August 07, 2003

In honor of the California recall campaign, Gino Bona devotes Page Two to 12 professional team owners that need to be recalled. For my money, I think the Tribune Corp. (keepers of the Chicago Cubs) are the only ones missing, and evidently I'm not alone.

posted by vito90 to general at 10:06 AM - 16 comments

Jerry Jones is near the top of my list for many reasons, but for the moment the biggest reason is that he delayed Tex Schramm's induction into the Cowboys Ring of Honor for so long that Tex died this year, after it was announced but before it took place in the upcoming season. Here's hoping that the next Cowboys owner dishes out a little karma. Really, though, Mike Brown of the Bengals deserves the No. 1 spot in this category.

posted by rcade at 10:58 AM on August 07, 2003

What a great article. They've got my top two guys. Jerry Jones and Abe Polin. Jones, what can you say. He drove out Jimmy Johnson and handpicked Quincy Carter (when the scouting staff wanted ROY Kendrell Bell) to be his QB. I think that every interview should start out "So, you handpicked QUINCY CARTER as your QB. Explain." As for Polin, I used to blame Unseld but I've heard rumors that the reason Unseld was never fired for the Bullet's idoit moves (Webber for Richmond, Wallace for Strickland) was they were all dictated by Polin. Makes sense because those moves would surely get any other GM canned.

posted by Mike McD at 11:05 AM on August 07, 2003

Is it me or does Al Davis look like Kim Jong from North Korea?

posted by jasonspaceman at 11:19 AM on August 07, 2003

Jones is a horrible owner and control freak (as Mike McD points out, and that's just one example of many). So long as he's the owner of the Boys, I'll be rooting against them with all of my um, apathy about football. Even after he's gone, I'll likely still be tainted against the team. And kudos w/r/t Selig's daughter. How can the daughter of the Commissioner own a team (that said commish owned previously) and any other owner still expect to get a fair deal on anything? And yeah, Jones does look kind of like an ewok (which made me laugh out loud).

posted by Ufez Jones at 11:26 AM on August 07, 2003

Yes, yes, recall. But who should replace them? That is the question. Will their replacements do any better? What makes you think so? Who will it be? The Terminator? Porn king? Midget failed child actor? Whah? (Oh waitaminute ... )

posted by worldcup2002 at 11:26 AM on August 07, 2003

Jeremy Jacobs. I don't even follow hockey and I know this guy is a clown.

posted by jerseygirl at 11:54 AM on August 07, 2003

without looking at the list, here is mine, in order, worst offenders first: MLB (Expos) Sterling (LA clippers) Brown (bengals) Selig (Brewers) Jacobs (bruins) Pohlad (Twins) Murdoch (Dodgers) whoever owns the seahawks (why? Because I've actually seen the Bengals succeed in my lifetime, while the Seahawks have made the playoffs, barely, maybe two or three times) I don't have a problem with Jones, because to do so would be a) me in effect rooting for the Cowboys and b) hypocritical in my opinion of meddling owners. Same reason I don't comment whenever Al Davis does something stupid. Time to read the article.

posted by Bernreuther at 12:18 PM on August 07, 2003

You cannot forget the greediest owners list. Some of the same names appear there as well. Correlation?

posted by jasonspaceman at 12:19 PM on August 07, 2003

JG, I second the Jeremy Jacobs thing (See my profile). The guy's so greedy and inept he's even inspired a website of Jacobs-haters. Oh, I hate him so much.

posted by Samsonov14 at 12:55 PM on August 07, 2003

One thing that always gets overlooked when talking about how bad the bengals suck is the deal Paul Brown set up before his death to sell his stock to the team president who would then sell it back to Mike Brown at a loss. This limeted the amount of money the team had to spend on anything above the salary cap, hence the poor scouting team, poor player accomadations (small bth towels, crappy weight room), and bad (cheap) coaches. Now that Mikey Boy (as some local radio people call him) is out from under that burder he has mad some major steps toward turning the teram around. The whole city is abuzz with talk about Marvin Lewis and have forgotten about their hatred for Mike his daughter and son-in-law have more say in the day-to-day now anyway.

posted by mick at 01:59 PM on August 07, 2003

me type perty some day

posted by mick at 02:00 PM on August 07, 2003

How does Bill Bidwell not even rate a mention in that article or this discussion? That guy's the king of the skinflint no-hoper sports owner fraternity.

posted by rcade at 02:02 PM on August 07, 2003

Bernreuther - I have to jump in and defend Paul Allen, who owns the Hawks. He did sign Mike Holmgren, who although he's accomplished zilch since he came here was definitely the golden boy at the time of his hiring. And he has also pretty much stayed out of the way of the running of the team since day one. He put in some of his own wealth to build the new stadium too. So he hasn't been a successful owner by any measure, but he's not too worthy of scorn...

posted by vito90 at 02:26 PM on August 07, 2003

I'd like to defend Carl Pohland a little bit. Yes he is loaded and doesn't like to spend money when needed to help the team. But is that completely a bad thing? Spending in baseball is way out of hand, and you can't say he's been part of that problem. And when it comes down to it, he wants nothing more than to have a winning team. Nothing gives him more joy than when the Twins are winning. He just doesn't want to spend spend spend to get it done.

posted by emoeby at 03:35 PM on August 07, 2003

I have to nominate Mike Illitch for the Tigers and oddly enough, mention he is one of the best owners with the Red Wings.

posted by Fluxcore at 06:46 PM on August 07, 2003

Personally, I'd like to over-throw the part owners of the Maple Leafs: the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund. Partly on principle, and partly for the growing sentiment that the Leafs are owned to make a profit beyond everything else. Sure, winning would increase team value, but when pensions are involved, would you invest in the added risk it would take to build a winner? Especially when you can have a *just* decent team, and make the profits by sticking it to the stark-raving mad fans. The Leafs haven't had good ownership for decades.

posted by mkn at 05:17 AM on August 08, 2003

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.