SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 18, 2010 20:15:44 GMT -5
SirSaxa - just for clarification: I did not write the quote you attribute to me in the post above, Ron Borges did in the Boston Globe. To be fair, please note that the article I linked immediately prior was one that was positive about him. One thing you cannot deny about Mr. Steinbrenner is that his unchecked spending on players led to the end of affordable baseball for all but the most well-off families in all major MLB markets. The average family of 4 or 5 cannot afford to go to a game in Boston or New York any more. We have Steinbrenner's win at all costs philosophy to thank for that. If you don't believe me, I'd be happy to introduce you to a few people I work with who are rabid Red Sox fans but have not been as a family to games in years due to the cost. Jimmy Breslin's take: Sorry Dan. I didn't INTEND to attribute that quote to you... I knew it was in the article. I guess I should have checked more carefully to see how the QUOTE function would display it on the board. My mistake. As for "unaffordable baseball"... I don't disagree it exists. So does unaffordable Football, Basketball and Hockey -- especially in NYC. While George played a role, I don't know that we can attribute that change entirely or even largely to him. We might as well cite Curt Flood. The rules were the rules and Steinbrenner took advantage. He also took some very big risks, won, and enjoyed some huge rewards. All the players would thank him too since each and every one has benefitted due to the rise of ALL player salaries. Still doesn't make him a nice guy, or a good guy or a "fair' guy. Just a guy who was committed to winning.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Jul 19, 2010 8:03:20 GMT -5
No, the difference was Gene Michael finally persuaded George to allow Michael to run player development. Also "persuasive": the (second) suspension from day to day operation of the club handed down by the last real commissioner of baseball, Fay Vincent, that allowed Michael to run the team without fear of the Boss's capricious decisions. It didn't save Jay Buhner, much to Frank Costanza's dismay, but it did give the baseball minds some breathing room to build the dynasty of the 90s.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 19, 2010 8:32:17 GMT -5
No, the difference was Gene Michael finally persuaded George to allow Michael to run player development. Also "persuasive": the (second) suspension from day to day operation of the club handed down by the last real commissioner of baseball, Fay Vincent, that allowed Michael to run the team without fear of the Boss's capricious decisions. It didn't save Jay Buhner, much to Frank Costanza's dismay, but it did give the baseball minds some breathing room to build the dynasty of the 90s. Good point Jack!
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 19, 2010 10:47:56 GMT -5
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,438
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jul 19, 2010 12:31:59 GMT -5
Brilliant. And sad.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 19, 2010 12:54:55 GMT -5
I actually almost want to root for the Yankees now. Everything they do is legal, and the Yankees are profitable. If you decide not to do what the Yankees are doing out of some concern for competitive balance, you're a sucker. Google, Apple, and Microsoft are all trying to get top talent. If Google decides to open the floodgates and spend double what Microsoft was, they'd be considered aggressive - trying to defend their market share and succeed. The Yankees are no different. Greed is good. Greed works.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jul 19, 2010 13:02:01 GMT -5
I actually almost want to root for the Yankees now. Everything they do is legal, and the Yankees are profitable. If you decide not to do what the Yankees are doing out of some concern for competitive balance, you're a sucker. Google, Apple, and Microsoft are all trying to get top talent. If Google decides to open the floodgates and spend double what Microsoft was, they'd be considered aggressive - trying to defend their market share and succeed. The Yankees are no different. Greed is good. Greed works. Google, Apple and Microsoft aren't all franchises in the same league. They don't sit down together and negotiate a CBA with their employees or sign TV agreements together.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jul 19, 2010 13:52:20 GMT -5
What so many fans fail to recognize and understandably so--nobody cares about most of the league--nobody watches them--people don't go to their games and if you disbanded 10-12 teams from MLB (putting it mildly) it would still be popular because the teams that people do care about--would still thrive/be around.
The Yankees are the Yankees--and while it's pompous, arrogant, whatever you want to call it--it's the truth. People fill the stands when they come to town, they have been the dominant franchise in American Sports and will continue to be-until surpassed.
So you can write all the articles you want about being "unfair....." or "unfair amounts of money..." the fact is--that more people care to follow them, hate them--which is good for the sport--if you don't like them and really want to hurt them--don't watch them play, don't go to games when they come to town, and don't bother writing about them.
If you choose to do so--then be honest--why is it that MLB has more of a level playing field/disparity of competitive teams then NFL or NBA? Steinbrenner Era is always mentioned like they have won every year--and as I wrote above--7 Championships in 38 years is great run--but that means 31 years in his time as owner other teams won championships. In last 20 years in NBA, Bulls have 6 championships, Lakers 5, Spurs 4 and Rockets 2 and it's "great" because Stars dominate the sport--but same teams win in same format baseball uses--best of 7 and for a while best of 5 in opening round--so what's difference?? 4 franchises winning 17 of last 20 titles compared to MLB--yet once it's the Lakers and Celtics the 2 most succesful franchises--the ratings were highest in 18 years??
