yankees228

You've haven't said that. However, in my opinion, this was a clear attempt to apply different sets of rules to the Yankees and the Red Sox. In the case of the Yankees, you've clearly shown that you think money is the most important factor in their success. In the case of the Red Sox, you're very quick to point out that, despite what kind of offseason they may have, they still need to win the games on the field. Those are the facts. If that's not an attempt to portray two clubs who are doing similar things differently, I don't know what is. EDIT: Obviously, at ORS.

I'm not taking your comments to the extreme at all. The fact of the matter is that you were very quick to acknowledge how an excellent offseason isn't necessarily equal to success, because the games need to be won on the field. When it comes to the Red Sox, you were very quick to point this out. The same thing applies to the Yankees, and in the context of a discussion in which it was relevant, you made no mention of it.

Wait a second. You continue to stand by your point that a great deal of the Yankees' success can be attributed to their ability to spend, suggesting that the Yankees are doing a lot of their winning on paper. When I mentioned, awhile ago, that the Yankees still need to win the games out on the field, you were quick to dismiss the notion. On the other hand, when presented with the possibility of the Red Sox having a great offseason, one in which they would have to spend a significant amount of money, you're very quick to say that what a team is on paper doesn't necessarily reflect what they're going to be on the field. In my opinion, that's a contradiction.

While I agree that this might be an indication that they're going to trade Buchholz, I don't understand why you would suggest that it doesn't make sense for the Red Sox to sign Lackey if they're not going to trade Buchholz, just because they already have a really good rotation. You can always get better, and with some question marks at the back end, this move makes sense no matter what.

This was very Yankee like in how this signing played out. You have to give credit where credit is due.

Really nice signing, if it is made official. Now we'll see if this opens up a Buchholz trade.

Haha, I know. It was nothing more than a joke.

I think it's come down to this: what are you willing to do for a championship? Hypothetically, lets say the proposed trade is Halladay for Kelly. -Halladay gives you a great shot to win a championship in the next couple years. -Kelly has a chance to be a big contributor on the Red Sox for many years to come. It's very similar to Beckett for Hanley. Obviously, we know Theo's position on trades like this, but I wouldn't begrudge anyone for feeling either way.

Hahaha, the smartest decision you've ever made.

At this point, I think it's clear you're not wanted by the Red Sox fans, and I think, for you, there is only one logical step to take. It involves pinstripes, a brand new stadium, and, the most enticing part, a very aggressive front office...

Oh, it's OK, you thought my post had no merit so you decided it was OK to insult me. Quite appropriate.

So many more things go into a successful season than just targeting the right players, and having the money to sign them. To ignore those things, once again, is devaluing the accomplishment.

No, I acknowledge the philosophical merit of your position, but I don't think it applies. Today's sports, especially baseball, have broken away from the ethos of sports because of how large a role money plays. You can choose to dismiss it, but in today's world, money plays a large role in determining success and failure. You can argue it shouldn't be like this, especially in sports, but when it comes down to it, it is. You're determining legitimacy based on how you think things should be. I'm determining legitimacy based on how things are.

I'll let Gom defend himself, but maybe, it's possible that he is debating a point that he believes in. Maybe his style isn't the most elegant or polished, so it might lead you to believe that he has other motives, but you have to leave room for the possibility that he truly believes his point. If this is the case, and Gom is simply arguing a point that he believes in, there is no reason to look any deeper. In my opinion, that is a plausible scenario. As for the Yankees, ignoring all other aspects involved in them, and only focusing on the financial aspect, I still find their victory to be 100% legitimate. You're looking at this from a perspective that encapsulates all sports together. In today's world, I don't think you can do that. Each sport creates it's own rules and guidelines. You can get into the ethos of sports all you want, but the fact of the matter is, when each sport is allowed to make it's own rules, the ethos of sports are rendered irrelevant. Baseball sets it's own rules. The Yankees, along with all the other teams in the Major League Baseball, play by these rules. Due to this fact, and my belief that you need to look at all sports on an individual basis, I'm of the opinion that the Yankees 2009 Championship (along with every other championship, with the exception of 1919) is 100% legitimate.

Brian Cashman was just on WFAN and he continues to stand by the statement that their 2010 payroll is going to be less than their 2009 payroll. If this is indeed the case, they don't seem to have a lot of flexibility, and you can already eliminate the possibility of any big name acquisitions.

I think they might have made a trade during the winter meetings.

Well, it depends how much you want to read into that. He only spent two years in NY, both of which were OK years. If you want to put a lot of stock into where these guys performed, or where they didn't, (as opposed to their actual production) by all means. And while those facts might have merit, I don't think they should be the most important factor.

ORS, you're making a lot of assumptions about Gom's feelings. They're speculative, and for someone who knocks other people for not speaking in fact, this surprises me. We're all sitting in front of our computers, reading people's comments. Nothing more. For one person to read more into someone's comments, and create this persona of that person, based on their purely speculative opinion, has little merit. As for the Yankees, it certainly is a special accomplishment. Is it as impressive as the 2003 Marlins winning a championship? No. From a monetary standpoint, it's not even as impressive as the 2007 Red Sox winning a championship. But how impressive something is, or how special something is, is not purely measured by the financial aspects surrounding the accomplishment. For the best teams, it's tough to win a championship in this sport. In my opinion, it's tougher in this sport than in any of the four major American sports. When you continue to devalue their championship, I think you're losing sight of these things. What I find almost comical is that you'll probably dismiss the above statement, because, according to you, it's coming from someone who is incapable of having an emotionless conversation about their favorite team. Once again, you're guilty of creating a persona of someone that you do not know, based purely on your speculation about that person. That's a silly practice, especially on an internet message board. My comments are not made because I'm turning a blind eye towards the advantages that my favorite team enjoys, nor are they made because I'm uncomfortable with this advantage. I acknowledge the advantage. I've always acknowledged the advantage. My comments are made because I feel that, regardless of their financial advantage, their accomplishments are still very impressive.

This is also true. A man's last name only takes him so far.