Does Godwin's Law apply to intros?

I figured I'd cut right to the finish line.

Skip Bayliss too.

I've figured it out! Jeffrey Loria, fearing that he might one day give into his genocidal impulses and exterminate every living soul within Marlins stadium, is trying to make sure that no more than a few hundred people are killed.

I'm surprised he doesn't mention Arnold Johnson

We could go on and on in this vein, but instead let me stick up for Jeffrey Loria.

Aw, that's no fun.

Worse than Steve Garvey? C'mon...!

Bob Short's mismanagement took baseball out of a growing, affluent metropolitan area -- and one with the nation's largest black middle class -- and removed it from the local culture for at least two generations. Someone would have put MLB in the Metroplex sooner or later, but doing it at Washington's expense was a (pardon the pun) short-sighted move.

the fair and balanced answer is obviously Obama.

Does Jeffrey Loria have children? And if so, are they too old to be taken away?

So, which tyrant had the best decline phase?

he might one day give into his genocidal impulses and exterminate every living soul within Marlins stadium

Is that even legal?

Wait, are the Marlins playing in a keeper league? If not, that changes everything.

I say this as a conservative-leaning (economically) person: Is there any good reason for corporate/partnership/proprietorship-based ownership in MLB anymore? Besides the obvious fact that anything else isn't currently allowed under MLB rules? It certainly made sense in the enterprise-building days, establishing MLB as a national sport, sparking initial interest in the sport, keeping the professionals on the up-and-up (there were PR concerns over the "type of people" that would play sports for a living back in the 1800s/early 1900s that had more in society traction then compared to now).

Nowadays, most of this has gone away. Where are the markets that need to be built? What real risks are current team owners taking that justify their existance? I see the need for the sport to maintain its popularity in the Western Hemisphere and east Asia, and perhaps grow a following in Europe. The risks of being an incompetent team owner have largely been "socialized" under the CBA (spread throughout all 30 teams) What else?

The players and the game are the product here; the only thing ownership brings to the table is marketing. MLB is ripe to be an employee-owned organization or a workers cooperative. The players can then hire management groups to run the operatations -- negotiate TV/radio contracts, negotiate stadiums, run individual teams. Players have already banded together to do a similar thing in setting up the union. It would be the same process, only setting up management.

We would be left without sychophants like Luria ruining childhoods of south Floridians, without labor threats looming, and with a form of accountability should management make decisions against the fans best interest (which often times is the best interest of the players).

I know I haven't thought this idea fully through and it's likely unworkable, just throwing it out there though....

Does Jeffrey Loria have children? And if so, are they too old to be taken away?

David Samson was his stepson. I think Samson's mother and Loria are no longer married. It would seem taking Samson away from Loria would be doing him a service.

Bob Short was a native Minnesotan who moved the Lakers to Los Angeles. In 20-20 hindsight, thinking that Short wouldn't move the team is about as optimistic as thinking a Kardashian marriage will last.

I thought we all agreed on election day that the answer to this question is Nancy Grace.

So, which tyrant had the best decline phase?

Alexander the Great and Djinghis Khan had ongoing conquer-the-known-world projects going when they died. So I would call it a tie between them. Julius Caesar was on the same track but is docked points for getting assassinated.

It would seem taking Samson away from Loria would be doing him a service.

Which individual is the "him?" I see a case for each gentleman.

Is there any good reason for corporate/partnership/proprietorship-based ownership in MLB anymore?

The Royals were run as a charitable trust for about six years between the death of Muriel Kauffman and the purchase by David Glass. The team had to be run at a break-even, which meant they had to cut costs tremendously. That meant trading David Cone, but it also meant gutting the scouting department and they had zero presence in Latin America for a number of years which probably set them back a decade.

I don't really recommend it.

Nowadays, most of this has gone away. Where are the markets that need to be built? What real risks are current team owners taking that justify their existance?

They don't need to justify their existence. They took those risks or paid up for their franchises, why should they be getting out when the going is good?

The players and the game are the product here; the only thing ownership brings to the table is marketing. MLB is ripe to be an employee-owned organization or a workers cooperative. The players can then hire management groups to run the operatations -- negotiate TV/radio contracts, negotiate stadiums, run individual teams. Players have already banded together to do a similar thing in setting up the union. It would be the same process, only setting up management.

