Yankees to sign Tanaka

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

     


    duplicate

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

     

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

     

    didn't the 189 only start at the end of 2012

    and just how adamant is 1

    when they continually  say

    '' the 189 is a goal but they wouldn't put it B4

    putting a championship contender on the field ''

     

     

     

    Here is why we keep saying the Yankees are desperate besides the fact that it's true.  The new luxury tax rules were announced in Nov. 2012, I believe.

    Prior to the 2013 season, the Yankees were very adamant about being under the tax limit by 2014.

    Here are some quotes from the Yankees officials before 2013:

    "Yankees officials are insisting that you either commit to a philosophy or not, and they remain galvanized on gaining the financial benefits that are available via the collective bargaining agreement if they slip below $189 million.

    Many outside executives remain skeptical, especially wondering if the Yankees truly will have this discipline should they miss the playoffs in 2013 and/or attendance plummets. For now, though, general manager Brian Cashman could not have been more definitive: “We are not going to be over the $189 million.”"

     

    "“I’m looking at it as a goal, but my goals are normally considered a requirement,” Steinbrenner said "

     

    And the best one yet:

     

    “I’m a finance geek,” he said. “I guess I always have been. That’s my background. Budgets matter, and balance sheets matter. I just feel that if you do well on the player-development side and you have a good farm system, you don’t need a $220 million payroll. You don’t. You can field every bit as good a team with young talent.

     

    The whole idea of "it's a goal, not a mandate" did not surface until the 2013 offseason. 

    Granted, the Yankees FO did say that they would always field try to field a competitive team.  However, they were very adamant about getting under the tax limit initially, and their offseason moves last year supported that.

    Then, 2013 happened, the Yankees FO panicked, and the whole philosophy went out the window.  That is desperation.

    One other thing Zac.  As with the idea of Red Sox fans being desperate, the idea of Red Sox fans having "sour grapes" and being fans of the reigning WS Champions are mutually exclusive.

    As I said earlier, you are trying way too hard.

     

     



    Thanks for clarifying, kimmie. That's why I never heard it....they changed lanes, after the Sox won it all. Not "continually", just recently 

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

     

     

     


    ms kimmi ''Prior to the 2013 season, the Yankees were very adamant about being under the tax limit by 2014.''

     

     

    March 1, 2012

     

    Steinbrenner said he badly wanted to avoid that, but he also vowed to remain competitive at the same time. “We always will field a championship-caliber team,” he said. “I’ve said that a thousand times.”

    a 1,000 times, today ?

    or in the past  B4  3/12/12

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/sports/baseball/yankees-want-to-cut-payroll-to-189-million-by-2014.html?_r=0

     

    March 1, 2012 1:10 PM

    Is it a requirement with baseball that we hit 189? No, it’s not a requirement,” Steinbrenner said. “But that is going to be the luxury tax threshold and that’s where I want to be. I don’t think it’s an unrealistic goal.”


    “I’m looking at it as a goal,” said Steinbrenner. “But my goals are normally are considered a requirement.”

    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/01/hal-steinbrenner-yankees-dont-need-220-million-payroll/

     

     


    ms kimmi ''Then, 2013 happened, the Yankees FO panicked, and the whole philosophy went out the window.  That is desperation.''

     

    other than the desperate & panic taunts

    I believe that's partially right ms kimmi

    in the same article of the last link above

     

    hal says '' “We’ll see how these young kids perform towards the end of this year and into next year,” Steinbrenner said. “The young kids are going to play a big part of being able to lower this payroll. I am going to need some of these young pitchers to step up.”

     

    he was talking about pineda, Betances and Manuel Banuelos

    who all went down shortly after needing major arm  surgery.

    and yes not making the PO had a lot to do with it.

    it being not able  to reach his GOAL and put out a competitive team

    sorry Jbay the sox winning had little to do with it

    one might argue the yanks not making the PO had more to do

    w/ sox winning it all than the sox winning had to do with the above

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

     

     

     

     


    ms kimmi ''Prior to the 2013 season, the Yankees were very adamant about being under the tax limit by 2014.''

