2 hours ago, bpac55 said:

I read that tweet a lot different than others   It’s trying to put a positive light on 3 Howie draft blunders.   It’s positive in the sense that yes he got a return when many thought he couldn’t   He also used that return to make other moves.  Great, good for Howie. 

However, it’s hard not to look at that after all of the Wentz drama, all of the DK/JJAW and Reagor/JJ  stuff and scratch your head a little. 

Thank you for sharing what your reading of the tweet was.  That gives context to your comments.  I personally feel you are reading between the lines.  I read the tweet literally, and didn't see any hidden meaning/agenda.

I completely agree that it’s hard not to look at that after all of the Wentz drama, all of the DK/JJAW and Reagor/JJ  stuff and scratch your head a little.  But all that drama predated any trade.  I suspect the drama also affected the respective market value of each of the three players.  The DK/JJAW stuff is pretty easy to understand.  DK had an injury history (just as Dickerson did in another recent example).  The Eagles and lots of other teams were scared off by that  and the rawness of his talent.  The JJ/Reagor stuff is harder to understand.  The Wentz drama took a very long time to materialize. I'm not sure anyone could have predicted that meltdown.

2 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Howie understands trade value and negotiates well.

he has been terrible at projecting talent and synthesizing data into a projection of performance however

FYP.  There is some evidence in the two most recent drafts that what he currently is MAY be different than what he has been in the past.  The jury is out though.  Two years is too small a sample.

2 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

I would argue thats the easy part

the hard part is dealing with incomplete data and probabilities

Then how come we're better at it than other teams.

48 minutes ago, hputenis said:

Robin Williams as the genie in Aladdin is the best voice-over and character in animated history. Fight me. 

What are you talking about

28 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

No I understand sunk cost. Sunk cost you take whatever you get because the values already gone and whatever value you get it is what it is at that point. 

However sunk cause  doesn’t mean you just completely forget what happened and how it affects you going forward still. Just because you got value out of a sunk cost and they’re no longer here does not mean the residual effect of that sunk costs aren’t still hurting you now and into the future. The sunk cost lingering affects from the sunk cost on your future roster and present doesn’t just disappear just cause you traded the sunk cost away and got some new value for your depreciated asset 

You guys seem to think you could just say  sunk cost that means it’s over already. No the sunk cost value they got on the return is over. The affects from sunk cost is still present on this roster and potentially future roster. Just because you got some value for the sunk cost does not mean the longer term effects of the sunk cost disappear cause you want to claim sunk cost. 

there’s two different points to sunk cost.

1. The value decreased and it is what it is at that point and you take whatever you can get and you’re happy with whatever you get. Cause it was never going to be what it once was. And that’s what the asset is worth now  

2. Just cause 1 is true doesn’t mean the sunk cost isn’t still affecting your roster and future rosters because of said sunk cost. Just because you make a sunk cost go away and get other value does not mean the sunk cost doesn’t still affect you after doing so. You still have potential lingering issues stemming from that sunk cost. 

I run a business. If I buy a piece of aesthetics machinery for $50,000. But it doesn’t work out. I don’t like the machine and not drawing enough clients in so I decide to sell it at a sunk cost of 20,000. I still owe 30,000 to the bank in the loan I took out. So the sunk cost value is better than nothing and I’m happy it wasn’t completely worthless. That $30,000 that I still have to pay back is still there and i still am affected by the depreciated asset and sunk cost. Saying sunk cost doesn’t give you a clean slate to say it doesn’t matter anymore. There’s still affects on my business. 

That is crying over spilled milk.  No good business manager spends any time wringing his/her hands trying to have a do over of a past decision.  They focus on making the most of the assets that they have in hand.  They more than likely have a portfolio of products and/or services that they offer to the market.  Some of those products/services are in the cash cow portion of their product life cycle.  Some are right up there at the top of their product life cycle, looking to dominate. Some are in the growth stages of their product life cycle, looking to achieve their peak. Some are in the early stages of their product life cycle, looking to grow. Some are in the R&D portion of their product life cycle, not really even products yet.  What happened to the cash cow products has very little impact on the research and development that is put into the gestating products.  The Senior Managers of the company and the Product Managers of each respective product do their damndest to leverage the current condition of their product.  Thy simply don't have time to cry over spilled milk.

