Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

worst owner ever

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lucas718
    replied
    Peter Angelos.

    He had a ballpark that was sold out every night. He had a competitive team. He had the support of the fans. Then he systematically destroyed it all. Attendance is down 50% from 1997.

    Before he took over, the Orioles had never had more than 3 consecutive losing seasons in their history. 2009 will be the 12th consecutive losing season under his ownership.

    He over-ruled the people he hired to make baseball decisions.
    He refuses to spend money on quality free agents. They tend to make offers just good enough to miss out on an actual signing.

    I could go on and on and on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fan of 1969
    replied
    Ed Short of the Washington Senators who may have hired Ted Williams but it was only used as a ploy to get fans to pay the highest priced tickets in MLB at the time for a club which was always second division. His main interest was to move to Dallas Ft. Worth and once again steal a team from DC.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • digglahhh
    replied
    Bill,

    I guess all I have left to say is that I don't think the charges match the record. You can prove short-sightedness and poor judgment on O'Malley's behalf. You can probably even prove that ego contributed to that poor judgment. You can make a very strong case for greed as a motivator for his actions. Or course, nobody acknowledges the partial paradox of holding both of those allegations simultaneously. If he was so greedy, why did he give up the goldmine was Flushing?

    If he turned down the great location to move West and we cite the financial successes of the Mets as evidence of the potential in Flushing, then maybe greed wasn't so driving him after all. If he simply missed the boat on Flushing, then we have poor judgment, but not necessarily a basis for greed.

    I'll grant greed, regardless. I just wanted to point out that slight internal contradiction between lambasting him for not taking Shea, talking about how profitable it would have been, and accusing him of such abject avarice.

    Anyway, greed is par for the course. To make the charges of him being among the worst (or the single worst) stick, I'd need to see credible charges of malice - of him hurting the fans of BK for it's own sake, not as a nasty byproduct of improving his own situation.

    I see a lot of this attitude as similar to a guy still in love with a girl (or other guy) who left him for somebody else, who the guy considers to be a bum. That alone doesn't qualify the girl as a horrible person, and the fact that you hurt doest make the charges against her character any more credible than they are othewise. It seems like many BK fans use their angst as an argument in and of itself, and I don't really see it that way.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mongoose
    replied
    Originally posted by MATHA531 View Post
    But, at least in my opinion, especially based on recent history, I respectfully disagree that he is one of the worst owners in baseball today.

    But you probably have more heart in the Mets as I do and are in a better position to make up your mind on this.
    If you look at the list of other nominees for worst owner in history, you have:

    *various lawbreakers
    *a bigoted fool
    *Steinbrenner
    *incompetent bunglers
    *people who didn't care about winning
    *people with personality problems
    *people with personality problems that prevented their team from winning

    The thing about Wilpon is that because I'm not in a position to buy season tickets (or stick John Q. Citizen with the bill like most ST holders) Wilpon regards me with malicious intent. He has deliberately configured a new stadium in the hopes that fans like me would be excluded from ever seeing a game at his ballpark again.

    Make no mistake: that's exactly what it means when an owner builds a facility sized so it can only house season ticket holders. I realize that in Wilpon's mind "it's only business" and he doesn't personally dislike or even care about any of the excluded fans one way or the other... But this still constitutes malicious intent towards most of his fan base.

    O'Malley still outranks Wilpon because O'Malley had malicious intent for all of his fan base; but considering the "cozy confines" of the new stadium, I'd have to conclude Wilpon has malicious intent for the vast majority of his fan base.

    The on-field product has generally been depressing, but even if he was fielding an all-star team... Who cares if you can't see them?

    So I think this leap-frogs Wilpon past the competition; he ranks a solid second behind O'Malley, who is the Babe Ruth of evil suits.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bobby_Ayala
    replied
    Originally posted by mrakbaseball View Post
    Not to say he's the worst owner but, Hiroshi Yamauchi has owned the Mariners for over 16 years. In that time, he's seen zero games in person. 0 games in the Kingdome, 0 at Safeco Field, 0 anywhere else in North America, 0 in Peoria, Arizona. I can't think of any other owner who has owned a team as long as Yamauchi, who has never seen a game in person. Unbelievable. The definition of an absentee owner.
    Can't think of any other absentee owner.

    Leave a comment:


  • MATHA531
    replied
    Mongoose...

    Some great points; especially the point about Shea Stadium being holy ground to Met fans in the same way Ebbets was to Brooklyn fans....except we could have lived with the loss of Ebbets Field in exchange for a state of the art ballpark say in Flushing Meadows...and the math is about right...EF opened in 1913 and hosted its last mlb game in 1957, that comes to 44 years of active service. Shea opened in 1964 and saw its last mlb game in 2008, 44 years.

    I heard somebody make the same point as you on some talk radio show youknow that Shea was still serviceable but really the water pipes were springing leaks all over from what I understand and it really would have cost quite a bit to bring it up to standard. Mr. McCord, the current owner of the Los Angeles National League baseball team spent quite a bit of money to upgrade Chavez Ravine Stadium. We wonder how long it will last. I will give the devil his due, however, about the tlc the park was given unlike the last few years of the M Donald Grant regime when the family of the late Ms. Payson had run out of money and the City of New York was broke and unable to maintain any of its property (to the nay sayers who throw out well see this is what happens with a municipally owned stadium, to pay the devil his due, I know O'Malley would not have allowed the park to deteriorate the same way and of course that helped lead to its premature demise if indeed it's premature.

    However, in his defense, let's think back. Just before 9/11, contracts were about to be let to replace the two baseball stadiums but had to clearly be deferred. In that time, Wilpon never threatened to move the franchise unless he was given a new ballpark.

    Obviously for a long while, Wilpon did run the team as a small market team for reasons we referred to above and did have a rather low maximum budget during the years the Yankees were stealing the city as NY was traditionally a NL team.

    But, at least in my opinion, especially based on recent history, I respectfully disagree that he is one of the worst owners in baseball today.

    But you probably have more heart in the Mets as I do and are in a better position to make up your mind on this.

    Regards,

    Leave a comment:


  • Let's Go Mets!
    replied
    Wilpon would rate around tenth in my book.

    Speaking of bad owners, I'm surprised there's so little mention of Charles O. Finley.

    What do you think New York baseball history would be like if that nut job owned one of the teams?

    Nevertheless, Walter O'Malley has my vote hands down. He was the worst thing that could ever happen to a Dodger fan, and he took that jerk Horace Stoneham with him while Joan Payson laughed all the way to the bank.

    I don't see Robert Moses as the culprit in any way.
    Last edited by Let's Go Mets!; 11-28-2008, 03:51 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mrakbaseball
    replied
    Absentee owner Yamauchi

    Not to say he's the worst owner but, Hiroshi Yamauchi has owned the Mariners for over 16 years. In that time, he's seen zero games in person. 0 games in the Kingdome, 0 at Safeco Field, 0 anywhere else in North America, 0 in Peoria, Arizona. I can't think of any other owner who has owned a team as long as Yamauchi, who has never seen a game in person. Unbelievable. The definition of an absentee owner.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mongoose
    replied
    Originally posted by MATHA531 View Post
    Let me just throw one thought out at you without getting into a whole argument.....

    Nobody could foresee the meltdown of the national's and NYC's economy. Last summer with a weak dollar tourists were jamming NYC for bargains, snapping up real estate and in general the economy was booming.

    Then came Lehman Brothers and the whole thing caved in. If we knew then what we know now, of course there might have been second thoughts about building new stadiums such as Citi Field, Yankee Stadium III, the Meadowlands, the Rock.
    You're completely right about O'Malley and we generally agree here as well, but I feel I have to point a few things out to you.

