Twins, Rockies Talk Tulowitzki

The lack of consequences isn't the point. The point is that many people tend to overvalue the potential loss and undervalue the potential gain. In other words they aren't looking at the potential end results from a fair perspective. Their judgement is clouded because they worry more about losing something than gaining something. It's not a character flaw, it's just part of the human make-up.

 

It's been scientifically proven that people do this all the time. I think how Ryan runs the Twins in general reflects this bias. 

The consequences are 100% the point.

There is no potential loss by people on this board for calling for an aggressive move so it is basically impossible to consider loss aversion. If Ryan actually executes it and it backfires he loses his job, perhaps permanently.

Also explains why Toronto did it, if they don't make the playoffs the GM is likely fired, so he really has nothing to lose. If it backfires and he gets fired someone else can clean up his mess.

Incentives, perverse and otherwise, all around.

All of what you say may be true, but have nothing to do with the fact that Ryan is practicing Loss Aversion Bias by not dealing for Tulowitzki. By your reasoning, there is also nothing for those on this board to gain by making the deal, since we aren't the ones that will directly benefit (or lose) by ANY move the Twins make or don't make. Seems we've made it through almost 600 posts from people who receive no direct benefit and suffer no consequences from Ryan's moves, yet people still care enough to visit and post their opinion. 

 

AND what you say kind of proves my point. Ryan could lose his job by making this trade, so why should regardless of the potential gain? In other words he's more focused on the potential negative than the potential positive.

Weighing the potential negative higher than the potential positive might just be prudent and accurate. Same with any decision.

Just because you and other don't agree with the decision doesn't mean Terry Ryan necessarily is practicing Loss Aversion, you might just be wrong in your calculations.

so might Terry, since, as we know, he's never gone big on a trade. He's never signed an ELITE player to a huge contract. he's never signed a Cuban FA. It's a pattern, not a one time thing.

Terry has gone all in a few times on HUGE trades.

Mulvey for Rauch in 2009?

Ramon Ortiz for Matt Macri in 2007?

Moving the chips in the middle.  You gotta pay to play is his motto.

In hindsight, I wonder if Colorado might have accepted a deal for Tulo in exchange for something like Trevor May, Danny Santana, and one of our can't miss pitching prospects in A ball who are nevertheless 24 years old but still in A ball. Tulowitzki would be a nice bridge to Nick Gordon. Not to mention when he's on the field he's perhaps the very best there is at the position.

Not to mention, this whole rumor got started because supposedly Dozier and Tulowitzki hit it off great together at the All Star game, and the Twins openly state that chemistry is an important factor in their roster construction.

*sigh*

May, Santana, and Gonsalves was superior to what they got, IMO.  Gonsalves alone could be ranked where the top prospect in that deal was (#80 or so).

They would have asked for Polanco instead of Santana and that package too would have been much better

I see Chief already clarified, but I would add that when you artificially limit your goals (i.e. we can't compete this year anyway), then "succeeding" at those goals can indeed be worse than failing to achieve a different, higher set of goals.

How did I limit goals?

Not saying you did, just further exploring how it might be better to "fail" sometimes than to "succeed". Ultmately it would be the Twins setting the more modest goals.

I think realistic goals is to be in the hunt for the playoffs most seasons and then to aggressively push when the opportunity presents itself.

They are well aligned for the first part going forward and don't think this is the year for the second part.

Was it really lopsided? Or did many people who assume top prospects are always better than established major leaguers just think it was lopsided?

Clearly in hindsight it wasn't lopsided, and for many it wasn't considered lopsided at the time.

Part of the value was that Shields only had 2 years left, so they wouldn't be paying big money for a diminished player like people think will be the case with Tulo in a couple of years.