Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead
It comes down to sink cost fallacy, imo. A quick present value analysis comparing the financials on a Neal buyout vs a Lucic acquisition favours the Neal buyout very comfortably unless Lucic can provide about 2.5m of on ice value per year for 4 years.
The beauty of the buyout is pushing the cap hit to future years where it will be deflated in a world where the has risen every year.
So I don’t buy the assertion that the owners would draw a line in the sand on a buyout when it would basically illustrate a lack of understanding in how sunk costs work.
As for why the Lucic option was chosen? I believe Tree sees value in him. He may have had other alternatives and chosen the opportunity of a Lucic rebound along with the other qualities he brings that are lacking on the rest of the roster. Again, there was no gun to his head... he sees some value in Lucic and we don’t need to pretend he didn’t.
Imo, you are making it hard to have a discussion with you right now... come across as very defensive and not open minded to considering different viewpoints.
|
Yeah ok.
I literally provided a comment from a writer that says Treliving hinted that a buy out wasn't possible.
But you analyze the possibility of a buy out and tell me I'm being unreasonable?