What Do You Think of Your Team’s Ownership?

This is a big giant polling post. I’ve run some big giant polling posts before. For example, a few months ago, I asked you all about your 2015 season experiences. Close to a year ago, I asked you about your pitching coaches. In the middle of the summer, I asked you about your front offices. When I asked for your front-office evaluations — or front-office opinions — I requested you try to keep them independent of ownership complications. Of course, in reality, that’s really hard, but we’re not saving the world, here. Nothing important relies on your input. I’ve just been looking to collect information, and now I want to collect more, on ownerships, specifically.

Owners! Everyone has ’em. Some teams have a few of ’em. Some of ’em meddle, and some of ’em don’t. Some of ’em spend, and some of ’em don’t. No matter what, they sign off on all the important stuff, and they’re responsible for setting a lot of the limits within which front offices try to work. My sense is owners are a little like third-base coaches, when it comes to fan opinion. That people either don’t think of them much, or complain about them, with little in the way of consistent appreciation. Owners seldom seem to get a lot of credit. Which is perfectly fine, because it’s not like they’re hitting or pitching. And front offices are more directly responsible for the bulk of the roster management. But that’s why this is a data-collecting opportunity. Tons of fans complain about owners, just as tons of fans complain about managers. That much, we already know. But through an exercise like this, we can see who’s complained about the least, relatively speaking. Owners tend not to be the heroes, but then you can still have those who are the non-villains.

Now, these polls aren’t so easy to deal with, because there’s so much information we just don’t know. We don’t really know how much owners would be able to spend, compared to what they actually spend, and we don’t always know the extent of any meddling. But with everything in baseball you just have to accept the uncertainty and try to find a position anyway. The polls are kind of strangely worded but I did that just for the sake of consistency with previous posts like this. I’m essentially asking your opinion. Do you like the people who own your baseball teams? Do you hate them? Do you trust them? Do they make themselves available? Are they in any way responsive? Do you feel like their interests align with yours? Do they spend what you think is too little? Do they not seem to worry too much about the budget? I know pretty much all of you have ownership opinions. This is a chance to share them, somewhat constructively. This post isn’t going to fix anything, but it will at least lead to another informative post, with tables and charts and stuff based on your responses.

Thank you in advance for your participation. I know it’s not necessarily all that straightforward. And if you don’t feel like you have a strong opinion, that’s no problem — you can go with “average”, or you can go with nothing. I understand this project has nothing to do with the Hall of Fame, which right now is what’s most topical. I’m sorry, or, you’re welcome. Let’s see what happens here.

To proceed directly to a specific team ownership poll, click on the team’s name below.

Angels, Astros, Athletics, Blue Jays, Braves, Brewers, Cardinals, Cubs, Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Giants, Indians, Mariners, Marlins, Mets, Nationals, Orioles, Padres, Phillies, Pirates, Rangers, Rays, Red Sox, Reds, Rockies, Royals, Tigers, Twins, White Sox, Yankees

=====

Angels

Astros

Athletics

Blue Jays

Braves

Brewers

Cardinals

Cubs

Diamondbacks

Dodgers

Giants

Indians

Mariners

Marlins

Mets

Nationals

Orioles

Padres

Phillies

Pirates

Rangers

Rays

Red Sox

Reds

Rockies

Royals

Tigers

Twins

White Sox

Yankees



Print This Post



Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.


Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
J Black
Member
J Black
4 months 18 days ago

Words cannot describe how terrible the Wilpons are.

Dooduh
Member
Dooduh
4 months 18 days ago

Was hoping Wilpon haters weren’t going to come out of the woodwork for this…

Bubba
Member
Member
Bubba
4 months 18 days ago

Why? They’re pretty terrible, and this is a post about what fans think of team owners. No surprise that the 2 worst are the Mets and Marlins (by a pretty big margin).

david k
Member
david k
4 months 18 days ago

Is the margin between those two teams and the Rockies all that much? I think they’re right up there.

Malcolm-Jamal Hegyes
Member
Malcolm-Jamal Hegyes
4 months 18 days ago

Is there a filter for “FELONY FRAUD” fanatics in this poll?

FrustratedHypocrite
Member
FrustratedHypocrite
4 months 18 days ago

Yeah, I was just coming here to mention that the Yoan Moncada should have been a Phillie guy isn’t going to like the Phillies ranking.

OrangeJoos
Member
OrangeJoos
4 months 18 days ago

As an A’s fan we can go with the sentiment that we have overachieved and had some good seasons, or we can go with the sentiment that we have never really lasted long in any title run, now we look distinctly mediocre. Hard to really say.

I am inbetween Average and Pretty good.

Jeff the Troll
Member
Jeff the Troll
4 months 18 days ago

Can’t disagree with this assessment more. They get a free pass too often because of Beane. If they had gotten their act together years ago and built a new stadium in Oakland, the 5th most expensive rental market in the US, they would have made a ton of money. Instead they tried to move to Fremont and failed. Tried to move to San Jose and failed. Reduced payroll and traded away their most marketable players. They are miserable failures.

TheGrandslamwich
Member
TheGrandslamwich
4 months 18 days ago

The city of Oakland repeatedly refused to allocate space for the A’s to build a new stadium. Hence the Fremont and later San Jose ideas. Wolfe has surprisingly tried to keep the team in the Bay are. The Giants are doing their best to drive them out.

TheGrandslamwich
Member
TheGrandslamwich
4 months 18 days ago

Bay Area*

Andropov4
Member
Andropov4
4 months 18 days ago

I think the thing about ownership either being reviled or unremarked upon is fairly simple. Ownership that meddles tends to meddle poorly, not necessarily because they’re idiots, but because people who own baseball teams are frequently experts and businessman in other fields. They simply don’t know enough about what they’re doing. Ownership that simply hires good people and lets them do what they do, whilst likely being the better alternative, isn’t exciting to talk about. There’s no real point in discussing how much a particular team’s ownership isn’t forcing the front office to make moves.

Legeisc
Member
Member
Legeisc
4 months 18 days ago

I agree with this. Owners are typically good business men. If they use their skills to hire good baseball people, they tend to be the better owners. Besides that, doing things to increase the brand of the team is big as larger revenues allow for larger payrolls for the baseball guys to work.

Peter
Member
Peter
4 months 18 days ago

I’m a bit surprised at how favorable the early votes are for the Pirates’ ownership. When you see a team in a similar sized market (with a crappy TV deal) like the Royals signing Alex Gordon and being interested in Yovani Gallardo but the Nuttings are so cheap that Huntington has to salary dump Charlie Morton and bring in Ryan friggin’ Vogelsong to replace him it’s hard for me to give them a good grade.

stuck in a slump
Member
stuck in a slump
4 months 18 days ago

The Royals also just made a massive amount of money with back to back WS appearances and a WS title. That helps the team be able to spend.

Peter
Member
Peter
4 months 18 days ago

How much money does making the World Series get you? From what I’ve seen making the playoffs is worth about $20M in future revenues, how big is the bump for making a WS?

stuck in a slump
Member
stuck in a slump
4 months 18 days ago

So I was reading an article that said it’s about a 20-30% increase, but that didn’t seem right, $20-30 million for making the postseason does though. Then I read this Forbes article that talks about attendance and ratings. The Mets saw a 20% increase in attendance this year, and a 63% increase in ratings. Team officials are expecting another 20% bump in attendance next year as well, but the average next season attendance boost is closer to 10%.

All told, the Mets made about an extra $20 million last year, but if they had played the maximum number of postseason games, it’s estimated that they could have earned another $15-20 million more.

As for the Royals? They saw an attendance spike of 38% from last year, so it’s quite possible that they made ~$20m+ from 2014’s postseason run and then saw at least an extra $26.22m (total ticket sales were $69m in 2014, this doesn’t include any price increases for tickets in 2015, just a straight 38% added on) in ticket sales for regular season games, only to make another ~$30m from winning the WS. So yeah, it ended up being a HUGE amount of money for the Royals.

some guy
Member
Member
some guy
4 months 18 days ago

Would you rather see the team spend money on Morton or swap Morton for Vogelsong and put some of those dollars towards extensions for Cole, Cervelli, Polanco, Melancon and McCutchen?

buctober
Member
buctober
4 months 18 days ago

Extensions for Cole Cutch and Melancon are very very unlikely, plus Melancon might not be a pirate for too much longer considering his 10 mil likely price tag

some guy
Member
Member
some guy
4 months 18 days ago

Appreciated, but overlooks the original point that decrying “swapping” Morton for Vogelsong is silly considering there are several other players that are more impactful than Morton and need to be addressed in the very short term.

(FWIW, I like Morton & have him on at least 1 fantasy team. Hope he moves away from 90% reliance on his sinker in 3-x counts.)

WinOneForBobKipper
Member
WinOneForBobKipper
4 months 18 days ago

I was also surprised, given the generally negative assessment about Pirates fans of the Nuttings as being cheap and greedy (though I guess Fangraphs is capturing a different slice of Pirates fans than talk radio or the Trib comments section). Personally, I voted “average.” The two things you can evaluate owners on are (1) willingness to spend and (2) the executives they empower (or the decisions they make themselves, if they’re meddling owners). While I obviously wish the Nuttings would spend more, I recognize the limits of Pittsburgh as a market. And, when you hire both Dave Littlefield and Neal Huntington, you grade out to average.

I would might rate Nutting higher (based on the Littlefield aspect of things) if I knew more about how much influence he wielded during the years when he wasn’t the principal owner.

stuck in a slump
Member
stuck in a slump
4 months 18 days ago

This is a complicated question. As an Indians fan, I believe that the ownership is getting smarter and hiring the right guys to make the decisions on the team, but I also feel that they’re cheap. I feel that they made a huge mistake when they gave their own company (Sports Time Ohio) a $40m contract for the TV rights to Tribe games, when the team was drawing large TV ratings and low stadium attendance. Then, I feel that the compounded the mistake by selling STO to Fox Sports but left the original TV contract signed between the Indians and STO in tact instead of trying to renegotiate it.

From an on-the-field perspective, I think they’re doing much better than in the past, but from a business perspective, I think they screwed the pooch when TV contracts were going for hundreds of millions of dollars. then there’s the fact that the patriarch of the family is almost 90 years old and worth $4.7 billion, but the family still doesn’t invest in the team. It makes me jealous of the Tigers having Ilitch willing to spend to try to win before he dies. Either way, I feel that before we just place a blanket statement to show our opinion of the ownership group that we need to discuss the strengths and weakness of our teams’ owners.

Peter
Member
Peter
4 months 18 days ago

I kinda feel the same way about the Pirates. The owners should get credit for hiring a very intelligent management team and (at least from what I can tell) letting them operate without the owner meddling too much. They are so damn cheap though. I ultimately went with average after considering “pretty bad” for a while.

stuck in a slump
Member
stuck in a slump
4 months 18 days ago

That’s how I voted for the Indians. Too many mistakes to forgive, but enough smart decisions to not be able to slam them.

mpep86
Member
Member
mpep86
4 months 18 days ago

How can you be upset about dumping 8mil salary for a guy projected to pitch 150 innings (which seems high) with a 4.1FIP?

aaronsteindler
Member
aaronsteindler
4 months 18 days ago

The Indians desperately need a corner outfielder, and haven’t pursued any of the many FA’s available this offseason. Dolan’s a cheapskate.

stuck in a slump
Member
stuck in a slump
4 months 18 days ago

They signed Rajai Davis, so yeah, they did. Did you expect them to sign Upton, Gordon, Cespedes, or Davis? If so, pass whatever it is you’re smoking, bro.

some guy
Member
Member
some guy
4 months 18 days ago

I used to feel this way until I looked at attendance for the past 20 years. Cleveland fans simply don’t attend games. It’s to the point where it’s reasonable to ask if the city of Cleveland can justify having an MLB franchise.

stuck in a slump
Member
stuck in a slump
4 months 18 days ago

The same question gets asked about the Rays. Let’s not forget though that Cleveland once held the longest consecutive sell-out streak in baseball history. Yes, attendance is down, and yes, Cleveland is still reeling from the 2008 crash and subsequent depression, and no, it’s not likely to recover. However, if you KNOW that ticket sales are down, and you KNOW that they’re not likely to recover, and you also KNOW that TV ratings are high… Why do you sell low on the TV contract? That’s a situation ripe for a large scale TV deal that was just squandered.

