We’re a few days into the post-George Steinbrenner era and while I was churlish enough to predict “not nearly enough” would be written about The Boss’ numerous instances of jerky and/or criminal behavior, as it turned out, some of the coverage —in particular, interviews conduct by WFAN’s Evan Roberts and Joe Benigno-Gazingo on Tuesday afternoon — was anything but fluffy. Even so, Metro’s Bruce Allen — the man behind Boston Sports Media.com, bemoaned the “lionization of Steinbrenner”, suggesting the late Yankee owners’ “not insignificant faults’ were largely glossed over.
Many of Steinbrenner™s employees had issues with him as a boss. This includes players, managers, general managers, even the training staff. He was accused of meddling, bullying and worse.
These tactics are being held up as examples that Steinbrenner cared. He cared as much, if not more, about winning than his players and coaches did. So that validates his behaviour over the years?
He did have a huge impact on the game of baseball, becoming one of the first owners to really run his team like a business, rather than a country club. (See Yawkey, Tom) and when the doors to free agency were opened in the mid-1970s, Steinbrenner led the way in pursuing the best talent his money could buy.
But does he deserve unfettered praise for that? His willingness to spend to extremes … even to the detriment of the game, is cause for celebration? MLB had to institute revenue sharing because Steinbrenner™s spending was so far above and beyond that of other teams that there was a competitive divide that needed to be addressed. His spending resulted in out-of-control player salaries, which has cause resentment among much of the American public, sports fans and non-sports fans alike.
His passing however, was met with the type of media reaction usually reserved only for Presidents. Heck, I don™t think the passing of Gerald Ford got this much attention. Sadly, it is typical of the hyper-intensive news media cycle that sweeps across events these days. George Steinbrenner should be remembered, but not deified.
Yeah, I was equally surprised by the national state of media mourning for Tim Russert when he died, too. I give people a short-term pass on writing glowing eulogies and obits. Even Christopher Hitchens, as I recall, let Mother Theresa’s passing go without quoting from his book length harangue of her.
Still, I don’t have high hopes that sports writers will do much besides praise Steinbrenner’s style of ownership as a great example of pre-corporate days, and refer to him as Old School a lot. As a Cubs fan who witnessed the Tribune Co’s shareholder friendly management of the North Side, during roughly the same time period, I can see their point.
But, Steinbrenner was the Sam Walton of baseball, using financial clout to drain competitors of their resources and and talent and bulk up his team. In my mind, there’s no difference between his use of money and Barry Bonds use of steroids. Same result, same hollow victory, same legal means to win. It taints every Yankee accomplishment. Yankee records don’t need an asterisk next to them, they need a dollar sign.
Come off it, Ben. We’re talking about a pro ball team, here, not your local organic food co-op. I suppose the biggest market in baseball is supposed to self-impose a spending limit in the interest of fair play? I thought you lived in LA. How are Dodgers fans taking the idea of a payroll well below ownership’s means?
The author has glossed over great point: If it weren’t for Steinbrenner, ballplayers would likely still be slave wages relative to what they draw. I’d rather not defend the guy, but your particular complaint is shallow, naive, and boring as hell.
Actual games were more competitive and more interesting when ballplayers were working at “slave wages”. Giving the player’s union the power they now have is NOT something to be proud of.
That said, I never see the benefit of talking ill of the dead. There’s plenty of people fucking up in sports that are alive. Let’s talk shit about them!
It’s disgusting how, since George bought the Yankees, they’ve won every single World Series! That evil bastard with his deep pockets! And I am sooo pissed off at how teams such as the Pirates and Kansas City used the money they received all these years from revenue sharing and put it right into their teams instead of the owners’ pockets! I am beyond steamed. It’s all George’s fault.
The concept that games in the pre-free agent era were more interesting is subjective, of course, and I’m in no position to comment considering the fact that this era predates me. Having said that, I’m not sure what the difference could be so long as the top talent is on the field.
Having ballplayers play for a comfortable living wage while owners rake it in on ticket sales, parking, tv contracts, all the while buying and selling players’ careers like property doesn’t seem like a good trade off for some notional increase in competitiveness. I imagine that you can leave your job at any time for greener pastures.
Funk sez: “I suppose the biggest market in baseball is supposed to self-impose a spending limit in the interest of fair play?”
It depends, is baseball a collection of competing markets or is MLB one national baseball market? If it’s a national business, then yes, the Yankees should be reigned in to competitive spending. If not, and baseball is every team for itself, unrestricted, then no.
But we all know it is a single-market business. MLB is a monopoly — the gov’t refuses to allow you or me to start professional baseball teams. It’s the special relationship the national pastime has with Congress.
http://www.swlearning.com/economics/policy_debates/baseball.html
And don’t think, if they didn’t alter that rule, that billionaires nationwide wouldn’t get their own league going. Why should Mark Cuban have to suck up to Jerry Reinsdorf, as he did when he went after the Cubs? Why do towns like Nashville, who want baseball, have to wait for the Steinbrenners and a majority of the owners or anyone else to approve their town getting a pro baseball team? It’s one business, and the Yankees are 1/28th of it, not the biggest single market in baseball.
That said, I’d argue that Steinbrenner was legitimately one of the best owners in baseball whether he outspent or not. Look how he got A-Rod away from the Red Sox, who almost had him. Steinbrenner made the sub-deals and moved players out to make it happen where Boston refused when they could have done it. It showed that not every deal Steinbrenner made was a record setter, but could be smart and complicated. To get that A-list player it took maneuvering other talent, and he did it well. GS was smart and aggressive about marketing the Yankees, too. Look how he handled tearing down Yankee stadium for the new one. You think the Tribune Co could have or would have managed that with Wrigley and Chicago? He tore down a national monument and made it seem like good news.
Still, when free agency came in, he pretty ruthlessly used cash to strip other teams of their best talent. It adds up not just in money spent, but leverage for trading as well. Free agency had to happen, but a free buyers market when there’s really only ONE buyer was short-sighted.
On Friday he was a cheater, now he’s just short-sighted. Baseball’s unique and very American monopoly is not The Boss’s fault. It’s more like the hand he was dealt (although, I can’t imagine that he’d have changed it if he could).
Besides, his people were saying “Ken Phelps, Ken Phelps.”