PDA

View Full Version : Worst Reds ownership?



fearofpopvol1
01-19-2009, 12:49 AM
And why?

cincrazy
01-19-2009, 01:17 AM
This was tough for me. But I voted Schott. Her actions embarrassed the franchise, and her complete and utter lack of care for the scouting department wrecked the franchise for a good long while. Lindner was inactive, but not really destructive. And Castellini, it's too early to tell, but I have faith in him.

KronoRed
01-19-2009, 01:46 AM
Too early to say, but it is horrifying how bad the Reds ownership has been for the last 25+ years.

MrCinatit
01-19-2009, 02:32 AM
Marge. I think the organization is still recovering from her noncommittal to the minor leagues and scouting system. This is not to take into account her embarassment to fans many times when she opened her mouth in the public (the Hitler comment...wow).
Lindner, of course, was no picnic - he continued to run the scouting and minor league aspect into the ground. But, he could not hold a candle to Marge.

KronoRed
01-19-2009, 02:37 AM
Don't forget Marge letting the Reds territory shrink and shrink as affiliates jumped ship.

RFS62
01-19-2009, 06:06 AM
Marge. I don't care if we did win on her watch.

She was an embarrassment, and she destroyed one of the great farm systems. We're still paying for her poor judgment.

SunDeck
01-19-2009, 06:50 AM
I think it's a toss up between Marge and Carl. At least Marge threw money into the big league club to win a championship, but in the process she killed off the Reds' farm system.
Lindner said he bought the club to keep it in Cincinnati. I never believed that for a minute; he bought the club at a bargain basement price, knowing full well that he'd be able to sell it at a considerable profit a few years down the road after he had branded the new ball park. While the owner, he did nothing to improve the team on the field.

chicoruiz
01-19-2009, 07:38 AM
Marge or Garry Herrman.

RedsBaron
01-19-2009, 07:51 AM
Marge. I don't care if we did win on her watch.

She was an embarrassment, and she destroyed one of the great farm systems. We're still paying for her poor judgment.

I agree.

macro
01-19-2009, 08:03 AM
I voted Lindner before reading any comments, because at least the Reds had decent teams under Marge. But after reading the posts, I'll agree with Marge as the choice of worst owner.

Heath
01-19-2009, 08:25 AM
None of the above - Sid Weil hands down.

oneupper
01-19-2009, 08:47 AM
None of the above - Sid Weil hands down.

I guess the term "recent times" is relative. :D
...and I thought I was an old-timer. :)

hebroncougar
01-19-2009, 08:55 AM
For me it's Carl, hands down. They didn't take advantage of opening a new ballpark, and the springboard it created. They decidedly ignored the great history of the franchise as well. At least Marge cared about winning, and she publicly adored the franchise, and it's history. She was a strange old bird, but she cared.

paulrichjr
01-19-2009, 09:02 AM
Carl no doubt about it. Marge did some stupid stuff but I think she wanted to see the Reds win and honestly I don't know if she had deep enough pockets to spend much more on the organization. We had one of the largest payrolls in baseball at that time. Carl on the other hand (I think) had the pockets but decided to make money off of the Reds. Sure I suppose he should try to make money but I'm not sure he understood that winning would lead to higher profits over the long run. Personally I don't think he bled Reds like Marge did...and besides Marge was a winner no matter what anyone says about her. She might have been awful as an owner but she still won a championship and 1999 was even the result of her horrible management.

westofyou
01-19-2009, 10:38 AM
I'd vote marge hands done in that poll.... but others are worst, Sidney Weil was worst than all of them, even Marge... whose crassness was only eclipsed by her ignorance.

That said Weil had no business in the game, he secretly bought the club up, had limited resources, acted as his own GM at times and eventually had to hand control of the team over to the bank.

However, the worst owner by far is John T Brush, a man who lived in Indianapolis (only Reds owner ever from out of town) and a guy who partnered with The Giants owner to stock the Gotham team (Mathewson) for dead meat (Rusie) and steal the AL Baltimore team for that as well.. in return he was allowed to buy the team after he dumped the Reds.

The thing to note with all three of the above is that their departure from team ownership led to the worst teams of the Reds history

Brush


1905 5th 79 74 .516 26
1906 6th 64 87 .424 51.5
1907 6th 66 87 .431 41.5
1908 5th 73 81 .474 26
1909 4th 77 76 .503 33.5
1910 5th 75 79 .487 29
1911 6th 70 83 .458 29
1912 4th 75 78 .490 29
1913 7th 64 89 .418 37.5
1914 8th 60 94 .390 34.5

Weil


1931 8th 58 96 .377 43
1932 8th 60 94 .390 30
1933 8th 58 94 .382 33
1934 8th 52 99 .344 42
1935 6th 68 85 .444 31.5
1936 5th 74 80 .481 18
1937 8th 56 98 .364 40
1938 4th 82 68 .547 6

Marge


1999 2nd 96 67 .589 1.5
2000 2nd 85 77 .525 10
2001 5th 66 96 .407 27
2002 3rd 78 84 .481 19
2003 5th 69 93 .426 19
2004 4th 76 86 .469 29
2005 5th 73 89 .451 27
2006 3rd 80 82 .494 3.5
2007 5th 72 90 .444 13
2008 5th 74 88 .457 23.5

Unassisted
01-19-2009, 11:25 AM
I voted Lindner. A small market team can't be successful in this noisy media-centric world with an owner who prefers being quietly effective to making a splash. In fairness, I don't believe his heart was truly in it. He just took over so Marge wouldn't have to hand the keys over to out-of-towners.

