Because winning was actually his primary goal, and not just a means to increase revenue and profits in order to further line his pockets.
Yes. You do realize you can have a goal, but not achieve it, right? What am I talking about. Of course you do. First of all, that's rather irrelevant to putting a winning product on the field. Of, if anything, it supports the argument. Yankee Stadium was falling apart. He wanted to move them to a new stadium by the Meadowlands. Obviously, you don't have an issue identifying with NYC teams that play near the Meadowlands. Secondly, how soon Yankee fans forget? That was in 1972! Thirty-seven years ago! Sheesh.
Right, that makes sense. I wonder why I would root against the Yankees? All of the idiots that get fooled into thinking the Yanks mean nothing to the Mets are fucking morons.
Marlins won in 2003. So cross that off the list. Remember Josh Beckett Totally owned you in your own building. Ring a bell? The Twins? Typical Yankee arrogance.
How does that not make sense? If Jim Pohlad cared about the Twins on field success then he would've dipped into his pocket for a few million dollars to pay Johan Santana instead of selling him off for junk parts. If Jeff Loria cared about the Marlins he wouldn't have dismantled the two championship teams in his team's history to keep the payroll under $40 million. Easy for me to say, I know, but they're two of the richest men in America. Like the other owners I named, they're clearly more concerned with turning a profit than seeing the team win games--nothing wrong with that really, but that's the way it is. That's not to say that there aren't great baseball people working in both front offices, just that they aren't given all the tools to succeed by ownership. And I agree, when people like you come into a thread about how George Steinbrenner's about to die to post that "Yankees and their fans can piss off and die" it is hard to get fooled into thinking that Mets fans don't have a Yankees obsession.
How is winning the WS not succeeding? I am obsessed with the Yankees losing. It was poor taste to put that comment. I thought I was in the other thread. I'll remove it.
Winning the World Series is most certainly succeeding. But you can thank Jack McKeon, the front office, and the players for that title, not Jeffrey Loria. If Loria cared about on field success then he would've given that very talented team a chance to get back to the top instead of selling everything of value. Based on the way that he's run the Marlins and the Expos, I have no doubt that Loria would've traded that title for an extra $20 million. That's something that you'd never say about Steinbrenner or Wilpon. And again, I'm not trying to make a value judgment here--baseball teams are businesses and it's well within the owners' rights to run their businesses that way. Let's just not pretend that 90% of the billionaires club that is the MLB can't afford to keep retain their talented players; they just choose not to.
And this is why I made the comment that he deserves it more than anyone else. Sure, teams are trying to win, and many spend a lot of money to do so. The Mets and Red Sox being perfect examples. It doesn't always work out because it's all a crapshoot. But Steinbrenner bought the Yankees from CBS for, what, $10M? He could have enjoyed whatever success came his way and pocketed his earnings. Instead, he parlayed it into a multibillion-dollar corporation, which he still didn't simply pocket the earnings from. He dumped massive amounts of cash into the team over his reign, even to the point where the team was in the red recently. That's the kind of dedication you're not going to see from many owners in any sport. He truly loves his team. And that's why I want him to have that joy one more time.
To follow up on what others have said, winning the WS is succeeding... but that was an ancillary goal. Remember, I said winning was George's primary goal. That's what sets him apart from most. Given a choice between pocketing modest profits and having a shitty team, and losing money (or breaking even and reinvesting profits) and having a competitive team, most owners seem to prefer to pocket the money.
The better analogy would be for a very rich parent to be proud when his kid makes it into Harvard. Sure, junior had lots of advantages, but he had to do something on merit. (Harvard, for the benefit of you brits, is the US equivalent of, say, Oxford.)
Bottom line is the yankees spend more money than everyone else is because the league allows it. Stienbrenner is by no means the richest owner in baseball, he just has a win at any cost attitude. wilpon chose to give madoff an extra billion on a get richer quick scam. george put his money back into the team. i'm a met fan but all the crying from met fans about the yankee payroll is retarded
yea but my point is, the bottom line: no other team is spending that much money. Im not saying the yankees are necessarily wrong for doing it, but my own personal beleif is that it dilutes their accomplishments, its a problem with the game itself. But the yankees, who happen to be my least favorite team, benefit the most from it. And dont tell me that if it were the mets instead of the yankees that I would be loving it, because your wrong. I would hate that and wouldnt root for that team. I just want to see a good game, thats the most important aspect before winning, because really I have nothing to do with winning, its nice for my team to win, but my first priority is a decent game. The mets are up there, but they still meddle with the rest of the league.Its a flaw in the game that only one team is taking advantage of, congrats to the yankees for doing it, but the fact that they took advantage of this quirk doesnt make them a team i would ever root for. that is my point. You can disagree with this but its simply my opinion.
I don't understand why baseball should be different from any other business. No one would complain if Google came out and paid all the top software engineers a ton of money and took over Yahoo's market share by putting out a superior product. It's like getting mad at your neighbor for putting in a pool. Sure you don't need a pool, but it enhances the value of the house and gives you enjoyment so screw it. It might be annoying hearing construction for a bit and you could say things "well if we had the money we'd put in a pool" but the bottom line is on a hot summer day, you bet you'd want a pool.