In the case of Wentz, the R&D stage of his development as a product was excellent, and the early stage and the growth stage of  his development as a product were also exceptionally good.  The problems happened when he was in the peak stage of his development ... far, far removed from the Draft Day when he was selected.  The issues that came up were not identifiable on Draft Day.  However, those issues should have better informed the decision process that resulted in extending him.  I hold Howie accountable for missing the warning signals that must have been there in that process.

44 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

No I understand sunk cost. Sunk cost you take whatever you get because the values already gone and whatever value you get it is what it is at that point. 

However sunk cost doesn’t mean you just completely forget what happened and how it affects you going forward still. Just because you got new today’s value out of a sunk cost and they’re no longer here does not mean the residual effects of that sunk costs aren’t still hurting you now and into the future. The sunk cost lingering affects still can be felt on your future roster and present. Those affects don’t  just disappear just cause you traded the sunk cost and got its value of what it’s worth today. 

You guys seem to think you could just say  sunk cost that means it’s over. No the sunk cost value they got on the return is over. The affects from sunk cost is still present on this roster and potentially future roster. Just because you got new value for the sunk cost does not mean the longer term effects of the sunk cost disappear cause you want to claim sunk cost. 
 

there’s two different points to sunk cost.

1. The value decreased and it is what it is at that point and you take whatever you can get and you’re happy with whatever you get at that point in time. Cause it was never going to be what it once was. And that’s what the asset is worth now  

2. Just cause 1 is true doesn’t mean the sunk cost isn’t still affecting your roster and future rosters because of said sunk cost. Just because you make a sunk cost go away and get other value does not mean the sunk cost doesn’t still affect you after doing so. You still have potential lingering issues stemming from that sunk cost. 

I run a business. If I buy a piece of aesthetics machinery for $50,000 and it doesn’t work out. I don’t like the machine and not drawing enough clients in so I decide to sell it at a sunk cost of 20,000. I still owe 30,000 to the bank in the loan I took out which makes it difficult on me to do other things i want to do and buy with my business. So the sunk cost value is better than nothing and I’m happy it wasn’t completely worthless. That $30,000 that I still have to pay back is still there and i still am affected by the depreciated asset and sunk cost. Saying sunk cost doesn’t give you a clean slate to say it doesn’t matter anymore. There’s still affects on my business from that sunk cost even if i get some sort of new value for it and no longer have to deal with it. 

Yep

47 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

No I understand sunk cost. Sunk cost you take whatever you get because the values already gone and whatever value you get it is what it is at that point. 

However sunk cost doesn’t mean you just completely forget what happened and how it affects you going forward still. Just because you got new today’s value out of a sunk cost and they’re no longer here does not mean the residual effects of that sunk costs aren’t still hurting you now and into the future. The sunk cost lingering affects still can be felt on your future roster and present. Those affects don’t  just disappear just cause you traded the sunk cost and got its value of what it’s worth today. 

You guys seem to think you could just say  sunk cost that means it’s over. No the sunk cost value they got on the return is over. The affects from sunk cost is still present on this roster and potentially future roster. Just because you got new value for the sunk cost does not mean the longer term effects of the sunk cost disappear cause you want to claim sunk cost. 
 

there’s two different points to sunk cost.

1. The value decreased and it is what it is at that point and you take whatever you can get and you’re happy with whatever you get at that point in time. Cause it was never going to be what it once was. And that’s what the asset is worth now  

2. Just cause 1 is true doesn’t mean the sunk cost isn’t still affecting your roster and future rosters because of said sunk cost. Just because you make a sunk cost go away and get other value does not mean the sunk cost doesn’t still affect you after doing so. You still have potential lingering issues stemming from that sunk cost. 

I run a business. If I buy a piece of aesthetics machinery for $50,000 and it doesn’t work out. I don’t like the machine and not drawing enough clients in so I decide to sell it at a sunk cost of 20,000. I still owe 30,000 to the bank in the loan I took out which makes it difficult on me to do other things i want to do and buy with my business. So the sunk cost value is better than nothing and I’m happy it wasn’t completely worthless. That $30,000 that I still have to pay back is still there and i still am affected by the depreciated asset and sunk cost. Saying sunk cost doesn’t give you a clean slate to say it doesn’t matter anymore. There’s still affects on my business from that sunk cost even if i get some sort of new value for it and no longer have to deal with it. 

