PDA

View Full Version : Is George Steinbrenner good for baseball?



Serge
01-02-05, 12:33 AM
I took a poll on ESPN.com (http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/polling?event_id=1093) about the acquisition of Randy Johnson. One of the questions was, 'Is George Steinbrenner good for baseball?' Public opinion was split right down the middle with 51.5% saying Yes and 48.5% No.

I am curious as to what a community with a majority of Yankee fans has for an answer.

NYYLady41
01-02-05, 12:34 AM
I think so.

Hitman23
01-02-05, 12:37 AM
he's good for the Yankees.... usually.

I'm undecided otherwise.

nahzo
01-02-05, 12:38 AM
He's good for VISA.

Socrates
01-02-05, 12:53 AM
I think he can be a mixed bag. On one hand, he has this undying dedication towards making his team as great as it can be. With the pressure of New York, and the lucrative deals he's made for cable networks and stuff, it's his responsibility to get a winning product on the field every year. I think he has tried exceptionally hard in recent years to make sure the team can fiscally do that. He puts so much of money that COULD be his own into his team. He sets an example for all the other owners on how they should want to win.

Then again, he is a little obsessed with winning-- win at all costs and win now. That's not directly a bad thing, but it does contribute to his spending; many people find his spending to be a bad thing for baseball.

I think George is good. I hope his heirs are as good!

SoCal Pinstriper
01-02-05, 12:54 AM
By resurrecting the most storied franchise in the game, George did an incredible service to baseball.

Mattpat11
01-02-05, 12:56 AM
At the very least, George provides the face of the team that everyone wants to beat

Hitman23
01-02-05, 01:00 AM
By resurrecting the most storied franchise in the game, George did an incredible service to baseball.

At the very least, George provides the face of the team that everyone wants to beatI wish I hadn't voted. These two posts sum it up perfectly.

Nick Day
01-02-05, 01:02 AM
I think he is good and bad.
He is good, because if you beat a team with a close to/200 million payrole, Georgie helps the team with with a much lower payrole (i am talking about teams like tampa, or something like that) boost their confedence.
he is bad because i feel there should be a cap on the teams pay role. i am a sox fan, but i think no matter the team, yankees, red sox, brewers, d-backs anyone, should not be aloud to pass AT LEAST a 140-150 million pay role. I am sorry, but teams (as of now its the yankees, but soon itll be boston, oaklad, anehime, and la) with a 150 or higher payrole is compleatly wrong. though I feel teams should be able to make who they want, and it is kind of (making it more simple) but it's kinda first come-first-serve in the case of the free agent market. i feel a team shouldnt have the best players. there are so many teams with good young players who need mentors. Or, wait. well i feel that one team shouldnt have the right to all of the all stars.
if that last point is hard to understand, it's understandable, i cant really explain what i am getting at.

Serge
01-02-05, 01:09 AM
Oaklands' payroll will never, ever get that high.

S2
01-02-05, 01:10 AM
Good for the Yankees. Bad for the rest of baseball.

Guimonster7545
01-02-05, 01:13 AM
He's not good for it, he's not bad for it. I respect that he wants to do everything possible to win. He is spending a ridiculous amount of money to win, but he has the resources so why not. He's doing everything he can within the rules to win and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Nick Day
01-02-05, 01:17 AM
Oaklands' payroll will never, ever get that high.
if run by different people it sure will. especialy, well look at how this offseason, the market was high for ot-as-good people, well it will be worst in years to come.

ACPS
01-02-05, 02:04 AM
Bad for the Yankees and bad for baseball.

PippyPinstripes
01-02-05, 02:12 AM
He makes a lot of money for baseball, and he provides a charisma rarely seen in the business aspect of the game. I think he's good for baseball, but kind of in the way Tonya Harding was good for ice skating.

Rich
01-02-05, 02:39 AM
To paraphrase Churchill:

He is the worst owner in baseball except for all the others.

Yanknut023
01-02-05, 07:07 AM
He not only is good for baseball but he is a great businessman. He could teach many of the "rich" owners in baseball today a lot.

cubhater
01-02-05, 07:37 AM
I voted 'undecided'.

