PDA

View Full Version : ?Jerry Reinsdorf for the next Commisioner? Hypothetical?


Tekijawa
05-03-2006, 02:20 PM
I don't know what made me think about this last night but with Bud leaving in a few years, I'd have to say that Jerry has set himself up nicely to swoop in to the commissioner's seat. He has good standing with the current owners and is negotiating with Washington for the Nationals and the Sale of the Nationals on top of everything else that he is a chairperson for in the league, he's the longest (Unless Steinbrenner is?) current owner of a team also. Has Jerry positioned himself for Commissioner and what would be the fall out for the Sox if this did happen?

TheDarkGundam
05-03-2006, 02:29 PM
I believe in terms of longest current owners, it goes:
1. The Cubune
2. Jerry
3. Steinbrenner

Banix12
05-03-2006, 02:32 PM
I'm not entirely sure he's interested in the job but I'm sure he'll have a strong voice in who gets selected.

I think for the good of baseball the next commissioner has to come from outside the game. At minimum the next commissioner shouldn't be an owner.

Tekijawa
05-03-2006, 02:34 PM
I believe in terms of longest current owners, it goes:
1. The Cubune
2. Jerry
3. Steinbrenner

Jerry is definitely longer than the Trib, he wanted to buy the Cubs first and was told that they were not for sale at the time, he bought the Sox and a few months later the Cubs had a for sale sign in the front yard... Thank god the situation wasn't reversed! I Like my World Series Trophy over a bloated payroll full of players on the DL.

spiffie
05-03-2006, 02:38 PM
And Steinbrenner is ahead of all of them, since he bought the Yankees in the early 70's. 1973 I believe.

samram
05-03-2006, 02:45 PM
If baseball wants to have any credibility, it has to be an outsider who isn't affiliated with the owners, but I don't foresee that happening. I think George Mitchell is someone they'll consider. I would like to see them go with someone who had some success in other lines of business, maybe during the internet boom, just for a different perspective.

Max Power
05-03-2006, 02:58 PM
1. Steinbrenner (1973)
2. Reinsdorf (1981)
3. Tribune (later in 1981)

MarySwiss
05-03-2006, 03:56 PM
I'm not entirely sure he's interested in the job but I'm sure he'll have a strong voice in who gets selected.

I think for the good of baseball the next commissioner has to come from outside the game. At minimum the next commissioner shouldn't be an owner.
Or a judge.

infohawk
05-03-2006, 04:01 PM
Just speculating, but how about a guy like Cal Ripken, Jr. He has a ton of credibility in the game.

DumpJerry
05-03-2006, 04:48 PM
I've submitted my name for the job. As a customer, I think I'm in the best position to speak on what is best for MLB.

I could also use the free Scout Seats.:D:

Hangar18
05-03-2006, 05:03 PM
heres a newsflash. Jerrys been the "commissioner" so to speak ever since Buds been in office. He has been "helping" behind the scenes for a while now

miker
05-03-2006, 05:10 PM
They might get a puppet from outside to make it look good, but the owners are pulling all the strings.

When does the CBA expire?

SouthSide_HitMen
05-03-2006, 05:39 PM
heres a newsflash. Jerrys been the "commissioner" so to speak ever since Buds been in office. He has been "helping" behind the scenes for a while now

In the words of Hanger - heh heh heh.

I don't think "Uncle Jerry" will ever be "formally" named commissioner. He will be in his mid to late 70s and had health issues. Also, he is not a big fan (nor is he good at) public relations which is one of the most important traits on the job. He is better and more qualified to perform the behind the scenes work he has been doing for 25 + seasons on behalf of MLB.

I do think the new commissioner will come from the Midwest ownership group that has controlled baseball since they purged Fay.

