Bow Tie Ousted

[gp956]

Nerve-wracking time for sure right now.....at least we got a WS ring. Hopefully, whoever it is that wants the control, does something good with it.

I have great confidence in those who choose their parents correctly.

 

[Heathbar012]

I have great confidence in those who choose their parents correctly.

Repped. Still smiling.

 

[tzill]

Baer said that payroll would not be reduced and insisted the team would maintain its stance that it has territorial rights to San Jose.

 

[gp956]

Baer said that payroll would not be reduced and insisted the team would maintain its stance that it has territorial rights to San Jose.

I'm more concerned about a reversal in the investments in player development systems and personnel. As well as a fracturing of the organizational integration process Nuekom was trying to achieve, and a return to an across the board lack of accountability (consider how long Jack Haitt was allowed to get away with not developing any position players). Neukom had a fine appreciation for the process of capital formation. Baer always seemed to me like an educated and well connected car salesman - plus I'm betting he's just a place holder.

 

[msgkings322]

2 thoughts:

1. No matter how we spin this, so much instability in the ownership group, so soon after winning a championship, is not good. It may not be that bad or even neutral, but in no way does it seem like Neukom for Baer/whomever he is keeping the seat warm for is a positive development, at least from our perspective as fans. Obviously the owners think it's a positive, that's why they did it.

2. This highlights (for me) how powerless we all are as fans when you get down to brass tacks. We root for this team, no matter who is on the team, or who the owners and operating partners are, and whatever happens we just gotta take it. But that's sports, and in the end it's a game so it hardly matters.

Another chance to pull one of my favorite Seinfeld quotes: "We're all just rooting for laundry..."

 

[Robotech]

Not too thrilled about ousting the man who brought us a World Series.

 

[SF11704]

Having liven in NY for most of my life (6 decades +) I've seen the NYY management styles and this reminds me somewhat of what I think happened to the NYY to some extent. In my opinion Hank Sr was more of a fan than a business owner. He wanted them to win at any cost. He bled NYY. I don't believe his son. Hank Jr is of the same mindset. It's treated more in line with that of a business venture. The end goal isn't all about a world series it's making money. A WS helps but it's not the final objective. What worries me about this story is the business side of things. We have a title and I think they will try and ride that for as many years as possible. I actually think this is what they did during the Bonds era. He was a massive monetary draw. People came to see him chase both Ruth and Aaron. He filled stadiums just so they could boo him. Management placed a number of aging vets around him just to make us 'competitive'. My fear is that we will move back into this trend again. Now it's not Bonds that will draw people, it's our pitching staff. Just a little more offense and we are at that competitive level again. I think we're seeing a shift from Hank Sr to Hank Jr all over again!

 

[the_broom]

Like everyone else, I'm very concerned about this change. However, I'm trying very hard to keep this positive...there is always the chance that the new CEO will decide that it's time to raise the payroll to help find some impact positional players to get this team back into October.

 

[Heathbar012]

Like everyone else, I'm very concerned about this change. However, I'm trying very hard to keep this positive...there is always the chance that the new CEO will decide that it's time to raise the payroll to help find some impact positional players to get this team back into October.

I like your optimism. Negative Nancy says, "That's what I hoped for at the beginnings of the York and Cohan eras." We will reply, "Different situations, bitch."

 

[tzill]

Having liven in NY for most of my life (6 decades +) I've seen the NYY management styles and this reminds me somewhat of what I think happened to the NYY to some extent. In my opinion Hank Sr was more of a fan than a business owner. He wanted them to win at any cost. He bled NYY. I don't believe his son. Hank Jr is of the same mindset. It's treated more in line with that of a business venture. The end goal isn't all about a world series it's making money. A WS helps but it's not the final objective. What worries me about this story is the business side of things. We have a title and I think they will try and ride that for as many years as possible. I actually think this is what they did during the Bonds era. He was a massive monetary draw. People came to see him chase both Ruth and Aaron. He filled stadiums just so they could boo him. Management placed a number of aging vets around him just to make us 'competitive'. My fear is that we will move back into this trend again. Now it's not Bonds that will draw people, it's our pitching staff. Just a little more offense and we are at that competitive level again. I think we're seeing a shift from Hank Sr to Hank Jr all over again!

I call pantshattery. There is no evidence the Giants are not trying to win.

 

[calsnowskier]

I call pantshattery. There is no evidence the Giants are not trying to win.