Kinda reads like you are referring to ROI and not sunk cost. In ROI you take into account the value of the asset invested and the return gained. In sunk cost, it is a past expense of doing business. 

Hope LSU loses every game this year.

1 hour ago, BigEFly said:

They are looking for depth. Their first round pick,is starting at LT. 

Yeah, I guess I don't keep track of the team I hate haha

48 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I run a business. If I buy a piece of aesthetics machinery for $50,000 and it doesn’t work out. I don’t like the machine and not drawing enough clients in so I decide to sell it at a sunk cost of 20,000. I still owe 30,000 to the bank in the loan I took out which makes it difficult on me to do other things i want to do and buy with my business. So the sunk cost value is better than nothing and I’m happy it wasn’t completely worthless. That $30,000 that I still have to pay back is still there and i still am affected by the depreciated asset and sunk cost. Saying sunk cost doesn’t give you a clean slate to say it doesn’t matter anymore. There’s still affects on my business from that sunk cost even if i get some sort of new value for it and no longer have to deal with it. 

No.  The sunk cost is $50,000 on day one of your ownership of it and it is also $50,000 every single day thereafter regardless.  You keep it and the sunk cost is $50,000.  You sell it and the sunk cost is $50,000.  You throw it into the dumpster, the sunk cost is $50,000.

In your scenario the $30,000 isn't the reuslt of your decision to acquire the asset.  The $30,000 is the result of your decision to borrow $50,000.

What you do with your assets always matters.  But in the scenario you have described the initial sunk costs are for the $50,000 that you no longer have as liquid assets on your balance sheet.  Those liquid assets (I didn't say cash because in your scenario you borrowed the money, but you did take on a liability) are gone.  The asset you have to maximize the value of is the aesthetics machinery.  If you divert your attention from maximizing the value of that asset to moan about the $50,000 in liquid assets that you no longer have, then you are allowing distractions to get in the way of running your business in the most efficient and effective way.

1 hour ago, hputenis said:

Robin Williams as the genie in Aladdin is the best voice-over and character in animated history. Fight me. 

I dunno. Trey Parker as Kim Jong Il in Team America may take it 

10 minutes ago, Next_Up said:

Kinda reads like you are referring to ROI and not sunk cost. In ROI you take into account the value of the asset invested and the return gained. In sunk cost, it is a past expense of doing business. 

Well said.

45 minutes ago, mattwill said:

That is crying over spilled milk.  No good business manager spends any time wringing his/her hands trying to have a do over of a past decision.  They focus on making the most of the assets that they have in hand.  They more than likely have a portfolio of products and/or services that they offer to the market.  Some of those products/services are in the cash cow portion of their product life cycle.  Some are right up there at the top of their product life cycle, looking to dominate. Some are in the growth stages of their product life cycle, looking to achieve their peak. Some are in the early stages of their product life cycle, looking to grow. Some are in the R&D portion of their product life cycle, not really even products yet.  What happened to the cash cow products has very little impact on the research and development that is put into the gestating products.  The Senior Managers of the company and the Product Managers of each respective product do their damndest to leverage the current condition of their product.  Thy simply don't have time to cry over spilled milk.

In the case of Wentz, the R&D stage of his development as a product was excellent, and the early stage and the growth stage of  his development as a product were also exceptionally good.  The problems happened when he was in the peak stage of his development ... far, far removed from the Draft Day when he was selected.  The issues that came up were not identifiable on Draft Day.  However, those issues should have better informed the decision process that resulted in extending him.  I hold Howie accountable for missing the warning signals that must have been there in that process.

 You could call it whatever the hell you want spilled milk or whatever. Just cause you realized it was a sunk cost and never getting back what you did at the time you got it 

this is the definition of a sunk cost 

an investment already incurred that can't be recovered

So you can’t recover the investment that has already been made. It says nowhere in there that that sunk cost isn’t able to have lingering affects on you after you recognize it’s a sunk cost and move on from the sunk cost. Call it spilt milk. I don’t care. You just want to call it "sunk cost” and believe it wipes the slate clean and there’s no possible way it can still affect you going forward once you’ve declared it a sunk cost. 

