Quote:
Originally Posted by carlsonjok
That is, literally, the definition of moral hazard.
|
Er, yes, you are right, I did correctly describe moral hazard. Not sure I understand the point of quoting the definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlsonjok
Players who face the loss of their income by being injured in activities unrelated to their direct employment are considerably less likely to play outside their contract. I have a hard time understanding how you can think differently
|
You are proposing a model of behavior that simply ignores those second order effects. I'm saying those things are important to actually understanding the decision making of a player.
Yes, all else being equal a player who knows their income is assured would be less risk-averse that one who doesn't. But in reality all that stuff I was talking about - risk of loss of future income, desire to have a good/great career, risk of loss of numerous other financial incentives, etc - likely outweigh that. I sincerely doubt Diaz was thinking, or was subliminally influenced by the idea of "Hey, my income is insured, so screw everything I'm going to engage in risky celebrations that I wouldn't if it weren't".
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlsonjok
I never said anything about cancelling the WBC.
|
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but the principle you are arguing in favor of is that no player who plays for one team under contract should ever participate in any other baseball events like the WBC. This would pretty much eliminate 95% of the guys playing from the tournament and make it completely unworkable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlsonjok
I can almost guarantee any season ticket holder or corporate sponsor that wants a refund because the season is over before it started is going to be really disappointed with the team's response.
|
Not sure that I buy that the interests of season ticket holders and corporate sponsors are representative of "fans" in general.