- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,736
- Likes
- 19,778
- Location
- Canberra
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Norwood, Adelaide Crows
No, it's a sunk cost. Here's a non-blender related example:
2015: Menzel + Milera + Hampton come into the side for $X. That $X could have been spent to buy something else, now it's a sunk cost.
2016: Hartlett comes into the side for $X. That $X could have been spent to buy something else, now it's a sunk cost.
Two separate decisions made at different points of time with different alternatives to choose between. An opportunity cost would require a reality where Hartlett is available in 2015, like this:
2015: Menzel + Milera + Hampton come into the side for $X. We choose not to sign Hartlett for $X. Hartlett becomes the opportunity cost.
That way, if Hartlett has an amazing 2016 (haha he didn't), we can THEN say that M+M+H was a trade failure. Because of opportunity costs. Because we, at the same point in time, made a bad decision.
2015: Menzel + Milera + Hampton come into the side for $X. That $X could have been spent to buy something else, now it's a sunk cost.
2016: Hartlett comes into the side for $X. That $X could have been spent to buy something else, now it's a sunk cost.
Two separate decisions made at different points of time with different alternatives to choose between. An opportunity cost would require a reality where Hartlett is available in 2015, like this:
2015: Menzel + Milera + Hampton come into the side for $X. We choose not to sign Hartlett for $X. Hartlett becomes the opportunity cost.
That way, if Hartlett has an amazing 2016 (haha he didn't), we can THEN say that M+M+H was a trade failure. Because of opportunity costs. Because we, at the same point in time, made a bad decision.

