Now think about this for a second: It’s 2015 in Yankee Stadium, and 50 million of the payroll is going to a 39 year-old A-Rod and 37 year-old Johan Santana.

The reason lower payroll is good is because it provides a team with FLEXIBILITY. Do you think the Yankees WANT to have a 200+ million dollar payroll? Do you think they want to carry a 22 million dollar first baseman with no glove and plenty of health issues? Or a 10 million dollar pitcher who is little more than a space heater? Of course not.

The Yankees should be able to handle some extra salary at the trade deadline if they find they need to make a deal. They shouldn’t be handcuffed by 25 long-term contracts. Plus, they’re better off NOT paying millions of dollars in luxury taxes that just end up going to Major League Baseball for who-knows-what.

Because it’s not good to think otherwise. And basing past performance on future games is defeatist. I once respected almost all the other MLB teams. But after the last decade and a half of rampant anti-Yankee bias, coming from all directions, especially the media, I chose to be selective & narrow too with my POV.

MLB needs to be restructured in every facet. As that won’t happen, I might as well just be a dumbass, my team right or wrong kind of fan.

But thanks for asking. . ..

The same two reporters wrote both articles, but don’t note the discrepancy. Pretty shoddy work, IMO.

I hate to keep bringing up the Clemens/steroids story, but there’s an article in the NYTimes that states that McNamee’s lawyers are saying that McNamee and Pettitte discussed Clemens’ steroid use. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/sports/baseball/30clemens.html?ref=sports

However, the reporters fail to mention that McNamee’s lawyers previously said that McNamee never told anyone about Clemens’ steroid use. “Ward said that during the time McNamee injected Clemens with the banned substances, he did not tell anyone about it.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/sports/baseball/27clemens.html?scp=2&sq=Ward+and+contemporaneous&st=nyt

The same two reporters wrote both articles, but don’t note the discrepancy. Pretty shoddy work, IMO.

I guess CB, you and I interpret “which is a stretch” differently and the significance of Manuel’s additional comments that BG is a “championship-caliber CF.”

“A stretch” to me signifies a minor exaggeration. That while the Yankees may have overvalued BG just a bit, Manuel nonetheless concluded he is still worthy of a mention in the same conversation with Ellsbury.

In any case, whether Gardner is the centerpiece or not of a Yankees offer, I still refuse to believe the Yankees didn’t have the wherewithal in their farm system to match Boston’s offer without including Hughes.

And while your interpretation of the Twins intent may be correct for all I know—I don’t pretend to know what Bill Smith was thinking—the early press reports at the time of the Winter Meetings disqualified the Mets because far from wanting the most from AL teams, the Twins were demanding the MOST from the NL team, the Mets, namely, a proven, major league all-star, Jose Reyes.

Which suggests to me that the Twins weren’t more leery of trading him to the AL, at least to the AL East anyway.

It looks to me like Smith had to settle for the Mets package because that was the best offer available once the Sux withdrew Lester and the Yankees, Hughes. Which still makes me believe the Yankees could have topped the Mets and the Sux offers by proposing some combination of four prospects from IPK, Jackson, Tabata, Horne, Marquez, or Gardner.

Perhaps, Smith couldn’t accept that deal and save face because it no longer included Hughes.

But what angers me however is Pete’s report that the Yankees didn’t even bother to ascertain whether Smith would, that the Cashman made no offer at all. Thus my first entry.

IMO, the Twins didn’t want to have to deal with facing Johan in the same league & didn’t want to risk the the extension falling through, where the Mets will pony up the $150M.