Moderators: peeker643, swerb, pup, paulcousineau
by DanErie » Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:14 am
by peeker643 » Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:41 am
"
by GodHatesClevelandSport » Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:32 am
by motherscratcher » Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:56 am
GodHatesClevelandSport wrote:I still don't know what Dan Gilbert has done that makes him a great owner. He bought a team with the best player the Cavs will ever see already on it, and failed to keep him. Now they stink.
by Spin » Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:24 pm
by skatingtripods » Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:50 pm
by Madre Hill, Superstar » Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:35 pm

by bookelly » Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:05 pm
Madre Hill, Superstar wrote:On one hand, I think there's smoke enough about the team being on the market to warrant checking for a fire.
On the other, thinking Gilbert's in the running is pure fantasy and speculation. Selig won't want to touch him with a foul pole.
by Eckersley » Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:20 pm

by skatingtripods » Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:04 pm
bookelly wrote:I'm sure there will be plenty of interested parties and Gilbert may or may not be one of them.
by Erie Warrior » Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm


by Dellucci TailGator » Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:31 pm
by bookelly » Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:32 am
skatingtripods wrote:bookelly wrote:I'm sure there will be plenty of interested parties and Gilbert may or may not be one of them.
Like who?
by TCBinaflash » Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:58 am
by bookelly » Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:14 pm
TCBinaflash wrote:Is there a precedent for teams being sold to not have any contractual obligations past the year being sold? I'd think that would be more problematic for a new owner than strategic business sale plan.
by e0y2e3 » Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:18 pm

by peeker643 » Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:39 pm
by peeker643 » Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:41 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:No really, wow, please, yes, yes yes.
How many I told you so's do I get to drop if Gilbert buys the Indians and doesn't turn into a Steinbrenner? I get like a hundred, right?
by pup » Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:04 pm
peeker643 wrote:How come the article referenced on in the op isn't on STO?
Odd...
by peeker643 » Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:05 pm
By the early '90s, he told the St. Petersburg Times he estimated his stake in American Ship at less than 2 percent of his net worth.
American had tried to diversify over the years, at one time experimenting with a process that made imitation crabmeat called surimi. It later tried unsuccessfully to win contracts to build cruise ships.
It was losing millions.
Last year (2009), shipbuilding no longer part of his world, Steinbrenner was No. 341 on the Forbes list of richest Americans, with a net worth of $1.2 billion.

by Commodore Perry » Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:13 pm
by e0y2e3 » Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:31 pm
peeker643 wrote:2009 Forbes had Steinbrenner's worth at $1.2billion
He bought the Yankees for $8.8million with multiple partners.
Maybe it was that shipping business that made up the difference?By the early '90s, he told the St. Petersburg Times he estimated his stake in American Ship at less than 2 percent of his net worth.American had tried to diversify over the years, at one time experimenting with a process that made imitation crabmeat called surimi. It later tried unsuccessfully to win contracts to build cruise ships.
It was losing millions.Last year (2009), shipbuilding no longer part of his world, Steinbrenner was No. 341 on the Forbes list of richest Americans, with a net worth of $1.2 billion.
Fucking profiteer that wasn't interested in titles.

by peeker643 » Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:57 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:peeker643 wrote:2009 Forbes had Steinbrenner's worth at $1.2billion
He bought the Yankees for $8.8million with multiple partners.
Maybe it was that shipping business that made up the difference?By the early '90s, he told the St. Petersburg Times he estimated his stake in American Ship at less than 2 percent of his net worth.American had tried to diversify over the years, at one time experimenting with a process that made imitation crabmeat called surimi. It later tried unsuccessfully to win contracts to build cruise ships.
It was losing millions.Last year (2009), shipbuilding no longer part of his world, Steinbrenner was No. 341 on the Forbes list of richest Americans, with a net worth of $1.2 billion.
Fucking profiteer that wasn't interested in titles.
So how many I told you sos do I get if Gilbert doesn't light money on fire for wins? All I'm asking.
by motherscratcher » Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:48 pm
peeker643 wrote:Sorry for the 'above the quotes' response but work computer blows.
Wondering why you have to either light money on fire or squirrel away every last nickel. I don't understand the polarity.
I just don't.
Steinbrenner didn't do it either. They Yankees made him obscenely rich while he spent bags of money.
I don't see why the sign of a good owner would be one who recklessly spends himself into bankruptcy either.
Some begrudge Gilbert getting richer while owning the Cavs. I do not. Not if he spends like a sailor on the team, in the community and wherever else while he happens to get richer.
It's not an either/or scenario necessarily.
That's all I'm saying. That and he's bever given an indication he won't spend when he should or when it benefits the team. Yes, he trusted the wrong people to spend it on the wrong people, but it was a big outlay a money that he signed off on. And if that's because he was also raking it in hand over fist, who gives a shit?
by motherscratcher » Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:50 pm
by bac5665 » Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:52 pm
peeker643 wrote:Sorry for the 'above the quotes' response but work computer blows.
Wondering why you have to either light money on fire or squirrel away every last nickel. I don't understand the polarity.
I just don't.
Steinbrenner didn't do it either. They Yankees made him obscenely rich while he spent bags of money.
I don't see why the sign of a good owner would be one who recklessly spends himself into bankruptcy either.
Some begrudge Gilbert getting richer while owning the Cavs. I do not. Not if he spends like a sailor on the team, in the community and wherever else while he happens to get richer.
It's not an either/or scenario necessarily.
That's all I'm saying. That and he's bever given an indication he won't spend when he should or when it benefits the team. Yes, he trusted the wrong people to spend it on the wrong people, but it was a big outlay a money that he signed off on. And if that's because he was also raking it in hand over fist, who gives a shit?
by e0y2e3 » Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:56 pm
peeker643 wrote:Sorry for the 'above the quotes' response but work computer blows.
Wondering why you have to either light money on fire or squirrel away every last nickel. I don't understand the polarity.
I just don't.
Steinbrenner didn't do it either. They Yankees made him obscenely rich while he spent bags of money.
I don't see why the sign of a good owner would be one who recklessly spends himself into bankruptcy either.
Some begrudge Gilbert getting richer while owning the Cavs. I do not. Not if he spends like a sailor on the team, in the community and wherever else while he happens to get richer.
It's not an either/or scenario necessarily.
That's all I'm saying. That and he's bever given an indication he won't spend when he should or when it benefits the team. Yes, he trusted the wrong people to spend it on the wrong people, but it was a big outlay a money that he signed off on. And if that's because he was also raking it in hand over fist, who gives a shit?e0y2e3 wrote:peeker643 wrote:2009 Forbes had Steinbrenner's worth at $1.2billion
He bought the Yankees for $8.8million with multiple partners.
Maybe it was that shipping business that made up the difference?By the early '90s, he told the St. Petersburg Times he estimated his stake in American Ship at less than 2 percent of his net worth.American had tried to diversify over the years, at one time experimenting with a process that made imitation crabmeat called surimi. It later tried unsuccessfully to win contracts to build cruise ships.
It was losing millions.Last year (2009), shipbuilding no longer part of his world, Steinbrenner was No. 341 on the Forbes list of richest Americans, with a net worth of $1.2 billion.
Fucking profiteer that wasn't interested in titles.
So how many I told you sos do I get if Gilbert doesn't light money on fire for wins? All I'm asking.

by WiscTribeFan » Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:50 pm
by pup » Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:25 pm
DanErie wrote:The new CBA - which has drawn criticism for its unfairness to smaller market teams like the Indians - may be what finally pushed the Dolan ownership into considering offers for the team, and conceivably their cable TV network too.
by Govbarney » Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:44 pm
WiscTribeFan wrote:The bigger question you need to ask about Gilbert, or any potential owner, would be "Would MLB be willing to entertain him as a potential owner".
Given the very public tirade he went on after LBJ left Cleveland, I'd think that it would be a pretty big strike against him. MLB likes its owners to be a bit less public than that. Look what happened to the LA Dodgers owner. MLB basically threw him to the curb after all that craziness with his divorce. Look at Cuban. The guy's got more money than God and he can't get a team to save his life, and he's tried multiple times.
Don't see them taking a shot on a guy who goes on a public trash-talking spree when his marquee player leaves.
Sometimes it isn't about the money.
by motherscratcher » Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:58 pm
WiscTribeFan wrote:The bigger question you need to ask about Gilbert, or any potential owner, would be "Would MLB be willing to entertain him as a potential owner".
Given the very public tirade he went on after LBJ left Cleveland, I'd think that it would be a pretty big strike against him. MLB likes its owners to be a bit less public than that. Look what happened to the LA Dodgers owner. MLB basically threw him to the curb after all that craziness with his divorce. Look at Cuban. The guy's got more money than God and he can't get a team to save his life, and he's tried multiple times.
Don't see them taking a shot on a guy who goes on a public trash-talking spree when his marquee player leaves.
Sometimes it isn't about the money.
by peeker643 » Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:03 pm
motherscratcher wrote:WiscTribeFan wrote:The bigger question you need to ask about Gilbert, or any potential owner, would be "Would MLB be willing to entertain him as a potential owner".
Given the very public tirade he went on after LBJ left Cleveland, I'd think that it would be a pretty big strike against him. MLB likes its owners to be a bit less public than that. Look what happened to the LA Dodgers owner. MLB basically threw him to the curb after all that craziness with his divorce. Look at Cuban. The guy's got more money than God and he can't get a team to save his life, and he's tried multiple times.
Don't see them taking a shot on a guy who goes on a public trash-talking spree when his marquee player leaves.
Sometimes it isn't about the money.
Are you saying that Frank McCourt was "thrown to the curb" because of a crazy divorce?
Craziness of the divorce asside, that dude could not be a bigger piece of shit. He leveraged every last penny out of that franchise that he could with absolutely no conscience about any consequences to his actions, to the point that there was a real possibility that he wouldn't make payroll. At least the Wilpon's were just a couple of Mooks. McCourt actively engaged in damn near destroying that franchise. He has a legitimate argument as the worst sports owner in the history of sports owners.
by e0y2e3 » Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:08 pm
Govbarney wrote:WiscTribeFan wrote:The bigger question you need to ask about Gilbert, or any potential owner, would be "Would MLB be willing to entertain him as a potential owner".
Given the very public tirade he went on after LBJ left Cleveland, I'd think that it would be a pretty big strike against him. MLB likes its owners to be a bit less public than that. Look what happened to the LA Dodgers owner. MLB basically threw him to the curb after all that craziness with his divorce. Look at Cuban. The guy's got more money than God and he can't get a team to save his life, and he's tried multiple times.
Don't see them taking a shot on a guy who goes on a public trash-talking spree when his marquee player leaves.
Sometimes it isn't about the money.
I don't pretend to know anything about Dan Gilbert or Quicken Loans bottom line, but their is a precedence for a MLB/NBA owner and its Jerry Reinsdorf and I believe he has done a more then Okay job owning both the White Sox, and Bulls.
I have heard that since Reinsdorf the MLB as a whole tends to shy away from multi-sport owners (an excuse to why they didn't let Cuban join the club) but they did allow NE Sports Ventures to purchases Liverpool FC since, which has had mixed results.

