Is Mark A another Steinbrenner?

[dvoiss]

According to an article by Vic Feuerherd in today's Wisconsin State Journal Link Feuerherd seems to feel that Doug Melvin should leave the Brewers because Mark A undermined his authority by firing Ned Yost. Is Mark A going to become one of those meddling Steinbrenner-like owners who is going to make baseball related decisions for his team? Don't get me wrong, he has every right to do that if he wants but is that the direction we want to go in?

 

I feel he should of left the decision to fire Yost completely up to Melvin. If he didn't like DM's decision to stick with Yost until the off season then he should have fired Melvin. But not Yost. If a chain of command is going to work it has to work both ways. Say the new manager doesn't like a move Melvin makes. What's to stop him from going over his head to Mark A. if he knows Mark A was unhappy with the way Melvin handled the Yost situation? Now Melvin looks like an idiot in the eyes of baseball people because Yost was fired while his team was in a pennant race. Now I come on this board and see a thread about Attanasio pursuing Miolitor for a job in the organization. Whether you liked Ned or not the decision to fire him is looking more and more like a bad omen for the future of this franchise if Mark A is gonna start calling the shots on the baseball side as well as the business side.

 

This is a major concern if he is starting to think he knows more about running a baseball team than Melvin does. It's beginning to smell a little Jerry Jones like to me. It's not unlike the situation which developed between Jones and Jimmy Johnson in the 90s. The team had a little success, Jones' ego went through the roof, he began to feel he was the major reason behind the teams success and Johnson was gone. The Cowboys were done winning a few years later.Maybe I'm overeacting here but this is making me very nervous. While I still appreciate all Mark A. has done for the team and the city his recent moves are not very encouraging, IMO. I believe strongly that good baseball decisions are made by baseball people not owners.

 

[kramnoj]

Is there an owner that has won more than the 6 World Series that the Yankees have under Steinbrenner? I would love it if Attanasio became meddlesome and produced that kind of success. Jerry Jones isn't really a good example either, since the Cowboys became successful again under him. An active owner has to walk a line where he is involved, but still respects the authority of the people who he puts in place. Jones obviously built a good team but let his ego get in his way. Attanasion needs to stop short of that line, and that doesn't seem like a problem to me.

 

As far as the Molitor thing goes, its just a rumor, and we don't know what position Attanasio wants Molitor to have. Its surely jumping the gun to imagine motives when we don't have anything close to a full story.

[TooLiveBrew]

Is there an owner that has won more than the 6 World Series that the Yankees have under Steinbrenner? I would love it if Attanasio became meddlesome and produced that kind of success.

 

That's market size & payroll sustainability, not Steinbrenner's baseball genius. Thanks to Big Stein the Yankees signed Gary Sheffield when Cashman had a deal in place with Vlad Guerrero (just one of many examples one could point to).

[kramnoj]

Is there an owner that has won more than the 6 World Series that the Yankees have under Steinbrenner? I would love it if Attanasio became meddlesome and produced that kind of success.

 

That's market size & payroll sustainability, not Steinbrenner's baseball genius. Thanks to Big Stein the Yankees signed Gary Sheffield when Cashman had a deal in place with Vlad Guerrero (just one of many examples one could point to).

That's not entirely true. The Yankees didn't always lead the league in payroll. The Yankees always leading the league in payroll came after the Yankees failed to win World Series. One example isn't really a discussion point. All people make bad decisions.

[dvoiss]

That's not entirely true. The Yankees didn't always lead the league in payroll. The Yankees always leading the league in payroll came after the Yankees failed to win World Series. One example isn't really a discussion point. All people make bad decisions.

 

My original point wasn't whether or not Steinbreneer was good for the Yankees it was about baseball people being alllowed to make baseball decisions. If Mark A feels he should make these decisions then let's just do away with the GM position like Jones did in Dallas (actually hias son is now the GM). Again maybe I'm overeacting (I sure hope I am) but I don't like the way this smells.

[kramnoj]

If Mark A feels he should make these decisions then let's just do away with the GM position like Jones did in Dallas (actually hias son is now the GM). Again maybe I'm overeacting (I sure hope I am) but I don't like the way this smells.

 

I don't think there's any reason to think that Attanasio wants to be the GM of the Brewers. He presumably knows that there are details of being a GM that he isn't skilled in and wants someone with Melvin's experience to handle. But if he feels that a decision needs to be made and that Melvin won't make it because it's not the way things are done in baseball, Mark isn't going to let tradition stand in the way of making a decision he feels is right.

 

It certainly sounds like Attanasio is very involved. I don't think it's common for most owners to have the level and frequency of discussion that it sounds like Attanasio and Melvin have.

