Here Are the Complete Team Ownership Ratings
I always look forward to these posts, maybe a little too much. It’s one thing to begin a polling project, but it’s quite another to wrap up and take a look at all the community feedback. Sometimes, it isn’t surprising. I mean, we all have a sense of how the community feels about certain subjects. But every single project has something worth talking about. Let’s talk about owners, and ownership groups.
Last week, I ran a post with 30 polls, one for every team. The question: How do you feel about the people ultimately in charge? More than a month ago, I ran a very similar project, only, that time, I asked for your evaluations of the various front offices, independent of ownership. This was supposed to direct the spotlight to the other people, a follow-up project like the one I ran in January two years ago. It should be very obvious that we don’t actually know that much about the owners, or about the influences they have, but if nothing else, we have anecdotes, and we have success cycles and payrolls. Follow a team for long enough, and you’ll develop some form of an ownership opinion. I wanted to collect the community opinions.
That is what follows, down below. I’ve put all the numbers into a spreadsheet and performed some basic analysis. As it happens, for you fans of specific teams, you probably know more about your owners than I do. So, I’m not going to include very much discussion in this post — that can be carried forward in the comments. My job is just to reveal what you said! I should do that.
To begin with, here’s the voting breakdown by team. In all, there were tens of thousands of votes, and here are the team vote shares, expressed as percentages.
Last time, this graph was dominated by the Blue Jays. This time, somewhat surprisingly, it’s the Phillies, with by far the most active poll. I didn’t bother to try to investigate why, because it’s not that important to me, but one explanation would be a direct blog, Twitter, or Facebook link. Another explanation would be that someone created some sort of auto-voting bot. I don’t know and I don’t care, and the general, overall order is familiar enough, given how these graphs have looked with other polling projects. There are teams that always get more participation, and there are teams that don’t. Certain teams just have much more prominent internet presences.
Now for the real meat — the community ratings, according to the community, which is you. Per usual, to every response in every poll, I assigned a number, from 1 to 5, with 5 being the best response. That makes the analysis very easy to do. For anyone curious, when I ran this project two years ago, the average rating was 3.05, very slightly above the true middle. This time, the average rating was 3.09, which is very slightly higher. It’s not a big enough move to mean anything, I don’t think, but we can see that there isn’t some wave of fans who’re beyond fed up with all the billionaires. Granted, ours is a selective audience. Anyhow, here’s a plot!
Almost as soon as the first post went up, I got a text from a friend with a team reading, “Something tells me your ownership poll might correlate nicely with payroll!” Sure enough, there are higher-payroll teams on the left, led by the Dodgers, whose ownership group is currently the most beloved. Now, they’re followed by the Astros, and the Astros haven’t spent at all like the Dodgers have. In fact, only a few years ago, the Astros were hearing it from all sides for not investing in the major-league roster. But, it’s funny what can happen when you execute a five-year plan and win the World Series. The Astros have that championship glow about them, and ownership has won the benefit of the doubt when it comes to making important baseball decisions.
I won’t go through every single team, and not every single team rating is noteworthy. But at the end, once again, as last time, we find the Mets and the Marlins. Nothing important about the Mets’ ownership group has changed. Everything important about the Marlins’ ownership group has changed. That is, except for how the new owners haven’t invested in the major-league club. As the Mets go, the owners have presided over an unstable organization, and they’ve shown what’s been interpreted as a weak commitment to winning, despite playing in one of the largest markets imaginable. Never mind all of the seemingly constant tabloid fodder that makes the club out to be a nightmare. For the new people in Miami, they swear they’re trying to do this right, and they’ve attempted to promise they have a real long-term plan, but all fans have seen is a star-power exodus. It’s possible to sell a rebuild, especially to a FanGraphs crowd, but it doesn’t seem like people trust the Marlins to make the most of the moves they’re making.
Maybe a good Yelich trade would change that. Maybe the Marlins are still being somewhat unfairly penalized for the Jeffrey Loria era. I’m sure I’ll run this project again down the road, and by that point, we’ll have new information. Speaking of which: Why not compare these results to the results from last time? Here’s how all of the team ratings have changed over almost exactly two years.
You can see the influence of success and direction. The Rockies just got back to the playoffs. The Indians have assembled a juggernaut. The Astros won the World Series, the Yankees are great again, the Brewers are almost out of their rebuild, and the Angels have seemingly built a competitive team. On, and on. Yet, the biggest mover of all is the Pirates, whose average rating has dropped an incredible 1.51 points. The second-biggest drop is just 0.83 points. I was surprised to go back and find that, in 2016, the Pirates ownership rated 11th-best. My sense was that people had long been frustrated by the financial constraints within which the club was forced to operate. But, last time, the Pirates were coming off a third consecutive playoff berth. Since then, they’ve won just 78 and 75 games, and instead of payroll skyrocketing, it’s remained around the same place, and now two members of the core have been traded for longer-term assets. I don’t think fans have ever loved Bob Nutting. But you can overlook almost anything when a team is reaching October. When things go off the rails, then the blame starts getting assigned.
For one last plot — very unsurprisingly, rating has a pretty strong relationship with both most recent success, and most recent payroll. Using 2017 payrolls and win totals, I could calculate an expected ownership rating. Here’s a plot of the actual and the expected ratings.
Even though the Giants’ rating has dropped since the last time, their rating has the greatest positive difference from the rating you’d expect. I imagine this is a function of a few different things, but even beyond the long-lasting goodwill the Giants’ owners have earned, recently they’ve shown a commitment to trying to get good again in 2018, after a nightmarish regular season. The Giants have kept up their willingness to spend, which is a great way to keep fans on your side. The other teams with the greatest positive differences: the Cardinals, White Sox, Cubs, Brewers, and Astros. The White Sox are the one bad team here, but I think you’re seeing buy-in to the rebuild, with fans glad the team has chosen and stuck with a direction.
The greatest negative differences, by a large margin, belong to the Marlins, Mets, and Orioles. Each of them got a rating below their expected rating by more than a full point. I’ve already talked about the Marlins, and I’ve already talked about the Mets, but as the Orioles go, I’m going to guess there’s some boiled-over frustration over ownership meddling. There’s also just a general distrust that the management team is capable of making the right baseball decisions. Even last time, the Orioles didn’t score well, and now they seem closer to some kind of reckoning. This isn’t the first time you’ve read that Orioles fans are sort of unhappy.
That’s all I’ve got, and many of you are more than capable of carrying on a more in-depth discussion in the comments. Thank you all for voting. You are terrific.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.




We must have a lot of Phillies fans here.
Or maybe one Phillies fan with lots of usernames.
Hm, I wonder who could outFOXX Jeff’s sophisticated polling system?
My first thought exactly. That guy HATES the Phillies ownership, so I thought they’d be last.
I’m sure Foxx/Free_AEC will be in here in a bit.
He recently accused Dave of giving blow jobs to Rob Manfred and Derek Jeter. Let’s not encourage him.
“He recently accused Dave of giving blow jobs to Rob Manfred and Derek Jeter.”
And just like that!…….Cameron was made an offer he couldn’t refuse by the 30 MLB Crime Families.
Fangraphs:CaseysPartner is AEC. Please ban him.
Anyone downvoting this must be unfamiliar with AEC’s history of attacks on the FG community, often using hateful and homophobic language.
Lol, sure he’ll call the poll a FELONY FRAUD.
There’s nothing funny about him.
— Per the LA Times, in the 90s he distributed racist literature.
— He served prison time for 79 counts of computer and identity fraud.
— His reaction to being banned from MLB Trade Rumors in November: Posted a picture of the shot-out window at Mandalay Bay hotel in Vegas, and wrote, “How much abuse, imprisonment, beatings, banning, public disrespect and being treated like a leper can one man accept?”
Mass producing anti-Phillies ownership propaganda on the internet…
History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.
It’s user names. 2 words, dumb ass.
The Marlins made some very unpopular moves and still went up from 2016. Let that sink in on how bad Loria was.