Highlifeman21
01-19-2009, 11:25 AM
I wanted to vote Marge, I really did, but she was ignorant and I honestly think she didn't know what she was doing to the Reds with her decisions, whereas Uncle Carl knew exactly what he was doing with the Reds and how every move impacted the Reds, as well as his wallet.

I thought Carl buying the Reds would be a great thing, combined with Griffey coming to town, but at the end of the day all Carl cared about was lining his pockets with cash.

REDREAD
01-19-2009, 11:34 AM
Lindner.

Marge at least tried to win. Sure, she did not believe in developing the farm system, prefering to dump the money into ML payroll.. However, Carl didn't believe in investing in the majors or minors.. 2 years under Linder's rule, the Reds had no money to sign their #1 draft pick (Sowers and Esponisa).

I agree that Marge was not a saint, but Carl ran the team into the ground, despite getting the benefit of Jr falling into his lap. Carl probably had the best revenue year ever for the Reds in 2000, thanks to Jr and his response was to cut payroll the following year.
Carl also pennypinched the team in preperation for the new Stadium and he and Allen had full intention of having a firesale in 2003.. they just miscalculated the Graves and Casey contracts so they couldn't dump them too.

Marge didn't know when to keep her mouth shut and was easily baited by reporters, but Carl was more embarrassing. And as far as shrinking territory, Carl/Allen blazed the trail by screwing up the TV deals and giving WLW full rights to the Reds broadcast (which killed the radio network even more).

The lack of talent this franchise has now is due to the "stewardship" of Carl Lindner.

bucksfan2
01-19-2009, 11:35 AM
Marge won. Flat out during the early 90's the Reds were relevant and spent with the best in the league. There was never an issue of picking up added salary with Marge. To me she was in touch with the Reds and their fan base. She cared about the Reds and cared about kids playing baseball. Under the Linder ownership the Reds may have lost a generation of fans. Its sad but a reality. Marge may have said some dumb things but it doesn't bother me that much. My grandparents were the same way, IMO its that generation especially as they age.

Linder hands down gets it for me. He had a new ballpark to move into. He had the best player in baseball coming over to the Reds and he failed to compete. He let an accountant decide on who to sign and who not to sign. He neglected the minors as much as Marge did. He ran the Reds like a business and not as a fan. Its sad to think that the Reds nixed trades for Colon and Findley when they were in a pennant chase because of the added value of the contract. IMO the Linder ownership is a large reason why many Reds fans are turning more and more pessimistic.

gonelong
01-19-2009, 11:39 AM
At least with Marge and Bcast there was/is some glimmer of hope. With Carl there was none.

GL

Roy Tucker
01-19-2009, 12:22 PM
I'd say Carl.

I think he is an exceedingly astute businessman but very willingly chose to not do things during his watch when he knew that that it would be detrimental to the team.

Marge was a massively flawed person, an embarrassment to Cincinnati and baseball, and had no business being a MLB owner. But at least she cared. Plus she was nice to my kids.

princeton
01-19-2009, 12:28 PM
With Carl there was none.



death

AmarilloRed
01-19-2009, 12:38 PM
Marge. This quote from her really clinches it for me:


Why do we need scouts? All they do is watch baseball games.

It shows what she did to the scouting department and our minor league system.

lollipopcurve
01-19-2009, 12:40 PM
Marge, easily.

She ran the franchise into the mud.

bucksfan2
01-19-2009, 12:50 PM
Marge, easily.

She ran the franchise into the mud.

From 84-99 Schott was the majority owner of the Reds. The Reds went to the playoffs in 95, were in first place in 94 before the strike and won the WS in 90. What have the other owners done?

westofyou
01-19-2009, 12:56 PM
From 84-99 Schott was the majority owner of the Reds. The Reds went to the playoffs in 95, were in first place in 94 before the strike and won the WS in 90. What have the other owners done?

Let's see, Marge had Howsams team to work with scouts, talent drafted etc.. and Bob and Carl had Marges.... gee I wonder why Marge looks so good in retrospect?

M2
01-19-2009, 01:42 PM
Let's see, Marge had Howsams team to work with scouts, talent drafted etc.. and Bob and Carl had Marges.... gee I wonder why Marge looks so good in retrospect?

And she also went outside the system to hire the manager and GM that delivered a World Series.

I nod in agreement with most criticisms of Marge, but she was complicated because, much as we might hate to admit it, the racist old bat did do some things right. The Reds didn't try to pawn off garbage as treasure when she was in charge and the franchise had a national profile (often for the wrong reasons, but it also garnered a good bit of respect for the baseball it played on the field). While Marge was in charge the Reds mattered. Since Marge the Reds have become a sorry afterthought and that's not her fault. She's been gone for a long time now (the real Marge hangover was 1997-98), the Reds could have been rebuilt four times over in that span. Yet all that happens is the organizational paralysis deepens.

The Reds changed under Lindner, into something sorry and pathetic. I suppose Castellini would change that if he could, but he's proven impotent in that regard.

REDREAD
01-19-2009, 02:13 PM
Let's see, Marge had Howsams team to work with scouts, talent drafted etc.. and Bob and Carl had Marges.... gee I wonder why Marge looks so good in retrospect?

Marge always had money to sign the #1 picks though. Carl/Allen didn't.

I'd rather the team sign #1 picks and say dumb things than to flat out lie to the fan base like Allen/Lindner did.

Remember Allen saying that the new stadium would make the team competitive? Then he made no attempt whatsoever to make the team competitive (on the major or minor league level). He couldn't wait to fire sale the 2003 team.

Yes, Marge undervalued player development, but Carl was worse.

I(heart)Freel
01-19-2009, 02:16 PM
Carl. He brought Junior home but then never expanded the payroll to support a winning team around him. Then gave into fan pressure to sign Larkin to an insane, makeup contract... and again didn't balloon the payroll around him to make up for it. Plus there's all his hires (O'Brien) and promotions (Allen) during his tenure that matched his personality/business style instead of getting savvy baseball men. Ugh, I say. Ugh.

Oh yea, and he also bankrolled the Anti Broadway Commons campaign because his Fourth St. properties would benefit more from a stadium at the Wedge than one tucked into a historic neighborhood, entertainment district. That one decision right there probably cost the Reds as a team more directly than any other. It sickens me every time I drive by Broadway Commons.

MartyFan
01-19-2009, 02:22 PM
I voted Lindner before reading any comments, because at least the Reds had decent teams under Marge. But after reading the posts, I'll agree with Marge as the choice of worst owner.

Same here...I was simply looking at the team on the field. All things considered, Mr Lindner could never be worse than Marge.

westofyou
01-19-2009, 02:25 PM
Marge always had money to sign the #1 picks though. Carl/Allen didn't.

I'd rather the team sign #1 picks and say dumb things than to flat out lie to the fan base like Allen/Lindner did.

Remember Allen saying that the new stadium would make the team competitive? Then he made no attempt whatsoever to make the team competitive (on the major or minor league level). He couldn't wait to fire sale the 2003 team.

Yes, Marge undervalued player development, but Carl was worse.

Marge stole from the team and her co owners.

When Marge owned the Reds she canceled every contract that the Reds with other dealears in the tri-state area, sapping a good portion of revenue.

Then she cut "better" contracts with the Reds to market her Buick dealerships. During the life of the contracts (since Margie owned both companies) Marge would not pay the Reds the advertising costs on time, hence keeping income out of the Reds coffers and in her Buick dealership instead.

The advertising for the dealerships usually cost the dealers, except Marge had the Reds marketing department do it for free. The rates she payed should have been discussed by ALL the partners, they weren't. In fact when payment wasn't given to the Reds by the Dealership Marge off wrote the costs due to cars that the Reds used.

The late payments extended the already shrinking and limited advertising coffers.

How much control of the auto advertising did Marge have? When E.D. cut a contract with BMW to do local advertising Marge squirelled the deal, to make him feel better about it she arranged to give him a corvette to make him feel better... which she charged the Reds not her dealership for.

She moved the Reds to Plant City because the land they bought and used was owned by a "friend" of hers... that worked out well.

Marge destroyed this franchise and forever linked it with a acerbic hag who knew nothing about the sport, tried to sell used donuts to the press, ran through 4 GM, 20 scouts and 5 traveling secretaries in her first 8 years there.

Marge Schott the prime example of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I'll have to pass on giving her anything but grief.

M2
01-19-2009, 02:43 PM
Marge destroyed this franchise and forever linked it with a acerbic hag who knew nothing about the sport, tried to sell used donuts to the press, ran through 4 GM, 20 scouts and 5 traveling secretaries in her first 8 years there.

No doubt, Marge did a ton of bad things. That said, how long does it take to hire scouts and rebuild the marketing and community outreach organs of the franchise? That's a few months of work at most. Lindner bought a fairly young 96-win team with the #3 rated feeder system in MLB. That's hardly a destroyed franchise.

Honestly, when I consider the principal actors in the modern demise of Reds baseball, Marge Schott is nothing more than a bit player, the convenient excuse for the incompetents who took everything she may have done wrong before them and cranked it all up to 11.

westofyou
01-19-2009, 02:45 PM
Honestly, when I consider the principal actors in the modern demise of Reds baseball, Marge Schott is nothing more than a bit player, the convenient excuse for the incompetents who took everything she may have done wrong before them and cranked it all up to 11.

I always found her to be an embarrassment of ignorance and a black mark on the area I called home.

M2
01-19-2009, 02:57 PM
I always found her to be an embarrassment of ignorance and a black mark on the area I called home.

You've got me nodding in agreement. She was an awful person who did multifold stupid and corrupt things while running the Reds.

Yet she was a fairly easy page to turn. Most of the world had respect for the Reds if not the club's owner. Lindner bought a company with a good product, he just needed to shore up the business operations. A decade later the product and brand name are in the toilet. Marge may have been a troll, but she didn't do that.

gonelong
01-19-2009, 03:06 PM
Marge stole from the team and her co owners.



No doubt. Carl stole from everyone who lived in or visited Hamilton county.

GL

lollipopcurve
01-19-2009, 03:15 PM
Lindner bought a company with a good product, he just needed to shore up the business operations.

Easier said than done. They had to put an accountant (Allen) in charge of the whole operation.

Not to mention the fact that the minor leagues had completely decayed by the time she left.

The only thing she gets credit for in my book is hiring Piniella -- but if her boy Rose hadn't lied his way out baseball, we'd have never seen Piniella. It would have been the Schott and Rose show ad infinitum, like Ruth Lyons and Bob Braun gone bad.

red-in-la
01-19-2009, 03:26 PM
Let's see, Marge had Howsams team to work with scouts, talent drafted etc.. and Bob and Carl had Marges.... gee I wonder why Marge looks so good in retrospect?

Excuse me, Marge had Wagner's team to work with, not Howsam's. Wagner would win the WORST GM ever vote in a landslide.

Marge was a drunk and an old school bigot. I know, my mother-in-law was Marge without the booze. Marge was embarrssing, but Lindner was worse.

Sign up JR to 1/3 of the payroll and bargain out everything else while the team moved into a brand new stadium.....sickening.

So, A tie wasn't one of the choices so I vote for Lindner giving a pass to Marge because she didn't know any better. To her, the Reds were just another used car store.

bucksfan2
01-19-2009, 03:37 PM
Easier said than done. They had to put an accountant (Allen) in charge of the whole operation.

They had to put Allen in charge? To me Allen was put in charge because he was a bean counter and Lindner didn't want to lose money. Lindner had Jr and the opening of GABP and failed to add much to the payroll. He operated the Reds without a desire to win. When you do that you are destined to fail.

westofyou
01-19-2009, 03:40 PM
Excuse me, Marge had Wagner's team to work with, not Howsam's. Wagner would win the WORST GM ever vote in a landslide.


Howsam was running the team again when Marge took control.

SunDeck
01-19-2009, 04:13 PM
Marge always had money to sign the #1 picks though. Carl/Allen didn't.



Marge couldn't pack Carl's lunch, financially. He could have doubled the Reds payroll without batting an eye, but chose not to because he was only interested in buying low and selling high once the ballpark increased the value of the club.

Improving the Reds during his tenure would have taken an investment, either in payroll at the MLB level, in scouting and player development or both. He chose neither.

RANDY IN INDY
01-19-2009, 04:38 PM
Lindner never seemed to have a passion for the Reds. He was looking to turn a buck, and that's OK, but it was a slap in the face to Reds fans, everywhere. As SunDeck pointed out, he could have put some money into turning things around. An owner with means who was passionate about the game and winning would have done that.

BoydsOfSummer
01-19-2009, 04:55 PM
I still can't pick. That's pretty damned bad when something like this is that tough a vote.

RichRed
01-19-2009, 05:00 PM
The Reds are incredibly fortunate to have two such worthy candidates for the distinction of Worst Owner. How did we get so lucky?

I'll say Carl is #1, with Marge breathing cigarette smoke down his neck at #1A.

M2
01-19-2009, 05:05 PM
Easier said than done.

Not really. Major corporations do it all the time. The Reds have relatively small marketing and business operations.


They had to put an accountant (Allen) in charge of the whole operation.

They should have put someone with some baseball business savvy in charge and left the accountant to run the books.


Not to mention the fact that the minor leagues had completely decayed by the time she left.

BA ranked the Reds the #3 feeder system prior to the 2000 season. The 1999 Reds also featured five significant position player contributors age 26 or younger and the Rookie of the Year in the bullpen. That is far from complete decay, despite the myth that gets perpetuated these days. Did everyone pan out as Reds fans may have hoped? No. Did the farm system and draft operation need a major upgrade? Yes. Yet the system had produced players and would go on to produce players in the next few years.

Lindner walked into a club with talent on hand and a solvable set of problems. Five years later he hadn't solved a single one of those problems and the talent in both the majors and minors was on the wane.


The only thing she gets credit for in my book is hiring Piniella -- but if her boy Rose hadn't lied his way out baseball, we'd have never seen Piniella. It would have been the Schott and Rose show ad infinitum, like Ruth Lyons and Bob Braun gone bad.

Maybe, but she did hire Piniella. Of course, she chased Lou away (and fired Bob Quinn) and then she later canned Davey Johnson for the dopiest reason in history. I imagine working for her was a misery. I don't really have much good to say about her other than she left the product in decent shape, perhaps despite herself, but in decent shape nonetheless.

Caveat Emperor
01-19-2009, 05:55 PM
No doubt, Marge did a ton of bad things. That said, how long does it take to hire scouts and rebuild the marketing and community outreach organs of the franchise? That's a few months of work at most. Lindner bought a fairly young 96-win team with the #3 rated feeder system in MLB. That's hardly a destroyed franchise.

Marge Schott deserves to "win" this poll because of her awful personal traits, her shady business dealings, and the fact that she did everything in her power to perpetuate the stereotype of Cincinnati as a racist, white midwestern town filled with intolerant people.

Carl Linder deserves to "win" this poll because he ran the club like a business, hired a GM who spoke business but not baseball, and gave the appearance that he cared little about the fate of the team.

Each one has a claim to the throne, but really I give the title to Carl Linder because every problem he inherited (save for the problem of perception) was fixable for a fairly limited amount of money. He was handed, during his tenure as owner, a brand new facility that he did nothing to fill. He spent little to nothing correcting the scouting and development problems left by Marge. His team was run by incompetent people from the top down, starting with Bowden and finishing with Dan O'Brien.

Linder had the money and ability to fix every institutional problem with the club for less than the cost of a single mid-range free agent, and he did nothing. Instead of spending to create an environment that bred success, he cut budget for internal and external scouting, cut budget for development and coaching, passed the cost of the stadium onto the voters of Hamilton County (helping to bankrupt the county in the process, which has partly led to the fiscal problems it now faces), and attempted to do the exact same thing to the voters in Sarasota, FL.

Simply put: he passed the franchise off to Cast in FAR worse shape than he found it. For that, he wins this poll -- even in the face of Marge's comments about Dave Parker, her temper-tantrums about elephants in the zoo and her backyard filled with Buicks.

cincrazy
01-19-2009, 05:56 PM
It's pretty sad that we're even having this argument and can make a compelling case for more than one side, haha. Being born in 1985..... Not good from a Reds fan perspective :)

red-in-la
01-19-2009, 09:19 PM
Marge stole from the team and her co owners.

When Marge owned the Reds she canceled every contract that the Reds with other dealears in the tri-state area, sapping a good portion of revenue.

Then she cut "better" contracts with the Reds to market her Buick dealerships. During the life of the contracts (since Margie owned both companies) Marge would not pay the Reds the advertising costs on time, hence keeping income out of the Reds coffers and in her Buick dealership instead.

The advertising for the dealerships usually cost the dealers, except Marge had the Reds marketing department do it for free. The rates she payed should have been discussed by ALL the partners, they weren't. In fact when payment wasn't given to the Reds by the Dealership Marge off wrote the costs due to cars that the Reds used.

The late payments extended the already shrinking and limited advertising coffers.

How much control of the auto advertising did Marge have? When E.D. cut a contract with BMW to do local advertising Marge squirelled the deal, to make him feel better about it she arranged to give him a corvette to make him feel better... which she charged the Reds not her dealership for.

She moved the Reds to Plant City because the land they bought and used was owned by a "friend" of hers... that worked out well.

Marge destroyed this franchise and forever linked it with a acerbic hag who knew nothing about the sport, tried to sell used donuts to the press, ran through 4 GM, 20 scouts and 5 traveling secretaries in her first 8 years there.

Marge Schott the prime example of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I'll have to pass on giving her anything but grief.

I am amazed at how much you know WOY.....good for you. I didn't really realize all of this until just now.

I still think it is a tie between Lindner and Marge.....and again, Marge was just running the Reds like I am sure she ran here dealerships.

As to the canceling of contracts, I do not believe that the Cards ever advertised any beer but Busch. And I don't know for sure because I never drank it, but I believe for a long time, you could only buy Busch products in the stadium there.

But I totally agree with your post.....except that Marge only robbed Peter to pay Marge.

REDREAD
01-20-2009, 09:54 AM
Marge stole from the team and her co owners.

When Marge owned the Reds she canceled every contract that the Reds with other dealears in the tri-state area, sapping a good portion of revenue.



As a fan, I really don't care if the Reds decide to give an exclusive advertising to Marge's dealerships. To me, that's like making Kahn's the official hotdog of the Reds. Carl decided to name the stadium after his company, instead of having an open bidding to name the park. That's his choice. It probably impacted team revenue, but it's his choice.

Carl and Allen stole from the taxpayers. That's far worse than whatever Marge did with the books. We were promised the Reds would make a legit attempt to contend, but it was just a huge scam.





Then she cut "better" contracts with the Reds to market her Buick dealerships. During the life of the contracts (since Margie owned both companies) Marge would not pay the Reds the advertising costs on time, hence keeping income out of the Reds coffers and in her Buick dealership instead.



No different than Carl charging lobbying expenses to the Reds, and giving himself the naming rights to the park. Neither really is the main concern I have with the owner.

If Cast decided to take down all the billboards at the park and replace them with his vegetable business, I really only care if it affects the product on the field.




The late payments extended the already shrinking and limited advertising coffers.


And John Allen hurt the Reds by screwing up the TV contracts. Cast has also reversed some of the things Allen did with the radio. Both Marge and Carl did dumb things that affected revenue, but again, as a fan, I care about the product on the field more than anything. Marge tried to win. Carl didn't.





How much control of the auto advertising did Marge have? When E.D. cut a contract with BMW to do local advertising Marge squirelled the deal, to make him feel better about it she arranged to give him a corvette to make him feel better... which she charged the Reds not her dealership for.


