather have a guy that has worked his a$$(mad a bad decision), then a fat lazy check collector who continues his behavior(stuffing his fat face)!!

out

saintswhodi · 04-28-2005, 07:12 PM

Um Gumbo, Deuce is a pro bowler and considered one of the best backs in the league. Sullivan has done NOTHING but regress. How you draw that comparison, I have no idea. This is not excusing Deuce, but they changed the offense he was successful in he openly voiced frustration, and didn\'t put forth his best effort. Not excusing it, but there is a reason. Sully again has done NOTHING. Again, how do you even draw the comparison?

Kool, dogs are dumb. If I put one to sleep, it is gonna make very little difference to the other dog, they simply do not have the intelligence to understand the reason the other dog is gone is because he was biting. He just knows he likes biting, and now he gets to do more cause the other dog is gone. Like I said, IMO, cuttingbenching Sully last year started a message. Cuttung T-Buck, helped the mssage along, and if they are gonna meet with the team BEFORE they cut Sully, I think the final messahe would then be sent. And once again, I like it.

BAck to Gumbo

Most any coach will tell you that it takes 3-years MINIMUM to effectively judge a draft pick.

That\'s three years if they are playing correct? I don;t think it takes three years to evaluate a player who was benched in his second year due to being fat and lazy. I don\'t think it takes three years to evaluate a player whose answer is 11.5(amount he was paid) when asked if he is concerned about playing. I don;t think it takes three years to evaluate a player who instead of doing everything in his power to play, would rather eat in the ATL buffet line FOR THE MEDIA before an improtant game for his team. You need three years to evaluate that? I don\'t.

[Edited on 28/4/2005 by saintswhodi]

GumboBC · 04-28-2005, 07:16 PM

Um Gumbo, Deuce is a pro bowler and considered one of the best backs in the league. Sullivan has done NOTHING but regress. How you draw that comparison, I have no idea. This is not excusing Deuce, but they changed the offense he was successful in he openly voiced frustration, and didn\'t put forth his best effort. Not excusing it, but there is a reason. Sully again has done NOTHING. Again, how do you even draw the comparison?

How do I draw the comparison? Because you called Sullivan a thief. Thiefs steal things.

Deuce showed up out of shape and got hurt. We finished 26th in rushing. Would Deuce have gotten injured if he was in better shape? Impossible to say for sure.

But, we paid Deuce to show up in shape and give 100%.

Isn\'t that a \"thief\" in your book?

How much does someone need to steal before he\'s a thief in your book?

One dollar? Five? Ten? Million?

The last time I checked ... a thief was a thief?!

[Edited on 28/4/2005 by GumboBC]

04-28-2005, 06:11 PM	#21
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed! I stand corrected on the notion of recoverable: Sunk Cost Sunk costs refer to costs that are non-recoverable fixed costs. Digital products usually have significant sunk costs (when compared to other fixed costs) in the form of research & development and intellectual property (patents etc.) for the product. If the product is not successful in the marketplace, the costs associated with the the product development (intellectual property, labor) cannot be recovered. Thus when making pricing decisions about the product in the future, one should not factor in the sunk costs. From: http://www.definethat.com/define/337.htm Either way, my point stands. Sully\'s cost of 2 1st rounders and his signing bonus are sunk fixed costs - they cannot be recovered. The marginal (and variable) costs (such his current and future salary - as I noted above) those are still open to question.

04-28-2005, 06:14 PM	#22
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed! Doesn\'t cutting T-buck send the message then? Furthermore, I don\'t see why you\'d have to hurt yourself to send a message. In fact, by hurting the team\'s cap, you\'re actually saying that you\'re not willing to do what it takes to make the team better (since you\'re throwing away money that could be used to make the team better).

04-28-2005, 06:18 PM	#23
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed! Either way, my point stands. Sully\'s cost of 2 1st rounders and his signing bonus are sunk fixed costs - they cannot be recovered. The marginal (and variable) costs (such his current and future salary - as I noted above) those are still open to question. Okay ... now we\'re getting somehere. It\'s true Sully cost 2 first round draft picks. But is it realistic to expect Sully to amount to 2 first round draft picks. I think you take that out of the equasion. It wasn\'t Sully\'s fault SOMEone gave that much to draft him. And it\'s not realistic to expect him to live up to that. You have to ask yourself these questions, IMHO. 1. How good do you expect Sullivan to ultimately be? 2. Is is \"worth\" what he costs? 3. How long do you stick with him before cutting him. 4. How much improvement should he show this year? Next year? The year after? With th info. I have, I say it\'s in the best interest of the team to give him ONE more shot. If there are any major setbacks, we HAVE to get rid of him and move on. [Edited on 28/4/2005 by GumboBC]
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

