Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Source: Nolan Ryan to stay with Texas Rangers as CEO

The Rangers announced Wednesday that CEO Nolan Ryan will remain with the club, ending a six-week drama in which he considered leaving because he was uncertain of his role going forward after the promotion of Jon Daniels to general manager/president of baseball operations.

“After productive discussions the last several weeks with Ray Davis and Bob Simpson about the structure of our organization, together we are moving forward. In my role as CEO, I am focused on working closely with ownership and with Jon Daniels and Rick George to build on the success of the past five years and to bring a championship to Arlington,” Ryan said in a written statement.

The news release from the Rangers also included a statement from co-chairmen Ray Davis and Bob Simpson:

“We’ve had meaningful conversations with Nolan Ryan over the past several weeks and are pleased that our focus is now on working together to win a championship for our fans. Over the years Nolan has made extraordinary contributions to the Texas Rangers organization, both on and off the field, including providing valuable guidance to Jon Daniels and Rick George. His leadership as our chief executive — with both baseball and business operations reporting to him – has been vital to our success and offers us a bright future.”

Thanks to Lynn.

Repoz Posted: April 10, 2013 at 07:39 PM | 36 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: rangers

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 10, 2013 at 10:51 PM (#4410387)
Serious question: What does Ryan bring to the table? I ask not because I presume he brings nothing to the table, but simply to learn what he does bring.

Is he merely a Super Scout or Senior Pitching Coach, or is he good at other things such as player analysis?

Does he set the general pitching program for the minor league affiliates?

What does he do? How is he more than a figurehead?
   2. Jim Wisinski Posted: April 10, 2013 at 11:43 PM (#4410417)
So reporting something from a news release now requires saying it's from a source?
   3. Knock on any Iorg Posted: April 11, 2013 at 06:55 AM (#4410497)
Ryan said in a written statement

which was not written by him. Somehow I don't hear Nolan Ryan's voice when I read that statement. He probably said something closer to "I told them fockers there'd be trouble down on the ranch if they didn't fall in line. Now things are straight!"

Ryan has invested substantial money into the ownership of the club which would make it awkward to dismiss him outright. Maybe he became the meddling owner and this past 6 weeks was their attempt to get his fingers out of operations because he WAS meddling. Keeping him around as a figurehead strikes me as a smart publicity move though. Give him any title that sounds nice and be happy.
   4. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 11, 2013 at 07:05 AM (#4410499)
@3: He seems a little hardheaded to take that sort of role, though.
   5. Bug Selig Posted: April 11, 2013 at 07:15 AM (#4410501)
Serious question: What does Ryan bring to the table? I ask not because I presume he brings nothing to the table, but simply to learn what he does bring.


I've wondered that about every CEO of every company I've ever worked for.
   6. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: April 11, 2013 at 07:17 AM (#4410504)
It's neatly explained by the Dilbert Principle. The position keeps him safely away from important and useful work.
   7. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: April 11, 2013 at 08:07 AM (#4410513)
it's easy to pick on ceos (and most senior mgt) as most fall into the habit of not engaging the rank and file on regular basis (though this has changed over the last decade to some extent and continues to evolve)

but a ceo has a lot of groups that demand attention. be the company public or private there are shareholders and the bigger the stake in the company often the more time they demand. then there are accounts. to some extent the board. there are always the financial institutions. and that is just the stuff where the ceo is projecting the message of direction and focus and confidence

then there are the nuts and bolts with meeting on plans be they short-term and long-term.

you look at a guy like jim skinner at mcdonald's and it is clear that he steered mcdonald's through difficult times and the company stomped all over the s&p performance during his tenure.

I know it's easy to point to the overpaid ceos who seem to just suck at the te7t of the company before getting bounced and the perception is that is the rule versus the exception. but in a defense of the exec suite there are a good many hard-working ceos who earn their paychecks

no, really
   8. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 11, 2013 at 08:12 AM (#4410519)
but a ceo has a lot of groups that demand attention.


