The Best Team Money Could Buy

[Wells]

Even now I find it rather difficult to hate Mariano Rivera, a man who in my opinion deserves to be called the best Yankee ever, nobody has done more for that franchise with the possible exception of Babe Ruth but if Im not mistaken Ruth won more titles in Boston than he did in NY.

 

I f***ing love it.

[jacksonianmarch]

I dunno Crunchy. If we made that deal for Santana, we dont win the WS in 2009. Because I agree with y228. No way do we pay 2 pitchers $50 mil per yr total. Just doesnt make sense with how often pitchers get injured. If we got Santana, we pass on CC and probably do sign AJ and re-up Pettitte. And we would have been bounced in the first round since Santana went down with the elbow issue.

[jacksonianmarch]

And crunchy, you are wrong. Babe Ruth won 7 world series titles.

 

1915, 1916, and 1918 with Boston

1923, 1927, 1928, and 1932 with the Yankees

[Dipre]

I dunno Crunchy. If we made that deal for Santana' date=' we dont win the WS in 2009. Because I agree with y228. No way do we pay 2 pitchers $50 mil per yr total. Just doesnt make sense with how often pitchers get injured. If we got Santana, we pass on CC and probably do sign AJ and re-up Pettitte. And we would have been bounced in the first round since Santana went down with the elbow issue.[/quote']

 

Lol they spent 450 mill in FAs this year.

 

You don't see them signing Tex and Sabathia along with Santana? Hilarious.

 

Also, how do you know Santana gets injured while pitching with the Yanks? (Who probably wouldn't have rode him as hard as the Mets did). Do you have a crystal ball?

[yankees228]

Lol they spent 450 mill in FAs this year.

 

You don't see them signing Tex and Sabathia along with Santana? Hilarious.

 

Also, how do you know Santana gets injured while pitching with the Yanks? (Who probably wouldn't have rode him as hard as the Mets did). Do you have a crystal ball?

 

You're the one acting like you have a crystal ball, by claiming, with such certainty, that they would have acquired Sabathia if they got Santana. No one is denying that they would have gotten Teixeira either way. Jacko and I just don't think they would have gotten Sabathia.

 

I get it though. The Yankees win a championship, and every conversation turns to money. a700 put it best, it's just coping.

 

Regardless, I acknowledge there is a possibility that they would have gotten both, but the argument that Jacko and I are using is a logical one.

[Dipre]

You're the one acting like you have a crystal ball, by claiming, with such certainty, that they would have acquired Sabathia if they got Santana. No one is denying that they would have gotten Teixeira either way. Jacko and I just don't think they would have gotten Sabathia.

 

I get it though. The Yankees win a championship, and every conversation turns to money. a700 put it best, it's just coping.

 

Regardless, I acknowledge there is a possibility that they would have gotten both, but the argument that Jacko and I are using is a logical one.

 

Why you keep downplaying the Yankees' willingness to throw money around like it's water spreading from a hose is beyond me.

 

No crystal ball, just common sense.

[yankees228]

Why you keep downplaying the Yankees' willingness to throw money around like it's water spreading from a hose is beyond me.

 

No crystal ball, just common sense.

 

And common sense also states that they wouldn't tie up that much money in two pitchers, because, even with all the money they've spent, they've never done that.

[Dipre]

And common sense also states that they wouldn't tie up that much money in two pitchers' date=' because, even with all the money they've spent, they've never done that.[/quote']

 

For how many years did they tie up both Sabathia and AJ this year again?

 

With pitchers, it's not so much the money. It's the time.

[yankees228]

For how many years did they tie up both Sabathia and AJ this year again?

 

With pitchers, it's not so much the money. It's the time.

 

I understand that, but the money is a factor. Look, it's possible that they would have gotten both. I don't see it, but I acknowledge the possibility. Once again, some of us fail to acknowledge that we're in the realm of opinion, and not fact. We have no real idea, because there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the coin.

[Dipre]

I understand that' date=' but the money is a factor. Look, it's possible that they would have gotten both. I don't see it, but I acknowledge the possibility. Once again, some of us fail to acknowledge that we're in the realm of opinion, and not fact. We have no real idea, because there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the coin.[/quote']

 

Of course it's in the realm of opinion.

 

But you know their track record in FA spending leans a hell of a lot more towards "Yes" than "No".

[yankees228]

Of course it's in the realm of opinion.

 

But you know their track record in FA spending leans a hell of a lot more towards "Yes" than "No".

 

I'm not sure how much a factor their track record plays in us making predictions, because it kind of says both. Yes, they spend a ton of money, but they have never spent it like this before.

[Dipre]

I'm not sure how much a factor their track record plays in us making predictions' date=' because it kind of says both. Yes, they spend a ton of money, but they have never spent it like this before.[/quote']

 

But my good sir.

 

My whole point is that they spent $450 million dollars. Had they traded for Santana and extended him, they could've done it by absorbing the hit of the amount of money that was coming off the books this year, (and that's actually exactly what they did).

[yankees228]

But my good sir.

 

My whole point is that they spent $450 million dollars. Had they traded for Santana and extended him, they could've done it by absorbing the hit of the amount of money that was coming off the books this year, (and that's actually exactly what they did).

 

Yeah, but how much over $450 million dollars do you expect they would have went? With Santana, instead of Burnett, they would have been up over $500 million, and they are only a couple of years removed from handing out the biggest contract in the sport's history.

 

As I said before, I think one of the main reasons that they didn't trade for Santana, was because they were willing to wait for Sabathia. If that's the case, and it's nothing but logical speculation on my part, it seems to say that they only wanted one of them.

 

Listen, I understand where you're coming from, I just think the Yankees do have their limit, and this would have crossed it.

[Dipre]

Yeah, but how much over $450 million dollars do you expect they would have went? With Santana, instead of Burnett, they would have been up over $500 million, and they are only a couple of years removed from handing out the biggest contract in the sport's history.

 

As I said before, I think one of the main reasons that they didn't trade for Santana, was because they were willing to wait for Sabathia. If that's the case, and it's nothing but logical speculation on my part, it seems to say that they only wanted one of them.

 

Listen, I understand where you're coming from, I just think the Yankees do have their limit, and this would have crossed it.

 

What i don't get is the whole they didn't trade for Santana waiting for CC.

 

They offered a legitimate package with every intention of getting the man.

[yankees228]

What i don't get is the whole they didn't trade for Santana waiting for CC.

 

They offered a legitimate package with every intention of getting the man.

 

What do you mean? Hasn't the whole point of this been to discuss the fact that the Yankees turned down a good proposal? Gom's constant point has been that Cashman screwed up, by not accepting the deal.

[Dipre]

What do you mean? Hasn't the whole point of this been to discuss the fact that the Yankees turned down a good proposal? Gom's constant point has been that Cashman screwed up' date=' by not accepting the deal.[/quote']

 

Look at what the Mets ended up giving up for him. Cashman did screw up.

[yankees228]

Look at what the Mets ended up giving up for him. Cashman did screw up.

 

Oh absolutely. At the time, I was a huge proponent of making that trade. However, in the context of the conversation we're having, that's irrelevant. You said the Yankees made a reasonable offer to the Twins for Santana, in an attempt to counter my argument that they were willing to wait for Sabathia. By all accounts, that appears to be false.

[Dipre]

Oh absolutely. At the time' date=' I was a huge proponent of making that trade. However, in the context of the conversation we're having, that's irrelevant. You said the Yankees made a reasonable offer to the Twins for Santana, in an attempt to counter my argument that they were willing to wait for Sabathia. By all accounts, that appears to be false.[/quote']

 

They made an offer, just like the Sox did, Twins balked Cashman got frustrated, pulled it back, and didn't revisit it.

 

However they devised a package of player for Santana that would denote someone who is genuinely interested in a player.

[yankees228]

They made an offer, just like the Sox did, Twins balked Cashman got frustrated, pulled it back, and didn't revisit it.

 

However they devised a package of player for Santana that would denote someone who is genuinely interested in a player.

 

I'm sure they did have genuine interest, but the fact that they didn't pursue it further, considering what the Mets got him for, leads me to believe that a possible motivation would have been the availability of CC Sabathia.

[Dipre]

I'm sure they did have genuine interest' date=' but the fact that they didn't pursue it further, considering what the Mets got him for, leads me to believe that a possible motivation would have been the availability of CC Sabathia.[/quote']

 

I think it had more to do with the fact that the Twin's ambitions drove away both the Yanks and Sox.

[yankees228]

I think it had more to do with the fact that the Twin's ambitions drove away both the Yanks and Sox.

 

I think it's very possible that they all were contributing factors.

[Dipre]

I think it's very possible that they all were contributing factors.

 

What we can all agree on is that the Twins s*** the bed, and Cashman was dumb not to revisit trade talks.

[yankees228]

Definitely.

[jacksonianmarch]

Lol they spent 450 mill in FAs this year.

 

You don't see them signing Tex and Sabathia along with Santana? Hilarious.

 

Also, how do you know Santana gets injured while pitching with the Yanks? (Who probably wouldn't have rode him as hard as the Mets did). Do you have a crystal ball?

 

There were questions about his elbow when the trade went down. They were valid. Also, you dont think the Yankees would have ridden him in 2008? He would have been in the same quandry

[Dipre]

There were questions about his elbow when the trade went down. They were valid. Also' date=' you dont think the Yankees would have ridden him in 2008? He would have been in the same quandry[/quote']

 

I think that, if as you say, he already had some elbow questions, they wouldn't have. Not as hard as the Mets did.

[jacksonianmarch]

Dipre, the Mets went down to the playoff wire in 2008 before bowing out. They needed to ride him. If we had Santana, we probably would have been 4 or 5 wins better than we were in 2008, which would have put us right up against it with Boston for the WC. Do you really think that we'd be resting Johan if it was a dead heat between NY and Boston for one playoff spot? Absolutely not. He'd be getting whipped out there just as hard.

 

Regardless, that's all water under the bridge. And just to dig Gom a bit more, Cashman has always denied that Kennedy was the center of any deal. Cashman has always maintained that any discussed deal started and subsequently ended with Hughes.

[Paradisecity]

"The best franchise in the history of organized sports"

 

The close-mindedness associated with this statement makes it much easier to dismiss everything else you say as incorrect.

[jacksonianmarch]

Name me another team that has won 25% of the titles since their inception in organized sports. Name me another team that made it to the final game/series 37% of the time. As much as you hate them, you need to give them their due

[Cocos Disciples]

Name me another team that has won 25% of the titles since their inception in organized sports. Name me another team that made it to the final game/series 37% of the time. As much as you hate them' date=' you need to give them their due[/quote']

 

Celtics.

[Paradisecity]

Name me another team that has won 25% of the titles since their inception in organized sports. Name me another team that made it to the final game/series 37% of the time. As much as you hate them' date=' you need to give them their due[/quote']

 

The world is a very large place.

 

Have you heard of football? (the REAL one) Cricket? Rugby?

 

These sports are played en masse on every continent save this one and all draw fan bases much much larger than Baseball. They don't call themselves world champs for beating teams in two countries and then justify it by saying there are no better teams elsewhere (because nobody gives a s*** about it elsewhere!).

 

Milan, Barcelona, United, Boca Juniors, Madrid. Look them up. They are WORLD famous and win titles that BILLIONS of people watch.

 

When 70,000 people show up to watch the Yankees' Alex Rodriguez do nothing but shag grounders after he is traded to them by the Rangers, then you can start talking about the history of professional sports. Until then, you can talk about them in the context of baseball, or American sports, or just continue to sound ignorant by adding them to a class to which they along with the entire sport will likely never belong.