are you senile? if so, ill overlook your shortcomings. if not, wow.. that’s all. wow.

If I play someone my equal in racquetball and beat them, I feel good. If I play someone better then me and beat them, I feel VERY good. If however, I play my friend’s 7 year old daughter and beat her 21-0, I get no satisfaction at all.

The Yankees may always be the most profitable franchise in MLB. They are, after all, the Yankees of New York. However, our financial advantage does give us a competative advantage. Revenue sharing and draft picks do try to balance things out a bit.

Even with the biggest payroll, I am still proud when they win. But there is a limit. I guess they are truly rich enough, especially with YES and the projected income from the new stadium, to trade for Santana. They could also afford get C.C. as a FA, and also get Tex as an FA, and also buy a number of other elite players. Hell, I guess they could have a payrol of $300m and still be financially sound.

But I don’t want them too. It does not appeal to my sense of fair sport or competition. Do I want them to ’sell’ everyone and have a league average-ish payroll of $80m? No, I don’t. One thing about our payroll and money is we get to keep players throughout their careers, even if we overpay and don’t get a great bang for the buck. I’m fine to ‘waste’ money on ARods last 3 years, and to insure that Jeter, Mo and Po finish their careers, as Bernie did, as a Yankee. This, to me, is the real benefit of Yankee money and being a Yankee fan.

Who knows, maybe Cano, Phil and a bunch of others will be on that list one day. So to keep our ‘family’ together, I’m OK inflating the payroll to that end.

But like Cashman seems to indicate with his recent behavior, I would prefer for the Yankees to win using drafting and development skills, rather then buying other teams successful players when they becomes FAs. Does this mean I never want to buy a FA again? No. But I want some balance.

Our team now is certainly beginning to reach that balance. We have a number of young players, and hopefully, more coming. Our payroll won’t shrink much, but we should narrow the gap between us and other teams over the next few years.

And to me, this is a worthy goal. If there are those out there that are fine with a $250m-$300m payroll in order to win, so be it. It’s not my idea of sport. It is not the way I aspire to bild a winning team.

Keeping Phil and the kids, as well as saving $30+m/yr appeals to me on all sides. I still want to win, and feel we still have as good a shot as anyone. However, when we win a WS by beating Boston for the A.L., I can’t help but think the champagne will taste a little sweeter that year.

i believe that insurance companies have lowered the limit to 3 years sometime in the last few years.

Did you get that? The New Yankees Stadium will earn AT LEAST least $100 MILLION DOLLARS MORE A YEAR than the old Yankee Stadium?

Still worried about the Yankees payroll?

You want to argue about how they spend their money, I have no quibble with you.

But if you object to the total amount they spend, then there’s isn’t much to separate you from the Yankee-haters like Chris Russo who expend half their anti-Yankees diatribes whining about the size of their payroll, is there?

Want revenue figures for the new Stadium. Read Fortune magazine.

“The new stadium will boast more than three times as many luxury boxes as the old, and as a result, ticket-and-suite revenues are projected to soar to $253 million when the new ballpark opens in 2009.

They will probably be much higher. The $253 million figure in the prospectus assumes attendance in 2009 of 3.4 million, which is the equivalent of 79 percent of the new stadium’s 53,000-person capacity over 81 regular-season home games. Given that the Yankees sold 90 percent of their tickets last year, 88 percent in 2005, and are on pace for another 90 percent showing in 2007, it’s hard to imagine ticket sales sagging when the new stadium opens.

“And the ticket-and-suite figures don’t include two other sources of stadium revenue – concessions and sponsorships – that Yankees president Randy Levine expects will get a boost from the new ballpark..Were the Yankees to go that route, the team could conceivably net $30 million annually on gross concession sales of $100 million, estimates former Yankees marketing director Joseph Perello

“As for sponsorships…In other words, fans may enter a building called Yankee Stadium but find themselves sitting in the Bank of America bleachers or purchasing snacks at the Pfizer food court. Perello, now a sports consultant, thinks the Yanks could collect $50 million to $75 million a year in sponsorship dough this way.”

But it’s good thing you worry about the FO’s spending on their behalf. That’s like when Cashman worries more about spending the Steinbrenner’s money than George and Hank do.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/1...../index.htm

2) And where did you get this from: “Especially as insurance only covers 3/$39m, the longer, the riskier?”

That’s an rank untruth. The limit is at least 5 years, not 3. Just look at the Pavano contract, which enters its fourth year this year and for which the Yankees will collect insurance on, yet again.

4) But hey, if it makes you feel better to think your position on Santana is based more in fact than mine, than I’m not going to bother to argue with you.

But I’m sure quite a few people in the White House you could convince with that logic.

are you honestly concerned with the yankees owners’ personal finances? do you get worried when they buy a new house or a sports car too?

i would rather have owners spend profits on the team than into their bank accounts. SJ’s point about the luxury tax is valid… but your concern over the Yankees bottom line is comical.

So you looked up SOME of the Yankees income and SOME of their costs, and YOU decided their profit is $100m?

You said: Any pitcher can sustain an injury that ends their career, including the Yankees’ rookies, regardless of the length of his contract. Your conclusion is: By that logic, the Yankees would never sign a free-agent pitcher, however long the contract.

MY conclusion is: Long contracts for Pitchers are VERY risky. Especially as insurance only covers 3/$39m, the longer, the riskier. So a 4 or 5 year deal, which is at least covers maybe half of the contract, is less riskier then a Santana deal. So yes, a guy likes Hughes, IF he is 80% of Santana at 1/10th the cost, he might be a smarter deal.

“Forbes magazine recently came out with profit/loss numbers for every major league team. The biggest money-losing team — in fact, the *only* money-losing team — was the New York Yankees, who, according to Forbes, lost $25.2 million last year.

But now, an article in New York Magazine claims that while the Yankees did lose money — $28 million, which is pretty similar to Forbes’ estimate — their cable network, YES, was quite profitable. YES broadcasts Yankees’ games to a large New York viewership, which would explain why it rakes in the cash.”

So the Yankees lost around $25m in 2007, which I believe was the 2nd or 3r year of losses, but YES is making a lot.

Excuse me, but NOT based on your ’slight distortion’ of 100+, my statement which read:
“Ergo, a 7 year, $22m/yr contract to a pitcher, is safe (although uninsured)
Should have read:
“Ergo, a 6 year, $23.8m/yr contract to a pitcher, is safe (although uninsured) – OR-
“Ergo, a 7 year, $21.8m/yr contract to a pitcher, is safe (although uninsured)
Do you see a LARGE error in my statement?

“That should have read “100+” and Santana signed for 137.5 million.”

If you KNEW the contract was 6/137.5 (+ 5.5) or 5/152.5, why would you say 100+? If you have a blind date with a woman who says she is 5′6+ tall, and she turns out to be 6′3, would you feel mislead?

Do you think 100+ is similar to 143?

My ONLY error was that the 7th year was an option, with a 5.5m buyout.

And if you DON’T care what they Yankees spend, thats fine. However, please excuse the Yankees FO if they DO mind, and while they might always have the highest payroll, they might want to a least keep some kind of leash on it.

What can I say. I made one honest error, you made many.
Most are glad the Santana deal did not go through.
From polls I’ve seen, it as about 3:1 against.
I will very much enjoy watching Phil and Melky next year, and maybe Marquez and whoever else soon. You should enjoy watching Santana. Please keep us all abreast of how he does.

I love Melky, but he’s not irreplaceable. I love Phil Hughes, but he’s no sure thing to ever be a 230k, dominant pitcher like Santana.

As far as the money goes,give me a break. We’re talking about the most valuable franchise in sports. They charge like it, and they spend like it.

the Twins wanted Wang and Kennedy.

this was reported by Madden, Law, Olney, Heyman, and the Star Tribune in Minnesota (http://www.startribune.com/spo.....3&c=y).

Klapish was the only conflicting report.

It is apparent to me that the Twins were not being reasonable, and the evidence of that is what they wound up getting: very little.

had they been willing to deal with the Yankees from the beginning, they would have wound up with a nice package of prospects. a package that both sides would have walked away from the table happy.

but that’s not what happened: Smith tried to hold out to get the most he could possibly get, instead of seeking a MUTUALLY beneficial deal. so he let it drag on and on. when Santana put a deadline on the trade, he started calling the Yankees and making desperate demands.

that’s not how you make a trade. and it cost him and the Twins.

we should just be thankful that the beneficiaries of Smith’s poor judgment were the Mets and not the Red Sox.

maybe if Curt Schilling had been a little more forthcoming about his shoulder, the Sox pursue Johan a little harder.