Owner Power Rankings
by odradek on Jan 9, 2009 10:42 PM EST
Email
PrintWe are all familiar with the common belief that the Dolan family is greedy, avaricious and pathologically cheap. But in fact they are pretty good owners. There are plenty of worse ones. So I got to thinking about where the Indians' owners rank. Consider this a purely subjective list. Graded on overall performance, lack of interference, success, investment in product, and general likability. Some of the owners below (e.g., Pohlad, Moorad) are out of date.
I don't know anywhere near enough to pass judgment on most of these owners, but here's an attempt at ranking them:
(1) Boston Red Sox (John Henry): Hired Bill James, keeps mouth shut, invests in farm system.
(2) Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (Arturo Moreno): Something of a showboat, but didn't re-sign Frank Rodriguez.
(3) St. Louis Cardinals (William O. DeWitt, Jr.): Classy organization in best baseball town in America.
(4) Milwaukee Brewers (Mark Attanasio): Complained about the Yankees' signing everybody.
(5) New York Mets (Fred Wilpon): Not too obnoxious for a New York team.
(6) Chicago White Sox (Jerry Reinsdorf): Hard to believe, but maybe he's a good owner. Probably the most hawkish, anti-Players Association owner. Don't forget 1994.
(7) Cleveland Indians (Larry Dolan): Might rank higher if Dolan would ever take out his wallet. Where are the onions? And who's doing his PR?
(8) Philadelphia Phillies (David Montgomery): This is just a guess. According to reports in Philly, he's a piker as well.
(9) Tampa Bay Rays (Stuart Sternberg): Took over for a lunatic owner and seems to have a clue.
(10) Colorado Rockies (Charlie Monfort): Appears to be smart, and hired Dan O'Dowd.
(11) Atlanta Braves (Liberty Media): Ted Turner doesn't like them—is that a bad thing? TV station gets bonus points for shutting down Chip Caray.
(12) Oakland Athletics (Lewis Wolff): Hard to get a read on this franchise. Dump players, sign players, then dump them again. Where would they be without their GM?
(13) Seattle Mariners (Nintendo): Game company just a shadow owner; the club is actually owned and operated by one Ichiro Suzuki.
(14) Arizona Diamondbacks (Jeff Moorad): Former agent (about to go to San Diego?), lots of debt, franchise can't figure out what it is: big market or not?
(15) Detroit Tigers (Mike Ilitch): Pizza maniac throws money at Pudge, Sheff, D Train, etc. Wha' happened?
(16) Toronto Blue Jays (Rogers Communications): Hired J.P. "Big Pimpin'" Ricciardi; renamed Skydome.
(17) Chicago Cubs (Tribune Company): Absentee owners don't care as long as the seats are filled. Party is soon to be over. Any team can have a bad century.
(18) San Diego Padres (John Moores): Unloading assets to pay for divorce; can't the Padres buy any hitting?
(19) San Francisco Giants (Peter Magowan): Spends money foolishly; see Renteria, Edgar. Likes old people, though.
(20) Kansas City Royals (David Glass): He was supposed to be enlightened, but then he gets Mike Jacobs and Kyle Farnsworth.
(21) Minnesota Twins (Carl Pohlad): RIP, but ein echte Karger. Contract me!
(22) Los Angeles Dodgers (Frank McCourt): Indians have Carlos Santana to show for his interference with baseball operations.
(23) Texas Rangers (Thomas O. Hicks): Chan Ho Park, George W. Bush, Alex Rodriguez: the prosecution rests.
(24) Baltimore Orioles (Peter Angelos): Forces his operations people to make stupid moves. Overvalues his assets.
(25) Houston Astros (Drayton McLane, Jr.): Always unloading salary; then buys a dumb contract. In his favor: dumped Phil Garner.
(26) Cincinnati Reds (Robert Castellini): Pity the Reds. Almost makes Marge Schott look good.
(27) New York Yankees (George Steinbrenner): The greatest meddler in the history of the game (Chas. Finley?) and a bona fide blowhard. Also a convicted liar, as Billy Martin said.
(28) Pittsburgh Pirates (Robert Nutting): Setting the record for the longest losing streak ever.
(29) Washington Nationals (Theodore N. Lerner): Micromanager extraordinaire. Requisition forms required for purchase of paper clips. Permitted Jim Bowden to extend Cristian Guzman's contract.