One part of me wishes my White Sox would have an owner like Geoge who wants to win at all costs and puts the best team money can buy on the field year after year instead of our cheap-ass ownership. I'm sure most fans of all teams wish for this too.

OTOH, where will the spending end? Smaller market teams don't have the luxury of sweetheart local media deals. Every year there's a handful of teams that have no chance of winning due to financial constraints.

My worse case scenario if the spending continues....look for a nasty owner's lockout like the NHL with possible contraction when the CBA expires. MLB should take a lesson from the most successful league, the NFL, and impose a team salary cap with a better revenue sharing plan. Yeah, I know baseball has the so-called luxury tax but it's a joke.

Casey37
01-02-05, 07:47 AM
Based solely on the fact that George has put together a traveling All Star team that pretty much sells out stadiums on the road that would otherwise be attracting 15,000 fans to games, Iíd say that, yes, he is good for baseball.

1961
01-02-05, 07:51 AM
George Steinbrenner is the jackhammer that stirs the drink. Sure, maybe the glass breaks once in a while but at least you know the damn thing is shaken.

YankeePride1967
01-02-05, 08:08 AM
I wonder how the rest of the owners feel when the luxury/revenue sharing money is distributed?

I wonder how the rest of the owners feel everytime the Yankees come to town and the stadium is full?

I wonder how the rest of the owners feel everytime the merchandise money is distributed evenly and the report showing how much of the merchandise sold was Yankee gear?

I wonder how FOX/ESPN and even Bud Selig feels everytime the Yanks play Boston.

And if you don't think George Steinbrenner has helped in a significant way to all of the above, you are mistaken.

Nome
01-02-05, 08:22 AM
Sure there may be up to six (out of 30) weak franchises, but that is not George's fault. Their problem is a combination of location and ownership.

Baseball continues to set record attendances every year. Yankee stadium has set attendance records and all around the league both Yankee fans and Yankee haters are drawn to the park.

Maybe the owners don't like Steinbrenners grabbing up all the stars but they go to the bank with a smile on their face

Andy

Zzyzx
01-02-05, 09:00 AM
Based solely on the fact that George has put together a traveling All Star team that pretty much sells out stadiums on the road that would otherwise be attracting 15,000 fans to games, Iíd say that, yes, he is good for baseball.

Ask yourself though how many fans would some of those stadiums be selling if the team had just won the pennant? The only teams that really get enough Yankees games to make a difference are the other AL East teams, and I don't think that makes up for the fact that the Blue Jays, Orioles, and Devil Rays will most likely not be able to make the playoffs anytime in the near future due to the Yankees/Red Sox war.

Dabize
01-02-05, 09:13 AM
I think he's good for baseball, but kind of in the way Tonya Harding was good for ice skating.

That summarizes my view of things pretty well

Lots of unintended consequences for baseball, some of the bad for both the Yankees AND baseball.

But he's also forcing baseball to face issues such as equity between clubs (revenue sharing/LTs vs salary caps and floors) which might not have been faced without him.

deranged2005
01-02-05, 09:27 AM
I agree. George is good for baseball. Not his fault the owners of losers don't want to spend their money.

Yanks21
01-02-05, 10:56 AM
The more George spends, the more money everyone else gets via revenue sharing, and luxary tax proceeds. The other owners can put all of that money toward payroll, but it seems that most don't. They just complain...

TommyK8
01-02-05, 11:50 AM
It's a mixed bag. George is still a larger than life character, and he draws a lot of attention to baseball and the Yankees. Whether you love him or hate him, you listen to what he says. Objective baseball fans have to admire his passion for winning and devotion to his team. He could have far more personal wealth had he chosen to put more money in his pocket instead of spending it in player salaries.

At the same time, he has a controversial history in baseball. Some would say that it was irrational to fire and rehire Billy Martin and other managers over and over in the 70's and 80's. There was the fued with Yogi, and the suspension from baseball for paying a known thug to dig up dirt on Dave Winfield.