    The weak dollar cut both ways. Oil was skyrocketing and there were other problems before those recent events. In spite of what you say the City was crying poverty that whole time:

    http://www.transalt.org/files/newsro...14transit.html

    The only way the public could have gotten a worse return for the money than Citi Field would have been if Wilpon had taken all that money and physically eaten it. (At least that would have been interesting to watch.)

    Even if the money had been given away, people would have at least been able to buy stuff and stimulate the economy.

    Using it for the new stadiums was more or less like flushing it down the toilet.

    Originally posted by MATHA531 View Post
    But I don't think it's fair to criticize the decision that after 44 years, it was time for Shea to go.
    Matha, Ebbets Field was older than Shea when it was demolished, and I know you didn't agree with that. Shea was sound and now was not the right time for a new stadium.

    And with all due respect... I'm not sure Ebbets meant more to you than Shea meant to me. It was the house of all my best baseball memories.

    Originally posted by MATHA531 View Post
    To my way of thinking, baseball, at least in New York as I noted, stopped being fan friendly with the resurgence of the Mets in the mid 1980's when the concept of being able to walk up to buy a general admission ticket (figuring at the time they would be about $5) became a thing of the past, when they decided, based on the fact they were drawing large crowds, to make all seats reserved seats and the $5 general admission ticket because a $10 Upper level Reserved. Since that happened, I have never attended another Met game at Shea.
    At that time an underemployed teenager could still afford a partial season plan, and I had one. I think General Admission tickets continued until at least 1990, but your observation is largely correct and tends to support my point:

    The real gouging didn't start until Wilpon emerged as de facto king of the Mets. Like yourself, that was also the time I became disenchanted with the team. Wilpon's money grubbing actually turned me off of the team I grew up with. How better to judge a bad owner?

    Originally posted by MATHA531 View Post
    The economy will determine quite a bit. If they're unable to sell all the luxury boxes in this decayng economy or all the seats, prices will come down and they will be begging for the blue collar fans to return. Only time will tell. But I'll leave you with one thought. I recently had a bout with kidney stones. I called my urologist, he listened to me and simply said to me, "This too shall pass." And you know something, he was right!
    Words of wisdom, but one shouldn't have to hope for a grim future in order to simply see a ballgame.
    Last edited by Mongoose; 11-21-2008, 04:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    To all who excuse Walter O'Malley for moving the Dodgers. And to those who believe he is an acceptable candidate for the Hall of Fame.

    I am not fighting a general fight against 'business decisions'. I am debating only one 'business decision'. One and only one.

    For anyone to shield O'Malley from criticism, to suggest he was justified in taking the Dodgers to LA, hear me clearly.

    O'Malley had the option to go to the Shea location, and look at what happened to the Mets. The Mets had fantastic attendance, in support of a terrible team. Imagine how much better the attendance might have been with a pennant contender!

    A baseball owner's 'business decisions' normally conform with pleasing his fans. To some extent. Money of course is important. Very important.

    In deciding to take the Dodgers out of NY, meant that he had to give 0% of consideration to the very fans who had made him filthy rich, and might have made him even much more filthy, filthy, filthy rich in the Shea location.

    Would the Brooklyn fans have been angered by that move. Yes, they would have been outraged. But . . . infinitely less outraged by taking them out of NY!!!

    For Walter O'Malley to make the decision to steal Brooklyn's team meant that he put 100% of his decision on money, and 0 on the fans who had made him a multi, multi millionaire.

    We are not debating business ethics in general, or capitalism/Marxism. We are merely discussing whether Mr. O'Malley was the worst owner who ever operated in MLB. And in view of that, Mr. O'Malley is easily one of baseball's arch-criminals.

    The Browns had lost their fan base in St. Louis. The Braves had lost their fan base in Boston. The Senators/Giants might have been losing money for their owners. The Dodgers were not a money-losing business proposition.

    The Dodgers were financial winners. Mr. O'Malley was an outsider suit who made all of his choices without regard for his fans. He didn't want to remain in NY, after he saw the profit of the Braves in Milwaukee.

    And Milwaukee, by the way, proved unable to sustain their attendance, once the novelty of having a ML franchise had worn off. And hence lost their team to Atlanta. If it ain't broke, don't destroy it.
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 11-21-2008, 04:20 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • digglahhh
    replied
    To briefly address Mongoose and Bill.

    When I say "business decision," I'm not saying that makes it something I agree with. Plenty of evil is done in the pursuit of profit. The road to riches is not paved with consideration, benevolence and rigid moral convictions.

    One can say that as one of the early "suits," O'Malley ushered in a lot of ugliness, and corporate think that has had detrimental effects on the game. One can also say, that the same breed of owners turned baseball into the booming business it is today, and are partly responsible for the expansive industry many benefit from (and also, in some ways, resent). The modern owner made baseball bigger, there were many decisions made to that end. We can debate whether bigger means better (or worse), but that's all I mean when I say business decision.

    Of anybody to defend decisions on the basis of making "business sense" I'm as unlikely as anybody here - how many other self-avowed Marxists do we have at BBF, after all?

    Sports represent weird "business models." As fans we invest our hearts (and also some bucks). As owners, one invests their bucks (and maybe some heart). Our wishes are not exactly the same, so it is often difficult to see decisions through the eyes of the other party. We can't pretend baseball isn't subject to dynamics of big business, while benefiting from things that large institution brings. We don't have to endorse moves because they make business sense, we don't even have to endorse the underlying values of big business. But, I think it is fair that we at least entertain the idea of judging business moves on their own terms, even if they are incongruent with our values as fans (or Marxists.)

    Leave a comment:


  • digglahhh
    replied
    Nice post, MATHA. I respect your civilty (as well as your intellect and knowledge on the subject) and I'll respond in kind.


    Originally posted by MATHA531 View Post
    1. I have heard a popular talk show host in New York, I won't tell you his name but his initials are CR, open up a record book and say to his audience, "What is so magical about the Brooklyn Dodgers. Look at this, they were only drawing 1,000,000 and more." Of course he had no clue about the attendance figures and the fact 1,000,000 in paid attendance in that day and age was considered very good. And the fall in attendance from 1947 to 1956 was mirrored by every other major league team as throughout the country the central cities were being deserted in favor of the good life in the suburbs and the two car garage.
    CR doesn't know his ass from his elbow, this is not news. Ironically, he (specifically his lips) are intimately familiar with is MF's ass.

    Originally posted by MATHA531 View Post
    2. Most people don't have a clue about what baseball meant to us growing up in Brooklyn as well as our parents and grandparents. It was the bond the cemented generations and I understand it may sound very strange today but that was then and this is now.
    I'll grant that it was a far greater "glue" than it is today. The romanticism with which this dynamic is referred is quite likely a bit overblown. That's nobody's fault, per se. The eras of yore are always mythologized over the accumulation of scores of pages of syruppy prose.

    Is it possible, that your affinity for this time and dynamic makes it difficult to divest yourself emotionally from the situation. That wouldn't make any of your assertions invalid, but it would be worthy of recognition.

    Originally posted by MATHA531
    . Recently we have been treated by a blitz from the Los Angeles National League team trying to deflect the blame from O'Malley to Bob Moses. I have always contended, and continue to do so, that while Bob Moses for the most part had a lot to answer for when he met his maker, on this issue he was absolutely right. Atlantic/Flatbush was not the right location for a 60,000 seat ballpark. Nor did he have the legal right, under New York eminent domain laws, to seize the land or buy the land or whatever from the Pennsylvania Railroad. Some say well Moses was all powerful and could do whatever he wanted. Well, as noted, it was clearly against the law. Don't you think there would have been taxpayer suits against this? Take a look at what's happening right now over the same land which today is public property and eminent domain is not an issue. Moses had it right on this issue. History shows the best location for the new Dodger ballpart was the future location of Shea Stadium in every which way. If you disagree with this, please explain what I'm missing.
    In many respects, Moses did do whatever he wanted. Moses was right in his perspective, legally speaking. Though I suspect that he wouldn't have let a little thing like the letter of the law interfere had he liked the plan, and respected O'Malley. And, yes, one can argue that the Shea location was optimum. But, the charge levied against O'Malley isn't that he wasn't enough of a visionary to recognize a wonderful option. The charge is that he hijacked the franchise. So, you'd basically have to prove a conspiracy of sorts: He know the Shea location was great, argued against it anyway because he wanted to fight the battle he knew he would lose, which would ultimately give him a justification for moving the franchise. Simply missing the boat on Flushing Meadow would only be evidence of poor judgment, not nefarious motive, per se.

    Originally posted by MATHA531
    4. It also cannot be disputed that Brooklyn was the biggest money maker in the National League even in 1957.
    Well, that doesn't mean one can't look to improve the situation and plan for the future (again, not that O'Malley made the best decisions, but we shouldn't be arguing to extol the virtues of complacency)

    Originally posted by MATHA531
    5. As an ardent anti Bob Moses person, I'm sure you read the "Power Broker." I believe there is only one mention of the Brooklyn Dodger situation in that book which was well over 700 pages long.
    From what I've read there was a chapter about the Dodgers in the first draft of the book, and it was cut during the editing the process. The original manuscript was over 1,000 pages, I believe. It also allegedly featured a chapter about Jane Jacobs, among other topics.


    Originally posted by MATHA531
    But you really can't divorce the issues that people who lived through it felt then and continue to feel now.
    I commend you for at least acknowledging this.

    Leave a comment:


  • MATHA531
    replied
    Originally posted by Mongoose View Post
    Matha, I've got lots of respect for you, but... Yeah, I'm telling you the Mets shouldn't have left Shea Stadium. As far as municipal affairs go, all we seem to hear is that the city is broke. Transit fares are set to rise yet again - I can't even count how many times since Bloomberg's election... Much of the tax base is evaporating... There's even talk of turning the East River bridges into toll bridges.

    In a climate like this, to demolish a perfectly good facility and spend upwards of $1,000,000,000.00 (including "improvements to infrastructure") on a new one is nuts. And make no mistake, one way or another the bulk of this will come out of the public till. I could list all the ways, but it's been documented on other threads and I've got work to do.

    The main reason for Citi Field was to generate more season tickets, luxury box revenue and franchise value for Fred Wilpon (and a few cronies).

    Honoring Jackie Robinson and the Dodgers is just a moral fig leaf.

    Maybe such fiscal shenanigans aren't unique among owners, but given New York's situation they're inexcusable.

    As far as the product on the field, I stand by what I said. Wilpon is the main culprit for all the anonymous forgettable teams of mercenaries we've had since the 86 team was dismantled.

    Is Wilpon the worst owner? I never said he was. Is he a bad owner? At best, he keeps the team good enough to draw fans but doesn't seem too fanatical about making them good enough to win it all (I give George credit for really wanting to win). At worst, he's a money-grubbing jerk that feels Mets fans should take a hike if they can't afford season tickets.

    Yeah, I'd say he's a bad owner.
    Let me just throw one thought out at you without getting into a whole argument.....

    Nobody could foresee the meltdown of the national's and NYC's economy. Last summer with a weak dollar tourists were jamming NYC for bargains, snapping up real estate and in general the economy was booming.

    Then came Lehman Brothers and the whole thing caved in. If we knew then what we know now, of course there might have been second thoughts about building new stadiums such as Citi Field, Yankee Stadium III, the Meadowlands, the Rock. But I don't think it's fair to criticize the decision that after 44 years, it was time for Shea to go.

    To my way of thinking, baseball, at least in New York as I noted, stopped being fan friendly with the resurgence of the Mets in the mid 1980's when the concept of being able to walk up to buy a general admission ticket (figuring at the time they would be about $5) became a thing of the past, when they decided, based on the fact they were drawing large crowds, to make all seats reserved seats and the $5 general admission ticket because a $10 Upper level Reserved. Since that happened, I have never attended another Met game at Shea.

