WasWatching.com

Every time I read about Big Stein's current health situation then I can't help but draw parallels with the situation going on in Cuba with Fidel Castro. Both are leaders (albeit of the different kind), both aren't afraid of saying what's on their mind, both are tyrants (though Castro is an obviously worse tyrant and Yankee fans don't think of Stein as a tyrant), both are have rapidly declining health (Castro's is much worse), if and when they die then it will be sad for some and cause major jubilation for a lot of others (the Yankee haters, mostly), and lastly both are huge Yankee fans.

Man, I would hope that even the Yankee-haters would respect Stein by now - for being the best owner in sports history.

It would appear that the Boss is pretty sick. It will be a sad day for sports when he goes.

Man, I would hope that even the Yankee-haters would respect Stein by now - for being the best owner in sports history.
======================
I don't know about that claim...

Raf - name one other owner who has spent so much, for so long, to try and get his town a winner.

"I would hope that even the Yankee-haters would respect Stein by now - for being the best owner in sports history."

I appreciate what Stenbrenner has done over the last 13 years, but I would still have to go with Jake Ruppert as the best Yankee owner. He took a moribund franchise and made it the team of Ruth and Gehrig. He led them to their period of dominance in the 30s. Steinbrenner, on the other hand, still has to shoulder the blame for the 80s.

I read the Ken Auletta piece on Rubinstein in the New Yorker last week. It's obvious that Steinbrenner is slipping because of something that goes beyond old age. 76 is really not that old, anymore. I would guess that it's either a stroke or Alzheimer's. That does sadden me.

Steinbrenner's decline also has hurt the Yankees. A robust Steinbrenner would have fired Torre after 2002 or 2003 and I think that a Torre-less Yankees team would have meant at least one more world championship since then.

Raf - name one other owner who has spent so much, for so long, to try and get his town a winner.
===========
There's much more to being an owner than spending $$, and shouldn't be the sole criteria of judging for the title of "best owner ever."

Anyway had he listened to his baseball people, chances are he probably wouldn't have had to spend as much as he did over the years.

Yeah, the Yankees would have been much better off with a Carl Pohlad type all these years....not.

~~Yeah, the Yankees would have been much better off with a Carl Pohlad type all these years....not.~~

A bit of a false dichotomy?

The Yankees certainly would have been better off with a different owner in the 80s. During that decade, I think that Steinbrenner's personality actively hurt the Yankees more than his money helped. You've gotta take the good with the bad, I guess.

jonm -

I think a lot of other factors have to play into whether or not Steinbrenner helps or hurts his team - the manager, the GM, etc.

It would be interesting to see how the Cash/Torre combo would have dealt with some of those mid-80's rosters.

Wonder if there's a simulator out there that would do the trick..

Steinbrenner's decline also has hurt the Yankees. A robust Steinbrenner would have fired Torre after 2002 or 2003 and I think that a Torre-less Yankees team would have meant at least one more world championship since then.
----------

I want Torre out of here as much as anyone, and I agree that a Torre-less team would have won at least one WS since 2000, but I don't know that I agree that a healthy Stein would have fired Torre after '02 or '03.

The first-round knockout in '02 hurt, but the team was coming off of three straight World Series wins and a loss in game seven of a fourth. Their pitching got walloped in '02 by the eventual champs. I can't see anyone firing Torre then.

Torre's bungling killed the Yanks in the '03 World Series, but still -- his team had been to the World Series six of the last eight years and won four. It would have been better if Stein had fired him, but would even the crazed Stein have done it?

After the debacle of '04, and then '05, and then '06, Torre definitely should have been gone. As ballsy as Cashman has shown himself to be, he has a soft spot for Torre, and it's obvious Cashman saved Torre's butt this year -- though I don't know why (outside of sentimentality, which didn't help Bernie any).

The other interesting thing is that Stein and his "people," who hated Torre, had a huge influence in what was going on with the team during Torre's lowest point (the '04 collapse in particular). And yet he still wasn't fired.

In that sense, yes, Stein's softening ways hurt the team (because Torre stuck around). But in almost every other way, I like the Stein-in-the-background, GM-running-the-show version of things much better.

Pete,
I'm not sure that Branch Rickey and Joe McCarthy would have made any difference to those 80s teams. Steinbrenner just wouldn't let his baseball people do anything those years. What Steinbrenner did was insanely badger his best players (remember the Mattingly haircut controversy and his dealings with Winfield), trade his best prospects for over-the-hill veterans (e.g. McGee, McGriff, Buhner, Drabek), adopt cockamamie schemes (the "speed" Yankees of 1982), alienate veteran Yankees who still had some good years left (Reggie, Gossage), fire Yogi, and embarrass the organization by repeatedly bringing back Martin after Martin's alcoholism had rendered him ineffective as a manager.

Yeah, the Yankees would have been much better off with a Carl Pohlad type all these years....not.
=========
Maybe, maybe not. Notice that there are other owners (like Pohlad) who spend a fraction of what George is spending, yet are winning a comparable amount of ballgames.

With all that he's spending, every year should be like 1998, no?

Anyway, my point is that to be considered the "best owner" in all of sports, you should bring a bit more to the table than the ability to spend $$. Sticking to baseball, you think George meant more to the game of baseball than, say Connie Mack? Has Steinbrenner brought any innovations to the game, like Bill Veeck, or Charles Finley? Has he changed the game like Walter O'Malley? Do people talk about him in reverent tones like an Autry, Yawkey, or Kaufman?

It would be interesting to see how the Cash/Torre combo would have dealt with some of those mid-80's rosters.
=================
Who knows?

Remember, even though there was a dry spell WRT playoffs, the Yanks were competetive in 1985 & 1988.

Remind me Raf - how many rings do Autry and Yawkey have?

Does 2002 count for Autry? He died before the Halos were able to win it all. I guess if were of any significance, Autry would've stayed alive to witness it?

~~Sticking to baseball, you think George meant more to the game of baseball than, say Connie Mack? Has Steinbrenner brought any innovations to the game, like Bill Veeck, or Charles Finley? Has he changed the game like Walter O'Malley? Do people talk about him in reverent tones like an Autry, Yawkey, or Kaufman?~~

Now, I have to defend Steinbrenner. More than any other owner, Steinbrenner was able to adapt to and make work the free agent era of baseball. This is an important accomplishment -- and would be part of any argument for Steinbrenner's induction to the Hall of Fame (I believe he should go in). The free agent era was an improvement to the game because it was the first era in which players were treated fairly and with respect.

I also think that Steinbrenner was definitely better than the last four owners that you named and possibly Finley. O'Malley irreparably damaged baseball in New York City. Autry was a nice guy lionized by past generations not for his baseball ownership but for his cowboy movies. Kaufman was good; the Royals were a wonderfully-run organization for a while, but I still think that Steinbrenner is more significant. Last, but not least, Steinbrenner was absolutely better than the racist Yawkey, who, more than any other single individual was "responsible" for the "Curse of the Bambino."

Maybe it's me, but am I the only one slightly bothered by the fact that no one can think of any redeeming quality about Steinbrenner other than he has an open checkbook?

O'Malley irreparably damaged baseball in New York City
===============
And also discovered the gold mine that was the west coast. LA was such a lucrative market that the AL put a team there 3 years after the Dodgers moved west.

The Giants were planning to move, not to SF, but to MN. O'Malley talked Stoneham out of it.

Now me may be an arse for moving the Dodgers, that I will not argue, but that move had a HUGE impact on the game of baseball. It was a risk that paid off quite well for the O'Malley family.

~~Maybe it's me, but am I the only one slightly bothered by the fact that no one can think of any redeeming quality about Steinbrenner other than he has an open checkbook?~~

He has a genuine, deep, and abiding love of Yankee tradition. I don't think that he ever turned away from helping Yankees of the past who had fallen on hard times or his own ex-Yankees. He is, I think, a forgiving person. Also, in terms of non-moral qualities, he was fantastically entertaining to watch -- a towering symbol of New York during a certain era.

Steinbrenner was absolutely better than the racist Yawkey, who, more than any other single individual was "responsible" for the "Curse of the Bambino."
==================
You want to take that tack, you have to call the rest of the AL racist, given the timeframe. Unless you believe that a team with the resources of the Yanks somehow overlooked Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Don Newcombe, Monte Irvin, Lou Brock, etc, etc, etc.

He has a genuine, deep, and abiding love of Yankee tradition. I don't think that he ever turned away from helping Yankees of the past who had fallen on hard times or his own ex-Yankees. He is, I think, a forgiving person. Also, in terms of non-moral qualities, he was fantastically entertaining to watch -- a towering symbol of New York during a certain era.
===============
Thank you

~~Now me may be an arse for moving the Dodgers, that I will not argue, but that move had a HUGE impact on the game of baseball. It was a risk that paid off quite well for the O'Malley family.~~

Baseball would have gone West whether or not O'Malley had ever existed. O'Malley's greed never questioned the destruction of the Chavez Ravine community. He had to have his stadium there, along with its huge parking lots. Meanwhile, had the Dodgers stayed in Brooklyn, we would have had many more years of the wonderful Yankee-Dodger rivalry and we would have been spared of having to ever even think about the Mets.

Maybe it's me, but am I the only one slightly bothered by the fact that no one can think of any redeeming quality about Steinbrenner other than he has an open checkbook?
--------------

Isn't Steinbrenner known as a charitable man? Including paying for Tim Battle's cancer treatment?

Meanwhile, had the Dodgers stayed in Brooklyn, we would have had many more years of the wonderful Yankee-Dodger rivalry and we would have been spared of having to ever even think about the Mets.
================
I doubt it. After the Braves moved, and Perini made a load of $$, I'm sure the other owners took note. O'Malley may have said the right things about staying and wanting a new ballpark, but from all I've read, he had his eyes on moving west all along.

As for Chavez Ravine, what went on there isn't any different from what's been going on for years; people without $$ have no say, when people with $$ want to play. Doesn't make it right, but that's the way things are. I'm sure older people around here have their "Robert Moses" stories.

~~~Isn't Steinbrenner known as a charitable man? Including paying for Tim Battle's cancer treatment?~~~

There's a long list of good/great things like that which Stein has done. No one seems to want to remember that 'tho.

There's a long list of good/great things like that which Stein has done. No one seems to want to remember that 'tho.
=====================
Bad coverage will normally overshadow good coverage.

Tell it to A-Rod, right?

~~You want to take that tack, you have to call the rest of the AL racist, given the timeframe. Unless you believe that a team with the resources of the Yanks somehow overlooked Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Don Newcombe, Monte Irvin, Lou Brock, etc, etc, etc.~~

Nah, Yawkey was much, much worse than your average, garden-variety racist of the 50s. Numerous racist comments that he made are on record. Steve Goldman does a great job with this whole story in the first chapter of Mind Game.

The Yankees had their problems with race, but it was not the case that those Yankee teams actually had a NEED to recruit African-American players. Trust me, no team of the fifties recruited African-American players because it was the right thing to do. They did it out of self-interest. (Of course, the Yankees slow recruitment of African-Americans would catch up with them in 1965. The Yankees of the late 60s sort of deserved their bad records.)

The Yankees had their problems with race, but it was not the case that those Yankee teams actually had a NEED to recruit African-American players.
===========
Regardless, the opportunity was there, and they didn't take advantage of it until later in the game. I find it hard to believe that the Yanks couldn't use a Negro League star caliber player, either in the then-current lineup, stashing them away in the minors, using them as trade bait, or whatever. If you have the opportunity to sign a Willie Mays, you're going to pass on him because you already have a CF'er?

And I believe you when you say "Trust me, no team of the fifties recruited African-American players because it was the right thing to do. They did it out of self-interest."

~~I find it hard to believe that the Yanks couldn't use a Negro League star caliber player~~

You're right, of course. The Yankee organization (particularly George Weiss) deserve blame. They're just not Yawkey-level bad. The Red Sox, for example, had the first chance to sign Jackie Robinson and Willie Mays and they REJECTED JACKIE ROBINSON AND WILLIE MAYS! The Yankees sins are more sins of omission than commission.