Comments on: Who’s spending more on pitching?

By: Scott Falivene

Scott Falivene — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:04:46 +0000

Just to be clear: I know the Yankees spend an ungodly amount of money, and no i’m not trying to rationalize it or cherry pick numbers to insult anyone. This was a “rant” and not supposed to be the end-all be-all take on the subject, please do not take it so seriously, eh?

By: Yankees team up with Sony for new state-of-the-art technology « Zell’s Pinstripe Blog

Sun, 11 Jan 2009 05:32:55 +0000

[...] Pettitte won’t be going to Houston / Who’s spending more on pitching? [...]

By: Toilet

Toilet — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 03:25:40 +0000

Yankee fans have an identity crisis.

They tell everyone that they don’t care how much their team spends.

Then they work like hell to try and find ways to make themselves look no worse than other teams.

You really do insult your readers intelligence when you blatantly cherry-pick like this.

By: Jim C.

Jim C. — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:08:40 +0000

Since Mr. Falivene’s cherry-picking numbers, how about these?

Yanks infield: $91 million
Sox infield: $19 million.

Hell, I’ll even throw in the the world’s most overpriced backup shortstop and an extra $5 million for Varitek and they’re still only up to $34 million. So yeah, I think the Yanks have a little more money to throw around. Unless of course an extra $70-$80 million in payroll every year is insignificant.

I think the only ones who refer to the Sox as “the little engine that could” are hyper defensive Yankees fans. The difference is that, while the Sox throw out ungodly amounts of cash, the Yanks reserves are bottomless.

By: SF

SF — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:39:48 +0000

Ben, I appreciate your candor in response to Mark above. Personally I think the work here is excellent – if I had more time I’d stop by more often. This one obviously struck the wrong tone for me, especially considering how much work and seeming objectivity Paul put into that post.

Anyhow, I think this is all proverbial water under the bridge at this point.

By: Mark Lamster

Mark Lamster — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:36:42 +0000

Okay, then! Now we’re all on the same page. Now let’s just go get those pesky Rays.

By: Ben K.

Ben K. — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:17:21 +0000

I gotcha. It certainly wasn’t, as I said above, my intention to disparage Paul’s work. I think the context and what I was going for in the original post just didn’t work out as I had intended.

By: LocklandSF

LocklandSF — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:16:10 +0000

Yes, I’m referring to the comments, but your characterization of Paul’s post created the environment for those comments. The work you do here is still first rate. I was just pointing out why I think YFSF is not only great content but needed, since people here were disparaging that site all together.

By: Ben K.

Ben K. — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:03:04 +0000

Fair enough, Mark. My intention was not to disparage Paul’s work or to come across as snarky. For that, my apologies to you guys at YFSF. I think the site’s a good one, and you’re are respectful. If I came across as disrespectful, just know it wasn’t my intention.

By: Ben K.

Ben K. — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:01:39 +0000

I sincerely hope you’re referring to the commenters and not our work. At no point were we trying to be snarky or arrogant with this post. There’s way too much sensitivity online these days.