Marge also made Eric Davis the highest paid player at the time. So what if Marge charges the Reds for the Corvette? How did that affect the team on the field? Again, how is that different from Carl charging around 1 million in lobbying expenses one year to the Reds? All owners exploit things like that.





She moved the Reds to Plant City because the land they bought and used was owned by a "friend" of hers... that worked out well.


And I'm sure the Reds moving to AZ and sharing a place with the Indians is going to "work out well" too. BTW, the Reds had some of the worst attendence numbers in both spring training and the regular season under Carl, because the team perpetually sucked. We are still trying to dig out of that hole now. Think of all the fans that Allen/Carl have alienated. The team is still a laughingstock. People wonder why Dunn couldn't be resigned.. Why would he want to spend another 7 years losing?





Marge destroyed this franchise and forever linked it with a acerbic hag who knew nothing about the sport, tried to sell used donuts to the press, ran through 4 GM, 20 scouts and 5 traveling secretaries in her first 8 years there.


The team seemed pretty darn healthy in 1999. I'm not sure when you consider Marge gone. One could say it was when Carl bought the team or go further back to when she was suspended from day to day operations.. In any event, she left the cupboard pretty full, considering the team almost made the playoffs in 1999. What did Cast inherit? Not a whole lot of talent in the majors or minors.




Marge Schott the prime example of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I'll have to pass on giving her anything but grief.

And Carl robbed the fans to pay himself, which is far worse.

REDREAD
01-20-2009, 10:00 AM
Easier said than done. They had to put an accountant (Allen) in charge of the whole operation.


Carl had the right to replace Allen when Carl bought the team. I even remember Selig saying something to the affect that if the Reds let Allen go, Selig would find a job for Allen. No one forced Carl to take Allen. Cast certainly had no problem firing Allen.



Not to mention the fact that the minor leagues had completely decayed by the time she left.


It was ranked #3 in 1999.. That's not too shabby.



The only thing she gets credit for in my book is hiring Piniella -- but if her boy Rose hadn't lied his way out baseball, we'd have never seen Piniella. It would have been the Schott and Rose show ad infinitum, like Ruth Lyons and Bob Braun gone bad.

He also gets credit for hiring Bowden, which led to 1995 and 1999. The Reds also would've probably made the playoffs in 94 if the strike hadn't happened.

Sure, Marge was an embarassment with her racist remarks, but she ran the team much better than Carl. If Marge was smart enough to never speak to reporters, she would've been seen in a much better light.

People bring up Marge's comment about how "scouts only watch games, who needs them". Well, Carl obviously didn't think that scouts and drafting was important either. He was just smart enough not to say it publicly.

RFS62
01-20-2009, 10:19 AM
Well, now I can relax. I was really wondering who Redread was going to vote for.

Yachtzee
01-20-2009, 11:10 AM
Marge stole from the team and her co owners.

When Marge owned the Reds she canceled every contract that the Reds with other dealears in the tri-state area, sapping a good portion of revenue.

Then she cut "better" contracts with the Reds to market her Buick dealerships. During the life of the contracts (since Margie owned both companies) Marge would not pay the Reds the advertising costs on time, hence keeping income out of the Reds coffers and in her Buick dealership instead.

The advertising for the dealerships usually cost the dealers, except Marge had the Reds marketing department do it for free. The rates she payed should have been discussed by ALL the partners, they weren't. In fact when payment wasn't given to the Reds by the Dealership Marge off wrote the costs due to cars that the Reds used.

The late payments extended the already shrinking and limited advertising coffers.

How much control of the auto advertising did Marge have? When E.D. cut a contract with BMW to do local advertising Marge squirelled the deal, to make him feel better about it she arranged to give him a corvette to make him feel better... which she charged the Reds not her dealership for.

She moved the Reds to Plant City because the land they bought and used was owned by a "friend" of hers... that worked out well.

Marge destroyed this franchise and forever linked it with a acerbic hag who knew nothing about the sport, tried to sell used donuts to the press, ran through 4 GM, 20 scouts and 5 traveling secretaries in her first 8 years there.

Marge Schott the prime example of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I'll have to pass on giving her anything but grief.

Let's not forget that she faked sales to Reds' employees and their families to pad the books of her dealerships so that GM wouldn't take them away.

Or what about how she did absolutely nothing and in fact appeared to almost be campaigning against the Hamilton Co. sales tax that was to buy her team a new stadium? Was it out of some feeling that the citizens of Hamilton Co. shouldn't have to pay for a new park for millionaire owners? No. She was mad because the Bengals were getting equal treatment when she felt the Reds should be treated as top dogs. She seemed to give the impression that she wanted the Bengals to move so that the Reds would be the only game in town. Then, she dragged her feet on working out a deal with the county to build a new stadium, allowing Mike Brown to get first pick on location and a better deal on building PBS. Of course, then she cried that the Bengals were getting the prime spot and, IIRC, she threatened to put the team in Northern KY. She was so jealous of the Reds territory that I don't even think she wanted Dayton to have a minor league team because, in her thinking, it would draw fans away from the big league team. I have a feeling that if Marge Schott had had her way, the sales tax wouldn't have passed, there would be no new Bengals stadium, no Cincinnati Bengals, and possibly no Cincinnati Reds.

Regarding her success, I think it's also important to put it into context. Marge was successful with the Reds at a time when the economics of baseball were different. She owned the team at a time when teams like the Royals, Pirates, and Expos could still compete. Her squeezing of the revenue streams and decimation of the farm system are still being felt today. Everyone recognizes how she destroyed the farm system, but part of why the Reds revenues are where they are today is because Marge failed to recognize the power of the media to promote the team. The Reds Radio Network is a shadow of what it once was and the Reds have let the Indians take the lead in putting its games on TV and getting its brand out to the masses of Ohio baseball fans. Put Marge Schott in charge under the same conditions as Lindner or Castellini and I think it would be an unmitigated disaster.

Lindner, I seem him as a caretaker more than anything. His goals were to keep the team here and keep it from losing money. Maybe his biggest contribution was that his ownership resulted in changes in the Limited Partnership to allow Castellini to gain more control over the team than previous owners had had.

Cyclone792
01-20-2009, 11:23 AM
Lindner, I seem him as a caretaker more than anything. His goals were to keep the team here and keep it from losing money. Maybe his biggest contribution was that his ownership resulted in changes in the Limited Partnership to allow Castellini to gain more control over the team than previous owners had had.

Lindner's goal was to make serious money in a short period of time, and he had the perfect weapon for doing so: the new stadium.

Lindner didn't care about winning, and he didn't care about the fans. All he was interested in was the fans' checkbooks.

He bought the team knowing the stadium was approved, and all he had to do was transition the team from the concrete dump known as Riverfront to a nice, sparking ballpark - albeit stripped down because Lindner didn't want to pay for anything more than bare bones necessary. The best appreciation value of a short term period for a big league team is a new stadium, and that's exactly what Lindner had sitting on his porch. Then once everything is moved in and settled, he cashes in his chips and runs away with a massive profit.

As far as who was worse, Schott or Lindner ... I have no idea. Both are words I cannot use on this forum. And with the way this offseason is going, Castellini may be turning into a poor man's Lindner himself.

Yachtzee
01-20-2009, 11:35 AM
Marge or Garry Herrman.

Why Garry Herman?

Yachtzee
01-20-2009, 11:43 AM
Lindner's goal was to make serious money in a short period of time, and he had the perfect weapon for doing so: the new stadium.

Lindner didn't care about winning, and he didn't care about the fans. All he was interested in was the fans' checkbooks.

He bought the team knowing the stadium was approved, and all he had to do was transition the team from the concrete dump known as Riverfront to a nice, sparking ballpark - albeit stripped down because Lindner didn't want to pay for anything more than bare bones necessary. The best appreciation value of a short term period for a big league team is a new stadium, and that's exactly what Lindner had sitting on his porch. Then once everything is moved in and settled, he cashes in his chips and runs away with a massive profit.

As far as who was worse, Schott or Lindner ... I have no idea. Both are words I cannot use on this forum. And with the way this offseason is going, Castellini may be turning into a poor man's Lindner himself.

He didn't really buy into the team though, did he? I always thought he had long been one of the limited partners and had stepped in to buy Marge's GP share when MLB told her she had to give up control of the team. In fact, Marge remained a limited partner herself after Lindner took over. Would the value of his partnership shares increased that much more if he had just let someone else run the show? I don't really believe Lindner took control of the Reds just to cash in. He was already tremendously wealthy and really left much of the running of the team to the FO. He seemed more interested in his philanthropic projects than he did running the Reds. Add to that the fact that he wouldn't do anything without running it by the Limited Partners.

Cyclone792
01-20-2009, 12:45 PM
He didn't really buy into the team though, did he? I always thought he had long been one of the limited partners and had stepped in to buy Marge's GP share when MLB told her she had to give up control of the team. In fact, Marge remained a limited partner herself after Lindner took over. Would the value of his partnership shares increased that much more if he had just let someone else run the show? I don't really believe Lindner took control of the Reds just to cash in. He was already tremendously wealthy and really left much of the running of the team to the FO. He seemed more interested in his philanthropic projects than he did running the Reds. Add to that the fact that he wouldn't do anything without running it by the Limited Partners.

By owning a much larger part of the team, he brought home a much larger profit thanks to the new stadium. Lindner's goal was to reap the benefits of a short-term appreciation spike that the new stadium gave the franchise, nothing more. It was an excellent business decision for him and his family, but it was also a decision that drove a stake through the hearts of Reds fans.

flyer85
01-20-2009, 12:59 PM
By owning a much larger part of the team, he brought home a much larger profit thanks to the new stadium. Lindner's goal was to reap the benefits of a short-term appreciation spike that the new stadium gave the franchise, nothing more. It was an excellent business decision for him and his family, but it was also a decision that drove a stake through the hearts of Reds fans.Lindner and the limited partners sued Marge during her reign for not distributing enough money to them. She was spending to much for players(the Reds were a high payroll team until ~94-95 IIRC) and not dispursing enough to the limiteds(in their opinion).

flyer85
01-20-2009, 01:00 PM
It was an excellent business decision for him and his family, but it was also a decision that drove a stake through the hearts of Reds fans.Uncle Carl didn't care about winning. Uncle Bob seems to care about winning, just is rather clueless in how to go about it.

