Like Father…

24chass_1_190_2 The_sad_clown

Separated at birth…

46 comments… add one

  • It really is Hank’s comning out party. Oh joy!

    Nick-YF October 24, 2007, 11:36 am
  • Stop insulting that sad clown on the right.

    Hudson October 24, 2007, 11:37 am
  • Also in the humor department: the normally dull and vapid Dirt Dogs has a reasonably competent and funny (if somewhat obvious) Dr. Seuss riff up today:
    http://bostondirtdogs.boston.com/Headline_Archives/2007/10/sox_on_fox_1.html

    Hudson October 24, 2007, 11:43 am
  • Dirt Dogs should be ashamed of themselves and at least acknowledge that Dave Pinto, a majorly high profile baseball blogger got there first, he posted something like this three days ago.
    Did they steal the idea? I don’t know, but Pinto isn’t exactly a marginal blogger, he’s highly regarded and highly trafficked.
    http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/023730.php

    SF October 24, 2007, 11:46 am
  • Wow, so many interesting things in that article. Good to see Hank taking over from his father and Larry Lucchino in one interview the mantle of “owner likely to say the dumbest crap about his archrivals.”

    Paul SF October 24, 2007, 11:53 am
  • Lucchino will have something to say on that, Paul. Don’t count him just yet.

    Nick-YF October 24, 2007, 11:57 am
  • SF: I wouldn’t put it past BDD to shamelessly rip someone off. But in this case, it’s the obvious joke, so it’s not surprising that they both came up with the same thing. And, atypically, BDD’s is done with a decent amount of wit.
    Here’s what I got on a Google search of Rox Sox Seuss:
    http://tinyurl.com/2rkuus

    Hudson October 24, 2007, 12:04 pm
  • why are SFs posting and commenting on the yankee ownership on the day of the first game of the World Series? Don’t y’all have something better to worry about than our front office soap opera?

    Sam-YF October 24, 2007, 1:04 pm
  • Not only that Sam, but what exactly is so awful or embarassing about Hank’s comments? That he thinks the Sox were spurred on to their current success by reacting to Yankee dominance? I’d challenge anyone to make a case that this isn’t exactly what has happened.
    That he thinks the Sox will never have the global name recognition and “brand” that the Yankees have built up over the course of a century? First, I think that is true, but second, even if you want to debate that, what else do you expect the owner to say?
    I don’t see much “dumb” being said about archrivals here. It certainly isn’t nearly as absurd and tantrum-like as throwing chairs and using the term “evil empire”.
    In the end, he pays respects to what the Sox have accomplished while reflecting his view that they will always be second-tier to the Yankee organization.
    Bravo Hank.

    IronHorse (yf) October 24, 2007, 1:48 pm
  • Sam, there is nothing more important to (some) Sox fans then the downfall of the NY Yankees. According to some the downfall is here and the slope is getting even more slippery by the day.

    John - YF (Trisk) October 24, 2007, 1:56 pm
  • IH:
    There’s a humor tag on this. Nonetheless, Hank comes off as just a tad bitter, to understate things perhaps, no doubt bursting with frustration at having to wait until he was fifty years old to finally be able to say something in public without the spectre of his Dad grounding him.
    His comments come off as a bit arrogant; the history of the game (and the Red Sox and Yankees’ rivalry) pre-dates these last dozen years, and for that matter what would the Yankees do without the Sox? It’s a symbiotic relationship, like it or not, not a parasitic one as Hank seems to believe.

    SF October 24, 2007, 1:59 pm
  • SF, actually, Hank didn’t have to wait until he was 50 – he was offered a more prominent role with the Yankees in the 80s and didn’t want it. I’m frankly not sure how much he ants it now – I am hoping he does since he has got it.
    And yes, the history of the game pre-dates the last 12 years. But that history is about as kind to the Yankees and unkind to the Red Sox as these last 12 years have been so I am not sure what your point is there.
    On your third point, I am not sure the Yankees need the Sox much at all. The periods throughout the history of the game when the Yankees were great and the Sox were either mediocre or terrible are many – in fact more than the periods when the Sox and Yankees were both on top of the entire league as they have been in recent years.
    I am sure Hank is bitter as you say about 2007. All YFs are. But it doesn’t change the facts above.

    IronHorse (yf) October 24, 2007, 2:07 pm
  • But that history is about as kind to the Yankees and unkind to the Red Sox as these last 12 years have been so I am not sure what your point is there.
    But that history was quite different than the ubiquitous “arms race” of the last several seasons, the “all-or-nothing” stuff that has brought out the more unseemly aspects of fandom and ownership, on both sides. This article bleeds Hank’s arrogance, and it’s this kind of attitude that seems more resultant from the past decade of baseball and a more recent mentality than from a deeper understanding of the two teams’ longer baseball history, which is inarguably intertwined. Though there were older instances of the two teams fighting each other with wallets and fists (Mike Torrez, Bill Lee, Thurman Munson, etc.), there have also been long stretches where one team excelled while the other didn’t, and they weren’t measured by each other.
    Steinbrenner has a case of denial and a grand sense of entitlement, there can be no doubt about that. The thing is he’s making himself the face of the franchise, and for the moment a little discipline might tell him that perhaps he could keep his mouth shut, show some class while the Sox are in the World Series instead of launching broadsides (enabled by Chass, unsurprisingly) against a franchise that helps the Yankees far more than it hurts them. Perhaps a “let’s talk later, Murray, maybe after the season is over” might have been in order. The interview just doesn’t ooze with any decorum or articulate an understanding of the game’s long history.
    Frankly, Major League Baseball needs these two teams more than either of them need each other, but that is a different issue entirely.

    SF October 24, 2007, 2:18 pm
  • ” I am hoping he does since he has got it.”
    I think that’s the reason behind this – Hank is trying (albeit clumsily, IMO) to convey the same “win at all costs” attitude we have seen from his father all these years – in his way, maybe he thinks these kind of remarks will reassure YF’s that the team is going to keep operating as it always has.
    “no doubt bursting with frustration at having to wait until he was fifty years old to finally be able to say something in public without the spectre of his Dad grounding him.”
    Give me a frickin’ break…

    Andrews October 24, 2007, 2:24 pm
  • “But that history was quite different than the ubiquitous “arms race” of the last several seasons”
    How so? With the possible exception of the CBS years, the Yanks have always had one of, if not the highest payrolls in baseball- more often than not, a team filled with stars. The big difference recently seems to be that the current Sox ownership is willing to spend in a manner that rivals the Yanks.

    Andrews October 24, 2007, 2:31 pm
  • “Steinbrenner has a case of denial and a grand sense of entitlement, there can be no doubt about that.”
    Would you please stop with these completely speculative pronouncements?

    Andrews October 24, 2007, 2:33 pm
  • payrolls=payroll
    internets=internet

    Andrews October 24, 2007, 2:40 pm
  • Would you please stop with these completely speculative pronouncements?
    What is speculative? His words were clear, there’s nothing to speculate about.

    SF October 24, 2007, 2:41 pm
  • “no doubt bursting with frustration at having to wait until he was fifty years old to finally be able to say something in public without the spectre of his Dad grounding him.”
    Give me a frickin’ break…

    Ah, yes, I truly believe that Hank got grounded during his 40s. Jeez.

    SF October 24, 2007, 2:42 pm
  • and once again your take is without a doubt, fact.
    What denial?
    An expectation of continued success, based on the resources put into the organization, does not equal that most popular sox fan insult “a sense of entitlement”.

    Andrews October 24, 2007, 2:47 pm
  • “Ah, yes, I truly believe that Hank got grounded during his 40s. Jeez”
    Not the point.

    Andrews October 24, 2007, 2:50 pm
  • SF, I think you are simply over-reacting to Steinbrenner’s comments. And I know this will annoy you, but your reaction reflects – IMHO – more of a lackof understanding of the history of the game and of the NY-Boston rivalry than does his comments in this article.
    Hank is not a product of the NY-Boston arms race of recent years. He is a product of his father – an owner who brought the attitude and spending-habits to NY that eventually sparked that arms race. George was bombastic and big-spending before he ever had much to worry about vis-a-vis Boston.
    Historically you are sort of correct in that there were times that these two teams did not think much about each other. But in more years than not over the last century, Boston (and every other AL team) thought more about the Yankees than the Yankees did about anyone because the Yankees established the gold standard. You can call this arrogance of Hank, arrogance of me, but simply look at the standings for literally decades and it is clear. If winning one quarter of the WS rings in over a decade is not enough, there is the even more impressive history of winning the division just to get to the WS.
    During earlier Yankee dynasties – and the simple fact that there have been multiple dynasties in NY is indicative of the larger point – New York hated Philadelphia and Detroit much moreso than perennial cellar-dwelling Boston. And in the worst period for NY – ’65-’75 and then ’81-’94, NY was at least as challenged by Baltimore and Oakland as by Boston.
    You can say that “there have also been long stretches where one team excelled while the other didn’t” but the truth is that there is about a 4:1 ratio of this being the case for NY rather than Boston and it is not arrogant to state that fact.
    Hank was asked if Boston had overtaken the Yankees and he essentially said they had reacted to NY’s actions (i.e. his father’s WS-or-bust big-spending ownership style) by largely emulating it and he acknowledged they deserve credit for doing so.
    He then went on to assert that what the Yankees built for decades (not just the past 12 years) and what his father helped re-establish with the latest NY dynasty is not something Boston can undo – certainly not with a couple good years.
    His understanding of history seems pretty much in tact to me. Should he have delayed answering the question until after the WS? Give me a break. If anything, YFs want to know what this guy thinks now that our team’s future is largely in his hands so I for one am glad he answered the questions. I don’t know if he’ll be good or terrible, but I don’t buy that he did anythign wrong here and I have no problem with his view of history or his take on what the Sox and Yankees mean to each other.
    I have no problem bowing to the Sox remarkable victory in 2004 and how great their team is this year and I wouldn’t have started in on this issue if it weren’t for the pile-on-NY thread here, but if you and other SFs want to start making statements about Yankee arrogance and a sense of entitlement just because you’re in the middle of a couple good years, you have to expect a reaction.

    IronHorse (yf) October 24, 2007, 2:52 pm
  • Actually the 4:1 ratio I cited is probaably too kind to Boston – it is more accurately a 6:1 or 7:1 ratio.

    IronHorse (yf) October 24, 2007, 2:56 pm
  • Oh, and “winning one quarter of the WS rings in over a decade” was meant to read “in over a century”…much more impressive.

    IronHorse (yf) October 24, 2007, 2:58 pm
  • “Ah, yes, I truly believe that Hank got grounded during his 40s. Jeez”
    Not the point.

    You have a point?
    ;-)

    SF October 24, 2007, 3:00 pm
  • Do you? What you obviously think is clever and humorous is neither. Just insulting. :) :)

    Andrews October 24, 2007, 3:03 pm
  • What eludes HS (and maybe this is what causes me to feel this “entitlement”) is the idea that, with just a little effort (or success), the Yankees are just back at the top, no questions asked. That is the definition of entitlement, to me. Steinbrenner speaks and acts as if the past portends the future, that the Yankees’ past successes means that any future success automatically re-creates what has been the status quo, the Yankees as the center of the baseball universe.
    In truth, HS doesn’t know what will happen if the Sox win again, and spend money, and win again, and continue to build a worldwide brand. He simply expects nothing to be different from what it “was” back before the Sox won a World Series. Some may call this confidence, and we can agree to disagree on the semantics of it based on our own personal biases, but to me if this isn’t entitlement, I don’t know what is.

    SF October 24, 2007, 3:05 pm
  • Facts in the form of winning percentage, annual standings over the course of a centry, etc. do not = bias.
    Your point would seem much stronger to me if Boston were on its third decade of dominance and you were arguing from taht position that there were some prospect of unseating the Yankees’ hold on history. You are in your second appearance in the WS in 2 decades. That’s really great for you and every YF wishes that his 2007 team were where yours is now. But Hank seems to have a pretty good grasp of the historical (in)significance in the grand scheme of things.

    IronHorse (yf) October 24, 2007, 3:21 pm
  • “What eludes HS (and maybe this is what causes me to feel this “entitlement”) is the idea that, with just a little effort (or success), the Yankees are just back at the top, no questions asked.”
    As far as worldwide brands go, I think there’s no question that the yankees are on top now. Or are you talking about wins and losses? If so, with the core of players we have, plus the resourses at his disposal, then yes, with a little effort the yanks could be back or top. Or not.
    “In truth, HS doesn’t know what will happen if the Sox win again, and spend money, and win again, and continue to build a worldwide brand.”
    Does anyone know? One thing is certain – in today’s game, it’s highly unlikely that any team will have the amount of success the yanks have had over the past 100 or even 15 years. That makes it unlikely that any team will overtake their brand recognition throughout the world.

    Andrews October 24, 2007, 3:26 pm
  • Does anyone know? One thing is certain – in today’s game, it’s highly unlikely that any team will have the amount of success the yanks have had over the past 100 or even 15 years. That makes it unlikely that any team will overtake their brand recognition throughout the world.
    What was that about the Holy Roman Empire? About our own country’s position in the globe?
    There are historic corollaries outside of sports (and in sports as well) that show that what has been is not what will always be.

    SF October 24, 2007, 3:38 pm
  • Wasn’t the heyday of the Roman Empire something like 200 years? And our own country – hmm, 231 years.
    OK then, by 2103 things may well have changed drastically. Glad I won’t be around to witness it. :)

    Andrews October 24, 2007, 3:54 pm
  • OK then, by 2103 things may well have changed drastically. Glad I won’t be around to witness it. :)
    Especially if Ted Williams is successfully re-animated.

    SF October 24, 2007, 3:55 pm
  • Hopefully Ted will be back before then – would love the chance to see him hit. I wonder if in the second go ’round he’ll have the same stormy relationship with soxfans…
    …or maybe next time he’ll play for the yanks -imagine him hitting in recreated yankee stadium. Wow.

    Andrews October 24, 2007, 3:59 pm
  • Amazingly, Roger Clemens will have kept himself in pristine shape and won’t need to be reanimated (even at over 140 years old), and will be joining the Yankees for the final 88 games of that 2103 season. He will return to play for the bargain number of $47M per start.

    SF October 24, 2007, 4:03 pm
  • SF, you expose your lack of historical knowledge yet again…the Yankees of 1901-2007 are NOT the HRE. It would be more accurate to say:
    Yankees of 1921-1928
    Yankees of 1932-1943
    Yankees of
    Yankees of
    Yankees of

    Anonymous October 24, 2007, 4:51 pm
  • oops…that pre-posted and I had just started typing it (that was me by the way)…I’ll try that again in a bit…

    IronHorse (yf) October 24, 2007, 4:53 pm
  • SF, you expose your lack of historical knowledge yet again…the Yankees of 1901-2007 are NOT the HRE. It would be more accurate to say:
    Yankees of 1921-1928: Ming Dynasty
    Yankees of 1932-1943: Holy Roman Empire
    Yankees of 1947-1964: Zulu Empire
    Yankees of 1976-1980: Byzantine Empire
    Yankees of 1995-2004: Ottoman Empire
    I know you feel this reflects arrogance and a sense of entitlement but that’s only because by comparison, your team is like…well……..Alsace-Lorraine. Though I admit, 2007 is shaping up to be a very good year for Alsatians.

    IronHorse (yf) October 24, 2007, 5:03 pm
  • “your team is like…well……..Alsace-Lorraine. Though I admit, 2007 is shaping up to be a very good year for Alsatians.”
    So much for drinking that one with dinner tonight.

    Andrews October 24, 2007, 5:21 pm
  • It’s good pay-back Andrews…I got a good chuckle from your response to Brad in the Mattingly-thread…

    IronHorse (yf) October 24, 2007, 5:31 pm
  • I am wondering about the whole narrative thing, then, IH. Are the Yankees the empire or not? Are the Sox the “Little Engine that Could” or not?
    We are reading so much nowadays about how Sox fans can’t play the “LEtC” card, how they are the new Yankees, but at the same time if that meme is articulated some Yankee fans (and Yankee Owners) are taken aback, the Sox aren’t, wont ever be that. I find it all a little schizophrenic.
    From my standpoint, I don’t care about “empire” or not, I care that my team is competitive, I care that my team excels or at least goes down trying, and I care that respect is afforded to our allegiances as fans. I respect (in the past, feared somewhat irrationally) the Yankees, and I respect lifelong Yankee fans whether they have a sense of entitlement or not (most I know don’t). But to me there is a sense that some people want it both ways: the Sox aren’t the underdog anymore, they are a big machine team just like the Yankees but, wait!, they aren’t, can’t ever be the Yankees, they OWE us Yankees, we don’t need them, they need US. The converse is true, there are SFs out there who want to be the big bully but who also want to remain the Little Engine. Without the Yankees, there is no LEtC narrative, but with success there isn’t one, necessarily.

    SF October 24, 2007, 5:53 pm
  • SF, in recent years, the Sox and many of their fans have displayed characteristics that they complained about as characteristic of the Yankees and their fans – big budgets to buy free agents, arrogant behavior from (some) star players, cocky and band-wagon-swelled-fan-base.
    This makes them what they said they despised.
    That is totally consistent with the fact that they will never rival the dynastic history of the Yankees – at least not without putting together 4-5 dynasties over the next century without NY re-establishing a single one.
    So in current years, judging from budgets especially, the Sox are not the LEtC and can’t pretend to be (you are playing the COLORADO ROCKIES for the WS – how can you pretend to be the LEtC??). But in terms of history and organizational stature, they are still rather insignificant compared to NY. I don’t see the contradiction at all.
    And for the record, I fully support your desire to see the Red Sox go down trying.

    IronHorse (yf) October 24, 2007, 6:08 pm
  • Well, I was specifically talking about going forward. In other words, we can all acknowledge that the Yankees are the most winning franchise in baseball history, that their ring totals won’t probably ever be matched by another team. But the idea that the Yankees will never, ever be dependent on the Sox (going forward), that they aren’t currently in some fashion, and that this will never, ever change (but that the Sox will always be dependent on the Yankees) seems, to me, to be intractable and, my term, arrogant.

    SF October 24, 2007, 6:14 pm
  • Some time back on this thread I went from arguing a legit point to trying to be funny and yes, tweaking you in the debate, which was the spirit of the original post anyway I think. I didn’t like the pile-on feeling of various sf comments following the original post and I really didn’t see much wrong in HS’s interiew so we went down a path that led me to liken my team to the Mings, Zulus, and Byzantines, and your team to Alsatians…I was playing the arrogant yf that sfs detest on purpose. (I tried to think of something in the last comment re: “I’ll take your underdog baloney but just hold the LEtC”, but nothing really good came to me fast enough and I’m trying to get out of my office anyway…)
    But to be serious for a moment about your point, I don’t think that the Sox or Yankees are dependent on each other. I DO think the rivalry has been a bigger deal to Sox fans than Yankee fans throughout history, and that this has (only recently and only for this generation of fans) evened out because of 2004 (and possibly 2007 but there wasn’t the head-to-head Sox victory so it doesn’t feel much like 04 to me). But even now, I and I think many YFs feel a certain antipathy for the Mets that is only slightly less potent than feelings for Boston and I don’t think sfs have that with any other team.
    Does either team NEED the rivalry really? I don’t think so. Is it better for MLB than anyone else? I agree with you that it is.
    And yes, I get that regardless of history, I’d rather be watchign my team tonight then yours, so you fully deserve to rub in the ’07 season…just don’t get all historical on me.

    IronHorse (yf) October 24, 2007, 6:27 pm
  • “…seems, to me, to be intractable and, my term, arrogant….”
    spoken by the expert in arrogance
    alas poor IH trying to argue logic and propose an alternate point of view on this site…i’m glad you joined us buddy because i think you provide a refreshing change from the same old sox=great, yanks=suck philosophy that has come to characterize this site…my melancholy comes from knowing that you will soon leave, or worse: just give up and stop wasting the energy to put such thought and insight into your comments, when you realize that there is no way to convince the average sox fan on this site that there is another way of looking at things…[please stay and fight]

    dc October 25, 2007, 8:35 am
  • Jeez, dc, thanks for the flattering and expansive vision of this site.

    SF October 25, 2007, 8:51 am
  • I see no problem in acknowledging that the Sox have more in common with the Brooklyn Dodgers or NY Giants (baseball version) than with the Yankees. If either of those teams were still around, they’d be just like the Sox – always trying to beat the Yanks while in their perpetual shadow. Sure, throw the Mets into that discussion, too, but they just don’t have the historical baggage of successes and failures that those other teams have (though they’re working on it!).
    Henry acknowledges that the Yankees aren’t going anywhere, especially not with the new stadium and well-run management. The Yankees are the standard. And I know the Sox are doing very well when they’re beating that standard. If they manage to do it for 9 straight years, the Sox will have had a heck of a run. Does it really matter where they’ll be in historical terms?

    Pete October 25, 2007, 10:16 am

Leave a Comment

Next post:

Previous post: