George Steinbrenner Dead at 80

[young guns]

As a baseball fan, I'm happy. As a human being, I feel for his friends and family.

[AJAY]

I will always remember George Steinbrenner as a selfish coward who was too afraid to compete on a level playing field. He didn't care about the overall health of baseball, and he only cared about himself and his money-making empire. He was a jerk to anyone who tried to reform the game, and he consistently expected everything to revolve around him and his team.

 

Anyway, I do feel bad for his family. May he still rest in peace.

[RayKingsForemanGrill]

Again, I gotta say, I've never been a fan of the guy - but if you're getting all fired up to say hateful ridiculous things about a man on the day of his death re: the way he did his job, you really gotta take stock of your moral compass. We don't like the guy because he's made life hard on our favorite team both on and off the field through his ruthless management style. And the majority of the people here are happy to piss on a guy's grave...

When in reality, when you separate the personal from the professional, here's a guy that has done more for others than any anonymous blowhard on an internet message board dancing on the guy's grave:

From an AP article:

http://www.google.com/hos...D_-mV5YlIWSI8ngD9GUFDDG0

Not as well known and something he kept out of the news, Steinbrenner was a contributor to many charities — especially in his adopted hometown of Tampa. And he supported many causes.

Steinbrenner had no connection to Virginia Tech, but after a gunman killed 32 students on the campus in 2007 he donated $1 million to the "Hokies Spirit Memorial Fund" and sent the Yankees to Blacksburg, Va., for an exhibition game.

"To respond to a need as he did and put it into action tells me everything about what kind of a human being he was," Virginia Tech baseball coach Pete Hughes said. "It was an immediate response, too, by him — 'How can we help them?' — and within 24 hours, the logistics of that game was being talked about."

A graduate of Williams College, Steinbrenner, nonetheless, funded the Ohio State marching band for years — his name is on a campus building.

"Mr. Steinbrenner and his wife were the driving force behind the new marching band facility in Ohio Stadium," said Jon Waters, assistant band director. "We will always remember George Steinbrenner's love of music and his love of the Ohio State University marching band."

He was charitable with his time and money before he became the Yankees owner in 1973.

"I met George when I was 9 years old on a baseball field in a Cleveland public park. I prefer to remember him as a young man who encouraged girls and boys to play sports with enthusiasm, skill and courage," said Donna E. Shalala, University of Miami President and former Clinton cabinet member, of the man who taught her how to slide.

 

From his obituary:

Steinbrenner also had a soft side. He sometimes read about high school athletes who had been injured and sent them money to go to college. He paid for the medical school expenses of Ron Karnaugh after the swimmer's father died during the opening ceremony at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics.

Steinbrenner kept older friends from his football days on the payroll, had a way of rehiring those he had once fired and liked to give second chances to those who had fallen from favor, such as Darryl Strawberry and Dwight Gooden.

He gave millions to charity, often with one stipulation, that no one know who made the donation.

[kramnoj]

I will always remember George Steinbrenner as a selfish coward who was too afraid to compete on a level playing field

 

Have you actually looked at data, or is this an assumption?

 

For example, in 1998, the Yankees didn't even have the highest payroll in baseball. Source: http://www.baseballchrono...l/Years/1998/Payroll.asp

 

Steinbrenner deeply cared about winning and invested in his team, while other owners are happy to make a profit without doing their most to provide a competitive product to their fans.

[pitchleague]

that last sentence of that obit stands out to me. I think that's just stinkin' great. And I mean it, too--no blue font necessary.

 

However, I wish all of his contributions were like this by him and all famous people. I just don't think it's "all about the kids/charity/whatever" if you're putting your name on the side of a building that you paid for. Sure, give the money but do it anonymously. Or if you absolutely need your name posted someplace, do it on the memorial bronze plaque that is usually in the lobby of these places along with the builders, contractors, planners, and board members. I shouldn't need to see your name from the interstate.

[Thurston Fluff]

Steinbrenner deeply cared about winning and invested in his team, while other owners are happy to make a profit without doing their most to provide a competitive product to their fans.

 

I think it's a stretch to think other owners don't care about winning as much as he did simply because they didn't have a team that generated revenue like the Yankees did. While there are some like Loria and the Tribune company that may have done so there are plenty of owners who do care and are investing as much into winning as Stenibrenner did. The only difference is they are working in markets that cannot support the level of investment as a NY team can. Hell Bud cared so much about baseball he gave up his team do work for the betterment of the game as a whole. To say he somehow was more interested in money than winning because he didn't have a Yankeesque payroll is wrong. If anyhting he has shown he cared more. He spent a great deal of his life making the whole game better not just his little segment of it. My major complaint about Steinbrenner was his lack of interest in the game as a whole.

[homer]

Sure, give the money but do it anonymously.

 

I can see your point but another thing to consider is that by using your name you may inspire someone else of the same stature to donate to a cause as well.

[kramnoj]

While there are some like Loria and the Tribune company that may have done so there are plenty of owners who do care and are investing as much into winning as Stenibrenner did.

 

You spent a whole paragraph trying to disagree with me, when this sentence matches what I wrote. I didn't say Steinbrenner was the only one to care about winning.

[topper09er]

Last year the Yankees Revenue was $441 million dollars. The next closet team was the Mets at $268 million about $170 million difference.

And all this talk about the Yankees putting all their money back into the team is [expletive deleted]. The Yankees spent 46.9% of their revenue on payroll which is approximately LEAGUE AVERAGE, the same as the Kansas City Royals. It is a myth that the Yankees try to win more than every other team, and it is also a myth that Steinbrenner was somehow spending his own money because he loved winning so much. Do you think he was taking money out of his kids inheritance to sign A-Rod? He wasnt, he was only able to do sign every player he ever wanted because he had a monopoly (along with the Mets) over NY baseball, a city large enough to support 5 baseball teams but instead has 2.

Here's a Joe Posnanski article that explains the problem in more detail.

http://joeposnanski.com/J...4/19/forbes-and-yankees/

(edits: language (B.S.) & fixed link --1992)

[Teatoe993]

I think the Mets cancel out the monopoly claim.

[joepepsi]

That's a great article topper. Thanks for the link.

 

I never found anything likable or admirable about George Steinbrenner. But I didn't know him. I'm sure many people loved him and I wish them well as they move through this time of loss.

[topper09er]

They really dont, look at the numbers. The Yankees only have a monoploy over whatever majority of NYC their fans come from. Having a monopoly over that market, although not the entire NYC area, is still enough to give rediculous advantages over the Brewers and....EVERY other team including the Mets.

[kramnoj]

The Yankees spent 46.9% of their revenue on payroll which is approximately LEAGUE AVERAGE, the same as the Kansas City Royals.

 

Again, this is looking at revenue and one area of expenditures. It doesn't come close to painting a complete picture.

 

It is a myth that the Yankees try to win more than every other team, and it is also a myth that Steinbrenner was somehow spending his own money because he loved winning so much.

 

How many people are saying that the Yankees try to win more than every other team? As far as Steinbrenner spending his own money, that's a more complex question. He was part owner of the Yankees and way obviously heavily influential in how money was spent. If he decided to spend less money, the Yankees would be spending less money, meaning there could have been more funds to pay to himself in salary or dividends.

Edit.

To add some facts, there was a fantastic series written by the late Doug Pappas over 8 years ago that looked into the business of baseball. One of the interesting things that isn't often discussed with detail is the amount of money spent on things other than the major league payroll. Here is the link: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1325

This was 2001 dollars, and the Yankees spent over $83 Million on all things that go to running the off the field business. They were actually 2nd to the Mariners that year in the category. As for other expenses, the Yankees have paid over $25M each of the last two years in luxury tax. The revenue sharing that the Yankees pay is unknown in recent years. In a few minutes of googling, I found one piece that says the Yankees paid $63M in 2004. So if I just take numbers from earlier this decade, I think it's somewhat safe to guess that the Yankees routinely spend $170M+ in expenditures that doesn't go to their players.

[Thurston Fluff]

You spent a whole paragraph trying to disagree with me, when this sentence matches what I wrote. I didn't say Steinbrenner was the only one to care about winning.

 

When you say "while other owners are happy to make a profit without doing their most to provide a competitive product to their fans." you make it appear as though you mean the other owners not just some. I just misinterpreted what you meant. The word -some- might have made it clearer he was one of a majority of owners who cared about winning.

To address what you apparently meant. Being one of the vast majority who felt, and did to the best their situations allow, the same as he did doesn't really mean much does it? 99% of the owners want to win as badly as he does. They just don't happen to be in a situation that allows them to spend as much.

[kramnoj]

99% of the owners want to win as badly as he does.

 

I don't think this is true. Take a look at Forbes 2009 baseball article: http://www.forbes.com/lis...-Of-Baseball_Income.html

 

There's a whole lot of teams that made good money in 2008 while the Yankees and Tigers lost money. Many teams valued profit over competing. Even if it wasn't smart for every team to spend money on the field, they could have spent money in development, scouting, etc.

[joepepsi]

The Orioles have no incentive to compete. Bud gave Angelos a sweet deal to let the Nats in town. Angelos owns the cable channel that airs Nats games and the value of the Orioles franchise is guaranteed to not fall below a certain level. So if the Nats get better and their TV ratings go up Angelos stands to make more money without increasing costs. If he slashes payroll on his own team and fans quit coming to Orioles games, no matter, MLB will keep the value of the team artifically high.

[Thurston Fluff]

If you look back a page Topper posted a pretty good article showing the

Yankees spent pretty much the same vs their revenue as league average. Overall I don;'t beleive one season of losses means much. Especially when some new stadium expenses are most likely included. If it did that means Detroit's owner must want it more than the Yankees ever did yet the city's overall problems has more to do with the fiscal problems there than the owner having some sort of super desire to win that no other owner comes close to having.

Overall if you look at the long view I suspect you will find the Yankees made as much or more overall profits than any other team. I don't think that means they wanted it less over that same span of time anymore than I think last season's losses meant they wanted it more than any particular season they didn't money in. Honestly I beleive virtually all the team owners want to win. Now that the Cubs have been sold I think Loria is the only one who stands out as wanting profit more than winning. Shame on him.

[kramnoj]

If you look back a page Topper posted a pretty good article showing the Yankees spent pretty much the same vs their revenue as league average.

 

I've already addressed the faults of looking at that.

 

Overall I don;'t beleive one season of losses means much.

 

That's good. Forbes has the Yankees with negative $47M in 2007.

[pitchleague]

There's a whole lot of teams that made good money in 2008 while the Yankees and Tigers lost money.

I looked at the link and it didn't really state much about where the revenues came from so, I don't know about the Tigers, but I gotta think that the revenue from the YES Network is not on that total. So I would think that the Yankees would be back in the black after making a killing on their TV deal.

[Baldkin]

Considering the Yankees TV deal, pre-YES network was 55M a year, there's absolutely no way they are making less than that now.

[TooLiveBrew]

Don't think this has been posted yet, but a cool tribute poster/pic a Yankees fan on another forum put together:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v302/yankswn23/g1_la.jpg

[kramnoj]

but I gotta think that the revenue from the YES Network is not on that total.

 

You can read the synopsis of the Yankees for 2009 (written this year) here: http://www.forbes.com/lis...York-Yankees_334613.html

 

Forbes estimates that with the increased profits from the new stadium and winning the WS, the Yankees had an operating income of $24.9 million.

 

Regarding the YES network, Forbes included them. Here is the snippet:

 

"YES, the regional sports network the Yankees own one-third of, is the most viewed and most profitable RSN. YES was viewed by an average of 82,000 households during prime time in 2009. YES, which has sent dividend checks to the Yankees exceeding $100 million on top of the $84 annual million rights fee they pay to the team"

[young guns]

YES, which has sent dividend checks to the Yankees exceeding $100 million on top of the $84 annual million rights fee they pay to the team"

So, just one of those dividend checks, and we could pay our entire roster and make a huge profit. Where is the fairness in that.

 

[kramnoj]

That's not quite right. There isn't a dividend check for $100 Million. That represents all the dividend checks that have been paid since YES was created. As far as the rights fees, those are already included in the revenue sharing calculation.