Bow Tie Ousted

[tzill]

The sky is falling and we have the sisters from Charmed as our owners. You seem to be floating a red herring that the only thing to be concerned about is the 25 man player budget - and that as long as that is maintained then all is OK. I'm much more concerned about smart experienced people being forced out, and the effect that eventually has on the production of major league quality players.

Dude, how did you conclude this? From today's Chron (your favorite guy Jenkins):

To source No. 4: How concerned should a Giants fan be with all this?

"Larry isn't about to mess with Brian Sabean, Dick Tidrow, Bobby Evans, John Barr - the guys who run the baseball operations so well. The Burns sisters (chief investors) won't be anywhere near that, either. So if you're a fan, it's like they said - business as usual."

 

[tzill]

In fairness I can see Tzill's point but I personally do not subscribe to pantshattery. I'm a Giant fan and I'll follow them no matter what direction management takes. I just think that there is a vast difference of position between a team's fan base and the team's ownership base. Every fan at one time or another states the obvious "this doesn't look to good". That doesn't make it fact nor does it dismiss the opinion itself. I personally feel it is a possibility. I don't know anything about the shift in ownership but the board in general seems to be concerned to some degree. I have also lived with Hank Sr and his NYY teams. He was a fan first and foremost. I still remember the day that he apologized to the NY fans because his beloved Yankees lost a world series because of what he considered poor play. He was speaking as a fan at that point. I don't see the same fire in Hank Jr. I'm not saying it's wrong. It's just different. At this stage in life (66) I've finally realized that baseball and the Giants make me happy. Win, lose or draw. As a fan I can't really change management decisions but I can praise them. I can complain about them. I come to a 'board' and discuss them .... but in the end I'm still a Giant fan and happy about it.

Rep. You and me, SF, simpatico.

 

[Mays-Fan]

From today's Chron:

The Chronicle learned that the major partners were not upset over how Neukom spent the money, but rather that he did so without their consent. They learned of some major decisions by reading the newspaper.

Recent meetings of the executive committee, of which Neukom is a member, were said to be contentious over that issue.

The major partners are full of, and I'm going to use a technical term here - "shit".

If Neukom "spent the money", then he obviously had the authority to do so, and it must have been given to him by the major partners. He didn't need their consent. If the partners didn't want him spending the money, then they shouldn't have given Neukom the authority to do so.

This is an age-old issue that emerges with shitty management - they want all the authority to make their decisions, but no responsibility for them. They hate written procedures - it makes them responsible for them being properly implemented.

 

[gp956]

Dude, how did you conclude this? From today's Chron (your favorite guy Jenkins):

To source No. 4: How concerned should a Giants fan be with all this?

"Larry isn't about to mess with Brian Sabean, Dick Tidrow, Bobby Evans, John Barr - the guys who run the baseball operations so well. The Burns sisters (chief investors) won't be anywhere near that, either. So if you're a fan, it's like they said - business as usual."

That doesn't address the red herring that since the player budget is not going down we have no basis for being concerned about the ownership change.

 

[tzill]

That doesn't address the red herring that since the player budget is not going down we have no basis for being concerned about the ownership change.

I think you and I are at cross communication here -- I'm not saying there is no reason to be concerned. I am saying we don't have any evidence that the change is going to result in the ownership becoming cheap. I really respect the hell out of Newkom; he resurrected the Giants rep leaguewide. This seems (and I repeat SEEMS) like a pure power play by the Burns kids, who want to have more of a say in things. This may or may not be bad. If they leave the braintrust intact, we should be OK.

We will see....

 

[gp956]

I think you and I are at cross communication here -- I'm not saying there is no reason to be concerned. I am saying we don't have any evidence that the change is going to result in the ownership becoming cheap. I really respect the hell out of Newkom; he resurrected the Giants rep leaguewide. This seems (and I repeat SEEMS) like a pure power play by the Burns kids, who want to have more of a say in things. This may or may not be bad. If they leave the braintrust intact, we should be OK.

We will see....

But that's not what everyone is concerned about. Hence the red herring label. Review the thread, not one person in this thread wrote the new owners would become cheap.

But let's address your assertion directly anyway: to say there is no evidence of the owners becoming "cheap" is false. When Neukom says the Giants have substantial reserves and don't need any more, and the point of contention was Neukom spending the WS windfall money when "the committee" would rather "save it for a rainy day," that is evidence of the owners becoming cheap. And we all realize you can reasonably spin this fact to say they simply prefer a different inter-temporal schedule of spending, but that speculation doesn't invalidate the previous interpretation.

And let's also not fall into a trap of saying that if the player budget stays the same, that is proof that "the committee" is not becoming cheap. But, in any case, that possibility is not my main problem with this coup, since the Giants don't spend money efficiently anyway.

Finally, who is to say we want the brain trust to stay intact? I valued the accountability, integration, and merit based recognition Neukom was bringing to the organization.

 

[tzill]

But that's not what everyone is concerned about. Hence the red herring label. Review the thread, not one person in this thread wrote the new owners would become cheap.

But let's address your assertion directly anyway: to say there is no evidence of the owners becoming "cheap" is false. When Neukom says the Giants have substantial reserves and don't need any more, and the point of contention was Neukom spending the WS windfall money when "the committee" would rather "save it for a rainy day," that is evidence of the owners becoming cheap. And we all realize you can reasonably spin this fact to say they simply prefer a different inter-temporal schedule of spending, but that speculation doesn't invalidate the previous interpretation.

And let's also not fall into a trap of saying that if the player budget stays the same, that is proof that "the committee" is not becoming cheap. But, in any case, that possibility is not my main problem with this coup, since the Giants don't spend money efficiently anyway.

Finally, who is to say we want the brain trust to stay intact? I valued the accountability, integration, and merit based recognition Neukom was bringing to the organization.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on any of your points, GP. But, I would say this: check out post #27 in this thread (which I responded to later in the thread). I inferred that there is a growing concern that the ownership group is going to be tightening the purse strings. I may be wrong about that inference, but I doubt it. As for the rainy day/spend issue, your point is fair -- there is "evidence" that this may be true, but it's far from conclusory. That is my main point -- let's let the information come out before we conclude anything.

A point about cheapness not being an issue since the Giants don't spend money efficiently anyway: I would think that expanding the budget would be MORE important the less effective the spend? The Yankees don't necessarily spend money very well but they can overwhelm the competition with sheer spending. The Twins, OTOH, HAVE to spend well.

Last, I completely agree with the positive attributes you ascribe to Newkom regarding what I would call "professionalizing" the org. Accountability; hire-train-review-retrain-fire; instilling a Giants Way, etc.

He will definitely be missed.

 

[CameronFrye]

The major partners are full of, and I'm going to use a technical term here - "shit".

If Neukom "spent the money", then he obviously had the authority to do so, and it must have been given to him by the major partners. He didn't need their consent. If the partners didn't want him spending the money, then they shouldn't have given Neukom the authority to do so.

This is an age-old issue that emerges with shitty management - they want all the authority to make their decisions, but no responsibility for them. They hate written procedures - it makes them responsible for them being properly implemented.

You and I don't always agree on things, but in this case, I think you are 100% correct.

 

[CameronFrye]

I don't necessarily disagree with you on any of your points, GP. But, I would say this: check out post #27 in this thread (which I responded to later in the thread). I inferred that there is a growing concern that the ownership group is going to be tightening the purse strings. I may be wrong about that inference, but I doubt it. As for the rainy day/spend issue, your point is fair -- there is "evidence" that this may be true, but it's far from conclusory. That is my main point -- let's let the information come out before we conclude anything.

A point about cheapness not being an issue since the Giants don't spend money efficiently anyway: I would think that expanding the budget would be MORE important the less effective the spend? The Yankees don't necessarily spend money very well but they can overwhelm the competition with sheer spending. The Twins, OTOH, HAVE to spend well.

Last, I completely agree with the positive attributes you ascribe to Newkom regarding what I would call "professionalizing" the org. Accountability; hire-train-review-retrain-fire; instilling a Giants Way, etc.

He will definitely be missed.

tzill - When it comes down to it, most fans who are concerned are not concerned that the ownership group is going to tighten purse strings so much as eventually mess with the dynamic of this team.

My biggest fear is that Baer takes over in the interim and nothing changes for the next 12-18 months. But Baer is eventually going to have to be replaced as the face of the ownership group for obvious reasons. He'll go back to being a VP and a new CEO will step in. When that happens, my fear is that the new CEO - who will be a lapdog for the shareholders much the same way that Selig is a lapdog for the owners - will not have the same love of the actual team that Neukom obviously has and will not agree to make the big splashes that we the fans want to see. Essentially, we are afraid that at the trading deadline in years to come, instead of taking on a player the caliber of Carlos Beltran, the new owners will go out and get players to rival Shea Hillenbrand or Ryan Garko. It's not the tightening of the belt that concerns many fans. It's the inability to go above and beyond to reach the promised land.

 

[Mays-Fan]

You and I don't always agree on things, but in this case, I think you are 100% correct.

Doubtless a sign of the End Times.

Wait...

 

[tzill]

tzill - When it comes down to it, most fans who are concerned are not concerned that the ownership group is going to tighten purse strings so much as eventually mess with the dynamic of this team.

My biggest fear is that Baer takes over in the interim and nothing changes for the next 12-18 months. But Baer is eventually going to have to be replaced as the face of the ownership group for obvious reasons. He'll go back to being a VP and a new CEO will step in. When that happens, my fear is that the new CEO - who will be a lapdog for the shareholders much the same way that Selig is a lapdog for the owners - will not have the same love of the actual team that Neukom obviously has and will not agree to make the big splashes that we the fans want to see. Essentially, we are afraid that at the trading deadline in years to come, instead of taking on a player the caliber of Carlos Beltran, the new owners will go out and get players to rival Shea Hillenbrand or Ryan Garko. It's not the tightening of the belt that concerns many fans. It's the inability to go above and beyond to reach the promised land.

I think you're splitting hairs here. A tightening of the budget is essentially the same as not spending to get FAs. Although, it is possible to tighten the budget in other areas as well -- and I am personally more concerned about that.

 

[tzill]

A great interview with Ann Killion by Marty Lurie; she sums up pretty well my feelings on the subject:

KNBR 680/1050 The Sports Leader: Marty Lurie