Tabloid sez, without any evidence, that Steinbrenners could sell Yankees

Journalists whine that bloggers make something out of nothing, but that was my reaction after reading today's Michael O'Keeffe and Bill Madden piece for the New York Daily News saying that the Yankees could be up for sale soon. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think that sportswriters ought to have something more than hearsay and rumors and anonymous quotes before writing such an explosive story.

O'Keeffe and Madden write that:

Multiple baseball and finance sources told the Daily News they are hearing that the team the Steinbrenner family has led to seven World Series titles could be put on the block in the wake of the record sale price of $2.175 billion the Los Angeles Dodgers went for in April.

“There has been chatter all around the banking and financial industries in the city for a couple of weeks now,” one high-level baseball source told The News.

This is worthy of front-page and back-page covers in the New York Daily News? Because some anonymous Wall Street workers and baseball names are speculating about how much the Yankees could be worth, because the Dodgers were sold for so much? Spare me.

Look, it is always possible that the Steinbrenners could sell the team one day, or even sell it in the near future. But where is any evidence that this is going to happen? O'Keeffe and Madden do not have a single hard fact or on-the-record source showing that this could happen, yet they have written a news story, not an opinion column, saying that the Yanks could be for sale soon. There is only one named source in the article, Yankees president Randy Levine, who gave a flat denial to the News saying: "The Steinbrenners are not selling the team. Heck, there's not even an anonymous source saying that they will sell the team; just that they could sell the team. 

Full disclosure -- as long-time readers know, I used to work at the News, but my opinion would be exactly the same on this article whether I had worked there or not.

O'Keeffe and Madden not only make a whole lot out of supposition and rumors, they insinuate that Hal Steinbrenner may want to sell the team because he said this spring that he was a "finance geek" and that a good team didn't need a $220 million payroll in order to win. Then the article misrepresents Hal's position on the A-Rod re-signing in 2007, blaming Hank Steinbrenner for it.

They continue, "Hal Steinbrenner rarely attends games, and according to those who know him, abhors doling out the huge money long-term contracts such as the Rodriguez deal." Really? Then why did Hal sign off on that deal, as well as the CC Sabathia (seven years, and then an additional two years) and Mark Teixeira (eight years) contracts? Not to mention paying A.J. Burnett $82 million, and then paying nearly 2/3 of Burnett's last two years on the contract for him to pitch for the Pittsburgh Pirates?

Buster Olney wrote the definitive version of what happened in the A-Rod contract -- I talked about it in Subway Squawkers last year. The gist of it is that Randy Levine, not bogeyman Hank Steinbrenner, did most of the negotiations with A-Rod and his people. And A-Rod had to go to Hal's house and apologize in person for the opting-out shenanigans before he would sign off on the contract, which he did. Contrary to this story, there is no evidence that Hal opposed the A-Rod deal, just that he was ticked off over the opting-out stuff.

But who needs actual facts when the News can have sources who say stuff like this:

“Hal’s a smart businessman,” the source said. “And I’m just not sure that he considers baseball to be a smart business. I think he looks at some of these other owners, throwing $200 million at players and thinks they’re idiots — idiots that unfortunately can affect the way he does business. You have to understand, it was in Hal’s formative years in the ’80s when he saw George at his worst in terms of throwing more and more good money at bad players like Pascual Perez, Dave LaPoint, Steve Kemp, Ed Whitson and Andy Hawkins.”

Let's review. By buying the Yankees in 1973, George Steinbrenner was able to take an under $10 million investment and build a team worth several billion. Tell me in what other legal business you can get that sort of rate of return.  Sounds pretty "smart" to me.

Again, Hal signed off on all of the modern big-spending Yankee deals. He also agreed to bring back Brian Cashman, the GM who has one tool in the toolbox -- the ability to spend money. Sure, Hal has made it clear he wants the payroll to go down, but that doesn't mean 1) that he doesn't bear his own share of responsibility for the Yankee payroll and 2) that he is going to sell the team anytime soon. Besides, there are four Steinbrenner children who would have to sign off on the sale.

O'Keeffe and Madden end their piece by quoting yet another anonymous source who says: “Hal hates the players and he hates the media.”

