Oliver Perez and Sunk Cost, a Discussion

An Adam Rubin article the other day about Oliver Perez and the concept of sunk cost got me thinking. I believe that most people, although they properly define what a "sunk cost" is, actually have the issue completely backwards. As for the Rubin article, for starters, the most pertinent parts of it went like this:

ECON 101

What’s spent is spent.

Sounds simple enough, right? Yet Major League Baseball teams often stick with things that aren’t working simply because they’re already on the hook to pay for it.

* * *

The bottom line: Are Mets officials keeping the struggling Perez around because he is a valued member of the 25-man roster, whom they are confident will have a pitching renaissance? Or are they loathe to releasing Perez -- who has declined to go to the minor leagues -- because he’s in the second season of a three-year, $36 million deal?

I happen to love Adam Rubin and think he's one of the best beat writers around - but I think he's a little off the mark here. But he's not alone.

A search of "Oliver Perez" and "sunk cost" on Google turns up over 1,700 results. Here are some other examples from other respected sources: