Jump to content

The Boss a Hall of Famer?


The Boss a Hall of Famer?  

10 members have voted

  1. 1. The Boss a Hall of Famer?

    • Yes
      16
    • No
      7


Recommended Posts

Does the Boss deserve consideration for the Hall of Fame?

Baseball business/ownership. - No doubt. He saw the potential in a dying brand. While the path had some potholes, the Yankee brand became synonymous with MLB greatness again under his stewardship. While other teams started the trend, His YES network perfected and established the model which others have emulated. Bottom line 10 million investment to 1.6 billion net worth speaks for itself.

The Team On the Field - Does he deserve credit for finally realizing the team's potential and allowing others more knowledgeable to run the team? Yes. Granted, it was ushered in by a suspension, but I digress. Does he deserve to be knocked for wasting almost two decades by meddling? Yes. They likely should have won twice as many titles, but his interference cost the team. In the end, the team did win more then anyone else during his tenure. Unlike players who never fulfill their potential, the Yankees ultimately did.

The poll is a bit rhetorical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Being that the man was arguably the most recognizable owner in professional sports for the better part of four decades, I don't think there's an question.

If Tom Yawkey, a racist whose team didn't win a championship in the 40+ years that he owned the team was enshrined, there is no doubt that Steinbrenner deserves induction.

Now considering the thread-starter, it may seem that I'm going out of my way to take a shot at the Sox, but I only mention Yawkey as a comparison since not many owners have been elected to the HOF.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Being that the man was arguably the most recognizable owner in professional sports for the better part of four decades, I don't think there's an question.

If Tom Yawkey, a racist whose team didn't win a championship in the 40+ years that he owned the team was enshrined, there is no doubt that Steinbrenner deserves induction.

Now considering the thread-starter, it may seem that I'm going out of my way to take a shot at the Sox, but I only mention Yawkey as a comparison since not many owners have been elected to the HOF.

What?!? ;)

The Yawkey point is great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hall looks down on people who cavorted with or had any dealings with gamblers.

Tough call. I don't think that the HOF is a place for owners, unless their impact affected the game in a large and measurable way.

Was GS a great owner for the Yankees and the entire organization? Absolutely.

But what great and overriding contributions did he make to the sport in general that are Hall worthy?

Should Jerry Jones be in the Pro Football HOF? He is Steinbrenner's equal, while not being an owner as long.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Was GS a great owner for the Yankees and the entire organization? Absolutely.

But what great and overriding contributions did he make to the sport in general that are Hall worthy?

Inspiring storylines on Seinfeld is as big a contribution as any non-player in the HOF can claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The poll asks if he should be a Hall of Famer. Here you ask if he deserves consideration.

Two different things.

Well, seeing the Hall of Fame is not automatic, you have to be considered first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, seeing the Hall of Fame is not automatic, you have to be considered first.

Well we're not the one's "considering" or voting for him anyways, so might as well keep it consistent. If not, then I say yes to both questions. Yes, I think he deserves consideration for the Hall of Fame, and yes, he deserves to get in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well we're not the one's "considering" or voting for him anyways, so might as well keep it consistent. If not, then I say yes to both questions. Yes, I think he deserves consideration for the Hall of Fame, and yes, he deserves to get in.

:rolleyes:

If we are going to base message board posts based on qualifications to post on said subjects, there would be about 10 posts total.

Despite your simplistic view, it is in fact two separate parts.

Consideration and Entrance.

Their are many players, mangers, owners and broadcasters who deserve consideration for entrance. However, they do not merit entrance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
:rolleyes:

If we are going to base message board posts based on qualifications to post on said subjects, there would be about 10 posts total.

Despite your simplistic view, it is in fact two separate parts.

Consideration and Entrance.

Their are many players, mangers, owners and broadcasters who deserve consideration for entrance. However, they do not merit entrance.

Well thanks for that explanation. However, your poll question clearly says "is the Boss a Hall of Famer?" Nothing about consideration there. If you wanted a less simplistic response to the question, then don't make the poll question simplistic and roll your eyes at people in condescending fashion, k?

Edited by Jetsfan80
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Hall looks down on people who cavorted with or had any dealings with gamblers.

Tough call. I don't think that the HOF is a place for owners, unless their impact affected the game in a large and measurable way.

Was GS a great owner for the Yankees and the entire organization? Absolutely.

But what great and overriding contributions did he make to the sport in general that are Hall worthy?

Should Jerry Jones be in the Pro Football HOF? He is Steinbrenner's equal, while not being an owner as long.

Your anti-Yankee posts are in every freaken thread...frankly, I am surprised that Max allows this BS because you truly are a ****ing troll when it comes to the baseball forum.

I'll never forget the extemes you had to go through to try and I say TRY to get me on the Mickey Mantle drinking bit...you proved nothing.

So here, you're a good one for tyring to prove Yankee fans wrong at every ****ing turn...put a spin on this one since you had to bring up gambling with GS...

Alex Pompez. Owner of the New York Cubans who was indicted for involvement in the numbers rackets and fled to Mexico. He eventually returned to turn state

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your anti-Yankee posts are in every freaken thread...frankly, I am surprised that Max allows this BS because you truly are a ****ing troll when it comes to the baseball forum.

I'll never forget the extemes you had to go through to try and I say TRY to get me on the Mickey Mantle drinking bit...you proved nothing.

So here, you're a good one for tyring to prove Yankee fans wrong at every ****ing turn...put a spin on this one since you had to bring up gambling with GS...

Alex Pompez. Owner of the New York Cubans who was indicted for involvement in the numbers rackets and fled to Mexico. He eventually returned to turn state

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Hall looks down on people who cavorted with or had any dealings with gamblers.

Tough call. I don't think that the HOF is a place for owners, unless their impact affected the game in a large and measurable way.

Was GS a great owner for the Yankees and the entire organization? Absolutely.

But what great and overriding contributions did he make to the sport in general that are Hall worthy?

Should Jerry Jones be in the Pro Football HOF? He is Steinbrenner's equal, while not being an owner as long.

Jerry Jones is in no way Steinbrenner's equal. To suggest so is blasphemy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jerry Jones is in no way Steinbrenner's equal. To suggest so is blasphemy.

Both Jones and Steinbrenner changed the way ownerships develop profit from their teams.

Both Jones and Steinbrenner developed the "brand" within their sport

Both Jones and Steinbrenner were bombastic and meddlesome in their ownership

Both Jones and Steinbrenner liked to be front and center in team

management decisions

Both Jones and Steinbrenner developed succesful franchises

Both Jones and Steinbrenner were largely outcasts among their peers

Tell me where those comparisons are incorrect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You really need to take off your pampers, because you sure act like a baby when someone says anything about your boyhood crush, the Yankees.

George Steinbrenner cavorted with a known gambler who he tried to conduct a smear campaign with. He was subsequently "banned for life" because of that activity.

My main question was, "What has Steinbrenner done for the overall good of the GAME, not his team" . To me that is what should be qualifications for Hall entry as an owner. And as Bugg said, I do not believe owners should be admitted, unless there is overriding contributions to the good of the overall game.

This is a SUBJECTIVE topic. Meaning people will have different opinions. I know, that seems to bother you, when someone dares you have an opinion that does not fit your own bias.

Do yourself a favor and put me on IGNORE if these opinions bother you so much that they twist you into little childish fits.

If Steinbrenner deserves consideration, I would say that Charlie Finley deserves more attention (I don't believe he is in). He was an owner that actually accomplished more than GS for the good of the game and created change. I don't think we will see them putting Charlie O in either.

You completely ignored my question and went on your own personal attack on me and the Yankees. Answer the damn question since you brought up Steinbrenner and how the HOF frowns on gambling...how is Alex Pompez in the HOF since his background is a lot more shady?

What bothers me about you, is you never bring up the Mets and are always right there to jump in on a Yankees thread...everyone knows that about you...it ain't just me chucky.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Both Jones and Steinbrenner changed the way ownerships develop profit from their teams.

Both Jones and Steinbrenner developed the "brand" within their sport

Both Jones and Steinbrenner were bombastic and meddlesome in their ownership

Both Jones and Steinbrenner liked to be front and center in team

management decisions

Both Jones and Steinbrenner developed succesful franchises

Both Jones and Steinbrenner were largely outcasts among their peers

Tell me where those comparisons are incorrect.

Jones desperately seeks to follow Steinbrenner's model with less overall success.

Steinbrenner's contributions transcend baseball. He changed the way sports franchises are marketed. He contributed greatly to baseball's resurgence in popularity in the late 90s and early 2000s culminating in all-time record MLB overall attendance record in 2007. And those things, my friend, are Hall of Fame-worthy.

Baseball's really never been more popular than it is right now. Like it or not, George Steinbrenner is a big part of the reason why.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jones desperately seeks to follow Steinbrenner's model with less overall success.

Steinbrenner's contributions transcend baseball. He changed the way sports franchises are marketed. He contributed greatly to baseball's resurgence in popularity in the late 90s and early 2000s culminating in all-time record MLB overall attendance record in 2007. And those things, my friend, are Hall of Fame-worthy.

Baseball's really never been more popular than it is right now. Like it or not, George Steinbrenner is a big part of the reason why.

You can not directly correlate baseballs attendance with Steinbrenner. Many have speculated that it was the "home run" chases that created that resurgence (read-steroids).

What evidence do you have that this was Steinbrenner induced?

Many owners have sought to match Steinbrenner's model-Jones was successful. Yes, Steinbrenner came first, but Jones has matched it in football.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You completely ignored my question and went on your own personal attack on me and the Yankees. Answer the damn question since you brought up Steinbrenner and how the HOF frowns on gambling...how is Alex Pompez in the HOF since his background is a lot more shady?

What bothers me about you, is you never bring up the Mets and are always right there to jump in on a Yankees thread...everyone knows that about you...it ain't just me chucky.

I bring up what I want to bring up.

IF THAT BOTHERS YOU PUT ME ON IGNORE.

I do not choose to remark on what you tell me I should remark on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You can not directly correlate baseballs attendance with Steinbrenner. Many have speculated that it was the "home run" chases that created that resurgence (read-steroids).

What evidence do you have that this was Steinbrenner induced?

Many owners have sought to match Steinbrenner's model-Jones was successful. Yes, Steinbrenner came first, but Jones has matched it in football.

The Yankees are the biggest draw in baseball. Do I need to draw you a roadmap?

Jones hasn't matched Steinbrenner's success. Not by a longshot. He's got less than half the championships.

The only owner in sports in Steinbrenner's league is Jerry Buss.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Yankees are the biggest draw in baseball. Do I need to draw you a roadmap?

Jones hasn't matched Steinbrenner's success. Not by a longshot. He's got less than half the championships.

The only owner in sports in Steinbrenner's league is Jerry Buss.

How many less years has Jones been an owner.

You claimed that Steinbrenner increased attendance in baseball OVERALL, now you are just backing off to Yankee games only? You are backpedaling

Yes the Yankees are a draw unto themselves, but so are the Cowboys.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I bring up what I want to bring up.

IF THAT BOTHERS YOU PUT ME ON IGNORE.

I do not choose to remark on what you tell me I should remark on.

Well, that response tells me all I need to know...like I didn't know this about you already. :baby:

Link to post
Share on other sites
How many less years has Jones been an owner.

You claimed that Steinbrenner increased attendance in baseball OVERALL, now you are just backing off to Yankee games only? You are backpedaling

Yes the Yankees are a draw unto themselves, but so are the Cowboys.

Christ you're dense.

The Yankees are the biggest draw in baseball. That means they draw both at home AND on the road. When the Yankees go one the road, more fans go to games in those stadiums. Many of those fans enjoy the experience and return even when the Yankees aren't playing. The Yankees are good for baseball.

It's always more interesting when there is a villian. When that villian is powerful, interest increases.

Its a basic principal. People will plunk down their hard earned money to see their local heroes try and beat up the bad guy.

Steinbrenner won 7 championships in 37 years. That's one championship every 5.29 years. Jones has won 3 in 22 years. That's one in every 7.33 years. It's especially weak when you consider that fewer teams generally make the Super Bowl than make the World Series. For all of baseball's alleged lack of competitive balance, more different teams have gone to the championship round and won championships than in any other sport in the last 20 years.

So in a sport where you're less likely to win multiple championships, Steinbrenner's had more success than Jones, whose team plays in a sport where multiple championships are more common.

In the last 30 years, only two teams have won back to back World Series, the Blue Jays and the Yankees. In that same span, the 49ers, Cowboys, Broncos and Patriots have all done so in the NFL. Going back 40 years (the Steinbrenner era,) its the Yankees (twice,) Blue Jays and Reds in baseball and the 49ers, Cowboys, Pats, Broncos, Steelers (twice,) and Dolphins in the NFL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Christ you're dense.

The Yankees are the biggest draw in baseball. That means they draw both at home AND on the road. When the Yankees go one the road, more fans go to games in those stadiums. Many of those fans enjoy the experience and return even when the Yankees aren't playing. The Yankees are good for baseball.

It's always more interesting when there is a villian. When that villian is powerful, interest increases.

Its a basic principal. People will plunk down their hard earned money to see their local heroes try and beat up the bad guy.

Steinbrenner won 7 championships in 37 years. That's one championship every 5.29 years. Jones has won 3 in 22 years. That's one in every 7.33 years. It's especially weak when you consider that fewer teams generally make the Super Bowl than make the World Series. For all of baseball's alleged lack of competitive balance, more different teams have gone to the championship round and won championships than in any other sport in the last 20 years.

So in a sport where you're less likely to win multiple championships, Steinbrenner's had more success than Jones, whose team plays in a sport where multiple championships are more common.

In the last 30 years, only two teams have won back to back World Series, the Blue Jays and the Yankees. In that same span, the 49ers, Cowboys, Broncos and Patriots have all done so in the NFL. Going back 40 years (the Steinbrenner era,) its the Yankees (twice,) Blue Jays and Reds in baseball and the 49ers, Cowboys, Pats, Broncos, Steelers (twice,) and Dolphins in the NFL.

If you can't figure out why teams in the NFL have a more decent chance to repeat, I won't tell you.

The NFL will tell you that the Cowboys are good for the NFL.

The NFL has actually had more popularity than MLB over the most recent years. Jones has had a small bit of that.

I should of learned not to debate you on a topic, as you waffle like there is no tomorrow. Then you decide to insult people after you do all that.

Good for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you can't figure out why teams in the NFL have a more decent chance to repeat, I won't tell you.

The NFL will tell you that the Cowboys are good for the NFL.

The NFL has actually had more popularity than MLB over the most recent years. Jones has had a small bit of that.

I should of learned not to debate you on a topic, as you waffle like there is no tomorrow. Then you decide to insult people after you do all that.

Good for you.

No one's waffling, your brain doesn't understand words very well. It's hard to debate someone who offers no legitimate rebuttals.

Give me something to work with pal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No one's waffling, your brain doesn't understand words very well. It's hard to debate someone who offers no legitimate rebuttals.

Give me something to work with pal.

You are showing how successful the YANKEES have been. I agree. And Steinbrenner was a fantastic owner for your franchise.

My whole point, th eentire time, is that for an owner to have inclusion in the HOF, he should transcend his team. He should have had great contributions to the sport.

Steinbrenner, IMO, does not show that. He also has some negative karma associated with him. He was not all good will, and some was malicously bad.

Was he a great owner? Yes! is that Hall worthy, on top of everything else? Not in my subjective opinion.

IMO, if you wanted to nominate an owner who had bad relations with the sport (ala Steinbrenner), nominate Charlie Finley. He sponsored changes in the game that revolutionized the game (the DH, among others).

He had more impact on the overall sport than Steinbrenner did. He will never get nominated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are showing how successful the YANKEES have been. I agree. And Steinbrenner was a fantastic owner for your franchise.

My whole point, th eentire time, is that for an owner to have inclusion in the HOF, he should transcend his team. He should have had great contributions to the sport.

Steinbrenner, IMO, does not show that. He also has some negative karma associated with him. He was not all good will, and some was malicously bad.

Was he a great owner? Yes! is that Hall worthy, on top of everything else? Not in my subjective opinion.

IMO, if you wanted to nominate an owner who had bad relations with the sport (ala Steinbrenner), nominate Charlie Finley. He sponsored changes in the game that revolutionized the game (the DH, among others).

He had more impact on the overall sport than Steinbrenner did. He will never get nominated.

He has and he did. You are choosing to ignore them due to your borderline psychotic hatred for the Yankees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From an article on NESN's website:

His longevity in all of these pursuits, though, can likely be attributed to his visionary uses of media.

Just as Woody Hayes given the Buckeyes a great advantage by being the first coach to analyze game film, Steinbrenner, too, gave his team a huge leg up through media. In 1988, Steinbrenner became the first owner to sell broadcast rights to a cable television network, a move unheard of at the time. The $40 million annual deal proved a huge success, giving George the treasury through which he would make his many high-priced acquisitions.

6a0115709f071f970b0133f2440c45970b-400wi This forward-thinking gamble would only be trumped by Steinbrenner

Link to post
Share on other sites
From an article on NESN's website:

You have a hard time differing between for the "good of the Yankees" and "for the good of the sport". I never said he wasn't philathropic.

Let's agree to disagree, because debating you is like talking with Sybil. Garb has a good read on you

Edited by Scott Dierking
Link to post
Share on other sites

Baseball's really never been more popular than it is right now. Like it or not, George Steinbrenner is a big part of the reason why.

Whoa, attendance and revenue may have gone up for baseball, but that goes for all the major sports.

Baseball went from the clear #1 American sport to a clear #2 behind the NFL while Steinbrenner was an owner. That's not necessarily his fault at all, but don't try and pretend that Steinbrenner made the game immensely more popular. He didn't.

The NFL is the sport that has seen its popularity skyrocket, above and beyond other sports.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a hard time differing between for the "good of the Yankees" and "for the good of the sport". I never said he wasn't philathropic.

Let's agree to disagree, because debating you is like talking with Sybil. Garb has a good read on you

Did you even read the quote? Just admit you're wrong and move on:

In 1988, Steinbrenner became the first owner to sell broadcast rights to a cable television network, a move unheard of at the time. The $40 million annual deal proved a huge success, giving George the treasury through which he would make his many high-priced acquisitions. This forward-thinking gamble would only be trumped by Steinbrenner�s next cable innovation, his creation of the YES Network.

The man changed the way baseball reaches it's audience. If that's not transcending the game, I don't know what is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you even read the quote? Just admit you're wrong and move on:

The man changed the way baseball reaches it's audience. If that's not transcending the game, I don't know what is.

You are a funny guy.

Baseball had been broadcast on cable FAR before Steinbrenner created YES

What he did, was change the FINANCIAL way a team created revenue by creating his own broadcast medium.

Helped the Yankees, yes (no pun intended). It did not transcend baseball.

You are confusing things

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...