Like It Or Not, Hank Knows What He Is Talking About
Published May 15, 2008
Hank's recent comments about his team's play, and comparisons to the team in Tampa, have drawn further criticisms and parallels to his father. Focusing on his positive response too the obviously baiting question of whether it's time for his players to "earn their money," the press ignored his rational assessment of the team's injury situation, his praise of Mussina's turnaround and a number of other players, and his defense of Joba Chamberlain, focusing only on a comment that they could distort for their sensationalist purposes.
That an employer would want his employees to "earn their money" by successfully executing their jobs to the maximum capacity of their skill level, that he would want the employees that represent his company to over 30,000 paying customers nightly, is a dictum that should be more prevalent in baseball period.
One only hears about teams like the Brewers crying "small market" when they don't have players like Yount, Molitor, Fielder, or Rickie Weeks.
Hank's assertion that the Yankees need to play with more fire like Tampa Bay and remember the drive felt by kids in their early 20s still fighting for their place in the pantheon, hits directly at the core issue that has arguably plagued the Yankees since 2002.
Passion will never mask a lack of talent, but talent rarely lives up to its potential without passion. The Yankees of the 1990s were talented but one would also be hard pressed to find players who performed with more fire or desire to win than Paul O'Neill, Scott Brosius, or Tino Martinez.
The 30-plus year successful but tyrannical reign of George Steinbrenner has made it very easy to attack Hank but until the young boss hires a private eye to track Carl Pavano or publicly bashes and threatens to can Brian Cashman and Joe Girardi, he is a far cry from his father.
Hank is simply a businessman with solid reasoning skills and legitimate baseball sense who will continually provide the press with fodder for the 24-hour sports news cycle with his harsh delivery and demonstrative demeanor.
That being said, as long as he continues to operate under the influence of solid baseball insight within his cyclone of obtrusiveness and vulgarity, the sun on the Yankee Empire will once again rise, basking young talent like Robinson Cano, Melky Cabrera, and Chamberlain in the now unfamiliar rays of ultimate victory.
- 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?