(30) Florida Marlins (Jeffrey Loria): Hands down, worst owner. Still trying to get a stadium from Florida taxpayers. Puts revenue sharing in his pocket. Ruined the Expos.
46 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Los Angeles Dodgers ownership
I live in Los Angeles. The O’Malley family who brought the Dodgers from Brooklyn cared about the team. Peter, Walter’s son, eventually sold to Fox, who mishandled the team. Fox sold it to the McCourt family from Boston. T.J. Simers columnist of the Los Angeles Times calls Frank McCourt the Boston Parking Lot Attendant. They are reaping great rewards from the strong attendance despite many mistakes in free agent signings. Recently the owner’s wife asked if the public wanted more baseball fields in the area or an expensive free agent. Simers has names for her too. Meanwhile, the Angels have had Gene Autry, then his wife, Disney, and now Arte Moreno as owners. The fans stream into both ballparks. Moreno is respected while McCourt and his wife are heavy criticized for things with the Dodgers and outside baseball. I used to root for the Dodgers, but beginning with the Fox ownership there have been so many things that have turned me off.
What does that mean about baseball fields? Are the Dodgers offering to build youth fields or something?
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/11/26/sports/sp-dodgers26
Would you rather have a top free agent or 50 youth fields in L.A., Frank and Jamie McCourt wonder.
That was the question posed by Dodgers President Jamie McCourt as she made an appearance with her husband, team owner Frank McCourt, Tuesday at an event where it was announced the club’s charitable foundation would help build 42 youth fields around Southern California.
"If you bring somebody in to play and pay them, pick a number, $30 million, does that seem a little weird to you?" Jamie McCourt asked in an interview at the Evergreen Recreation Center in East Los Angeles. "That’s what we’re trying to figure out. We’re really trying to see it through the eyes of our fans. We’re really trying to understand, would they rather have the 50 fields?"
the fields. imo.
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Jan 10, 2009 3:18 PM EST up reply actions
I’m with GFP. Not even close. Spend $30 million for Raul Ibanez or build fields so the next Eric Davis or Darryl Strawberry can play?
true, true. but i think after assessment, it’d still be the fields.
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Jan 10, 2009 7:51 PM EST up reply actions
It’s not a good question. The 50 fields are a PR move. Make the move if it’s a cost-effective piece of PR.
Manny is either a PR move or a baseball move. If it’s a baseball move, you evaluate it on the merits, and if it’s a good move, it should pay for itself and leave plenty of money for the fields. If it’s a PR move, then the owner is an idiot.
But the question was not “Which should the Dodgers do?”
It was “Which would you, fan and LA citizen, rather have?”
And that, I think, is sort of an interesting question.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2009/01/so-now-we-know.html
"So now we know where Manny’s money went.
It went to a new beachfront home in Malibu for Jamie McCourt. Wait, not one home. Two of them, side by side.
For $46 million."
by LAIndianfan on Jan 10, 2009 10:29 PM EST up reply actions
(15) Detroit Tigers (Mike Ilitch): Pizza maniac throws money at Pudge, Sheff, D Train, etc. Wha’ happened?
I liked this one alot. I picture him holding his hands out with a mario from mario brothers mustache
Angelos just isn’t low enough. He ought to be among the bottom three, I think. He is a despised man in the area. He crippled a once proud franchise, and turned a lot of folks away from the O’s. Luckily for him, the Nationals aren’t doing much to win people over.
At least the Pirates owner hired Huntington.
This was my first instinct too. I thought Angelos should have been lower. And, unpopular as it may be, I think Steinbrenner probably ought to be higher. His wallet is always open and in the last few years he began to let Cashman get his way. Now those younger Steinbrenner’s are clearly the driving force behind this current off-season’s spending spree. Only time will tell if it will blow up in their faces, but you have to agree that they “want” to win.
-Erik
I agree with you about Angelos being lower, and I considered the value of Steinbrenner, but thought he’d have to be near the bottom of any self-respecting list. It was easier to assign owners to the bottom of the list than to the top. We can all disagree about the correct order of the bottom third, but most of us will agree which owners belong in the bottom third.
I can’t believe you have Steinbrenner so low. I know we hate him and the Yankees, as most baseball fans do, but if you’re a Yankees fan you love him. He spends his money on the team and its players, which is what every fan wants. There are plenty of owners that are rich yet the keep the money to themselves and don’t spend it on the team. I know he got in to trouble early in his tenure but that was a couple decades ago. I know it may not be popular, but he should definately be in the top 10 if you’re talking about the best owners in baseball. Every fan wishes his owner spent money like Steinbrenner (and I realize that most teams don’t make the money that the Yankees make, but many owners still don’t even spend the money they do make).
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 10, 2009 7:20 PM EST up reply actions
OK, yeah, I know. It’s not “his” money. Except he owns the team, so it is. Plenty of owners take money generated by their teams and put it in their bank accounts. He doesn’t.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 10, 2009 8:15 PM EST up reply actions
But do the Yankees really make that much more than Boston? Or the Mets and Dodgers? I’m sure John Henry pockets quite a bit of money from the Red Sox, yet he’s #1 on this list.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 10, 2009 10:00 PM EST up reply actions
(a) Yes.
(b) You don’t know what you’re talking about.
The Yankees are a gigantic profit machine, especially as they move into the new ballpark. They are pocketing more money than any other team even as they outspend every other team. Do you really think the Mets brand is competitive with the Yankees brand in the same market? Of course not. Never have been and unless they can find a way to be the league’s premier franchise for a couple decades at least, they never will be.
I’m not convinced that the Red Sox even would be profitable right now had they not just won two championships. I think they are executing a long-term strategy to grow the business.
The best periods of Yankee success have grown out of when Steinbrenner was not directly involved in the operation, either because he was legally barred from it (as in the early 90’s) or because he was physically incapacitated (the recent Cashman-led restraint). He has done nothing but self-aggrandize and exploit a rigged system.
You’re right, Jay, I don’t know what I’m talking about. I’ve never seen any numbers of how much money each team takes in each year. I’ve only see payroll numbers and can base my guess off of those.
Of course I know that the Yankees take in more money than everybody else. I’ve already stated that above. What I don’t know is how much more. I know the Red Sox take in a lot of money, also. Heck, all of New England follows them. The Mets, while not having near the following in NY that the Yankees do, still have quite a large following. So I have no idea how much more money the Yankees take in that those teams.
The point is that, no matter how much you hate the Yankees and hate the system that allows them to make more money than any other team in baseball, you have to give Steinbrenner some credit for putting that money back in the team and not pocketing a large percentage of it (of course I realize he’s still making money on the team; I’m not a complete idiot). There are other owners that take revenue sharing money and put it directly in their pocket instead of spending it on their team.
I’m not saying Steinbrenner is a great guy, just that if you were a Yankees fan you’d like having him as your owner (at least for the past couple decades when he stopped meddling as much). I know we all hate the Yankees, but I was hoping we could be objective on this subject.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 11, 2009 9:57 AM EST up reply actions
you have to give Steinbrenner some credit for putting that money back in the team and not pocketing a large percentage of it (of course I realize he’s still making
No, I give him no credit for this. Leaving aside the corrosion of the sport’s integrity because he takes the very action you’re praising, Steinbrenner is simply not in the same position as other owners.
Other owners have to weigh the finances of their teams, revenue vs. expenses, and consider the risk inherent in each season’s ticket sales and each major signings. They have to weigh the financial security of the franchise, and the ability of their own personal fortunes to make up for shortfalls. They have to consider, stategically and philosophically, how much if any money they should risk on a ballclub, or how much over how many years.
If Dolan raises the payroll by $20 million for five years, he’s out $100 million, that’s all. And that amount wouldn’t have a dramatic impact, and what happens after five years? You can’t plan for a short-term payroll bump, maybe one or two years at most under exceptional circumstances, but it’s not a long-term winning strategy.
The idea of owners pocketing revenue sharing money is a bogeyman. Obviously no competitive team is doing this, and what owner is? Do people doubt that Pittsburgh and K.C. are now trying to win, somehow, someday? Milwaukee? Tampa Bay? Toronto? The question is only, how much money is the owner expected to lose while making that attempt — and would it make any difference?
Steinbrenner faces none of these tough choices. He will spend 50% more than the second-highest payroll, double the fifth-highest and triple the median — and still make more operating profit, and realize more capital gains in franchise value — than the next two or three teams combined.
So what exactly am I praising him for?
I never said we needed to “praise” Steinbrenner, but I think ranking him the third worst owner in baseball is a bit ridiculous. I know we all hate the Yankees, and hate the money they spend, but that’s their right in the way the system is set up. Don’t blame them; blame the system. Do you think that if the Indians made the amount of money the Yankees made that Dolan wouldn’t have a $200 million payroll?
Also, about owners pocketing revenue sharing, I read somewhere that the Marlins recieved $25 million in revenue sharing last year. And their payroll was about $22 million. So he must have pocketed some of that money, and that doesn’t include the money the Marlins made on their own through tickets, merchandise, radio and TV deals, etc. That’s a lot of money going directly in to his pocket while he cuts payroll. (And this is why Loria is ranked last on this list.) This is just one example — I don’t know about the Nats, Pirates, Royals, etc.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 11, 2009 1:37 PM EST up reply actions
I can’t believe I’m doing this, but here goes.
You know who likes George Steinbrenner as an owner? His ex-partners that’s who. George bought a floundering franchise from a disinterested owner, CBS, guided it through some tough financial times early on and turned a $10M investment (some claim it was really $7M) into a $1B + business. Pretty good ROI I’d say. Of course Steinbrenner had all the advantages – after ~’76 anyway. But ya still gotta give the guy credit, he knew a good investment when he saw it and turned it into a cash machine.
He’s still the Anti-Christ as far as I’m concerned, but he knew how to make money.
He’s probably made more money than any owner in the history of the game. Some of that was shrewdness, some of it was luck. I don’t think many people in 1976 would have foreseen the expansion of the game that took place over the past 30 years.
If that were the case, why did his other investments (shipbuilding, inherited from his father’ Cleveland Pipers; Broadway plays) bomb?
Again, to be fair, can you name one guy, just one, who made any money in the American ship building business in the 70’s? Especially building ore boats for the Great Lakes.
After some reflection, maybe Bay Shipbuilding in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. They’ve done a lot of U.S. Navy (and other naval) work. They were working three shifts in the middle 1970s when I was in Wisconsin, really cranking it out. All I can find is that they got $32 million in defense work between 2000 and 2007.
I have no problem with this, and I also agree with odradek’s response.
There is no reason to think Steinbrenner had any particular foresight about the way multi-channel mass media would explode the size of these businesses. By the time he started his own RSN, the Braves had had one for almost 20 years.
Two things, Brad: A few of my New York friends who are lifelong Yankees fans sure don’t love him. They think he’s a terrible owner. And most teams don’t make the money that the Yankees make? Make that no teams make even close to what the Yankees make.
Do you really think I don’t know that? Really? In fact, I even said that exact statement in my comment above, so please give me some credit.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 11, 2009 9:40 AM EST up reply actions
Okay, Brad, you’re right. I know you know that. I mistimed my comment and got between what you and Jay were talking about, which was revenue.
Primarily I meant to point out that not all Yankees fans like him as an owner. One of my best friends is a Yankees fan, a passionate baseball fan. Not the typical Yankees fan, but a guy who loves the game. He’s embarrassed by Steinbrenner. His daughter too is a Yankees fan, and he has to explain to her how unfair, how “unsportsman”-like the situation is. (Sportsmanship—that’s a forgotten and very old concept, for sure.)
Steinbrenner was a bully, a blowhard, a guy who pushed around his baseball people—even good baseball people who deserved way better. The way he treated Dave Winfield, for example, or Bob Lemon, should be enough to damn him forever. The past few years as his health has worsened (I thought I heard he was senile) he has stayed out of things, but this is no credit to his character, as far as I’m concerned.
Steinbrenner has the luxury of outspending his mistakes (of which there have been many). For this he considers himself some sort of expert on the game. And for this we are to consider him to be a good owner?
Wouldn’t Nutting be too new to rate? DIdn’t he just take control from McClatchy?
Signature to be named later.
Former Mister Softie general counsel William Neukom has taken over the SF Giants managing partner role from Peter Magowan. A software lawyer may be more successful than a grocery man but he has to pay the debt on the private stadium with the economy tanking and the seat licenses coming up for renewal .
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
