+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 120
  1. #76
    Addicted Member
    LongtimeNYYFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Parts Unknown

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    I don't think George ever relaxed his policy. Occasionally players rebelled against it briefly - Thurman Munson once started growing a beard on a road trip, and Don Mattingly resisted cutting his mullet - but the policy always stayed the same.

    Mustaches and sideburns were and (as far as I know) are still allowed. But no beards, and no hair over the collar.
    Actually, Mattingly was benched on August 15th, 1991 by Stump Merrill because he refused to cut his hair. He was also fined and faced a daily fine for each day he went without a haircut.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/16/sp...anted=2&src=pm

  2. #77
    Get Off My Lawn. Maynerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by sweet_lou_14 View Post
    I agree, but if this is the long-term plan then wouldn't it be in their best interest to put a little PR effort into explaining this to the fan base? I am not seeing any upside to being cloak-and-dagger about the goal of getting under $189M, perhaps the worst kept secret in the sport. I see quite a bit of upside to letting people know, in appropriately vague broad brushstrokes, that this is one piece of a long-term plan to continue the team's commitment to putting the best possible team on the field.
    The problem here is that if you tell the fans that we're tightening the belt for a year or two so that we can spend, spend, spend after we reset the penalties, you're also telling all the agents that in 2015 they can ask for the moon.

    As things stand right now, the immediate directive is to get under $189M in 2014. If they leave it at that, it gives them a lot more negotiating flexibility once we turn the page to 2015.

    "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
    - President Barack Obama

  3. #78

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by LongtimeNYYFan View Post
    Actually, Mattingly was benched on August 15th, 1991 by Stump Merrill because he refused to cut his hair. He was also fined and faced a daily fine for each day he went without a haircut.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/16/sp...anted=2&src=pm
    Plus he got cut when he wouldn't trim those sideburns.

  4. #79
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by effdamets View Post
    I think it was early in the 95 season.
    I remember Mattingly having a goatee.... May have been during ST and spilled over into the season a little before GSIII said enough is enough.....
    I stand corrected. From The New York Times, June 3, 1995:

    The anticlimactic play at second ended a bizarre day on which the major topic was the banning of goatees in the clubhouse. Manager Buck Showalter said the new policy was an organizational decision, but it didn't take a microscope to read between the lines.
    Steinbrenner's policy had not allowed players to wear beards since he gained control of the Yankees in 1973. Don Mattingly was benched for one game in 1991 for having long hair. The rule was relaxed during this year's spring training to allow goatees, a concession mainly to Jack McDowell, who had sported a goatee with his former team, the Chicago White Sox. Mattingly, John Wetteland and Pat Kelly wore goatees during the West Coast trip.
    A few other players had goatees at some point during the season, but had shaved them.
    "It's like a slap on the wrist," Mattingly said of the restored policy. "They shouldn't have changed it in the first place if they were going to take it away."

    Assuming that the policy was changed before the game, it followed a 3-12 stretch by the Yankees. They then proceeded to lose 4 of their next 5 games and 8 out of 11.
    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
    - Barry Manilow

  5. #80
    Addicted Member
    LongtimeNYYFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Parts Unknown

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    After the haircut incident Mattingly said, "Maybe I don't belong in the organization anymore. I talked to Gene Michael about moving me earlier in the year. He said we'll talk at the end of the year. Maybe this is their way of saying, 'We don't need you anymore.'"

  6. #81
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    The problem here is that if you tell the fans that we're tightening the belt for a year or two so that we can spend, spend, spend after we reset the penalties, you're also telling all the agents that in 2015 they can ask for the moon.

    As things stand right now, the immediate directive is to get under $189M in 2014. If they leave it at that, it gives them a lot more negotiating flexibility once we turn the page to 2015.
    1. Pure conjecture. You're reading in motives without any basis. It gives them more negotiating flexibility, or it gives them more profit to stuff in their pockets. I don't have any particular confidence in them, and only time will tell.

    2. Why does it really matter if the agents know they can ask for more a couple of years down the road? When the Yankees are ready to dive back into the free-agent market, the agents will know soon enough. They'll always ask for the moon - whether it's from the Yankees or someone else - but that only matters if the Yankees are willing to pay it.

    3. If they want to get the full benefit of the revenue-sharing refunds, they have to stay under the cap in 2014 and again in 2015.
    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
    - Barry Manilow

  7. #82
    Please, call me YFiB Yankee Fan in Boston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Too Close to Fenway

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    1. Pure conjecture. You're reading in motives without any basis. It gives them more negotiating flexibility, or it gives them more profit to stuff in their pockets. I don't have any particular confidence in them, and only time will tell.

    2. Why does it really matter if the agents know they can ask for more a couple of years down the road? When the Yankees are ready to dive back into the free-agent market, the agents will know soon enough. They'll always ask for the moon - whether it's from the Yankees or someone else - but that only matters if the Yankees are willing to pay it.

    3. If they want to get the full benefit of the revenue-sharing refunds, they have to stay under the cap in 2014 and again in 2015.
    And after 2016, Tex comes off the books, A-Rod after 2017, with CC around the same time depending on when he vests. I can imagine them earmarking that money for the next wave of FAs and planning to stay around the cap number (or possibly having a temporary rise in 2016 if things aren't going well and then planning to go back down in subsequent years).
    "Welcome to NYYFans, the place where Yankees fans come together to complain about the manner in which our team is winning games" -- Mr. Coffee

  8. #83
    Pinpoint False1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Arizona

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    1. Pure conjecture. You're reading in motives without any basis. It gives them more negotiating flexibility, or it gives them more profit to stuff in their pockets. I don't have any particular confidence in them, and only time will tell.

    2. Why does it really matter if the agents know they can ask for more a couple of years down the road? When the Yankees are ready to dive back into the free-agent market, the agents will know soon enough. They'll always ask for the moon - whether it's from the Yankees or someone else - but that only matters if the Yankees are willing to pay it.

    3. If they want to get the full benefit of the revenue-sharing refunds, they have to stay under the cap in 2014 and again in 2015.
    Can't argue these points much, but what's the benefit of coming out and declaring that they're going to extend their restraint beyond '14? I'd imagine that fans that are somehow upset that they're going "austere" to $189MM aren't going to immediately change their perspective if they come out and say they're going to go gangbusters in future years. Also, I'm no expert but I believe most of the direction that has been taken around the implementation of and evolution of the luxury tax and revenue sharing has been aimed at the Yankees. Perhaps they've decided (or were even privately encouraged?) to shift gears somewhat and take some of that spotlight off them momentarily. Let the Dodgers have it for now. Then when(/if) they dive back in head first their not perceived by owners or the commish as the sole runners of salary disparity. Admittedly, this is also pure conjecture but I have zero problem with the Yankees not making public declarations over the post-'14 expense plan. Particularly since a lot can change between now and then, and they'd run the risk of having to retract public comments.

  9. #84
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by False1 View Post
    Can't argue these points much, but what's the benefit of coming out and declaring that they're going to extend their restraint beyond '14? I'd imagine that fans that are somehow upset that they're going "austere" to $189MM aren't going to immediately change their perspective if they come out and say they're going to go gangbusters in future years. Also, I'm no expert but I believe most of the direction that has been taken around the implementation of and evolution of the luxury tax and revenue sharing has been aimed at the Yankees. Perhaps they've decided (or were even privately encouraged?) to shift gears somewhat and take some of that spotlight off them momentarily. Let the Dodgers have it for now. Then when(/if) they dive back in head first their not perceived by owners or the commish as the sole runners of salary disparity. Admittedly, this is also pure conjecture but I have zero problem with the Yankees not making public declarations over the post-'14 expense plan. Particularly since a lot can change between now and then, and they'd run the risk of having to retract public comments.
    I don't really have a problem with that, either. I just don't think we can use that to assume that they're gearing up to start spending again afterwards. We just don't know what they're going to do.
    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
    - Barry Manilow

  10. #85
    Pinpoint False1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Arizona

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    I don't really have a problem with that, either. I just don't think we can use that to assume that they're gearing up to start spending again afterwards. We just don't know what they're going to do.
    I agree, although I don't think that's what Maynerd's post said. Perhaps it inferred or he's made those comments in that past. We don't know what they do post-'14 or '15, but I'm betting that if they can reset in '14 and they can make a big splash in '15 or '16 (particularly if the team struggles and revenue sags) they will. I don't see why they wouldn't.

  11. #86
    Bazinga Hitman23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Long Island

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    OK, I let it go once because I didn't want to seem pedantic. But twice? I am pedantic, so I should stop pretending otherwise.
    l apologize

    Seriously though, I distinctly remember the 98 season the Yankees were kicking all sorts of ass and players were not so neatly shaven. Then they lost like 3 games to the Rays or something and George went ballistic and made everyone shave. The Mattingly thing I remember as well but that's not what I was referring to. That was just about hair below the collar. In this case it seemed almost the entire roster had facial hair.
    Thank you, 2013-2014 New York Rangers for a great season!

    NYYFans Fantasy Baseball:
    CBS: Evil Empire
    Yahoo: Special OPS

  12. #87

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    I get the feeling they still focus on the facial hair rule now because they still can. Obviously there are guys who take it to the extreme and if that's a reason not to change it, it's their team. I still think it's silly. Imagine if they said something about visible tattoos?

    Back to Swish, the deal was made official today with a press conference and first donning of the Indians jersey.


  13. #88
    NYYF Legend

    -tz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    NYC

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by skyblue17 View Post
    Back to Swish, the deal was made official today with a press conference and first donning of the Indians jersey.

    Wow, separated at birth ... Swish and the logo on his cap!

    Good luck in Cleveland, Swish! (Except when the Indians play the Yankees.)

  14. #89

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by sweet_lou_14 View Post
    Speaking for myself as a fan, I like the fact that the Yankees have some standards around facial hair etc. I'm glad we don't have clowns like Fernando Rodney sporting six-inch chin slinkys and turning their hats 45 degrees.
    I agree-- personally, I love the facial hair rule. Yes, I know it's only a game, and I'm all for goofy personalities, pies in the faces of walkoff heroes, etc. But keeping yourself neatly groomed is showing (or at least pretending to show!) a real respect for the product they're putting on the field, which is I think the least players can do when they get paid absurd amounts of money and serve as the heroes of millions of little kids. "Dress to impress" is less important than other aspects of showing respect (ie not showing up the opposing pitcher, etc), but it's still important. The very least they can do is not show up looking unkempt.

    With that said, I was amazed that the Yankees let Rafael Soriano get away with the violent shirt-untucks all year. That, to me, was completely classless, trying to show up the losing team. It really rubbed me the wrong way.


    And on a different note-- best of luck in Cleveland, Nick! I loved having him in pinstripes for 4 years, but I'm glad we didn't give him such a big contract.

  15. #90

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by nyyfan61 View Post
    I agree-- personally, I love the facial hair rule. Yes, I know it's only a game, and I'm all for goofy personalities, pies in the faces of walkoff heroes, etc. But keeping yourself neatly groomed is showing (or at least pretending to show!) a real respect for the product they're putting on the field, which is I think the least players can do when they get paid absurd amounts of money and serve as the heroes of millions of little kids. "Dress to impress" is less important than other aspects of showing respect (ie not showing up the opposing pitcher, etc), but it's still important. The very least they can do is not show up looking unkempt.

    With that said, I was amazed that the Yankees let Rafael Soriano get away with the violent shirt-untucks all year. That, to me, was completely classless, trying to show up the losing team. It really rubbed me the wrong way.


    And on a different note-- best of luck in Cleveland, Nick! I loved having him in pinstripes for 4 years, but I'm glad we didn't give him such a big contract.
    So if a player has a beard, goatee, or long hair, they are immediately not supposed to be looked up to?

    If people like the "no facial hair/long hair" look, fine. I will just agree to disagree but when they think just because you're clean shaven, you're automatically a better person for it...that is just stupid.

  16. #91

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jax Teller View Post
    So if a player has a beard, goatee, or long hair, they are immediately not supposed to be looked up to?

    If people like the "no facial hair/long hair" look, fine. I will just agree to disagree on that subject but when people think just because you're clean shaven, you're automatically a better person for it...that is just stupid.
    Any of us who were fans in the 1970s had plenty of Yankee heroes with facial hair and long hair. I mean, just about all the big names on those teams. And these were Steinbrenner's Yankees, after all.

    From the 1980s until the present, there have been plenty of Yankees (Mattingly, Wells, Sabathia) sporting mustaches. When Giambi did it as a gimmick, it was hilarious and everyone jumped on board. And in recent years many of the players (with notable exceptions like Jeter or Teixeira) have been known to play with a face full of stubble from time to time. Swisher even had a mohawk for a while, obviously covered most of the time by a hat / helmet. All of that worked somehow.

    I don't know that I have a clear sense of where to draw the line on hair, or what exactly is the definition of violating the code, but I know it when I see it. The garish colors and crazy facial hair configurations already pictured in this thread are obvious examples. Manny Ramirez dreadlocks would be another. It's basically anything that calls undue attention to the individual player's appearance and violates the basic principle that you're wearing a uniform. IMHO, that means everything from off-color shoes to garish jewelry (usually disallowed by the umps anyway) to crooked hats.

    Speaking of which, CC was of course well known for turning his cap, something I dislike pretty intensely because it goes directly against the idea of the uniform. He still does it, very subtly, but I for one appreciate that he toned it down just enough to make it a non-issue. He managed to balance self-expression with respect for the uniform and that's good enough for me.
    "Baseball is about hope, not confidence." -- rajah

  17. #92

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by sweet_lou_14 View Post
    Any of us who were fans in the 1970s had plenty of Yankee heroes with facial hair and long hair. I mean, just about all the big names on those teams. And these were Steinbrenner's Yankees, after all.

    From the 1980s until the present, there have been plenty of Yankees (Mattingly, Wells, Sabathia) sporting mustaches. When Giambi did it as a gimmick, it was hilarious and everyone jumped on board. And in recent years many of the players (with notable exceptions like Jeter or Teixeira) have been known to play with a face full of stubble from time to time. Swisher even had a mohawk for a while, obviously covered most of the time by a hat / helmet. All of that worked somehow.

    I don't know that I have a clear sense of where to draw the line on hair, or what exactly is the definition of violating the code, but I know it when I see it. The garish colors and crazy facial hair configurations already pictured in this thread are obvious examples. Manny Ramirez dreadlocks would be another. It's basically anything that calls undue attention to the individual player's appearance and violates the basic principle that you're wearing a uniform. IMHO, that means everything from off-color shoes to garish jewelry (usually disallowed by the umps anyway) to crooked hats.

    Speaking of which, CC was of course well known for turning his cap, something I dislike pretty intensely because it goes directly against the idea of the uniform. He still does it, very subtly, but I for one appreciate that he toned it down just enough to make it a non-issue. He managed to balance self-expression with respect for the uniform and that's good enough for me.
    Those are extreme examples though. A very small percentage of baseball players have facial hair like that so when anyone says that ending the no facial hair look will result in those examples, they are just exaggerating for the sake of doing so. If they don't like facial hair on their team, fine. Just say that then. No need for for blowing it out of proportion. I doubt that if Hal/Hank said "Ok guys, the grooming law is gone" then players will go out rocking pink soul patches, ZZ Top beards, and whatever else.

    In the end, if someone wants to sport a ridiculous hair cut &/or crazy facial hair, who am I to judge? I don't care if a player has any of the aforementioned looks. I'm not going to be ashamed of a player for being unique.

  18. #93

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by sweet_lou_14 View Post
    Any of us who were fans in the 1970s had plenty of Yankee heroes with facial hair and long hair. I mean, just about all the big names on those teams. And these were Steinbrenner's Yankees, after all.

    From the 1980s until the present, there have been plenty of Yankees (Mattingly, Wells, Sabathia) sporting mustaches. When Giambi did it as a gimmick, it was hilarious and everyone jumped on board. And in recent years many of the players (with notable exceptions like Jeter or Teixeira) have been known to play with a face full of stubble from time to time. Swisher even had a mohawk for a while, obviously covered most of the time by a hat / helmet. All of that worked somehow.