Spring~Fields
01-20-2009, 01:14 PM
Investors
Robert H. Castellini - W. Joseph Williams Jr. - Thomas L. Williams
Carl H. Lindner -- Carl H. Lindner III -- Mrs. Louis Nippert -- William J. Reik -- George L. Strike
Rick Steiner, Buy Buy Baseball, LLC - EMK Investment Company, LLC - Larry Sheakley - Jeffrey L. Wyler
Harry J. Fath - Jeffrey L. Gendell - Edwin J. Riguad, AACE, LLC - HKR Baseball, LLC - Ronald L. Sargent
John H. Wyant - George H. Vincent, Queen City Diamond, LLC - Heading for Home, LLC - Art Hauser


http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/team/front_office.jsp?c_id=cin

REDREAD
01-20-2009, 04:42 PM
He seemed more interested in his philanthropic projects than he did running the Reds. Add to that the fact that he wouldn't do anything without running it by the Limited Partners.


Carl signed Milton without running it by the partners. The limiteds were all surprised by it. This was quoted directly from one of the limiteds.

Furman used to always blame the Limiteds on the poor state of the Reds, to protect his buddy Carl, but in reality, Carl was in control, and he knew exactly what he was doing.

He was just surprised to be booed on opening day, because he thought the fans were dumb sheep that blindly bought tickets, regardless of the quality of the product.

Highlifeman21
01-20-2009, 04:54 PM
To me, it seemed like once the novelty of GABP wore off to the casual fan, combined with overall declining attendance #s led to Uncle Carl to sell the team.

He bled it dry for all he could, and then moved on.

MrCinatit
01-20-2009, 06:09 PM
Wasn't it Marge who refused to pay for Eric Davis' airplane ticket back from Oakland after the World Series after he was laid up for a lacerated kidney after making a diving catch?
Not exactly a generous and thoughtful act.

M2
01-20-2009, 06:54 PM
And I'm sure the Reds moving to AZ and sharing a place with the Indians is going to "work out well" too.

I look at the whole ST move to Arizona as a sign of the Reds' lack of a brand name. Is there any doubt that the Reds would have stayed in Florida if they could have found a good deal there? Is there any doubt the majority of Reds fans would have preferred the team do its spring training in Florida instead of Arizona? Of course not.

Yet what municipality wants to spend beaucoup bucks on a facility for the Reds? The answer is Goodyear, AZ, which I'm sure is a perfectly fine, sleepy little town, but it's only getting ST tenants because it's throwing money at them.

The Reds took what they could get because that's what the franchise has become: an enterprise that has to take what it can get.

Spring~Fields
01-20-2009, 07:28 PM
Lindner and the limited partners sued Marge during her reign for not distributing enough money to them. She was spending to much for players(the Reds were a high payroll team until ~94-95 IIRC) and not dispursing enough to the limiteds(in their opinion).

Basically the same power brokers that sat behind Marge and did that to her are sitting behind Castellini now. Bob has to answer to them. Carl H. Lindner -- Mrs. Louis Nippert -- William J. Reik -- George L. Strike

Yachtzee
01-20-2009, 09:29 PM
Wasn't it Marge who refused to pay for Eric Davis' airplane ticket back from Oakland after the World Series after he was laid up for a lacerated kidney after making a diving catch?
Not exactly a generous and thoughtful act.

When John McSherry died on Opening Day, Schott sent recycled flowers to the umpires that had been given to her that day.

fearofpopvol1
01-22-2009, 01:56 PM
Would you change your answer today based on the BCast's comments?

M2
01-22-2009, 01:58 PM
Would you change your answer today based on the BCast's comments?

No, but what defines Castellini will be whether the franchise continues to plod along as an also-ran or it responds to the current financial situation with a serious rebuilding effort.

Cyclone792
01-22-2009, 02:00 PM
Would you change your answer today based on the BCast's comments?

Here's what I said two days ago: Castellini may be turning into a poor man's Lindner himself.

Replace that now with Castellini is a poor man's Lindner.

The only positive that I can say about Castellini is he's a lesser of the evils when compared to Schott and Lindner. Unfortunately, considering how low those two are, that's not a whole lot of endorsement for Bob.

Falls City Beer
01-22-2009, 03:11 PM
Castellini's pretty obviously cut from the same cloth as the other small-minded owners of this franchise.

westofyou
01-22-2009, 03:20 PM
Castellini's pretty obviously cut from the same cloth as the other small-minded owners of this franchise.

Maybe it's the chili?

Falls City Beer
01-22-2009, 03:23 PM
Maybe it's the chili?

Could be, but I'm guessing it's the craven bootlicking press and the complacent fanbase.

Chip R
01-22-2009, 03:35 PM
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=845357&postcount=28

:wave:

M2
01-22-2009, 03:42 PM
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=845357&postcount=28

:wave:

You nailed it.