 

1 hour ago, shlo said:

He gave up 5 sacks. He was one player on a terrible team with a terrible O Line and no offensive weapons with a rookie QB who held onto the ball too long. 

He gave up 6 sacks which was tied for the 14th worst in the league which is not "well" as you said. He is a below avg player at this point. 

45 minutes ago, mattwill said:

No.  The sunk cost is $50,000 on day one of your ownership of it and it is also $50,000 every single day thereafter regardless.  You keep it and the sunk cost is $50,000.  You sell it and the sunk cost is $50,000.  You throw it into the dumpster, the sunk cost is $50,000.

In your scenario the $30,000 isn't the reuslt of your decision to acquire the asset.  The $30,000 is the result of your decision to borrow $50,000.

What you do with your assets always matters.  But in the scenario you have described the initial sunk costs are for the $50,000 that you no longer have as liquid assets on your balance sheet.  Those liquid assets (I didn't say cash because in your scenario you borrowed the money, but you did take on a liability) are gone.  The asset you have to maximize the value of is the aesthetics machinery.  If you divert your attention from maximizing the value of that asset to moan about the $50,000 in liquid assets that you no longer have, then you are allowing distractions to get in the way of running your business in the most efficient and effective way.

Even if it’s 50000 and that’s my sunk cost, there’s still effects from that sunk cost there in the present and future. Just cause you recognize it as a sunk cost and accept it does not mean the effects stop and they all the sudden disappear. 

The after effects from the sunk cost don’t just  disappear because you’re recognized as a sunk cost. So if the definition of sunk cause is "an investment already incurred that can't be recovered” that just means i am accepting im never recovering my investment. That doesn’t say there won’t still be more potential consequences coming after I’ve accepted I’m not getting my investment back( as it’s a sunk cause). 

1 hour ago, hputenis said:

Robin Williams as the genie in Aladdin is the best voice-over and character in animated history. Fight me. 

Lot K

47 minutes ago, Next_Up said:

Kinda reads like you are referring to ROI and not sunk cost. In ROI you take into account the value of the asset invested and the return gained. In sunk cost, it is a past expense of doing business. 

OK I can accept that. However you still have consequences and affects in the present and years down the road from the sunk cost even after accepting it as that and for what it is. If we want to call it Return of investment fine. The damage/consequences from the sunk cost can very much still affect and lingering on. 

the affects stemming from the sunk cost don’t just go away cause we’ve established it’s a sunk cost and moved on from it. That’s my point. There’s still affects/consequences even when accepted the sunk cost and we’ve established it’s sunk cost. 

As bad as Peters was last season, he was still the best O lineman on the Bears in 2021.  They gave up 56 sacks and 193 pressures, 

https://247sports.com/nfl/chicago-bears/Article/Chicago-Bears-Position-Review-2021-Questions-loom-on-offensive-line-still-180649511/Amp/

 

57 minutes ago, RLC said:

Then how come we're better at it than other teams.

Different skill set

i think howie is opportunistic in exploiting other teams urgency

24 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

OK I can accept that. However you still have consequences and affects in the present and years down the road from the sunk cost even after accepting it as that and for what it is. If we want to call it Return of investment fine. The damage/consequences from the sunk cost can very much still affect and lingering on. 

the affects stemming from the sunk cost don’t just go away cause we’ve established it’s a sunk cost and moved on from it. That’s my point. There’s still affects/consequences even when accepted the sunk cost and we’ve established it’s sunk cost. 

What I often hear is "that’s a bad return on  investment” or "that’s a good return on investment” vs. "that’s a sunk cost, let’s move on.” In evaluating A GM I would say we are looking at the return, positive or negative. The GM is peddling and gaining or losing assets. Clearly though, they are related concepts. 

19 minutes ago, The Blackfish said:

As bad as Peters was last season, he was still the best O lineman on the Bears in 2021.  They gave up 56 sacks and 193 pressures, 

https://247sports.com/nfl/chicago-bears/Article/Chicago-Bears-Position-Review-2021-Questions-loom-on-offensive-line-still-180649511/Amp/

 

He led the Bears team in sacks allowed last year. 

1 minute ago, DeathByEagle said:

He led the Bears team in sacks allowed last year. 

Surprising, considering they gave up 56, so 50 more than him.  They must have had a ton o-linemen. 
 Anyway, I gave Fields a pass for last season since he rarely had time to even set his feet but now that I see he carries a purse, never mind.  
 

 

33 minutes ago, Next_Up said:

What I often hear is "that’s a bad return on  investment” or "that’s a good return on investment” vs. "that’s a sunk cost, let’s move on.” In evaluating A GM I would say we are looking at the return, positive or negative. The GM is peddling and gaining or losing assets. Clearly though, they are related concepts. 

 The most basic definition of sunk cost ive found is this, "an investment already incurred that can't be recovered”

so I can accept that they were never going to recover the investment that they made. Obvious that was gonna happen. I accept that part. hence why I’m happy they got anything for JJAW and reagor for what their value was now sand them as a sunk cost. However i also know that doesn’t mean there’s not other residual effects/consequences currently or in the future that could still stem from that sunk cost. 

my problem is just cause we call and accept it as a sunk cost, doesn’t mean the residual effects/consequence just stop and just go away  

Now there’s a sunk cost fallacy which is throwing good money after bad while refusing to cut one’s losses. That’s what the eagles had been doing with JJAW and reagor until they just accepted it as a sunk cost and got rid of them for what they could. But again none of these mean there’s no more residual effects/consequences once you’ve accepted and established something as a sunk cost. 

2 hours ago, mattwill said:

You clearly don't understand the concept "sunk cost"  The minute a Draft pick is used by any team, the draft pick resource becomes a sunk cost.  If the player goes on to be the GOAT, the resources used to get him are sunk. If the player goes on to be an All Pro, the resources used to get him are sunk. If the player goes on to be a solid starter, the resources used to get him are sunk. If the player goes on to be a serviceable backup, the resources used to get him are sunk. If the player goes on to be a bust, the resources used to get him are sunk.

Sunk costs are simply used resources that you can't get back.  If you think like a Balance Sheet, up until Draft Day the team has its draft picks recognized as an asset.  The minute that (or any other ) asset is used (cash is an asset), then the asset is removed from the Balance Sheet and whatever assets are acquired in return now appear on the Balance Sheet as new entries.

The value of those new assets (for that matter any assets) then goes up and/or down based on the market value of that asset.  The market does not carewhat was paidfor the asset,only what the value of that asset would be to the purchaser if they acquired it.  The market value trajectory of Jalen Reagor as an asset of the Eagles started reasonably high and then slowly but surely that market value evaporated.  Similarly, the market value trajectory of Justin Jefferson started out at a modest value because of the injury concerns teams had about him and then climbed as those injury concerns evaporated and he turned in on-field performance.

Yes and no.  Let’s say that asset A cost $100.  Use failed to meet expectations.  At the value expected, asset A should have produced a $50 return but rather resulted in a $5 dollar return. So recognizing that the likelihood that asset A may never produce above a minimalistic return or even a loss, you sell asset A for $10.  Yes you got return on your investment but at a capital loss.  Reagor is a significant capital loss.  JJAW is a major capital loss.  Heck, Davion Taylor is currently measuring as a capital loss.  Anytime an investment that required capital does not offer an equal return, it is a loss.  Celebrating Howie for slightly minimizing the loss seems absurd. 

58 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Now there’s a sunk cost fallacy which is throwing good money after bad while refusing to cut one’s losses. That’s what the eagles had been doing with JJAW and reagor until they just accepted it as a sunk cost and got rid of them for what they could. But again none of these mean there’s no more residual effects/consequences once you’ve accepted and established something as a sunk cost. 

What are the residual consequences of having DeVonta Smith, AJ Brown, and Quez Watkins (#200 overall pick) as the Eagles’ top 3 WR?

The NFL roster is extremely fluid.  The mistakes of 2-3 years in the past become obsolete and irrelevant quite quickly with a proper retool