So there you have it. Michael O'Keeffe and Bill Madden have declared that the Yankees could be for sale soon, with the "evidence" for this based solely on rumors, speculation, and twisting around of the facts. I am eagerly waiting for the News' next report, about how Ferris Bueller passed out at 31 Flavors.

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Outrage! George Steinbrenner snubbed in Hall of Fame vote

Math question for you: When is three greater than seven? Answer -- when it comes to the Baseball Hall of Fame, where a team of voters elected MLB executive Pat Gillick and his three rings, over George Steinbrenner and his seven World Series titles.

I didn't think that Yankees Billy Martin, Ron Guidry, or Tommy John, who were also on the ballot, were worthy of Hall of Fame enshrinement, but I certainly did think Steinbrenner deserved to be in the Hall. He was only one of the most important owners in baseball histoyerry, who changed the game.  But Dave Concepcion gets more votes than him? Spare me.

Johnny Bench, Concepcion's Reds teammate and one of the committee members, said:

"Some people thought it was too early (for Steinbrenner to be elected),'' Johnny Bench said. "I believe he certainly will be (elected at some point).''

This is sloppy logic. To put it bluntly, Steinbrenner is dead now, and he will be dead three years from now, the next time the committee votes. Why not vote him in now, instead of in 2013?

Then again, what else should we expect from a committee that still won't acknowledge that Marvin Miller deserved induction, too?

I haven't seen a list of who in the committee voted for whom, but my brother pointed that Gillick was an executive for three teams: the Toronto Blue Jays, the Baltimore Orioles, and the Philadelphia Phillies. And there were three ex-Orioles players on the committee, as well as an Orioles exec, a Toronto writer, and a Phillies exec. Here's the list of voters:

The committee is comprised of Hall of Fame members Johnny Bench, Whitey Herzog, Eddie Murray, Jim Palmer, Tony Perez, Frank Robinson, Ryne Sandberg and Ozzie Smith; major league executives Bill Giles (Phillies), David Glass (Royals), Andy MacPhail (Orioles) and Jerry Reinsdorf (White Sox); and media members Bob Elliott (Toronto Sun), Tim Kurkjian (ESPN), Ross Newhan (retired, Los Angeles Times) and Tom Verducci (Sports Illustrated).

The New York Yankees may be the most storied franchise in MLB history, but they couldn't get even one person with a Yankees connection on the committee, unless you count (and I don't!) Tom Verducci, Joe Torre's co-author? How does that work?


Anyhow, I'm peeved!

Squawker Jon accused me of insisting that there needs to be a "Yankee seat here,"  to which I say, "How is it that there are multiple Orioles, Reds, and Cardinals as members on the committee? Yet the Yankee won seven rings in the post-1973 timeframe of the era the group was voting on, and don't have a single voter?" It figures.

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Are Derek Jeter and the Yankees just not that into each other?

"He's just not that into you" was one of the most famous lines in the hit HBO show "Sex and the City." It was so well-known -- and had such resonance in explaining male behavior -- that it spawned a best-selling book and a hit movie. For our non-SATC readers, the idea behind the expression is that women make all sorts of excuses when guys aren't as interested as they'd like them to be, when it often really comes down to this little phrase, "He's just not that into you."

Anyhow, Squawker Jon and I were wondering yesterday what the heck Jeter and the Yankees could have been talking about for five straight hours Tuesday. Jon and I have known each other for a decade now, and we know each other's stories all too well. Heck, we've heard each other's jokes so many times that we've talked about assigning numbers to each joke, so we can save the time and trouble of retelling them, and just shout out, "47!" "23!"

So what the heck did the Yankee brass and Jeter talk about for five hours? Surely they know each other's points by now, after all this time. Does Jeter just shout out "5!" for his number of rings, and the Yankees respond with "205" for the number of millions they've already paid him?

Jeanne from New York, one of our longtime readers, was pondering the very same thing. She sent me an email with her thoughts about the situation:

As an adult female of a certain age, I have heard many times that “men don’t talk much”. The other day I read a factoid that said “On average, women say 7,000 words per day. Men say just over 2,000”. Don’t know if that has been proven scientifically, but for a moment let’s say that’s it’s true.


What on earth then could the “baffled” Jeter camp and Yankee management talk about for five hours? Were Jeter and his agent doing all the talking (think of Fidel Castro and his famous speeches via radio that reportedly went on for hours)?

The man has been with this organization for literally half his life, what is it about him they don’t know? That he's afraid of clowns? He doesn’t like to eat green peas? He has dreams of being a concert pianist? He’s got some serious issues with the Yankee third baseman (ah, we’re getting to something now, aren’t we, Dr. Phil….).

Seriously, if after five hours (there had to be a lunch AND a nap in there somewhere) Derek is still banging his sneaker on the table (ala Nikita Khrushchev at the UN in the 60’s)  saying this contract offer is a travesty, about how he wants respect because he’s a Yankee icon, face of the franchise, HOF’er etc. etc., it’s a wrap.


The Steinbrenner boys need to walk away call Eduardo Nunez and tell him to be ready to be the shortstop next spring.


At this point as an employer why would they want him back? Who wants a disgruntled player on their team? It is clear that he’s not happy with what they are offering to pay him for his services. Add to that having to play every day next to Alex renders that stuff about “this is a dream come true” and the Yankees being the “only team I ever wanted to play for” meaningless.


If those feelings were true and sincere, a deal would have been signed or announced after this five-hour meeting.


Instead we get the news report stating that there is at least  a $40M “gap”.


Lisa, that’s not a gap, that’s a chasm.


As Yogi, says it's “getting late early”. Sometimes a change of scenery is good for all parties involved.

I’m predicting there will be a divorce announced sometime before Christmas if not sooner (Hank's comments not withstanding).

From the comments I’ve heard from Yankee fans I know (shoot, I heard some guys saying three years is “too much” and they would have done two years only (LOL!), we’ll be fine, the media (especially in NY) will not be. Oh well……

Good points, Jeanne. I have to say I cracked up at the idea of Jeter banging his sneaker (Nike, I'm sure!) on the tabletop!

We're hearing rumors today that the Yanks slightly upped their offer, and Jeter slightly lowered their offer. I have to say that the longer this goes on, the less chances I think it has of happening. Like I noted earlier today, when the Yankees re-signed A-Rod, it took a very short time to get the deal done. Heck, all re-signing David Wells took was one Christmas Eve lunch at Shorty's. What's the holdup here with Jeter and the Yankees?

What do you think? Tell us about it!

New York Times columnist George Vecsey sez it's too soon to induct George Steinbrenner into the Hall of Fame

When I heard that George Steinbrenner would be listed as a nominee next month for possible induction into MLB's Hall of Fame, I thought "it's about time." New York Times sports columnist George Vescey had the opposite reaction, thinking it's way too soon to induct The Boss.

Vecsey writes:

This is all happening so fast.


George Steinbrenner died on July 13. It’s now November, and he is on a short list for the National Baseball Hall of Fame.


We were just getting used to the gross plaque honoring the Sun King of the Bronx. In the heady rush of deserved respect and understandable nostalgia, we need to slow down and evaluate the Boss.

Hate to break it to George Van Winkle here, but most people already did that evaluation in their heads a long time ago. Who's the "we" he's talking about here? Does he have a mouse in hispocket or something?

When Steinbrenner died, both onetime nemesis Dave Winfield and Red Sox owner John Henry called for the legendary owner to be in the Hall of Fame. That should tell you something about the way most baseball people have already reevaluated The Boss. And don't forget that there are several generations of fans who remember Steinbrenner in a much more benevolent way than Vecsey does.

But that's not good enough for Vecsey, who seems to have a real chip on his shoulder when it comes to the Yankees -- and Steinbrenner. That's not surprising, given that the most vociferous Steinbrenner-haters all seem to be employed at the New York Times. Remember Times columnist Dave Anderson's apparent glee in writing a nasty piece literally the day Steinbrenner died, trashing The Boss for firing Dick Howser?

And Vecsey, who pretended that David Ortiz barely got booed by Yankee fans last year when even the Times' own Jack Curry contradicted this assertion, continues to have his own, um, spin on reality here. He writes:

There is one argument that Steinbrenner was better than moral, better than smart. He was lucky. He turned a modest personal investment, said to be $168,000, into a $10 million package that, enriched by unforeseen cable television revenue, became the most lucrative franchise in baseball, worth $1.6 billion, according to Forbes magazine.

This is just silly. There are any number of people who could have bought the Yankees from CBS -- remember, the TV network sold the franchise at a loss -- but Steinbrenner had the foresight to do so. That has nothing to do with luck.The same goes with the cable deals, and then the YES Network. Steinbrenner was a pioneer in both instances, and that had to do with foresight, not luck. But Vecsey doesn't want to give him credit for anything, and it comes across as really petty.

Vecsey continues:

Yes, character is one criterion for the Hall, particularly for people in uniform. Joe Jackson is barred for being involved in the 1919 Black Sox scandal, and it is too late for him. Pete Rose is barred for gambling and then lying about it while he was managing. I personally think Rose the player belongs in the Hall, but I totally understand why he is barred. He made it hard on himself, the knucklehead, and may never get into the Hall in his lifetime. Then again, the Boss made it hard on himself, too.

Funny he should write this now, given that he wrote last year, when it came to David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez failing steroid tests, he said:

Sports fans have to give up this false expectation that athletes should demonstrate higher standards than politicians, bankers, mortgage executives or, for that matter, journalists. Stop expecting athletes to be role models. Caveat emptor.

But in today's anti-Steinbrenner piece, Vecsey writes:

Then Steinbrenner got lucky all over again while barred by Commissioner Fay Vincent for conspiring with the gambler — the best thing that ever happened to him and his beloved Yankees....


So, maybe the voters should instead pick Joe Torre and Michael and even poor, addled Billy Martin, who is actually on this makeup ballot.

This is just incoherent. Buck Showalter, not Torre, was an architect of that roster. And Billy Martin died in 1989, long before the late 90s dynasty.

Vecsey doesn't mention a word about Steinbrenner using free agency to his advantage (guess signing Catfish Hunter and Reggie Jackson was more of the Boss' luck), or really, write anything that doesn't fit his worldview of Steinbrenner, which appears to be stuck in 1982.

Yes, Vecsey finally, grudgingly, concedes that Steinbrenner belongs in the Hall -- "eventually" -- but says that Marvin Miller ought to be put in first:

Marvin Miller is 93. He deserves to be present at his induction into the Hall of Fame. Then, when the first wave of emotion has passed and we are all thinking a bit more clearly, let’s get back to the discussion about George Steinbrenner. 

Vecsey is the one who needs to think a little more clearly. He's the one whose view of Steinbrenner is stuck in a time warp.

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Review: "The House of Steinbrenner"

So I finally got around to watching Barbara Kopple's "The House of Steinbrenner" today. I had very low expectations for it, given that it was part of ESPN's "30 for 30" series. I figured that it would be very critical. It really isn't as harsh as I expected, but it is something nearly as bad -- it's pretty dull.

The documentary is extremely slow-paced and ramblng; it takes a good 20 minutes (out of a 60 minute episode!) to even get into discussing Steinbrenner himself. And if you're looking for a coherent narrative explaining even how many titles the Yankees won under Steinbrenner, forget it. It's not that kind of documentary.

Instead. "The House of Steinbrenner" wastes a lot of time with those annoying "fan on the street" type interviews that I hate, where fans whine about every little thing, like the who says the new stadium isn't for "real fans" because it has a sushi stand. Dude, if you don't like it, don't eat there. Nobody has taken away your ability to get a hot dog at the new ballpark.

Aside from the behind-the-scenes footage of the old Stadium being dismantled, and some shots of the ticker tape parade, the most interesting thing is hearing Hal Steinbrenner talk. He's a very likeable guy, albeit neither colorful nor bombastic. (If only Hank had agreed to appear in this documentary, it would have been much more fun.) Hal looks like a combination of George Steinbrenner and Tucker Carlson, but sounds like his father on Xanax.

One of the big surprises was that Hal is a pilot; I can't imagine given what happened to Thurman Munson and Cory Lidle, that The Boss was too thrilled with his son's hobby, though. And seeing Thurm's picture behind Hal when he's going on about his love of flying was too spooky for me.

It made me sad to see the old clips of Steinbrenner, back when he was the larger-than-life character. And to see the Warner Wolf interview in 2004. where you could see in retrospect that he was starting to decline, although we didn't know it at the time.


"The House of Steinbrenner" isn't a complete waste of time, but it's also not exactly must-see TV, either. I made sure to write this review right after watching, because I figured I would forget it in a day or two! It's that inconsequential.

My thoughts on the George Steinbrenner monument and tribute

I thought the Yankees did Monday's George Steinbrenner ceremony right Monday night. Things got a little dusty in this Squawker household, to use a Bill Simmonsism. Here are a few thoughts on the evening:

* I've decided that if there is anybody I want to meet in the Steinbrenner family, it's Hank. He seems to be the child with most of his father's personality.

* I don't ever remember seeing Joan Steinbrenner before -- she's definitely been out of the public eye forever. The funny thing was, though, when I saw some addled-looking man escorting her, I wondered to myself at first, "Gee, that guy's in bad shape." Then I realized that the befuddled-looking person was Bud Selig!

* Don Mattingly looks so young! Younger than when he was a coach with the Yankees. He still needs to bring the mustache back, though. It was nice to see him. Mattingly was truly a class act in the way he left the Yankees, which is why no fence-mending was needed on his part.

* Good to see David Wells at the event. He was one of Steinbrenner's faves. But, unless I missed it, where was Paul (The Warrior) O'Neill?

* Smartest thing the Yankees did -- and I am sure it was deliberate -- was to not introduce any of the VIPs. While fans cheered for Mattingly and Joe Torre, them being there didn't overshadow the ceremony itself. On the other hand, the media is all about Torre today in the stories. Well, that, and one other thing...

* ...That monument is, um, monumental! I'm wondering if Yankee players in the batters' box will be able to see The Boss' image looking at them, the way the eyes of Doctor T. J. Eckleberg gazed upon the characters in "The Great Gatsby."

* I'm also glad the Yankees won. There wouldn't have been anything sort of Grandish if they were to lose on the night of the Steinbrenner tribute!

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Squawker reader mail, and what Joe Torre and Cher have in common when it comes to memorials

I got a lot of grief in the Subway Squawkers comments section for saying that Joe Torre ought to stay away from tonight's George Steinbrenner monument dedication at Yankee Stadium. I appreciate the feedback, but I'm not changing my opinion.

Uncle Mike chastises me, saying, "Lisa, this has to stop. While it's true that, without George Steinbrenner, Joe Torre would be a ballplayer just short of the Hall of Fame and a manager just short of greatness (he did, after all, manage the Braves to a Division title well before that became common), without Torre, Steinbrenner would have lived the last 32 years of his life without winning another World Series."

Oh, come on. The nucleus of the late '90s dynasty was created by Gene Michael and Buck Showalter. Yes, Torre came in, and led that team to four rings to five years, and he deserves a ton of credit for doing so. But to suggest that the Yankees would never have won a World Series without Torre is a bit much.

And no, Torre was not "a manager just short of greatness" until the Yankees. Here are his winning percentages with the teams he managed prior to the Bronx: Mets: .405, Atlanta Braves: .529, St. Louis Cardinals: .498. He made it to the playoffs ONCE in 14 years prior to the Yanks. That's mediocrity, at best.

Mike says "tonight's ceremony is a way for Yankee Fans to say "Thank you" -- to both men." No, tonight was supposed to be about honoring George Steinbrenner, until the Torre PR machine tipped off Bill Madden and made sure everybody knew he'd be there. (It sure wasn't the Yankees who told the papers -- John Sterling and Suzyn Waldman said the team told them not to reveal the guest list.)

Reader RockN'RollStreetRat wrote: "Tomorrow's ceremony should be about Steinbrenner's baseball legacy with the Yankees, not about any personal squabbles anyone had with Geroge, or that George had with anyone. And when it comes to Torre, he's one of he most important figures in the Boss's Yankee legacy, and one of the team's best ever managers."

I get that point that he and Uncle Mike are making, but here's the thing with that argument. I remember what happened with Sonny Bono's funeral. Sonny's widow Mary asked Bono's ex-wife Cher to give the eulogy. But thanks to Cher's star power and emotional speech, the funeral became all about Cher, and little about Sonny.

Yes, Cher was a huge part of Sonny's legacy, but to hear her weep after she had trashed her ex-husband's reputation for the previous two decades was a bit much. And by the end of her speech, you would have thought she were the widow, and not Mary Bono! Although I think Cher's grief was sincere, I just wish she had shown such appreciation for Sonny Bono when he was still alive to hear it.

Tonight is supposed to be about George Steinbrenner getting his place at Monument Park, not about Torre getting face time shedding crocodile tears. Reader JonMouk71 wondered, "the more cynical might say he is cultivating the media to pressure Wilpon to meet his high price to manage the Mets." Count me in that cynical category.

Anyhow, I'll watch the event tonight, but don't expect me to clap at my TV screen about seeing Joe Torre take over what should be George Steinbrenner's tribute.

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Joe Torre ought to stay far away from George Steinbrenner ceremony

Just heard that Joe Torre and Don Mattingly reportedly will be attending Monday's Yankee Stadium ceremony to honor George Steinbrenner with a monument in Monument Park. Donnie Baseball will be a welcome face at the ballpark. Joe Torre, not so much, at least for me.

I'm not about to let bygones be bygones and welcome Torre back to the ballpark with open arms.  Not when he has never apologized for the way he bit the hand that fed him for twelve years. Not as long as the vile "Yankee Years" book remains in print, where he trashed The Boss when he was unable to defend himself. And certainly not after Torre and his wife Ali compared Steinbrenner, the man of honor tomorrow night, to Torre's own abusive father, the monster who threw Torre's mother down the stairs when he found out she was pregnant with Joe Jr.

What a phony Torre is to even have the nerve to show up in the first place. He's going to "honor" Steinbrenner's memory with his presence, right? Spare me the sanctimony. Just by showing up, Loe will make the evening all about him. If Torre were as classy as his PR machine claims, he would stay away, and not make a mockery of the night.

I remember how Joe and Ali Torre "honored" Steinbrenner back in November, after the Yankees won the World Series. They had an interview with T.J. Simers of the Los Angeles Times, where, as I noted in a Faster Times piece, they described Steinbrenner this way:

“George was such a domineering figure in Joe’s life and his father was like that,” says Ali Torre.

Joe Torre backed that comment up, saying about his experience as Yankee manager, “That was a big part of it with George too. I don’t know how many times I told George, ‘The only thing I wanted to do was make you feel proud of what I’ve done.'"

Columnist Simers didn’t raise his eyebrows at these accusations. Instead he agreed, writing, “The abused going full circle, five times as likely to become the abuser, the experts say, or become abused again. Or go to work for Steinbrenner.”

Torre's wife used that analogy again in another part of the interview:

Ali Torre told her husband and Simers, “The parallel was very similar to what you had with your father. Some of the people in the Yankee organization were bullying you and not treating you with respect all along. You kept trying to survive until you got worn down.”

Comparing domestic violence to the travails of the highest-paid manager in baseball history? Oh please.

It's funny. Torre constantly accused Alex Rodriguez of hogging the spotlight, and making everything all about him. Guess it takes one to know one.

What do you think? Tell us about it!

If George Steinbrenner had owned the Mets

Ever since George Steinbrenner passed away, Squawker Lisa has been goading me into admitting that I wish that he had owned the Mets. And over the last few days, I've come close to going over to the dark side. Then I thought about the events of 20 years ago.

We are coming up on the 20th anniversary of when Steinbrenner was suspended from baseball for the second time. On July 30, 1990, Commissioner Fay Vincent banned Steinbrenner for life for giving gambler Howie Spira $40,000 to gather dirt on one of his star players, Dave Winfield. (The ban was lifted in 1993.)

It's bad enough that Steinbrenner was suspended from baseball not once, but twice, for serious misdeeds that would taint anyone's reputation. But the specific part of the anniversary I am remembering is the reaction of fans at Yankee Stadium when they learned of the Steinbrenner ban.

They cheered.

At the time, Steinbrenner was not generally seen as a winner, but as a meddling owner whose bizarre methods were PREVENTING his team from winning.

Many of the tributes to Steinbrenner over the last few days have been along the lines of, sure he could be a difficult person, but all he wanted to do was win, and he won more than anyone.

But in 1990, the Mets had just as many titles as the Yankees over the previous two decades or so - two. Steinbrenner's Yankees had won the town away from the Mets in the mid-to-late '70s, but the Mets had won it back in the mid-eighties.

Here are some other stats from 1990:

• The Mets won 91 games and finished second. It was the seventh straight year the Mets finished first or second in the NL East. The Yankees won 67 games, finishing seventh and last in the AL East.
• The Mets drew 2,732,745, while the Yankees' attendance was 2,006,436.
• The Mets even had a higher payroll than the Yankees, $21,922,834 to $21,312,318.

(all numbers from baseballreference.com)

So in 1990, Steinbrenner was seen by many Yankee fans as someone who had won in the past, but was no longer a winner. Kind of like how Squawker Lisa sees Joe Torre today.

I watched Ken Burns' "Baseball" a few months ago, and it was strange to see how this documentary, which came out in 1994, dismissed Steinbrenner as someone who had ruined the Yankees.

Obviously, the Yankees' and Mets' fortunes diverged dramatically after 1990. And while the Yankee turnaround did not begin until after Steinbrenner was temporarily out of the picture, he was the active owner for all subsequent titles except for 2009.

But too many of the tributes to Steinbrenner have justified the earlier, win-at-all-costs-no-matter-much-of-a-jerk-I-am Boss with the overall record, when most of the titles came after Steinbrenner had mellowed at least somewhat. Steinbrenner's baseball people had started putting the pieces together for another dynasty. And once he returned, he held on to those pieces.

By 2004, Yankee fans were chanting, "We love George." Of course they did, after four titles and six World Series in the previous eight years. Winning changes everything. But Steinbrenner had also changed.

The closest I ever came to stop rooting for one of my teams because of a specific person was when the Knicks got Latrell Sprewell. Then Sprewell didn't choke anyone while in New York and the Knicks went to the finals in 1999, and I was referring to him as Spree.

The Isiah Thomas years were kind of like the M. Donald Grant years of the late '70s. You held your nose and waited for them to pass.

James Dolan is willing to spend crazy amounts of money to field winning teams. But he's failed miserably and is derided as a buffoon.

Imagine if LeBron James had told Jim Gray, "I'm taking my talents to Broadway." The New York media would be hailing LeBron as a winner who was willing to accept the challenge of the biggest stage. And Dolan would be cast in a much different light, as an owner willing to do whatever it takes to win.

Most people attacking LeBron and the Miami Heat would be ecstatic if James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh were on their team.

So I'm not going to say that I would never have rooted for the Mets if Steinbrenner had owned the team. I'm not a big Woody Johnson fan, and while I do like Rex Ryan, I wish he would tone it down a little bit, but as a frustrated Jet fan, I'm more excited about the team than I have been in years, and it doesn't bother me that in other cities, they are becoming a team to hate.

Just as I couldn't care less that other cities didn't like the 1986 Mets.

Instead of wishing that Steinbrenner had owned the Mets, I wish that the Mets always had owners who put winning first. Even if the Yankees have more money, the Mets have plenty of money themselves, and the same opportunities in the New York market.

But even in 2006, when the team seemed headed to the World Series, the Mets were reluctant at first to eat Kaz Matsui's contract. While the Mets may need Luis Castillo in the short term, it would be great if they were willing to just let him go in the offseason if they came up with a better alternative.

I'm not convinced that the Mets should eat Oliver Perez' contract, since anyone with Scott Boras as an agent could be trying to force his way out of town. Imagine if Ollie, still young and with a healthy arm, latched on with Dave Duncan and the Cardinals, or even the Yankees, and reached his great potential, even if briefly.

What's really annoying is hearing how the Mets may be willing to take on payroll now, when they were unwilling to pick up that starting pitcher that everyone agreed they needed in the offseason.

I'm still angry over how the Mets got rid of Billy Wagner to save a few million dollars, giving up the chance to get two first-round draft choices. Chris Carter is far from an equivalent return. Those draft choices went to Boston instead. Boston is a team that is willing to spend to develop a farm system. The Red Sox have been decimated by injuries this season, but unlike the 2009 Mets, they have had enough pieces in their system to continue to contend.

Unlike the Mets, the Red Sox are willing to go over slot to sign draft picks. Even when the Mets draft a Boras client first as they did this year, they generally cut costs with the rest of the draft. If there is anything that would make me wish that someone like Steinbrenner owned the Mets, it's this big-market team being unwilling to go over slot.

But in the end, winning forgives everything. There have been times over the last few years when I thought that Omar Minaya, Willie Randolph and Jerry Manuel knew what they were doing. And I praised ownership for doing what it takes to win.

So I hope it's not too hypocritical of me to say that, while I'm glad that Steinbrenner did not own the Mets, I would have been happy with his results over the last 37 years.