Meet the Family

It’s hard to know exactly who’s in charge. Not even the team’s 20-odd limited partners, who together own a little under half of the team, seem clear about the new distribution of power. “I think there’s some constructive ambiguity in terms of how things have been situated,” one of them told me. “The attitude seems to be, Let’s see how things work out before making any final judgments.”

Jonathan Mahler’s extraordinary (and long—goodness!) New York Times feature on the Steinbrenner family, Oedipus Bronx, is a must read; I plan to be finished by the home opener. Though Hal Steinbrenner recently commented in GQ about a clear hierarchy in the organinzation, the paragraph above, to say nothing of appearances, suggests otherwise.

158 comments… add one

  • suckle from the teat of hank, you limited partners you.
    there’s alot of yanks limited partners using PED’s. i also know first hand that the limited partners of the yanks last year did not want to face the limited partners of the sox in the ALCS.

    sf rod February 28, 2008, 5:45 pm
  • if they win, somehow it won’t matter…like their dad, the steinsiblings fates are sealed…if they win, nobody likes a winner…if they lose, everyone will enjoy messing with them over it…

    dc February 28, 2008, 5:47 pm
  • i meant to say “if they win or lose, somehow it won’t matter”…sheesh, how hard is it to proofread 3 lines…ugh

    dc February 28, 2008, 5:51 pm
  • 20-odd limited partners or no, I think you’d just need to check the last name on the stadium access pass to figure out if someone has any pull in the organization.
    Hint: The important names rhyme with one another.

    FenSheaParkway February 28, 2008, 5:57 pm
  • I don’t see any contradiction in what Hal or Hank have said, and this piece. The power question isn’t “Who’s in charge?”, it’s “Who’s in charge *of what*?”.
    The boys are splitting control and it seems to me they’re doing a fine job making crucial decisions:
    Torre – no
    Jorge – yes
    Mo – yes
    A-Rod – yes
    Johan – no
    I think the key phrase in that paragraph above is: “constructive ambiguity”.
    Besides, who’s in charge of the Sox any ways? Epstein? Lucky Larry? Werner? Henry? Who makes what decisions over there? When does something rise to the level of involving Larry or Henry? Does it matter?
    I understand the press wants to file the story about who’s ascending the throne of King George (see the title – “Oedipus Bronx” – really? Wouldn’t that mean one of the sons is sleeping with their mom and plotting to kill their Dad?). But how long are we going to have to keep reading these stories to realize it doesn’t matter so long as they’re making money. They’re trying to shoehorn the square peg of today’s management into the round hole of yesterday’s. It’s never going to fit. George Steinbrenner is one of a kind.

    A YF February 28, 2008, 7:42 pm
  • I’m still only part way thru the article, but that seems naive to me A YF. Yes, the decisions that have been made recently make sense (although we may all be regretting the pass on Santana in 9 months), but the larger issue is about long term stability. Maintaining a family business through generations, with so many stakeholders, is an incredible challenge that will become exponentially more difficult with the death of the patriarch. There are inheritance issues, immense tax burdens, and pressure from outside sources, hostile and friendly. It’s not hard to imagine the team going public down the road, or being taken over by a large public or privately held corporation—YES, for example. This may not have an immediate impact on the field, but to suggest that it’s irrelevant, or not significant, I think, is foolish.

    YF February 28, 2008, 8:38 pm
  • then i’m foolish too yf, oh wait, did i say that out loud?
    really, while we all want to pretend we’re “in the know” about these kind of things, truth is, steinbrenner sr. is too smart of a businessman not to have laid out a detailed plan for how this family dynamic will work…to believe it is/will be some dysfunctional disaster waiting to/already happen[ing] is a bit naive…’a yf’ is right because he said what i said, but i said it first…

    dc February 28, 2008, 8:44 pm
  • I’m not saying it will be a dysfunctional disaster. I’m saying it’s hard to maintain a major corporate business within a single family. Note the Bancroft’s, who just sold Dow Jones.

    YF February 28, 2008, 8:58 pm
  • I’ve been called out for breaking your TOS (and really I have no idea why) but it’s okay to call me “foolish”? Please refrain from that line of argument because you’ll never get that from me.
    Regardless, the boys obviously have a good relationship. Theirs wouldn’t be the first very sucessful company run by siblings. Is it typical? No. But then neither was King George’s management style.
    I’ve read this story from the press many times already this off-season. I get it. We don’t know who’s really in charge of the Yankees. But as with players, I judge results. This off-season has gone very smoothly. They’re implementing a new player development philosophy even while their new $1 billion stadium will open on time next year. They hired a new manager while the old one is leaning toward Nomar over LaRoche at 3B. I see no trouble with whatever arrangement the boys have worked out among themselves. If Cashman is given an extension, it will be even further proof that whatever they have works. And it surely ain’t Oedipal in nature.
    As for the future, what company is ever secure? But the Yanks stand to make even more money with the new stadium even as they spend even less. I have a hard time seeing where the limited partners might have complaints for the next five years. After that, the uncertainty is just as real as for any family run organization. I agree there. Still, if Henry dies tomorrow where are the Sox? Or the Lakers without Buss? Or the Pats without Kraft? Seems like your standards are awfully high.
    Meanwhile, on the Santana non-deal, 9 months is way too short of a window. One, we still won’t know what to make of the young pitchers. And two, he won’t have even started his $150 million contract yet. Can we hold off trying to pass judgment on that non-deal until at least 2010 or even 2011? It’s going to get tiring quick if we constantly second guess that move. I’m sure the rags will any ways.
    Gotta go watch Lost.

    A YF February 28, 2008, 8:59 pm
  • steinbrenner sr. is too smart of a businessman not to have laid out a detailed plan for how this family dynamic will work
    One has nothing to do with the other. Look at the dysfunction of the Pritzker family, or the Bancrofts (as YF points out), or even what Peter O’Malley had to do with the Dodgers. Many smart people don’t plan very well for their heirs to take over their businesses, for many different reasons, or other externalities enforce a change of original, idealized plans. I have no idea what the plan is for the Yankees, but Steinbrenner’s “smarts” may have little bearing on what happens when he passes and the Ownership structure is changed. YF is spot on, though I don’t know if “foolish” is the right word to describe A YF’s comment but rather, perhaps, “simplistic”.

    SF February 28, 2008, 9:34 pm
  • That’s okay. Ockham was pretty simplistic too. Nice job, both of you, abiding by your own TOS though.
    The fact is you judge any business based on the bottomline. So long as the Yankees continue to turn a profit, the much more limited partners will swallow any management arrangement just as they swallowed King George’s reign. Owning their own stadium, which sells 4 million tix each year, and TV network while reducing costs should help greatly with that. See, the Bancrofts only had to sell when profits were getting slimmer and slimmer. And for the Yankees there’s no evidence to suggest they’re heading in that direction with two owners rather than one. In fact, there’s exactly zero evidence to suggest that.
    If I had to guess, since the media is also just guessing, I’d say the Yankees are fine for this generation with Hank and Hal at the helm. The worry will be with their kids and an older stadium. Good thing we can enjoy the next twenty years or so. I’ve seen nothing from the new owners to suggest otherwise. In fact, they seem to understand the business even better than the last ownership “structure”. And he took a team worth $10 million and made it into over $1 billion.
    But that’s probably too simplistic.

    A YF February 28, 2008, 10:19 pm
  • “although we may all be regretting the pass on Santana in 9 months”
    Chances are you all will be regretting that decision far sooner than 9 months. Seasons tend to surprise, but if were to wager I’d wager on that whole staff blowing up by June and being semi replaced by July. The baby Steinbrenners can only take so much, as patience is not the family’s forte.
    Shapiro and CC await. He ain’t gonna come cheap.

    Dirty Water February 28, 2008, 10:32 pm
  • The funny thing is the Steinbrothers have no reason to rush anything. The revenue stream will be a firehose at least through the next two or three years – win or lose. They’ll sell out almost every game. Their ratings are sky high. Next year they’ll have twice as many luxury boxes. And they have at least $60 million coming off the books. And they operate in a business that’s pretty much recession-proof. People may not take long vacations but they will go out to the ballpark.
    Sure they can use some of that money to sign Teixeira or Sabathia. But after holding onto the young arms instead of trading for a dominant lefty in Yankee Stadium, they surely won’t trade any of them for Sabathia. Keep hoping for King George II though. If anything, that interpretation seems, perhaps, simplistic.

    A YF February 28, 2008, 10:48 pm
  • Hm, if the Yankees didn’t make a trade LAST season at the midway point, which is pretty much a worst-case scenario for this coming-up season, I don’t really see them making a trade this season either. Sorry, Dirty. Besides, when was the last time – really – the Yankees made a bad trade midseason?

    AndrewYF February 28, 2008, 10:56 pm
  • “…I’d wager on that whole staff blowing up by June…”
    nice try dirty water….wishful thinking i’d say…the point of waiting on the santana non-trade is that it could go either way over time…the young yankee guns could take more time to develop while johan has a good year, or one or more of them could excel, while he has a year similar to how he performed in the second half of last season…that’s why it’s hard to judge or project a trade/non-trade’s merit before a game has even been played…
    “…I’m not saying it will be a dysfunctional disaster….”
    yf, i realize you didn’t use the word “dysfunction”, but it did appear in the acticle as a description of sr. stein’s reign over the ballclub…since the new leadership is apparently murky to some, including you and the author of the article, you can see how i can make the leap that dysfunction, caused by the lack of a clear hierarchy, which could be a disaster for the yanks, is how some of you feel…i see nothing in the way the organization is currently being run [although we admittedly only get glimpses, like personnel changes] to suggest there is any dysfunction…we’ll see if i change my mind if the team disappoints us this year and the steinboys react badly…so much ink has been spilled focusing on hank’s petulance, while very little has been used to tell us if he has any business sense, or if his relationships with his siblings will impair his role in the organization…it’s all speculation at this point…
    “…Steinbrenner’s “smarts” may have little bearing on what happens when he passes and the Ownership structure is changed….”
    i wouldn’t be too sure about that sf…i understand that the passing of george could have a significant impact on the businesses as ownership changes hands…heck, the boys could decide they’d rather raise horses in ocala and sell off any interest in the team that they inherit…but i do believe that despite your examples of other family business disasters [which probably could be countered with some success stories, if relevant], george has already determined and executed the chain of command and distribution of power for the steinfamily…but maybe i’m wrong, as i said, we’re all just speculating…time will tell…
    ‘a yf’, the “yankee enterprise” will live and die with the success of the team on the field…some believe that yes network is the jewel of the business, but yes only exists because the yankees baseball team is such a marketing force…i think it’s generally accepted that “a lot” of folks watch the yankees because they’re fans who want to see them win [duh], but an amazing number of people watch on tv or go to yankee games to see them lose…i haven’t had access to yes for about 2 years now, but my recollection is that live games were the cornerstone of their programming lineup…i’m guessing that their viewship isn’t what it is just from yankee fans tuning in…and without a winning team, interest wanes…check the attendance from the years the yanks weren’t doing so good…

    dc February 29, 2008, 8:49 am
  • “but my recollection is that live games were the cornerstone of their programming lineup.”
    totally wrong! Everyone know “The White Shadow” reruns are the cornerstone of their programming lineup. Duh!

    Nick-YF February 29, 2008, 9:02 am
  • From the title and the words between the quotes, you’d think the author had some grand insight into the Yankee organization. Instead it’s a bunch of baseless theorizing between what we already know. There’s not one example mentioned of the acrimony between the siblings. Ever. Not from growing up with fist fights or stealing money from the cookie jar and blaming the other. The best he could come up with is one quote from George explaining how one kid understands him better? At least I have something to wipe my ass with on Sunday morning.
    I’m not buying the “Yankees are in trouble” meme. Like someone said above, the ballpark is packed, the new one will bring more dough, and ratings are the best in the nation for a regional sports network. The organization is in fine shape as they get ready to cut a ton of dead wood from the roster. The sky isn’t falling. It’s as bright as I’ve ever seen it in the past forty years.

    YF in Beantown February 29, 2008, 9:32 am
  • “But that’s probably too simplistic.”
    “If anything, that interpretation seems, perhaps, simplistic”
    wow- i get it… you’re using the word SF fan used, over and over again. let it go dude, let it go. painful…

    Ric February 29, 2008, 9:37 am
  • yeah, i guess i did go overboard with that self-evident proclamation, nick…hehe, duh indeed…in my defense [i hope i don’t make it worse], i was trying to support my point that the rousing success of yes is dependent totally upon the success of the team…in fact, the network doesn’t exist if the yankees weren’t the marketing force that they are…unless of course, you happen to like “white shadow” reruns…

    dc February 29, 2008, 9:39 am
  • Oh, I wasn’t getting on you about it being self-evident. I just find it amusing anytime “White Shadow” comes on YES. It’s so random. It’s funny to think that one of the Steinbrenners might be behind the choice.

    Nick-YF February 29, 2008, 9:42 am
  • Wow, that GQ interview is ridiculously better. 1/10 as long but 10x as informative. Better quotes with none of the bullshit. Whereas the Times article makes it seem weird that Hal calls him George, the GQ piece has him address exactly why and it makes a ton of sense and with humor. I can perfectly see how well Hall and Hank could work together from that GQ interview. It shows exactly why the Johan trade didn’t work between then rather than postulating some bogus acrimony because of it. I say Boooooooo to the Times for publishing that soap opera rubbish.

    YF in Beantown February 29, 2008, 9:47 am
  • that is funny

    dc February 29, 2008, 9:48 am
  • Let me nip this TOS issue in the bud. There was no ad hominem attack on any reader. The criticism was addressed to a line of argument, which i did, in fact, find to be naive/foolish. I don;t think the phrasing was particularly disrespectful; it was not intended to be, in any case. And there is no double standards here. This is the end of this line of discussion.

    YF February 29, 2008, 9:59 am
  • the new one will bring more dough
    Genuine question here.
    I hear this said all the time, and I was wondering why this is assumed. I udnerstand the luxury tax won’t be in effect for the first year of operation, and that will be a boon, but otherwise isn’t the new stadium actually cutting the number of available seats? Is the additional money everyone projects based on increased ticket prices or what? I assume I’m just missing some significant piece of the puzzle…

    Paul SF February 29, 2008, 10:09 am
  • Also, I think YF’s post misses the REAL story in that article:
    “Red Sox Nation?” Hank says. “What a bunch of [expletive] that is. That was a creation of the Red Sox and ESPN, which is filled with Red Sox fans. Go anywhere in America and you won’t see Red Sox hats and jackets, you’ll see Yankee hats and jackets. This is a Yankee country. We’re going to put the Yankees back on top and restore the universe to order.”

    Paul SF February 29, 2008, 10:13 am
  • Paul, I think there are going to be more luxury boxes, and generally more revenue-generating operations within the stadium. This article, for instance, mentions a year-round restaurant at the new stadium. So fewer seats, but the Yankee Stadium experience will be a lot more expensive.

    Nick-YF February 29, 2008, 10:14 am
  • Go anywhere in America and you won’t see Red Sox hats and jackets, you’ll see Yankee hats and jackets.
    Hank doesn’t get out much, apparently.

    SF February 29, 2008, 10:37 am
  • Paul, these days it seems like the Yankees do not have the market cornered on dumb comments:
    “The way they score runs, you know they’re going to be in the race down to the end,” said Kevin Youkilis. That’s smart media coaching. But who’s kidding whom? A less filtered sentiment came from closer Jonathan Papelbon, who, when asked to assess the Yankees’ chances, said,
    …”Dude, I don’t even know who’s on their roster this year.” – Bob Klapisch (The Record – NJ)
    Looks like the two teams are going to wage a battle of dumb comments all season!

    John - YF February 29, 2008, 10:38 am
  • Paul, I caught that one, too. And I again wonder if Hank says this crap to get a reaction or if he really believes his own bnllsh!t.
    Because there ain’t nobody wearin’ NYY stuff here in Chicago.

    I'm Bill McNeal February 29, 2008, 10:39 am
  • Paul: We covered the economics in several posts in the ballparks thread, so you can review that material, but basically there is an increase in seats at the more expensive field and luxury levels, and a decrease in the cheapest upper deck seating (where scarcity will only increase prices). This plus the added revenue streams that come from increased merchandizing (which will now happen within stadium confines) and concessions. The new ballpark is, essentially, a giant cash register.

    YF February 29, 2008, 10:40 am
  • Paps’ comments have been naively funny so far. But he is perilously close to putting his foot in his mouth.

    I'm Bill McNeal February 29, 2008, 10:41 am
  • And, YF, I believe that because of the new stadium the NYY will be exempt from some MLB fees, such as revenue sharing (??? … correct me if I’m wrong). So they’ll have even more money to spend.
    Cha-Ching, cha-ching, cha-ching.

    I'm Bill McNeal February 29, 2008, 10:44 am
  • Seems to me that that comment from Papelbon is a joke. Need to hear his voice to be sure, but I can’t read it any other way. Hank leaves no room for confusion, at least! That guy isn’t funny at all!

    SF February 29, 2008, 10:44 am
  • Yeah I don’t agree with Hank, I see Red Sox hats everywhere. Granted most of them are pink and look like they just came off the shelf, but they are Red Sox hats none the less.
    Joking…

    John - YF February 29, 2008, 10:47 am
  • Note to Hank: The phrase “Red Sox Nation” was coined by Boston Globe columnist Nathan Cobb in 1986. And it has been copied by about every sports fan base since, including NYY.

    I'm Bill McNeal February 29, 2008, 10:48 am
  • If it was or is a joke Klapisch didn’t handle it as such. I don’t care either way. My point being that long gone are the days of stupid comments (joking or otherwise) only flowing from one side of this rivalry.

    John - YF February 29, 2008, 10:49 am
  • From the telenovela article:
    “The new stadium certainly promises to be a giant ATM. Its seating capacity is a little less than that of the existing stadium — it will seat just under 51,000, down from 57,500 — but fewer seats means greater demand, and greater demand means higher ticket prices. There will also be many more opportunities to spend money inside the ballpark. Four times as much space will be devoted to retail shops — 12,000 square feet compared to 3,000 — and instead of empty, blacked-out center-field bleachers, there will be a massive sports bar. The existing stadium has 19 high-priced luxury suites; the new stadium will have 51 higher-priced luxury suites as well as 8 separate “party suites” that together can accommodate more than 400 people.”
    The author seems to think they’re always going to be paying the luxury tax. But if they go another off-season without a major free agent signing, like this last one, they will be under the threshold. Teixiera and Sabathia might be available. But after that there’s not much they need. Even then, if they make the playoffs with the youngsters, they can easily hang tight and cheap.
    That’s the thing, dc (thanks for getting my back in previous threads BTW), for the next two seasons, at least, it really doesn’t matter if they win or not. They’ll sell out the old place this season (try getting single games tix today). And they’ll sell out the new place next season. That gives them at least the next two years to have even moderate rebuilding and still keep huge revenues pumping. And if they make the playoffs this year, look out. They’ll be getting younger and cheaper. But I, for one, think they’ll be just fine this season even as I can fully understand why they’re going full bore into a rebuilding as they’ve ever done in the Steinbrenner Era.
    As for the TOS stuff, it doesn’t really bother me. But I find it curious that I’ve never even called someone’s argument “foolish” or “naive” or “simplistic”. That’s just an end around ad hominen even if you say why. That sophomoric level of argument is never helpful, even if you believe it. Tell me why you disagree and we can learn from each other even as nothing says, even in your TOS, that we have to ever agree.

    A YF February 29, 2008, 10:50 am
  • John, my sister, who lives in central Michigan, has a pink Red Sox cap. And it’s everything I can do to resist slapping her silly for buying it.

    I'm Bill McNeal February 29, 2008, 10:50 am
  • Hank is probably referring to the major branding effort of the Sox (in cahoots with NESN) to push “RSN” on Sox fans, including the membership cards, etc. I think he means NESN, not ESPN. The more he talks the more he exposes his lack of knowledge about anything but, perhaps, the Yankees.
    It’s really odd that he would call this kind of stuff “bullshit” or “crap”, considering NESN, one of the trailblazing local sports cable networks, is a model that YES and the Yankees themselves obviously have emulated. The idea that RSN is “crap”, or whatever Hank called it, is just stupid, it’s a petty insult.

    SF February 29, 2008, 10:53 am
  • Hank is definitely referring to ESPN. If you visit Yankee chatrooms, this is a common theme.: ESPN is Boston-centric.
    I wonder what handle Hank uses when he goes on-line?

    Nick-YF February 29, 2008, 11:00 am
  • Is it me or does it sound like Bobby Knight wrote that comment for Hank to say? That comment reeks of being Knight-ish.

    John - YF February 29, 2008, 11:00 am
  • Well, if he had said NESN, he’d have had something of an argument, since the RSN push has come from the Sox and their network; it’s mentioned like every two seconds on that channel. Re: his paranoia about ESPN – how old is this guy!?
    The point is that this exposes him to be completely provincial, not much more than a fan who happens to have had a father who made a very smart purchase. He may do a good job helping the Yankees succeed down the road, I have no clue. But he is really quite a detestable figure at this point, forget his business acumen, which at this time can’t really be judged fairly.

    SF February 29, 2008, 11:04 am
  • That, to me, is the worst part of Hank’s comment. Not the silly stuff about pink hats and “Red Sox Nation” being bullshit (I assume that’s the expletive). Hank likes to trash talk, and I think we’ve gotten used to that.
    But to argue ESPN is “full of Red Sox fans” strikes me as the type of sophomoric whining you’d expect from “Vinny from the Bronx,” not from the owner of the franchise.
    At least Papelbon’s just having fun — does anyone honestly think he doesn’t know who’s on the Yankee roster? Even if we accept that Papelbon’s comment is dumb and embarrassing to the Red Sox (which I don’t), should the owner of the Yankees be acting and talking like Jonathan Papelbon?
    Will Hank be dancing in his skivvies at Yankee Stadium if the Yanks win the AL East this season?

    Paul SF February 29, 2008, 11:09 am
  • “detestable figure”
    That’s a bit strong, no?

    A YF February 29, 2008, 11:10 am
  • Meanwhile how different are any of Hank’s comments from what Lucky Larry has said through the years? And Hank has never been so disgraceful to call out players on another team.
    Seems like there’s a lot of whining from fans of the defending World Champions. Who’s got the chip on their shoulder?

    A YF February 29, 2008, 11:14 am
  • Nope, not strong at all. He’s a team executive that insults his rivals, he insults the rest of the Majors, he insults just about everyone while proclaiming his team (and by proxy, himself) to be the center of the universe, the source of all things important and consequential. I find his diarrhea of the mouth to be pretty damn detestable. He may be a good guy, I have no idea. He may be fun to have a beer with. He may be a great uncle or father (does he have kids?). He may make a mean pulled pork sandwich. Who the hell knows. But based on his public comments and his public persona, I am comfortable saying , in terms of my being a sports fan, I find him quite detestable.

    SF February 29, 2008, 11:14 am
  • Meanwhile how different are any of Hank’s comments from what Lucky Larry has said through the years?
    Um, yes, you nailed it. Sox fans, for the most part, DISLIKE Larry Lucchino, find him (or, maybe, until he started shutting up) to be one of the more unlikeable figures in Boston sports. Lucky (and Charles Steinberg) were the targets of a great deal of (deserved) scorn from RSN.

    SF February 29, 2008, 11:17 am
  • In my opinion, absolutely not, he’s a detestable figure. He has yet to show anything close to a redeemable human quality.
    He might end up being very good for the Yankees, time will tell, but he’s giant d-bag, just like his father.

    LocklandSF February 29, 2008, 11:17 am
  • I think just the opposite Paul. (I made the same comments last week, prior to Theo’s comments you can check) I think the owners are basically glorified fans. While I hate the fact that Hank is a loudmouth, I also don’t put much stock in what he says. The real problem for me comes when the GM’s, players and managers have dumb things to say. If Hank’s comment was made by Cashman, then I would be concerned, but it’s made by an emotional, glorified, unfiltered fan. That being said, shut up Hank.

    John - YF February 29, 2008, 11:18 am
  • Well, then I find Epstein to be an utter disgrace for publicly calling out players that have never been on his team. I only wish Moose could have a chance to throw his 84 mph fastball high and tight.
    Lucky Larry is in his own special category though. Who loses a power struggle to a 30 year old any ways?

    A YF February 29, 2008, 11:19 am
  • Now we’re getting somewhere. The difference between Hank and Larry is that the former is rapidly decreasing. Still, Hank seems like a guy I could have a lot of fun watching a game with. He talk because he loves to talk, it seems. Larry talks to spin and manipulate. Skeevy is the right word for him.

    A YF February 29, 2008, 11:22 am
  • “Will Hank be dancing in his skivvies at Yankee Stadium if the Yanks win the AL East this season?”
    If you think Hank is leaving his skivvies on, you don’t know Hank. He’ll be butt naked, with a general’s helmet on, doing the Roger Rabbit.
    You’re welcome for the image.

    Nick-YF February 29, 2008, 11:22 am
  • EDIT: The difference between Hank and Larry is rapidly decreasing.

    A YF February 29, 2008, 11:22 am
  • Well said, Paul.
    I might add that I’ve heard complaints about ESPN being enamoured with the Red Sox, too. And I’ve heard just as many complaints that ESPN is excessively enamoured with NYY. And the Indianpolis Colts. And the Red Wings. And the Lakers. And Duke men’s basketball. And Carolina men’s basketball. And USC football …
    Moving on …
    Speaking of ESPN, (and if this came up while I was on leave from this blog, I apologize), has anyone read (Mattoon, Illinois, native) Will Leitch’s new book, God Save the Fan?
    Also, does anyone know where I can find the viedeo of the Red Sox visit to Walter Reed? I can find the White House video, but don’t care to watch it.

    I'm Bill McNeal February 29, 2008, 11:23 am
  • Yeah, that one, totally out of character comment, which he almost immediately apologized for, which was also totally misquoted, makes Theo a bad guy.
    Brilliant A YF, you’re really on your game today.

    LocklandSF February 29, 2008, 11:24 am
  • Also, what’s the difference between Hank and Cuban? A lot of the super uptight NBA owner hate Cuban and that makes him even more likable in my book. And I really like Cuban (sandwiches too).
    Still, Hank and Hal seems like a great combination. At least the telenovela gave me the Odd Couple image.

    A YF February 29, 2008, 11:26 am
  • The difference between Hank and Larry is rapidly decreasing.
    Odd thing to say when Lucchino’s been silent for the better part of two years, while Hank’s been silent for the better part of two minutes.
    Meanwhile, dropping the false outrage over Epstein’s comments would do your argument some good. Everyone says things they regret. Epstein has no pattern of insulting the Yankees or their players — or for that matter any team or player in the game. Hank now has a well-established m.o. for doing just that.

    Paul SF February 29, 2008, 11:26 am
  • I think the owners are basically glorified fans
    I think it is GOOD when owners are fans. I love that Mark Cuban lives and dies for the Mavs. I like that Hank and Hal probably grew up rooting for the Yankees and want them to win. The best thing that ever happened to the Pats was that a lifelong fan (and rich family!) bought the team. There is so much more downside when guys like Jeffrey Loria get a hold of a club, run it like they run any other business and consider ONLY the bottom line. That being said, I also hope that, due to their positions as owners, as the chief spokespeople for a given business entity, they would act with a bit of dignity and consideration. Hank seems utterly incapable of this. It is why Lucchino’s stuff came off so poorly (and even then he never made blanket statements about the rest of the Major League ballclubs like Hank has). In the end, LL will have proven to have been both a good owner but also something of a loudmouth, a not very likeable guy. That’s no comment on whether he is a good person or not. But as a sports figure he is just not very likeable. Like Hank.
    There are several things that make me proud of being a Sox fan, but I wouldn’t ever start a list with Lucchino, even understanding that he’s done great thing for the team. I gather this is how many YFs might end up feeling about Hank.

    SF February 29, 2008, 11:26 am
  • “They are the owners of this team, not the manager, GM or players. What they say simply does not matter except to Sox fans and the media. Baseball is played between the lines, not on bulletin boards or in offices.” – Posted by: John – YF | Wednesday, February 20, 2008
    Disagree as much as you’d like, but at least I am consistent. LOL.

    John - YF February 29, 2008, 11:26 am
  • John’s thoughts are similar to my own.
    I can’t put a lot of stock in what Hank says because Hank has shown a knack for uttering bombastic nonsense, and he is yet to say anything thoughtful or insightful that would give his opinions credibility.
    Using that same thought pattern, that’s why I was disappointed with Theo’s (accurate) comment about Moose and Brown. Theo generally does not make inappropriate public comments. (So I wonder if there was a purpose to the comment.)

    I'm Bill McNeal February 29, 2008, 11:32 am
  • Larry talked a lot at the beginning. After he was emasculated by a 30 year old, not so much.
    Cuban says alot of “detestable” things in support of his team, even as he too has calmed down. But ask any Spurs or Lakers fan what they think of him. So if you like Cuban then I can’t see what makes Hank detestable in your book besides his pinstriped blood.
    I couldn’t agree more, John.
    What made Lucky so much more detestable is that he was neither a GM nor an owner. It would be like Randy Levine as the mouthpiece for the Yankees. That’s a better comparison. And I don’t want Levine saying anything, ever. He’s a scumbag, but a necessary one.

    A YF February 29, 2008, 11:32 am
  • You just can’t put so much stock in what they say SF. I am a Yankees fan (obivously) and I really don’t. Let him talk, sure he has a position of power and should behave as such, but his sentiments are not the sentiments of the educated, think before they speak population of Yankee fans. He’s getting a reaction, exactly what he wants. If Cashman or DJ were ever to make a statement like that, then we can get all up in arms. For now just accept it for what it is, a rich fan with power making dumb comments.

    John - YF February 29, 2008, 11:33 am
  • Lucky isn’t an owner.

    A YF February 29, 2008, 11:34 am
  • I’d like to point out that the arguments being made here against Hank are the exact same ones used by old fogies against Cuban.

    A YF February 29, 2008, 11:36 am
  • I think the owners are basically glorified fans.
    I think you’re right, John, but if a fan came to YFSF spewing nonsense about how the Yankees were the center of the universe and ESPN was full of Red Sox fans, I doubt we’d be cutting them any slack either. And, glorified fan or not, the man IS the most public face of the organization.

    Paul SF February 29, 2008, 11:38 am
  • forget about RSN- the most outrageous claim is “Yankee Universe”
    we all know that there’s no proof that other life exists beyond Earth.

    Ric February 29, 2008, 11:41 am
  • Cuban might make some odd comments, but they are hardly detestable.
    Cuban comes off as a guy who is a little too enthusiastic about his favorite team and lacks some decorum.
    Hank comes off as an oafish buffoon who can’t see the forest for the trees and doesn’t get out much. And lacks decorum.

    I'm Bill McNeal February 29, 2008, 11:41 am
  • “And, glorified fan or not, the man IS the most public face of the organization.”
    Paul, more than Jeter? More than Cash?

    I'm Bill McNeal February 29, 2008, 11:43 am
  • No slack being cut here Paul, I don’t like Hank. All I am saying is don’t invest so much time and energy into what he says. Hank is a “Troll” looking for attention and people are giving it to him. The same way were are taught to “Not Feed The Trolls” is the way you should handle Hank. We (Yankee fans) don’t feel that way, most of what he says we don’t agree with or like.

    John - YF February 29, 2008, 11:45 am
  • A YF, you’re wrong, LL is part of the owner group, so he is an owner.

    LocklandSF February 29, 2008, 11:46 am
  • Bill, find a diehard Lakers or Spurs fan. They would describe Cuban in much the same way you describe Hank.

    A YF February 29, 2008, 11:48 am
  • So if you like Cuban then I can’t see what makes Hank detestable in your book besides his pinstriped blood.
    You miss the point, A.
    I like the principle that a fan is an owner. I don’t like the practice of when that fan/owner acts like Hank/Cuban/Lucky. It’s a naive, idealist’s spot, I realize. And what I like even less is guys like Loria, or the Jacobs family (who own the Bruins — perhaps one of the worst ownerships in all of professional sports), guys who couldn’t give two shits about the fans. Why is this such an objectionable position, exactly? Are you arguing that Hank isn’t a jackass? That’s different than arguing, as John does, that his jackassery makes no difference in the end. Which, to me, is also arguable. It could very well cause problems for his team. Remains to be seen.
    As a point of fact, every article I can find refers to Lucchino (the President and CEO of the Sox) as part of the “ownership group”, but I don’t have insider knowledge of his actual stake. He’s considered, de facto, as an owner, at least by everything I can find published. Not sure what your point is on that front. Both Hank and Lucky are prominent front office members and represent ownership.

    SF February 29, 2008, 11:49 am
  • Sorry, Lucky is an owner to the extent that Packers fans are owners. And a true owner doesn’t get emasculated like he did by the GM.

    A YF February 29, 2008, 11:49 am
  • Paul, more than Jeter? More than Cash?
    Certainly more than Cashman, I think. The Yankees have always been an organization defined by their ownership, while the Red Sox since Tom Yawkey’s death have been more defined by their general managers.
    Jeter is definitely the face of the team, but I’m distinguishing between the on-field product and the organization as a whole.
    Also, the only reason I bring up Hank’s comments is that it’s amazing that he continues to say these things, and that he apparently has no idea how they make him look. After a while (and we’ve long past this point), you stop being outraged.

    Paul SF February 29, 2008, 11:50 am
  • A, despite your protestations, Lucchino still is a part owner. He’s not Mr. Henry. but he’s still a part owner. And comparing him to a Packers fan is silly. A lot of Packers part owners own a single share of stock.
    Also, this is the most important difference between Hand and Cuban: One is the owner of an NBA team, so expectations are much lower. (Read: I don’t give a sh!t about the NBA.)

    I'm Bill McNeal February 29, 2008, 11:54 am
  • He’s a jackass, but he’s OUR jackass. It’s like the friend at a bar that’s really into their team. You laugh along and have fun with it. But if that friend gets into a fight, you’re standing right behind him in case more jump in.
    Larry is more an employee. That’s why Theo could basically tell him, through Henry, to STFU.
    No one, out side of his family, is treating Hank that way. And certainly not the GM.
    Like I said, a better comp with Lucky is Randy Levine. And he should keep his mouth shut.
    As I think about it more, Hank is much more like Cuban, but at least Hal is there to keep the balance sheet.

    A YF February 29, 2008, 11:54 am
  • Sorry, Lucky is an owner to the extent that Packers fans are owners. And a true owner doesn’t get emasculated like he did by the GM.
    Come on, don’t dig yourself this hole. Seriously. This is a stupid assertion and belies no understanding of business operations or how personalities interact, get along, don’t get along, etc. It’s a reductivist argument that won’t go anywhere. And if you search you will see that Lucchino is considered part of the ownership group of John Henry. From the Times way back when:
    “Henry has owned the Marlins for three years. The winning bid group also includes Tom Werner, who was once the managing partner of the San Diego Padres; George Mitchell, the former United States senator from Maine, who was a member of the commissioner’s blue ribbon panel on the game’s economics; and Larry Lucchino, who has had vast experience as president of the Baltimore Orioles and the Padres and has recently worked closely with Selig on economic matters. Lucchino is expected to become president of the Red Sox. “
    You are wrong, flat-out.

    SF February 29, 2008, 11:55 am
  • Again, I don’t harbor any ill will towards Hank, or pass any judgement on the Yankee organization based on him. I’m glad he’s a much a blithering idiot windbag as his dad, it’s entertaining.

    LocklandSF February 29, 2008, 11:55 am
  • Fair enough, Paul.
    (But we’re going to have a lot of fun with Bombastic Hank.)

    I'm Bill McNeal February 29, 2008, 11:56 am
  • And a true owner doesn’t get emasculated like he did by the GM.
    That’s the second time you’ve used “emasculated” when referring to the Lucchino-Epstein battle, A, with clearly no knowledge of what happened or what the ultimate resolution was.
    Since you seem infatuated with the word, for reasons I don’t want to surmise, maybe you should use the situation as a lesson for the dangers of having an overactive, talkative owner. Lucchino’s relationship with the press, and his inability to shut up, led to that confrontation that ultimately left Lucchino with less power than before. Steinbrenner is rapidly heading down that road; rather than reflexively defending him because of the team he owns, perhaps you should be worried that history could repeat itself a couple hours down I-95.

    Paul SF February 29, 2008, 11:57 am
  • Actually, in reality, isn’t LL more of an owner than Hank actually is? At least until Big Stein kicks the bucket?

    LocklandSF February 29, 2008, 11:59 am
  • I’m going to get back to work, fellas.
    We’re actually above freezing here today in the greater Chicago metropolitan area, a day after we recorded our 35th day of measurable snow this season.

    I'm Bill McNeal February 29, 2008, 12:02 pm
  • (Lockland shoots, Lockland scores.)

    I'm Bill McNeal February 29, 2008, 12:03 pm
  • Heh. It’s 75 and sunny here in Texas. ;-)

    Paul SF February 29, 2008, 12:03 pm
  • You suck Paul. It was 10 when I left the house this morning in Boston and it’s now up to 19.

    LocklandSF February 29, 2008, 12:09 pm
  • But ask any Spurs or Lakers fan what they think of [Cuban]
    Why do you keep comparing Hank to Cuban? Your argument seems to be “There’s another person like Hank in the world!!!! See????” It’s just plain silly.
    Plus, Mark Cuban is disliked because he gets emotional during games and yells at referees. He doesn’t talk about opposing teams/organizations at all. (I’m from Dallas).
    Also, it doesn’t hurt that Cuban is a business genius that built his own empire, while Hank is simply inherriting it all.

    Atheose February 29, 2008, 12:37 pm
  • By the way, it’s a gorgeous 60 degrees here in Virginia. I can smell Spring around the corner!

    Atheose February 29, 2008, 12:39 pm
  • Totally, nothing annoys me more than a little rich snot that was born on 3rd base but acts like he hit a triple.

    LocklandSF February 29, 2008, 1:05 pm
  • I love that Billy Martin quote, Lockland!

    Atheose February 29, 2008, 1:18 pm
  • I thought Al Haig was in charge. No?

    Zooboy February 29, 2008, 1:26 pm
  • “Steinbrenner is rapidly heading down that road”
    That’s exactly my point. He’s already there and no one is going to tell him to STFU like with what happened to Lucky. I don’t care what word you use to describe it. He lost power to the GM. That doesn’t happen to an owner. Larry is a suit with a very minority stake, plain and simple. Randy Levine says hello.
    Really, Cuban has never said anything about other teams, huh? Wow. True, I also admire Cuban for his business “luck” because any businessman who does what he did is smart enough to say they got lucky. Hard work, unfortunately, has very little to do with it. Sure, it helps. But after that he got very, very lucky to get bought when he did and for the product he offered. In a way, Cuban was born at home plate, but he had the market forces of Ruth and Gehrig hitting behind him.
    What’s the ratio of dedicated YFs around here to SFs any ways? Seems like there’s many more of the latter. Why?

    A YF February 29, 2008, 1:36 pm
  • Not really A YF, it’s pretty even, but most of the YFs aren’t coming to your defense simply because your points have no merit and border on trolling, if not worse.
    Cuban was born and raised in a working class family, disparage the market forces that made him rich all you want, it just makes you sound jealous and petty.

    LocklandSF February 29, 2008, 1:42 pm
  • Actually, you missed my larger point and what I said. The most successful entrepreneurs know how lucky they got. Cuban knows he was lucky. Like I said, he was born on homeplate but had great hitters behind him. He needed to get to first, but once there he got smashed home by the times.

    A YF February 29, 2008, 1:49 pm
  • Lucchino is an owner, but John Henry controls the money.
    Hank is an owner, but Hal controls the money.

    Paul SF February 29, 2008, 2:03 pm
  • “What’s the ratio of dedicated YFs around here to SFs any ways? Seems like there’s many more of the latter. Why?”
    It is natural for people to connect with winners.
    :)

    Dirty Water February 29, 2008, 2:28 pm
  • Pardon the cliches, but they are appropriate to get A to abandon his silly and pointless premise:
    1. You make your own luck.
    2. I’d rather be lucky than good.
    So what Cuban got fat off the tech market before it crashed? You don’t know it was dumb luck. He could very well have known exactly what he was doing, that the tech market would go nuts for a couple of years and then crash. So he got it, got rich and then bailed out. That doesn’t equate to luck.

    I'm Bill McNeal February 29, 2008, 2:36 pm
  • So A YF, under your logic Bill Gates was “just lucky”? He was lucky that the market demanded a high-end operating system at the time that he created one?
    Better yet, was Rockerfeller just “lucky” that he chose to revolutionize the oil industry in 1870? Using your logic we can discount every single great accomplishment made by anyone, ever. Pretty rediculous.
    Mark Cuban won’t be remembered the way Rockerfeller and Gates will, but he’s certainly an intelligent, great businessman who worked hard to get where he is today. Read the part in his autobiography about why he doesn’t wear business suits and maybe you’ll give him a bit more credit.

    Atheose February 29, 2008, 3:14 pm
  • Larry is a suit with a very minority stake, plain and simple
    So first he wasn’t an owner but now he’s an owner. At least it’s clear that you know you were wrong, even as you now try to qualify your wrongness to dull the embarrassment.
    And anyhow, how do we know how much power Lucchino “lost” to Theo? We know that he was muzzled by Henry, to an extent, and that Epstein leveraged his walkout to get certain things from John Henry, Werner, and yeah, Lucchino. But how much do we know about their overlap of responsibilities, what they were, what they are now? Seems to me that you’ve bought into an idea that Lucchino is an empty suit (that is, in my estimation, a horribly wrong understanding of what Lucchino does for the Sox’ organization) just because Theo got his job back and Lucchino doesn’t continue to Hankifize the airwaves.

    SF February 29, 2008, 3:15 pm
  • It’s useless… I think we should all move along.
    http://tinyurl.com/37qjc4

    LocklandSF February 29, 2008, 3:15 pm
  • According to the radio announcer for the Yankees-USF game, Chamberlain will start the season in the bullpen. Did I miss something, or is he just guessing?

    Atheose February 29, 2008, 3:27 pm
  • Nope, that was decided a while ago, I think. Start him in the pen, then send him down to AAA to stretch him out, them bring him back up to start.

    LocklandSF February 29, 2008, 3:30 pm
  • Wow, I guess I need to pay more attention.

    Atheose February 29, 2008, 3:32 pm
  • lockland – i just posted that at a different site the other day..

    Ric February 29, 2008, 3:46 pm
  • wow- igawa served up a grand salami to a college kid?

    Ric February 29, 2008, 3:48 pm
  • Based on my reading of the situation (and my reading of FTM), Lucchino and Epstein clashed on their vision for the organization — particularly whether the Sox needed to go through a semirebuilding phase). Epstein said yes, Lucchino said no. This came to a head at the same time as Epstein’s cotnract renegotiation and the leaking that occurred over that.
    When Epstein returned, he got his rebuilding (2006), he got what appears to be nearly carte blanche power over player development and acquisition (Lucchino appeared to at least have veto power before, or that was at least a story they created to allow Epstein to negate deals he’d agreed to without looking bad doing so), while also winning what was essentially an endorsement from Henry over Lucchino.
    I don’t buy into the idea that Lucchino was “emasculated,” or that he’s an empty suit. He has been incredibly useful, if not brilliant, in holding the reins of the baseball team apart from the player-related responsibilities. But I think he did have more power before, and the loss of that power was caused by his inability to censor himself to the press — either on or off the record. Hank should take note.

    Paul SF February 29, 2008, 4:08 pm
  • “Lucchino is an owner, but John Henry controls the money.
    Hank is an owner, but Hal controls the money.”
    If Larry had as much power as Hank, he’d still be yapping. He doesn’t so he isn’t.
    “At least it’s clear that you know you were wrong, even as you now try to qualify your wrongness to dull the embarrassment.”
    Hahahaha. If Henry wanted to push Larry completely out, he could. Sorry, an “owner” with that little power isn’t an owner to me. Larry has been reduced to running to Japan to do side deals. It’s not a stretch to say he’s Randy Levine in women’s clothing.
    Hank can never lose that power unless his Dad writes him out of his will. From the look of things that ain’t happening. He’ll be just as much an owner as Hal.

    A YF February 29, 2008, 4:43 pm
  • A YF, you’re wrong and you’re a troll, it’s it getting tiresome. Give it a rest or go hang out with your buddy…
    http://tinyurl.com/37qjc4
    At…
    http://www.nomaas.org/

    LocklandSF February 29, 2008, 4:46 pm
  • “A YF, you’re wrong and you’re a troll”
    Really, this is considered an intelligent piece of criticism around here? (And no, I didn’t check out your links).
    Look, can we please keep this respectful? I’ve done nothing to belittle anyone or their views. I simply don’t agree on a few points:
    – Hank can say whatever he damn well pleases, just like Mark Cuban. He’s the owner of the team. God bless him.
    – Lucky has very little power in the Sox organization, less so than the GM.
    After that, I’m not sure what the problem is.

    A YF February 29, 2008, 4:53 pm
  • I actually think we should all feel grateful that someone with such infinite, accurate and first-hand knowledge of Yankee (and Sox) ownership feels compelled to educate us all and constantly try to get the last word….*sigh*

    DUFF - SF February 29, 2008, 4:56 pm
  • Oh yeah, and the original disagreement was based on whether the Yankees are in trouble over the next few years. I don’t think so. The profits will be rolling in and the owners, all of them, will be very happy. But the winning alone will make me happy.
    Good night and God bless you all for a fine discussion.

    A YF February 29, 2008, 4:57 pm
  • I actually think we should all feel grateful that someone with such infinite, accurate and first-hand knowledge of Yankee (and Sox) ownership feels compelled to educate us all and constantly try to get the last word….*sigh*

    DUFF - SF February 29, 2008, 5:00 pm
  • A YF, you’re equating “being an owner” with “having power”. Quite literally an owner is simply someone that has a stake in a company. I have stock in Disney, therefore I’m one of the owners of Disney World. It’s that simple.
    Just because Lucchino can be pushed out (bought out, technically) by Henry doesn’t make him any less of an owner. I don’t understand why you continue to equate being an owner with power.

    Atheose February 29, 2008, 5:00 pm
  • You also have NO idea how much power LL has or doesn’t have at this point, it’s pure speculation on your part and it’s annoying.

    LocklandSF February 29, 2008, 5:02 pm
  • hank won’t let a little thing like facts stand in the way of a good soundbite. 2007 road attendance records would show him the sox are best drawing road team in baseball.
    i personally think everyone has been a little hard on a-yf over the last week. outside of the schilling vs. hughes thread from the other day he’s been pretty respectful. he’s always made cogent posts without degrading to name calling. just my 2 cents.

    sf rod February 29, 2008, 5:31 pm
  • Hank’s comments make gullible baseball fans and media loudmouths think the Yankees are on some kind of slippery slope to complete disorder and mayhem. Soon Hank will take control of the team and trade Hughes, Kennedy, and Joba for Randy Johnson, or some ridiculousness. Well, he didn’t do it last season, when it looked like the Yankees weren’t even going to win 85 games, he didn’t do it in the offseason, when the best pitcher on the planet was on the trade market, and he won’t do it this season, even if the Yankees get off to a rough start. It’s scary that as good as this team has been, they’re only improving their situation.

    AndrewYF February 29, 2008, 6:54 pm
  • Hank’s comments make gullible baseball fans and media loudmouths think the Yankees are on some kind of slippery slope to complete disorder and mayhem. Soon Hank will take control of the team and trade Hughes, Kennedy, and Joba for Randy Johnson, or some ridiculousness. Well, he didn’t do it last season, when it looked like the Yankees weren’t even going to win 85 games, he didn’t do it in the offseason, when the best pitcher on the planet was on the trade market, and he won’t do it this season, even if the Yankees get off to a rough start. It’s scary that as good as this team has been, they’re only improving their situation.

    AndrewYF February 29, 2008, 6:54 pm
  • “…Will Hank be dancing in his skivvies at Yankee Stadium if the Yanks win the AL East this season?…”
    gee, i hope so paul
    “detestable figure”
    yeah, get used to it ‘a yf’…sf tends to talk in extremes, just the other day he referred to curt’s blog as “amazing”, and “remarkable”…
    “…This is the end of this line of discussion.,,,”
    perfect yf, you toss the first clump of mud, then declare the matter over…nice…
    i may be softening, but i once thought the idea of red sox “nation” as silly and self-important, but i see now that it has a purpose by providing the fans a forum to share sox love with one another…that’s cool, but the marketing of it is more than a bit shady…for the record, i own 2 items with yankee logos, both were gifts…
    no bill mcneal, the yanks haven’t imitated the sox…sorry to break this to you, but the sox have imitated the yanks including the marketing and business model, even to the point of winning a couple of ws ;) …
    “…(thanks for getting my back in previous threads BTW)…”
    uh, no problem ‘a yf’…this site has a tendency to be a bit unfriendly to newcomers, especially those who don’t toe the “corporate” line, if you know what i mean…example: papelbon’s idiotic comment is funny [he get’s a pass because he’s a player, not smart?], while hank’s comments are “churlish” and “irresponsible”….sheesh, the double standards are tiring…
    espn is not the lapdog of the sox….espn is the lapdog of the patriots and the sox…get it straight for crying out loud…
    “…Epstein has no pattern of insulting the Yankees or their players…”
    still paul, it seemed not to be an impulse comment followed by immediate remorse, rather a premediated act meant to send a message, perhaps to his own players…
    “…The best thing that ever happened to the Pats was that a lifelong fan (and rich family!) bought the team…”
    actually sf, the best thing to ever happen to the patriots was learning that cheaters prosper, and an owner who seems to be indifferent to the whole thing…
    wow, so g. mitchell is actually an OWNER of the sox sf…boy that explains a lot…
    “…most of the YFs aren’t coming to your defense…”
    because lockland, it gets tiring to have to shout down guys like you all the time…’a yf’s’ only “crime” at this point is to have a contrary opinion…stop bullying the guy if he hasn’t actually insulted anyone yet, something that you’ve done on a regular basis…it seems one-sided ‘a yf’ because the sf’s are more militant…
    “…the sox are best drawing road team in baseball….”
    thanks to the games that they play in yankee stadium rod [we’ve had this discussion]…i do agree with you that the gang has been unfairly critical of ‘a yf’…he may be a bit abrasive [who isn’t], and he’s not agreeable [who is], but i think he means well…
    night guys

    dc February 29, 2008, 8:19 pm
  • dc:
    The access Curt gives to the fans, the fact that the blog medium enticed him to comment on our site and with us personally is, I am confident in saying, remarkable. When has this type of direct access to players by fans happened in the past?
    You are misconstruing what I wrote.

    SF February 29, 2008, 9:52 pm
  • DC, I must respond:
    “i may be softening, but i once thought the idea of red sox “nation” as silly and self-important, but i see now that it has a purpose by providing the fans a forum to share sox love with one another…that’s cool, but the marketing of it is more than a bit shady…for the record, i own 2 items with yankee logos, both were gifts…”
    I completely agree with the marketing of the phrase “Red Sox Nation.” It’s become disgusting. One thing I do not like about the RS ownership, and I think Steinberg was behind most of it, is how everything seems to be for sale, including the grass from the infield. Yuck.
    “no bill mcneal, the yanks haven’t imitated the sox…sorry to break this to you, but the sox have imitated the yanks including the marketing and business model, even to the point of winning a couple of ws ;) …”
    You took this way out of context. No, not NYY FO, but are you telling me that NO ONE uses the term Yankee Nation? (If it’s true, you’re lucky and I’m jealous.)
    “actually sf, the best thing to ever happen to the patriots was learning that cheaters prosper, and an owner who seems to be indifferent to the whole thing…
    Please pay attention to the facts. Filming the opposing team’s signals has been done by many teams for years. the pats were not the only ones. they were just the first ones to get caught after the NFL said to knock it off. All of the furor over this has been by thin-skinned media types who hate BB because he won’t give them a scoop. Tampering is a far bigger problem in the league than filming play signals.
    Yes, I am thin skinned about this. It has been blown way out of proportion and I’m sick of hearing about it. GRRRRRRR!!!
    (Now that that’s off my chest … )

    I'mBillMcNeal February 29, 2008, 11:06 pm
  • IBMN – no one uses the term ‘Yankee Nation’. But there are a lot of stupid ‘Yankee Universe’ shirts going around. But no one actually uses that term. We’re just ‘Yankee fans’, to my knowledge, and there’s no fee to officially get in. There’s also no president.

    AndrewYF February 29, 2008, 11:58 pm
  • sf, i hope you understand how i may have misconstrued what you said about curt’s blog…not intentional…at first it was clear to me that you were impressed with curt’s willingness to interact directly with fans…that is unusual, and cool regardless of the content…but, you weren’t willing to give hughes the same benefit of the doubt with his effort to reach out to fans: …[sf at 3:22pm from Tues. Feb 26: The Franchise, On Line]: “…I don’t see why Schilling’s egotism (which inarguably exists) negates the value of his blog. Conversely, Hughes’ “sincerity” doesn’t necessarily create value. They should be judged on their content, their style, and their utility, all of these are always subjective….” …so sincerity adds no value, and egotism doesn’t negate any value…ok…and even though we should judge blogs on content, style, and utility, curt’s is neither “remarkable” or “amazing”, only access to him is…meanwhile you don’t seem impressed with hughes attempt to provide some access into his world…granted, his site could be a bit more robust, but i think it’s new and a little less self-absorbed than curt’s, who i heard will be renaming his “me”…
    sorry to disappoint you bill, but i don’t think i’ve ever heard the term “yankee nation”…not sure i’ve heard “yankee universe” either, but it wouldn’t surprise me as some silly and random rogue attempt to counter the “sox nation” concept…i don’t think i’ve heard of the team endorsing such foolishness, but we do have silly owners running the team now, so you never know…
    re. bill’s comment on the ne cheatriots:
    “…Please pay attention to the facts. Filming the opposing team’s signals has been done by many teams for years. the pats were not the only ones…”
    you won’t like this answer either bill: i have paid attention to the facts…the facts are that the patriots were caught with their hand deep in the cookie jar…there are apparently reasonable suspicions of other such incidents, so the evidence destroyed by goodell may only be the tip of the iceberg for the patriots…yeah, i understand “other teams do it”, but come on, is that really a valid defense?…other teams may be doing it, but they haven’t been caught, and that’s the point…this isn’t about somebody with an ax to grind with bellichick…this won’t seem fair, but perhaps the reason this is more of a scandal than it deserves to be is because the patriots are probably the premier nfl franchise right now, with a sure hall of fame coach and quarterback…if they were a last place laughingstock [like my jets], it probably would blow over with nothing more than a whimper…the specter [pun intended] of further disregard for the rules, including perhaps a super bowl would be devastating to the franchise, individuals’ reputations, and the nfl’s credibility, if proven…i also don’t buy the argument that “it doesn’t really help”…then why do it?…if bellichick is really the genius we believe him to be, then he understood the rule, but chose to disregard it, and the practice indeed gives his team some advantage…not counting this season’s early season blowouts, the pats have played a lot of close games over the years, including the 3 super bowls that they won…if the other teams were doing it as you suggest, then i guess there’s no upset to the competitive balance…if the other teams weren’t doing it and actually following the rules, then hmm…

    dc March 1, 2008, 9:26 am
  • dc, you again isolate a comment and misconstrue it when there is a long trail of exchange over that thread that fleshes out my position. I was commenting on Hughes’ blog critically at the moment — as of now I don’t see much value, and particularly not just because he is sincere. I do, however, hope that Hughes continues blogging and can see a great reason why it would be a fun and resourceful thing. I thought my belief that Hughes should be encouraged to continue and that his site may yet become invaluable was clear.

    SF March 1, 2008, 12:00 pm
  • Holy crap! Food fight!
    /no longer convinced too many of you are emotionless automatrons more hellbent on spelling than a wonderful rivalry between two excellent teams.
    DC, if a coach with binoculars is allowed to take notes on an opposing coach’s signals, how is it cheating (ie unfair advantage) if he replaces those binoculars with a camera? I hope to never hear you criticize Shank, Chass or anyone else regarding lazy reporting.

    Dirty Water March 1, 2008, 12:10 pm
  • Dirty Water, I’m not sure I follow. Using a camera is against the rules. If using bionculars is not against the rules, then there is a qualitative difference. One will be punished and one won’t. If a coach follows the rules, and others don’t (and get away with it) then that coach is at a disadvantage. His only mistake: following the rules. That would seem unfair.

    Nick-YF March 1, 2008, 12:21 pm
  • Nick, the rule is as follows:
    Article nine of the league’s Constitution and Bylaws, states: “Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information- gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone taping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game.”
    The loophole is the phrase “that might aid a team during the playing of a game”, or more specific “during”. In other words, if the tape is not used for that game the procedure is legit.
    It was an interpretation by BB that I can understand.

    Dirty Water March 1, 2008, 12:33 pm
  • Oh I love technicalities, so I’ll one up you:
    “during the playing of a game.”
    Not “that” game, but “a” game. It seems to me the only reason to videotape your opponent would be to gather information that would be useful in either the current or a future game you’d play against them. But isn’t this all a moot point? Goodell punished the Pats because he deemed they broke the rules, and the Pats accepted the punishment without protest.

    Nick-YF March 1, 2008, 12:46 pm
  • Not in the context of the rule, Nick, at least to me, and obviously BB. To me it addresses a particular game and how certain electronic equipment may not be used during the course of that game, for that game.
    But alas, the spirit of that poorly written rule is obvious, as obvious as BB’s arrogance to exploit it. Cheating though? I do not think so.

    Dirty Water March 1, 2008, 12:56 pm
  • DirtyWater, I also embrace the rivalry and the discussion generated on this great blog. My take on following the “rules” as it relates to Spygate:
    This whole notion of “they broke the RULES! They’re an organization of cheaters and liars!” is getting a little tiring. See, we all can agree that rule was one that seems to be widely accepted as not hard & fast enforceable, supported by:
    1. widely accepted notion that other teams were doing it.
    2. widely accepted notion that if a team that sucks was caught doing it, that it would have been “blown over with nothing more than a whimper”.
    Did they get caught? Sure. Was it with their hand “deep in the cookie jar?” Well, that’s certainly debatable, see points 1 and 2 above.
    Maybe I’m way off base in my thinking, but I kind of liken this whole Spygate thing to speeding in excess of the posted speed limit on the highway: Is it against the rules? Yah. Do other people do it? Yah. Will you get punished if you get caught? Yah. Are there some valid arguments to changing the rule or the penalties for violating it? Yah. Does everybody get caught? No.
    I’m certainly not advocating what they got caught for doing, but they paid a hefty price. And then showed what they could do for an entire season (including laying down in a championship game). Feel free to tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about.

    DUFF - sf March 1, 2008, 1:01 pm
  • I agree with all that, Duff, especially the growing tired of it all part.
    How about an anology with baseball. If some runner on second gets caught trying to steal the catchers signals (something that may occur in every single baseball game), and his coach is heard to say he supported that players efforts, should the coaches team be docked a 1st rounder and fined 3/4 of a million?
    Ridiculous. And no difference.

    Dirty Water March 1, 2008, 1:09 pm
  • Here’s Lucky’s comeback:
    “”I don’t deny there are Yankee fans everywhere,” said Lucchino. “But it’s blind of him not to see the phenomenon that is Red Sox Nation. I expect he will become more aware of the passion and breadth of Red Sox Nation as long as he is actively involved in baseball. I do appreciate that he has picked up on the Star Wars metaphor, though. He said he was happy to be Darth Vader and we are happy to be the Rebel Alliance.”
    That’s the best he’s got!? The man’s been udderly (pun intended) emasculated! :)
    Meanwhile here’s Cashman on the Yankees OF:
    “We think [Gardner] could be a Juan Pierre who takes a walk. Here’s a guy who can steal bases; he can get on base; he plays the short game. We need athleticism like that, especially when you have a bunch of these old farts filling the roster out. Those young burst-of-energy, athletic guys really stand out on a team like ours.”
    Good stuff from the GM! See, your own GM can call out players. But I wonder what the reaction here would be if he talked about the fat slobs in other pitching staffs, specifically naming names, while his guys came to camp, even Bruney and Britton, in tip-top shape. Well, except for Igawa ;)

    A YF March 1, 2008, 1:16 pm
  • For what it’s worth, I spend a lot of time out in the world (not NY-NE) and what I notice is that Yankee apparal rules the ‘hood and Red Sox apparal rules everywhere else.
    Knowing that I wonder when Hank is going to affix the label “must be worn straight” to official caps adorning the Yankee emblem.
    :)

    Dirty Water March 1, 2008, 1:30 pm
  • “This whole notion of “they broke the RULES! They’re an organization of cheaters and liars!” is getting a little tiring. See, we all can agree that rule was one that seems to be widely accepted as not hard & fast enforceable, supported by:
    1. widely accepted notion that other teams were doing it.
    2. widely accepted notion that if a team that sucks was caught doing it, that it would have been “blown over with nothing more than a whimper”. Did they get caught? Sure. Was it with their hand “deep in the cookie jar?” Well, that’s certainly debatable, see points 1 and 2 above.”
    Do you realize you can use that entire argument for the players who got got using PED’s? Only difference is there was NO RULE. Cheating is cheating, regardless of who is doing it. Is Clemens (allegedly) more guilty then a guy like Jack Cust because he’s a HOF and Cust isn’t? Cheating is cheating is cheating.
    “How about an anology with baseball. If some runner on second gets caught trying to steal the catchers signals (something that may occur in every single baseball game), and his coach is heard to say he supported that players efforts, should the coaches team be docked a 1st rounder and fined 3/4 of a million?”
    Stealing signals is not against the rules in baseball, there is a big difference. Also coaches or players stealing signs do so with their EYES, not with a videocamera. Two different scenarios altogether.
    “For what it’s worth, I spend a lot of time out in the world (not NY-NE) and what I notice is that Yankee apparal rules the ‘hood and Red Sox apparal rules everywhere else.”
    I wonder if you realize how awful that sounds?

    John - YF March 1, 2008, 2:48 pm
  • A- YF: I hope Cash is right. I have never been a huge Melky fan other then his ever improving defense. His lack of power and his average ability to get on base is something I have a difficult time with. For now he’s the CF’r because he gives us the defense that Damon doesn’t, but if he slips I for one wouldn’t be upset if they gave Gardner a shot. Gardner is of the same mold except he brings the added dimension of SB’s and gets OB at a higher clip. Either way it’s nice to have options.
    In reading that article I also learned that A-Jax had a scholarship to play basketball at G’Tech on the table and chose the Yankees instead. Lucky for us.

    John - YF March 1, 2008, 3:00 pm
  • not sure where you call home dw, but where i live now [not new england], yankee stuff outnumbers sox stuff probably 3-1…not scientific, but my own observation…bottom line: who cares?…the point is that there is no “yankee nation”, or “yankee planet”, or whatever silliness is needed to trump the “sox nation”, which to me is a sleazy way to pump more money from a fanbase that already pays too much for the fenway experience…
    “…dc, you again isolate a comment and misconstrue it…”
    sf, keep trying…i did not misconstrue your comments, or take them out of context…those are your words that i quoted…i even told you where to find them…the fact that you perhaps later on thought hughes should continue trying was not the point…you clearly think access to curt is “amazing” and “remarkable” regardless of the content, while holding hughes to a higher standard…i’m not sure what it would take for access to hughes or the content of his blog to rise to curt’s level, besides joining the red sox, or blowing on and on about himself, politics, himself, himself, but i won’t hold my breath…
    as for the patriots cheating, i stand by what i said in my earlier comments [9:26am]…i haven’t seen a convincing argument here that would change how i think about it…they cheated, they were caught, they paid a penalty…normally that would be the end of it except for the rumblings that the iceberg may be bigger than originally thought…

    dc March 1, 2008, 3:25 pm
  • you clearly think access to curt is “amazing” and “remarkable” regardless of the content, while holding hughes to a higher standard
    Where did I ever say “regardless of content”? This is exactly what I mean by misconstruing what I wrote – you take my sentiments and adapt them to what you hope they mean. Access to both players is a new, and yes, great thing. I hope Hughes’ blog ends up being really useful, which doesn’t have anything to do with Curt, just Phil himself and what he eventually writes on that site.
    As for DW’s comment, I am with John – it sounds really bad and the best I can give it is that it is stupid, the worst, well, we don’t tolerate that here, so consider that something of a warning.

    SF March 1, 2008, 3:42 pm
  • “…This is exactly what I mean by misconstruing what I wrote – you take my sentiments and adapt them to what you hope they mean….”
    not fair, sf…it’s not fair to say stuff, then say you were misinterpreted…i quoted you verbatim in every case, completely in context…none of can know what someone means necessarily, we just try our best to interpret what was said, the words that were used…it’s never an exact science…if you review our previous banter on this topic, you’ll see what i mean…i believe you used the words “amazing” and “remarkable” in reference to curt’s blog due to the fact that he provides direct access to fans, and not as it pertains to the content as i originally thought…it suggested, to me anyway, that you weren’t necessarily critiquing the content, just his accessibility…you also said: “…I don’t see why Schilling’s egotism (which inarguably exists) negates the value of his blog….”, suggesting that you weren’t necessarily enamored of the content, when it becomes a little too self-centered…you were even less impressed with hughes effort, saying you’d “pass” on it, but later suggesting that he should continue to develop it: “…think we will probably be better off with Hughes’ blogging, in the end, even if currently I find it a bit (not my term) “Myspace-ish”….”…now, sf, if i’ve miscontrued anything there, you need to be more specific about what your point is…
    so, i went from claiming that you thought the content of curt’s blog was “amazing” and “remarkable” to conceding that you only meant his access to fans, yet you still want to accuse me of misconstruing your comments…sheehs…

    dc March 1, 2008, 6:07 pm
  • sf, keep trying…i did not misconstrue your comments, or take them out of context…those are your words that i quoted…i even told you where to find them…
    I’m not sure you understand what the phrase “out of context” means.

    Atheose March 1, 2008, 6:15 pm
  • By the way, as for my opinion with regards to the two blogs… one thing that’s amazing about Curt’s blog is that he usually posts after every game, and goes over every single batter he faced. “Tek and I started things off to Abreu by throwing him a back-door curveball to get ahead on the count, but it missed my location so we got behind to him, which allowed him to zone in on the fastball and crush it for a 3-run homerun later in the count.” That sort of insight, no matter which team you root for, is incredible.
    I have nothing against Hughes and hope he blogs about specific starts in the future, but in the mean time there’s just no comparing the two blogs.

    Atheose March 1, 2008, 6:20 pm
  • “Do you realize you can use that entire argument for the players who got got using PED’s?”
    Yes… but I wouldn’t. We weren’t talking about PEDs. And I guess that’s my point: My take is, there are different levels of cheating and the Pats were thoroughly penalized for doing what they did. If you were implying that ALL cheating is equally bad (“cheating is cheating is cheating”) then I suppose I disagree with you.
    But at the end of they day: Not following the rules = cheating. They cheated. I don’t think anyone is disagreeing with you there.
    I can’t freaking wait for games to start!

    DUFF - sf March 1, 2008, 6:22 pm
  • “i’m not sure what it would take for access to hughes or the content of his blog to rise to curt’s level”
    As far as I’m concerned, Hughes doesn’t even have a blog. Instead, he has a webpage he throws one paragraph thoughts on. Criticize Schill’s thoughts if you must but at least give the guy credit for the depth and intelligence of his full page entries.
    Sorry about the ‘hood reference but it’s true, as far as I’ve noticed anyway. Just like the Oakland Raiders was once the apparal of choice for the ghetto, now it’s the Yankees. And I don’t think that connotes anything bad, per se. I certainly didn’t mean it to.

    Dirty Water March 1, 2008, 6:24 pm
  • I agree completely John. I love what Melky has brought to the team, but if he doesn’t improve his power this year, I’d rather a guy that gets on base more and will run around like Speedy Gonzalez once there. Garder could give a .380 OBP and with 50 SBs. That’s not a bad #9 hitter at least for a year or two.
    Yeah, Ajax is a special athlete. If he’s ready for 2009, there may be no need to sign a new RF. But overall, I love the drafting strategy. They did have to give him $800,000 to keep him away from school, but that’s pretty damn good if he turns into a decent starter within 3-4 years of being drafted.
    I worry more about the signings like Brackman. But I’ve read that he would have been a top 5 pick, and perhaps the best pitcher in the draft, if he didn’t have the arm issue and the signability problem.

    A YF March 1, 2008, 6:38 pm
  • I’m with you completely DC, both in what you say and, moreso, how difficult it is to interpret what someone really means, especially in these forums. And really, this sentiment on my part as absolutely nothing to do with with you having my back previously. I just think you’re spot on. To my mind, that’s why it’s best for everyone to treat each other with respect. Whereas it’s easy to say someone is being obstinate, I think that person often just feels misunderstood. Better to discuss ad nauseum and really probe someone’s thinking than cut them off because they seem argumentative. It’s not like the cost of these forums increases with more words being added.
    If you don’t agree – say so respectfully! I’m interested in reading your views or I wouldn’t be sharing mine.

    A YF March 1, 2008, 6:48 pm
  • A, how would I respectively tell DC that he is nothing more than a hater who has no concern with anything contrary to that position?
    Could I at least call him a shallow fool? that’s not too bad, is it?

    Dirty Water March 1, 2008, 7:05 pm
  • I’d say if he had no concern, he wouldn’t have replied to you.
    Seriously, nothing, not even the TOS, says we have to agree. I think disagreement is more interesting any ways. But say why you disagree. And don’t assume other people always understand what you mean.
    Honestly, I have no idea what the disagreement is between you and DC.

    A YF March 1, 2008, 7:15 pm
  • Chalk this up to things I did not know:
    “Trades not made, and offers not accepted, are part of baseball lore. In 1997, the Yankees wanted Pedro Martínez, who had priced himself out of Montreal. They offered a young catcher, Jorge Posada, and a third baseman, Mike Lowell. The Expos opted for Boston’s offer of pitchers Carl Pavano and Tony Armas Jr.”

    A YF March 1, 2008, 8:13 pm
  • “…I’m not sure you understand what the phrase “out of context” means….”
    uh, atheose, do you?…you realize that i quoted sf in a number of cases, trying to be careful to keep the context intact, and explaining my interpretation of his very own words…occasionally we do misunderstand each other…believe me it’s not intentional, and i said so to sf…as ‘a yf’ pointed out, this is a difficult forum to carry on a conversation…but, my experience here is that at times certain folks will make comments, then abruptly back away from them when they are called out by claiming that they were misquoted or taken out of context or misconstrued…make a comment and stick by it, or admit maybe you weren’t clear or [God forbid] might not have gotten it right…that doesn’t happen enough around here…i accept your insult as a compliment because it means you’re out of arguments…
    “…A, how would I respectively tell DC that he is nothing more than a hater who has no concern with anything contrary to that position?…”
    wow dirty water, pretty strong stuff, even for you…not sure why you have an ax to grind with me other than i disagreed with you a few times…give me just one example that proves i’m a “hater”, and i’ll go away for good…we’ll let sf and yf be the judges…

    dc March 1, 2008, 8:22 pm
  • Here’s the link on that article:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/sports/baseball/02yankees.html?ref=sports
    Basically, Cano was offered up for Beltran, A-Rod, and Randy Johnson. No team wanted him.

    A YF March 1, 2008, 8:53 pm
  • “…give me just one example that proves i’m a “hater”, and i’ll go away for good…”
    Don’t make that too easy for DirtyWater, dc. I’m certainly not speaking for him, but I can find 2 in short order:
    From this very thread: “…the “sox nation”, which to me is a sleazy way to pump more money from a fanbase that already pays too much for the fenway experience…”
    I’m sorry, you feel RS fans pay too much for their experience? Why, because only someone who is CRAZY would pay their hard-earned money on such an underachieving and unlikable team? No, that’s not hating.
    Or, let’s go back a few years. I particularly like this thread where the smack-down was laid upon you for being (what appears to be) a hater:
    http://yanksfansoxfan.typepad.com/ysfs/2006/11/matuzaka.html
    By the way, what result ever became of all that Red Sox management “hype” from before that 2007 season? I’m trying to remember if it was all just smoke and mirrors to milk our hard-earned money for the overpriced Fenway experience.
    I know you didn’t ask me for examples, but I just couldn’t resist when you make a statement like that. Even though you are a hater, I do not wish for you to go away.

    DUFF - sf March 1, 2008, 9:44 pm
  • i just re-read that thread from a year and a half ago duff, and i don’t think i’d describe it as a “smack-down” at all…i’d say it’s pretty typical of some of the more heated banter, no winners, no losers, just difference of opinion, and mostly harmless, and it appears any lingering rancor was resolved before the end of the thread…congrats on the win in ’07 by the way…the hype was not hype after all…hindsight being 20-20 and all, i’m sure we all have examples of statements we’ve made about each other’s teams that have come back to bite us on the butt once the history is written…thanks for reminding me of mine…
    to quote my good friend sf, you misconstrued my “nation” comments, and are trying to put words in my mouth…i suspect you know that though and are just doing it to try to prove a point…here’s the quote you lifted: “…the “sox nation”, which to me is a sleazy way to pump more money from a fanbase that already pays too much for the fenway experience…” …there’s no way that statement can be interpreted as a criticism of the sox fans…i was not being critical of fans who pay good money to see their team…i was critical of a concept endorsed by the team that coaxes even more money from a fanbase that already has to pay the highest ticket prices in the major leagues…i don’t think i was the only one critical of that concept…frankly, if it makes you feel better, i’m not crazy about the ticket prices i have to pay for the yankee experience either, but at least they’re not asking me to pay a membership fee…
    i do like to provoke and challenge, and sometimes i’m too sarcastic, but i don’t think that’s hating, unless you and i have a different definition of hate…sf and i, and paul and i, beat on each other all the time, but i certainly don’t hate them, and i don’t think they hate me…and no, i don’t hate the red sox…i root against them, that’s it…one thing i don’t do is insult other posters with name-calling…dirty water called me a “hater” and a “shallow fool” in the same post…you’ve decided to try to make the “hater” label stick, with a couple of examples that don’t even prove your point…that’s pretty disappointing…
    like i said, i’ll let the guys that run this blog decide if i’m a hater…if they say yes, then i’m done…

    dc March 2, 2008, 12:00 am
  • Now this is a good response:
    “I’m a big Hank [Steinbrenner] fan,” wrote [Red Sox principal owner John] Henry in an email. “Just to ensure he knows how cool Red Sox Nation is, (Saturday) we officially inducted him as a member of Red Sox Nation and we are sending him his membership card giving him access to an array of options including our newsletter, bumper stickers, pins, Green Monster seats and a hat personally autographed by David Ortiz.”
    http://news.bostonherald.com/blogs/sports/red_sox/?p=1673&srvc=home&position=recent

    A YF March 2, 2008, 9:35 am
  • DC, I just happen to think that anyone trying to discredit the Patriots organization, and especially their players and their accomplishments, by labeling the team as cheaters is either too lazy to have researched the matter or is a hater.
    So it’s nothing personal. I feel the same way about anybody attempting the same.
    Your thoughts on the Yankees and Red Sox are kosher, in my book.

    Dirty Water March 2, 2008, 9:37 am
  • funny ‘a yf’…is it a complimentary membership, or do you think they’ll bill him for the membership fee…just kidding…henry handled the situation perfectly…i respected him before, but a little bit more now…
    well, no hard feelings then dirty water…i don’t believe i’m a hater [still not sure what it is] so i’ll take your other option: lazy, except there’s really nothing to research…it is what it is….i agree that the patriots still had to win the games, including the 3 super bowls, so my hat’s off to them for that, but if the allegations are true that the violations were more prevalent than the patriots and nfl reported, then that gets my dander up, and i won’t be the one leading the charge that the team’s success, and individuals’ reputations are tainted…the outcry from media outlets will be defeaning…the videotaping certainly helped somewhere along the line, despite what the skeptics believe, or BB wouldn’t have done it in the first place, nor would he have kept on doing it…he doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy who wastes his time and resources…i already conceded earlier that other teams are probably just as guilty, which is another reason why the owners and goodell just want this to go away…honestly, this isn’t about hating the patriots or their fans…some of my best friends are pats fans [they love rubbing my nose in the jets failures, but it’s just in fun, if not so much for me]…i’d feel the same way if we found this out about montana’s 49-ers, or the cowboys, steelers, etc…fair or not, it’s a bigger deal when it involves one of the dynasties…

    dc March 2, 2008, 11:10 am
  • Oh, they’ll bill him :)
    But if I can get complimentary monster seats and a signed Papi hat, I’ll join RSN too.
    To others, I can’t say I’ve ever heard Yankee Nation or Yankee Universe, and there certainly isn’t a card to buy. And I’ve been traveling a lot the last few years (S. America, Europe, and Asia), and I have to say I’ve seen more Sox hats. But I still see more NY’s. I think that has more to do with the cities than the teams though. If you’re a foreigner with a fondness for American culture, NYC is the shining star (with LA somewhere in there). I can’t see that ever changing either. Still, Beantown has a special place in the culture with the combination of sports, science and technology, and intellectual life.

    A YF March 2, 2008, 11:23 am
  • Finally got a chance to grab some coffee and my Sunday Times and take a gander at the article that started this thread. The one comment that surprised me the most was Hank saying that, “Baseball’s not as complicated as football, so I don’t know that a manager means as much in baseball as he does in other sports…” Seriously??

    rootbeerfloat March 2, 2008, 11:49 am
  • Yeah, that’s a horrible thing to say; baseball has a million complicated things that exist when you play a 162-game season, whereas football has more of the same complexities every week. I’m very surprised that Hank feels that way.

    Atheose March 2, 2008, 1:42 pm
  • I actually agree with Hank. Holy crap!
    Neither sport is devoid of complexity, that’s not what Hank is saying, but as a game which rests a great deal on strategic advantage and disadvantage, football is far more complex. On a game-to-game basis, a football coaching staff has a tremendous amount of impact, in baseball not nearly as much (that’s not to be confused with me saying they don’t have any impact, managers obviously do have impact). Hank is (someone check to see if dogs and cats are living together!), right about something for once.

    SF March 2, 2008, 2:11 pm
  • Holy crap – I agree with SF! He’s right about something for once ;)

    A YF March 2, 2008, 2:18 pm
  • dc… YOU don’t think my examples prove the point. So YOU say. I will say you are quite adept at taking anyone’s criticism (or thoughts/opinions) and dismissing/spinning them to support your own views. But that’s not such a bad thing, I guess. I know I’ve probably been called worse than “hater”. And just to be clear, as I already stated, I don’t wish for you to go away, nor do I hate you.
    In fact, as an olive branch, a confession: I myself am a self-proclaimed hater towards one of the most likable and un-hateable Yankees in recent history, none other than Mr. Bernie Williams. Why? October 13, 1999. Game 1 of the ALCS. Bottom of the 10th inning, off of Rod Beck. I had to walk allllllll the way down from the highest seats in the top tier behind home plate at Yankee Stadium, down the seemingly endless levels of ramps, out onto the street, onto the subway platform, onto the 4 train and into Grand Central to throngs of fans shouting “Boston Sucks! Boston sucks!” From that day on, I have had a “hate” for that man not unlike what Jerry had for Newman in “Seinfeld”. Having spent the last 10+ years working in NYC, I’ve had the pleasure of seeing quite a few Sox/Yanks games at the stadium. Some good, some bad, but all memorable. And every time I saw that guy at the plate, I couldn’t help but clench my fist and mutter “Bernie!”

    DUFF - sf March 2, 2008, 3:25 pm

Leave a Comment