posted at 12/21/2012 12:42 AM EST
Yes, you were initially against paying that much and for that long, but once you found out there was an injury clause attached to his deal yousaid, "I'm Ok with the deal. It was the best we could do."
I never once said "I'm ok with the deal, it was the best we could do".
It's an exact quote by you.
I said he was a prima donna and not offer him more than 3 years and 30 million. Once InEpstein announced the deal, I said of all the prima donna FA of that class "he was the only one that was a fit". I said his contract was a disaster, even with the "injury free year" in it.
Folks, we have a stooge who, when I told him Lackey was a prima donna who wasn't worth more than 3 years and 30M, said, and I quote, "we need a good #1 or #2 and you have to pay market".
I never called lackey a number 1. I never thought we'd sign him, because the rumors were he was going to get $100M. Once we signed him, I said I thought he was overpaid, but I liked the deal. I have not tried to revise my history like you do. I admit I was wrong about Lackey, but clearly you choose the road of lies and misrepresentations.
This is the same stooge who begged for a 2 million offer to Wakefield for 2012.
I guess if you keep repeating the same lie, maybe you start to believe it yourself.
It would be nice, if for just once in maybe the last 2 years, you could just get one of my positions right. At least then you would actually be having a true debate with something real and not imagined.