What's more useful to winning: an owner or a player?
A SB Nation sister site had an interesting question lately, so I thought I'd open it up to see what you guys think about it:
What's More Valuable: An Owner's Money, Or A Money Player?
Or to be more specific:
But what if the Nets fans had to choose? They could either have the top pick in the draft, or an insanely wealthy owner, willing to spend whatever it takes to win, but not both. What's the choice there? It's not as easy as you think, and when you extend it to other sports, things get even more nuanced.
Of course, that question varies by league, so we're just going to narrow it down to Major League Baseball. If we're talking about basketball, I'd rather have Kobe Bryant or LeBron James than a great owner. If we're talking football, I think you'd probably rather have the franchise quarterback like Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. (Lions fans may point out having a terrible owner is a whole different problem ...) But with the lifting of the salary cap, the question is a lot more open-ended than maybe it used to be. If we're talking about hockey, again I probably take the player under today's rules. Of course, having an owner who can put the right management team in place in any of those sports is important.
But in the MLB, I think you take the great owner any day of the week.
Probably the most important reason is there's no salary cap in baseball. If your owner has the money and wants to invest $100-million plus year-in-and-year-out, you have a great starting point for competing for division titles. If your owner doesn't give a horse's rear end about the team, you have a big problem. And if your owner is Jeffrey Loria, you're toast.
As Tigers fans, we've seen both sides under the same owner. For nearly the first decade of Mike Ilitch's ownership of the team, it descended into a total wasteland. He chose a poor general manager who let the organization fall apart while the owner invested very little.
Then after suffering the embarrassment of 2003, Ilitch began investing more and more money into the organization. He personally had a hand in bringing some of the top free agents to the team who helped lead to the 2006 American League title. And Detroit has won 85 or more games three of the past four seasons, finishing in second place in each. While you never like to finish in second, the Tigers have always appeared competitive. (The 2008 failure appeared competitive, it just failed to live up to that billing).
Of course, having too heavy a hand could interfere with the plans of your general manager, and it's up in the air whether Ilitch shoots himself in the foot by being a bit more hand's on than he should be.
But one thing is clear: Having a star player is not enough in baseball. No single player can make that big a difference for a franchise where the owner does not properly support the goal of winning.
So to me, the owner is important. What do you think?
In other news:
- Scott Sizemore was the player to write about Thursday. MLB.com's Jason Beck blogged about keeping him healthy and getting him enough work. The Detroit News' Lynn Henning wrote about finally seeing him play. Henning's summation: he looks like a big league second baseman and can make all the plays expected of him.
- You've probably read this already, but just in case: Inge to play Saturday
- Beck's Blog: Leyland's message to pitchers: Throw strikes!!
This manager judges people on how they get people out when they throw strikes," Leyland said Thursday morning. "Because at the Major League level, you don't get people out with balls unless you've got a nasty split or you have Verlander-type stuff once in a while where they might swing at a 98 mph fastball up high. They don't chase guys that throw 88-91 very often, unless they've got a nasty split finger. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.
-
MLive's Steve Kornacki: Tigers catcher Alex Avila has classic swing, but will he stick this spring?
Kornacki writes about why Avila has been such an effective batter so far in his professional career. - Give a nice welcome back to the Tigers blogosphere to Paul Sporer. He has taken over Eye of the Tigers. Paul actually wrote about fantasy baseball way back in 2006, but he had quite a few Tigers-centric posts as well. It's good to see him back.
- DetNews' Tony Paul writes the Twins are still contenders despite Joe Nathan's injury
- MLB.com columnist Hal Bodley: Leyland isn't worrying about how last year ended
- BigJP wrote more about Jacob Turner's debut at Motor City Bengals
0 recs |
15 comments
|
Comments
I'd take the owner in any sport
If the owner wants to win, the team is usually competitive in any sport. If the owner is just out for max profit, I don’t have a problem with that – they own the team. But they better not expect the fans to just hand over their money for a traditional loser (ie the Pirates, Marlins – I know, 2WS – but otherwise losers, Royals…). If I’m going to buy tickets, I’d like to think that my team doesn’t need a miracle to win or be competitive (except the poor Sharks in the Stanley Cup playoffs).
by 77bestrookieclassever on Mar 12, 2010 7:04 AM EST reply actions
good question
I think I’d take the owner, too, if for no other reason than an owner’s tenure is longer and he or she is more likely to have an impact on the team over an extended period of time. No matter how tremendous a player is, he will be on the team and a true game-changer for a limited amount of time – 10 years or 15 years as a ballpark. A fan can cheer for a team for several decades and see many franchise players come and go if lucky, so an owner is more likely to have more impact on a team over the course of a fan’s sports lifetime.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
I'd take the owner.
And the game today has been canceled :(
But that’s okay, because we’ve got a thrilling day of basketball ahead of us. Yeehaw.
indeed!
not only is MSU taking on Minnesota in Big Ten action, Michigan Tech is taking on Northern Kentucky in NCAA Div II women’s bball regionals. and we’re hosting!!
I Like Pie
My opinion is somewhat biased by my Lions blogging, but...
Give me the great owner EVERY TIME! I repeat, EVERY TIME!
William Clay Ford has crushed the hopes of Lions fans (what’s left of us, anyway) for 40+ years. That should answer the question.
I'm owner/editor of The Wayne Fontes Experience and a deputy editor at Bless You Boys.
by BigAl on Mar 12, 2010 12:38 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Seems like an obvious answer.
I’d like to hear from someone who voted player and their rational behind it.
I abstained
Because it’s not clear to me how we are defining “great”. It seems that the only measure of greatness for an owner is whether his team wins. The Mets spend lots of $, but then their players don’t pan out, and Mets fans are as miserable as Pirates fans or Marlins fans. The Twins ownership doesn’t spend a lot of money, but they get great results—so are they great owners? Players have clear statistics which measure them as good or great regardless of the wins their teams have, but owners don’t. So if having a great owner means having a winning team, then yes, I’d rather have the great owner. But if it just means spending money, then I might prefer watching a really exciting player and hoping.
Owner
I’d take Illich over eve Koufax.
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
I prefer Gibson.
Bob was ornery; I like that.
A good owner usually leads to good management/players. A leads to B.
As with anything
the answer lies somewhere in the middle. While you don’t want an owner who’s going to submarine what your GM is trying to do (see Loria, Jeffrey), you also don’t want a guy who’s going to go hog wild with spending and believe that this entitles them to be meddlers with the product on the field (see Snyder, Daniel). In either case, a team isn’t going to be a winner without the players. I’d rather have a competent scouting and player development system than an owner with deep pockets. The teams that are consistently the best are the ones are the ones who can identify talent. I guess that’s the third option of the two.
A great (and wealthy) owner can buy great players
whether he does is the question. But if he doesn’t, then he’s not so great!
Well, as we have learned from the Detroit Lions
A crappy owner a good team does not make
Back off man, I'm a scientist
Hockeytown USA has moved!
Hockeytown USA

by 





















