#4. Cleveland
#3. New York
#2. Tampa
#1. Boston. That is my prediction of the order he ranks them. not that I agree on Cleveland being so high...
╝+┼╣,►ΘΩδ
#4. Cleveland
#3. New York
#2. Tampa
#1. Boston. That is my prediction of the order he ranks them. not that I agree on Cleveland being so high...
Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.72
(Thanks to BINGLE for my banner!)
Matt Wieters says:"My morning routine goes: wake up, bang 10 hot women, eat Lucky Charms, destroy a few countries, and then read YeahThisIsMyBlog.blogspot.com."
Mogul No No's and Perfect Games:
2008 Royals-Gil Meche No hitter in 10 innings 1-0 final score
2038 Padres-Matthew Graham Perfect Game 1-0 victory!
Im watching you
I dont agree with them giving Oakland ownership a D. I know they are in a horrible stadium but it wasnt the owners fault the new stadium deal in Freemont crumbled. It was the city. Hes been trying to move that team out of that shack coliseum for a while and I dont understand why give them a D regardless of what they tried to accomplish.
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
o
"Ownership", as he explains "is about the team’s ability to compete financially with the rest of baseball, the A’s end up near the bottom of the pack." Their low ownership rating is more of a function of them having to repeatedly deal with a small budget than with Wolff being a terrible owner.
Certifiable
Then by that logic is Peter Angelos a B+ ??
o
It's not strictly that. He gave the Orioles ownership a C:Then by that logic is Peter Angelos a B+ ??
Ownership: C
Peter Angelos has a well earned reputation of being a meddlesome owner. He’s made no secret over the years that he expects to have a say in how the team is run, and has held veto power over transactions during his time in control of the organization. However, since the arrival of Andy MacPhail, Angelos has taken a much more hands off approach - my guess would be that this was a condition of MacPhail taking the job. If this continues, then the Orioles may have the best of both worlds - an owner who wants to win and is willing to spend money to do so but has marching orders from his GM to keep arms length from the baseball operations department. However, we can’t ignore that Angelos has meddled before, and will likely have the desire to do so again. It will be interesting to see how involved he wants to be the next time the Orioles are in contention and are looking to make a trade.
Im watching you
Hmm working with a stricter budget, and keeping one of the best GM's in baseball in Oakland, trying to get a new stadium to make more money, and we get a D, and the Angelos fella gets a C for having a laughingstock of a team with a great stadium.
If the grades are based on a financial view, it is even worse because Oakland has been very smart with their money and they are given a D grade? I dont understand it. What im raging in the cage about is when you look at ratings, it states Ownership: D grade. That makes it look like Oakland has a bunch of 5 year olds running the team when it is simply not the case. Thats what I have ultimate issue with.
I am very curious to see team talent for the Yankees, it better be a C, because those are some awful contracts they signed their players for. If the grades are based on financial reasons of course.
o
The GM has nothing to do with the Ownership grade. He falls into the "Front Office" grade, and is the reason the A's get an "A" there. The Orioles have a much larger budget than the A's, and Angelos has been less meddlesome lately, and that's why the O's rate higher when it comes to ownership. The "laughing stock of a team" has absolutely nothing to do with the grade they get for their ownership. They actually don't have a "laughing stock of a team." It's more of a "laughing stock of a pitching staff." Their ownership grade is based only on their financial capabilities and owner, not the team.
The "Ownership" grade takes into account the team's financial situation, budget, and the actual owner. The A's have a VERY tight budget, one of the tightest in the game. That they rank 11th despite that is a testament to how great their front office is, as well as their excellent assortment of minor league talent. I don't know how it makes them look like they "have a bunch of 5 year olds running the team." It makes them look like they "have very little money to work with"...which is 100% true.If the grades are based on a financial view, it is even worse because Oakland has been very smart with their money and they are given a D grade? I dont understand it. What im raging in the cage about is when you look at ratings, it states Ownership: D grade. That makes it look like Oakland has a bunch of 5 year olds running the team when it is simply not the case. Thats what I have ultimate issue with.
I am very curious to see team talent for the Yankees, it better be a C, because those are some awful contracts they signed their players for. If the grades are based on financial reasons of course.Say what? The Ownership grade takes into account finances.
Im watching you
Ok Houston, so instead of ownership why dont they just use revenue as a grade? That wouldnt be so misleading then dont you think?
o
Because it's not just revenue.
Im watching you
lol i know its not your rankings guy, but then it comes to the beginning again and me saying that ownership isnt that lousy enough to get a D. Especially when their hands have been tied on what they try to accomplish. I can understand when you tie revenue streams into that grade it would drop it, but to a D?
And I dont think they should get a higher grade based on their teams performance, but based on keeping a GM like Billy Beane in Oakland and making him want to stay. Thats huge and should knock them up to a C, C+.
o
I read your post wrong. I edited mine.
Yes. They have one of the tightest budgets in the game. It's not just a grade of the owner. It's a grade of the owner combined with the team's ability to compete financially with the rest of the league. The A's, financially, can beat...who...Florida? Washington? That's pretty much it.but then it comes to the beginning again and me saying that ownership isnt that lousy enough to get a D. Especially when their hands have been tied on what they try to accomplish. I can understand when you tie revenue streams into that grade it would drop it, but to a D?
Not firing an obviously great GM should bump them up a grade or two?And I dont think they should get a higher grade based on their teams performance, but based on keeping a GM like Billy Beane in Oakland and making him want to stay. Thats huge and should knock them up to a C, C+.
Im watching you
Well ive noticed some of the ownership grades for other teams gets knocked down for a meddlesome owner so if the A's are the polar opposite, it should improve their grade shouldnt it?Not firing an obviously great GM should bump them up a grade or two?
o
A meddlesome owner meaning an owner that meddles in baseball decisions, overruling the GM and such. Not doing that isn't a "point" in favor of the owner because owners SHOULDN'T do that. Even if you do give them a boost for not doing what an owner shouldn't do, I don't see how that can overcome having one of the smallest budgets in the game.
Im watching you
Maybe I am just missing what impacts the grades, I guess you are implying the biggest impact on an ownership grade is financial and then the meddling (Astros), or being a passive (Marlins) doesnt impact the grade so much and thats why Oakland gets a D.
o
It depends on the respective financial situations and owners. If McLane wasn't the Astros owner (or if he wasn't so involved in baseball decisions), they'd be higher than C-, because they aren't that hamstrung financially.
Loria, Marlins owner, is not "passive." He's atrocious. If he cared about winning rather than profiting, the Marlins would be in a much better financial situation.
What can I say about Jeff Loria? He almost single-handedly dismantled baseball in Montreal, ran the Expos into the ground, and then conspired with Bud Selig to pull off a deal that saw him sell the Expos to MLB and he took ownership of the Florida Marlins. Since then, he’s run the Marlins as a glorified farm team for the rest of baseball, offering little financial support to the baseball operations department and giving them a shoestring budget that requires them to dump almost every last bit of talent from the organization once they become eligible for salary arbitration. As he did in Montreal, he’s focused on getting a new stadium from the local government, and will put no effort into fielding a contending team until the city complies. At this point, he’s in the running for the title of worst baseball owner of all time. And he doesn’t appear to be going anywhere.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote