PDA

View Full Version : George Steinbrenner


Mammoo
02-16-2004, 04:08 PM
Say what you will, I vote for this guy as the greatest owner in sports history. Nobody wants to win more.

He could pocket the money that he's throwing at these players but he prefers to keep the Yankees on top. When you compare him to Owner Jerry, Wirtz and the McCaskeys; it's like a man against boys!

santo=dorf
02-16-2004, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Mammoo
Say what you will, I vote for this guy as the greatest owner in sports history. Nobody wants to win more.

He could pocket the money that he's throwing at these players but he prefers to keep the Yankees on top. When you compare him to Owner Jerry, Wirtz and the McCaskeys; it's like a man against boys!

Agree with you 100%. I remember reading posts asking for Donald Trump to buy the White Sox, but now people are crying when a owner is spending a hell of a lot more money than any other team. Wouldn't you people like to see Trump or Gates spend $200 million on a payroll for the best players in baseball? Is it the Yankees history that makes you hate them so much? What if Steinbrenner was the owner of an expansion team doing the exact same thing he is doing now, would you still disrespect him?

MisterB
02-16-2004, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Mammoo
Say what you will, I vote for this guy as the greatest owner in sports history. Nobody wants to win more.

He could pocket the money that he's throwing at these players but he prefers to keep the Yankees on top. When you compare him to Owner Jerry, Wirtz and the McCaskeys; it's like a man against boys!


Originally posted by santo=dorf


Agree with you 100%. I remember reading posts asking for Donald Trump to buy the White Sox, but now people are crying when a owner is spending a hell of a lot more money than any other team. Wouldn't you people like to see Trump or Gates spend $200 million on a payroll for the best players in baseball? Is it the Yankees history that makes you hate them so much? What if Steinbrenner was the owner of an expansion team doing the exact same thing he is doing now, would you still disrespect him?

Steinbrenner spends that money because he can. He would be incapable of doing the same with an expansion club. He runs the most popular baseball franchise (it already was when he bought it) in the most populous metropolitan area in the country. The Yanks have revenues conservatively estimated at $300M. They can run at break-even and easily have a $200M payroll. He isn't pumping his own cash into the team - he's working within his means, which are better than any other franchise in baseball. Before we crown him the 'greatest sports owner that ever lived', remember that in the early 90's the Yanks were horrible, and mainly because of his micromanaging of the organization. Once he was reigned in and the actual baseball people were allowed to make the baseball decisions, the Yanks took off again.

cornball
02-16-2004, 04:54 PM
George is doing his best for his club and you have to love that.

It is just a shame the system MLB has set up is so flawed.

SoxOnTop
02-16-2004, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by cornball
George is doing his best for his club and you have to love that.

It is just a shame the system MLB has set up is so flawed.

Don't kid yourself. This is not an arbitrary system. Georgie and his Yankee owner predecessors have worked hard to maintain a system where they can be perenial winners and be able to buy a winning team while turning smaller market teams into their personal farm system. The NYY's cater to the conservative business man who wants a safe bet.

The Boss makes sure that the rules of MLB favor his product and has been doing it for years. He effectively plays off the other owner's greed to keep this system in place. This would be a different looking sport if owners would look at the good of the sport when making decisions and we had a commissioner with some cajones. Instead almost all of them are greedy. And so we are left with a system where the small market teams can pocket the Yankee's luxury tax money and the Yanks can continue to spend insane money to ensure a top team.

Lip Man 1
02-16-2004, 08:34 PM
Funny isn't it that when George DIDN'T have that kind of money back in the 70's and 80's he spent it anyway trying to win.

I've got TV video showing the Sox and other teams coming into an empty Yankee Stadium, yet he was still spending.

How do you account for that?

Lip

beckett21
02-16-2004, 08:46 PM
Just because he CAN spend the money doesn't mean he HAS to.

It is easy to hate the guy but he is the ultimate competitor. He has won enough World Series titles. Really what more does he have to prove? He doesn't have to spend that much money but he does because he likes to win. Most of the other MLB owners like money and could care less if they win as long as they turn a buck.

Is he in the best situation in sports? Probably. But there is a reason the Yankees have such a fine tradition and are such a moneymaker. There is no other team like them in sports. Steinbrenner is a guy everyone loves to hate, but you can't question his desire to win.

Would everyone here hate him if he owned the Sox? I don't think so. He would make the Cubs look like the Brewers or the Pirates.

saltwater farmer
02-16-2004, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I've got TV video showing the Sox and other teams coming into an empty Yankee Stadium, yet he was still spending.

How do you account for that?

Lip

Deep pockets and the Ted Turner TBS School of Business model:
Spend enough money and your creditors and the gov't will have to stay behind you. Especially in the late 70s/ early 80s. TBS didn't make a buck until Gulf War I. Obviously, Steinbrenner's scheme was less risky.

Oh, and Turner and Steinbrenner are competitive. Reinsdorf is a toad.

TornLabrum
02-16-2004, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by saltwater farmer
TBS didn't make a buck until Gulf War I. Obviously, Steinbrenner's scheme was less risky.

That would be CNN, not TBS.

rahulsekhar
02-16-2004, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Funny isn't it that when George DIDN'T have that kind of money back in the 70's and 80's he spent it anyway trying to win.

I've got TV video showing the Sox and other teams coming into an empty Yankee Stadium, yet he was still spending.

How do you account for that?

Lip

Lip - aren't you one of those who agree with the philosophy that teams should spend to improve their product and then the fans will show up and revenues will grow? (Apologies if I've misread or misunderstood you)

Seems to me that that's what George was attempting to do early on - trying to field as winning a team as he could (apologies to any english majors for that sentence). Then he figured fans would come, revenues would grow, etc.

Brian26
02-16-2004, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Funny isn't it that when George DIDN'T have that kind of money back in the 70's and 80's he spent it anyway trying to win.

I've got TV video showing the Sox and other teams coming into an empty Yankee Stadium, yet he was still spending.

How do you account for that?

Lip

Lip,

The Yankee empire has been on top of the world economically since the 40's. I have been reading "Veeck As In Wreck" over the past two weeks, and Bill Veeck even in the early 50's was trying to get the Yankees to split revenue from both the box office and broadcast outlets with the other 7 American League teams. This is nothing new. The YES network didn't exist back then, but the Yankees were still dominant because of their geographic location. How could a Washington Senators or St. Louis Browns team compete with the Yankees? The same problem exists today. The same problem existed in the 70s and 80s. I'm not sure of what year you're exactly talking about, but I can assure you that the Yankee radio and tv rights have always brought in much more revenue than any other team's. It's an interesting problem really. Ultimately, they benefit from having other teams be competitive with them, but it's almost impossible to sign the same type of talent because of the budget differences.

Deadguy
02-16-2004, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Funny isn't it that when George DIDN'T have that kind of money back in the 70's and 80's he spent it anyway trying to win.

I've got TV video showing the Sox and other teams coming into an empty Yankee Stadium, yet he was still spending.

How do you account for that?

Lip

Most of the revenue they generate probably comes from their tv/radio deals and/or merchandising, not necessarilly ticket sales.

The Cleveland Indians sold out every game for much of the late 90's, and still coudn't generate enough revenue to make a profit with an above average payroll.

The Cleveland metropolitan area has roughly 2.2 million people, while the NY metropolitan area has roughly 23 million people. Thus, the Yankees can get much richer tv contracts, since they will inevitably get much higher ratings.

