Is Mark A another Steinbrenner?

[kramnoj]

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.

 

Who here has said that Steinbrenner was the primary reason that WS titles were won? This is the definition of a strawman. You said that the Yankees success had more to do with market size. If that was the case, other big market teams should have won more often than they did in the time of Free Agency.

 

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.

 

Yes, this all occurred when Steinbrenner was owner. Steinbrenner changed. Whether it was by choice, because he had to, reluctantly, it doesn't matter. The Yankees had the best run in decades under the ownership of Steinbrenner.

[Fatter than Joey]

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).

 

I am going to call you out on this statement --

 

1.) I picked a random year 1917 --- 7 of 16 were from NY, CHI or BOS -- so it would be likely one of those teams would be in the playoffs.

2.) Philly was 2.5x larger than Boston, -- and Detroit, Cleveland and St. Louis were bigger than Boston as well. Washington and Cincy were the only 2 cities not in the top ten for population to have MLB teams. I don't think there was anything as a "small market" team back then, thus no large market teams.

3.) I don't think you have any way of showing that the "market" of those teams gave any one a significant advantage.

 

Free Agency really didn't hit the scene until 1976 or so.

[BREWCREW5]

If we can win half the championships Steinbrenner has in the last 15 years, I could care less how much Mark A "controls".

[sweepscc]

If Mark A. gives us a 3:2 payroll advantage yes he can call all the shots as far as I'm concerned. Since that will never be the case it's pointless comparing the two. When you look at Melvin and Attanasio's baseball resumes who would you rather have calling the shots? It's just common sense.

[snyttri]

1.) I picked a random year 1917 --- 7 of 16 were from NY, CHI or BOS -- so it would be likely one of those teams would be in the playoffs.
2.) Philly was 2.5x larger than Boston, -- and Detroit, Cleveland and St. Louis were bigger than Boston as well. Washington and Cincy were the only 2 cities not in the top ten for population to have MLB teams. I don't think there was anything as a "small market" team back then, thus no large market teams.
3.) I don't think you have any way of showing that the "market" of those teams gave any one a significant advantage.

Free Agency really didn't hit the scene until 1976 or so.

As has been noted before, metropolitan area should be used when comparing the size of markets, not the number of people within an arbitrary city limit. Some teams have always had the advantage of having more money available. New York has always been a relatively large market. St. Louis once had the advantage it no longer has of no teams to the South or West of it and consequently a vast fan base. It may be no coincidence that the Cardinals are second in championships. Teams have always had an opportunity to use their money advantage. Some teams, like the Cardinals, have had more farm teams than others. There was no amateur draft before 1965 and bonus money talked. Babe Ruth and others were bought from other teams.

[Fatter than Joey]

St. Louis once had the advantage it no longer has of no teams to the South or West of it and consequently a vast fan base.

 

This is my point -- almost all of the teams were large markets. There was 16 teams, spread over about 10 cities. I would love for you to show what teams had a market advantage and how they used it. If you could show me where the Yankees spent more money than other teams, I'd give the idea merit -- and of course you realize that the Yankees bought Ruth from Boston one of the 4 "large market" teams as defined by TLB.

[snyttri]

This is my point -- almost all of the teams were large markets. There was 16 teams, spread over about 10 cities. I would love for you to show what teams had a market advantage and how they used it. If you could show me where the Yankees spent more money than other teams, I'd give the idea merit -- and of course you realize that the Yankees bought Ruth from Boston one of the 4 "large market" teams as defined by TLB.

 

I'm afraid the burden is on you to demonstrate the unusual idea that that MLB history is charcterized by roughly equal spending. The Cardinals market advantage in the South and West was unique and as was stated, they used it to pay for extra minor league teams. Some teams teams have always had a money advantage and have always had many ways to use it (including scouting, signing bonuses and buying ML players). As is well known the Boston owner sold off his championship team because he needed money for reasons of his own, not because of market size (The Red Sox lead the league in attendance 2 of the 3 years before they sold Ruth). The Yankees acquired much of Boston's championship team.

