George Steinbrenner dies

[jimsumner]

No direct correlation to Duke hoops but perhaps too important for back pages.

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/news/story?id=5375561

[sdotbarbee]

RIP George! Sad day for Yankees everywhere.

[Duvall]

No direct correlation to Duke hoops but perhaps too important for back pages.

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/news/story?id=5375561

But direct correlation to ACC sports (http://tarheelblue.cstv.com/sports/m-basebl/spec-rel/042506aab.html).

[superdave]

RIP, George!

Thank goodness for Mark Cuban and Mikhail Prokorov as entertaining owners.

[rhcpflea99]

R.I.P

[mgtr]

While often controversial, I think he made a real contribution to professional baseball. RIP.

[sagegrouse]

Steinbrenner's era was over a few years ago, when he began to fade mentally. Another sad reminder of life's perils. His importance to baseball over the past 40 years, for better or worse, can't be overstated. RIP.

sagegrouse

[duke79]

RIP George, although, as a lifelong Red Sox fan, I always thought he was a world class jerk, but it's not good karma to speak ill of the dead (unless it is deserved).

[WiJoe]

While often controversial, I think he made a real contribution to professional baseball. RIP.

By ruining competitive balance?

[WiJoe]

No direct correlation to Duke hoops but perhaps too important for back pages.

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/news/story?id=5375561

Respectively disagree. He ruined baseball for small market teams.

[Channing]

RIP. I hated him with a passion (as a Braves fan), but can't deny his impact on the game.

On a side note, and while trying to stay out of the PPB's arena, the current cliamte of zero estate tax means that there will presumably be no issues with passing the team from one generation to the next (and assuming nothing retroactive is passed and then upheld). I think it was the Cincinatti Bengals, back in the 80s, who went through some trials and tribulations when the owner died and the children wanted to keep the team but had trouble paying the associated estate tax.

[papa whiskey]

Respectively disagree. He ruined baseball for small market teams.

Absolutely agree. If you live in KC, Pitts., Oakland, Cincy,... you can feel pretty confident that your team will never win a championship in your lifetime. Although, as a lifelong Cubs fan with a 100+ year drought, a $100 mil. + payroll with 1 all-star and the worst luck in sports I don't really fell too sorry for them. George helped make MLB the third most relevant sport in America. And with the continuing explosion of College Football, soon to be the fourth.

[hurleyfor3]

By ruining competitive balance?

There's never been competitive balance in baseball, except perhaps during the 1980s when Steinbrenner wasn't spending enough money.

[ndkjr70]

Respectively disagree. He ruined baseball for small market teams.

When you point to the rule that says he's not allowed to do it, I'll agree. When you point to any other instance in life where more money doesn't equate to more success, I'll agree. It's impossible to add a salary cap, because with a salary cap you'd need a salary floor, and it would force these "small market" BILLIONARES to actually spend the money they made back into the team, instead of sitting on it with their 22 year old wives.

[DevilHorns]

Respectively disagree. He ruined baseball for small market teams.


Absolutely agree. If you live in KC, Pitts., Oakland, Cincy,... you can feel pretty confident that your team will never win a championship in your lifetime. Although, as a lifelong Cubs fan with a 100+ year drought, a $100 mil. + payroll with 1 all-star and the worst luck in sports I don't really fell too sorry for them. George helped make MLB the third most relevant sport in America. And with the continuing explosion of College Football, soon to be the fourth.

I want to point the following out:

In 2003,
Marlins' team salary: $54 million
Yank's team salary: $164 million

Guess who won the World Series? Some teams have the right people in place to develop a better farm system, assess talent, make the right trades, etc. To a large degree, that can offset much of the $$$ discrepancy. Obviously it helps to have the $$$ to make an attempt to buy a championship, and in the long run, those teams will have more championships.

The Marlins in many respects are the most over-producing franchise in all of sports. Ya I said it. For a team that has a bandwagon following (I say this as a life-long Marlins fan) and therefore very inconsistent ticket sales and $$ influx, they have done the best in a constrained budget to develop players then trade them away for young talent value over the years with the sights of winning big before they have to trade away talent again.

RIP George.

[The Gordog]

When you point to the rule that says he's not allowed to do it, I'll agree. When you point to any other instance in life where more money doesn't equate to more success, I'll agree. It's impossible to add a salary cap, because with a salary cap you'd need a salary floor, and it would force these "small market" BILLIONARES to actually spend the money they made back into the team, instead of sitting on it with their 22 year old wives.

When you define success as 'making more money' or 'having more stuff' then obviously starting with more increases your chances of getting more. Personally, I don't define success by the size of a man's wallet! (Attempting to paraphrase/channel Martin Sheen in his role as Bud Fox's (Charlie Sheen) dad in the movie Wall Street.)

But I'll give you an example anyway. More money does not equate to more success in raising kids who are not jerks. Some would say it is actually an impediment.

[brickey]

RIP George! Sad day for Yankees everywhere.

Except, I'd be willing to bet, wherever Billy Martin, Dave Winfield, and countless other former Yankees live.


...When you point to any other instance in life where more money doesn't equate to more success, I'll agree.

You can't be serious. If you are, I pray you're not a Duke alum, for risk of cementing our reputation as elitists.

My problem with Steinbrenner is not that he used wealth and power for competitive advantage, it's with how he used them. Fraud, defamation, and obstruction of justice are not commendable behaviors, in my opinion.

Frankly, I question the integrity of these boards if we can continue to deride Roy for his public handling of last season's team/Delvon Roe and Cal for the consequences of his win-at-all-costs mentality in other DBR threads, while we heap praise (or at least more praise than criticism) on George Steinbrenner in this one.

[brickey]

When you define success as 'making more money' or 'having more stuff' then obviously starting with more increases your chances of getting more. Personally, I don't define success by the size of a man's wallet! (Attempting to paraphrase/channel Martin Sheen in his role as Bud Fox's (Charlie Sheen) dad in the movie Wall Street.)

But I'll give you an example anyway. More money does not equate to more success in raising kids who are not jerks. Some would say it is actually an impediment.

Thanks, Gordog. Great example.

[Bluedog]

Respectively disagree. He ruined baseball for small market teams.

In a linked video, somebody argues that he HELPED small market teams since he had to pay a huge luxury tax every year that then actually got funneled to the smaller market teams. So, his huge payrolls actually helped fund other teams. Not sure how true this is, but that's what he said.

[MisterRoddy]

RIP, hated the Yankees but would've loved to have him as owner of my Cubs.

[duke74]

RIP, hated the Yankees but would've loved to have him as owner of my Cubs.

Or my Mets. Burning desire to win and restore Yankee pride. Had his personality faults (obviously), but wanted to put a winning team on the field and expected performance and accountability.

[DevilHorns]

ESPN ticker:

'Boss' bought the team in 1973 (as majority owner in a group) for ~$8 million.

Presently team is worth ~1.5 billion.

Capitalism at its finest.

[Duke Mom]

ESPN ticker:

'Boss' bought the team in 1973 (as majority owner in a group) for ~$8 million.

Presently team is worth ~1.5 billion.

Capitalism at its finest.

Despite my loyalty to the Mets, I have to agree with you.

Steinbrenner's passion and devotion were deeply invested in the success of his Yankees. Like other effective CEOs, he consistently reinvested profits into his product. The exponentially increased value of the Yankees franchise (due to many World Series wins and marketing) is the result. If Steinbrenner's strategy of paying the best to get the best makes for an uneven playing field - well, that just might not be George's problem. It's up to the baseball commission to set salary caps...or not.

IMO the Boss created a lot of excitement in baseball. Certainly has been fun, at times, to be a " Yankees hater," to watch the Subway Series, and the Red Sox rivalry. Love 'em or hate 'em - for many years, now, the Yankees have been the team to beat.

As the stories unfold on TV today, there's no denying Steinbrenner's tough personality, but many are also talking about his strong sense of loyalty and generosity to those in need.

Condolences to the Steinbrenner family, the Yankee organization and fans.

[JasonEvans]

The most famous owner in sports (Ted Turner may be close) died today at the age of 80.
(http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/news/story?id=5375561)
http://espn.go.com/photo/2010/0713/mlb_george_steinbrenner_203.jpg

I was not a big fan for many years, but began to really admire and appreciate George's passion for winning when he stopped meddling so much, a little more than a decade ago.

Like him or hate him, I doubt there is any fan who not want George Steinbrenner to be the owner of their team. Honestly look into your soul as a sports fan and recognize this-- he did what it took to win. That is the most we can ask for in our owners. I wish there were more like him.

--Jason "I know he had economic advantages over everyone else... but at least he spent his money to bring the best team possible to pinstripes instead of pocketing it" Evans

[YourLandlord]

All this adoration is a bit much for a convicted felon.


...he was indicted on 14 criminal counts on April 5, 1974, then pleaded guilty to making illegal contributions to Nixon's re-election campaign and a felony charge of obstruction of justice on August 23.

[-jk]

One of my wife's childhood friends (life long, really) roomed with one of his daughters - at unc, alas. Her family had a long term relationship with the Steinbrenners, and had nothing but good things to say about the family. He will be missed.

-jk

[Olympic Fan]

In a linked video, somebody argues that he HELPED small market teams since he had to pay a huge luxury tax every year that then actually got funneled to the smaller market teams. So, his huge payrolls actually helped fund other teams. Not sure how true this is, but that's what he said.

Oakland GM Billy Beane argued in 2005 that Steinbrenner was good for baseball and good for small market teams, such as his own (note the questioner trying to get Beane to take the standard small market shot at Steinbrenner):

http://www.athleticsnation.com/2005/1/23/233751/919

Blez: This may be a loaded question, but has George Steinbrenner gone completely mad? $200 million dollars? When you look at the Red Sox and the Yankees, they seem to be the only two teams that can play on that level in the American League. They're in a different stratosphere because of their inflated budgets. Is there a problem in baseball with that?

BB: It seems like I have that question or some derivative of that question every year. First of all, you can never criticize because they've been a very successful franchise and they're spending what they have available to them. Good for them. At some point, situations like that create opportunities for clubs like ours. It might sound crazy, but they, teams like us are still playing with 25 men on the roster. Sometimes they need to move very good players off their roster and it creates very good opportunities for us. This isn't a high profile situation, but because of that, we were able to get a great pitcher who was very effective for us last season, Chris Hammond, and he cost us 15 cents on the dollar. An opportunity was created because of the situation in New York. I don't view it as frustrating as many fans do, I view it as something that will create an opportunity somewhere along the line if you look for it. Instead of looking at it as an excuse and complaining about it, I look for the opportunities it creates for us.


Blaming the Yankees (or the Red Sox) for spending money is a cop out for incompetent GMs and lazy owners. There's a lot I don't like about George Steinbrenner (but I don't think this is the time to bring it up) ... but one thing I DID admire was that his first focus as an owner was to win.

Too many owners hate him for that -- they want to make the biggest profit possible and would rather take money out of their franchise than plow it back in and be a success.

When Steinbrenner bought the Yankees in the early '70s, they weren't a juggernaut and they weren't a wealthy franchise (he paid just $10 million). He made them a $1 billion enterprise because he poured money INTO the team. There's no reason the Dodgers or the Cubs or the Mets couldn't do the same.

Why don't they?

Oakland, Tampa, Minnesota have proved that well-run small-market teams can be successful. Pittsburgh got a great new ballpark and they STILL sell off their best players ... yet the franchise turned a bigger profit last year than the Yankees (not bigger income, but more profit).

Of course, just spending money is no guarantee of success -- Steinbrenner himself proved that by throwing money away on aging veterans in the 1980s.