New York's King George
Sad to hear of the passing of George Steinbrenner, who died today.
Two of the people I admired most from the baseball world—Derek Jeter and Yankee GM Brian Cashman—respected Steinbrenner. Cashman, one of the classiest and smartest men in any industry, was a prime target of Steinbrenner’s often-irrational rage. Yet he kept quiet about it and was loyal. He saw that despite Steinbrenner’s quirks and explosions of rage, he knew how to run a baseball team. Steinbrenner was also quietly charitable.
For us reporters, a Steinbrenner sighting meant gold. He was almost always up for a quick interview, if you could chase him down and catch his attention somehow. I sprinted after his car once and got a good quote through a half-opened tinted window. I also scooted after him into a “No Press” zone in the Stadium. He could have kicked me out, but he didn’t.
On orders from Mr. Steinbrenner, Frank Sinatra’s version of “New York, New York” is played at Yankee Stadium every time the Bronx Bombers win. For Yankee fans, it’s a great feeling to walk up the aisles and down the great big stadium ramps while singing along with the Chairman of the Board. King of the hill. Top of the heap. Theeeeeeese little town blues….
But for reporters covering the team, as I did in the late 90s, the song loses its magic pretty quickly. In 1998, the Yankees won more times than any baseball team in history. I heard that song a lot that year. Eventually, I tuned it out completely.
It was Mr. Steinbrenner who insisted on the Sinatra version after the wins. For a while, he played Liza Minelli’s version after a loss. But Minelli complained, publicly, about being the second-class version and demanded that the Yankees play her version after some wins, too, or not play it at all. In true Steinbrenner fashion, the decision was swift and, some might say, heartless. Now, the Minelli version is never played.
I cried a little bit when I heard the DJ play “New York, New York” this morning in honor of Mr. Steinbrenner. I listened to the words carefully for the first time in years. I thought about how powerful they are to someone who truly loves New York. Yes, it’s trite, but also true.
George Steinbrenner made it in New York. He could easily have made it anywhere.
RIP.
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Re: New York's King George
As a White Sox fan growing up in Chicago, I learned to be a Yankee-hater early on. When Steinbrenner bought the team it became even easier to hate them. However, in recent years, I've come to appreciate him a bit more. Making the Yankees hate-able again (after their period of mediocrity in the 60s and 70s) has been good for baseball. He was also right when he complained about sending luxury tax money to the "have-nots" of baseball, noting that the owners would be tempted to pocket the money rather than invest in their teams. If I were a New Yorker, I'd love the guy. And, on this day, even this non-New Yorker is very sad to see him leave. Ursula, thanks for "spreading the news."
Jun '10
Re: New York's King George
So you're the other one. I'm glad to hear there's another south side fan here on Ricochet. Do you die a little inside every time you see our great leader walking around in a ChiSox hat Pat? Perhaps I can convince you to write a post about how the White Sox and the working class, dirty bibbers, 'common man's team' etc. are just another ploy of the president to play into his image and not reality... since on opening day he mispronounced ComINskey park for the 2nd time and couldn't name one single player from the past....
I'm with you on big Stein. He did it better than everyone else and we hated him for it.
May '10
Re: New York's King George
Three quick thoughts about The Boss: First, how fitting that he thumb his nose one last time at the Commissioner's office by dying on the morning of the All-Star Game. MLB has the "Steinbrenner Rule" prohibiting teams from making news during the All-Star festivities and the postseason. Here's to you Bud, with Love from George.
Second, his first try at buying a team was his hometown Indians but baseball turned him down. How tragic for Cleveland. It would have been the Tribe with all those trophies.
Lastly, he is somewhat responsible for my team's last Series title. After the Pete Rose debacle, Marge Schott called George and asked for his advice in hiring a manager. He recommended an ex-Yankee by the name of Lou Piniella. Sweet Lou took the Reds to a wire-to-wire pennant run and a glorious sweep of the A's in the 1990 World Series.
Rest well, Boss.
May '10
Re: New York's King George
I am a Steinbrenner skeptic. I am not a journalist, and thus don't care first about Getting The Story. I am a Steinbrenner skeptic because I once loved baseball, and he, along with Marvin Miller (and several other owners), is one of the greatest contributors to the ruin of the game. Just as Al Davis, Jerry Jones, and Ed Garvey have conspired to destroy professional football.
The "luxury tax" or a similar restraint such as a "hard cap" is one of three essentials to having a competitive sports league- which needs to have competitive franchises in places other than the biggest blue cities in the blue states (+ Dallas); baseball needs a Kansas City.
The other two requirements are a distribution draft for talent allocation, and, most important: no government support or subsidies for stadia/arenas.
Steinbrenner violated two of the three in spades (undercut the luxury tax and extort public money for his stadium; GWB also "sinned" on the stadium), and bought his way around the third.
I don't begrudge the Yankees their excellence, I resent the way they do it, and the fact that Baltimore can't. (we can debate solutions on Ursula's next thread...)
Jun '10
Re: New York's King George
Baseball does not need a salary cap. There's nothing to stop smaller markets like KC from being competitive ... except their own mistakes. Minnesota, Tampa Bay, the FL Marlins, St. Louis Cardinals ... I would hardly call those big markets and yet they are consistently competitive (and they're not the bluest places in the country either). The Red Sox have the 2nd largest payroll this year and yet, they're the 3rd best team in their division. The Cubs have a payroll in the top 10 and they're horrid. Not to mention, the Yankees haven't totally bought their success either. Their home grown talent won championships for Big Stein: Jeter, Posada, Rivera - all home grown talent.
If you want to make the point that the Yankees can buy their way out of mistakes, I'll concede that. But they haven't really 'bought' their championships only ... they're also really smart and a great franchise.
May '10
Re: New York's King George
Don't cherry-pick the data, Samwise. You can destroy the team, as the Red Sox and White Sox disproportionately have, and fall out of contention- but you have to be very lucky to stay up there, or you have to buy it as the big boys do- and when you do, you destroy the league in the process. And demand free stadia.
You can find fortuitious accidents (Marlins)- but over time, small teams can't compete the way large teams can. The Yankees and Dodgers are there almost all the time. Florida, Minnesota, Seattle, Colorado, they are around briefly for two or three years if they get lucky with a group of young guys, until their stars are bought away from them and then they rebuild and start over for several years.
Also, flyoverland small market teams compete against others; Minnesota can make playoffs in its division thanks to the ChiSox screw-ups. Same with Colorado, St. Louis, Cincinnati, etc. But you seldom see championships. The odds are very much the other way.
Re: New York's King George
Duane Oyen: I am a Steinbrenner skeptic. I am not a journalist, and thus don't care first about Getting The Story.
.... Steinbrenner violated two of the three in spades (undercut the luxury tax and extort public money for his stadium; GWB also "sinned" on the stadium), and bought his way around the third. · Jul 13 at 12:10pm
Hi Duane. Many great points. I'm not sure my admiration, which is a bit hesitant, stems simply from him providing a good story for reporters like me. As I said, two insiders, whom I *do* respect, have stuck by him. I do think that he could be crafty and cunning, and he stepped over the line of the law -- and decency -- more than a few times. Ruined the game? Perhaps he played a role. Yet there's something very New York about him, which attracts me. He was hypocritical, contradictory, brash, cruel, magnanimous, emotional, cold .. the list goes on. Undefinable, in many ways. Sort of like New York City, which I also have deep, mixed feeling about, but am generally falling toward the positive side about. (Bad sentence, forgive me. Hopefully, you know what I mean.)
May '10
Re: New York's King George
Ursula - What you described is humanity with money and power. Those us without either have no idea how we'd act in Steinbrenner's shoes. We look at him and fear we see too much of ourselves.
Jun '10
Re: New York's King George
What are you referring to? The Red Sox and White Sox are both excellent teams this year and have been for the last decade.
Minnesota is competitive every year and they have to play every American league team. Their division has also been one of the top 2 in baseball for the last 10 years. They competed against the excellent Indians of the 90's and the excellent White Sox of the 2000's with mixed great Tiger teams thrown in as well and still were competitive.
This is factually not true. The Reds were phenomenal for the 70s and have 5 WS titles and the Cards have won 10, most recently in 2006. The Pirates have 5 as well. The Marlins in '97 and '03, the White Sox in '05, the Rays got there in '08 (but didn't win) and the Cards in '06, Diamondbacks in '01. That's not exactly cherry picking...
Re: New York's King George
Yes! I agree.
May '10
Re: New York's King George
Samwise, the Reds in the '70's (as well as Oakland and KC) was before the effect of Marvin Miller. The Messersmith decision was 1975 and the first MLBPA free agency agreement was in 1976.
Minnesota has been competitive in the 2000's during the season- and lost immediately thereafter. They tend to be OK for a few years, then bad for a decade, then get lucky again, etc. They have lost constantly to the East, done well in the Central- feasting at crunch time (often on the White Sox), mostly lost in the West, done very well inter-league. If you do well in your own division, beat the weak teams, and lose to the good teams, you can still win the division for a while even though you are toast in the playoffs.
How many times has the wild card come from other-than-East this decade? Without checking, I would be shocked to see 25%. The early studies through 1995 supported your side; I think you need large numbers of seasons to counter new stadium effects. The recent article:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2010-04-08-baseball-parity_N.htm
Jun '10
Re: New York's King George
I think it's reasonable to say that things aren't equal or fair. A-roid's slary is just about equal to the entire Pirates team for gosh sakes! So, I won't argue with you there - the Yankees and Red Sox are at an unfair advantage money wise (could that be why ESPN loves them so much...).
But, that doesn't mean that small market or midwestern teams can't be competitive. They consistently are as in the case of the Twins, Cards, White Sox, Reds as I mentioned above. Also, having money is no guarantee of success; see the history of the Cubs - operating in a big market, the Red Sox have many down years even after they became Yanks light (see the first half of this year). There's plenty of data that favor both sides of the argument.
Just because Minnesota doesn't usually advance very far in the playoffs doesn't mean they're not competitive. They are at or near the top of their division consistently ( a very good division over the last 15 years which are the years in question, I believe) and compete well. They're a competitive, effective franchise.