[JohnBriggs12]

If you (and my old classmate Vic F) were paying attention it was pretty clear Attanasio has been meddling to a degree since at least the end of the 06 season. Suppan just happens to live in LA. Think it's an accident that he ended up signing after dinner at MA's house? That had Attanasio's fingerprints all over it. He was telling everyone that listened how they were left short due to injuries to Sheets and Ohka in 06. I think giving Counsell a multiyear deal was also influenced by the owner. He was shocked by the lack of depth that was "exposed" when the had to bring up Chris Barnwell for a brief time that year.

 

I think this past offseason, Attanasio told Melvin to load up on veterans in the bullpen in reaction to last year's pen collapse.

 

Melvin is too savvy and has been around too long to overreact based on a string of injuries or performance in one area in one particular season. But the last 2 offseasons it seems that priorities are being set by someone focusing more on recent history than building based on sound principles.

 

Melvin is no dummy. He knows who signs his paycheck.

[Baldkin]

Two words as to why a meddlesome owner isn't a good thing: Al Davis.

 

That is all.

[MNBrew]

I'll read Vic F's article but I want to state my first reactions:

 

- Melvin is an excellent GM and Attanasio is a passionate owner who has stated repeatedly that he knows the importance of leaving the baseball decisions to the baseball people he's hired.

- Attanasio knew this could be a 1-year window and knew the investment he'd already made (esp. CC, also Durham) but also saw that the 4th Yost September death spiral in 5 years wasn't coming close to ending.

- Melvin was a Yost supporter but Melvin's steadfast support might have cost him his own job if he didn't pull the trigger. Sounds like Mark A. felt the firing needed to be done and Melvin couldn't totally disagree.

 

Is Attanasio an owner with an actual personality who's not content to watch a massive investment die on the vine? Absolutely. Does that make him a Steinbrenner? Not in the least. As Brewers fans we're SO used to owners that don't let change happen and/or who don't open the purse strings. Those things raise the stakes, and with greater risk can come a higher cost for failure. Mark A. was simply trying to avert the total failure we'd all come to expect.

 

If it were Yost's first September slump, that'd be one thing. The fact that it was Yost's 4th big-time late-season swoon in 5 years is a clear pattern and seems to reflect an upper limit on his leadership and managerial abilities. I get antsy when owners start stepping in. Yost was clearly going down with the ship he was in charge of. But I also don't blame Mark A. for pulling the plug on Yost to give the ship a better chance of not sinking in the first place.

 

The fact that Mark A. has raised the bar of expectations and changed part of the old standard Brewers MO might actually prove to be a sign of better things to come. That said, there's a fine balance that needs to be kept, too, so the owner doesn't alienate those in whose decisions he needs to have faith.

[WisconsinSportsRule]

I'm happy to have an owner who has invested so much into this franchise to where it is now (playoff team), so I don't care what Mark does. For now, there's not to complain about. I appreciate what Mark has done and like the fact that he is involved. If things start getting bad with ownership, management then come talk to me.

[logan82]

I like the fact that Mark wants to be involved, but if it leads to more moves like the Suppan signing and the Yost firing I would rather he sell the team. I don't like moves that feel like a fan was involved with the decision and both of those moves feel that way to me. I thought the Suppan deal was bad from the start and the firing of Yost was very unprofessional.

[Beast Light]

I thought the Suppan deal was bad from the start and the firing of Yost was very unprofessional.

No offense but professional or not, Yost needed to go. The Brewers, who had not made the playoffs for 26 years and who invested heavily in the 2008 season had a decision to make.

 

1) Fire Yost near the end of the season and have a shot at the playoffs

2) Miss the playoffs and fire Yost once the season was over

 

I have to say, Mark A stepping in and making sure what needed to be done was done scored a lot of points in my book. To me, he seems like a no [expletive deleted] kind of guy and I like that. I am thrilled that he is the owner of the Milwaukee Brewers.

 

 

(edit: language --1992)

[Ennder]

Attanasio is a smart guy so even if this is true and he led to a few bad choices I think in the long run it will be fine. Steinbrenner is an idiot with a lot of money so it is a very different situation.

[sweepscc]

I like the fact that Mark wants to be involved, but if it leads to more moves like the Suppan signing and the Yost firing I would rather he sell the team. I don't like moves that feel like a fan was involved with the decision and both of those moves feel that way to me. I thought the Suppan deal was bad from the start and the firing of Yost was very unprofessional.

I pretty much agree with logan (except for the sell the team part). I'm not mad at Attanasio or anything I just think as others have said he's walking a fine line. Attanasio seems like a wanna be baseball jock who's living out his fantasy by getting involved in big league baseball decisions. He should learn a few things over the next couple years from Melvin and then start calling more shots if he's still inclined. He's definitely no idiot.

[logan82]

Beast Light wrote:

I have to say, Mark A stepping in and making sure what needed to be done was done scored a lot of points in my book.

That's about all the move was really good for in my opinion, PR. I won't argue whether Yost needed to go. I really couldn't care less who the manager is. Both moves gained PR, but were probaly better off not being made. As long as Mark A. doesn't keep stepping in to do things like the firing of Yost or having his GM sign guys to deals like the Suppan contract, I think he will make a good owner.

[edod]

I don't like moves that feel like a fan was involved with the decision and both of those moves feel that way to me.

This really hits the nail on the head for me. I couldn't find the words to describe it, but these moves(and maybe one or two others) seemed more about the politics between franchise and fan base than winning baseball savvy. It makes me continue to wonder if Mark A. isn't just as savvy a business man who researches his product through all avenues (cough*brewerfan*cough). I think I like that, assuming he has made provisions for the results of such moves. The Suppan signing was really the one that defeated the prevailing attitude that the Brewers were cheapskates--it seemed to work and hopefully they never have to make another splashy-for-the-sake-of-splashy signing again. And Yost was really becoming a divisive element between the franchise and fan opinion. If he got them into the playoffs they'd be forced to give him another year if not more, while the prevailing attitude seemed to be the team was winning in spite of him. If you look at these moves as politicing with the fan base, you also have to acknowledge that the ownership is conceding the importance of the customer, for better or worse. In my opinion, it's good, for now. As anyone who has ever worked retail knows, a lot customers like to leave their brain in the car.

[TooLiveBrew]

One example isn't really a discussion point. All people make bad decisions.

 

But the blank check ability to make a bad decision lowers the risk involved. I'm sure there are about as many good signings as bad, but when you're playing with revenue that is all but guaranteed to come back to you & then some, Pavano-type deals don't stop your ability to continue to sign high-priced players. I wish the Brewers could work that way. I don't disagree that Steinbrenner has had some positive impact there, but I think assigning championships to an owner is assigning false praise. Like wins for a QB or P imo.

[kramnoj]

I don't disagree that Steinbrenner has had some positive impact there, but I think assigning championships to an owner is assigning false praise. Like wins for a QB or P imo.

 

This can go overboard. You shouldn't blame pitchers for not winning games if they have bad luck, but over a career, it is difficult for a pitcher to accumulate a lot more Wins than they deserve.

 

You said that market size was responsible for the Yankees success, not Steinbrenner. If that was true, the Mets would have won more, the LA teams would have won more, the Chicago teams would have won more. I don't think the 5 teams in those markets combined equal the WS that the Yankees have won under Steinbrenner since he bought the Yankees. I don't know what percentage of credit Steinbrenner should get for the success under him, but someone should actually provide some level of detail to prove that he didn't have anything to do with it, if that is their claim.

 

There are plenty of things that Steinbrenner did that Attanasio shouldn't emulate. I wouldn't want a repeat of the way Steinbrenner treated Winfield, I wouldn't want Mark to threaten to cancel his employee's dental coverage because of rising costs (he may have actually done it, I don't remember). I don't want a repeat of the way that the Yankees fired managers. But I think that Steinbrenner had an incredible drive to make his team successful, and he found people that he put in place that led to his team winning more than any other team.

 

The Yankees current payroll advantage is obscene, but it wasn't always to the same degree. In the 90's the Yankees were always near the top, but they didn't always hold the top position, the Orioles were usually somewhat comparable in payroll to the Yankees and had a higher payroll in 98. And of course the Yankees recent obscene payroll advantage hasn't led them to the postseason success they wanted.

[fondybrewfan]

So why exactly are we assuming that Mark made the Suppan, Yost, Gagne signings? What did Melvin do in Texas to make everyone believe he isn't capable of making a bad decision on his own? Its not like he was winning championships and robbing teams left and right. I think the comparison between Steinbrenner and Attanasio is completely invalid except for the fact that they are willing to spend money. Who cares if Attanasio had dinner with Suppan right before he signed. If Doug really wanted him, it would have been stupid for Mark not to invite the guy over, Just like if Mark was looking at hiring a new executive VP at his other company. To me Mark isn't being any different from any other primary owner in any sport. The number of owners who are completely seperated from the sport side of things is extremely minimal. IMO Mark is just trying to field a competitive team and is willing to take chances to see that happen.

[bork]

Two words as to why a meddlesome owner isn't a good thing: Al Davis.

 

That is all.

Two more words. Herb Kohl.

[Invader3K]

Two words as to why a meddlesome owner isn't a good thing: Al Davis.

 

That is all.

Two more words. Herb Kohl.

Well, fortunately I think it's safe to say that Attanasio is like neither of them at this point.

[bucksman4]

My opinion is that I like an owner who actually holds his GM and manager accountable. MA did everything he could financially to bolster this club and didn't pinch pennnies at all -- that alone gives him the right to have high expectations for his team to perform well. Now, if he becomes Steinbrenner I'll take the championships and year-to-year division titles that NY came to expect under his regime any day of the week.

 

The bottom line is, the Selig's seemed to not care about winning. Oh, the Brewers lose 90 games again...woops -- we'll try to lose only 85 next year. That was the mentality. Sign "fluke season" players like Jeffrey Hammonds, Marquis Grissom, Ben McDonald, Eric Young, etc. as glimmers of hope to keep fans semi-interested and eventually extremely disappointed in their play.

 

Attanasio, say what you will, wants to win. I believe he lives and dies by every pitch like we fans do and the day he stops doing that is the day I will be amongst those concerned.

[brewmann04]

I don't believe he like George at all not even close.

I know mark wants to win and not afraid to spend his money to do so.

[TheCrew07]

Why do people keep posting that MA, or any owner are spending money out of their own pocket when that's not the case?

 

I realize that used to happen, I remember the Twins ownership complaining about it when I was living in the cities, but I highly doubt that's the case. The whole notion of "deep pockets" is misplaced, it's the market that generates the revenue, not the owner.

[TooLiveBrew]

You said that market size was responsible for the Yankees success, not Steinbrenner. If that was true, the Mets would have won more, the LA teams would have won more, the Chicago teams would have won more. I don't think the 5 teams in those markets combined equal the WS that the Yankees have won under Steinbrenner since he bought the Yankees.

Between the NY Giants, Brooklyn Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, White Sox & Cubs, there have been plenty of championships to go around. And the large financial advantages played a significant role. Prior to FA the big market teams could afford to sign the best young players & stock their farm systems. The less-wealthy clubs just couldn't afford the quality depth that the deep pockets could. The large markets always have & always will have a competitive advantage.

[by my count...] Of the 103 World Series that have been played since 1903, a team from New York, Boston, Los Angeles, or Chicago has won 47 times (Yankees alone account for 26). Only 26 of those 103 World Series have been played without at least one team from those 4 markets, and a huge chunk of those 26 have come after expansion. When the talent pool was smaller, it was almost unheard of for at least one of those 4 cities to not have a team in the World Series, and often, both participating teams were from that quartet of cities.


I don't know what percentage of credit Steinbrenner should get for the success under him, but someone should actually provide some level of detail to prove that he didn't have anything to do with it, if that is their claim.

I don't believe he's had absolutely nothing to do with it, just that market size plays a larger role. He's done some good things & some bad things (like I already mentioned). I just think it's inaccurate to view him as the primary reason that the WS titles were won.

The Yankees current payroll advantage is obscene, but it wasn't always to the same degree. In the 90's the Yankees were always near the top, but they didn't always hold the top position, the Orioles were usually somewhat comparable in payroll to the Yankees and had a higher payroll in 98. And of course the Yankees recent obscene payroll advantage hasn't led them to the postseason success they wanted.

And in the 90s, the franchise's most successful stretch with Steinbrenner as owner (at least in terms of championships), Big Stein was actually relatively hands-off. He'd been kicked out of baseball, and in the time he was away, then-GM Gene Michael (hired in 1990) took the approach of building the team through the farm, as opposed to the FA spending binges for which Steinbrenner is notorious.

Stein eventually removed Michael from the GM post over a disagreement on OF Bernie Williams's future with the club -- Stein wanted him traded away, & Michael knew Williams could play... so Michael misled Steinbrenner (iirc) about a low interest level on Williams amongst other teams. Once Michael was out as GM, the FA spending resumed. The reason the payroll was low in the early/mid-90s was that Michael's skill in identifying young talent stocked the team with its stars (Jeter, Pettite, Posada, Rivera, etc.). The FA signings of that era were able to be kept at a more reasonable volume.

Interestingly enough, the tide has cycled back to being more similar to the Michaels GM tenure. Brian Cashman was finally allowed to be his own man at GM, and his strategy includes a farm system turning out young talent moreso than trading young talent away to get 'established' veteran players (just like the Yankees had done under Steinbrenner's meddlesome direction in the '80s). Prior to relatively recently, Cashman was not allowed this strategic approach, so I wouldn't be totally shocked if the Yankees' payroll gradually returns to 'atop the league'/'near the top of the league', as opposed to 'astronomically higher than almost any other team'.