And I would agree with them.
Hi,
Here is what I just posted on the Cub fan forum. Steinbrenner was a good man but was not necessarily acting in the best interest of the game.
regards,
5412
Good morning all,
I am sure the airwaves today, and the all star game tonight will be full of the news that Steinbrenner passed away last night at age 80 due to a heart attack.
The media will likely play up his generous side and having lived in Tampa for a few years I would certainly concur with those remarks. He was very generous, many times behind the scenes and helped out many of the minority communities and should be well recognized for those efforts.
At the same time, all of you know I am somewhat of a baseball junkie and I, for one, do not recognize his so called positive contributions to the game of baseball. Here is why.
Steinbrenner confided to a friend of mine that even when the Yankees have a $200 million payroll he still netted a $50 million profit. Because of the huge revenue advantage the Yankees have over most other teams he actually used that to destroy the game we know and love. Realistically well over half the teams in the league know when they start the season the have no chance to compete against the big market clubs with the huge payrolls. Today the Tampa Bay Rays have a good team, one that could easily end up in the world series once again; but they readily admit this is their last shot as they will be losing some of their terrific young players. Simply put, they know they will be out bid by the big market teams and there is nothing they can do about it.
There was an article on the Yahoo Sports web site that the Brewers offered Fielder $100 million and his agent turned it down. The conclusion was the Brewers franchise likely could not afford to pay him the kind of money a big market team can and he would likely be traded at the trade deadline or during the off season.
Yankee fans praised Steinbrenner for trying to put a winner on the field consistently. How hard is that to do when you have the highest payroll in the league and still net $50 million profit while most of your competition is lucky to break even with payrolls less than half that size?
Additionally, baseball had it's share of labor disputes, strikes and lock-outs where the ownership was trying to keep the salaries from escalating to the levels they are today. Most of those salaries were based on what the Yankees had paid their players, then it would effect arbitration awards etc. so the small market teams felt a significant ripple effect of his payroll practices. Steinbrenner would publically speak out during the work stoppages trying to get the owners to settle etc. At the same time, when the other owners tried to effect some sort of revenue sharing which would be good for the game he fought it and spoke out against it.
Certainly the NFL has shown that pooling and sharing revenue, and then giving a percentage of revenue to the players gives each and every team a fair chance at winning and their rating reflect that in all cities in America. Teams like New Orleans, Green Bay and Pittsburgh have won recent championships in the NFL yet in baseball they would have little chance realistically because they would just not have the revenue to support a consistent winner.
When the baseball owners implemented a luxury tax on the big market teams only one or two teams had payrolls high enough to be "taxed". First of all the top 5-10 teams should have been taxed but that was fought tooth and nail. When the Yankees were hit with a "tax" of $25 million or so Steinbrenner complained about the fact that the small market owners put the money in their pocket instead of back into payroll and players on the field. I always took those remarks with a grain of salt after I heard Huizenga complain after the Marlins won their first world series. He commented that he had done everything right, won the world series, and it only cost him $25 million. Well if the Marlins got some of the Yankees "tax" money and put it in their pocket and cut their losses to say, $23 million, I would be hard pressed to criticize.
My feeling were let Steinbrenner lose $20-30 million a couple years in a row and then see what happens to HIS payrolls. Had he been taxed to the point he would lose money my bet is his payroll would have been adjusted just like all the rest of the owners in professional baseball. No owner in any major sport should be expected to lose money consistently.
I have long been a believer that there needs to be parity in baseball like football or eventually the small market teams would have to fold and what a shame that would be. The fact that the Yankees have a sign at their spring training facility declaring them the team of the century showing an inordiante number of AL championships and World Series they have won during the decade of the 1900's is more a testament to the fact that he with the biggest revenue stream wins. If baseball had a salary structure like the NFL I seriously doubt that sign would exist.
God Bless Mr. Steinbrenner, he certainly was a good man and well respected in Tampa and New York. At the same time I do not think that he made major contributions to baseball, he hurt the game as much as he helped it.
regards,
5412
