Jump Menu:
Post Reply
Encarnacion to Indians
6 years ago  ::  Dec 23, 2016 - 10:16AM #1
NYYGuy
Posts: 5,216
I know the Yankees were not in on him and perhaps rightfully so but CLE only got him for 3/60M? Wow. They did all right for themselves.

Can't say I'm sad he's out of the division and the Jays are weaker without him.
6 years ago  ::  Dec 23, 2016 - 10:35AM #2
LiferYank
Posts: 6,728

He turned down 4/80 from the Jays when they tried to extend him so he lost money but is going to a far better team.


If not for the ****n luxury tax im sure the Yankees would have pursued him.

6 years ago  ::  Dec 23, 2016 - 12:16PM #3
nystripes2
Posts: 6,287

Dec 23, 2016 -- 10:35AM, LiferYank wrote:


He turned down 4/80 from the Jays when they tried to extend him so he lost money but is going to a far better team.


If not for the ****n luxury tax im sure the Yankees would have pursued him.




You mean the same luxury tax that allowed them to spend 13M on Holliday and 18M a year on a closer we didn't need? Yankees once again using their resources in the wrong places.

6 years ago  ::  Dec 23, 2016 - 3:45PM #4
Paterson
Posts: 8,221


   It is Hal's team and he can spend...or not spend...any way he wants. But he can't cry poverty as the Yankees picked up a pile of cash thanks to the way the new CBA restructures revenue sharing. Maybe I am paranoid, but it seems that baseball is good with taking less in revenue from the Yankees as long as Hal stays within the lanes on the spending for payroll. 


   It really doesn't matter all that much. If Hal gave the front office another $25 M to spend, Cashman would probably just extend Ellsbury another year. 



6 years ago  ::  Dec 23, 2016 - 4:25PM #5
NW
Posts: 13,163

Dec 23, 2016 -- 12:16PM, nystripes2 wrote:


Dec 23, 2016 -- 10:35AM, LiferYank wrote:


He turned down 4/80 from the Jays when they tried to extend him so he lost money but is going to a far better team.


If not for the ****n luxury tax im sure the Yankees would have pursued him.




You mean the same luxury tax that allowed them to spend 13M on Holliday and 18M a year on a closer we didn't need? Yankees once again using their resources in the wrong places.




We didn't need a closer?  What the hell planet are you on?

6 years ago  ::  Dec 23, 2016 - 6:31PM #6
bumper
Posts: 11,920

Dec 23, 2016 -- 12:16PM, nystripes2 wrote:


Dec 23, 2016 -- 10:35AM, LiferYank wrote:


He turned down 4/80 from the Jays when they tried to extend him so he lost money but is going to a far better team.


If not for the ****n luxury tax im sure the Yankees would have pursued him.




You mean the same luxury tax that allowed them to spend 13M on Holliday and 18M a year on a closer we didn't need? Yankees once again using their resources in the wrong places.




almost everyone on this board was clamoring for them to resign chapman. thought the price was a bit steep but we definitely needed a closer. betances much better in the 7th & 8th.


do think we committed too quickly to holliday. if we hadn't, perhaps encarnacion would have been in play. 3/60 is a steal for him. dh/backup 1B for the 3 years. don't really see holliday getting many outfield reps.

6 years ago  ::  Dec 24, 2016 - 5:55AM #7
LiferYank
Posts: 6,728

Dec 23, 2016 -- 12:16PM, nystripes2 wrote:


Dec 23, 2016 -- 10:35AM, LiferYank wrote:


He turned down 4/80 from the Jays when they tried to extend him so he lost money but is going to a far better team.


If not for the ****n luxury tax im sure the Yankees would have pursued him.




You mean the same luxury tax that allowed them to spend 13M on Holliday and 18M a year on a closer we didn't need? Yankees once again using their resources in the wrong places.





Matt Holliday is a one year deal and is a fall back plan at 1b if Bird is not ready. He can also play *some* RF so it makes sense. Chapman should still be damn good when this team is ready to compete which if they dont trade the likes of Frazier and Torres will be sooner rather then later.



When the Yankees signed Holliday there was still talk of 4 and maybe even 5 years for EE.. Stop playing the hindsite game.

6 years ago  ::  Dec 27, 2016 - 10:50AM #8
61in61
Posts: 26,516

Dec 23, 2016 -- 4:25PM, NW wrote:


Dec 23, 2016 -- 12:16PM, nystripes2 wrote:


Dec 23, 2016 -- 10:35AM, LiferYank wrote:


He turned down 4/80 from the Jays when they tried to extend him so he lost money but is going to a far better team.


If not for the ****n luxury tax im sure the Yankees would have pursued him.




You mean the same luxury tax that allowed them to spend 13M on Holliday and 18M a year on a closer we didn't need? Yankees once again using their resources in the wrong places.




We didn't need a closer?  What the hell planet are you on?




Eighteen mill is crazy money for a closer on team that is "rebuilding" and is always crying about albatross contracts. Maybe he makes a difference in about 4 games, maybe those 4 games gets them a WC spot. If that's an indication of the type of team they have, those 4 games could be made up at another position. Nor, does it make sense to be projecting down the road 3 years.


Now, my argument is based on Hal seemingly having a budget to work with. I have said many times I don't care what they spend. If they have a payroll of $250M I don't care.

Jump Menu:
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

Yankees Forum