Andy MacFail (it's not like he is doing anything worthwhile with the Cubs) would be my guess as one possible replacement. His dad and grandpa were high up in the baseball hierarchy and from what I have heard he is being groomed for the job and participating in many leaguewide issues and not doing much for the Cubs who are run by Hendry with FitzSimmons cracking the whip when profit margins for his weak media empire drop demanding the Cubs make up the difference be it by scalping seats, adding bleachers or shaking down rooftop owners.

Banix12
05-03-2006, 10:31 PM
Just speculating, but how about a guy like Cal Ripken, Jr. He has a ton of credibility in the game.

Somehow I doubt the owners put a former player in charge.

clarkent
05-03-2006, 10:53 PM
The next commissioner of baseball? Well, Bud probably will leave in 2008 or 2009. The owners want someone who they are familiar with maybe even one of them.

Who will be available then? Who is one of them?

President George W. Bush

In fact, I have read articles on him that have said he aspired more to be commissioner then President.


Remember-- make no political comments about this-- just evaluate apolitically.

Banix12
05-03-2006, 11:02 PM
The next commissioner of baseball? Well, Bud probably will leave in 2008 or 2009. The owners want someone who they are familiar with maybe even one of them.

Who will be available then? Who is one of them?

President George W. Bush

In fact, I have read articles on him that have said he aspired more to be commissioner then President.


Remember-- make no political comments about this-- just evaluate apolitically.
Leaving my own personal opinions of the man out of the conversation...

I don't think it's going to happen right after Bud but I do think it is going to happen someday. Former owner, soon to be former president and it does seem like he wants the job. Baseball gets embroiled in politics often so it seems like a choice the owners will be willing to make.

ode to veeck
05-03-2006, 11:45 PM
I doubt the next comissioner will come from the owners' club--they've taken such a PR turn for the worse under Bud now twice (strike now roids) that I think they'll look elsewhere

Hangar18
05-04-2006, 08:27 AM
I doubt the next comissioner will come from the owners' club--they've taken such a PR turn for the worse under Bud now twice (strike now roids) that I think they'll look elsewhere


I disagree. The League of Extraordinarily Dumb Gentleman will pick another puppet among themselves, and run the game into the ground more from behind the scenes

Frater Perdurabo
05-04-2006, 08:30 AM
Who will be available then? Who is one of them?

President George W. Bush

In fact, I have read articles on him that have said he aspired more to be commissioner then President.


I was going to post the same thing. I'll bet he's on the very short list to succeed Selig.

1951Campbell
05-04-2006, 09:37 PM
Has Jerry positioned himself for Commissioner and what would be the fall out for the Sox if this did happen?

I think JR's plate is already full:
http://www.iflipflop.com/uploaded_images/behindTheCurtain-778586.jpg

1951Campbell
05-04-2006, 09:38 PM
I was going to post the same thing. I'll bet he's on the very short list to succeed Selig.

When he owned the Rangers, was he in the JR clique?

Ol' No. 2
05-04-2006, 10:04 PM
The next commissioner of baseball? Well, Bud probably will leave in 2008 or 2009. The owners want someone who they are familiar with maybe even one of them.

Who will be available then? Who is one of them?

President George W. Bush

In fact, I have read articles on him that have said he aspired more to be commissioner then President.


Remember-- make no political comments about this-- just evaluate apolitically.To stay apolitical, every business he's been associated with has lost money.

JorgeFabregas
05-06-2006, 05:52 PM
The Rangers being the one exception. Though that was a unique situation.

Banix12
05-06-2006, 09:10 PM
The Rangers being the one exception. Though that was a unique situation.

Wasn't he just a minority owner with the Rangers? I seem to recall that he was mostly just a figurehead as part of the Rangers ownership, the public face of the franchise, and only actually owned a small fraction of the team.

SouthSide_HitMen
05-06-2006, 10:26 PM
To stay apolitical, every business he's been associated with has lost money.