Lip Man 1
02-16-2004, 10:31 PM
Rash:

You are correct. I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't condemming George for spending even when he wasn't drawing well. He realized that the only way he could draw was to start winning...then the fans would start to come (and that's exactly what happened after he went to the Series in 76, 77 and 78. )That lasted through the mid 80's. It fell off again because the Yanks weren't winning (and George started talking about a new park). He eventually realized he wasn't going to get one, plowed his money even more into the team and by 95 they were back in the playoffs and the crowds started to come.

Brian: You're right. This isn't a new 'problem.' (Even though some folks act like it is...) More ammunition to my point that the only way to take on George is to oust the 'wimps, deadheads, and morons..replace with with deep pocketed guys like Cuban, Allen and Gates ( to name a few) and go to war. Instead some fans say 'force the Yanks to lower the payroll instead of having other teams raise theirs.

Lip

MisterB
02-16-2004, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Brian: You're right. This isn't a new 'problem.' (Even though some folks act like it is...) More ammunition to my point that the only way to take on George is to oust the 'wimps, deadheads, and morons..replace with with deep pocketed guys like Cuban, Allen and Gates ( to name a few) and go to war. Instead some fans say 'force the Yanks to lower the payroll instead of having other teams raise theirs.

Lip

So your answer for making up for the one franchise that has a natural market advantage over all others is to force all the other teams into becoming multi-million dollar cash sinks for billionaires? Interesting business plan.

Maybe your 'public trust' view is the way to go. Supplement MLB's antitrust exemption with non-profit status so all these guys can write it all off as a charitable donation.

jeremyb1
02-16-2004, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
Steinbrenner spends that money because he can. He would be incapable of doing the same with an expansion club. He runs the most popular baseball franchise (it already was when he bought it) in the most populous metropolitan area in the country. The Yanks have revenues conservatively estimated at $300M. They can run at break-even and easily have a $200M payroll. He isn't pumping his own cash into the team - he's working within his means, which are better than any other franchise in baseball. Before we crown him the 'greatest sports owner that ever lived', remember that in the early 90's the Yanks were horrible, and mainly because of his micromanaging of the organization. Once he was reigned in and the actual baseball people were allowed to make the baseball decisions, the Yanks took off again.

Good post. Everyone always talks about how much Steinbrenner spends without ever considering his team's revenue. I always try to make the point that if the Yankees have 500 million a year in revenue and Steinbrenner spends 200 million on his payroll, does that make him a better owner than the owner whose club has revenue of 100 million and spends 80 million? Steinbrenner pockets 300 million, three fifths of his teams revenue, while the other owner pockets only 20 million, a fifth of his team's revenue. Obviously, to talk about how admirable it is that an owner spends a lot of money you must first know the team's revenue and our estimations of that are hazy.

SoxOnTop
02-16-2004, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Rash:
Brian: You're right. This isn't a new 'problem.' (Even though some folks act like it is...) More ammunition to my point that the only way to take on George is to oust the 'wimps, deadheads, and morons..replace with with deep pocketed guys like Cuban, Allen and Gates ( to name a few) and go to war. Instead some fans say 'force the Yanks to lower the payroll instead of having other teams raise theirs.

Lip

The difference is that Stienbrenner doesn't have to pile is own personal money into the organization the way that any of the 3 mentioned above would have to. The Yankees make more than enough to cover their ridiculous payroll. So think about it, if he can make money by spending $200 mil on payroll, think about how much he was pocketing 4 years ago when they were actually winning championships and had a payroll around $100 Mil. The man is a shrewd business man who hates to lose, not the patron saint of owners. He takes advantage of a market that could easily support 3 baseball teams and works over the other owners to keep it that way.

SoxOnTop
02-16-2004, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Good post. Everyone always talks about how much Steinbrenner spends without ever considering his team's revenue. I always try to make the point that if the Yankees have 500 million a year in revenue and Steinbrenner spends 200 million on his payroll, does that make him a better owner than the owner whose club has revenue of 100 million and spends 80 million? Steinbrenner pockets 300 million, three fifths of his teams revenue, while the other owner pockets only 20 million, a fifth of his team's revenue. Obviously, to talk about how admirable it is that an owner spends a lot of money you must first know the team's revenue and our estimations of that are hazy.

I agree whole heartedly!!!

Lip Man 1
02-16-2004, 11:50 PM
Mister B:

In business you're also supposed to compete against other businesses, not throw your hands up in the air (figuratively) and cackle 'we can't compete....we need revenue sharing...we need a salary cap... (then take that revenue sharing money a la the Royals and Reds and stick it right in the owners pockets...)

Root hog or die. No place in the constitution does it say that Pittsburgh, Kansas City or Milwaukee MUST have a baseball team. If they can't make it, if the current owners can't (or won't) sell to someone who can take on the Yankees...they die. Simple.

Baseball would be better off with 20 teams anyway.

Lip

SoxOnTop
02-17-2004, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Mister B:

In business you're also supposed to compete against other businesses, not throw your hands up in the air (figuratively) and cackle 'we can't compete....we need revenue sharing...we need a salary cap... (then take that revenue sharing money a la the Royals and Reds and stick it right in the owners pockets...)

Root hog or die. No place in the constitution does it say that Pittsburgh, Kansas City or Milwaukee MUST have a baseball team. If they can't make it, if the current owners can't (or won't) sell to someone who can take on the Yankees...they die. Simple.

Baseball would be better off with 20 teams anyway.

Lip

Except that the competition between teams in MLB is not purely capitalistic. If you run your competition into bankruptsy and out of business then you lose the revenue generated from playing them 9-18 times per year. The KC Royals will never be able to make as much money as the Yankees simply because you will always be able to make crazy TV revenues in the 23 million person market of NYC while KC with a 10th of the people will never touch that. Hence, they simply become a farm team for the Yanks.

Nick@Nite
02-17-2004, 01:33 AM
Steinbrenner a great owner? Please! I'm doing everything I can to type a response while keeping myself from throwing up badly made coffee.

I don't knock Satan, er, I mean Steinbrenner, from building the powerhouse that is now the Yankees, even though it was built in an environment conducive to creating it; largest market out there, enough TV money alone to swamp the entire monetary system of Albania, a long and storied history that makes Bob Costas wet himself every time he mentions it on the air...

I always thought monopolies were un-American.

TommyJohn
02-17-2004, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by Nick@Nite
a long and storied history that makes Bob Costas wet himself every time he mentions it on the air...

Yes! Terrific one!!

mdep524
02-17-2004, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Mister B:

In business you're also supposed to compete against other businesses, not throw your hands up in the air (figuratively) and cackle 'we can't compete....we need revenue sharing...we need a salary cap... (then take that revenue sharing money a la the Royals and Reds and stick it right in the owners pockets...)

Root hog or die. No place in the constitution does it say that Pittsburgh, Kansas City or Milwaukee MUST have a baseball team. If they can't make it, if the current owners can't (or won't) sell to someone who can take on the Yankees...they die. Simple.

Baseball would be better off with 20 teams anyway.

Lip

Lip, the view that forcing all small markets out of major league baseball is short sighted. Baseball is a business, but it's a special business, whose life and death depends on competition. I think it would be smarter to consider MLB as one entity, not 29 seperate businesses competing with each other. I'm not saying every Smalltown USA deserves a pro baseball team, (and in fact I do think 29 teams might be too many) but denying Pittsburgh or Oakland a team just because they are a small market would be pricing the game for the elite. Its like saying bigger markets "deserve" better teams just because they are a larger city. Major league baseball success should not be based on city size, and the sport of baseball in general should not be just for the elite.

The Yankees having a payroll 5 and 6 times more than other teams is just ridiculous and anti-competetive, regardless of how you applaud Steinbrenner for spending the cash. I don't fault Steinbrenner here- he's only spending based on his revenues anyway (like jeremyb1 pointed out in a great post). The problem is with MLB.

