George Steinbrenner Dead at 80

[Fatter than Joey]

Wow FTJ, really?. I suggest one reads up on Wellington Mara's handling of his business dealings versus Steinbrenner as an example of how one New York owner lifted up his sport while another tore it asunder for his own gains.

 

As I said, I don't claim that GS was my favorite owner, for example I think that what he did to Dave Winfield for example was despicable. However, he was banned, he served his punishment and changed his approach.

 

People often claim that he "bought all of his championships" -- and if you look in particular at the teams from the 70s, there were many many great and shrewd trades. He was committed to winning, I have a hard time finding fault in that -- his methods perhaps. I really think it is unfair and inaccurate to claim that he "tore baseball apart" -- I would suggest he helped take it to the next level.

 

He died though. That is sad. I don't think expressing contempt for a sports-figure on the day he passes is appropriate. This isn't like a division rival retiring, this is an actual man dying. I am guessing what he did as a human being far surpasses what he did as a sports figure.

[Fatter than Joey]

Milwaukee would be a different team if we could just write a check to keep Fielder and Hart and CC despite the costs.

 

And this is a fair point -- However, there are plenty of owners that could sign FA's but choose not to. Steinbrenner wasn't the richest man in the world.

[adamb100]

As much as I'm not a fan of the Yankees and their spending you gotta give credit to Steinbrenner for not pocketing all that money and refusing to spend like other teams have done (Pirates). He wanted to win and was willing to spend to do so. In a way I wish more owners were like him.

[BuckyBrewer61]

I certainly understand why people loved to hate Steinbrenner, given that he ran the most hated franchise in American sports in a classic haves vs. have-nots fashion and certainly had a bigger personality/role in day-to-day operations than many fans appreciate from an owner. That said, I never understood why there was so much vitriol aimed at him. Granted, I did not grow up in the 70's/80's, and did not get to experience the Billy Martin/Dave Winfield days firsthand. But for those of my generation who, to this day, seem to hate him and his sons for "buying championships" and running a supposed monopoly on major league baseball...can you really blame him? He didn't break any rules (at least in terms of spending money). He played within the economic guidelines, or lack thereof, of the MLB and won division titles, pennants, and World Series as a result. If the Brewers had that kind of money, that's exactly the kind of owner I'd want us to have.

[logan82]

As much as I'm not a fan of the Yankees and their spending you gotta give credit to Steinbrenner for not pocketing all that money and refusing to spend like other teams have done (Pirates). He wanted to win and was willing to spend to do so. In a way I wish more owners were like him.

The Pirates are just spending their money on things other than their MLB team. It really doesn't pay to throw money at free agents when you are in their position, really crappy team with no chance at the playoffs. They spent more money on the first 10 rounds of the draft in 2009 than all but five teams and none of those teams were the Yankees. Let's not make Steinbrenner out to be a good guy because he spends more money. His money coming in from the team is far and away way more than any other team. Sure he spent the most but he still pocketed way more money than any other owner.

[Oldcity]

Got this from someone on twitter: I wonder if Steinbrenner is already asking Jesus to shave and get a haircut.

[Thurston Fluff]

Invader, if you are saying George was evil in a "baseball" sense only, I can agree with you. Everything else, I do not know about, whether he was a good person or not, only those around him know.

 

Dave Winfeild might disagree with you. Dude tried to destroy another man through lies about his character so, no, he wasn't a good man. Perhaps he changed but I don't think being just good enough not to be banned from baseball can be considered good.

 

I really think it is unfair and inaccurate to claim that he "tore baseball apart"

 

In the 90's he was instrumental in keeping out any salary restraint mechanisms. The ownership was fractured and he was the leader of the group of "haves" in baseball that worked very hard to make sure the system remained in the have's favor. That was not good for baseball. He was against any sort of revenue sharing and fought tooth and nail to limit revenue sharing any way he could. That was not good for baseball. He fought to keep out a luxury tax. That was not good for baseball.

 

 

The team that dominated in the 90s was largely home-grown as well.... And again, Steinbrenner certainly opened his checkbook, but he also paved the way for his spending by creating cable deals that eventually benefited a lot of teams.

 

They could be kept while other teams couldn't do so because of hw much he paid the ones he did keep. The Yankees did a lot to inflate the FA market. The Yankees also had the added bonus of being able to buy foreign players who were not eligible for the draft. He bought young, unproven, players like Mariano Rivera whom only teams like the Yankees could afford to take a chance on at such a young and unproven time in their careers. So the whole homegrown thing, while true, was also misleading.

 

As far as one example of his charitable donations is concerned, he died at a hospital with a Steinbrenner Emergency/Trauma Center for Children.

 

Al Capone was a very generous man who donated a lot of money to soup kitchens in the great depression. Far more than many honest people did. Still didn't make him a great man. Not belittling the benefits of his contributions but he inherited a fortune and gave a small % of that back to the community. To his credit he didn't have to give any of it back.

 

He died though. That is sad. I don't think expressing contempt for a sports-figure on the day he passes is appropriate. This isn't like a division rival retiring, this is an actual man dying. I am guessing what he did as a human being far surpasses what he did as a sports figure.

 

Absolutely agree. While I am no fan of his he was a human being. That said he was elderly and the elderly die. His life wasn't a sad one so I tend to look back on the life not mourn the loss. While that may sound heartless I did not know him and there are plenty of other people who had less fulfilling lives who died anonymously yesterday. I wish all their families well, hope they move on and are happy again soon.

[kramnoj]

Sure he spent the most but he still pocketed way more money than any other owner.

 

Can you back this up? Can you show that he took more money than Loria? Even if this was somehow true, any money he took was because he built up the value of the franchise, as opposed to being a welfare owner like Loria.

[GAME05]

In the 90's he was instrumental in keeping out any salary restraint mechanisms. The ownership was fractured and he was the leader of the group of "haves" in baseball that worked very hard to make sure the system remained in the have's favor. That was not good for baseball....

the "not good for baseball" points are debatable. only if you replaced "baseball" with "the Brewers" would you be so absolutely right. i'd be curious about the ratings and general interest in a KC/Milwaukee World Series.

 

Steinbrenner also was never responsible for the betterment of baseball as a whole--that's Selig's job. Steinbrenner's responsibility is to make the Yankees better, and he absolutely did--namely through the policies you mentioned. so of course he opposed those things. what person in his situation wouldn't?

[SquirrelMaster]

Gotta love the onion...

[logan82]

Sure he spent the most but he still pocketed way more money than any other owner.

 

Can you back this up? Can you show that he took more money than Loria? Even if this was somehow true, any money he took was because he built up the value of the franchise, as opposed to being a welfare owner like Loria.

Just do a little math and look at average ticket prices and attendance compared to payroll. That doesn't even take into account TV and cable revenue which we all know is almost impossible to pin down. Also doesn't include playoff revenue.

[GAME05]

even still, so what? he made a ton of money and he spent a ton of money. there's also a lot of teams like Milwaukee that can thank him for the luxury tax revenue. should he have increased his payroll to $300 million?

[kramnoj]

Just do a little math and look at average ticket prices and attendance compared to payroll.

 

So, in other words, no, you can't back it up. It's an assertion based on assumptions and void of facts.

[Fatter than Joey]

Let's not make Steinbrenner out to be a good guy because he spends more money.

 

This isn't the point being made... The point was, there were a lot of owners that were capable of spending more but flat out didn't, and not for frugal management reasons.

 

That was not good for baseball. He was against any sort of revenue sharing and fought tooth and nail to limit revenue sharing any way he could

 

The large part of his objection was that there was no mechanism in place to ensure that teams would actually be forced to spend money on player salary rather than just owners pocketing money.

 

Al Capone was a very generous man who donated a lot of money to soup kitchens in the great depression. Far more than many honest people did. Still didn't make him a great man

 

I don't think anyone here is saying he didn't have serious character flaws. That said, he didn't murder a bunch of people like Al Capone. Seems like a big stretch here.

 

His life wasn't a sad one so I tend to look back on the life not mourn the loss. While that may sound heartless I did not know him and there are plenty of other people who had less fulfilling lives who died anonymously yesterday

 

Fair enough -- I just think his death is sad -- no more or less than others perhaps, but yet sad.

 

Dave Winfield might disagree with you. Dude tried to destroy another man through lies about his character so, no, he wasn't a good man.

 

I just listened to Dave Winfield give an interview -- he certainly dd not exalt GS in the least -- but he said he was "sorrowful" -- and that GS and he had mended their differences. Sounded to me that GS messed up, was punished, remorseful, and made amends, that doesn't make him good or bad -- probably exactly human.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

FTJ defends Steinbrenner but takes every possible shot he can at Ned Yost. Interesting.

 

 

RIP Steinbrenner. Thoughts and prayers with his family.

[logan82]

Just do a little math and look at average ticket prices and attendance compared to payroll.

 

So, in other words, no, you can't back it up. It's an assertion based on assumptions and void of facts.

Well I have this, this and this to go off of.

 

 

This isn't the point being made... The point was, there were a lot of

owners that were capable of spending more but flat out didn't, and not

for frugal management reasons.

Like I said though, the Pirates just didn't spend their money on the MLB club. Just because money isn't being spent at the MLB level doesn't mean they are pocketing the money.

[pitchleague]

I also remember discovering the Big Red Machine in hopes that the Yankees wouldn't win the WS -- The 1977 WS when Chambliss hit his walk-off to beat the Royals, and Jackson's 3 HRs against the Dodgers are again some the most memorable events regarding baseball in my childhood.

For the record, while Jackson's heroics was, indeed, in the '77 Fall Classic, Chambliss hit his blast to end the 1976 ALCS against the Royals.

 

the "not good for baseball" points are debatable. only if you replaced

"baseball" with "the Brewers" would you be so absolutely right. i'd be

curious about the ratings and general interest in a KC/Milwaukee World

Series.

If ratings and general interest for a KC/Milwaukee World Series is a concern of folks, what's the point of having those teams? We might as well contract half the teams in the MLB since nobody cares to watch them outside their own market.

