I'm carrying this over from the Friday gameday thread because I just now noticed it.
No offense, Chief, but this is a joke:
You didn't, but your rhetorical question may have implied a universal correlation between increased payroll and negligence/irresponsibility.
It did? F me, then. I specifically said "Wilpons." If that can't make it clear that I'm talking about the Wilpons and not a universal statement on spending, I don't know what else I can do.
The first was "This is why so much of the LAC stuff seems ridiculous to me", so if spending is not a factor, why mention LAC? It's a pretty clear implication. PB may not have intended it, but it's not difficult to see why it might be read that way.
Because I was responding to another post...