Counting OPM makes a big difference to me when it is a direct relation to who my favorite team will but on the field, to think otherwise would be putting blinders on.  Its kinda like saying that it doesn't matter that I have a huge house or not, when you aren't able to afford the property taxes on it, and are going to lose it anyways. 

 

If you don't have one eye on the budget, you aren't getting the full picture of what a teams realistic expectations are on almost any personel matter.

Bingo. Using the Thome situation as an example: Tex, you're saying you didn't care about the money picked up in the deal at all. So that means in a way you really don't care about the Konerko situation, the money picked up by the Phillies can and could have had a direct effect on the PK situation. We worry about the financials in deals because we only do care about this team winning, and the better deals you can make from a money stand point will allow you to add more players with extra funds.

I think I get the "tension" behind the poll, but like others, I think it's a false dichotomy. It's not necessarily $25 million profit OR WS championship. I would agree with most posters here that management has to exercise some fiscal responsibility, for a variety of reasons.

 

A more interesting poll question would be, if it meant beer prices / tickets increased say 25% next year to help pay for PK et al. would you still go to as many games? :rolly