I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how much we value continuity versus how much we prioritize the bottom line. In almost every major industry now, the move is to cut ties early and look for the "next big thing," but there’s still that old-school sentiment of paying a premium to keep a cornerstone player exactly where they are.
It’s a massive gamble, though. When a team or a company decides to go all-in on one specific person, they aren't just paying for talent; they're betting that the person's peak hasn't passed yet. I see this all the time in my own job—management will sometimes pour resources into one veteran just to keep the peace, even if a cheaper, hungrier option is sitting right there in the wings.
Do you think it's better to build around a few expensive superstars, or is it smarter to spread that capital out across a deeper, more balanced roster?
It’s a massive gamble, though. When a team or a company decides to go all-in on one specific person, they aren't just paying for talent; they're betting that the person's peak hasn't passed yet. I see this all the time in my own job—management will sometimes pour resources into one veteran just to keep the peace, even if a cheaper, hungrier option is sitting right there in the wings.
Do you think it's better to build around a few expensive superstars, or is it smarter to spread that capital out across a deeper, more balanced roster?