I wish I could see this after McCourt sold the Dodgers. That could have been a legit worst-to-first scenario.
Yankee fans chiming in ?
Unpopular, not bad. Which is not to say he wasn’t bad.
That surprised me too. Perhaps the thinking was “anyone will be better than Loria”? Then Derek Jeter said, “Hold my beer.”
If you want your fans to love your team more, hire and then fire Loria.
Pssh, the Marlins’ ownership group may seem horrible right now but they haven’t proven they have the talent to stick with the Wilpons for more than a year. Flash in the pan — I’ll take the proven, time-tested most hateworthy owners any day.
Fish in the pan?
The big swing in the assessment of Cleveland’s ownership has a name: Edwin Encarnacion. 🙂
So yes: investment in the MLB roster is a big driver of fan evaluation of ownership.
On the one hand, it’s hard to find a team that gets more out of less than the Indians. So the owners deserve credit for hiring smart baseball people and letting them do their job.
On the other hand, there’s a perpetual feeling among the fans that the owners could spend more money if they wanted to. The EE signing helped bit but the feeling still persists. Otherwise they’d probably be ranked higher.
100% Agreed.
Early on they limited the team payroll while funneling team revenues into building their local cable sports operation. It got to the point the GM came perilously close to publicly calling them on it. (Some read the interview as exactly that.)
The EE signing and the rumored $100M offer to Lindor has quieted some of the cheapskate talk but their history is still out there.
And then, there is the fact that MLB is littered with ex-Cleveland front office personnel. Jacobs left behind a virtual executive finishing school. You could say its a core competence of the franchise. However, retaining those executives…
One tough thing about retaining up-and-coming executives is that it’s normally not enough to throw money at the problem. Good front office people almost all want decision-making responsibility.
A team can finesse that a bit with title inflation or with such moves as having both a President of Baseball Operations and a GM. Ultimately, though, there’s a point where it doesn’t really work because a person – in many cases justifiably – is ambitious and feels qualified for the power and responsibility that his or her boss has.
I’ll also add that having a whole series of overqualified people in a front office (or any office) who could do jobs one or two levels above them sounds a lot better in theory than it often works in practice. It certainly can work, at least for a period of time, but it’s also a good way to end with a bunch of people who are frustrated, bored, working at cross-purposes to each other, or caught up in long debates about who deserves credit or blame.
We have too many Phillies and Mets fans on Fangraphs. Any volunteers to change allegiance to other teams?
The Marlins bandwagon looks like it has a lot of room.
I grew up a Mets and Jets fan. A few years ago I hated the direction the Jets were taking under Rex Ryan and I tried to become a Giants fan. It worked until the Giants played the Jets in preseason, and I couldn’t root for the blue laundry. I ended up just hating football.
It’s actually worked out because football is terrible, but I’m not going to try again with baseball.
If only there was some well run team close to both of those teams geographically…
If we were to try to evaluate owners objectively, what is the most important criteria? My guesses:
-Willingness to spend above and beyond market size
-Proper delegation (that is to say, hires a competent FO, lets them make the baseball decisions)
-Good business sense? (like, markets the team well, engages with fans well, hard to evaluate?)
-Respect for franchise history??
I find it hard to evaluate any but the first two. Are the any others that matter that also can be objectively assessed in some way?
I would say almost exclusively #2 — or at least that #2 is by far the most important. If the front office is really running the team, barring an insanely cheapskate payroll relative to market, then the front office, not ownership, is where the buck ought to stop. But then I’d also note that undesirable ownership meddling is accomplished almost as often via payroll/budget as via direct intervention — you see a lot of stories about front offices that don’t get a clear budget from ownership and so can’t make a clear plan for the offseason. Or they get one number from ownership but then somehow magically money is available on a case-by-case basis for “the right player” or whatever, so it’s essentially ownership retaining the power to construct the team via the power of the purse string, even while telling the front office that they’re not going to interfere with “baseball decisions.”