What do the players bring to the table in managing the organization? They play baseball. They have no expertise in all that other stuff: marketing, merchandising, media and financing. Plus they would have come up with twenty or thirty billion or so to buy the entire operation, which they couldn't do without making some private equity firm the real owner.

And then there would be the inevitable war between star players and the rest.

Loria: Threat or Menace?

Tough competition.

Glass and Pohlad - billionaires willing to donate millions elsewhere, but not take a few million dollar losses to improve a pitching staff
McClatchey - for paying debt service with revenue sharing
Steinbrenner - for outspending 29 teams
Henry - for outspending 28 teams and complaining about the one he didn't outspend
Huizenga - for buying a World Series and destroying it, salting the market for years, just to make the point to local politicians that his team needed a new stadium. Relying on financial figures that his team couldn't make a profit due to the stadium management fees charged by Huizenga's other companies. And then refusing to renegotiate those manufactured lease terms upon sale of the club.
All the owners throughout time that gave up on their hometowns and refused to invest (looking at you, Expos majority-turned-minority owners) and/or took the club away.

The Royals were run as a charitable trust for about six years between the death of Muriel Kauffman and the purchase by David Glass. The team had to be run at a break-even, which meant they had to cut costs tremendously. That meant trading David Cone, but it also meant gutting the scouting department and they had zero presence in Latin America for a number of years which probably set them back a decade.

I don't really recommend it.

Given the hugely increased profits of teams since that period, wouldn't it be more possible today?

Of course, it isn't like the Royals have done much worse under Glass.

What's the Brock2 on Loria? Does he have a good chance to hit any key milestones on his way to the HOI? (Hall of Infamy).

Of course, it isn't like the Royals have done much worse under Glass.

Its hard to say because like I said, the actions in the late 90s really gutted the system and it took them years to recover even after he took over. And even when Glass took over he didn't resume spending until very recently.

Also, minor quibble with #22, I'm pretty sure David Glass is not a billionaire.

The Royals were run as a charitable trust for about six years between the death of Muriel Kauffman and the purchase by David Glass. The team had to be run at a break-even, which meant they had to cut costs tremendously. That meant trading David Cone, but it also meant gutting the scouting department and they had zero presence in Latin America for a number of years which probably set them back a decade.

I don't really recommend it.

Yeah, not talking about charitable trust situations, those can be tough. Not sure how the Red Sox got away with it from 1992 - 2001 since they were in a similar situation then. Regardless, my proposal is a worker cooperative; remaining money would all go to the players.

They don't need to justify their existence. They took those risks or paid up for their franchises, why should they be getting out when the going is good?

Bold part emphasized -- my point is none of the current crop of owners took any serious risk in running their franchise; they only did the latter. In theory, they would be repaid at market value (more discussion below). Your question only emphasizes my initial question -- at this point, the going is good partially because of the parasitic actions many are taking. My point is that the utilitarian value they bring to justify that potential behavior isn't there anymore.

What do the players bring to the table in managing the organization? They play baseball. They have no expertise in all that other stuff: marketing, merchandising, media and financing. Plus they would have come up with twenty or thirty billion or so to buy the entire operation, which they couldn't do without making some private equity firm the real owner.

I'm not talking about eliminating management, I'm talking about eliminating ownership. There are many non-profit societies out there where the members have the power and are the owners, but these members hire a management team to run the marketing, merchandising, media, and financing, and other day to day decisions. But management is accountable to the members. This wouldn't be a non-profit, but it would be a similar set up. In private business, many entrepreneurs bring in the know how -- ideas as to what product to make, how to actually construct it, where to build the best plant, best distributions techniques, etc. There is real value in the ownership/c-suite there. Here, the players are the product -- all of those operational needs don't exist.

The biggest obstacle is the practical one you mention, which is that current ownership would need to be compensated by the players, and that couldn't be done without a private equity firm or the like coming in. On the other hand, during the next labor negotiation, they could simply try to start a competing league from scratch, with the players' management orchestrating stadium and TV contracts. The hard part is over -- getting the public to accept high level professional baseball. The players would take a major haircut short-term, which is why this would never happen, but it could be much better for everyone long-term.

And then there would be the inevitable war between star players and the rest.

Agreed in theory. However, why aren't we seeing more of this now? The union tends to look out most for its stars rather than the rank-and-file. I think it's because most players envision themselves as becoming stars; their current situation is just temporary. This may not change under a cooperative setup.