     

     

    March 1, 2012

     

    Steinbrenner said he badly wanted to avoid that, but he also vowed to remain competitive at the same time. “We always will field a championship-caliber team,” he said. “I’ve said that a thousand times.”

    a 1,000 times, today ?

    or in the past  B4  3/12/12

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/sports/baseball/yankees-want-to-cut-payroll-to-189-million-by-2014.html?_r=0

     

    March 1, 2012 1:10 PM

    Is it a requirement with baseball that we hit 189? No, it’s not a requirement,” Steinbrenner said. “But that is going to be the luxury tax threshold and that’s where I want to be. I don’t think it’s an unrealistic goal.”


    “I’m looking at it as a goal,” said Steinbrenner. “But my goals are normally are considered a requirement.”

    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/01/hal-steinbrenner-yankees-dont-need-220-million-payroll/

     

     


    ms kimmi ''Then, 2013 happened, the Yankees FO panicked, and the whole philosophy went out the window.  That is desperation.''

     

    other than the desperate & panic taunts

    I believe that's partially right ms kimmi

    in the same article of the last link above

     

    hal says '' “We’ll see how these young kids perform towards the end of this year and into next year,” Steinbrenner said. “The young kids are going to play a big part of being able to lower this payroll. I am going to need some of these young pitchers to step up.”

     

    he was talking about pineda, Betances and Manuel Banuelos

    who all went down shortly after needing major arm  surgery.

    and yes not making the PO had a lot to do with it.

    it being not able  to reach his GOAL and put out a competitive team

    sorry Jbay the sox winning had little to do with it

    one might argue the yanks not making the PO had more to do

    w/ sox winning it all than the sox winning had to do with the above

     



    So the Sox likely wouldn't have won, if the NYY had made the post season? The Yankees finished in 4th place.  The fact the Sox won, had "little to do with" the NYY off season spending spree? How do you know it didn't? No need to be sorry,  it's just your opinion, and I'm not convinced, it really is.  Come on zac, you're better than this. You claim you're here to keep us honest. At least be the same 

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

    In response to J-BAY's comment:

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

     

     

     

     


    ms kimmi ''Prior to the 2013 season, the Yankees were very adamant about being under the tax limit by 2014.''

     

     

    March 1, 2012

     

    Steinbrenner said he badly wanted to avoid that, but he also vowed to remain competitive at the same time. “We always will field a championship-caliber team,” he said. “I’ve said that a thousand times.”

    a 1,000 times, today ?

    or in the past  B4  3/12/12

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/sports/baseball/yankees-want-to-cut-payroll-to-189-million-by-2014.html?_r=0

     

    March 1, 2012 1:10 PM

    Is it a requirement with baseball that we hit 189? No, it’s not a requirement,” Steinbrenner said. “But that is going to be the luxury tax threshold and that’s where I want to be. I don’t think it’s an unrealistic goal.”


    “I’m looking at it as a goal,” said Steinbrenner. “But my goals are normally are considered a requirement.”

    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/01/hal-steinbrenner-yankees-dont-need-220-million-payroll/

     

     


    ms kimmi ''Then, 2013 happened, the Yankees FO panicked, and the whole philosophy went out the window.  That is desperation.''

     

    other than the desperate & panic taunts

    I believe that's partially right ms kimmi

    in the same article of the last link above

     

    hal says '' “We’ll see how these young kids perform towards the end of this year and into next year,” Steinbrenner said. “The young kids are going to play a big part of being able to lower this payroll. I am going to need some of these young pitchers to step up.”

     

    he was talking about pineda, Betances and Manuel Banuelos

    who all went down shortly after needing major arm  surgery.

    and yes not making the PO had a lot to do with it.

    it being not able  to reach his GOAL and put out a competitive team

    sorry Jbay the sox winning had little to do with it

    one might argue the yanks not making the PO had more to do

    w/ sox winning it all than the sox winning had to do with the above

     



    So the Sox probably wouldn't have won, if the NYY had make the post season?  The fact the Sox won, had nothing to do with the NYY off season spending spree? How do you know it had little to do with it? No need to be sorry, one can argue all one wants, it's just your opinion, and I'm not convinced, it really is.  Come on zac, you're better than this. You claim you're here to keep us honest. At least be the same 

     

    and the beat goes on

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Tanaka will be the bust that eclipses Dice-K!    Oh sweet justice :)

    [/QUOTE]

    Can you tell me now who shall win the Kentucky Derby too?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to nhsteven's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Just wondering what the course of a similar thread here  would have been if the RS signed Tanaka; the contrast may have reminded me of the book 1984.

