03-13-2018, 02:59 PM
(03-13-2018, 12:56 PM)Goose link Wrote: I like to think that Sherman chose to take the contract he did because it pays him to perform. A "professional" negotiator may have delivered a deal with higher rewards that were guaranteed regardless of performance, but that is not who Sherman wants to be. Is reducing the risk a "better" deal? Financial planners would say so, but maybe that is not what this contract is all about. It may be somewhat about more gasoline on the fire.
Do we know what other offers were on the table?
I thought I read that he offered Seattle to match and they said no. Sounds to me like he improved his situation over staying in Seattle at a minimum.
Reducing risk might be more appropriate for someone like me who is just trying to build a nest egg big enough to retire before I die. But RS already has that in the bank, probably. Now he may be trying to stretch to make the most he can for other financial goals. His downside may be millions of dollars, but it won't hurt his quality of life much (assuming he's managing his money well).
But there's a fair chance ego got in the way as well. How could it not. The whole point is he's betting on himself to perform. Which is ego at its core.
