How many years in a row have you said this? I guess eventually it has to come true but I don't see it happening next year.
I don't care about the contracts. Lugo's isn't really that bad anyway, but they did overpay for Drew. Drew is a lot better than Trot Nixon, and Lugo, at least offensively, is a huge upgrade at short. As for Papelbon, he's much more valuable in the rotation pitching 200ish innings than in the bullpen pitching 75ish innings. Closer is an easier position to fill than top quality starter anyway. I haven't been this excited about a team in a while.
That doesn't really bother me as a Yankees fan. Boston, for all their bitching and whining about the Yankees spending, just went out and paid $200 million dollars for Matsuzaka, Drew and Lugo. Sucks for them. I've been on record for months as saying that Dice-K will be a bust in the majors (not a total bust, but certainly not a $100 million dollar ace--more of a 3rd starter) but beggars can't be choosers. In this market with their rotation you can't fault Boston for rolling the dice.
calling dice-k a 100 million dollar pitcher, using non salary $ is like saying that Petitte is a 50 million dollar pitcher by using the luxury tax hit
No it's not. Matsuzaka's price tag was $100 million, and it would've been whether he had signed with the Red Sox or the Devil Rays. Pettitte's price tag was $16 million, and the Yankees only had to pay more because of their total team payroll.
For luxury tax purposes he's an $8+ million pitcher. Boras confirmed the deal as 6/52. In this market that's an amazing deal even if he IS a third starter, which I think is vastly underestimating him. Boras was right, the posting fee is a totally seperate thing. Luckily, the Sox convinced him otherwise.
So now RedSox fans can no longer cry and whine on how the Yankees spend... They spent $51 million to negotiate...And gave him $51.2 million over 6 years. I could care less about DICE-K. But, no more crying on how the Yankees spend.
The Sox haven't been able to cry since they won their title 2 years ago when they beat the cards who had $44 mil less in payroll.
So are the Yankees allowed to cry that teams spend too little? You know, after losing in 2001 to a team with a payroll $21 million less? Or in 2002 when they lost to a team with a payroll $64 million less? Or in 2003 when they lost to a team with a payroll $101 million less? Or in 2004 when they lost to a team with a payroll $57 million less? Or in 2005 when they lost to a team with a payroll $111 million less? Or in 2006 when they lost to a team with a payroll $112 million less? Say all you want about the Red Sox spending, the fact is they have to to have any chance of competing in the same division with the Yankees. Even with that spending, the Yankees payroll STILL dwarfs the Sox payroll. Over the last 6 years they have had an average payroll advantage over their playoff conquerers of about $77.6 million, and a payroll advantage of about $48 million over the Red Sox. The Sox may be second, but it's still not even close.
Where do I say that? I just said they can't cry about the yankees spending b/c they had such a huge advantage in the WS and now they are rapidly approaching the yankees payroll.
The ones I know will probably cry about something anyway. That said, the Yankees are still far and away the payroll leaders in MLB, it's still not even close.
What kind of backwards logic is that? You just named 6 teams with substantially smaller payrolls than the Yankees, and then say that the Red Sox need to match the Yankees dollar for dollar to compete? You don't have to agree with what Steinbrenner does (I don't) but you can't whine about the Yankees outspending other teams. I mean, don't forget that Boston broke the curse by raiding two small market teams to get the best closer on the market (Foulke) and the best pitcher on the market (Schilling.)