    The economy will determine quite a bit. If they're unable to sell all the luxury boxes in this decayng economy or all the seats, prices will come down and they will be begging for the blue collar fans to return. Only time will tell. But I'll leave you with one thought. I recently had a bout with kidney stones. I called my urologist, he listened to me and simply said to me, "This too shall pass." And you know something, he was right!
    Last edited by MATHA531; 11-21-2008, 02:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mongoose
    replied
    Originally posted by MATHA531 View Post
    Are you seriously trying to tell us the Mets should not be leaving Shea Stadium? Whetehr rightly or wrongly, Wilpon wanted to model the new ballpark after Ebbets Field what with its small cozy confines. To achieve that, smaller is better. Of course somebody has to pay. Hopefully the deal with Citigroup will not fall aprt because of the apprent problems the bank is having. I don't think greed played in here.

    The Mets have been a successful team recently. I know they haven't won the whole kit and kaboodle (sp) but that's just as much a matter of luck. They have built a team capable of winning which is all you can do and leave the rest to the baseball gods. The Scott Kazmir trade certainly doesn't look good but it was done on the advice of some of the baseball people; especially Rick Peterson. Whether Kazmir will ever become a truly dominant pitcher, well the jury is still out on that. It was a poor trade but it wasn't done for reasons of greed. It was simply a wrong baseball decision.

    They've had some "characters" the last few years. Certianly Pedro Martinez. Jose Reyes is a "character" and is condemned for that.

    I think to a degree Wilpon faced many of the same problems the current owners of the Los Angeles National League baseball team does...namely he was very leveraged because while rich in terms of most of us, he wasn't overly rich and didn't have the ability to print money the Yankees acquired. But once he got his own network, the value of the franchise has skyrocketed and he and osn Jeff have allowed Omar Minaya, for better or for worse (I think for the most part better but there are those who might disagree a tad) make the baseball decisions.

    They must be doing something right as Forbes rates them the third most valuable franchise in the major leagues behind only the Yankees and the Red Sox.

    Unfortunately, new stadiums come with price tags. But the days of being able to walk up to the window on game day and buy a general admission ticket for $1.50 as I did when I was a kid and sit in the upper level behind home plate have long since ended and ended long before Wilpon acquired sole control of the team.

    Is he the greatest owner? No. Is he one of the worst? I don't think anybody can fairly say that.
    Matha, I've got lots of respect for you, but... Yeah, I'm telling you the Mets shouldn't have left Shea Stadium. As far as municipal affairs go, all we seem to hear is that the city is broke. Transit fares are set to rise yet again - I can't even count how many times since Bloomberg's election... Much of the tax base is evaporating... There's even talk of turning the East River bridges into toll bridges.

    In a climate like this, to demolish a perfectly good facility and spend upwards of $1,000,000,000.00 (including "improvements to infrastructure") on a new one is nuts. And make no mistake, one way or another the bulk of this will come out of the public till. I could list all the ways, but it's been documented on other threads and I've got work to do.

    The main reason for Citi Field was to generate more season tickets, luxury box revenue and franchise value for Fred Wilpon (and a few cronies).

    Honoring Jackie Robinson and the Dodgers is just a moral fig leaf.

    Maybe such fiscal shenanigans aren't unique among owners, but given New York's situation they're inexcusable.

    As far as the product on the field, I stand by what I said. Wilpon is the main culprit for all the anonymous forgettable teams of mercenaries we've had since the 86 team was dismantled.

    Is Wilpon the worst owner? I never said he was. Is he a bad owner? At best, he keeps the team good enough to draw fans but doesn't seem too fanatical about making them good enough to win it all (I give George credit for really wanting to win). At worst, he's a money-grubbing jerk that feels Mets fans should take a hike if they can't afford season tickets.

    Yeah, I'd say he's a bad owner.

    Leave a comment:


  • MATHA531
    replied
    Originally posted by Mongoose View Post
    I know he's not on the same level as O'Malley, but I'd like to give special mention to Fred Wilpon.

    The period in which he emerged as the Mets principal owner, was marked by his philosophy being imposed on the team...

    Gone were all the "colorful" players who'd won it all in 86. Guys like Dykstra, McDowell, Mitchell, etc. were replaced by a bunch of "safe" veterans. The end result was the famous "Worst Team Money Could Buy". Players with any personality continue to be shipped out to this day - for example: Lastings Milledge wound up with a roughly comparable year to Ryan Church and his potential upside is much higher... Plus he was 23 and locked into a low salary for years to come. But Milledge made the mistake of showing enthusiasm and recording a rap video, so he was soon gone.

    Petty players with Wilpon's ear instigate disastrous personnel decisions like the Kazmir trade.

    For the most part, Wilpon's Mets have been a parade of colorless mercenary veterans. Wilpon's era has made being a Mets fan a trying experience.

    And there's his greed: Wilpon was not satisfied with paid attendance of 4 million fans a year... There weren't enough luxury boxes and too many seats for the peasants; he had to agitate for a new stadium that solved these "problems". Citi Field now has many more luxury boxes, but 15,000 fewer seats. The goal was to extort more fans into buying season tickets. And what if they don't have $3000 up front to lay down for a pair? Too bad!

    The problem is the whole move to exclude the public is largely on the public's coin.

    And because Wilpon has no respect for his own franchise's history and accomplishments, it was built as a supposed homage to Ebbets Field!

    As I stated in another thread, the Brooklyn stuff seems monumentally insincere because Citi Field is an inversion of what the old Ebbets Field stood for. My father and uncle who remembered it well described the place as homespun, working class and rambunctious.

    Citi Field was built to exclude the fans who would have been the old Ebbets Field fan base and who didn't have to be excluded... and Citi Field will do this while wearing an Ebbets Field costume.

    Nice.

    The Mets were always considered New York's "People's Team" unlike the Yankees. At this point the only real difference is that the Mets don't win as much.

    So I humbly move to nominate Wilpon for (dis)honorable mention.
    Are you seriously trying to tell us the Mets should not be leaving Shea Stadium? Whetehr rightly or wrongly, Wilpon wanted to model the new ballpark after Ebbets Field what with its small cozy confines. To achieve that, smaller is better. Of course somebody has to pay. Hopefully the deal with Citigroup will not fall aprt because of the apprent problems the bank is having. I don't think greed played in here.

    The Mets have been a successful team recently. I know they haven't won the whole kit and kaboodle (sp) but that's just as much a matter of luck. They have built a team capable of winning which is all you can do and leave the rest to the baseball gods. The Scott Kazmir trade certainly doesn't look good but it was done on the advice of some of the baseball people; especially Rick Peterson. Whether Kazmir will ever become a truly dominant pitcher, well the jury is still out on that. It was a poor trade but it wasn't done for reasons of greed. It was simply a wrong baseball decision.

    They've had some "characters" the last few years. Certianly Pedro Martinez. Jose Reyes is a "character" and is condemned for that.

    I think to a degree Wilpon faced many of the same problems the current owners of the Los Angeles National League baseball team does...namely he was very leveraged because while rich in terms of most of us, he wasn't overly rich and didn't have the ability to print money the Yankees acquired. But once he got his own network, the value of the franchise has skyrocketed and he and osn Jeff have allowed Omar Minaya, for better or for worse (I think for the most part better but there are those who might disagree a tad) make the baseball decisions.

    They must be doing something right as Forbes rates them the third most valuable franchise in the major leagues behind only the Yankees and the Red Sox.

    Unfortunately, new stadiums come with price tags. But the days of being able to walk up to the window on game day and buy a general admission ticket for $1.50 as I did when I was a kid and sit in the upper level behind home plate have long since ended and ended long before Wilpon acquired sole control of the team.

    Is he the greatest owner? No. Is he one of the worst? I don't think anybody can fairly say that.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X