That seems more important to me, but then WAS and LAA are in the upper half, and the latter despite poor team performance lately. Those to me stand out as meddling owners, based on my knowledge. It looks like the fan rating is mostly a combination of payroll and team success.
Why would you think that?
Tampa, Oakland, Pittsburgh, just to name a few teams, have hands off owners, empowering their GMs to make the best of their meager budgets, and those 3 teams’ ownership were just panned by their fans.
#1 (willingness to spend money) is by far the most important factor, but other factors like #2, 3 and 4 can have a negative impact, if not respected. For example, the Tiger ownership failed on #2. The Marlins have failed especially hard on #3. The Pirates recently ran afoul of #4. The Mets owners have failed on basically all 4.
I would think that because I was not trying to claim this accounted for how everyone just voted in a poll.
“I would say almost exclusively #2 — or at least that #2 is by far the most important”.
I just provided three examples to disprove this statement. In fact, with a little more effort I could have expanded this list to include Philadelphia, Seattle, Cincinnati, Toronto, San Diego and Atlanta, which accounts for 10 of the 13 lowest rated owners. I’m not convinced that “Proper Delegation” plays much of a factor, if at all, in fans perceptions of their owners. It only comes into play if the owners are really bad at other things too. As Bip noted, and as I’d also acknowledge as a Nationals fan myself, the Lerners regularly meddle in baseball operations. In spite of their im-proper delegation, they’re still very good owners.
That sounds very close to the criteria I used. I also tried to think about if the ownership had established a clear vision for the future and a positive, defined organizational culture. Granted, there are some blurry lines between their role and that of the FO, but I believe it starts with ownership.
Respect for the fans and taxpayers in their market?
Maybe it falls under good business sense, but the ownership is presumably the place we’re evaluating the entire business side of these organizations. Though maybe Fangraphs should have a poll for that as well.
I would like to see someone with more business expertise really dive into that, since I feel like I don’t know how to evaluate it. We know baseball is skewing older and has lost some of its market to basketball and football. Might there be MLB teams which, through business acumen, have resisted that trend, at least regionally?
I miss Wendy Thurm almost as much as I miss Notgraphs.
Agreed on all.
But on number one, I’d add “when appropriate”.
Money isn’t always the answerto a team’s ills.
Exhibit One: Detroit is going to be a while recovering from Illitch overspending. Especially the Cabrera extension.
Exhibit two: SD even thinking of signing Hosmer.
Technically, if #2 applies, spending should be only a positive, as the really savvy FO’s know how to spend a lot in such a way that it only helps them long-term. When mixed with poor adherence to #2, that is when it becomes more dangerous, and starts to come out to neutral or even net negative.
That one is reflecting that spending impact is a function of the team’s position on the competitive cycle.
Big spending early in the competitive window is more effective than spending outside a window. A classic example is the 90’s Indians bringing in Eddy Murray and Dennis Martinez to supplement their young rising stars just as their window opened and then added Hershiser and Alomar to extend the window.
SD’s window is generally considered to be at least two years away so regardless of Hosmer’s merits a nine figure contract this year, even to a player that is a better fit, won’t help much. Rather it is more of an example of spending for the sake of spending.
you missed one key factor – winning.
My point was to find the objective criteria on which we could really evaluate ownership, not to intuit the fans’ criteria. Winning is a combination of #1, #2, and luck.
I would add accountability. Nothing frustrates a fan base like having a coach / FO fail and still keep their job. (Ask a Cleveland Browns fan.) Fundamentally, those things stem from ownership.
The owners realise very high capital growth from their investment. To me the sign of a good owner is one that isn’t looking for positive cash flow every year as well.
This tends to be correlated with owners who see their teams as “fun” investments.. not wall st types. To that end, I think it explains how Mark A in Milwaukee looks so good.
It seems like people may be (understandably) conflating front office with ownership. Similar to what somebody above said, I consider a good owner to be somebody who is, A) willing to support high payrolls in the context of the market size, and B) willing to trust his front-office. An owner’s willingness to spend money is not necessarily equal to the propensity of a front office to make good baseball decisions. For these reasons, I would probably put someone like the Royals’ owner or Cardinals’ owner at the top, with the Wilpons or Peter Angelos at the bottom. As a Yankee fan, I think Hal Steinbrenner is a good owner, but he is doing what most good owners would do in such a large-market operation.
Spending over a decade promising that progress is being made towards a new ballpark and then accomplishing nothing explains the A’s low ranking.
[]
Exactly !!
I’m a sort of unhappy Orioles fan, but I blame the front office more than ownership. I don’t think the 88 year old owner is as meddlesome as many believe anymore.
As an unhappy Orioles fan, I disagree completely. Of Duquette and Angelos, the latter is by FAR the worst.
yea I have to agree with trentaur here. Angelos seems to be apart of every trade and could very well be the reason Machado wasn’t moved this offseason as plenty of clubs expressed interest. Never heard about the FO not wanting to move forward w/ a deal, only heard about them wanting to move forward barring Angelos’ approval
Seriously, what more could fans want from the Dodgers or Cubs ownership? I’m just going to assume that people were clicking random buttons on that one.
I think there’s usually a small troll factor that makes a perfect score unattainable. The Cubs probably have a few fans that think the team went too all-in and traded away too much future value, and there are probably Dodger fans who think the team has held onto too much value and failed to make the big move when necessary.
I agree with Bip’s point that some people almost certainly are evaluating the ownership on those points, even though both of those are really front office decisions more than ownership.
Speculating, a bit, we could have some L.A.-area Dodger fans who are upset with ownership about the situation with cable carriage (or lack thereof) that’s persisted for several years. I think it would be fair if some fans see their local TV deal as a bit of a Faustian bargain: revenue that’s been largely re-invested into a good team, but a lot of people can’t actually watch that good team on local cable.
As for Cubs fans in Chicago, IIRC they’ve been pretty aggressive about raising ticket prices as they’ve had success in recent years.
As a Dodger fan, this is the main reason of discontent with ownership in LA. In my opinion, it’s just as much a Time Warner caused problem as it is the Dodgers, if not more so. Going into year 5 I believe of a Dodgers blackout in LA, I don’t think it’s entered McCourt level of discontent (nor will it anytime soon, see 5 straight division titles), but it’s incredibly disheartening.
Yeah I really should have considered this, but it slipped my mind because I see the games anyway through MLB.tv and *cough cough cough* wait what was I saying?
As a non-Dodger but big baseball fan in LA, I am infuriated that I could not watch Vin’s final seasons because of that dumb cable deal. I’m not one for allowing corporations to get out their mistakes, but the Dodgers could have worked out a deal with TWC that would have allowed the “exclusive” rights clause to be rescinded. Sure, it probably would have cost the Dodgers some money in a renegotiation, but it would have been a sign of good faith to the community. The Dodgers are getting a pass right now because they have been so good (and spending money), but this ownership group does NOT have a long-term plan. They are venture capitalists — they are “investing” in the short-term success and profitability of owning a valuable commodity. They care little for actual “baseball”. As someone who grew up in Chicago cheering on the Blackhawks during the ’80s/’90s, let me tell you what happens to a popular franchise that can’t be seen on TV: They lose a generation of fans. This effect won’t be felt for another decade or so, but it doesn’t matter to this ownership group — they’ll be long gone by then.
I actually do think that the Dodgers owners’ have a business plan, which is going well in some ways and not so well in others:
(1) Be willing to spend on players, to both win baseball games and generate PR , both (1) to increase the odds of getting a big long-term local cable TV deal as the rights were up for renewal and (2) to lure fans back after the discontent of the McCourt era. This part has gone really well, and look at a timeline such as big trade for Gonzalez et al (August 2012), big Greinke FA signing (December 2012), and SportsNet LA deal finalized (January 2013).
(2) Stay aggressive so that baseball success ensures the success of SportsNet LA getting carriage. This part of the plan has worked out very well baseball-wise but less well with SportsNet LA, which is still at less than 50% carriage in the LA area. It’s unclear to me just how much of the TV money is at-risk for the Dodgers/Guggenheim. Some reports make it sound like the Dodgers are getting paid even as the channel struggles, but various reports also describe the Dodgers/Guggenheim as owning either 50% or 100% of the channel, indicating that they’d be on the hook for some or all losses. In any case, having the channel struggle for carriage is bad for future fan support (as cpeiken writes), and it’s also not a tenable or sustainable business arrangement to have a TV partner losing gobs of money each year on a 20-year contract
(2)(a) On the baseball side, use this time period to bring in executives such as Friedman and Zaidi and see what they can do with large market resources to keep the team competitive in the short-term, while also setting up a more traditional and sustainable model by developing cost-controlled talent.
(3) Use success from the cost-controlled talent from 2(a) to transition to a winning baseball model that includes spending near the top of the league but not at the extraordinarily high level of the 2013-17 Dodgers. With a winning team to drive high attendance, and a successful local TV deal, the Dodgers should be set up to mint money with spending around or a bit over the luxury tax line.
The baseball side of this plan has worked out extremely well so far. Parts of the business side have also worked, with the notable and very important exception that SportsNet LA has had virtually no success in getting carriage except with its affiliate (Spectrum/Charter/Time Warner Cable, who are all under one corporate umbrella now).
Maybe those dudes selling seats across the street ?
Ticket prices, food/beverage price/quality.
Ricketts took a big hit recently at Cubs convention by his still being butt-hurt comments over Sammy Sosa. Considering he didn’t own the team back then and in fact cheered Sammy in the RF Bleachers, rings hollow to a lot of fans. Regardless on ones feelings towards Sosa, seeing Bonds and Mcguir being accepted by their respective teams is damning.
thank you for the post, i could write a million articles it seems about the Mets and their struggles
I would imagine the Pirates severe drop in ratings would largely be due to the timing of this poll. Asking Pirates fans about ownership within days of selling Cole and McCutchen is obviously going to reflect poorly on the Pirates front office.
Surprised that Yankees fans didn’t lift the Marlins numbers to the top 5.
people didn’t like it when i mentioned it on the poll article, but Marlins fans and especially Pirates fans are voting worse than i expected and worse than i would if i were their fans. the Pirates did well with their trades, as documented here, so i am a bit shocked readers of these articles vote against the theme of them.
at least, i liked the trades and would like them despite being disappointed if i was a pirates fan (i couldn’t edit the comment to include this)
Not augmenting the homegrown talent by spendig on FA’s during the Pirates window, ala the Cubs, is a big part too.
Weird that people (or person) dislikes the Phillies ownership. I’d get that rating for the mid-90’s crew, but they’ve evolved to be one of the most for-the-fans ownership groups in the game. I suppose the voters can’t see that club is close to transitioning to a sustained $200MM payroll supported by a tsunami of no-cost prospects.
“Weird”
Are you a writer here at Fangraphs? That’s the word – “Weird” – they all used to describe their reaction to the signing of Santana that pushed Rhys Hoskins out into LF where he has no business being.
So much for the analytical revolution in Philly.
I used “baffling.” However…
Acquiring depth to improve their standing heading into the 2019 winter kinda proves my point though. They didn’t have to improve the roster, but they did anyway. Having Aaron Altherr or Nick Williams on the bench as depth is a pretty good thing.
Shame on anyone who voted highly for the M’s ownership. Never having a long-term vision that encourages a full rebuild has kept the M’s swimming in mediocrity since 2005.
I am a Braves fan but the Phils have a huge ceiling with their incoming and recent talent.
houston astros has best ownership? i don’t think so. These are just rankings based on performance. astros haven’t won anything until last year…..nada. Their ownership is far from top 2.
Interesting how closely the ownership ratings correlate with how much was spent on payroll.
The Astros were the WS winners, so having a higher rating by Astros fans is to be expected. If they hadn’t won I am sure that rating would have been much different.
Beyond the Astros, it lines up with money spent on payroll remarkably well. Fans want to see the cash.
I don’t understand why the phillies rank so low. Yes they have been running a 6 year painful rebuild but mostly because the (former) management try to milk the old core too long and missed to opportunity to sell.
