« Home | I took down the Chitika ads. They seem to do much... » | JenSense blogs on a change in Google's advertising... » | Russell Beattie has a fun post on the possibiliti... » | It's always fun when you find a link to your site ... » | Silent Business Bloggers: Reading Steve's recent ... » | What Henry Blodget thinks Microsoft should do re: ... » | Verizon EVDO » | Yesterday at AdTech I attended two panels of note;... » | I'm here at AdTech this week. I'd recommend their... » | LinkedIn online demonstration. I've been trying o... »

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Here's an odd way of phrasing things in USA Today. There's a story about A-Rod, and the effects his contract has had. Referencing his $252 million contract, they say
"Three years later another elite shortstop in his prime with an MVP award commanded less than one-third of that amount on the free-agent market."
So far, so good. Several paragraphs down they then say:
"As an example of the drastic change in baseball's economy that followed, Miguel Tejada signed a six-year, $72 million deal — or three and a half times less than Rodriguez — "

I'm reasonably certain that 3.5 times less would be something like negative 500 million, not 72 million. :)


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like you have experience with this kind of fuzzy math...

9:39 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home