a700hitter

Yes, Terry Ryan used the terminology correctly.

No, his usage of the term is incorrect. Just because people accept it and think it is correct doesn't make it correct. It's not that his statement is technically wrong. It is fundamentally wrong. Terry Ryan's usage is correct.

Whether a team has a captain is a function of the manager's personality and needs. If he needs a guy to keep order in the clubhouse and he has a guy like that on the roster, I am sure he will name someone. I don't think Bobby V wants any other "chiefs" as Dick Williams said in 1967. Sometimes a captain is purely ceremonial, like Jeter or Yaz, based on their accomplishments and tenure. The ceremonial type captain is not a need.

He might have some takers on TalkSox.

Inside or special information about an asset/player would influence the risk classification, but while were are talking about a finite pool as compared to the broad investment markets, there are 30 GM's with scouting departments all looking to get the same information, so I'd lean toward saying that it (i.e., a true low risk/high reward player) doesn't exist, because you only need a couple of the GMs armed with the information to drive up the price. I respect your professional background in this area. Your expertise is definitely reflected in the way you have been discussing this topic.

So, penny stocks are low risk/high reward? That's completely wrong. It's not even a situation where we can agree to disagree. You are just wrong.

He used the term incorrectly because it sounds better than the accurate investment characterization of the transaction. Low risk/high reward sounds better than high risk/high reward, and most people don't know the difference and can easily confuse cost with risk. I like to use the example of a lottery ticket. It only costs a dollar. The payoff can be huge, but the odds, i.e., the risk of winning are enormously high. Is the $1 lottery ticket a low risk/high reward investment? No, it is not. It is high risk/high reward, and that is precisely why it is low cost. If your investment manager invested solely in lottery tickets and told you that he had invested in low cost/high reward assets, you'd have him arrested or committed to an insane asylum. Risk with regard to a portfolios assets has to do with the quality of the asset and the probability that it will perform at market levels. You pay more for low risk assets than you do for high risk assets. You allocate less of your portfolio to his risk investments. The $800k invested in Zumaya is a small portion of payroll. That doesn't convert the asset into a low risk asset. You just invest a smaller portion of your portfolio in high risk assets. Ryan has it 100% right.

I don't think he was invited to Spring training.

You've seen the explanations in the threads. You are just trolling now.

I'm not confusing anything, and neither is Terry Ryan.