- Hank Steinbrenner, July 10, 2008
Well, we'll see, won't we? Hard to read it without coming away thinking this guy has a singluar focus but a warped sense of entitlement. It IS good for all of MLB when the Yanks are doing well, from a financial point of view, but sometimes Hank, it's better to leave that unsaid. It just comes across as a condescending bully.Anyways, here's some of the lyrical stylings of Hank...
Hank on the Torre "situation":
"Despite what people think, or were misled to believe, I wasn't real sure about making a change," he says. "There was one point early in the season where I considered extending Torre's contract because there was so much speculation in the press.
"In the end," Steinbrenner says, "it was time for change."
"There's a lot of excitement around here from the Rays fans, but almost to a point of arrogance," he says. "They better be careful. They'll learn this (expletive) can change real quick."
The Yankees have been subsidizing the Rays and other teams with their revenue-sharing and luxury-tax payments, Steinbrenner says, so they should be thanking the Yankees.
"People in baseball know it, whether they want to admit it or not," Steinbrenner says. "It helps everyone when the Yankees are good. The Red Sox, whether they're good or not, doesn't necessarily matter, nationally. … Let's face it: The Yankees are baseball history. You're talking about 26 championships."
"It's beautiful," Hank says. "It actually looks more like the old Yankee Stadium from the outside, and has a more classic feel, than the present one. You've got to remember, we renovated Yankee Stadium in '74 and '75. So like Yogi (Berra) says, it really isn't there anymore, anyways."
"I'm not my father"Hank on his legacy:
"I'm not worried about developing a legacy"
Posts
3 comments:
Hank is a reminder of how great the Red Sox ownership is.
He does realize that MLB has generated its greatest revenue while the Yankees weren't even reaching the WS, right?
Tad, but the Yankees were the top drawing team during that period as well...when they play away, the place generally sells out (except certain places that never sell out, like Tampa). So they put a lot of money in other teams' pockets that way, in addition to the huge 'luxury tax' they pay (that scuzzy owners like Loria and Angelos put straight in their pockets).
I think he does tend to discount the Boston legacy (which goes way, way back), but since much of their mystique was built on inevitable and never-ending futility for almost a century, he does have a little bit of a point (note that I said 'legacy', I know they are winners right now). I realize that baseball, like all sports, is a 'what have you done for me lately' kind of thing...but when you are talking about legacy, the Yankees have pretty much every other team trumped. People don't wax nostalgic about the Red Sox of the 50's and 60's not mattering for the most part like they do about the Yankees winning almost every year...
Osmod,
I'm not arguing that the Yanks don't draw well or make money. I'm saying that MLB has shown it will thrive if the Yankees aren't winning championships, which is the opposite of what I interpreted Hank to be saying. Drawing huge crowds/dollars for other teams is perhaps even more true of the Red Sox these days because, if I'm not mistaken, the Sox have been the top road-drawing team for the past couple/few years. The Sox also pay luxury taxes. Based on those conditions, as well as the vast spectrum of Sox fans across the country, I disagree with Hank's statement that MLB's success isn't influenced by the success of the Red Sox. And I wasn't comparing the histories of the teams (why would I go there?).
My main point was, Hank Steinbrenner is, um, not smart.
Post a Comment