The ownership however has a history of running top6 payrolls and while they are currently around the bottom they will likely spend again, in fact there are rumors that the owners wanted to spend earlier than klentak wanted who was urging patience (and the santana signing was more on the owner than on the front office).
What “former management”? Bill Giles put the ownership group together 37 years ago. Giles is still there. John Middle ton who has moved forward as the public face was publicly credited with pushing for the Jim Thome signing after Scott Rolen told Middle ton and his crime partners to shove their contract offer up their rectum.
Before you start spewing bullshit at others you should educate yourself on the subject you’re thinking about lecturing others on.
Google: FREE_AEC Phillies
Space used intentionally on surname of Phillies owner _ John M. – to avoid censorship filter on this website.
That’s right, you cannot write the surname of the Phillies owner without your post disappearing down the moderation memory hole.
Former management: Amaro Jr
New management: klentak
The ownership group has spent in the past and will spend again.
Phillies payroll ranks in mlb.
2008:13th
2009:7th
2010:4th
2011:2nd
2012:2nd
2013:3rd
2014:3rd
2015:9th (when they started to really rebuild with the hamels trade)
Sorry for bothering you with those annoying thing named facts.
The failure of the Phillies wasn’t an ownership failure but a failure of the amaro front office which wasn’t up to the modern analytic front office standard anymore.
Hey Sparky
I told you to find that FREE_AEC blog. There’s a post on there that explains why the Phillies farm turned into a pile of feces. There is also a post on the HardballTimes blog here that runs down a ten year period leading up to the Phillies collapse that shows the Phillies farm having produced less WAR than any other in MLB over that time (Red Sox were the best).
That is why the Phillies collapsed and had to rebuild because their farm was tossed aside by the owner.
When the draft comes up this year and the second round begins Phillies fans are going to be like “Well, maybe the second round pick will be someone good (because they just blew the third pick of the draft)?” and then…..then…..Carlos Santana waves hello.
Bye bye draft pick. Phillies owner Palm Beach Johnny has decided the Phillies have more prospects than they need. Palm Beach is already planning the Phillies “window” like they’re a small market team in a suburb of Pittsburgh.
Double post
Regarding Houston: I would wait a couple years. they just won but that was mostly on luhnow who did a great job. Tanking for a cheap core and winning with it isn’t hard for the owner, although to his credit he did allow some money moves like Verlander and a couple mid range signings.
Still Houston only had about a league average payroll, the real challenge for the owner will begin when the core starts to get expensive.
I read that Houston despite being the 4th largest city isn’t a great market due to some factors like football dominance and the media situation so we will see how the will go.
“Tanking for a cheap core and winning with it isn’t hard for the owner”
Well, yes and no on that one, particularly in the case of Houston. It’s true that it’s easy for an owner to get comfortable with the idea of not committing a lot of money to the major league payroll. OTOH, he also has to be thick-skinned and take a long-term view in accepting negative local media coverage and not “doing something for the sake of doing something”. A decent number of signings of not very good veteran FA’s with name recognition have historically been driven by ownership wanting to make a splash and sell tickets.
In the particular case of Houston, it did take some level of ownership commitment to stick with Luhnow’s plan through 2013 even as the team lost 111 games and CSN Houston (a business idea inherited from the McLane years) blew up spectacularly and went bankrupt, with the Astros’ ownership stake in CSN Houston amounting to the opportunity to rebate a lot of its TV rights fees back to the channel to cover losses. Not panicking and trusting Luhnow to stick with his plan seems easy with hindsight, and the commenters on this site are generally inclined to trust someone with Luhnow’s background and philosophy. It’s not a position that everyone would take when owning that team at that point in time, however.
Fangraphs, I will give you money for a membership when you get a commenting platform that allows only one account per IP address. When Casey’s Partner/Free AEC and his 40 accounts can dominate the comments section, a portion of the site that used to be a source of intelligent discussions on baseball and that many people used to enjoy has become a complete joke.
He probably dominated the votings too.