some guy
Member
Member
some guy
4 months 18 days ago

Agree that the TV deal seems outrageously “light” but that’s their situation.
The Streak had several other factors, including the Browns’ move.
Cleveland just isn’t a baseball town & attendance the past 10-15 years supports that. The only way to truly validate that people aren’t going to Tribe games because #DolanIsCheap is for the Dolans to sell. I know far too many people that don’t go to games because of ownership. If they sell and people still don’t go to games, then it’s pretty clear that CLE just isn’t a baseball town & it’s fair to ask if CLE can still justify having an MLB franchise.
As an Indians fan that attended many, many games including the midgie game and ’97 WS, it pains me to have to write that, but it’s a fair question.

stuck in a slump
Member
stuck in a slump
4 months 18 days ago

As an Indians fan, who grew up seveal hours from Cleveland, and no longer lives on the same hemisphere, your comment disgusts me on multiple levels.

I grew up with very little money, the rare chance to go see an Indians game was a serious treat. My grandparents and father grew up within 30 minutes of Cleveland and were die-hard fans. In the 90’s, when you couldn’t get a ticket to see a game in Cleveland, I dreamed of seeing the new field and my father would take me to Cincinnati or Detroit to see a game, but we could only afford to do it once a year. When I finally grew up, and moved out on my own and lived in cities with Major League Baseball, I didn’t question the teams, I embraced them! Colorado wasn’t a very good team when I got there, and I had to wait for them to get better, but I still went to the games several times a season despite barely scraping by financially. Then, when I moved to D.C., the Nationals were still awful, but it didn’t stop me from going to the games and cheering for my new home team. When they turned the corner, it only encouraged me to continue to see them, and I spent for postseason tickets and endured the heartbreak of game seven of the 2012 NLDS, and I still bought a mini-season ticket package for the next year.

Cleveland has proven that a winning team doesn’t draw crowds in a city that should be able to provide them. Why? Because the local fans are spoiled and have no idea what it’s like to be deprived of baseball, let alone a team with such history! Whenever I’m back in Ohio, I still try to make the 3.5 hour trip to go see them, despite having traveled almost 24 hours if not more just to get to Ohio to begin with. Fans today have no sense of pride in their teams. Not every team can spend like the Yankees or maintain a winner like them. But that’s not reason to root against them. If Pittsburgh can draw crowds, then Cleveland should be able to as well. But instead, the fans in Cleveland are stuck in this mindset that it’s cool to hate your team rather than support them.

stuck in a slump
Member
stuck in a slump
4 months 18 days ago

Also, they’re not going to sell if no one shows up as they won’t get a good return on their investment. Likewise, a team that draws no one can’t really afford to spend on free agents. So really, what the Cleveland fans are doing are punishing ownership by preventing them from being able to sell or spend on the team which causes the fans to suffer.

This is a great example of why we need to reform our public education system.

Dustin
Member
Dustin
4 months 18 days ago

Orioles will rank highly high on this list. Low? They’ll be on the bad end. Off the top of my head, only the Wilpons are worse, I think.

Jason B
Member
Jason B
4 months 18 days ago

Highly high?

The first three sentences of this post started down the English to Vietnamese to Serbian path but never made it back, I’m afraid.

theperfectgame
Member
4 months 18 days ago

As a Mets fan, this was a remarkably easy poll. However “Very Bad” is still significant grade inflation for the Wilpons.

stuck in a slump
Member
stuck in a slump
4 months 18 days ago

It’s interesting that at this point, the Rockies don’t have a single ‘pretty good’ or ‘very good’ vote. I’ll be interested to see how the bottom 10 teams grade out, and if the Rockies take a bottom 5 position.

TKDC
Member
Member
TKDC
4 months 18 days ago

Most fans in the west haven’t gotten to work yet. I’d guess there aren’t too many votes at all for the Rockies.

stuck in a slump
Member
stuck in a slump
4 months 18 days ago

It’s a pretty bad situation in Denver, where the ownership cared more about the religion and moral compass of their players than they did the quality of the players for a long time. Add in their reputation of being cheap and their reluctance to adopt sabermetrics, and you’ve got big problems.