    I don't know that I have a clear sense of where to draw the line on hair, or what exactly is the definition of violating the code, but I know it when I see it. The garish colors and crazy facial hair configurations already pictured in this thread are obvious examples. Manny Ramirez dreadlocks would be another. It's basically anything that calls undue attention to the individual player's appearance and violates the basic principle that you're wearing a uniform. IMHO, that means everything from off-color shoes to garish jewelry (usually disallowed by the umps anyway) to crooked hats.

    Speaking of which, CC was of course well known for turning his cap, something I dislike pretty intensely because it goes directly against the idea of the uniform. He still does it, very subtly, but I for one appreciate that he toned it down just enough to make it a non-issue. He managed to balance self-expression with respect for the uniform and that's good enough for me.
    I think you're on to something here. It isn't so much shaggy vs clean cut, but uniform vs individualism. If the entire team grew goatees it would be uniform across all players ... a team image. That's way more acceptable to me than an individual trying to stand out among his teammates. For example, many A's players grew mustaches back in the early 70's and it became their image. For the Yankees, being clean shaven has been part of their image for so long, it shouldn't be messed with.
    “Everything looks nicer when you win. The girls are prettier, the cigars taste better. The trees are greener.”—Billy Martin

  19. #94
    The gerbil lives Zimmers' Helmet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    On the bench

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jax Teller View Post
    So if a player has a beard, goatee, or long hair, they are immediately not supposed to be looked up to?

    If people like the "no facial hair/long hair" look, fine. I will just agree to disagree but when they think just because you're clean shaven, you're automatically a better person for it...that is just stupid.
    I couldn't agree more. The "no facial hair" rule is outdated and foolish.

    The fact that this franchise has shown a greater tolerance for players who were junkies and criminals rather than players with facial hair kind of destroys the "clean cut" image that George tried to cultivate anyhow.
    "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

  20. #95
    Bazinga Hitman23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Long Island

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by nyyfan61 View Post
    With that said, I was amazed that the Yankees let Rafael Soriano get away with the violent shirt-untucks all year. That, to me, was completely classless, trying to show up the losing team. It really rubbed me the wrong way.
    I wasn't a fan of that either. I wouldn't call it classless but it made him look like a dink. Closers are weird so I just brush it off.
    Thank you, 2013-2014 New York Rangers for a great season!

    NYYFans Fantasy Baseball:
    CBS: Evil Empire
    Yahoo: Special OPS

  21. #96
    Released Outright
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Equestria

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by nyyfan61 View Post
    With that said, I was amazed that the Yankees let Rafael Soriano get away with the violent shirt-untucks all year. That, to me, was completely classless, trying to show up the losing team. It really rubbed me the wrong way.
    If they put up with Joba's antics they'd put up with some guy untucking his shirt.

  22. #97
    NYYFans Member Stick Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Long Island, NY

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by d32123 View Post
    If they put up with Joba's antics they'd put up with some guy untucking his shirt.
    While I agree with your premise, I consider fistpumping after routine outs in the seventh and eighth innings to be considerably worse etiquette than untucking a jersey after a game is won. Just my opinion.

  23. #98
    Released Outright
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Equestria

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Stick Michael View Post
    While I agree with your premise, I consider fistpumping after routine outs in the seventh and eighth innings to be considerably worse etiquette than untucking a jersey after a game is won. Just my opinion.
    Agreed completely. I think this all ties into the idea that the Yankees are more concerned with looking professional than acting professional (where as I would prefer the priorities be reversed here).

  24. #99
    NYYF Legend

    35Knucklecurve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Maryland branches, Pennsylvania roots

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by -tz View Post
    Wow, separated at birth ... Swish and the logo on his cap!

    Good luck in Cleveland, Swish! (Except when the Indians play the Yankees.)
    Swish looks so happy in that photo, I almost can stand to look at Chief Wahoo.
    September 28, 2008 - the day the HOF got a wake-up Moose call.

  25. #100
    NYYF HOF

    The FUTURE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    North Carolina

    Re: Swisher and Tribe reach $56M, four year deal!!!

    Don't look now but I think the Cleveland freakin Indians are going to have a very good baseball team for the 2013 season. They have had a very good off-season IMO.
    NYYFANS.com Fantasy Baseball: Carolina Force
    2010 & 2011 Gehrig Division Champs.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts