Frank,

Regardless of what team I'm a fan of, you should probably stay off of public message boards until you know what you're talking about.

You said he was greedy and your proof is that he spends too much money. You're not smart enough to see that those two statements fly against each other.

You also don't seem to be able to distinguish between a bottom line profit and an increase in net value. I probably can't fix that for you here. Maybe you can find a fine Ivy League School to help you out.

You said he hasn't done anything for baseball. That's clearly wrong. Even Red Sox fans will tell you that he has inspired their ownership to be better. MLB has never been stronger, financially and fan-wise than it is right now. Teams that are doing poorly are their own worst enemy.

Yes, he benefited by being in the biggest sports market in the world. But they were in that same market for 10 years when CBS owned them and they were a disaster. George fixed that.

There are many, many, things that you could have hated Steinbrenner for. He was a jerk. He was a bully. He was an ass to work for. He dated Barbara Walters. But you didn't pick one of those. You picked greedy. Wanting to win isn't the definition of greedy. If he was greedy he would have sold the team. His group bought them for less than $10 million (As David pointed out, George's share was rumored to be around $160,000.) Today, estimates are they could be sold for over $1.5 billion. Now if he sold them, that would have been greedy.

Finally, the team is privately held, so they don't have to release their P&L to the public, butthey do have to release it to MLB. And yes, they lose money almost every year.

I believe David's point is that Steinbrenner put up almost none of his own money when he bought the team.

I've been a Yankee fan for 45 years, and was almost embarrassed to say so during the first ten years of Steinbrenner's regime. He is associated with leading the free agency spending that completely changed the baseball landscape, and that association is valid. Still, as time passed, I came to realize that if not George, another would have stepped forward and started the spending orgy. Being first and brashest made him a poster boy for those unhappy with the way baseball operates. I get that, but again, it was inevitable.

BTW--sorry, I don't believe the Yankees lose money. For years anyway, and maybe still, they played the shell game of not counting the money they receive from their interest in the YES network in their bottom line--at least the bottom line they gave to MLB. Not chump change by any stretch--hell, their RADIO revenue was larger than many teams' TV cash.

Thanks Peter, however I believe my point is still valid. George and the other owners took the risk be it through cash, credit, leases, player contracts, employees, and a myriad of other liabilities that they were on the hook for.

For all his other faults. George was smart enough to know that he don't make money without fannies in the seats.

And it's the players--certain ones in particular--that put the fannies in the seats.

So paying what it takes to get those players was--and is--good business strategy.

A strategy that turns your $8.5 million "risk" into a $1.6 billion commodity.

It's rather disturbing to me that a man dies, and all that is remembered by some is that he "ruined baseball".

Never mind all the charitable work the guy did and his very generous nature.

I agree, I don't think that was very tasteful in an "RIP" thread.

agreed
 

+1



Unless the person is a murderer or child molester, when they pass away, I feel it's time to remember them positively. Let bygones be bygones....

i totally agree. Way to many negative comments and fighting on a thread to honor a man who has just died. Every man has faults, but George had many fine qualities as well. This is a time to remember those. He will be missed and should go to Cooperstown one day, imo. RIP, and to Bob Sheppard as well.

Condolences to his family and the Yankees.

When a man dies the positive things he did in his lifetime should certainly be foremost, and many of the not so good things need not be stressed.

However, when writing the obituary that will appear in newspapers throughout the country, it's acceptable to present a balanced picture of a man's life. It's perfectly fine to discuss many of the bizarre hirings and firings, and the often terrible trades Steinbrenner engineered, since that is an integral part of who he was. An obituary should really be a biography of a man's life.

But on a thread like this, which is ostensibly a tribute to Mr. Steinbrenner, there's a different acceptable standard. This is the place to praise him and send condolences-period. No need to discuss the negatives.

Can someone from Net 54 collect these condolences and send them to the Steinbrenner family? I'm sure they would appreciate that.

Loving this thread...
 

absolutely loving it !
:D

Jeff,
I'm thinking they're longtime lurkers. :D

Knock it off, guys.

*

Funny, I see this all the time when someone dies. Oh he was a wonderful man, oh he was a good guy. Phonies. Whats the big deal about his death. We all will die sooner or later. Does death make us such a wonderful person automaticly. Sorry some of you guys don't like it but a person is what he is, weather living or dead

Yeah. You must be right. "Automaticly." (sic) "Weather" (sic) or not!

Sorry, but dieing doesn't absolve you from being a prick.

Frank,


Dieing?

Please invest in a Spellcheck program. You're killing me, Barry, and Rob (plus, probably a few others.)

LOL, I hope that "dieing" doesn't kill you, Barry, Rob or anyone else. :-)

Kenny

I'm just looking to stay out of trouble.

Barry,
 

why? are you on some kind of probation? :D

Jason- correcting spelling is not always well received.:)

On another note, next week the ten episodes of Seinfeld that will be shown by TBS will all be ones with George Steinbrenner (not that they're so hard to find in a normal week).

I remember most the 1970's, with Billy Martin, etc. After that I mostly stuck to the Atlanta Braves, the National League and didn't even think about it much when he was in the news. Here in the Tampa Bay Area he is very well known because of the Yankees and what he has contributed. Have not heard anything negative on him for years.

I hope(as for any person), that he was correct with God at the end.

Sorry if this has already been shared but I thought it fit this thread well.
Nice and touching article regarding George Steinbrenner.
RC
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/1...ex.html?hpt=C2

Steinbrenner
 

I have been hearing all the accolades about Steinbrenner and I disagree. A long time family friend of my wife before she passed worked for the Yankees as a cleaner from 1964-1983 Irma Ramirez. In 1983 Steinbrenner got mad about sometething and first took away health/dental benefits from about 40 longtime workers. When they tried to complain he fired them all. These were people who worked their ass off for the Yankees and made basically the minimum wage. I remember Irma telling me how much she hated Steinbrenner. I researched it and the replacements mostly immigrants never got any health benefits even though club executives were in favor of it. Steinbrenner was a bully to the poor and little guy.CN

Chris,

It's perfectly OK to disagree.

It's not OK to post negative comments in a thread designed to eulogize someone. It shows a lack of class.

There is no argument that Steinbrenner touched many people in his life. Some good. Some bad. But it is in poor taste to wait 27 years after an event and then slam someone on a public message board.

In addition, it's poor etiquette to derail the original thread, which was intended as a tribute to a human being who has passed.

At least in your case, your facts may be accurate. Other posters who come on making wild claims about him "ruining baseball," are based in emotion, and, simply, inaccurate.

Steinbrenner
 

Jim,I totally disagree with you. I have my facts and my opinion of a person is mine. I just said that he was not the Saint that many people have made him out to be.CN

What's to disagree with me about? I said you are entitled to your opinion. I said your facts may be 100% accurate. (It was the other guy whose statements were full of misinformation.)

I did say that it's improper to derail Jay's thread (or any thread meant to eulogize someone) by speaking ill of the dead. Chiming negatively into this sort of thread makes you look like an insensitive individual.

If you started your own thread ripping into George, that would be fine (a little crude, given the timing, but fine.)

While I'm not expressing any opinion on George, I'd say that anyone who starts a thread on George should have the stomach to take whatever comments on George may come. You don't have to start a new thread because you disagree with the original poster. I see your point Jim, but I just think one Steinbrenner thread is all we need...

I wasn't really suggesting a second thread. I was suggesting silent disgression on the part of the haters.

In Chris's case, 27 years have lapsed since George, allegedly committed this injustice. Bringing it up during the time right after his passing is insensitive.

Jim,I only brought it up because of the current thread. I was no going to start a second thread. 27 years is a long time ago but as someone who grew up in the area I have heard similiar stories in the past 10 years.Based on his 37 years taking in totality I would not want him as my BOSS.CN

Perhaps whoever sends this thread to the Steinbrenner family will edit out the insensitive comments (including my previous ones).

Condolences to his family, the Yankees, Major League Baseball and the Bronx.

Rob,

Your insensitivity, in all matters, is understandable.

You are an Indians fan. :D

Actually, I wanted to apologize on behalf of the Net 54 community to the Steinbrenner family for some of the insensitive and classless comments on this thread which could be upsetting. And my continued condolences and prayers to the family and friends of Mr. Steinbrenner.

Wow, and here I thought you were a Twins fan all this time. :(

tbob
 

I am and have been a Twins fan for that long too. The two teams have seldom put me in conflict, but when they do, I'm Twins first. Was lucky enough (and thereafter poor enough) to have flown up North in late May to to watch the Twins-Yankees three game set at Target Field.

I want the Twins-Yanks ALCS every year. This season, the Yankees should make it into the tournament, but the Twins seem to have made it tough on themselves again.