Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

worst owner ever

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    Brian McKenna
    Registered User

  • Brian McKenna
    replied
    Originally posted by MATHA531
    The O'Malley thing can never be overdone.
    Yeah, I was over the top with my comments. I'll back off them. My apologies.
    Bill Burgess
    Registered User
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 10-22-2005, 11:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:

  • oscargamblesfro
    Registered User

  • oscargamblesfro
    replied
    i think it all depends on what your criteria for worst owner is- is it the owner who moved a franchise out of town like o'malley, stoneham, etc, an owner who is extremely cheap like a comiskey, or an owner who wrecked a team or was a satellite of a more wealthy or powerful club such as a frazee?...i think this topic therefore can be broken down into three sub-categories
    oscargamblesfro
    Registered User
    Last edited by oscargamblesfro; 10-22-2005, 10:55 AM.

    Leave a comment:

  • MATHA531
    Registered User

  • MATHA531
    replied
    Originally posted by bkmckenna
    The Brooklyn thing is way overdone. O'Malley made a tough decision and proved to be farsighted in his thinking.
    The O'Malley thing can never be overdone. O'Malley was a piece of garbage, who decided that just because he was making a mint, and the Brooklyn franchise was the 2nd biggest money maker in baseball through the 11 year period from 1947 to 1957, it wasn't good enough for him. He lied through his head over heels, he had the unmitigated gall to be entertaining emissaries from Los Angeles in his private box during the 1956 World Series and then he kept telling the people in Brooklyn that he would build this beautiful domed satadium at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues when he knew damn well this land was not owned by the City of New York and NY State law prohibited it from being condemned to give the land to another private organization.

    And Brooklyn has never gotten a franchise back. It was indeed terrible what Irsay did to Baltimore but you got an NFL franchise back a few years later. Brooklyn never got and never will get its franchise back.

    So there is no comparison, none whatsoever, between the Baltimore situation and the Brooklyn situation. And I saw plenty of games at Ebbets Field and the park was certainly not falling apart in 1957; it was younger than Wrigley Field, Fenway Park and Briggs (Tiger) Stadium which lasted well into the 1990's and are still operating today so don't tell me he had to get out. He made a real estate deal to sell the land Ebbets Field was built on for housing. He claimed he would take the Brooklyn games off free television and substitue pay television to pay for his ball park; despite the fact the technology did not exist in 1957.

    I could go on and on describe what a sub human piece of slime this man was. May he continue to rot in hell!
    Bill Burgess
    Registered User
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 10-22-2005, 11:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:

  • Brian McKenna
    Registered User

  • Brian McKenna
    replied
    The Brooklyn thing is a overdone. O'Malley made a tough decision and proved to be farsighted in his thinking. Financially, the game thrived because of it - New York got another team within four years and baseball tapped the West Coast.

    Many other cities in baseball, and other sports have been so victimized.
    Brian McKenna
    Registered User
    Last edited by Brian McKenna; 10-22-2005, 11:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:

  • 64Cards
    Registered User

  • 64Cards
    replied
    Originally posted by theAmazingMet
    Walter O'Malley and Horace Stoneham.
    I would go with Stoneham. I guess you can give O'Malley some props for having succesful teams, making a lot of money and putting up an excellent ballpark, although what he did to Brooklyn was unforgivable. But every other pro sports owner should bow to a statue of O'M, because they were able to extort virtually anything from their communities after.

    But Stoneham inherited the franchise with the most tradition and success in NY and before long it was a clearcut 3rd in fan support. His team won the pennant in 51 with the most memorable comeback, wins everything in 54 with a stunning upset, a 4 game sweep on the Injuns, he has the most exciting player in the game and within 2 years his team is drawing 600K. I got a feeling he had absolutely no marketing ability. He was going to move to Minneapolis because he thought he could copy the same success the Braves were having. But he goes along with O'Malley, goes to SF and ends up with possibly the worst ballpark ever built, in a horrible, cold location. Has some decent teams, but only could win 1 pennant, mostly because LA collapsed the last week of the 62 season. By the mid-70's the Giants were a mess on the field and at the gate, I think he was looking to move the team to Toronto or Tampa. Finally sold it, the Giants got some intelligent owners, began drawing well, finally got a great new park in a terrific location. [If I remember correctly, Horace wanted an ugly dome, blocking out SF's nice sunny weather] Horace was a boob.
    Bill Burgess
    Registered User
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 10-22-2005, 11:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:

  • yanks0714
    Yanks Fan Since 1957

  • yanks0714
    replied
    Originally posted by dgarza
    H. Wayne Huizenga??? I don't know, just kinda throwing a name out there...
    I can go fort this one big time. This guy came into MLB saying he can buy a pennant. Raised ticket prices, parking, and concession to pay for the high-priced players he brought in. Proceeded to do so in '97. Then, tired of it all and proving his point, sold off the players, dismantled the team, and sold the team to the highest bidder......while leving the fans stuck with higher prices and a poor on field product.

    Yes, King George tries to buy pennants too BUT he's hung in there for 32 years now and does turn his profits back into the ballclub.

    Other bad owners:
    Commiskey (I'm convinced he knew of the fix and profited by it + he was so cheap that led to the Black Sox).

    William Baker Not well known but what he did to what was potentially a very good team and taking the fans across.

    Peter Angelos Why does this guy think he knows anything about baseball? he's tried to be a cheaper version of Steinbrenner but with much less results. The O's used to be a proud franchise. Now, they are a joke.

    Harry Frazee For obvious well documented reasons.

    These are my top 5.
    Bill Burgess
    Registered User
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 10-22-2005, 10:24 AM.

    Leave a comment:

  • MATHA531
    Registered User

  • MATHA531
    replied
    There is only one worst owner and that is that sub human piece of garbage slime ball Walter O'Malley for stealing the Dodgers from the borugh of Brooklyn despite the fact they were the biggest money makers in the National League and the 2nd biggest in baseball because he wanted more.

    There is no close 2nd.

    Leave a comment:

  • westsidegrounds
    Registered User

  • westsidegrounds
    replied
    Freedman was dire, no doubt about that. The official histories of baseball will tell you he was "a politician" ... read between the lines, or check contemporary accounts, and it becomes pretty clear that Andrew Freedman was a politician the way Tony Soprano is a haulage contractor. I'm not saying if you look in the dictionary you'll find his picture next to the word "connected", but I'm not saying you won't, either. IfyaknowwhaddImean. Yadiddnthearitfromme, though, OK? So, as far as bringing the game into disrepute, he's tops.

    But for sheer straightforward "I have no idea what I'm doing but that ain't gonna stop me" idiotic inept clownish bungling, the Bob Short Award goes to:

    Bob Short.

    Leave a comment:

  • Iron Jaw
    Registered User

  • Iron Jaw
    replied
    Originally posted by Ursa Major
    Peter Angelo of the Orioles. His only saving grace is that he ran the best baseball announcer this side of Vin Scully out of town, and the Giants got him.
    I'll second Angelos.

    Leave a comment:

  • Brian McKenna
    Registered User

  • Brian McKenna
    replied
    Originally posted by PopTop
    Don't kid yourself; the owners knew exactly what they were presenting in the form of the reserve clause, and it had nothing to do with honoring the players and everything to do with putting a leash on themselves the owners.

    How about all 15 owners who initially voted against the Brooklyn Dodgers and the integration of baseball?
    These were society's issues as much as baseball. Baseball players had (and have always had) it pretty good compared to other laborers in the 19th century. The remarkable aspect is that the reserve clause still exists today. MLB is a monopoly. They control all 30 (plus an array of minor leagues) corporations in the field. How would you like it is your company could keep you from getting another job in your field?

    Baseball, in a way, started the Civil Rights movement. Viewing society as a whole, the 1 out of 16 that did vote for integration was well ahead, percentage-wise, of other large corporations in American business. This is a positive.

    Leave a comment:

  • oscargamblesfro
    Registered User

  • oscargamblesfro
    replied
    Originally posted by Chisox
    Any owner of the Saint Louis Browns has to be considered a favorite. Or is that least favorite?
    i see your point, but in a way i'm flabbergasted that they managed to somehow survive in st. louis for over 50 years despite having only one postseason experience ( and that during wartime ball) and really only one legitimately strong team-1922, though the 02 browns were good enough for 2nd place also....
    Bill Burgess
    Registered User
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 10-22-2005, 10:25 AM.

    Leave a comment:

  • Chisox
    God Bless, #34.

  • Chisox
    replied
    Any owner of the Saint Louis Browns has to be considered a favorite. Or is that least favorite?

    Leave a comment:

  • dgarza
    Registered User

  • dgarza
    replied
    H. Wayne Huizenga??? I don't know, just kinda throwing a name out there...
    Not a bad person, I guess

    Leave a comment:

  • PopTop
    Fat Old Guy

  • PopTop
    replied
    Originally posted by Joltin' Joe
    I based my opinion on Comiskey on all the books I have read. But you're probably right about 19th century owners. Afterall they came up with the reserve clause and presented it as if it was some sort of a prestige award.
    Don't kid yourself; the owners knew exactly what they were presenting in the form of the reserve clause, and it had nothing to do with honoring the players and everything to do with putting a leash on themselves the owners.

    How about all 15 owners who initially voted against the Brooklyn Dodgers and the integration of baseball?

    No votes from me for either Finley or Schott. They may not have been the best of people, but they also were not the worst of owners. Schott never gets enough credit for the fact she stuck up for her fans by demanding that the Reds always be the most affordable ticket in the majors, including concessions, while she was owner.

    Leave a comment:

  • Aa3rt
    Still a Senators fan!

  • Aa3rt
    replied
    Originally posted by Bluesteve32
    As far as the worse owner, I'd say that the Seattle Pilots ownership was quite poor. I don't remember who this guy was, but that whole situation, then he bail out and sells to the Bug Selig group.
    The local owners were Dewey and Max Soriano of Seattle, with some monetary backing from William Daley (former Cleveland Indians owner). This ownership group was woefully underfunded and I think that part of the blame for the failure of the Seattle Pilots deserves to be placed on MLB for awarding a franchise to owners that couldn't meet the financial demands that operating a major league franchise requires.

    A couple of my nominees:

    Bob Short, who traded away the nucleus of a decent Washington Senators team for a washed up, baggage-laden Denny McClain, only to see attendance drop when the team unravelled, and then abscond to Texas with the team in tow. (I might point out, for those who are unaware, that this is the same Bob Short who moved the NBA's Minneapolis Lakers to LA and then sold the Lakers, for an obscene profit, to Jack Kent Cooke.) MLB gets part of the blame for this one too-Short had already shown that he was a carpet bagger-and was looking for some Texas oil money to line his greedy little pockets. :grouchy

    Peter Angelos, who has turned a once pround franchise into a haven of mediocrity. h With one of the best stadiums in MLB, the seats go empty due to the poor product on the field. His frequent tantrums are legend in the Maryland legislature. He reminds me of a spoiled rich kid who goes into histronics whenever he doesn't get his way (which isn't very often). Time to sell to out, Pete, to someone who's interested in restoring respectability to the Orioles.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X