So I’m not surprised by the hate as much as I’m surprised that the live is so scarce

ldeibler
Member
ldeibler
4 months 18 days ago

I cannot believe only dismal 2/3 of Cardinals fans think their ownership is “very good”. This simply is not The Cardinal Way.

output gap
Member
Member
output gap
4 months 18 days ago

The Ricketts ownership group has brought the Cubs out of the stone ages they operated in when the Tribune owned the team. They expanded the front office payroll by ~$50m to hire the best people available (Theo and Jed and all of their staff, Maddon, etc), spent half a billion on players in the last two off-seasons and spent another half a billion upgrading the crumbling stadium, buying surrounding properties and building revenue generating assets, like the new score boards. This is a long way of saying I feel very grateful to have them own the team I root for.

NeoShweaty
Member
NeoShweaty
4 months 18 days ago

And you should be. I’m just glad that they saw that the fandom will support pretty much any version of the team (good or bad) and decided against doing the bare minimum to compete while reaping the financial rewards.

I hope the Cubs get a ring soon. The drought is reason enough but the sheer investments the ownership group has made into the team has been very impressive and deserves to be rewarded.

Dustin
Member
Dustin
4 months 18 days ago

I feel like owners like Artie Moreno and Mike Illitch, though saddling their teams with terrible, terrible contracts, are great owners, because they have shown that they’re willing to open the pocketbooks to a huge degree. Owners don’t need to be smart baseball people. They don’t need to be anything except a great money providing service that is quick to approve moves when their baseball people tell them that a move is in the team’s best interest. This is why I’d argue that the absolute worst owner in professional baseball is Peter Angelos, because every move, every trade, every dollar spent seems to come difficult for the Orioles. Fairly or unfairly, I think most fans attribute that to Peter Angelos.

theorioleway
Member
theorioleway
4 months 18 days ago

I find this attribution ironic. The Baltimore Sun (and I’ll just make the assumption that this opinion represents the mainstream Orioles fan) thinks the Orioles should spend more money, but then criticizes basically every free agent transaction made by other teams as being ridiculous overpays.

In his tenure as owner, Angelos has been a high spending (relative to league average) owner when Camden Yards brought significant financial advantages (led the league in payroll as recently as 1998 and were 8th as recently as 2000), a low spending owner when attendance fell (2010 payroll ranked 23rd), and a mid-tier spender (14th each of the past three years) as it picked back up. Not too bad for a home market that ranks 26th in the country (TV), has lost basically all of its corporate headquarters in the last 20 years, and ranks as 20th in terms of average ticket price.

Can you argue that Angelos meddles too much in baseball decisions? Probably, though this seems like it has improved in recent years. Can you argue that Angelos is too conservative when it comes to pitcher contracts? Probably. Can you argue that Angelos hasn’t been willing to commit sufficient resources to international signings? Probably, but we don’t know if that’s his preference or his baseball ops team’s preference. So, I think there are some legitimate criticisms, but I don’t think an unwillingness to spend money is one of them.

AngelsLakersFan
Member
AngelsLakersFan
4 months 18 days ago

The problem with Moreno is that he’s foolish, he meddles in his GM’s affairs and he sets a tight budget.

I have no problems with the Hamilton & Pujols signings from a philosophical standpoint. What I do have a problem with is telling his GM’s that they can’t spend beyond those guys. If you are going to go down the path of spending you have to own it. Moreno closed the checkbook and now he has an expensive .500 team with no left fielder, no second basemen and no farm system.

rosen380
Member
rosen380
4 months 18 days ago

On the result for each, can it show the number of votes cast thus far?

Sean C
Member
4 months 18 days ago

I will be absolutely floored if anyone grades out worse than Jeffrey Loria.

Spa City
Member
Member
Spa City
4 months 18 days ago

greed. The 1.73% currently voting “very good” for the Marlins’ ownership likely consists entirely of Loria family members. They are at 0% for “pretty good.”

TKDC
Member
Member
TKDC
4 months 18 days ago

Or garden variety trolls

Brian Reinhart
Member
Member
4 months 18 days ago

Angelos?

Sean C
Member
4 months 18 days ago

Sure, he sucks, but Loria is truly in a realm all by himself.

Eric B
Member
Eric B
4 months 18 days ago

I’m shocked that only 50% of people think Blue Jays ownership is Pretty Bad or Very Bad. This team could easily remain profitable with a $200M payroll if Rogers decided to pay the club what their TV rights are worth. Instead they have the gall to suggest payroll will only increase when more fans come out to support the team.

BigChief
Member
Member
BigChief
4 months 18 days ago

Well you might also be shocked that not everyone who is grading these front offices considers being too profitable as the sole indication of a poor front office.

BTW I’m not suggesting they are anything above average, but people did get to watch an extremely fun team this year, so that probably influenced some opinion.

Eric B
Member
Eric B
4 months 18 days ago

As someone with a degree in economics I have nothing wrong with companies maximizing profit, but Rogers isn’t even doing that by undercutting the team after fans came out in droves to support the playoff run.

If you’re not Canadian it’s hard to explain how much people hate Rogers up here. Imagine if Merrill Lynch, Time Warner, and EA joined forces to buy your local baseball team and you’ll get an idea of how Rogers treats their customers and fans.

troybruno
Member
Member
troybruno
4 months 18 days ago

“Imagine if Merrill Lynch, Time Warner, and EA joined forces to buy your local baseball team and you’ll get an idea of how Rogers treats their customers and fans.”

I am really trying to… but this doesn’t conjure up anything.

DCZ
Member
DCZ
4 months 18 days ago

I think what is truly influencing opinions is the recent sharp overall decline in CAD value as well as a clear recession across Canada. This, combined with playoff run last year kind of wipe away people’s memory about an absolutely disastrous JP Riccardi era this ownership has sanctioned, as well as the significantly undervalued TV deal (which of course is with Rogers Sportsnet).

Personally, I can’t seriously rate them as “very bad”. MLSE owns a lot of teams in Toronto, after all.

TKDC
Member
Member
TKDC
4 months 18 days ago

It’s really hard for me to say. As a Braves fan, I am looking at Liberty Media. But am I supposed to judge the CEO and other important officers of the company, or the true owners, which are the shareholders?

At the end of the day, if I’m judging the high ranking officers or what I assume is a fairly random slice of the American (and international) public, I’m going to go with “pretty bad.”

Bronnt
Member
Bronnt
4 months 18 days ago

As owners, they don’t cause any adverse situations or infringe upon the front office. They don’t have discussions with Scott Boras about certain players, which is how the first A-Rod contract came about. And they’re not doing anything constraining the budget, simply trying to straddle the redline.

Given this, I’d say they fall somewhere between “average” and “pretty good.”

HarryLives
Member
HarryLives
4 months 18 days ago

Liberty Media isn’t actively anything as owners. They aren’t actively good or bad. It’s totally hands off, so the only way they could be “pretty bad” is if you think an absence of active ownership is a “bad” thing. Liberty wouldn’t allow the Braves to run at a deficit, but as long as the team is in the black, the front office can do what they want. John Schuerholz is the closest thing the Braves have to an “owner” right now.

TKDC
Member
Member
TKDC
4 months 17 days ago

Yes, I’m aware of that, and I do think that makes them “pretty bad.” I would think that an active owner, on the whole, would more likely than not be a positive. Obviously I could be wrong about this. I also like the idea of having a face to the ownership absent any effect on the W/L record.

Phillies113
Member
Member
4 months 18 days ago

Oh, what a difference a year makes. If this had even been a single year ago, my vote for the Phillies’ ownership would be much lower. The team was made up of the good ol’ boys club and was showing no signs of changing their archaic ways.

Now, we have an owner with a VERY CLEAN, NON EXISTENT CRIMINAL RECORD who actually seems like he cares about winning and is taking steps to make the Phillies a contender for the long-run. So I voted “Pretty Good”, since it is very early in Middleton’s tenure as The Guy, so we’ll need to see how things play out. But it looks promising!

