Crap - sorry about the formatting.

But creating a park where you can’t even roam freely three hours before the first pitch is truly awful and goes against the entire history of the game.

On this, we agree.

It's not even a park. It's one giant monument to corporate greed. Truly shameful and an embarrassment to Yankee fans everywhere.

It’s one giant monument to corporate greed.

You know what's funny about all the media hubbub about this topic? All it did was to get the prices reduced on the corporate seats.

Great work mediots! You got played!

[1] But the issue isn't allowing open access to the closest seats "at any time", it's the 2-3 hours before first pitch when those seats are overwhelmingly empty.

[4] Gotta agree 1000%. Having more expensive and better seats has been going on since the dawn of baseball stadiums. It's nothing new. But so has public access to the field BEFORE the game. 'Suite' owners should be entitled privacy DURING the game (or maybe 15 minutes before the game), but well BEFORE game time/batting practice has ALWAYS belonged to everyone.

It's disgusting! It's as if the Yankees are trying to alienate the majority of fans and DARE them to not come to games and not support the team.

I have been following this team for 44 years, but this is enough to drive me away. This goes against the very spirit and traditions of the ballpark experience.

I hope these Motherfuckers go broke! Excuse the language ALex, but sometimes it's appropriate.

Everything about the 'new park' and new rules is gross.
I predict the Yankees will be very sorry for these terrible policies.

[9] If you let someone in 2 hours before the game...how do you get them to leave at any time except when they are good and ready?

Again, I think there is a middle ground here. I am sure the Yankees could figure something out to keep people happy (although to be honest, at the 6 games I've been to, I haven't heard any fans complain about the policy), while affording the seat holders the required exclusivity that gives value for the price they are paying.

Having said that, I don't think this issue rises to the level of being an "embarrassment" that strikes at the core of baseball tradition. As I mentioned, the makeup of the crowds that gather around BP have always been a little suspicious to me.

how do you get them to leave at any time except when they are good and ready?

Only the greedy think this way. They don't trust people because they themselves aren't trustworthy. Somehow it's worked for over a hundred years.

As I mentioned, the makeup of the crowds that gather around BP have always been a little suspicious to me.

As a kid, I got autographs. Many here had the same experience. Good luck arguing against them.

[11] Getting them to leave when BP is over never seemed to be a problem for 86 years across the street, nor has it been much of an issue at any park in the majors.

I've been a pretty big defender of the new stadium, nothing irks me more than the "ZOMG ITS NOT AFFORDABLE!!!1" argument from people who apparently find $12-$25 too much to pay for a ticket, but the Yankees really don't have much of a leg to stand on with this one.

If you let someone in 2 hours before the game…how do you get them to leave at any time except when they are good and ready?

That's when you have the security guards/ushers ask them for a ticket stub. If there's a problem with someone sitting in "your" seat, ask them to move, if a there's a problem, call security or an usher.

[13] It wasn't a problem because: (1) the park opened later and the Yankees were usually done with BP; and (2) the fans left when visiting BP was over or when someone booted them out. As a result, the seats were occupied until almost 45 minutes before game time at the least.

What is the cut off that you think is reasonable? I know if I bought $500 tickets, I'd like to be able to have access to my seats when I arrive.

[14] Regardless of where you stand on this issue, I think we can agree that removing people from the seats would be a lot more difficult than simply not letting them enter.

[13] Also, other parks don't have the same problem because they aren't charging the same prices. Besides, I am sure parks like PNC in Pittsburgh are extremely fan friendly and affordable. Heck, you could probably take a family of 40 to a game. Why, then, doesn’t anyone go to the games? If you offered a Pirates fan the chance to be a perennial contender, but at the price of access to BP and affordability of prime seats, I wonder if they’d take it. I know what I would prefer.

[15] The Yankees policy has always been (at least as far back as I can recall) that gates open 3 hours before 1st pitch. They had originally announced 2 hours this year, but changed it back to 3 during the first homestand.

People were/should be booted out when the ticketholder arrives. There really isn't any reason for them to have to leave before the person whose seat it is has even arrived at the stadium.

@ 18

And yet, given a choice people do the right thing. It's embarrassing to get booted from a seat. So people avoid that possibility.

Also, the suites have space under the stands to stuff their faces in a private environment. To extend that out into the ballpark is sheer greed and power.

When I was a kid growing up in Southern California in the lean Yankee years of the 1980s, I had to go to Anaheim Stadium to see the Yanks play. I always made my dad take me two hours before game time, just as the gates opened, so I could watch batting practice, see my heroes face to face, and pretend I was a big shot sitting in the front row. (To be honest, that was more fun than some of the games.) At a certain point, probably thirty minutes before first pitch, an usher would walk through and politely ask everyone to move to their seats -- and everyone did.

I can stomach the exorbitant prices, the obstructed view bleacher seats, and the over the top opulence, but this is too much. The Yankees should be ashamed -- absolutely ashamed -- that they are denying this experience from a generation of fans. I realize that Lonn Trost is running a business and is only concerned with the bottom line, but perhaps he should consider the idea that the children being excluded now won't have the same memories or emotional connections to the team twenty years from now. How might that affect the bottom line?

There has to be someone, ANYONE better than Trost and Levine to send out there every day.They both may be very good at whatever the hell it is they actually do, but they are public relations nightmares.

[18] I think you are mistaken. As recently as a few years back, the Stadium's gates would open 1 1/2 hrs before a weeknight and 2 hours before a weekend game. I think it was 2 hours before all games last season. Only this season was it expanded to 3 hours. I'll see if I can find a source.

As for booting people, that's easier said than done. One of my greatest frustrations with Yankee Stadium has always been people who simply sit whereever they want. That not only causes an inconvenience to those whose seats they occupy, but also everyone around them. I like that the Yankees are being more proactive about seat locations DURING the game.

I agree that they should try to work something out for BP, but I don't think fans are entitled to unfettered access.

[21] You're undoubtedly correct, but in addition to the messenger, the message would have to change as well.

We all like to ding the Red Sox around here from time to time, and why not? But in this instance, I'm embarrassed by the Yanks. Sox management improved Fenway exponentially in the last few years. The goal, obviously, was and is to make a fortune off all the new stuff (Monster seats, the right field roof, improved concessions, etc). But the vast majority of the changes are also incredibly fan-friendly, and have improved the "Fenway experience" for fans from, say, even 5 years ago. They've also resulted in more people wanting to sit in the more expensive seats, like the Monster seats. A big win-win for the Sox.

Why can't the Yanks have done the same? It seems like everything the Yanks did in YS2.0 with making more money in mind also has the unpleasant side effect of making the fan experience worse in comparison to YS1.5.

[17] Logic FAIL. Sorry william, that just makes no sense.

[22] "I don’t think fans are entitled to unfettered access." And there's the rub - forget sitting down, people can't even go stand in those sections nearest the field during BP! I'm sorry, but if I buy a seat behind the 1st base dugout, I fully expect to be in a very crowded area during BP, because who doesn't like to watch BP up close?

[23] The message is a big part of the problem, obviously, but these two, particularly Levine, are smarmy, which just compounds the problem.

[15] "excuse me, i think you're in my seat." works every time, you should try it next time instead of getting frustrated. it seems weird that you are the first person ready to jump on the yankees for any little management gaffe or even questionable decision, but you defend every ridiculous business decision they make. how can you defend them for not letting people (yes, even adults) walk throughout the stadium before the game starts? the idea that getting them out by game time is difficult is laughable. i've never seen someone who's been told he's in the wrong seat refuse to get up. maybe you'd have to show him your tickets, but that's likely only because his seat is very close and he's confused.

[24] Explain how that is a logic fail? There is definitely a trade off between accessibility/affordability and how much a team can spend. I'd be interested to see why you think a connection doesn't exist,

Also, are you so sure Fenway has improved the fan experience? I have a few Red Sox fan friends who complain about never being able to get a ticket. Is that fan friendly?

Why, then, doesn’t anyone go to the games? If you offered a Pirates fan the chance to be a perennial contender, but at the price of access to BP and affordability of prime seats, I wonder if they’d take it. I know what I would prefer.

The Pirates were middle of the pack in attendance during their run of 3 division titles.

1990: 6th of 12
1991: 7th of 12
1992: 9th of 12

Hmmm, $200 million to watch a third or fourth place team and be treated as a deckhand on the Titanic.

Or $100 million to watch a third or fourth place team and be treated as a baseball fan.

Tough call.

[26] How many games do you go to? From my experience, it doesn't work as easily as you suggested. Instead, it takes abotu 10 minutes to unravel the chain reaction caused by someone actually wanting to sit in their seats. Usually, what winds up happening is the people just get frustrated and sit anywhere (i.e., in someone else's seat).

The reason I hold the Yankees more accountable on the field is because I think their number one priority should be winning games. As a long-time, loyal fan who puts his money where his mouth is, the only thing I feel the team owes me is every effort to win. As a result, I can live with business decisions that help toward that end, even if they inconvenience my experience at the ballpark.

As a long-time, loyal fan who puts his money where his mouth is, the only thing I feel the team owes me is every effort to win.

See I could care less about effort. I care about results.

Go cheer for a good effort. I'll cheer for winning baseball.

[28] Relative to the industry, the Pirates drew many more fans when they won then they do now in their new ballpark. I will grant you, however, that Pittsburgh hasn't been a very good baseball town for a long time.

Relative to the industry, the Pirates drew many more fans when they won then they do now in their new ballpark.

Of course, but having been to Three Rivers and PNC, I would say that there wasn't a problem allowing people to move to the "good seats" to watch BP. I've seen the same in Montreal, Anaheim, Baltimore, Toronto, Cleveland, San Diego, Atlanta, Detroit and Seatte

[30] i'm sorry but your description is an absurd exaggeration. if you have tickets for your seat, and you want to sit in your seat, you will sit in your seat.
what exactly does it mean to be a "loyal fan who puts his money where his mouth is"? if you choose not to pay to go to games etc but follow the team on tv are you less of a fan? what if you can't afford to go? my problem with all your arguments is that you seem to start from the assumption that everyone has money but is too cheap to spend it. so it's ok for you that the yankees are charging ridiculous ticket prices around home plate, which therefore makes it completely fine that they'd want to restrict that area even before game time so that the seats seem worth their price, because it's just a matter of choice whether people get those tickets or not. but it isn't. most people can't afford that. and i think it's fine if they have luxury suites and all that, but the ticket prices for good box seats is too much. it used to be that an average fan could get down there every once in a while as a treat. now the average fan is literally walled out. give me a break.
and i actually think the new stadium is beautiful, it just needs a few changes.

One very slanted view of reality -

Patron: I think you're in my seat.

8 year-old kid: Sorry, sir. I was just trying to watch batting practice.

Patron: You're still in my seat.

Kid: Go f yourself. I'm watching batting practice.

Patron: [Tapping his foot and checking his watch]

[27] "Explain how that is a logic fail?"

OK. We're discussing access policies - namely, that the Yanks have a ridiculous one for the field level seats. Your [17] tries to equate that policy with the price of the field level seats, via fielding a winning team and the amount of money spent on payroll by a team, and you use the Pirates as an example. Let's leave aside that amount of money charged for seats is not correlated with payroll (see the Yanks, who charged far less for field level seats last year, and yet had a bigger payroll), and that payroll is not correlated with winning (see the '08 Rays among many, many others). Then you set up a false dichotomy:

"If you offered a Pirates fan the chance to be a perennial contender, but at the price of access to BP and affordability of prime seats, I wonder if they’d take it."

Why can't they have both? Plenty of teams do - including the Red Sox. Thus, logic fail.

"Also, are you so sure Fenway has improved the fan experience? I have a few Red Sox fan friends who complain about never being able to get a ticket. Is that fan friendly?"

Another logic fail! Being able to get a ticket has nothing to do with the "Fenway" experience (notice I used that term in [24] when talking about the Sox, instead of "fan experience"), outside of letting people into the park. But the number of seats at any facility is limited, that's a given. And if you can never get a ticket, that will tick anyone off, fan or no. I've complained about ticket availability at Fenway for years now, and I'm not even a Red Sox fan!

But that's not my point. The point is, once you're inside Fenway, the changes the Sox have made to Fenway have made the "Fenway experience" far better for fans. Once you are inside YS2.0, the changes the Yanks have made vis a vis YS1.5 have made the "Yankee Stadium experience" worse for fans.

@ 36

Thanks for the sanity.

[34] Fine...you can discount my experience. I can't really make you accept them, so I wont try.

What I meant by being a fan who "puts his money where his mouth is" was that I go to Yankee Stadium enough times to have a first hand experience about some of the things that have occurred. Nothing more; nothing less. It has nothing to do with being a better fan, but I think it does provide a perspective that someone who doesn’t go to games might not have.

I also would never tell anyone how to or whether they should spend their money. I just don’t think the fact that I can’t afford (I am a denizen of the upper deck, not the box seats) to sit behind home plate should mean the Yankees should eschew revenue, especially when I want them to pour as much money into building a winner as possible.

I realize that it might seem as if I am arguing from a position of privilege, but that isn’t the case at all. I am just able to (willing?) see things from the Yankees business perspective.

[36] The Red Sox do not have anywhere near close to the same payroll that the Yankees have. That's where your argument fails. If the Yankees were to cut back to Boston's level, that would have meant no C.C. and no Tex. Are we as Yankee fans prepared for that? Also, Boston has sustained success over 6 years...lets see them do it for 13 years.

Also, it's really unfair to suggest that because the Yankees have had a high payroll without the new revenues, they should need to make more money. For starters, that logic fails because it ignores that the Yankees now have a very large mountain of debt that must be paid. Furthermore, it ignores the fact that the Yankees have lost money to sustain their brand in the years leading up to the move. Basically, that argument punishes the Yankees for sparing no expense in that past instead of giving them credit for doing the same now.

As for the availability of seats, well, I am sorry but I think your logic fails. If I can't even get in the ballpark, who cares how improved the experience is. I'd rather be able to get into the Stadium to see my team play than get to hear about how great the experience is from others.

Finally, I completely disagree with your conclusion. As someone who has been to hundreds of games at the old Stadium, I have found the new Stadium experience to be an improvement...and I have only had access to the FL on one occassion.

What a sick bastard.

Also, a bastard who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

I stopped following baseball for about six or seven years when I was a kid. When I look back on why, there were several factors, but one blatant one is the fact that the games ceased to be televised on channel eleven and I had no cable. The unavailability of games on television combined with other factors in my life (e.g., spending more time with music) to get me away from baseball.

The point being, of course, that this imbecile seems not to recognize that there's a cost to inaccessibility, namely, retaining a life-long fan base. Altruism aside, imagine the potential cost to the bottom line of denying impressionable youngsters the experience of a lifetime, or at least, of their childhoods.

Damn, this burns me up.

If the Yankees were to cut back to Boston’s level, that would have meant no C.C. and no Tex

Nice cherry pick (not to mention look how well that's served them so far). Or, maybe instead they do have Sabathia, but they didn't outbid themselves for A-Rod/Posada/Igawa/Marte/Burnett etc. A million here and a million there and pretty soon we're talking about real money.

I don't agree that casually spending money on free agents is what determines a team's level of effort to produce a winner. It takes time and effort to turn a ship as large as the Yankees around, but I don't see clear evidence that the Yankees know what they're doing.

[40] I am sure Trost would argue that the Yankees brand, which has been built on winning (which has been built on spending money), has done more to create Yankee fans than accessibility to the players.

Furthermore, it ignores the fact that the Yankees have lost money to sustain their brand in the years leading up to the move.

?

How so? Are you talking of the opportunity cost in not having a new stadium? Because while I don't have access to the books, I would think that having a regional sports network, and the deal with Adidas along with whatever marketing bennies they have would cover operating costs.

[41] That wasn't a cherry pick. Those were the two most recent major acquisitions made possible by the Yankees salary capacity. One of the advantages of having such a high payroll is you can keep going after talent even after making mistakes. That money has to come from somewhere. I just don't think it is fair to criticize the money coming in, while advocating that it be spent to the degree the Yankees do.

Old yank fan...I appreciate your emotio but it is not appropriate to curse in this space just because you are upset...just write mothers or motherf****** if you need to be specific. We know what you are saying.I know you can control yourself even when you are vexed...thanks

[43] According to Forbes, the Yankees lost $26mn in 2003, $37mn in 2004; $50mn in 2005; $25mn in 2006; $47mn in 2007; and $4mn in 2008.

That doesn't include the Yankees interest in YES, but the losses are still significant. How many other teams would be willing to take such a bath?

[46] By comparison, the Mets, who share the NY market, made $24mn, $33mn and $24mn over the last three seasons. Could some of that money have been spent to help a team that has been teetering on the playoffs for two seasons? Perhaps? The Mets, however, have set the luxury tax threshold as a quasi-hard cap. Maybe the Yankees should do the same? If they did, I would absolutely agree that their attempts to maximize revenue represented a level of greed.

Are we as Yankee fans prepared for that?

Absolutely and without a doubt. There's no reason they can't compete with a payroll closer to $150 million, especially if it meant cheaper tickets, parking, and refreshments - for all fans. And if that meant they wouldn't have to counter the entire history of the game in terms of stadia access, then what's the problem exactly?

The Yankees of Stick were not always the highest paid in the game. I think we lived with that just fine. And that was before the Yankees had their own television network.

William is showing his solipsism here. Not only is he all by himself, he's showing he'd rather argue than struggle toward truth. Problem is, no one, nor history, nor even emotion is on his side. We love baseball and that has little to do with it being a business. The more it obviously becomes one, the more revolting it is. It's like arguing against Dick Cheney. Neither knows when to quit either.

That doesn’t include the Yankees interest in YES, but the losses are still significant.

You realize how meaningless that statement is, and yet you still wrote it. You should be ashamed of peddling such drivel.

By the way, the last time the Yankees sold their television rights they got $500 million over 12 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/10/sports/yanks-sell-tv-rights-to-msg-for-500-million.html?sec=&spon=

And that was in 1988. And MSG had to turn a profit on that deal or else they wouldn't still be in business.

The Yankees are not losing any money. I wouldn't be surprised if they're making over $150 million/year from YES right now. It's the most watched RSN in the country.

Since I don't stop by all that often, can someone answer for me: Is William always like this? Pushing specious facts in post after post? It seems every time I stop by he's doing the same damn thing. It's lawyerly swarm rather than objective debate.

I understand I'm a PIA, but it saddens me that this behavior ruins the Banter with post after post of nonsense that only serves to pump up his own ego when no one responds. I have many better things to do, but I feel a righteous indignation that the Banter is left to arguments like this. This community is much better than that. Or it was.

According to Forbes, the Yankees lost $26mn in 2003, $37mn in 2004; $50mn in 2005; $25mn in 2006; $47mn in 2007; and $4mn in 2008.

That doesn’t include the Yankees interest in YES, but the losses are still significant. How many other teams would be willing to take such a bath?

"Anyone who quotes profits of a baseball club is missing the point. Under generally accepted accounting principles, I can turn a $4 million profit into a $2 million loss, and I can get every national accounting firm to agree with me." - Paul Beeston, MLB CEO

Are those losses you quoted "real" losses, or GAAP losses?

[52] The quoted loses are not accounting figures reported by the teams. They are EBITDA figures compiled by Forbes.

from the 2009 Forbes article accompanying the breakdown:

No one is getting richer faster than the No. 1-ranked New York Yankees, whose value shot up 15% this year to $1.5 billion. The Bronx Bombers pulled in $80 million--by far the most in baseball--from their rights fee with the YES Network in 2008 and moved into the most lucrative stadium in baseball this season. (Full disclosure: Forbes has a show on the YES Network.) The new stadium also means the Yankees will have to hand over a lower percentage of their revenue to rivals.

Yes, the team's stadium revenue--tickets, suites, advertising, concessions--is likely to go up by more than $100 million this season. But MLB permits teams to deduct stadium-operating and debt expenses from revenue before calculating the amount the league will take from them to subsidize other teams. Last season the Yankees had to hand over $95 million to the league so it could be distributed to teams like the Florida Marlins, Pittsburgh Pirates, Kansas City Royals and Tampa Bay Rays. In the new stadium the Yankees' deductible expenses will be around $100 million, enough to wipe out the windfall in revenue.

[54] There's a mistake in the second paragraph...while the Yankees deductible expenses of $100mn (which are real expenses, including about $55mn in interest payments, the Yankees have to pay) would wipe out the $95mn revenue sharing bill from 2008, a new total will be calculated using the increased revenue from this season. One would have to assume that the Yankees are expecting well over $100mn in increased revenue (otherwise the expenses would simply cancel out the revenue), so the revenue sharing bill could wind up being close the same.

Also, for those don't know, the Yankees, or rather Yankee Global Enterprises, only own 35% of YES. In 2008, the networks' net U.S. revenue was pegged at $360mn. I've seen some estimates for YES' profit at $150mn, meaning the Yankees make about $55mn from their stake (assuming they remove all the equity from the company, which they definitely don't).

[54] [55] Actually, now that I re-read the statement, it looks like Forbes is correctly stating that the increase in revenue will be off set by the deductible expenses, not that the revenue sharing payment will be wiped out. Of course, if the Yankees don't realize the necessary increase in revenue, the added debt and expenses would put the Yankees in a weaker position than beforehand.

I’ve seen some estimates for YES’ profit at $150mn, meaning the Yankees make about $55mn from their stake (assuming they remove all the equity from the company, which they definitely don’t).

Still playing loose with the facts, huh?

$55 Million + $80 Million in rights, means they're clearing $135 million/ year from YES alone.

Care to retract #46 yet?

weaker position

So let's see:

$135 Million from YES
$240 Million in ticket revenues ($75 average ticket x 3.2 million people which is conservative)
$20-30 Million in national TV revenues (Fox, TBS)

That's $400 MIllion/year and not counting concessions, rights, stadium advertising.

We know the salaries, so even if their other expenses are $50 Million, they're still clearing $100-150 Million this year. That's a real weak position, especially in this economy.

Greedy pigs. Oink. Oink.

[42] Sounds like a false dichotomy to me. Why cannot access to players *and* a winning team both be factors in loyalty? And how does denying access facilitate fielding a winning team? Are you arguing that by denying access they are able to charge more for tickets and thus spend more to field a winning team?

I guess that would be a plausible argument, but I'd need serious proof that the only way they can charge so much for tickets is by denying access.

[48] Solipsism... a word I had to look up and... HA! Now I've got leisure reading for the next two months! Thanks, Bum. And yes... what you see is what you get, and you can believe in that. Ironically, it's not a bad thing; he like others before him (Jim Dean, Rob Gee, etc.) add depth to this dimension, which obviously adds to the whole piece and process. We all have something we stand alone on, right or wrong. He needs to be here as much as anyone else here, and until he betrays the principles he's dictated to us for himself, I support his ability to say and defend what he says. For one thing, unlike the ones I've mentioned, he's never made it personal and ugly with anyone.

Have fun kids! >;)

I don't know about you guys, but when I see young kids lined up in the front row, laughing and having fun, with that eager look of anticipation on their faces, incredulous when a player comes over and signs an autograph...
well.. I just get sick to my stomach!

These kids are annoying ME. They have clothes on their backs and food in their bellies..... what else do they need?

Someone should shoot the little bast**ds! People with money shouldn't have to put up with that crap.

What's good for capitalism is good for the consumer. Just ask anyone who owned a Ford Pinto.

[45] Alex... not to be argumentative... and my buddy George Carlin isn't here to back me up... but one day someone will have to explain to me the difference between what I said and "motherf****** "

When you read: motherf****** ....
Just exactly what does your mind say?
Remember: Shoot is just sh*t with two Os.

[60] Me Too!!!! (I had to look up PIA also.)

now, now, now ... can't we all find something to agree with, find something of a common cause???

you know, like Grit Gritner batting 7th in the lineup today???

whether you're anti-Cashman, or anti-Girardi, surely this affront must unite us all in saying WTF!?!?!?!?

" can’t we all find something to agree with, find something of a common cause???"
How about my 2 favorite subjects?
http://tinyurl.com/ofennd

Occasionally, Pete Abe gets it. And I quote:
"Girardi said that Jeter is available for defense, which is like me being available for the 100-yard dash."

[59] I agree that they both can lead to fan loyalty and aren't mutually exclusive, but doing one requires sacrificing the other, I think it's very likely that winning trumps fan friendliness.

If the Yankees are going to market these seats as "Suites" (which they do) and charge premium prices, then exclusive access might be necessary. Again, I am not saying I know this is the case, nor that I think it's a great idea...just that I can see the Yankees side and don't think it is an afront to those who can't afford the tickets.

[60] Thanks Chyll...I've pretty much decided to ignore every Bum Rush post because they are usually laden with insults and misinformation, as evidenced above. Thankfully, the Banter community is intelligent enough to see through such posts without me having to defend myself.

Old Yank Fan...LOL. You ARE being argumentative. Just humor me why don't you, ya dang ball buster you.

Actually Old Yank Fan, I take it back. I'm a moron. I'm so lost in this grand jury duty I "misremembered" our policy. I thought we had made it a point to tell readers not to curse but Cliff reminded me that we didn't do that at all. Cuss away. My bad.

Sorry about that.

@60

Yeah, philosophy major - go figure.

I understand the point but I have yet to see a positive contribution from that individual that wasn't somehow aimed at winning an argument.

@ 67

I'll cop to the insults (I'm both a Bum and a PIA) but you're the one peddling utter BS, like this:

That doesn’t include the Yankees interest in YES, but the losses are still significant. How many other teams would be willing to take such a bath?

And worse, you later admit you knew it wasn't true when you wrote it. So what was the point?

@ 69

Wahoo motherfuckers!

Wow, you'd like if someone was hitting .198 they'd really be pressing.

Shit, wrong thread.