 

It's ironic that in the same sentence you could mention the purchase of Babe Ruth that cost $100,000 and also ask for proof of how the Yankees used their money advantage. Yankees star pitchers of the 20's Herb Pennock and Carl Mays cost the Yankees $50,000 and $40,000, respectively. IFs Tony Lazzieri and Joe Dugan cost $50,000 each. OF Earl Combs cost $50,000.

 

Since the Yankees took over from the Giants as NewYork's most popular team in th 20's they regularly enjoyed a big attendance advantage over the "other large markets" like Cleveland and Cincinnati. http://www.baseball-refer...om/teams/NYY/attend.shtml

 

Baseball owners are secretive about their finances and Forbes has not been doing its unofficial analysis for long. The Yankees did pay Ruth a $70,000 salary that was out of line with what anyone else was making.

[whizkid]

St. Louis having a big market south and west may have brought in a little extra radio money but people didn't travel nearly as far to get to games in those days. Didn't do much for attendance. The Yankees especially could afford to have more scouts combing the countryside for guys like Mantle and then offer them bigger bonuses.

The only time of a relatively level playing field was from the start of the amateur draft in 1965 to free agency and the Yanks won nothing during that time.

[snyttri]

Yes, I was wrong about Cardinals radio being a boon. Attendance remained average despite excellent Cardinals teams. Their success has been attributed instead to Branch Rickey pioneering the modern minor league system with the Cardinals.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/cards.shtml

[hauser42]

Mark A has come in to move some things along as an owner but for the most part he has let Melvin do his job and let him be.

 

Mark A opening the door to move Yost out was a great move. He needed to be moved since the team was proving once again that Yost was good for having a bad last month of the season. You add in the games that his poor management cost the team this year and they might have had a chance at the division come the last week.

[deeswan]

Well, I'll take Mark A. any day given the alternatives. We could still be saddled with Selig. Or we could be saddled with Dan Gilbert (is that correct? anyway, the guy who bought the Cavaliers) who seems more meddlesome to me and hasn't exactly made stellar decisions with that team. Besides, I think any new owner who comes in is going to be 'more meddlesome' than owners of the past. They are paying significantly larger sums of money now than even 10 years ago and Steinbrenner, for all people make fun of him, is the model of success over the last 20 years. Mark A. is the guy risking his money and the Brewers are much better off than they were 5 years ago. What's to argue with? Y'know, Vic Feuerherd can say all he wants, but in the end it's Attanasio's team and he can do what he wants with it.

[logan82]

deeswan wrote:

in the end it's Attanasio's team and he can do what he wants with it.

No one is debating that. The question is whether Attanasio should.

[brewmann04]

Mark should to a certain degree but he seems to let Doug handle most of the moves.

[Invader3K]

I guess I still am not seeing where all of this supposed "meddling" is coming from. It just seems like a lot of rumor and innuendo. If Attanasio was really hampering Melvin's decisions that much, I'm guessing they wouldn't be talking about a contract extension right now. At any rate, I still feel that the signing of Suppan and firing of Yost were the right moves at the times they happened, regardless of how much ownership was involved. We can certainly look back and criticize, hindsight being 20/20 and all.

[dvoiss]

At any rate, I still feel that the signing of Suppan and firing of Yost were the right moves at the times they happened, regardless of how much ownership was involved. We can certainly look back and criticize, hindsight being 20/20 and all.

This thread is not about the wisdom of the decisions he has made it's about the wisdom of his making these types of decisions at all. Good baseball decisions are almost always made by baseball people, not owners.

[Invader3K]

Again, you're assuming the decisions were made by the owner. There is no concrete evidence to support that.

[piccione88]

I dont think there is any way we can say with certainty that Mark A, made the Suppan signing, or said to go get some of the bullpen arms we picked up, or any of the other poor decisions. I am sure Mark A had some say in it, but to say that the bad signings are on Mark A is really unfair in my opinion.