Someone make George Lucas a baseball fan before he gives all that money away!

Regardless, my proposal is a worker cooperative; remaining money would all go to the players.

Yea, but wouldn't it operate pretty similarily? My point was that you need a corporate owner to finance the team in times when they aren't turning a profit and/or make the long-term investments the team needs to be competitive down the road. Would a worker co-op do this? I don't know much about how they operate.

the astros are so worthless now that jim crane gets left out of the Most Evil Evah
cain't even get no DISrespect

and nolan ryan is right down there with him, rot them both
of course, ain't neither one of em no jeffrey loria

Could MLB operate as an anarcho-syndicalist commune where players take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week?

So, which tyrant had the best decline phase?

While those were decent suggestions, who or what could surpass Hitler in the bunker?

Or like issuing his no retreat commands? Or killing himself and his bride? Or dealing with those vuvuzelas in so. africa?

oh and you all should just shut up about Loria. I mean I hate rich folks as much as the next guy but the Pirates havent been seriously competitive (as opposed to 2012 being "somewhat competitive") in 30 years and no ones thereatening to take away their franchise.

Correct me I'm wrong as I havent studied recent baseball as much as most of you but They havent tried this trade blocking/best interest of baseball thing in many years have they? For my generation the seminal moment was the Bowie Kuhn vs Charley Finley thing in the mid 70s. I dont recall anything like that before then and I dont remember this happening much in the recent past.

As for the Pirates the last time the Comm'r got into with them was I guess back in 1980 or so when they were trying to give away more players in order to get to Jim Spencer I think it was, but the Comm'r made them take Jason Thompson or something like that.

Point is, this blocking trades thing is sort of like the War Powers Act is to student of american jurisprudence. Back in that particular place and time it was a very important law but after so many years, presidents stopped availing themselves of it, precedent is slowly forgotten or overturned; people who wrote the law died, etc. etc. And eventually, it's just some old dinosaur, interesting historically but not really relevant in the present day.

Moreover: it seems Loria's team is much better than the Pirates at bringing home champions within the average human's generational time span. Why not pick on the Pirates or KC first?

Hell, it seems an art dealer would be the perfect guy to be a wheeler dealer in merchandise be it paintings or left handed relievers. Maybe he can be the one to buy low and sell high and make a go of it that way? Obviously it doesnt matter what his previous career was, but owners should be able to adopt creative solutions. It's certainly entertaining enuf for the hot stove league. Why would you want to discourage owners from adopting creative to solutions?

oh and you all should just shut up about Loria. I mean I hate rich folks as much as the next guy but the Pirates havent been seriously competitive (as opposed to 2012 being "somewhat competitive") in 30 years and no ones thereatening to take away their franchise.

That's just incompetence, though, not cartoon supervillainy like Loria's doing.

Let's get rid of both of these franchises - then everybody wins!

oh and you all should just shut up about Loria. I mean I hate rich folks as much as the next guy but the Pirates havent been seriously competitive (as opposed to 2012 being "somewhat competitive") in 30 years and no ones thereatening to take away their franchise.



That's just incompetence, though, not cartoon supervillainy like Loria's doing.

Right, there's a difference between doing it wrong and doing it wrong and villainy...

...and RMc is right... Loria is only the worst person ever if we're implying "Non-Steve Garvey" division.

If there's a hell, Loria will still be waiting in line behind Garvey to give Satan foot rubs...

Loria probably is the worst current baseball owner, but he can't possibly compete with Dan Snyder in overall loathsomeness. The damage Loria's done has been to a city that never should have had a baseball team in the first place, whereas Snyder took one of the great historic franchises and fan bases in the NFL and made them into nothing but his personal cash cow.

The damage Loria's done has been to a city that never should have had a baseball team in the first place

Montreal or Miami? both?

whereas Snyder took one of the great historic franchises and fan bases in the NFL and made them into nothing but his personal cash cow.

Is that how Redskins fans view the situation? Out here in the rest of the NFL fanbase it seems like he's been just the opposite, a guy who has spent a ton of money trying to bring players to his team and is hampered not by the fact that he's trying to run a cash cow, but that he doesn't actually know anything about the sport he owns a team in. Snyder, if anything, seems like a huge Redskins fan - he just doesn't have any idea what he's doing, but is quite confident that he does. A dangerous combination.

