Posted by bad_luck on 11/17/2013 12:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/17/2013 12:35:00 PM (view original):Taking the analogy back to baseball, no one player, even the best ever, can take a bad team to the playoffs. So there is no single donation that has any value to you. But $50 is still more valuable overall than $25.
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/15/2013 3:24:00 PM (view original):There is an amount of money that I'd find valuable. But you can't offer it to me.
OK, so money is a tool I use to get "stuff." If you offer me differing amount of money so I can get "stuff," if the amounts of money you are offering me doesn't accomplish anything for me, it's not enough to get the "stuff" I need, does the differing amounts of money matter? Does it matter if you're offering me $50 or $25?
And again, you're back to "it has no value to you, but it does." Can you explain further?
You are 100% correct here. There was no player that could have made the Angels a playoff team. So no player on that team is really of much value to the Angels, just like you cannot offer me a dollar amount that would allow me to get what I need.
"But $50 is still more valuable overall than $25." Yes, in a vacuum. And as I said over and over again, there are voters who don't look at the award that way. They think "value to their respective team" rather than the way you see it - "overall." If that's the case, Trout really isn't that valuable to the Angels, and not nearly as valuable to his team as Miggy is to the Tigers, as you admitted that they don't make the playoffs without him.
Again, you can disagree with them, and think that voters who think that way are wrong. I do too. But I certainly understand the argument, which you can't seem to for some reason.