The Texas Rangers were a profitable investment. I don't know about any other of his business ventures except for an oil well that didn't do well but that happens a lot in that business. Perhaps he should have invested in cattle futures. :wink:

Ol' No. 2
05-06-2006, 10:54 PM
The Texas Rangers were a profitable investment. I don't know about any other of his business ventures except for an oil well that didn't do well but that happens a lot in that business. Perhaps he should have invested in cattle futures. :wink:The Rangers didn't make much of an operating profit when they made one at all. They experienced a big increase in value, and all the owners made a killing. The increase in value was almost entirely due to the ballpark, which was paid for by a 0.5% sales tax increase.

He was also involved in three different oil companies, all of which lost money.

GregoryEtc
05-07-2006, 01:25 AM
Other names i've heard tossed around:

Bob Costas
George Will
Frank Robinson

SouthSide_HitMen
05-07-2006, 04:35 AM
The Rangers didn't make much of an operating profit when they made one at all. They experienced a big increase in value, and all the owners made a killing. The increase in value was almost entirely due to the ballpark, which was paid for by a 0.5% sales tax increase.

He was also involved in three different oil companies, all of which lost money.

And your point is MLB will somehow lose money if he is commissioner? That is hard to believe.

Also, as you know the "operating income" MLB discloses vs. actual reality are two highly divergent numbers. If you were privy to Reinsdorf's or Steinbrenner's or even Texas' books the 1/2 billion in MLB industry loses claimed by Bud Selig during his perjured testimony to congress (well one of his perjured testimonies - you can't tell the perjuries without a scorecard) are nothing but lies from a car salesman.

Bottom line is George W Bush and his partners made a hell of a lot more money than they put in even accounting for inflation and the time value of money. Same as Uncle Jerry, Steinbrenner, Loria, McClaskey and everyone else owning a MLB team over the past 25 years. Not to mention the millions per annum earned in salaries by the managing partners which are "expenses" on MLB's ledger but money in Jerry's, George W's and George Steinbrenner's pockets. With the general public paying for their capital expenses, MLB will always be a profitable venture regardless of how hard they try to screw things up (1994, Steroids).

Trav
05-07-2006, 03:21 PM
There will never, ever be a comish who isn't a pupet for the owners. Ever. If the goal of the owners is to make as much money as possible, and it is, there isn't anyone better to run the MLB than a former owner.

At the same time, there isn't a better way to ruin the best game ever imagined that to have a person who has ties to either the players or the owners. A pollitical person would be the best because it would be nice for the owners to have a man who once worked in DC to make sure their anti-trust wouldn't be messed with, ever. If the man was a fan then it would be good for us. But it will never happen.

Is there a link about Selig leaving the game?

Can anyone please explain the anti-trust exemption to me in a very simple level? All I know is that baseball needs it.

Trav
05-07-2006, 03:23 PM
Other names i've heard tossed around:

Bob Costas
George Will
Frank Robinson

Any of those are too good to be true. Even if Will is a cub fan, it is still too good to be true.

SouthSide_HitMen
05-07-2006, 04:16 PM
Can anyone please explain the anti-trust exemption to me in a very simple level? All I know is that baseball needs it.

They need it if they wish to keep the current system.

The current exemption allows several business practices that no other business in America is allowed to engage in the most prominent of which allows MLB to decide if a team can switch locations. A MLB team cannot pull an Al Davis and move their team to Los Angeles or Oakland or elsewhere without the agreement of other owners. This exemption was also used to support the reserve clause which in the past held a player as property of their ballclub forever. This was overturned in the 1970s through the efforts of Curt Flood and the union which were able to produce a settlement with MLB.

Here is a Q & A on this topic from a few years ago when contraction and the implications of MLB's exemption were discussed.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2001/1205/1290707.html

bigfoot
05-08-2006, 06:43 PM
The Rangers didn't make much of an operating profit when they made one at all. They experienced a big increase in value, and all the owners made a killing. The increase in value was almost entirely due to the ballpark, which was paid for by a 0.5% sales tax increase.

He was also involved in three different oil companies, all of which lost money.

Would the owners of MLB be able to afford the management skills of "43"?

Tom Hicks paid mightily for the Rangers, though in all fairness, Hicks main resource, his investment firm did OK when it was awarded the contract to manage the investment portfolio of the Texas State Teachers Pension Fund. Look up the time frame, for the quid, in the pro quo.

Ol' No. 2
05-08-2006, 08:16 PM
And your point is MLB will somehow lose money if he is commissioner? That is hard to believe.

Also, as you know the "operating income" MLB discloses vs. actual reality are two highly divergent numbers. If you were privy to Reinsdorf's or Steinbrenner's or even Texas' books the 1/2 billion in MLB industry loses claimed by Bud Selig during his perjured testimony to congress (well one of his perjured testimonies - you can't tell the perjuries without a scorecard) are nothing but lies from a car salesman.

Bottom line is George W Bush and his partners made a hell of a lot more money than they put in even accounting for inflation and the time value of money. Same as Uncle Jerry, Steinbrenner, Loria, McClaskey and everyone else owning a MLB team over the past 25 years. Not to mention the millions per annum earned in salaries by the managing partners which are "expenses" on MLB's ledger but money in Jerry's, George W's and George Steinbrenner's pockets. With the general public paying for their capital expenses, MLB will always be a profitable venture regardless of how hard they try to screw things up (1994, Steroids).The increase in value of the franchise certainly wasn't due to their on-field success. Between the taxpayer financed stadium and an adjacent plot of land that was bought by government bonds and paid for by taxpayers, they received what amounted to $135M in taxpayer subsidies. They bought the team for $80M and sold it for $250M. Do the math and you see that almost all the profits Bush and his partners made on the Rangers came right out of the taxpayers' pockets.

Hmm...Come to think of it, maybe this is EXACTLY the guy the owners want.

SouthSide_HitMen
05-08-2006, 09:36 PM
The increase in value of the franchise certainly wasn't due to their on-field success. Between the taxpayer financed stadium and an adjacent plot of land that was bought by government bonds and paid for by taxpayers, they received what amounted to $135M in taxpayer subsidies. They bought the team for $80M and sold it for $250M. Do the math and you see that almost all the profits Bush and his partners made on the Rangers came right out of the taxpayers' pockets.

Hmm...Come to think of it, maybe this is EXACTLY the guy the owners want.

No teams financial fortunes are tied to their on field success. Florida may set the all time profit for a single season in the April 2007 Forbes baseball report.

Toronto, Washington, Texas, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh and Arizona have two things in common:

1. None of these teams finished over .500 or made the playoffs.

2. All made more money than the World Champion Chicago White Sox (nearly $150 million net combined or $25 million per team).

Any former lawmaker (from either party) would be able to carry the torch of Bud to cheat, rob and steal as much money as possible from taxpayers - they are after all professionals :wink: .

When your only major capital expense is paid for and revenue streams of close to $60 million per annum are guaranteed, it is impossible to not make eight figures per year in today's climate if that is your goal.

Currently, the NBA is telling the taxpayers in Seattle their improvements paid for 12 years ago are good for no more than a decade and that taxpayers should expect to pay continuously for new stadiums.

Without having to look the lease terms up (I think it is 30 years IIRC) how long before Reinsdorf or the subsequent managing partner demand a billion (w/ future inflation) for a new stadium before they threaten a move to Albuquerque or Mexico City or Beijing?

Ol' No. 2
05-09-2006, 09:38 AM
No teams financial fortunes are tied to their on field success. Florida may set the all time profit for a single season in the April 2007 Forbes baseball report.

Toronto, Washington, Texas, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh and Arizona have two things in common:

1. None of these teams finished over .500 or made the playoffs.

2. All made more money than the World Champion Chicago White Sox (nearly $150 million net combined or $25 million per team).

Any former lawmaker (from either party) would be able to carry the torch of Bud to cheat, rob and steal as much money as possible from taxpayers - they are after all professionals :wink: .