Most of the stories I hear about why people hate Snyder are indeed not because the team sucks but because of things like charging money to watch training camp, and increasing parking fees by 900%, and moving training camp to some stupid location where the local government would build a facility that holds more spectators, and charging money for personal seat licenses, and charging money for the personal seat license license you need to buy your personal seat license, and charging money for the privilege of staying on the waiting list to buy your personal seat license (may be exaggerated). As for spending tons of money on payroll, all NFL teams do that (except the Bengals). Snyder bringing in somebody on a nominal $80 million contract that actually gets torn up after one year and $16 million seems to be more to stay in the headlines than to build a football juggernaut.

So, which tyrant had the best decline phase?

I'm going to go with Augustus. Really long prime. Tough to identify a true decline phase.

The NHL has had its share of horrific owners.

Just look up the damage that Harold Ballard did to the Maple Leafs in the 1970s/1980s...

Could MLB operate as an anarcho-syndicalist commune where players take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week?

I don't see why not. But IMO you'd be best served by having the decisions of that officer ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting of the players. Maybe using a simple majority in the case of purely internal/baseball affairs, and a two-thirds majority in the case of external affairs.

The NHL has had its share of horrific owners.

I still love the guy that convinced the NHL to sell him a team despite the fact he had no money.

Didn't former Kings owner Bruce McNall, who brought Gretzky to LA - end up in jail?

The NHL has had its share of horrific owners.

The city-wide "Hurray" when Bill Wirtz croaked demonstrated why he's on the list. Frankly, when it comes to terrible owners, Dan Snyder doesn't hold a candle to Dollar Bill.

The city-wide "Hurray" when Bill Wirtz croaked demonstrated why he's on the list. Frankly, when it comes to terrible owners, Dan Snyder doesn't hold a candle to Dollar Bill.

Dollar Bill is the king here, both in longevity and suckitude. This is the memorial - Tallon can barely be heard over the general booing and heckling.

Grantland weighs in:

No, what makes Loria a genius is something more elemental, something that goes well beyond any one trade, even one this big: The system is rigged, and Loria is taking advantage of it better than any other owner in baseball history, other than Frank McCourt.

I honestly don't understand what makes Loria a "supervillain" or, really, that even involves him in these worst owner discussions. He's won a World Series in Florida, so it's not as though he's incompetent on the baseball side. He agitated for a new stadium like literally scores of predecessor owners. I guess you could call him "arrogant," but so are a bunch of other owners.

He isn't going to pay a lot of money for a shitty team -- isn't that actually a saber-approved (TM) concept?

whereas Snyder took one of the great historic franchises and fan bases in the NFL and made them into nothing but his personal cash cow.

Is that how Redskins fans view the situation? Out here in the rest of the NFL fanbase it seems like he's been just the opposite, a guy who has spent a ton of money trying to bring players to his team and is hampered not by the fact that he's trying to run a cash cow, but that he doesn't actually know anything about the sport he owns a team in. Snyder, if anything, seems like a huge Redskins fan - he just doesn't have any idea what he's doing, but is quite confident that he does. A dangerous combination.

Crispix pretty much answered that already. The only thing he left out was the time that Snyder tried to put The City Paper out of business by suing him over an article he claimed was "anti-semitic" because of a photo enhancement at the top of it that depicted him in devil's horns. This character is a dirtball on so many levels that you have to be a DC area resident and (in my case former) Redskins fan to be able to truly grasp the depth of his loathsomeness.

And BTW since His Loathsomeness bought the team, the Redskins have had 3 winning seasons in 14 years, have won all of 2 playoff games, have gone through 7 coaches, and are currently 29 games under .500 with no sign of any improvement in sight.

Loria probably is the worst current baseball owner, but he can't possibly compete with Dan Snyder in overall loathsomeness. The damage Loria's done has been to a city that never should have had a baseball team in the first place, whereas Snyder took one of the great historic franchises and fan bases in the NFL and made them into nothing but his personal cash cow.

Snider has made plenty of mistakes, but he was more than willing to spend his own money to improve his team, and not for just half a season. Loria hasn't been willing to do that. Miami is a perfectly viable MLB market - they finished in the middle of the pack in attendance this year, despite waving the white flag in mid-season. If they ever get ownership that settles in for the long haul, they'll do fine.