yankees228
-
Posts
9,780 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by yankees228
-
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.
-
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.
-
New York Yankees 2010 offseason thread
yankees228 replied to jacksonianmarch's topic in Other Baseball
If that happens, what do you want for left? -
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.
-
Didn't they have the top bid by a substantial amount, over the second highest? It seems to me that they entered a bid that they knew wouldn't be touched, effectively blowing everyone out of the water.
-
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.
-
-
I am thinking for myself. I don't think there is even a remote possibility that the Yankees would have ended up with both of them. Again, it's nothing but conjecture on my part, but it's also nothing by conjecture on my part. We both have our opinions, and, clearly, neither is going to change. We'll never know.
-
I completely disagree. The money it took to get Burnett is not even close to what it would have taken to get Santana. I don't see how that comparison can exist. This is obviously conjecture on my part, but I don't see it.
-
I'm confused. What was an almost guaranteed outcome?
-
-
The money it will take to get Lackey is not the money it would have taken to bring in Santana, and it's not the money it took to bring in Sabathia. There is just no way you could possibly think that they would sign Sabathia to a long term deal, a year after signing Santana to a long term deal. There is no way that even the Yankees would tie up that much money in two pitchers, over that long a period of time.
-
-
It is important to note that if the Yankees had acquired Santana, you cannot realistically expect that they would have also signed Sabathia. I know I might get some responses from Red Sox fans about the Yankees' unlimited resources, but there is no way they would have gotten both. So, when you ask, who would you have, it should be Sabathia, Melky, and Kennedy or Santana.
-
It's relatively unimportant, but considering you're making a big point of the fact that he would be the highest paid non-Yankee ever, I figured I would chime in. A-Rod's first contract, as I'm sure you're aware, but just overlooking, was given to him by the Rangers.
-
Lol, in response to me asking Jacko if the Yankees' spending bothers him? I'm sure it doesn't, I just wanted to hear his opinion.
-
I'm not capable of having a dispassionate discussion about my favorite team? That's news to me. You seem very quick to ignore all the times I've agreed with you, and you just focus on the few issues where I disagree. What I find interesting is that I can't disconnect my heart from my brain because I disagree with a few of your points. I recognize that something outside of the field of play has contributed to the Yankees victories. I never denied this. I never denied how much the Yankees financial advantage contributes to their wins. For the most part, I'm right with you. The problem, again, is that I don't think the wins are illegitimate. I can tell you this, when the Red Sox won the 2007 World Series, I found their win to be completely legitimate. It has nothing to do with what team I root for. I just have a different take on things than you do.
-
-
Obviously. And by the same logic, I'm sure the Red Sox could have made an offer for Teixeira that he would have signed on the spot (which has been talked about in this thread). It's not like these teams don't have the money, they just think it's wise not to spend it.
-
-
All the talk during the offseason was about how the Yankees were the favorites to land Beltran. He was a fantastic player, and the Yankees had a hole at the position he plays. I have a hard time believing they weren't interested. The prevailing thought, after they didn't get him, is that they had already spent too much money this offseason. Here's the problem with your argument. You're very quick to say the Yankees can't be outbid for anyone, but, when presented with a possible example, you just claim that they weren't interested in that player. That really isn't a fair argument.
-
-
They didn't show limits with Beltran? As a matter of fact, when they declined to pursue Beltran further, they were in a very similar position as they were this past offseason. They had already made two significant pitching acquisitions.
-
What I'm saying is that, even if the Yankees are interested in a big free agent, they might have their limits. We don't know what the Yankees limit was for Teixeira, but it's possible that they wouldn't have gone over what he signed for.
-