I am typically not a knee-jerk fan, and I tend to be extremely patient with players and understand the ups and downs of performance.
I applauded the Zito aquisition at the time - I was excited, and to me the money was a demonstration of ownerships willingness to "pay to play". I thought it was good, if not great.
But like dude, holy shit - Zito is looking big-time done. I was watching him last night, and while It didn't seem like he was pitching horribly, and I was starting to feel kinda positive.. I mean, he only gave up 4 runs against the ML's most powerful lineup and stuff. Not so bad.
But then as I got out of the car this morning to walk into work, I realized... He didn't even last 4 innings! It hit me like a ton of bricks - this guy freaking sucks. I have zero faith in him to turn it around AT ALL anymore and am completely disheartend by the idea of watching him for the next 36 years (or whatever it is).
He's 0-5. He's the first Giants pitcher go to 0-5 in EIGHTY ONE FLIPPIN YEARS. That's a whole new level of suck. I'm pretty sure even Brett Tomko would have eeked out a win by now.
If Baseball were a true meritocracy, Zito would be on the express train to back of the bullpen town. I want to know why on earth anyone as supposedly "smart" (they must be to have gotten to the position they are in) doesn't understand that just because you paid for something - you don't need to use it.
So, I introduce you to something I have run into often in business, and I think applies to baseball quite well.
"Loss aversion and the sunk cost fallacy
Many people have strong misgivings about "wasting" resources. This is called "loss aversion". In the above example involving a non-refundable movie ticket, many people, for example, would feel obliged to go to the movie despite not really wanting to, because doing otherwise would be wasting the ticket price; they feel they passed the point of no return. This is sometimes called the sunk cost fallacy. Economists would label this behavior "irrational": It is inefficient because it misallocates resources by depending on information that is irrelevant to the decision being made. Colloquially, this is known as "throwing good money after bad".
This line of thinking, in turn, may reflect a nonstandard measure of utility, which is ultimately subjective and unique to the consumer. A ticket-buyer who purchases a ticket to a bad movie in advance, makes a semi-public commitment to watching it. To leave early is to make this lapse of judgement manifest to strangers, an appearance he may rationally choose to avoid. Alternatively, he may take pride in having recognised the opportunity cost of the alternative use of time.
The idea of sunk costs is often employed when analyzing business decisions. A common example of a sunk cost for a business is the promotion of a brand name. This type of marketing incurs costs that cannot normally be recovered. It is not typically possible to later "demote" one's brand names in exchange for cash.
The sunk cost fallacy is also sometimes known as the "Concorde Effect", referring to the fact that the British and French governments continued to fund the joint development of Concorde even after it became apparent that there was no longer an economic case for the aircraft. The project was regarded privately by the British government as a "commercial disaster" which should never have been started, and was almost cancelled, but political and legal issues ultimately made it impossible for either government to pull out." - wikipedia
Playing ANYONE based on salary as opposed to merit is a text book example of this, and I can't beleive that a business savvy team owner would be ignorant to such a simple pitfall. How the hell did they make all that money in the first place?
:puke: Maybe They DFA'ed Raj just so someone else will claim hin, and then Sabes can pull a rabbit out of a hat and trade Zito to that team in exchange for Raj, make Raj Davis the most loved Giant ever.