Hank Steinbrenner and his wonderful buffoonery

[JimH5]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/baseball/mlb/02/21/yankees.steinbrenner.ap/index.html?eref=sihp

 

Brother Hal had sort of taken the lead, forcing this goof to the background, but you can't keep an idiot down forever.

 

He rips the 2010 Yankees and then rips the revenue sharing/luxury tax system.

 

What an awesome pinata.

[Cracked Bat Collector]

What a loser. Bashing smaller market teams. Just when I thought I couldn't dislike the Steinbrenners any more than I already do. He sounds like David Stern, not wanting to leave teams in small markets.

[Backdoor Slider]

From the article:

"At some point, if you don't want to worry about teams in minor markets, don't put teams in minor markets, or don't leave teams in minor markets if they're truly minor," Steinbrenner said. "Socialism, communism, whatever you want to call it, is never the answer."

 

So I take it he would support moving some teams into Brooklyn, New Jersey, etc. Let the market decide, right Mr. Steinbrenner?

[RyDogg66]

There should be an entire division of NY teams then.

[COBrewerfan]

There is not much to say here. This is one of the dumbest comments ever to come out of an owner. I guess he doesn't realize that you need other teams to play which creates the market to make money. I just don't know what to say about it. This is the type of answer you get when someone is born with a silver spoon in his mouth and really has no clue how anything works. This is not the smartest statement.

[Ennder]

He is completely correct, the issues with baseball are pretty much all seen in the revenue sharing. They don't share the revenue enough and the large market teams need to give more money to other teams. A salary cap won't work because it still creates a system where the haves get the advantage, true revenue sharing is the answer.

[berniebrewer4life]

He is completely correct, the issues with baseball are pretty much all seen in the revenue sharing. They don't share the revenue enough and the large market teams need to give more money to other teams. A salary cap won't work because it still creates a system where the haves get the advantage, true revenue sharing is the answer.

Bingo. Pool all the TV revenue and split it between the teams. That's where a lot of the difference is.

[GAME05]

a few teams get more in revenue sharing than they pay out for their 40-man roster. i'd be mad if i were the Steinbrenners, too (although i wouldn't say the idiot stuff).

[owbc]

Yeah there are a few teams that are gaming the system, but it's like social security--the solution is to catch the offenders and change the rules, not to get rid of it entirely.

[Invader3K]

I think the funniest part is him calling out players on his team for "building mansions". Not a great way to endear himself to his players.

[davemakovec]

I love how he said that "socialism, communism, whatever" is never the answer, but the financially healthiest sport in the history of sport is built on the grandest and most equitable revenue sharing model around. Hank's an idiot. I hate the Yankees.

[Patrick425]

a few teams get more in revenue sharing than they pay out for their 40-man roster. i'd be mad if i were the Steinbrenners, too (although i wouldn't say the idiot stuff).

Really? I thought the lowest payroll was about $40 or $50 million (?). I didn't think any team was getting more than $10 or $20 million in revenue sharing.

 

[Ennder]

I love how he said that "socialism, communism, whatever" is never the answer, but the financially healthiest sport in the history of sport is built on the grandest and most equitable revenue sharing model around. Hank's an idiot. I hate the Yankees.

The sport that has seen team profits going down by a considerable amount and is probably going to miss part of their next season because of it you mean?

[Principessa21]

a few teams get more in revenue sharing than they pay out for their 40-man roster. i'd be mad if i were the Steinbrenners, too (although i wouldn't say the idiot stuff).

Really? I thought the lowest payroll was about $40 or $50 million (?). I didn't think any team was getting more than $10 or $20 million in revenue sharing.

At one time the Marlins payroll was half of what they were getting in revenue sharing. I think MLB stepped in last offseason and said that the team was required to spend the money they got from revenue sharing on players and not on other things.

As far as Hank, eh he's a tool. There are good reasons why he doesn't run the team.

 

[CheezWizHed]

I completely agree with him! All of this minor league teams... who need them? I vote we make two leagues: MLB-A and MLB-B. Then put all the true "major-league" teams in MLB-A (the NYY). The rest of the teams can be in MLB-B.

[Patrick425]

Principessa21[/b]]

Patrick425[/b]]

GAME05[/b]]a few teams get more in revenue sharing than they pay out for their 40-man roster. i'd be mad if i were the Steinbrenners, too (although i wouldn't say the idiot stuff).

Really? I thought the lowest payroll was about $40 or $50 million (?). I didn't think any team was getting more than $10 or $20 million in revenue sharing.

At one time the Marlins payroll was half of what they were getting in revenue sharing. I think MLB stepped in last offseason and said that the team was required to spend the money they got from revenue sharing on players and not on other things.

As far as Hank, eh he's a tool. There are good reasons why he doesn't run the team.

 

 

Ok, I wasn't aware of this. This is not all Luxury tax sharing though..correct? What else get's shared other than the luxury tax?

 

Also, Let's say the Marlins get $60 mil in total revenue sharing and if they use it all for team payroll they end up with a net operating loss of $30 million, can you then blame them for just using half of it and wanting to break even? Teams don't open their books, so I don't know that you can necessarily say with certainty that they are "pocketing" the money, unless they are increasing their executive payroll or any owner withdrawals. Also, team payroll is only part of the picture. Maybe they increased there scouting budget.

[Thurston Fluff]

I have long been fan of opening up the five boroughs to other teams. I have a feeling if a team tried to move to Brooklyn or Manhattan he'd be the first to scream unfair. The other issue he might just want to get his head around is how an entire nation watching baseball is more profitable for the largest, most known team, in the league than it would be if the sport was only followed by the five largest metropolitan areas of the nation.

Memo to Hank. You make more money by helping the game grow than if it's just a regional game followed a by a few people on each coast. If you had actually had to earn your money you might already understand that.

[Dragonbait]

If its that bad for him... he could always sell his share of the team. No more worries then.

[logan82]

a few teams get more in revenue sharing than they pay out for their 40-man roster. i'd be mad if i were the Steinbrenners, too (although i wouldn't say the idiot stuff).

Really? I thought the lowest payroll was about $40 or $50 million (?). I didn't think any team was getting more than $10 or $20 million in revenue sharing.

I thought Mark A. said a couple years back the Brewers were getting something like $30-40m. This is the best I can find without digging further. NO exactly what I was looking for.

[thebruce44]

I love how he said that "socialism, communism, whatever" is never the answer, but the financially healthiest sport in the history of sport is built on the grandest and most equitable revenue sharing model around. Hank's an idiot. I hate the Yankees.

The sport that has seen team profits going down by a considerable amount and is probably going to miss part of their next season because of it you mean?

 

NFL team worth was finally hit this year by the recession, but profits have never been stronger thanks to their television system.

 

http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/most-valuable-nfl-teams-business-sports-football-valuations-10-intro.html

[Ennder]

That article doesn't really say much about profits, it just talks about the TV deal. Actual profits have likely been in decline for a couple years now in the NFL. But yeah the NFL TV deal is great and it has the backing of gambling to make sure it will stay popular even if the game itself starts to get worse.

[thebruce44]

That article doesn't really say much about profits, it just talks about the TV deal. Actual profits have likely been in decline for a couple years now in the NFL. But yeah the NFL TV deal is great and it has the backing of gambling to make sure it will stay popular even if the game itself starts to get worse.

Regardless, if your point is that baseball or other sports for that matter shouldn't try to emulate the NFL I have to disagree.

 

 

[davemakovec]

Profits may be down but the NFL is far and away the healthiest and most powerful financial sport in the country. This labor deal is a problem, but that's different from the sport pulling in billions of dollars, largely due to its truly competitive nature, and that starts with revenue sharing.

[Warning Track Power]

Leave it to Kenny Williams to start putting some sense back into the game of baseball and the salary structure for it. I can't believe the big market White Sox GM is actually ok with a work stoppage in order to get a salary cap? Interesting...

[Ennder]

Regardless, if your point is that baseball or other sports for that matter shouldn't try to emulate the NFL I have to disagree.

 

Each sport is unique, copying football would be a disaster for baseball. My point though was that the NFL is nowhere near as healthy as people seem to think it is, they have their fair share of big problems too.