Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

worst owner ever

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Melottfan
    Chas. Comiskey. I'll tell you why. I blame him for the 1919 Series fix. He refused to pay his players top dollar. Only Eddie Collins, 2b, was earning an honest paycheck, so to speak, $14,500. Collins had it in his contract. The rest of the team earned between $3,000 to $9,000. Shoeless Joe Jackson I
    believed made $6,000. Meal money players got $3.00 a day, compared to $4.00 what other teams of the day were getting. He refused to clean the unfiorms. When the players wore dirty uni's, Comiskey had money deducted from their checks to clean them. When they won the pennant in '19
    their bonus, case of flat champagne. Let's not forget the bonus of $10,000 promised to Cicotte if he won 30 games. Comiskey had Cicotte out of the rotation in order not to pay Cicotte the bonus when Ciccotte won 29.

    Comiskey hands down.
    Okay most of this is just myths. For starters Ray Schalk was the highest paid catcher in the league. Buck Weaver was the highest paid third basemen, and Commy did not bench Cicotte to prevent a bonus from kicking in. Eddie failed to get to thirty and he had plenty of chances to get to 30 when he got to 29 wins. Joe Jackson's contract is his fault he signed it when he was in Cleveland that wasn't Charlie's doing.

    Comment


    • #77
      Yeah, I think Comiskey was a tight wad. But I don't think he was any tighter than most owners during that time period. I think he gets a bad rap from the Black Sox sentimentalists.

      BEFORE 1920 he was hailed often as one of the Best owners in baseball. He would often stand for hours under the bleachers before and after games interacting with the fans to hear what they thought about the team.

      He also cared and tried hard to assemble a great team.

      Frazee was the worst owner of all time to me. The guy totally destroyed the Red Sox franchise. I have a feeling had it not been for Frazee the Red Sox would have been the Yankees and vice-versa.

      :atthepc

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Chisox
        Any owner of the Saint Louis Browns has to be considered a favorite. Or is that least favorite?

        Please tell me that you did exactly ZERO research before posting this. Bill Veeck should be involved in any conversation involving the BEST owners in BB history, not the worst!
        I'm a Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech and a Hell of an Engineer!

        Comment


        • #79
          You forgot JEFFREY LORIA!!!!!!
          The guy single handedly killed two franchise regions: Southern Florida and Montreal.....
          REMEMBER THE EXPOS

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by NeverGetOverIt View Post
            O'Malley made a greedy, deceptive decision. Baseball at that time was a professional sport, not just a cash cow. The team was making money and was loved by New Yorkers, and the games were well attended. O'Malley was the worst owner, he betrayed the fans solely for greed. I hope he has the hottest spot in hell.:grouchy
            O'Malley also had an aging team, an undesirable ballpark and declining attendance. The Dodgers made money through the 50s but a portion of that came from World Series appearances and O'Malley had a team that was getting old and had a good chance of not being able to compete with the Milwaukee Braves. The Dodgers also had a higher overhead then most teams because of their large farm system.

            The Brooklyn Dodgers attendance figures during O'Malley's tenure as president (1951-1957 seasons) do not support your statement that the games were well attended.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by EdTarbusz View Post
              O'Malley also had an aging team, an undesirable ballpark and declining attendance. The Dodgers made money through the 50s but a portion of that came from World Series appearances and O'Malley had a team that was getting old and had a good chance of not being able to compete with the Milwaukee Braves. The Dodgers also had a higher overhead then most teams because of their large farm system.

              The Brooklyn Dodgers attendance figures during O'Malley's tenure as president (1951-1957 seasons) do not support your statement that the games were well attended.
              History, of course, shows that this is UTTER NONSENSE

              1. Brooklyn had, by far, the best radio television package in baseball; better than even the Yankees. There was no possibility in an interuption of their cash flow. A radio television package the Milwaukee Braves could not possibly match in 50,000,000 years.

              2. Due to this and good attendance for the times (drawing 1,000,000 was the delineation between good attendance and fair attendance) as the Dodgers drew over 1,000,000 even in their lame duck season when everybody knew what this piece of garbage was going to pull.

              3. The farm system was producing as evidenced by the fact they were to win the World Series in 1959 and become very much a contender from 1961 on. The ground work for this was laid down while still in Brooklyn.

              4. The Milwaukee thing, of course, proved to be an illusion.

              There was no defense then and there remains no defense today for what he pulled. It is the blackest mark in the history of baseball and was one of the factors, when it was shown that no matter how well you supported your team, the need for greed transcended this, and helped paved the way for the demise of baseball as the national pastime as the ascendary of the NFL quickly followed.