04-28-2005, 06:19 PM	#24
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed! Cutting T-Buck is part of sending the message. The message isn\'t just a change here or there. If I have three dogs, two of them bite people and one doesn\'t, and my neighbors complain they are being bit, and I am really upset over this, and I have the dog who is not biting put to sleep, that sends zero message correct? Then if they still complain, so I put one of the biting dogs to sleep, that sends a slight message correct? But if the other dog is not put to sleep, and he keeps biting, the message that I am really upset that my dogs have harmed people would never get across. By putting both biting dogs to sleep, I have sent a full message to my neighbors that I am sorry for the acts my dog committed. T-Buck was one of the heads that needed to be cut off, Sully is another. I guess like I said we are gonna just see the message different. No worries.

04-28-2005, 06:25 PM	#25
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed! Billy, I think we\'re saying the same thing.

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

04-28-2005, 06:28 PM	#26
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed! Whodi, Why kill both dogs? Why not kill one and send a message to the other? I don\'t think we\'re disagreeing on the message thing - I conceded that point before. Still, it may be a bad way to send the message, when it can be done in other ways.

04-28-2005, 06:47 PM	#28
FireVenturi Cold as Ice! Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Da Big Easy Posts: 2,978	Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed! whodi -- I COULD ask what kind of message is being sent when you draft a convicted thief? I COULD say that by drafting a convicted thief that it sends a message to the team that they\'ll be given another chance in New Orleans. But, I\'m not!! by drafting a guy that paid his dues in the arena league for on year and admitted what he did was wrong? Has fat a$$ ever admitted to being fat and lazy.....i dunno. I rather have a guy that has worked his a$$(mad a bad decision), then a fat lazy check collector who continues his behavior(stuffing his fat face)!! out

04-28-2005, 07:12 PM	#29
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed! Um Gumbo, Deuce is a pro bowler and considered one of the best backs in the league. Sullivan has done NOTHING but regress. How you draw that comparison, I have no idea. This is not excusing Deuce, but they changed the offense he was successful in he openly voiced frustration, and didn\'t put forth his best effort. Not excusing it, but there is a reason. Sully again has done NOTHING. Again, how do you even draw the comparison? Kool, dogs are dumb. If I put one to sleep, it is gonna make very little difference to the other dog, they simply do not have the intelligence to understand the reason the other dog is gone is because he was biting. He just knows he likes biting, and now he gets to do more cause the other dog is gone. Like I said, IMO, cuttingbenching Sully last year started a message. Cuttung T-Buck, helped the mssage along, and if they are gonna meet with the team BEFORE they cut Sully, I think the final messahe would then be sent. And once again, I like it. BAck to Gumbo Most any coach will tell you that it takes 3-years MINIMUM to effectively judge a draft pick. That\'s three years if they are playing correct? I don;t think it takes three years to evaluate a player who was benched in his second year due to being fat and lazy. I don\'t think it takes three years to evaluate a player whose answer is 11.5(amount he was paid) when asked if he is concerned about playing. I don;t think it takes three years to evaluate a player who instead of doing everything in his power to play, would rather eat in the ATL buffet line FOR THE MEDIA before an improtant game for his team. You need three years to evaluate that? I don\'t. [Edited on 28/4/2005 by saintswhodi]

04-28-2005, 07:16 PM	#30
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Mike Detillier comments. Very interesting, indeed! Um Gumbo, Deuce is a pro bowler and considered one of the best backs in the league. Sullivan has done NOTHING but regress. How you draw that comparison, I have no idea. This is not excusing Deuce, but they changed the offense he was successful in he openly voiced frustration, and didn\'t put forth his best effort. Not excusing it, but there is a reason. Sully again has done NOTHING. Again, how do you even draw the comparison? How do I draw the comparison? Because you called Sullivan a thief. Thiefs steal things. Deuce showed up out of shape and got hurt. We finished 26th in rushing. Would Deuce have gotten injured if he was in better shape? Impossible to say for sure. But, we paid Deuce to show up in shape and give 100%. Isn\'t that a \"thief\" in your book? How much does someone need to steal before he\'s a thief in your book? One dollar? Five? Ten? Million? The last time I checked ... a thief was a thief?! [Edited on 28/4/2005 by GumboBC]
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616