Brian Reinhart
Member
Member
4 months 18 days ago

Nationals. The Lerners are pretty mild-mannered and have done a good job opening the checkbook to build a better team. BUT they seem to meddle too much in baseball decisions. Not quite to the Arte Moreno level, but there have definitely been roster constrictions thanks to the Lerners (like the Papelbon trade, necessitated because they wouldn’t expand payroll for one of the other high-dollar closer targets).

tramps like us
Member
tramps like us
4 months 18 days ago

Seems like many here are surprised a particular team’s ownership is well-thought of. I thought the same about the results for the Dodgers. Yeah, they spend plenty of money on players, clearly. But they’re going into their 3rd year of television blackout problems. More than 2/3 of Southern California is unable to watch Dodger games (unless they have a computer hookup of some sort) because the Dodgers sold the rights to Time Warner, and they don’t even offer services in the majority of SoCal. And the Dodger ownership have continued to throw up their hands and said they wish they could help. How is that being good ownership? They squeezed every dollar they could out of the bidding process (demonstrating their priority), then acted surprised when TWC wasn’t available. They had offers that were close that would have provided seamless coverage to their loyal fanbase. When the Dodgers are on the road and Vin Scully stays home, he can’t watch the games at his house! TWC hasn’t got the contract for his neighborhood.

Jason B
Member
Jason B
4 months 18 days ago

“Thank you for voting!” That exclamation point makes me seem it is very excited indeed that I voted. Very “Top of the muffin TO YOU!”

And, anyway I was just reading your final edit, um, there seems to be an inordinate number of exclamation points.

Well, I felt that the writing lacked certain emotion and intensity.

Oh, “It was damp and chilly afternoon, so I decided to put on my sweatshirt!”

Right, well…

You put exclamation point after sweatshirt?

That’s correct, I-I felt that the character doesn’t like to be chilly…

I see, “I pulled the lever on the machine, but the Clark bar didn’t come out!” Exclamation point?

Well, yeah, you know how frustrating that can be when you keep putting quarters and quarters in to machine and then *prrt* nothing comes out…

troybruno
Member
Member
troybruno
4 months 18 days ago

get rid of the exclamation points

Jason B
Member
Jason B
4 months 18 days ago

The thing that I liked best was that Elaine was insisting on the exclamation points and Lippman was telling her to get rid of them; years later it was Lippman who had “Top of the Muffin To You!” and Elaine was questioning whether the exclamation point was necessary. Full circle.

I have no life.

SH
Member
SH
4 months 18 days ago

So win, or be a beloved franchise, and ownership gets a pass. On the other hand, even signing Greinke or winning a pennant followed by a World Series doesn’t totally satisfy Dbacks and Royals fans after years of grumbling.

My favorite factoid is the Padres are the only franchise at the moment without a single Very Good vote. Sounds right.

Jason B
Member
Jason B
4 months 18 days ago

Eh, not quite. Mets + Blue Jays had more success this year than anytime in recent memory and are rated quite poorly.

SH
Member
SH
4 months 18 days ago

I guess the Wilpons are awful enough to be outliers (and I think New York has a VERY sour taste in their mouths about how the WS went down, since it wasn’t very competitive, and then ownership didn’t try to keep Cespedes or Murphy so the postseason goodwill evaporated).

Still no Very Good votes for San Diego. I’ve always thought they were absolutely the most tepid franchise in the MLB.

david k
Member
david k
4 months 18 days ago

I’m not sure what WS you were watching, but the Mets were QUITE competitive in just about all of the WS games.

NeoShweaty
Member
NeoShweaty
4 months 18 days ago

Not competitive? The Mets had the lead in the 8th inning of 4 of 5 games. If there’s anything for a rational person to be frustrated about it’s the inability of the defenders to defend.

bjsguess
Member
Member
bjsguess
4 months 18 days ago

I’m very surprised at the Angels ranking. Team is consistently competitive. They locked up Trout to a historic contract. Arte has completely opened up his checkbook as the team clocks in near the top of payrolls. Angel games are a blast. For anyone who lived under the Disney years the improvements of Arte are just flat out huge.

Now, he’s obviously not perfect. Starting with Wells, moving to Pujols and then Hamilton, it sounds like Arte has played an unwelcome role in personnel decisions. There is no doubt that the team has been hamstrung by his meddling. However, it really is a 1st world problem. How many teams are complaining because their owner paid TOO much to land a star?

In the end, I would hope for an owner that creates a great fan experience, fields a competitive team, and is pouring as much money as possible back into baseball operations. Arte scores well on those three accounts. If he stayed out personnel decisions he would be amazing.

AngelsLakersFan
Member
AngelsLakersFan
4 months 18 days ago

He doesn’t earn a ‘very bad’ from me but Moreno is CLEARLY a problem. People look at the handful of big contracts and that is all they see. What they don’t see is a team that has spent almost nothing in the draft or internationally in years. A team that fired half of their scouts, gutted the player development department, fired the guy who drafted Mike Trout, and refuses to move his payroll even slightly above the luxury tax threshold.

He was the one who demanded the trade for Vernon Wells, who wanted Pujols, he was the one who agreed to give Josh a ‘market value’ contract despite all the red flags and the lack of bidders. After these huge signings he’s given his general managers pennies to work with to fill out the rest of the roster. Even now with the deepest free agent class in years, nothing in the farm system, no left fielder and no second basemen, the best player in baseball and an ~83 win team he has not authorized signing a single free agent.

He is single handedly propelling the Angels into the ‘mediocrity trap’ where they don’t quite suck, but struggle to be relevant in perpetuity… or at least until Mike Trout leaves and finds a real organization.

Baron Samedi
Member
Baron Samedi
4 months 18 days ago

The Toronto Blue Jays built a statue of a dead accountant outside their stadium. It went over as well as you’d expect.

Adam S
Member
Member
Adam S
4 months 18 days ago

I didn’t look at all the teams, but on average people seem to rate ownership as pretty good. I’d venture the median team score is close to 3.7 (where 5 is very good and 3 is average).

I’m not sure “we” know what average ownership looks like.

E-man
Member
E-man
4 months 18 days ago

If I’m a Nationals fan, should I be upset with the hiring of Dusty Baker? Sure, he’s “old school”, but….

Does that mean he won’t be bothered with this jibberish about defensive shifts? Or those meaningless ideas about pitch framing? After all, he just wants guys who are aggressive early in the count. He’s not going to tolerate those passive players who work the count and try to cheat the game by getting free passes? And what’s this nonsense about pitch counts for starting pitchers, anyway?

Add all that up and I could see Dusty taking a 100-win club and coming in under 90. And if Scherzer and Strasburg go down in August, maybe 80-85 wins is a better number. No wonder the Mets don’t need to sign a decent outfielder.

Joey Butts
Member
Joey Butts
4 months 18 days ago

I’m kind of surprised the Yankees’ rating is as good as it is. The current owners haven’t really done anything besides prevent payroll from keeping up with inflation while the team in the next-biggest market outspends them by a mint.

It couldn’t be that they’re always a winning team – that comes from the fans spending money. Maybe everyone’s just happy that they’re not constantly undermining the GM like the last owner did?

Paul22
Member
Paul22
4 months 18 days ago

Hal had the FO working OT I guess. Wouldn’t be surprised if Cashman had to stop taking calls. LOL

Paul22
Member
Paul22
4 months 18 days ago

Looking at the results they seem somewhat correlated with team payroll

Ethbob21
Member
Ethbob21
4 months 17 days ago

I find it interesting that the Cardinals, Cubs, Red Sox, and Giants are the teams that grade out so far with very good as the top result. I mean on the surface this makes sense, as the Giants have won three championships, the current regime in Boston brought the first WS win in a century to the city (and another one to boot) and the Cubs are poised for a long run of success. However, as a Cardinals fan, I cannot rate ownership as very good, when they are sitting on a pile of cash with more cash to come from a lucrative TV deal, and consistently refuse to make competitive bids in the free-agent market. As Jeff noted, its always hard to separate ownership from baseball ops, but this year, the Cardinals desperately needed to make a big-splash in free agency in order to stay competitive in the division, and not only did they fail to do so, but they allowed their main target to move to Chicago, making a deep Chicago team even better. Now i respect the body of work that the DeWitts have compiled in St. Louis, but this year they have so far let down a rabid fan base that has continued to line their pockets with cash for years.

wpDiscuz