12-07-2009, 03:26 PM
<!--quoteo(post=70918:date=Dec 7 2009, 01:03 PM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ Dec 7 2009, 01:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=70905:date=Dec 7 2009, 01:14 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Dec 7 2009, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's all well and good, and I agree with you. But then Hendry uses his limited resources on a guy like Grabow when the Dodgers are shopping Sherrill and there are an adundant of middling relievers looking for jobs. That's the rub. He's done this same thing over and over again to the point that we have no flexibility to go out and get guys we actually need.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's both true and untrue. Hendry HAS overpaid for guys like Grabow and Miles. But the cumulative 2-3 million overspent on those guys have very little impact on the overall budget. Many on the board keep acting like there are 12 guys on the team like that, and there isn't. There were 2. And one of them is gone.
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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's all well and good, and I agree with you. But then Hendry uses his limited resources on a guy like Grabow when the Dodgers are shopping Sherrill and there are an adundant of middling relievers looking for jobs. That's the rub. He's done this same thing over and over again to the point that we have no flexibility to go out and get guys we actually need.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's both true and untrue. Hendry HAS overpaid for guys like Grabow and Miles. But the cumulative 2-3 million overspent on those guys have very little impact on the overall budget. Many on the board keep acting like there are 12 guys on the team like that, and there isn't. There were 2. And one of them is gone.
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.