Baby Fisk
02-17-2004, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
I have been reading "Veeck As In Wreck" over the past two weeks, and Bill Veeck even in the early 50's was trying to get the Yankees to split revenue from both the box office and broadcast outlets with the other 7 American League teams.

Cool -- I just got ahold of the same book and plan on reading it soon! :cool:

Anyway, a question I wanted to pose was this: Is there a point at which Steinbrenner could see his farm system run dry and just resort to BUYING players outright? "A gap at 2nd? Here's $40 Mil to a rapacious owner for their star 2nd baseman." Would his holiness the commissioner let it happen? When was the last time an MLB player was out-and-out SOLD for nothing but cash?

MarkEdward
02-17-2004, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Baby Fisk
Cool -- I just got ahold of the same book and plan on reading it soon! :cool:

Anyway, a question I wanted to pose was this: Is there a point at which Steinbrenner could see his farm system run dry and just resort to BUYING players outright? "A gap at 2nd? Here's $40 Mil to a rapacious owner for their star 2nd baseman." Would his holiness the commissioner let it happen? When was the last time an MLB player was out-and-out SOLD for nothing but cash?

There is a limit over how much money can be moved in any given transaction, although I don't know where the exact clause is located (CBA most likely). This was enacted to prevent any Charlie Finley-type fire sales from happening again.

Daver
02-17-2004, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
There is a limit over how much money can be moved in any given transaction, although I don't know where the exact clause is located (CBA most likely). This was enacted to prevent any Charlie Finley-type fire sales from happening again.

Any transaction that has a disparity of over 25,000 dollars in actual payroll is subject to the sole approval of the commisioner.

It's in the CBA,but I don't remeber what section it is in and I accidently deleted the PDF file.

Anyone that has a link to where I could re download it I would greatly appreciate it.


:)

ChiSox65
02-17-2004, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by Mammoo
Say what you will, I vote for this guy as the greatest owner in sports history. Nobody wants to win more.

He could pocket the money that he's throwing at these players but he prefers to keep the Yankees on top. When you compare him to Owner Jerry, Wirtz and the McCaskeys; it's like a man against boys!


AMEN brother!!!!!!!!!!!

MarkEdward
02-17-2004, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Any transaction that has a disparity of over 25,000 dollars in actual payroll is subject to the sole approval of the commisioner.

It's in the CBA,but I don't remeber what section it is in and I accidently deleted the PDF file.

Anyone that has a link to where I could re download it I would greatly appreciate it.


:)

Is this what you'd be looking for:
http://roadsidephotos.com/baseball/data.htm
(It's located under "Labor-Related Matters")

RichFitztightly
02-17-2004, 10:17 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1737271 (http://)

Holy Crap!!! It says here the the Yankees already have 2.3 million tickets sold. The Sox will be lucky to get that in a year's time.

Daver
02-17-2004, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Is this what you'd be looking for:
http://roadsidephotos.com/baseball/data.htm
(It's located under "Labor-Related Matters")


Thanx Mark,I owe you one.

:bandance:

doublem23
02-18-2004, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Instead some fans say 'force the Yanks to lower the payroll instead of having other teams raise theirs.

Who flips the bill, then? Outside of the bleachers at Yankee Stadium, you're not going to find a seat for cheaper than $20.

While I agree with the basic premise of this, to say that just having every team in baseball raise payrolls to a ridiculous level is like setting up a house of cards in a hurricane; it's going to collapse.

Baby Fisk
02-19-2004, 12:29 PM
Did anyone catch Steinbrenner's mockery of John Henry last night? I saw a text blurb of it on a local sports broadcast. Steinbrenner said something like:

"It's unfortunate that John Henry is now in favour of a salary cap, considering he was on the other side when it was voted upon. It's too bad he didn't want to go the extra mile for Boston fans the way we do for our own fans."

DAMN, THAT IS TOO FUNNY! :D: