Like It Or Not, Hank Knows What He Is Talking About
Published May 15, 2008
In the far-reaching cult of Yankee-haterdom, the main target of the fiercest venom from those who subscribe, the arch villain, and the manifestation of the inequalities that were the sole reason for every Yankee dynasty since 1976 was George Stienbrenner.
Like Nixon to the Yippies, George was gleefully portrayed as a heretic of pure evil, constantly trying to use his massive capital to buy a championship while polluting the game with his wealth. A grotesque monster, lording over the House that Ruth built; ruining baseball with each swift stroke of his pen against the cool, smooth paper of his check book, George was a scourge to all whose teams felt the hammer of the Yankees' success.
So when the shattering news broke that the Boss would initiate the succession processes many of these Yankee-haters found themselves lost and directionless, recycling old Giambi steroid jokes and using phrases like, "Remember Irabu!"
With no World Series win since 2000 and a horrifying debacle against Boston in 2004, George was the one constant that the anti-Yankee factions could always count on even when victory was fleeting. Win or lose, there would always be another Kevin Brown signing to scoff at, another assault on an ineffective coach, or another threat to clean house — all laced with his signature bombastic absurdity.
Then, out of a messy divorce that displaced then Stienbrenner in-law Steve Swindal as successor and the mystifying speculation that followed, stepping forth from the shadows was he who is known only as Hank.
One could see the figurative "blazing hell torch of evil" that is the Yankee mantle passed down to the next generation. He looks like his dad, he sounds like his dad, and he has the same last name — the proletariat lined up with guns drawn, waiting for the initial outburst by which to draw first blood.
On the surface it would seem that thus far Hank has provided his detractors with ample ammo. Critics have cited Hank's various commentaries on his players, construction workers, and his own baseball philosophies as evidence that he is merely a replication of his volatile father, another ticking time bomb in the Bronx just waiting to explode and ruin the team.
But if one actually delves past the delivery and packaging, examining the content of Hank's statements, a startling revelation occurs. You realize that, unlike The Boss taking a hard stance on Don Mattingly's hair, Hank actually makes sense and demonstrates a reasoning ability and an understanding of the fundamentals of winning that are far more proficient than his father, regardless of his six World Series titles.
- Like It Or Not, Hank Knows What He Is Talking About
- Published: May 15, 2008
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Sports
- Filed Under: Sports: Baseball
- Writer: Anthony Tobis
- Anthony Tobis's BC Writer page
- Anthony Tobis's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Thats funny....I'll answer that like this. Being that we don't live in a communist society, the idea that because the owner of a business decides to invest heavily in a product he is trying to sell to the fans, maximizing that product's potential and quality is ridiculous, i.e. revenue sharing is ridiculous.
Should Coke have to give money back to 7up or Pepsi if their sales spike on a marketing plan they invested heavily in?
Every baseball team is either owned by a multi-millionaire or a corporation. If they choose to not invest in their team that's their own decision but there is no reason teams like the Red Sox, Tigers, or Yankees should be punished.
I know you're a Tigers fan Matt; how did you like when big Mike spent all his money on the hockey team and left the Tigers as the joke of baseball?
But Coke and Pepsi aren't sister businesses under the umbrella of Major League Soda.
"how did you like when big Mike spent all his money on the hockey team and left the Tigers as the joke of baseball?"
Well, I was 14, so I really didn't have much cognitive thought on the financial side of baseball back then. But today I don't care how much a team spends. As long as they're drafting well and hiring the right people, there's nothing wrong with being a perpetual small market team like Minnesota or Oakland. Ilitch wasn't doing anything right until he brought in knowledgeable people like Dombrowski and Leyland and other minor league managers who were able to cultivate the talent into a contending big league team.
Well, I lived through that time in Detroit and it was not fun watching the team constantly have little to no talent because they refused to bring anyone in to make the team legitimate.
The turnound in Detroit started when they signed Pudge. This signing showed the rest of the free agents that the team was willing to invest in winning.
Its great to draft and develope players but when those players get good, you have to pay them to keep them.
If the Yanks had decided not to pay home grown products Rivera, Jeter, Williams, Posada, and Pettitte, the 90's would have been a very different time in baseball.
Conversley, had a team like the Expos not run a constant fire sale on all the outstanding prospect they had we might talk of the Expos dynasties led by Pedro and Randy Johnson.
If I was a Twins fan i would have a massive problem with them not paying the money to keep Santana when he could be what puts the team over the top in the central. Why, as a fan, should i pay $60 dollars for a ticket to go watch a team owned by someone with no committment to building a winner.
Oakland is slightly different only in that they bring in players who fit a certain profile and know when to cut bait on players like Zito, but the fact is they would be the Red Sox (the other sabermetric team) if they would invest a little bit of money in keeping their stars.
I don't advocate indiscrimately throwing money at worthless free agents or signing washed up pitchers to three years deal (Dontrelle Willis anyone?) but if you want to keep your prospects you have to invest in the team.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/76895)
Did Hank understand that just because the Tampa Bay Rays threw intentionally at one of their batters, doesn't mean they should have to give some of the shared revenue back?