12-07-2009, 02:14 PM
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->A team with a $135 million payroll shouldn't have to say that they can't afford someone that fills a need.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why is that, exactly? Why should the level of the payroll have anything to do with whether or not the payroll is flexible?
I'm hearing reports that the Yankees are cutting costs. And their payroll is over 200 million.
Putting aside whether or not Hendry has spent 135 million wisely (I'd agree he hasn't), it doesn't change the fact that the Trib could easily have jacked the payroll up over a sustainable amount in order to make the team more attractive to buyers (by winning). So if, for whatever reason, the new owners say that 135 is too high, and the payroll is going to either stay the same or come down, by definition Hendry can't afford to ADD to the payroll. And it doesn't matter what the current payroll is.
Why is that, exactly? Why should the level of the payroll have anything to do with whether or not the payroll is flexible?
I'm hearing reports that the Yankees are cutting costs. And their payroll is over 200 million.
Putting aside whether or not Hendry has spent 135 million wisely (I'd agree he hasn't), it doesn't change the fact that the Trib could easily have jacked the payroll up over a sustainable amount in order to make the team more attractive to buyers (by winning). So if, for whatever reason, the new owners say that 135 is too high, and the payroll is going to either stay the same or come down, by definition Hendry can't afford to ADD to the payroll. And it doesn't matter what the current payroll is.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.