 

 

 

 

 

As for myself, I didn't care too much for the guy. If he gave money to charity and children's hospitals and such, that's great. If he did it just to put his name on the side of the building, then that's just conceited. I, too, grew up during the Yankee hey-day years of the Reggie years and it was kind of like today--you just get sick of the Yankees. But every league needs it's villains (Dallas Cowboys, LeBron, Detroit Red Wings?) To me, it makes it that much sweeter when they lose.

 

RIP George.

[Funketown]

Just do a little math and look at average ticket prices and attendance compared to payroll.

 

So, in other words, no, you can't back it up. It's an assertion based on assumptions and void of facts.

http://www.rodneyfort.com...se/MLBIncomeExpense.html

 

Here's Rodney Fort's page that lists franchise expenditures and revenue. You'll find that the Yankees consistently ran operating incomes between $15-20MM (I believe in nominal terms, although I am not sure) between 1980 and 2005. They've posted significant losses in recent years, but over the course of his ownership he made an absolute killing. Not to mention when he bought the franchise it was worth something like $8MM and now it is worth somewhere around a billion.

[kramnoj]

The link in the 43 doesn't prove anything close to Steinbrenner pocketing more money than any other owner. First off, it doesn't even show that the Yankees make more money every year. Secondly, Steinbrenner doesn't equal the Yankees.

 

The NBC link in 41 doesn't show anything about pocketing money. Revenue doesn't equal profit. Player payroll may not be even half of Yankee expenditures if one looks at revenue sharing, luxury tax and the actual expense of running the business of the Yankees.

 

The Bloomberg report didn't cover expenditures either. The CNBC report actually undermines the assertion as it includes "It’s unknown exactly how much the team profited due a variety of line items, which are not public, including how much they were required to pay in revenue sharing".

[Thurston Fluff]

the "not good for baseball" points are debatable. only if you replaced "baseball" with "the Brewers" would you be so absolutely right. i'd be curious about the ratings and general interest in a KC/Milwaukee World Series.

 

Steinbrenner also was never responsible for the betterment of baseball as a whole--that's Selig's job. Steinbrenner's responsibility is to make the Yankees better, and he absolutely did--namely through the policies you mentioned. so of course he opposed those things. what person in his situation wouldn't?

 

To me every owner is responsible for the betterment of baseball as a whole. Anything that helps the game grow is good for every team. That includes the Yankees. While the game did grow it also lost ground to other sports in the same period of time. That could have been avoided had some owners like Steinbrenner not been short sighted as to what a level playing field would mean for the game as a whole and, by extension, the Yankees in particular. Yes a KC/ Milwaukee WS would be every bit as exciting as a Yankees/ Dodgers one. Just like a Green Bay/Pittsburgh Super bowl would be as exciting as a Giants/Patriots one.

 

FTJ defends Steinbrenner but takes every possible shot he can at Ned Yost. Interesting.

 

Wile he and I vehemently disagree on Yost I don't think it is wrong of him to like one and not the other.

 

 

The large part of his objection was that there was no mechanism in place to ensure that teams would actually be forced to spend money on player salary rather than just owners pocketing money.

 

That was his stated objection yet he was no more interested in revenue sharing when they had a plan in place to make sure said shared revenue had to be invested in the clubs receiving the revenue. Really he was simply trying to keep the system that was rigged in his favor to remain rigged in his favor. Wile I understand why he would want such it was short sighted IMHO. I would much rather have a smaller share of a large pie than a larger share of a small one. That, to me anyway, was a mistake on his part.

[Funketown]

The link in the 43 doesn't prove anything close to Steinbrenner pocketing more money than any other owner. First off, it doesn't even show that the Yankees make more money every year. Secondly, Steinbrenner doesn't equal the Yankees.

It shows that the Yankees are an extremely profitable franchise, probably the most profitable over Steinbrenner's tenure. No, they don't make more money every year, but they certainly have over 25 years.

 

And no, Steinbrenner doesn't equal the Yankees, but he does own them, and receive their profits...

[Invader3K]

Slightly off topic, but it seems like CC Sabathia has been infected by some sort of Yankee-itis:

 

 

http://castrovince.mlblogs.com/archives/2010/07/the_truth_we_fear_to_reveal.html

[Fatter than Joey]

Chambliss hit his blast to end the 1976 ALCS against the Royals.

 

Yep. My bad -- thanks for catching that.

 

FTJ defends Steinbrenner but takes every possible shot he can at Ned Yost. Interesting.

 

I am not sure why you find this interesting, perhaps you haven't been reading closely. I thought Ned Yost was a terrible manager and should have been fired. At the end, I was not alone in this view. I certainly wouldn't have embraced his death though. Furthermore, I am not defending Steinbrenner, as much as I am pointing out some of the misconceptions about the teams he formed.

 

He was what he was, the world isn't a better place now that he is dead.

[NeedMoreFans]

I have been enjoying this quite a bit...

 

[1992casey]

FTJ defends Steinbrenner but takes every possible shot he can at Ned Yost. Interesting.

I see no connection whatsoever. All I see is a juvenile personal attack.