From an economic viewpoint, Steinbrenner bought the Yankees about 30 years ago for about $10 million. He has seen the value of the franchise increase about 100x. His cost basis was so low that he has very little or no debt, and that is a big factor in what allows him to maintain such a large payroll--it's not just the large revenue stream. Very few other owners are in such an enviable position vis-a-vis their purchase price vs. current value of the team. Since the Yankee payroll is so high and the luxury tax has not slowed down the disparity in the Yankee salaries compared to all other teams, I expect another labor war after the expiration of the current CBA. Other owners will try once again to find a way to level the playing field, and when it comes to the labor rules, George has just one vote out of 30.

On balance, Steinbrenner is a passionate owner who has a New York team in the playoffs every year. No other owner in this market can claim success of this magnitude. He is one of the dominant figures in major league baseball, and he continues to make headlines and attract interest in the sport.

YankeePride1967
01-02-05, 12:44 PM
It's a mixed bag. George is still a larger than life character, and he draws a lot of attention to baseball and the Yankees. Whether you love him or hate him, you listen to what he says. Objective baseball fans have to admire his passion for winning and devotion to his team. He could have far more personal wealth had he chosen to put more money in his pocket instead of spending it in player salaries.

At the same time, he has a controversial history in baseball. Some would say that it was irrational to fire and rehire Billy Martin and other managers over and over in the 70's and 80's. There was the fued with Yogi, and the suspension from baseball for paying a known thug to dig up dirt on Dave Winfield.

From an economic viewpoint, Steinbrenner bought the Yankees about 30 years ago for about $10 million. He has seen the value of the franchise increase about 100x. His cost basis was so low that he has very little or no debt, and that is a big factor in what allows him to maintain such a large payroll--it's not just the large revenue stream. Very few other owners are in such an enviable position vis-a-vis their purchase price vs. current value of the team. Since the Yankee payroll is so high and the luxury tax has not slowed down the disparity in the Yankee salaries compared to all other teams, I expect another labor war after the expiration of the current CBA. Other owners will try once again to find a way to level the playing field, and when it comes to the labor rules, George has just one vote out of 30.

On balance, Steinbrenner is a passionate owner who has a New York team in the playoffs every year. No other owner in this market can claim success of this magnitude. He is one of the dominant figures in major league baseball, and he continues to make headlines and attract interest in the sport.

I honestly do not see another labor war (we haven't had one since 1994-95). Bud has been way too vocal praising the current one and until the owners show they have the intestinal fortitude to wipe out 3 or 4 seasons (at least) there will never be a salary cap or a system that in any way resembles one. There are too many new stadiums and some with heavy self-paid mortgages due to where the owners would not be in position to do anything. If, however, the players try to head the opposite way (less revenue sharing/luxury tax) then it could get ugly, but like in 2002, I don't think the players will go that route. Then again, 2002 was closer to 9/11 so that had a lot to do with it, hopefully nothing like that happens again, but any unforseen events will also affect 2007.

Casey37
01-02-05, 12:54 PM
Ask yourself though how many fans would some of those stadiums be selling if the team had just won the pennant?


Hmm.. I donít know about that. Ask the owners of the Marlins, Twins, A's etc how their attendance figures were doing after making it to the post-season and letís see what they have to say.

Check out this site and youíll see what Iím talking about.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

Soriambi
01-02-05, 12:55 PM
I think he's great for baseball. He makes a good deal of money for every team he plays with attendence and Yankees merchandise sales (which get split 30 ways unless they're bought at the Stadium), and he and his teams keep people talking baseball. Can you imagine the baseball media today if the Yankees weren't what they are? What would ESPN write in all their opinion articles and what would sports radio have to complain about?! ;)

Serge
01-02-05, 01:10 PM
if run by different people it sure will. especialy, well look at how this offseason, the market was high for ot-as-good people, well it will be worst in years to come.You are right. I was refering more to with the current ownership of Oakland.

I can't even begin to translate the tail end of your post. :dunno:

Zzyzx
01-02-05, 01:13 PM
Hmm.. I donít know about that. Ask the owners of the Marlins, Twins, A's etc how their attendance figures were doing after making it to the post-season and letís see what they have to say.

Check out this site and youíll see what Iím talking about.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

Florida saw a 400,000 fan improvement. Oakland, despite having a reputation of being a bad baseball town and only having the Yankees visit 3 times outdrew the Bluejays and their 10 Yankees visits by 300k. Sure some cities do well for various reasons (Cubs, Orioles, M's... but not for much longer) without winning, but the winning factor is much bigger than what the Yankees coming to town a few times brings.

Nick Day
01-02-05, 01:38 PM
You are right. I was refering more to with the current ownership of Oakland.

I can't even begin to translate the tail end of your post. :dunno:
Sorry. I was tying to say, Just wait for years to come. Even with this ownership, it will be very hard, if they want to keep a low-ish payrole, and compeat. With this offseason, people who are not the best, were going for a lot. Think about in the future--a lot of even lower-quality players will be going for even more, thus making it near impossible to have a relitivly low payrole.

Thrillhouse
01-02-05, 02:08 PM
Hes good for baseball. He knows what he wants and he works to get it.... it just involves large sums of money, but thats just as much fault the players as it is the owners for the large contracts.

Serge
01-02-05, 03:31 PM
Sorry. I was tying to say, Just wait for years to come. Even with this ownership, it will be very hard, if they want to keep a low-ish payrole, and compeat. With this offseason, people who are not the best, were going for a lot. Think about in the future--a lot of even lower-quality players will be going for even more, thus making it near impossible to have a relitivly low payrole.I'm not sure if Oaklands ownership will want to up the payroll a considerable amount. If they were going to give Beane more money to work with I would have thought they would have already done so to sign their free agents (Damon, Giambi, Tejada).

All players, this offseason, were asking for more money because of the contract the Mets gave Kris Benson.

I am just not confident in Oaklands ownership giving Beane more money to work with. We'll see what happens.

Johnny O
01-02-05, 06:03 PM
Sorry. I was tying to say, Just wait for years to come. Even with this ownership, it will be very hard, if they want to keep a low-ish payrole, and compeat. With this offseason, people who are not the best, were going for a lot. Think about in the future--a lot of even lower-quality players will be going for even more, thus making it near impossible to have a relitivly low payrole.

There are other ways to build a competitive team other than signing FAs, like developing a productive minor league system that consistently infuses low-cost, quality talent to the major league roster. Teams basically control these players for six years once they hit the majors, and they do have the option to sign them to inexpensive long-term contracts early in their careers or trade them before they hit free agency to keep the minor league pipeline going. The margin for error is much thinner, but it's a good model. The Yankees recent strategy of roster construction is to either sign the best available FAs to long-term expensive contracts or to trade for contracts that other franchises wish to shed, people may think it unfair but it's a very short-sighted strategy.

bagger015
01-02-05, 06:50 PM
George wants to win, and he spends his money the way he sees fit to accomplish this goal. Which by the way is his right.

The Boss is good for baseball because after all is said and done the bottom line is that no matter where the Yankees go they put fannies in the seats and make the owners of the other teams quite happy after the Yankees leave town after a 3 or 4 game set. The Yankees are money makers for everyone home and away..........

ClemensFan4Life
01-03-05, 11:48 AM
He's bad for baseball, but not by his own faults. He's just playing by the rules that MLB instituted. I agree that there should be a cap for all teams, just as there should be a minimum amount spent on payroll. This would not allow the owners to pocket the revenue sharing money and trot out a AAAA league team.

A team cap would eventually lead into a "market correction" that the owners were so good to keep the last couple of years, then throw out the window this past off-season. Let's say the Red Sox were at the cap limit of 150 mil for next season, they would be forced out of most free agent acquistitions unless they freed-up payroll somehow. By having the cap in place and limiting spending, that would allow more teams to bid on free agents, knowing that they wouldnt have to worry about some team such as the Yankees, Red Sox, or Angels offering way above what a player should be making.

Knowing that my above rant will never happen, to sum up, I think the system is bad for baseball, but George is just following the rules.