Come on, tz...

There is a situation of a few 2nd gen owners supposedly making a power play to get control of the team. The group that demonstrated success is getting ousted (DeBartolo / Neukom).

We have 2 local teams that have had HORRIBLE ownership over the last 15 (or so) years (Niners, Warriors) and now the team with good ownership is demonstrating some similar trends to these teams.

Pointing out these concerns is not pantshatery to be instantly dismissed. If you did NOT have these concerns when this story broke, YOU need to take off the glasses, put down the bong, and stop talking to the giant, pink bunny.

 

[tzill]

Come on, tz...

There is a situation of a few 2nd gen owners supposedly making a power play to get control of the team. The group that demonstrated success is getting ousted (DeBartolo / Neukom).

We have 2 local teams that have had HORRIBLE ownership over the last 15 (or so) years (Niners, Warriors) and now the team with good ownership is demonstrating some similar trends to these teams.

Pointing out these concerns is not pantshatery to be instantly dismissed. If you did NOT have these concerns when this story broke, YOU need to take off the glasses, put down the bong, and stop talking to the giant, pink bunny.

Oh, I'm as concerned as anyone, but I sense this growing trend on the board of turning what may end up being a non-event into "the sky is falling and we have cheap owners." I saw WAY too much of that on Disney.

Being concerned is different from stating wild ass speculation as the basis for analysis. We just don't know what really went on; maybe Newkom was just a prick to deal with; maybe the Burns kids are hypersensitive whiners; maybe there is a grand plan to scale back investment.

Point is -- we don't know. Opinions are fine, but when it drifts into concluding the premise fallacy, I'm gonna call it.

:ss:

 

[gp956]

Come on, tz...

There is a situation of a few 2nd gen owners supposedly making a power play to get control of the team. The group that demonstrated success is getting ousted (DeBartolo / Neukom).

We have 2 local teams that have had HORRIBLE ownership over the last 15 (or so) years (Niners, Warriors) and now the team with good ownership is demonstrating some similar trends to these teams.

Pointing out these concerns is not pantshatery to be instantly dismissed. If you did NOT have these concerns when this story broke, YOU need to take off the glasses, put down the bong, and stop talking to the giant, pink bunny.

That's what concerns me. Our new owners are the Hilton sisters.

 

[gp956]

Oh, I'm as concerned as anyone, but I sense this growing trend on the board of turning what may end up being a non-event into "the sky is falling and we have cheap owners." I saw WAY too much of that on Disney.

Being concerned is different from stating wild ass speculation as the basis for analysis. We just don't know what really went on; maybe Newkom was just a prick to deal with; maybe the Burns kids are hypersensitive whiners; maybe there is a grand plan to scale back investment.

Point is -- we don't know. Opinions are fine, but when it drifts into concluding the premise fallacy, I'm gonna call it.

:ss:

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.

 

[filosofy29]

I call pantshattery. There is no evidence the Giants are not trying to win.

I call that an honest OPINION.....but that's just me. Also, SF11704 has NEVER shown a proclivity towards pantshattery his entire time on the board.....so there's that.

 

[msgkings322]

I call that an honest OPINION.....but that's just me. Also, SF11704 has NEVER shown a proclivity towards pantshattery his entire time on the board.....so there's that.

I tend to agree with filo on this, pessimism/concern does not always = pantshattery.

 

[calsnowskier]

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.

This.

I think it was Dave Flemming who commented after the press conference that the whole San Jose issue becomes a question mark now. With Neukom being who he is, MLB and the A's were afraid to challenge the Giants claim to SJ. With him now (soon to be) out of the picture, does that hurt their legal battles over the rights?

 

[SF11704]

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.

 

[gp956]

This.

I think it was Dave Flemming who commented after the press conference that the whole San Jose issue becomes a question mark now. With Neukom being who he is, MLB and the A's were afraid to challenge the Giants claim to SJ. With him now (soon to be) out of the picture, does that hurt their legal battles over the rights?

It might. Although I think MLB would be crazy to mess with the Giants revenue stream. It's better to have one very strong team in a market that can support it, with a team that rewards that support with an entertaining product, than it is to have two mediocre teams. On the other hand, if the Giants return to the days of Bob Lurie (nice guy, inherited money, marginally competent ) there won't be much of a revenue stream, or product, to protect.

 

[gp956]

Bruce Jenkins gathers opinions on the ouster from anonymous sources.