Success might be hated--but it's what people watch/care about. Whether you love/hate someone--fans care/attend/tune in and that is what makes it great. No argument about financial disparity--but let's face it-if it was 31 titles in 38 years--these whiny articles would hold much more water.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Jul 19, 2010 14:04:27 GMT -5
If you choose to do so--then be honest--why is it that MLB has more of a level playing field/disparity of competitive teams then NFL or NBA? Steinbrenner Era is always mentioned like they have won every year--and as I wrote above--7 Championships in 38 years is great run--but that means 31 years in his time as owner other teams won championships. Did you read the article? I feel like the differences between baseball and the other sports are pretty well articulated there. No rational person blames the Yankees for exploiting the rules as they currently exist - indeed, there is justification for some praise in that ownership likely could have spent a bit less and taken more profit, but chose to pursue rings as the most important measure of success and spending money as the surest way to get there. Where the fault lies is in the rules themselves, and the Yankees absolutely need a competitive league around them in order to continue to make huge amounts of money. Revenue sharing and the luxury tax help narrow the gap a bit, but mostly it is the randomness of baseball that has kept the Yankees from winning more championships in the past 10 years.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 19, 2010 14:25:49 GMT -5
If you choose to do so--then be honest--why is it that MLB has more of a level playing field/disparity of competitive teams then NFL or NBA? Steinbrenner Era is always mentioned like they have won every year--and as I wrote above--7 Championships in 38 years is great run--but that means 31 years in his time as owner other teams won championships. Did you read the article? I feel like the differences between baseball and the other sports are pretty well articulated there. No rational person blames the Yankees for exploiting the rules as they currently exist - indeed, there is justification for some praise in that ownership likely could have spent a bit less and taken more profit, but chose to pursue rings as the most important measure of success and spending money as the surest way to get there. Where the fault lies is in the rules themselves, and the Yankees absolutely need a competitive league around them in order to continue to make huge amounts of money. Revenue sharing and the luxury tax help narrow the gap a bit, but mostly it is the randomness of baseball that has kept the Yankees from winning more championships in the past 10 years. I don't buy the randomness argument. It's the ultimate in deus ex machina - when the Yankees win, it's because they spend more money, but when they don't, it's because of the randomness of the system. Dude, it's a seven-game series! If you have the better team and can't win four games out of seven, only rarely can you blame poor luck. The Yankees knew what the rules were, and their teams never played well in the playoffs until 2009. In 2002, the Yankees were swept by the Angels. In 2003, the Yankees tanked and lost to the Marlins in six. In 2004, they tanked and lost four straight to the Red Sox. In 2005, they lost in five games to the Angels in the division. In 2006, they lost in four to the Tigers in the division. In 2007, they lost in four to the Indians. In 2008, they missed the playoffs (when the AL winner was the Rays(!) who spent a fraction of the Yankees' budget).
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jul 19, 2010 14:47:37 GMT -5
Problem really is simple--most owners could care less if their teams win or not. Owning a team is more for their ego then to make money or win--and who owns your team dictates how much you win---look at the Cubs--what's the incentive for their ownership to win? They have a loyal fanbase that loves them win/lose and they fill Wrigley, so why would ownership care? Yankees owned by CBS was a disaster.
Just glad that Yankee Ownership in my lifetime has cared about the team and while I've often disagreed with how they go about putting a team together--at least the goal stayed the same.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jul 19, 2010 14:51:41 GMT -5
I'd argue that Yankees were overrated from '02-'07 and their money helped get them to Playoffs--but they feasted on beating bad teams and weren't equipped to play championship caliber baseball due to limited offensive approach and mediocre/subpar pitching.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,856
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jul 19, 2010 15:11:56 GMT -5
Problem really is simple--most owners could care less if their teams win or not. Owning a team is more for their ego then to make money or win--and who owns your team dictates how much you win---look at the Cubs--what's the incentive for their ownership to win? They have a loyal fanbase that loves them win/lose and they fill Wrigley, so why would ownership care? Yankees owned by CBS was a disaster. By the mid-1960's the Yankees had won 15 pennants in 18 years but its farm system had atrophied. CBS didn't exactly spend money to correct it but the fact was that teams like the Orioles and Tigers were out-hustling the Yankees for prospects and the aging Yankee Stadium (in the South Bronx, no less) paled in comparison to the newer multi-purpose stadia, however odious they are in retrospect. Revenue for CBS was still limited, which is probably why they sold the club at a loss. Average attendance during the CBS era never topped 16,000 a game (the Yankees drew 966,000 in 1972) and there was zero merchandising revenue to speak of. Teams lived and died by the farm systems; that is, until Steinbrenner knocked down that wall with Catfish Hunter and after that it was every owner for himself. In the NFL, every team has a dream of a Super Bowl (if New Orleans can win, anyone can). Of the teams that were around in 1967, only the Lions and the Browns have not advanced to the title game. In baseball, no more than a half dozen teams can now see the Series as viable, most in the largest markets. At least 12-15 teams have no shot whatsoever for the foreseeable future. Good for Yankees fans? Sure. Good for the game? Not so much.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jul 19, 2010 15:47:07 GMT -5
Problem really is simple--most owners could care less if their teams win or not. Owning a team is more for their ego then to make money or win--and who owns your team dictates how much you win---look at the Cubs--what's the incentive for their ownership to win? They have a loyal fanbase that loves them win/lose and they fill Wrigley, so why would ownership care? Yankees owned by CBS was a disaster. By the mid-1960's the Yankees had won 15 pennants in 18 years but its farm system had atrophied. CBS didn't exactly spend money to correct it but the fact was that teams like the Orioles and Tigers were out-hustling the Yankees for prospects and the aging Yankee Stadium (in the South Bronx, no less) paled in comparison to the newer multi-purpose stadia, however odious they are in retrospect. The whole "being one of the last teams to have a black player" / "not wanting black players" thing kinda hurt the Yankees' ability to develop talent too (same thing happened with the Red Sox).
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 19, 2010 15:47:22 GMT -5
Problem really is simple--most owners could care less if their teams win or not. Owning a team is more for their ego then to make money or win--and who owns your team dictates how much you win---look at the Cubs--what's the incentive for their ownership to win? They have a loyal fanbase that loves them win/lose and they fill Wrigley, so why would ownership care? Yankees owned by CBS was a disaster. By the mid-1960's the Yankees had won 15 pennants in 18 years but its farm system had atrophied. CBS didn't exactly spend money to correct it but the fact was that teams like the Orioles and Tigers were out-hustling the Yankees for prospects and the aging Yankee Stadium (in the South Bronx, no less) paled in comparison to the newer multi-purpose stadia, however odious they are in retrospect. Revenue for CBS was still limited, which is probably why they sold the club at a loss. Average attendance during the CBS era never topped 16,000 a game (the Yankees drew 966,000 in 1972) and there was zero merchandising revenue to speak of. Teams lived and died by the farm systems; that is, until Steinbrenner knocked down that wall with Catfish Hunter and after that it was every owner for himself. In the NFL, every team has a dream of a Super Bowl (if New Orleans can win, anyone can). Of the teams that were around in 1967, only the Lions and the Browns have not advanced to the title game. In baseball, no more than a half dozen teams can now see the Series as viable, most in the largest markets. At least 12-15 teams have no shot whatsoever for the foreseeable future. Good for Yankees fans? Sure. Good for the game? Not so much. Teams have no hope like the Tigers in 2006 and the Rays in 2008? Lots of this is obscured by the fact that four teams rather than eight make the postseason. If you want to do that, then a large number of NBA teams similarly have no hope whatsoever, but we're not complaining about Boston, Miami, Orlando and the rest of the Eastern Conference dwarves. I also disagree on the postseason question. Toronto, Baltimore, Kansas City, and Pittsburgh have no hope. Everyone else has at least some hope of the postseason and winning two rounds.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 19, 2010 16:01:25 GMT -5
RDF wrote:
Success might be hated--but it's what people watch/care about. Whether you love/hate someone--fans care/attend/tune in and that is what makes it great. No argument about financial disparity--but let's face it-if it was 31 titles in 38 years--these whiny articles would hold much more water.
RDF makes a good point. An illustration came just yesterday. I haven't seen any overnight numbers, but I'm guessing that the final round of the British open were pretty poor. The majority of the drop probably comes from the fact that Tiger never became much of a factor and there's no denying the Tiger impact. But yesterday's round went well beyond that. I made that very point in my article today.
I found the golf about as boring and uninspiring to watch as possible. And I absolutely love the British Oper ... err... The Open Championship. We make a big point of having friends out to the lake and making a long weekend of it. We cook out Saturday afternoon, swim, ski etc... Then the kids have a slumber party and watch movies or play games while the adults get in some night fishing and normally cap off the night with some poker. Everyone crashes and then we wake up to the smell of bacon and have a big breakfast while we lounge around and watch the final round of the Open. In the 10 years or so of this tradition, yesterday was by far the most boring of the bunch. I thought about it, and I think it comes down to this:
I want at least one of three things to really get emotionally into the golf. I want someone to root for. Typically, this will be an American and often a "no name" American like a Ben Curtis. If not, then I want someone to root against. It's a sort of "anyone but that guy" attitude. Normally that will be a foreigner, and the year that Van de Velde fell apart was the perfect example. At the very least, I want some drama. Yesterday's round gave me none of that. The entire leaderboard was composed of non-descript, almost random foreigners.
I know I got off on a tangent, but the point is that two of the 3 key elements is having a favorite to root either for or against. In baseball, the Yankees give the majority of the public one of those, depending on your preference. Accordingly, if the Twins were to play the Diamondbacks, there will be much less interest simply because those teams are essentially irrelevant to a majority of fans.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 19, 2010 16:10:15 GMT -5
.....but mostly it is the randomness of baseball that has kept the Yankees from winning more championships in the past 10 years. Well, that and Carl Pavano. Baaaa-ZING!!!!! ;D
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jul 19, 2010 16:22:55 GMT -5
.....but mostly it is the randomness of baseball that has kept the Yankees from winning more championships in the past 10 years. Well, that and Carl Pavano. Baaaa-ZING!!!!! ;D Good point. The fact that Steinbrenner and the Yankees never figured out how properly handle Pavano* certainly give credence to the arguments that their success came more from their ability to spend more money than anyone else than their baseball acumen. *Proper way to handle Carl Pavano: Step 1: Sign Carl Pavano Step 2: Have him grow a mustache Step 3: Success!
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jul 19, 2010 18:14:00 GMT -5
Problem really is simple--most owners could care less if their teams win or not. Owning a team is more for their ego then to make money or win--and who owns your team dictates how much you win---look at the Cubs--what's the incentive for their ownership to win? They have a loyal fanbase that loves them win/lose and they fill Wrigley, so why would ownership care? Yankees owned by CBS was a disaster. By the mid-1960's the Yankees had won 15 pennants in 18 years but its farm system had atrophied. CBS didn't exactly spend money to correct it but the fact was that teams like the Orioles and Tigers were out-hustling the Yankees for prospects and the aging Yankee Stadium (in the South Bronx, no less) paled in comparison to the newer multi-purpose stadia, however odious they are in retrospect. Revenue for CBS was still limited, which is probably why they sold the club at a loss. Average attendance during the CBS era never topped 16,000 a game (the Yankees drew 966,000 in 1972) and there was zero merchandising revenue to speak of. Teams lived and died by the farm systems; that is, until Steinbrenner knocked down that wall with Catfish Hunter and after that it was every owner for himself. In the NFL, every team has a dream of a Super Bowl (if New Orleans can win, anyone can). Of the teams that were around in 1967, only the Lions and the Browns have not advanced to the title game. In baseball, no more than a half dozen teams can now see the Series as viable, most in the largest markets. At least 12-15 teams have no shot whatsoever for the foreseeable future. Good for Yankees fans? Sure. Good for the game? Not so much. The NFL everyone has a "chance"--but in MLB where since 1990 (last 20 years) these teams have qualified for postseason: AL EAST--EVERY TEAM (Yankees, Boston, Toronto and Tampa all made World Series) AL CENTRAL---EVERY TEAM minus Kansas City (Twins, White Sox, Tigers, and Indians all made World Series) AL WEST--EVERY TEAM (Angels made World Series) NL EAST--EVERY TEAM--minus Montreal/Washington but they likely would've in '94 if season played out. (Braves, Phillies, Marlins and Mets all made World Series.) NL CENTRAL--EVERY TEAM (Cardinals, Astros, Reds, all made World Series) NL WEST--EVERY TEAM (Rockies, Giants, D-Backs, Padres all made World Series) So in the entire league in last 20 years--28 out of the 30 teams have made Postseason and 20 out of 30 made the World Series. I'd say that gives every team a chance--because you make the postseason--you have a chance--but what do I know--it's not like those numbers back up any contradiction to Yankee hating.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,856
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jul 19, 2010 19:25:46 GMT -5
I'd say that gives every team a chance--because you make the postseason--you have a chance--but what do I know--it's not like those numbers back up any contradiction to Yankee hating. The MLB post-season does not equal the World Series, just as the NFL playoffs do not equal the Super Bowl. Ask the Texas Rangers, who have won all of one (1) playoff game in its 49 year history, 38 of those in Arlington. (Not a playoff series, mind you, but a playoff game. They are the only MLB team that has never won a home playoff game of ANY kind.) I would still argue, and do, that teams like Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Washington, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Toronto, Houston, Texas (don't worry, they usually fold in August) and perhaps San Francisco and San Diego are at a fundamental disadvantage and are not serious contenders on a consistent basis because of the environment Steinbrenner exploited (I did not say "started", because free agency was not his creation). I place the blame more on Allan Selig's lack of leadership than any owner's greed, including the occasionally spendthrift Red Sox.
|
|