              There should have been a fail safe then where a Commissioner with a pair of you know whats could have stepped in and said this is not in the best interests of baseball which it clearly wasn't. And none of this how for the good of baseball, it was necessary to have teams on the west coast. That's true but it should have been an expansion team or a team that was a failure.

              The Brooklyn Dodgers, and I know you continue with tyour theory as expressed in your reply which has no basis in reality, were far from a failure in the 1950's. They remain a symbol of the fact that greed transcends everything else, at least for some people. You base what you believe on what you read which in many respects tells half truths and more often lies about what happened in 1957. I was there and I know what happened from personal experience. Unfortunately, after all this time, you still don't get it.

              Comment


              • #82
                I think that opening up the west coast was in the best interest of baseball and that is probably what the commissioner was looking at. Without an adequete stadium deal, I don't think there was any chance of the Dodgers remaining in Brooklyn.

                Since O'Malley didn't posses a crystal ball any mention of post 1957 events isn't germane to this conversation, in my opinion.

                I don;t think the Brooklyn Dodgers were in failure in the 1950s, but the there was a strong possibility that they were on their way to failure. I think that's what O'Malley wanted to avoid.

                As far as you being there, what are your recollections of what went on in the Dodger and City of New York boardrooms?

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by EdTarbusz View Post
                  I think that opening up the west coast was in the best interest of baseball and that is probably what the commissioner was looking at. Without an adequete stadium deal, I don't think there was any chance of the Dodgers remaining in Brooklyn.

                  Since O'Malley didn't posses a crystal ball any mention of post 1957 events isn't germane to this conversation, in my opinion.

                  I don;t think the Brooklyn Dodgers were in failure in the 1950s, but the there was a strong possibility that they were on their way to failure. I think that's what O'Malley wanted to avoid.

                  As far as you being there, what are your recollections of what went on in the Dodger and City of New York boardrooms?
                  There was a very lucrative stadium deal on the table. The Dodgers were being offered the exact same deal the Mets were later to get which turned out to be one of the best Stadium deals in baseball history.

                  The move was made for one reason and one reason only. The greed of Mr. O'Malley who not satisfied with being the biggest money maker in the National League, and there was no danger whatsoever of that changing everything cosidered, decided that wasn't good enough for him.

                  We must also throw in the give him anything he want immoral stand of the city officials in Los Angeles who didn't give a damn about the proper use of the land at Chavez Ravine.

                  From a baseball viewpoint, from a moral viewpoint, there was no justification for the theft of the Brooklyn franchise. From a greed viewpoint, well as noted that was the end of any notion that there was any civic responsibility in baseball which baseball tried to sell on the public. Even fans living outside of Brooklyn saw the immorality of this whole thing.

                  And this played a very very big role in the end of the dominance of major league baseball as the national pastime. From then on, it was the NFL.

                  And what happened post 1957 is very germane to show this was then and remains by far the blackest moment in the history of professional sports in this country. There is no close second.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    I don't inderstand what was immoral about the Chavez Ravine deal or how immorality even factors into a discussion of baseball.

                    I think the Shea Stadium was not not considered lucaritive by O'Malley because he was on the record as wanting to own the stadium that the Dodgers played in. I think staying in New York would have also meant that O'Malley would be a second banana in both baseball and political circles, which he obviously wasn't in LA. I don't think the Dodger move was nessicarily made out of greed, but a move by O'Malley to protect his investment and move out of a stagnant situation. If Brooklyn Dodgers fans are looking for someone to blame for the move, they blame the city officials of New York, not Walter O'Malley. Dodgers ownership was on record as far back as 1948 that the only way the Dodgers could remain viable in Brooklyn was to replace Ebbets Field. Apparently New York officials never took this seriously.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by EdTarbusz View Post
                      I don't inderstand what was immoral about the Chavez Ravine deal or how immorality even factors into a discussion of baseball.