No one can crush a company faster than the CEO. I have been on the periphery of a couple where the CEO came in to "save" a company and when he was done tumbleweeds were rolling through the parking lot. Overall I expect there are good ones and bad ones, and while they can be very valuable and have a huge downside I thinkin general (in the US) they are way overpaid (I don't think being CEO in another country is worth huge amounts less than in the US, but they are paid much less).

What does Ryan do? In my experience it is very hard to tell who is contributing what and who is being warehoused in a company unless you are in or near the organization. Sometimes the CEO just plays golf and chats with folks and sometimes he is the engine of the company (and likewise with the other high level positions).
   9. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: April 11, 2013 at 08:15 AM (#4410521)
Ryan's job is to be the face of the Rangers franchise, much the way W was. (Ryan '16?)
   10. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: April 11, 2013 at 08:20 AM (#4410525)
bitter

I won't dispute that a bad ceo can have huge terrible consequences for the company

but that contradicts the notion that a ceo just collects a paycheck and doesn't matter

look at ron Johnson at penney's. maybe penney's would end up going bye bye due to the evolution of retail. but Johnson seems to have accelerated that process versus slowing it
   11. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: April 11, 2013 at 08:25 AM (#4410528)
maybe penney's would end up going bye bye due to the evolution of retail. but Johnson seems to have accelerated that process versus slowing it

And how handsomely will he be rewarded when he's fired? I think this is the real anger people have with CEO's. Everyone else suffers when things go wrong at their job, but the sense of entitlement CEO's have about maintaining their lifestyle is kind of disgusting. That said, of course a company needs a good CEO. I wouldn't invest in a company in I didn't think had strong leadership. It's rough out there!
   12. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: April 11, 2013 at 08:29 AM (#4410529)
shooty

he had his pay reduced by 97% before getting the boot. now, he made millions when he got hired and he's not headed to the poorhouse.

if it matters Johnson's personal 'brand' is in tatters. people warned him to not take the job, he ignored the advice, and now the company is in shambles.

he will have to sit on the sidelines for a while before anyone brings him back off the bench
   13. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: April 11, 2013 at 08:33 AM (#4410531)
It seems like JC Penney is the incredibly rare case of a CEO actually getting blamed for the company not doing well. Usually when a CEO screws things up and is given a huge golden parachute, it's not because the board wants to laugh in people's faces, it's because the board is lazy and easily susceptible to the argument that things would have gotten screwed up anyway so the poor CEO must not be stigmatized.
   14. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: April 11, 2013 at 08:36 AM (#4410534)
crispix

board composition is changing. there have been a lot of positive changes in the last 5-6 years. the groundswell has had an impact.

the clown from cheasapeake energy never would have been pushed out in prior years. things are moving in the right direction.

   15. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 11, 2013 at 08:48 AM (#4410542)
but that contradicts the notion that a ceo just collects a paycheck and doesn't matter


Where did I say they "just collect a paycheck and don't matter"? Or are you referring to the whole tenor of the thread? Because what I said is in the US they are overpaid, especially when you look at similar positions with similar companies in other countries.
   16. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: April 11, 2013 at 08:51 AM (#4410546)
bitter

I am referring to suggestions in other posts. relax big fella
   17. Randy Jones Posted: April 11, 2013 at 09:19 AM (#4410558)
but in a defense of the exec suite there are a good many hard-working ceos who earn their paychecks

no, really


No, there aren't. Even the ones who are the best at their jobs are overpaid by an order of magnitude at least and the bad ones(most of them) by even more...
   18. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 11, 2013 at 09:32 AM (#4410571)
relax big fella


Point of order: Bitter Mouse has established that he's a little fella.
   19. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: April 11, 2013 at 09:46 AM (#4410588)
randy

well, that's wrong. but I understand the sentiment
   20. Randy Jones Posted: April 11, 2013 at 09:49 AM (#4410590)
well, that's wrong. but I understand the sentiment


No, it isn't, but I understand your sentiment.
   21. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: April 11, 2013 at 09:53 AM (#4410592)
randy

your focus is on the high profile ceos

there are thousands of companies with thousands of leaders. many of whom are invested completely into the company

to paint them with the broad brush because of a minority segment of pigs at the trough is ufair
   22. bobm Posted: April 11, 2013 at 09:54 AM (#4410593)
[17]

Depending on the CEO compensation measure[*], U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 20.1 or 18.3 times more than a typical worker in 1965; this ratio grew to 29.0-to-1 or 26.5-to-1 in 1978 and 58.5-to-1 or 53.3-to-1 by 1989 and then surged in the 1990s to hit 383.4-to-1 or 411.3-to-1 by the end of the recovery in 2000. The fall in the stock market after 2000 reduced CEO stock-related pay (e.g., options) and caused CEO compensation to tumble until 2002 and 2003. CEO compensation recovered to a level of 351.7 times worker pay by 2007, almost back to its 2000 level using the option-realized metric. The CEO-to-worker compensation ratio based on options-granted, however, returned only to 244.1-to-1 in 2007, still far below its heights in 2000. The financial crisis in 2008 and accompanying stock market decline reduced CEO compensation after 2007–2008, as discussed above, and the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio fell in tandem. By 2011 the stock market had recouped much of the value it lost following the financial crisis. Likewise, CEO compensation has grown from its 2009 low, and the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio has recovered to 231.0-to-1 or 209.4-to-1, depending on the measurement of options.

Though lower than in other years in the last decade, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio in 2011 of more than 200-to-1 is far above the ratios prevailing in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and mid-1990s. This illustrates that CEOs have fared far better than the typical worker, the stock market, or the U.S. economy over the last several decades. 

[* "The measures differ only in their treatment of stock options: one incorporates stock options according to how much the CEO realized in that particular year (by exercising stock options available), and the other incorporates the value (the Black Scholes value) of stock options granted that year. Besides stock options, each measure includes the sum of salary, bonus, restricted stock grants, and long-term incentive payouts."]


http://www.epi.org/publication/ib331-ceo-pay-top-1-percent/


   23. Randy Jones Posted: April 11, 2013 at 09:55 AM (#4410597)
your focus is on the high profile ceos

there are thousands of companies with thousands of leaders. many of whom are invested completely into the company

to paint them with the broad brush because of a minority segment of pigs at the trough is ufair


They are all overpaid, every single one of them. That doesn't make them all bad people or all bad at their jobs or anything like that.

EDIT: see [22]
   24. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 11, 2013 at 09:57 AM (#4410599)
Point of order: Bitter Mouse has established that he's a little fella.


Not that there is anything wrong with that ... :)

But I wasn't uptight, just checking. But my response did "sound" more upset than I was. Hard to convey tone with text I guess. I pretty much never get annoyed online (well OK sometimes, but certainly not about this sort of thing).
   25. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 11, 2013 at 10:00 AM (#4410602)
They are all overpaid, every single one of them.


This may be an overstatement. the whole "Wallstreet" (Movie) greed is good bit really did change things in the US. I hesitate to blame it on any one thing, but I thinkit can be traced to Reagan and the 80s pretty clearly. Not sure why it took hold like it did, needs more study (by me at any rate, someone likely knows).

But yeah doesn't make them bad people, though there was that one study that suggested a huge percentage of CEOs were basically sociopaths.
   26. Drexl Spivey Posted: April 11, 2013 at 10:05 AM (#4410609)
you look at a guy like jim skinner at mcdonald's and it is clear that he steered mcdonald's through difficult times and the company stomped all over the s&p performance during his tenure.


The "difficult times" (in terms of national economic despair) led people to eat at McDonald's. Skinner shouldn't get credit for that.
   27. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: April 11, 2013 at 10:18 AM (#4410623)
drexl

if you read the history skinner did way more than ride the wave of the economic downturn
   28. McCoy Posted: April 11, 2013 at 10:32 AM (#4410639)
I have no idea if it was Skinner's doing or not but the product improved markedly during his tenure and they seemed to focus on what they do well instead of trying to find the next big thing and diversifying into many different market segments. Their coffee programs was/is a stunning success and I believe McDonald's has greatly expanded their revenue and profits in Asia and Europe.
   29. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: April 11, 2013 at 10:44 AM (#4410652)
post 28

that is all skinner. he placed a tremendous focus on operations

that success is why the coo got the job. he implemented skinner's vision
   30. bobm Posted: April 11, 2013 at 10:46 AM (#4410656)
The New York Times
March 21, 2012

McDonald’s Says Its Chief Will Retire This Summer

By SHAILA DEWAN

Jim Skinner, the chief executive who steered a floundering McDonald’s to the best financial performance in its history, will retire this summer, the company announced late Wednesday.

Mr. Skinner, 67, will be succeeded on July 1 by the company’s chief operating officer, Don Thompson, 48.

Mr. Skinner, an architect of the company’s strategic plan, took the helm of McDonald’s in late 2004, when the company was reeling from the loss of two chief executives in rapid succession. Mr. Skinner has presided over increased sales, reinvented menus, modernized restaurants and innovation characterized by offerings like smoothies, wraps and coffee drinks fancy enough to compete with Starbucks. Over his tenure, the company’s stock price has more than tripled, closing Wednesday at $96.72.

"Jim Skinner’s one of the great C.E.O.’s in the world,” said Bob Goldin, the vice president of Technomic, a food service consulting firm. “They’re on just such an incredible roll, the company.”

Mr. Thompson has long been Mr. Skinner’s designated successor, but Mr. Goldin said the timing of the announcement came as a surprise.

“Don Thompson is well prepared for the C.E.O. role,” Mr. Skinner said in a statement. “And under his leadership, our company will continue to meet the needs of our 68 million customers around the world every day. With Don at the helm, I am extremely confident in the future of McDonald’s.”

After 10 years in the Navy, Mr. Skinner, who never graduated from college, started at McDonald’s as a manager trainee in 1971 and then rose through the ranks. At a time when McDonald’s was under assault from critics of fast food and beset by concerns over obesity, he helped craft the company’s “Plan to Win,” unveiled in 2003, which was basically a plan to retrench and improve. “Better, not bigger, that’s what it boils down to,” said Steve West, a restaurant analyst at ITG, an investment firm.

Unexpectedly, Mr. Skinner became the one to carry out the plan, after the company quickly lost two chief executives in a row. The first, Jim Cantalupo, had a fatal heart attack and the second, Charlie Bell, stepped down weeks later because he had colon cancer.

The Plan to Win extended to the company’s global operations, where leadership in many foreign markets was turned over to native-born employees.

Mr. Thompson, an electrical engineer by training, has never been posted overseas, despite the fact that foreign operations are such an important part of the company’s earnings. But he has had exposure to international operations, both before and after he began to be groomed as Mr. Skinner’s successor.

Mr. Thompson joined McDonald’s in 1990, after six years at the military contractor Northrop, to design robotics and equipment. When Mr. Thompson, who is black, considered leaving, the company’s diversity chief advised him to switch to operations, where there was more room for advancement, according to a profile last year in Crain’s Chicago Business. He rose to lead the company’s American operations, then in 2010 was promoted to chief operating officer.

Mr. Thompson’s promotion will place him at the top of the handful of black chief executives at Fortune 500 companies.
   31. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: April 11, 2013 at 10:49 AM (#4410658)
while I appreciate bobm posting the article I know I have received criticism for posting articles from pay sites

I am not criticizing. just trying to understand the protocol
   32. bobm Posted: April 11, 2013 at 11:23 AM (#4410703)
[31] I do not subscribe to the NYT online. I accessed the entire article free via a Google search result link

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CD8QFjAB&
url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/business/mcdonalds-chief-jim-
skinner-to-retire-this-summer.html&ei=ztRmUdaWNJHk4AP75oAw&
usg=AFQjCNF6PgKPWFjoI5H7dpOm0ciWwBZq4A&bvm=bv.45107431,d.dmg
   33. dr. scott Posted: April 11, 2013 at 11:41 AM (#4410734)
Post 22 sums up my feelings on the subject, and is the very definition of overpaid. The things getting better is just a minor correction from the insane levels of the early 2000s.

Our last CEO, who was just released due to irrelevance, actually had the gaul to say in an all hands that CEOs in Europe were way underpaid at only 600k euros a year. Everyone in the room wanted to poke his eyes out.
   34. bobm Posted: April 11, 2013 at 11:45 AM (#4410745)
Our last CEO [...] actually had the gaul to say in an all hands that CEOs in Europe were way underpaid

He must have been ancient French if he had the gaul to say that. :-)
   35. Styles P. Deadball Posted: April 11, 2013 at 11:57 AM (#4410760)
He must have been ancient French if he had the gaul to say that. :-)


Carolingians are a very sneaky people.
   36. valuearbitrageur Posted: April 11, 2013 at 02:24 PM (#4410927)
Though lower than in other years in the last decade, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio in 2011 of more than 200-to-1 is far above the ratios prevailing in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and mid-1990s. This illustrates that CEOs have fared far better than the typical worker, the stock market, or the U.S. economy over the last several decades.


There are some problems with these studies, sample composition for one. IE how are they adjusting for company size? A CEO who runs a 100,000 employee company should make more than a CEO running a 1,000 employee company, all things being equal.

Second is how they define compensation. For example the NY Times claimed that Apple CEO made $378M in 2011, when he actually made $4m in cash compensation. The rest is a stock grant he was promised, but not yet earned. If he's fired or quits in next 5 years he gets none of the grant, if he's fired or quits in years 6-10 he only gets half. I can understand accounting for it by saying he makes $40m a year, or better $4M a year years 1-4 and $180m in year 5, etc, but have no clue how accountants can value is 2011 comp as including the total of his next ten years conditional bonuses that he has not yet earned.

Lastly this study is about PUBLIC company CEOs, who are certainly substantially overpaid due to a market failure caused by the squashing of the Gordon Gekkos of the world by public company boards and the SEC. Since we clamped down on corporate raiders all company boards are selected via Soviet style elections where company owners, ie shareholders are prohibited from proposing or selecting directors , shareholders can only rubber stamp board slates existing boards pick. Which of course is driven by long time entrenched managers and directors. So cronies pick more cronies and lavishly reward each other with pay and benefits that have little relation to actual market value or pay, all paid for out of shareholder pockets.

Private companies are often run far differently since they are controlled by their owners. As long as the CEO is not also the majority shareholder there are significant checks and balances on their pay. I suspect a study of CEO pay at private companies that aren't CEO controlled would end up far closer to the CEO/Worker ratios from the 50s and 60s.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogAL WILD CARD GAME 2014 OMNICHATTER
(12 - 10:00am, Sep 30)
Last: Mike Webber

NewsblogMadden: How dare the sabermetrics crowd and others try to diminish Derek Jeter’s greatness
(146 - 9:59am, Sep 30)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogMLB’s Biggest Star Is 40 (And He Just Retired). That Could Be A Problem.
(25 - 9:59am, Sep 30)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogThe Calm-Before-The-Storm and Postseason Prediction OMNICHATTER, 2014
(87 - 9:59am, Sep 30)
Last: Rusty Priske

NewsblogMets close season optimistic for next year
(56 - 9:51am, Sep 30)
Last: Conor

NewsblogRemembering George ‘Shotgun’ Shuba, 1924-2014
(7 - 9:49am, Sep 30)
Last: Accent Shallow

NewsblogFangraphs/Cistulli: Post-trade WAR for deadline trades
(1 - 9:45am, Sep 30)
Last: AROM

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8140 - 9:35am, Sep 30)
Last: Norcan

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-30-2014
(4 - 9:30am, Sep 30)
Last: bobm

NewsblogBaseball Past & Present: Vote: The 25 Most Important People in Baseball History.
(283 - 9:19am, Sep 30)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(263 - 9:07am, Sep 30)
Last: Conor

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(440 - 8:49am, Sep 30)
Last: Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!

NewsblogESPN: Ron Gardenhire out after 13 Seasons with Twins
(39 - 8:48am, Sep 30)
Last: Bug Selig

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2014 Discussion
(10 - 7:32am, Sep 30)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogAttanasio discusses Brewers collapse, changes coming for 2015
(127 - 7:04am, Sep 30)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

Page rendered in 0.5225 seconds
52 querie(s) executed