When your only major capital expense is paid for and revenue streams of close to $60 million per annum are guaranteed, it is impossible to not make eight figures per year in today's climate if that is your goal.

Currently, the NBA is telling the taxpayers in Seattle their improvements paid for 12 years ago are good for no more than a decade and that taxpayers should expect to pay continuously for new stadiums.

Without having to look the lease terms up (I think it is 30 years IIRC) how long before Reinsdorf or the subsequent managing partner demand a billion (w/ future inflation) for a new stadium before they threaten a move to Albuquerque or Mexico City or Beijing?I wouldn't go quite that far. The White Sox made more money last year than any year for a long time. It's always more profitable to be successful on the field, if only for the playoff revenues.

But the trend is certainly there. The business model for more and more teams seems to have less to do with on-field success and more to do with how much money they can extort from taxpayers.

SouthSide_HitMen
05-09-2006, 11:11 AM
I wouldn't go quite that far. The White Sox made more money last year than any year for a long time. It's always more profitable to be successful on the field, if only for the playoff revenues.

But the trend is certainly there. The business model for more and more teams seems to have less to do with on-field success and more to do with how much money they can extort from taxpayers.

You brought up Texas' massive subsidies but they are not in the Top 10 as far as stadium subsidies go.

Total Public Subsidies Through 2001 - In 2001 Dollars

Seattle $553,200,000.00
Milwaukee $436,500,000.00
Cleveland $358,900,000.00
Toronto $351,100,000.00
Tampa $321,000,000.00
Pittsburgh $302,700,000.00
Reinsdorf $295,600,000.00
Colorado $295,200,000.00
Yankees Stadium $268,700,000.00
Riverfront Stadium $257,600,000.00

Total for all 30 teams included in the study $6,515,600.00. Add another couple of billion for the new projects listed below and MLB is nearing $10,000,000,000.00 in subsidies for their stadiums.

http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/long.html

The study runs through 2001 meaning the two NY stadiums, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Philadelphia or San Diego are not counted (their old stadiums are used) nor are the additional renovations at Comiskey, Anaheim, Oakland or the planned on in Kansas City. I have omitted Olympic Stadium which cost nearly $1 billion total in 2001 dollars and was tops on the list.

A couple of additional points.

1. Despite Bud's lies that teams cannot survive without $10 billion in corporate welfare, the top revenue producing stadiums are the oldest in the league - Fenway Park, Wrigley Field, Yankee Stadium, Dodgers Stadium.

2. Minnesota's stadium is the only stadium that actually returned the taxpayer's money in full and produced an additional $106,700,000.00 in revenue related to the Twins. This should be the model lease for stadiums - the team gets a facility and the taxpayers get their money back after loaning it to the team. This is the only justifiable lease.

3. The Top 10 best deals for taxpayers (besides Minnesota):

Wrigley Field $24.8 mil
Fenway Park $31.8 mil
Anaheim $61.5 mil (includes 1998 renovations - not recent renovations)
Dodgers Stadium $66.4 mil
Bank One $78.4 mil
Veterans Stadium $92 mil (Since closed)
Dolphins Stadium $94.6 mil
Turner Field $94.7 mil
Busch Stadium $96 mil (Since closed)
Shea Stadium & CoAmerica Park $114.5 mil

All other stadiums received between $142.1 mil - $250.1 mil in subsidies.

Dan H
05-11-2006, 09:33 AM
I'm not entirely sure he's interested in the job but I'm sure he'll have a strong voice in who gets selected.

I think for the good of baseball the next commissioner has to come from outside the game. At minimum the next commissioner shouldn't be an owner.

I agree with this especially the part about it not being an owner. Having any owner as commissioner is a total conflict of interest. And we have see how great Bud Lite as been. Baseball needs a real commissioner and it can't be Jerry Reinsdorf or any other owner. If an owner wants to be commissioner, he must sell his interests in the time outright.