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Anytime the Red Sox sign a good player, as a fan, I am excited for the team.  If the Sox had signed Tanaka for the same terms that the Yankees did, I would still be excited about having the player on my team, even if I would not like the terms of the deal. 

    I stated before Tanaka signed, that the Sox should put in a bid, but I also said that he is not the type of player to go all in for.  I think he will be a good pitcher, but he won't be worth the value of the contract.

    It is my opinion that the Yankees paid too much, both in dollars and in years.  It is also my opinion, however, that this is a deal that they had to make.  They are desperate, after all.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    They're not going to win with the infield as currently constituted.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

     

     

     

     

     



     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

    In response to J-BAY's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE] LOL...


     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

    So the Sox likely wouldn't have won, if the NYY had made the post season? The Yankees finished in 4th place.  The fact the Sox won, had "little to do with" the NYY off season spending spree? How do you know it didn't? No need to be sorry,  it's just your opinion, and I'm not convinced, it really is.  Come on zac, you're better than this. You claim you're here to keep us honest. At least be the same

     

    not sure Y I should bother to address that if

    U can even acknowledge I debunked your reponse ( below) that  I was replying to

    R U not better than that Jbay

     

    Thanks for clarifying, kimmie. That's why I never heard it....they changed lanes, after the Sox won it all. Not "continually", just recently

     

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

     

    So the Sox likely wouldn't have won, if the NYY had made the post season?

    is that what I said.............NO

     

    The Yankees finished in 4th place.

    technicality tied 4 3rd

     

     The fact the Sox won, had "little to do with" the NYY off season spending spree? How do you know it didn't?

    how do you know it did

    here's what I got

    most feel the last big nyy  spending spree was after the 08 season

    did the sox win in 08 like they did this yr.........no

    did the yanks fail to make the PO like this yr...............yes

    what do you have

     

    No need to be sorry,  it's just your opinion, and I'm not convinced, it really is.  Come on zac, you're better than this. You claim you're here to keep us honest. At least be the same

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

     

    So the Sox likely wouldn't have won, if the NYY had made the post season? The Yankees finished in 4th place.  The fact the Sox won, had "little to do with" the NYY off season spending spree? How do you know it didn't? No need to be sorry,  it's just your opinion, and I'm not convinced, it really is.  Come on zac, you're better than this. You claim you're here to keep us honest. At least be the same

     

    not sure Y I should bother to address that if

    U can even acknowledge I debunked your reponse ( below) that  I was replying to

    R U not better than that Jbay

     

    Thanks for clarifying, kimmie. That's why I never heard it....they changed lanes, after the Sox won it all. Not "continually", just recently

     

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

     

    So the Sox likely wouldn't have won, if the NYY had made the post season?

    is that what I said.............NO

     

    The Yankees finished in 4th place.

    technicality tied 4 3rd

     

     The fact the Sox won, had "little to do with" the NYY off season spending spree? How do you know it didn't?

    how do you know it did

    here's what I got

    most feel the last big nyy  spending spree was after the 08 season

    did the sox win in 08 like they did this yr.........no

    did the yanks fail to make the PO like this yr...............yes

    what do you have

     

    No need to be sorry,  it's just your opinion, and I'm not convinced, it really is.  Come on zac, you're better than this. You claim you're here to keep us honest. At least be the same

     



    HUH??   you posted they "repeatedly said"....like it was always their plan. apparently, they didn't and it wasn't. They changed their "strategy"  or "mode of operation", after 2013, when the Sox won. So the fact the NYY didn't win in '08, and the Sox didn't either, is the reason the NYY spent like drunken sailors in '08, and the fact the sox won in '13, had nothing to do with it? Not buying it. It added insult, to injury. 

     

     

    What I got, is in '08, the NYY MO was spend spend spend, at any and all cost. They bought the WS. The luxery tax was put in place, to stop the NYY from running a muck. They vowed to fall under the tax threshold for years, then the Sox won, NYY 4th in the ALE,  and low and behold... not so much.  400 million, in FA signings. that's what I got. So the fact the last time the NYY went on a spending spree, the Sox didn't win, so it means this time it had no effect?

      Thats exactly what you impliedone might argue the yanks not making the PO had more to do 

    w/ sox winning it all than the sox winning had to do with the above

     on top of "sour grapes" when the Sox fans said it was a desperation contract, but the NYY posters had to admit, it was a high risk, to "fill a need" 

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

    HUH??   you posted they "repeatedly said"....like it was always their plan. apparently, they didn't and it wasn't. They changed their "strategy"  or "mode of operation", after 2013

    HUH?? yourself

    I gave U a link from B4 the  2012 season

    where he said

     

    Steinbrenner said he badly wanted to avoid that,(tax) but he also vowed to remain competitive at the same time. “We always will field a championship-caliber team,” he said. “I’ve said that a thousand times.”

     

     I’ve said that a thousand times.”

     

     

    and U R still calling me out for sayin

    " he repeatedly said"

     would 2,000 times be repeatedly enough 4 U

     

    pretty hard to debate anything else if U can't concede that one Jbay

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

     

    HUH??   you posted they "repeatedly said"....like it was always their plan. apparently, they didn't and it wasn't. They changed their "strategy"  or "mode of operation", after 2013

    HUH?? yourself

    I gave U a link from B4 the  2012 season

    where he said

     

    Steinbrenner said he badly wanted to avoid that,(tax) but he also vowed to remain competitive at the same time. “We always will field a championship-caliber team,” he said. “I’ve said that a thousand times.”

     

     I’ve said that a thousand times.”

     

     

    and U R still calling me out for sayin

    " he repeatedly said"

     would 2,000 times be repeatedly enough 4 U

     

    pretty hard to debate anything else if U can't concede that one Jbay

     



    Yes, I am. What constituted, repeatedly? I never heard it, which means nothing. Did he say it 1,000 times,was he talking to himself or was it a figure of speech? All I heard was, they were committed to falling under the 189 mil threshold. I took you at your word he said it , and apparently, he did. Repeatedly, not until after 2013 and not 1,000 X's. Was, always vowed to field a competitive team, an out or excuse, if they didn't stick with their plan? 

     

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

     

    I think Tanaka will go 13-8 with a 3.85 ERA. 

    I look forward to seeing Cano's first at bat vs. Tanaka at Yankee stadium.  

    Michael Kay: "SEE YA!!! A Home run by Robinson Cano and the Mariners are up 2-0 in the first!!!"  

    Wink

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

    In response to nhsteven's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Tanaka will be the bust that eclipses Dice-K!    Oh sweet justice :)

    [/QUOTE]

    Can you tell me now who shall win the Kentucky Derby too?

    [/QUOTE]

    Is this a set up?

     

    Why it's JOHN HENRY of course!

     

    Come on now!

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     a 1,000 times, today ?

    or in the past  B4  3/12/12

     

    Is it a requirement with baseball that we hit 189? No, it’s not a requirement


    “I’m looking at it as a goal,” said Steinbrenner. “But my goals are normally are considered a requirement.”

    and yes not making the PO had a lot to do with it.
    [/QUOTE]

     

    Of course Steinbrenner is going to say that they will field a competitive team.  He's not going to say otherwise.  When he says that it was not a requirement to get under the tax limit, he more or less contradicts himself in the next sentence. 

    Regardless of him saying that (the 1000 times means in years past, btw),  he was adamant about getting under the cap, then changed course after 2013.   There's no denying that.

    Not making the PO had just about everything to do with it.  They tried something for one season, then panicked when it didn't work out, and did an about face this offseason.

    JBay is right about the Sox winning it all adding insult to injury.  You think the Ellsbury signing, and probably even the McCann and Beltran signings, have nothing to do with the Sox winning it all?

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

     

    The North Korea regime will collapse before the Yankees get their payroll under $189 million.   LOL

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

    In response to Ice-Cream's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The North Korea regime will collapse before the Yankees get their payroll under $189 million.   LOL

     [/QUOTE]


    LOL Ice Cream

    The Yankees need Theo.  He would get their payroll under $189 million, and still field a competitive team.  Wink

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     a 1,000 times, today ?

    or in the past  B4  3/12/12

     

    Is it a requirement with baseball that we hit 189? No, it’s not a requirement


    “I’m looking at it as a goal,” said Steinbrenner. “But my goals are normally are considered a requirement.”

    and yes not making the PO had a lot to do with it.

     

    Of course Steinbrenner is going to say that they will field a competitive team.  He's not going to say otherwise.  When he says that it was not a requirement to get under the tax limit, he more or less contradicts himself in the next sentence. 

    Regardless of him saying that (the 1000 times means in years past, btw),  he was adamant about getting under the cap, then changed course after 2013.   There's no denying that.

    Not making the PO had just about everything to do with it.  They tried something for one season, then panicked when it didn't work out, and did an about face this offseason.

    JBay is right about the Sox winning it all adding insult to injury.  You think the Ellsbury signing, and probably even the McCann and Beltran signings, have nothing to do with the Sox winning it all?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    While this was clearly a factor, a far bigger factor was the steep decrease in attendance and TV ratings, i.e, the bottom line.

    I actually find their change in course rather annoying. The Tanaka signing I could see, because that opportunity doesn't come around everyday. But the other signings, no. In particular the hot-headed McCann, which was an overreaction to the Martin-Stewart fiasco. For starters, McCann has shown signs of being washed up and injury prone, ala Youkilis a few yrs ago. The others are no stranger to the DL as well.

    And their infield is still an abomination.

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Ice-Cream's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The North Korea regime will collapse before the Yankees get their payroll under $189 million.   LOL

     [/QUOTE]


    LOL Ice Cream

    The Yankees need Theo.  He would get their payroll under $189 million, and still field a competitive team.  Wink

     

    [/QUOTE]

    True RedSoxKimmi  Laughing

    If Theo ran the Yankees,.........

    Theo: "Jeter, I want to build a sexy team."

    Jeter: "Cool!"

    Theo: "Therefore, we are designating you for assignment."

    Jeter: "No gift basket for you......"

    LOL

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

    In response to Ice-Cream's comment:

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Ice-Cream's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The North Korea regime will collapse before the Yankees get their payroll under $189 million.   LOL

     




    LOL Ice Cream

    The Yankees need Theo.  He would get their payroll under $189 million, and still field a competitive team.  Wink

     

    [/QUOTE]

    True RedSoxKimmi  Laughing

    If Theo ran the Yankees,.........

    Theo: "Jeter, I want to build a sexy team."

    Jeter: "Cool!"

    Theo: "Therefore, we are designating you for assignment."

    Jeter: "No gift basket for you......"

    LOL

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Since Jeter allegedly once gave 2 baskets to the same woman for 2 separate incidents, this is assuming Theo didn't have a previous tryst with him.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

     

    Hello nhsteven  Laughing

    I look forward to another 18-game season series between the Red Sox and Yankees and hopefully more meetings in the playoffs.   Cool

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: Yankees to sign Tanaka

    Of course Steinbrenner is going to say that they will field a competitive team.  He's not going to say otherwise.  When he says that it was not a requirement to get under the tax limit, he more or less contradicts himself in the next sentence. 

     

    Regardless of him saying that (the 1000 times means in years past, btw),  he was adamant about getting under the cap, then changed course after 2013.   There's no denying that.

    well I'm denying it

    no denying the press was adamant about nyy getting under the cap

    I showed you 2 yrs ago where he said it was a goal

    and the team would not be chorted

    he said it 'a 1000 times'

    Not making the PO had just about everything to do with it.  They tried something for one season, then panicked when it didn't work out, and did an about face this offseason.

    ok fine

    ignore what I quoted

    ingore the part where right after he said all that

    3  top pitching prospects went down w arm surgery

    eitherway

    it's still way more about them losing and not the sox winning

     

     

    JBay is right about the Sox winning it all adding insult to injury.  You think the Ellsbury signing, and probably even the McCann and Beltran signings, have nothing to do with the Sox winning it all?

     

    U tell me

    what big spending did they do  after the sox won in 07

    now please  compare it  to

    how much they spent after 08 when they didn't make the PO

    thank U

      now tell me what do you have that helps your case

     

     

     

     

    BTW

    all this big spending U R all are talking about

    the NYY payroll is still about 12 mil less than last yrs payroll

     

    of course the other part of this equation

    is how much they had coming off the books

     

Share