Antonio Brown

[XLIX]

Sunk cost fallacy.

Not necessarily. Suppose saving the $9 million was a legit consideration in cutting him.... then suppose they now believe they won't save the money..... it's not necessarily the worst idea I've ever heard.....

 

[Hyped]

TBH, I do want him running routes out there tomorrow night...we would be able to put the game away in the 2nd quarter...

 

[borg]

Warning
Warning
Group Think Forbidden Topic breach

Swarm swarm swarm

 

[LJRomanoff]

Sunk cost fallacy.

That's not what the sunk cost fallacy is.

 

[RobertWeathers]

 

[LJRomanoff]

TBH, I do want him running routes out there tomorrow night...we would be able to put the game away in the 2nd quarter...

Barkley, Shepard, Gallman, and Engram aren't playing. The game will be over after the national anthem is sung.

 

[Sicilian]

Not necessarily. Suppose saving the $9 million was a legit consideration in cutting him.... then suppose they now believe they won't save the money..... it's not necessarily the worst idea I've ever heard.....

I don't believe they cut him just to save the money. The reasons they cut him still exist, and whether you believe it was Bill or Bob, right or wrong, that money is GONE. So your choices are lose the money and move on, or lose the money and have whatever negative impact you perceived Brown would have back on your team. There's no reason to go back on your reasons for cutting him just because you're paying him anyway. That's the part that's sunk cost.

 

[FCB02062]

resign the MFer

 

[NashuaPats]

 

[sambam94]

bring him back..if Goodell puts him on exempt list, they are in the same position they are in now.

 

[Sicilian]

That's not what the sunk cost fallacy is.

From what I understand of it, it is, but I'm certainly no expert. I'm happy to hear the argument against it for my own education.

 

[LJRomanoff]

I don't believe they cut him just to save the money. The reasons they cut him still exist, and whether you believe it was Bill or Bob, right or wrong, that money is GONE. So your choices are lose the money and move on, or lose the money and have whatever negative impact you perceived Brown would have back on your team. There's no reason to go back on your reasons for cutting him just because you're paying him anyway. That's the part that's sunk cost.

This assumes that the "negative impact" is an ongoing thing rather than related to a single incident (the texting) that has already happened. If the thing that got Brown kicked off the team was a specific incident that's already happened and the team needs to pay the contract anyway, the question becomes whether or not the Patriots actually want some ROI from the contract.

 

[XLIX]

I don't believe they cut him just to save the money.

I disagree. I think saving the money was a big factor in their decision and the timing.

 

[LJRomanoff]

From what I understand of it, it is, but I'm certainly no expert. I'm happy to hear the argument against it for my own education.

It depends on your assumptions about the relationship between Brown and the Patriots. If you think Brown is untenable as a member of the team, it is a sunk cost. If he isn't, it isn't.

 

[maust]

@Ian can you please add Antonio Brown, AB, Mr Big Chest, Golden 'Stache, The Artist Formerly Known As Number 17, Brady's Former Roomie and any other derivatives and/or aka's to the swear filter?
Sincerely,
What's left of my sanity.

PS: I realize alleged rapist will have to remain available for Roethlisberger discussions as they may arise but remain thankful for any relief you can provide.

 

[Froob]

Not happening. He can’t get in line and not cause trouble.

 

[Patstastic]

I don't doubt the fact he would help on the field. The issue I have is he wouldn't be on the field for long. He can't go a few days, let alone a few months, without some B.S. coming up. Furthermore, he ripped the owner in a derogatory tweet. No way he ever puts on the uniform again. Not while the Krafts own the team.

 

[Sicilian]

This assumes that the "negative impact" is an ongoing thing or related to a single incident (the texting) that has already happened. If the thing that got Brown kicked off the team was a specific incident that's already happened and the team needs to pay the contract anyway, the question becomes whether or not the Patriots actually want some ROI from the contract.

The texting was the inciting incident, but there are a lot of reasons why Brown was cut, namely a potential suspension, image for the team, or perhaps a general sense that they can't trust him to behave. Those risks (that resulted in the cut) still very much exist, and they don't suddenly become worth it (in the eyes of the Patriots) because they're still on the hook for the money. If they thought Brown was a negative influence on the team in any way, so they cut him, having to still pay the money doesn't suddenly make him a positive influence. So again, the options are A) lose the money AND incur the negative impact, or B) lose the money and avoid the negative impact. The money cost is sunk, and shouldn't now factor into whether or not they want him back on the team.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Not necessarily. Suppose saving the $9 million was a legit consideration in cutting him.... then suppose they now believe they won't save the money..... it's not necessarily the worst idea I've ever heard.....

They can't trust him. Simple as that.

 

[Uptown]

ABsolutely!