                      I think the Shea Stadium was not not considered lucaritive by O'Malley because he was on the record as wanting to own the stadium that the Dodgers played in. I think staying in New York would have also meant that O'Malley would be a second banana in both baseball and political circles, which he obviously wasn't in LA. I don't think the Dodger move was nessicarily made out of greed, but a move by O'Malley to protect his investment and move out of a stagnant situation. If Brooklyn Dodgers fans are looking for someone to blame for the move, they blame the city officials of New York, not Walter O'Malley. Dodgers ownership was on record as far back as 1948 that the only way the Dodgers could remain viable in Brooklyn was to replace Ebbets Field. Apparently New York officials never took this seriously.
                      Definition of greed: Greed is the selfish desire for or pursuit of money, wealth, power, food, or other possessions, especially when this denies the same goods to others. It is generally considered a vice, and is one of the seven deadly sins in Catholicism.

                      Mr. O'Malley certainly fits under this definition.

                      As far as putting the blame on the city officials in New York, what were they to do? Hand over to him property they did not own (Atlantic/Flatbush)..eminent domain laws exist to prevent this sort of thing.

                      Why didn't Mr. O'Malley go out, the same way Charlie Ebbets had a generation earlier, and negotiate with the Pennsylvania Railroad himself to set a fair price? Mr. O'Malley wanted the City of New York to condemn this land under laws designed to encourage building of public properties such as schools, hospitals, highways, whatever. Certainly the construction of a privately owned baseball stadium does not fit under this definition or do you disagree with that?

                      The fact is all the franchise shifts that occurred around that time were not because of handouts by various city politicians. In each case, the teams were moving into publically owned stadiums so why shouldn't Mr. O'Malley?

                      The future location of Shea Stadium was perfect. It was at the confluence of three highways to bring in his many fans who had moved to Long Island but also with subway connections to allow fans still living in Brooklyn easy access to the Stadium. And the lease deal with the Mets was, of course, considered one of the best in the history of sports. He could have had the same thing but wanted his own.

                      Now the immorality on the part of the city politicians in LA comes from the fact that they had originally condemned the land in Chavez Ravine, using eminent domain no doubt, for public housing. But that got bogged down and they decided to hand over the land (well O'Malley did give them back Wrigley Field but interestingly enough never made an offer to exchange the land at Ebbets Field, he had already sold that to make a profit but that's all another story isn't it)...much against, of course, what the intent of eminent domain laws were all about.

                      In blunt terms, O'Malley tried to blackmail the city officials in New York. As a baseball fan, I suppose I should have been in favor of that. As a taxpayer, it was something that the taxpayers of New York City did not deserve obviously.

                      It was also clear, even then, that it was the wrong place to put a ballpark given the lack of highway access to that area. Mr. O'Malley claimed the fans would all take the subways and the LIRR there at a time when the automobile was starting to become king in America. That too was very short sighted if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt or an indication that he was using Atlantic/Flatbush as a smoke screen, that he intended to move but wanted to try to seem like he was trying to save for history and also to have the fans continue to spend their money and loyalty on the team as long as he could.

                      You keep continuing to think there was any chance of a decrease in revenue. Channel 9 and the radio network had very deep pockets so there was no danger of that whatsoever.

                      And of course, while you seem to think we shouldn't use our knowledge of what ultimately has happened, a genius might have been able to figure it out. The fact is the Mets (and Yankees) thanks to their very favorable leases, the passion of East Coast baseball fans, and their regional networks have the ability to all but print money. That is why in the Forbes rankings of the value of baseball teams they far beat out the current imposter organization playing on the West Coast. That is a fact that cannot be argued. As a matter of fact, I have read several columnists talk about a bit of a problem in the LA National League's team cash flow problems. Don't know how true it is but clearly they are no match for the Mets.

                      All of this could have been O'Malley's but he felt the need for greed (see definition above). He told a generation of fans, tough luck, I don't give a damn how much you support the team. It is mine and I have the right to make more money on your backs because an immoral city government in Los Angeles is giving me free land.

                      Of course, we can't leave out some of the greedy things Mr. O'Malley did after his theft of the franchise from Brooklyn upon arriving in Los Angeles. Let's not forget the mockery he made of the game by playing his home games at a venue where many of the seats were so far from the action, they might as well have been in Pasadena. And then the ridiculous distances to left field with the screen (at least Ebbets Field was 297 to right field)...why did he do this and not play in Wrigley Field, a real baseball stadium? Then there was the fact he ripped all of the team's games off of free television waiting for the pay television that was still decades away. Or when he finally opened the Stadium at Chavez Ravine, there were no water fountains all the better to get you to buy soda and beer. Yes, these were all marks of a true sportsman.

                      And as noted, that is where the Commissioner had every obligation to step in and act in the best interests of baseball. Bowie Kuhn claims he would have (I do understand talk is cheap especially after the fact).

                      But as noted, ultimately baseball was the big loser because the ascent of the NFL, thanks to the NY based media hooking on to the NY Giants football team, immediately followed.

                      As I said, nobody will ever convince me that this wasn't one of the blackest moments in the history of baseball, the contempt for its fans in the pursuit of greed.
                      Last edited by MATHA531; 11-19-2008, 06:57 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Public housing in Chavez Ravine didn't get bogged down by politicians. The plan was scrapped because of a referendum in which the voters voted down the plan.

                        O'Malley wanted the Board of Estimate to condemn the land he wanted so that he could pay a fair market price for it, The Board of Estimate (unlike Moses's department) had the power of eminent domain, but all five boros had a vote in it, and thwere was little interest outside Brooklyn for O'Malley's plan. To do it the same way that Ebbets did it was impossible.

                        If the Forbes rankings were available in O'Malley's lifetime, I get the impression that he wouldn't have cared if the Mets were more valuable than the Dodgers. he got what he wanted in LA, and I doubt that he would have been as powerful an owner if he stayed in New York, because he would havce always played second fiddle to the Yankees. i see him mainly as someone who feared for the future of his franchise and not the greedy ******* that he is usually portrayed as.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by EdTarbusz View Post
                          Public housing in Chavez Ravine didn't get bogged down by politicians. The plan was scrapped because of a referendum in which the voters voted down the plan.

                          O'Malley wanted the Board of Estimate to condemn the land he wanted so that he could pay a fair market price for it, The Board of Estimate (unlike Moses's department) had the power of eminent domain, but all five boros had a vote in it, and thwere was little interest outside Brooklyn for O'Malley's plan. To do it the same way that Ebbets did it was impossible.

                          If the Forbes rankings were available in O'Malley's lifetime, I get the impression that he wouldn't have cared if the Mets were more valuable than the Dodgers. he got what he wanted in LA, and I doubt that he would have been as powerful an owner if he stayed in New York, because he would havce always played second fiddle to the Yankees. i see him mainly as someone who feared for the future of his franchise and not the greedy ******* that he is usually portrayed as.
                          So Ed, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. You have your viewpoint, which you are certainly entitled to and I don't begrudge it, and I have my view point. Nobody is ever going to change my belief of what kind of greedy scoundrel O'Malley was. I will always believe that being a lawyer he knew Atlantic/Flatbush was a no go from the start. As a pragmatic person, he had to know it was not the right place for a 60,000 seat ballpark. That was true then and remains true to this day. The perfect location was Flushing Meadow; it was then and it is now.

                          His actions, which you didn't answer about, once he got to LA speak for themselves as to just what kind of a "sportsman" he was.

                          There is only one question here from a sports viewpoint. Did the Brooklyn fans who supported the team through thick and thin, and the attendance figures show that as the Dodgers led the National League by a wide margin in overall attendance during the 10 year period from 1947 to 1956. You can't put it in 21st century terms, you put it in 20th century terms. All teams suffered from a decrease in attendance as the 50's wore on. The Milwaukee thing turned out to be an illusion but even with their attendance figures, Milwaukee had no radio/tv market to speak of and the Dodgers were rolling in lots of money from their radio network and television situation. That simply cannot be left out of the equation.

                          But as time passes, and the people from Brooklyn whose hearts were broken by this greedy person start leaving this world, the myth of how Walter O'Malley did everything he could do to keep the team in New York and when big bad Robert Moses didn't fall for his blackmail had no choice but to move the team to the West Coast as he was in danger of losing money, which is absurd of course and what you seem unable to understand, will become fact rather than fiction.

                          Mr. O'Malley represented the worst in baseball ownership and his theft of the Brooklyn franchise was the first step in the degradation of major league baseball as the national pastime. Of that, there can be little doubt if one examines the facts carefully.

                          But as I said, you're entitled to your opinion, wrong as it may be.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Whoa!

                            I didn't know the ghost of Robert Moses was a member of BBF...

                            The clash of egos between O'Mallley and Moses was a big part of the whole feud and, ultimately, the outcome. Neither Moses nor O'Malley, despite occasional lip service paid to contrary, were willing to budge on their positions/demands. The merits of the Queens deal aside, I believe that O'Malley truly believed that he was backed into a corner.

                            But, discussing the whole situation with the crestfallen Brooklynites who wear faux PTSD as a self-righteous badge of their conviction is like debating the finer nuances of Darwin's theories on evolution with the Pope (or Carl Everett).

                            Despite what you may feel, MATHA, the moral imperative in the situation was not the fragile emotional states of the Brooklyn Dodger fanbase, it was making the move that was best for the city (Dodger fans' feelings being but an element of that), or from a Commish perspective what is best for the sport of baseball as a whole. The absurdly irrational perspective of the Bk devotees is evidenced in statements like the one condemning L.A's offer as immoral. L.A. has the same moral obligation to its population as New York did to its population - to make a decision in the best interest of the city. It's not supposed to look out for the interests of diehards from BK, and public housing referendum was voted down, as Ed mentioned. Welcome to capitalism, hombre - sucks doesn't it?...

                            The Dodgers were not "stolen." The Supersonics were stolen!
                            Last edited by digglahhh; 11-19-2008, 11:40 AM.
                            THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

                            In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by MATHA531 View Post
                              But as noted, ultimately baseball was the big loser because the ascent of the NFL, thanks to the NY based media hooking on to the NY Giants football team, immediately followed.
                              Grasp for straws much?
                              THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

                              In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Here are some of the Brooklyn attendance numbers, according to Total Baseball.

                                1941 - 1,214,910 - 1st place
                                1942 - 1,037,765 - 1st
                                1943 - 661,739 - 1st
                                1944 - 605,905 - 3rd to Giants/Cubs (Walter's 1st. year as a Brooklyn investor.)
                                1945 - 1,036,386 - 1st
                                1946 - 1,796,824 - 1st
                                1947 - 1,807,526 - 1st (1st yr. of Jackie Robinson)
                                1948 - 1,398,967 - 4th after Cardinals, Giants, Braves
                                1949 - 1,633,747 - 1st
                                1950 - 1,185,896 - 2nd to Phillies (1st yr. of TV)
                                1951 - 1,282,628 - 1st
                                1952 - 1,088,704 - 1st
                                1953 - 1,163,419 - 2nd to Milwaukee's 1st season
                                1954 - 1,020,531 - 4th after Milwaukee, Giants, Cardinals
                                1955 - 1,033,589 - 2nd after Milwaukee
                                1956 - 1,213,562 - 2nd after Milwaukee
                                1957 - 1,028,258 - 5th after Milwaukee, Cardinals, Phillies, Reds (fans knew the team was probably leaving, and still turned out!)

                                From the chart above, I hope it is obvious that Walter enjoyed the most loyal fans in the game. They had a much smaller fan pool than had the Yankees, and yet, they continuously poured into little Ebbets Field, which was much less luxurious than was Yankee Stadium, which enjoyed a much better neighborhood, and better transportation convenience via subways.

                                Ebbets Field only held 32,000. So, the fans were averaging about 14,000 fans/game all through the 50's. That averages out to about .43% of capacity/game.

                                It was these fans who Walter was indebted to for his wealth. He started with a lot of money, and ended up a multi, multi millionaire, all due to his fans.

                                Walter O'Malley enjoyed the most loyal fans in the game. I do not see baseball as a bakery. There is normally a special bond between a baseball team owner and his fans. Under normal circumstances, the owner owes his wealth to his fans. They are his bread and butter, put the meat on his table, pay for his kids' education and his parents health care. The fans pay his players' salaries, his ballpark's maintenance, and all his park vendors, from the concessions to the parking.

                                It is the fan's who pay for it all. And from the chart above, I don't see the argument for leaving. Walter was a very lucky man to have such fans. Not all his fans were rich. Most were blue collar working stiffs. And many ended up being black. And despite the apartheid social climate outside Ebbets Field, there was harmony, and a good sportsmanship feeling inside its walls.

                                Walter was dazzled by the Milwaukee move. Despite his being supported by his fan base, he wanted more. More fans, bigger, better ballpark, more wealth.

                                He was like the guy who married his pretty high-school girlfriend, and after a successful 10-year marriage, gets his head turned by a gorgeous, rich woman, and dumps the loyal partner who stood by him in the lean years, and goes for the 'greener pastures'.

                                I will never have any sympathy for the scumbag that they just had the horrible taste to honor with the Hall of Fame. Sorry all of you guys calling it a 'business decision'. Baseball should be about more than the money. And for those who treat it that way, honoring them with the Hall of Fame is an ongoing ugly disgrace. But then again, the game of baseball has seldom been about doing the right thing.
                                Last edited by Bill Burgess; 11-19-2008, 09:09 PM.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X