by Govbarney » Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:24 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:Govbarney wrote:WiscTribeFan wrote:The bigger question you need to ask about Gilbert, or any potential owner, would be "Would MLB be willing to entertain him as a potential owner".
Given the very public tirade he went on after LBJ left Cleveland, I'd think that it would be a pretty big strike against him. MLB likes its owners to be a bit less public than that. Look what happened to the LA Dodgers owner. MLB basically threw him to the curb after all that craziness with his divorce. Look at Cuban. The guy's got more money than God and he can't get a team to save his life, and he's tried multiple times.
Don't see them taking a shot on a guy who goes on a public trash-talking spree when his marquee player leaves.
Sometimes it isn't about the money.
I don't pretend to know anything about Dan Gilbert or Quicken Loans bottom line, but their is a precedence for a MLB/NBA owner and its Jerry Reinsdorf and I believe he has done a more then Okay job owning both the White Sox, and Bulls.
I have heard that since Reinsdorf the MLB as a whole tends to shy away from multi-sport owners (an excuse to why they didn't let Cuban join the club) but they did allow NE Sports Ventures to purchases Liverpool FC since, which has had mixed results.
If you think Reinsdorf is a good owner, well, you have really, really bad taste
by e0y2e3 » Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:28 pm

by Govbarney » Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:09 pm
by WiscTribeFan » Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:14 pm
by WiscTribeFan » Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:16 pm
motherscratcher wrote:WiscTribeFan wrote:The bigger question you need to ask about Gilbert, or any potential owner, would be "Would MLB be willing to entertain him as a potential owner".
Given the very public tirade he went on after LBJ left Cleveland, I'd think that it would be a pretty big strike against him. MLB likes its owners to be a bit less public than that. Look what happened to the LA Dodgers owner. MLB basically threw him to the curb after all that craziness with his divorce. Look at Cuban. The guy's got more money than God and he can't get a team to save his life, and he's tried multiple times.
Don't see them taking a shot on a guy who goes on a public trash-talking spree when his marquee player leaves.
Sometimes it isn't about the money.
Are you saying that Frank McCourt was "thrown to the curb" because of a crazy divorce?
Craziness of the divorce asside, that dude could not be a bigger piece of shit. He leveraged every last penny out of that franchise that he could with absolutely no conscience about any consequences to his actions, to the point that there was a real possibility that he wouldn't make payroll. At least the Wilpon's were just a couple of Mooks. McCourt actively engaged in damn near destroying that franchise. He has a legitimate argument as the worst sports owner in the history of sports owners.
by LakeErieWarriors » Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:26 pm
by e0y2e3 » Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:53 pm

by LakeErieWarriors » Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:01 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:Smfh
by volunteerbrownie » Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:10 pm


by Toxicadam » Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:00 am

by Madre Hill, Superstar » Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:49 pm
Toxicadam wrote:I'm a pessimist about Cleveland's baseball franchise staying in town. So, it wouldn't surprise me if someone wanted to move this team as it could be at a 'high water' mark for it's value from here on out. There will never be another stadium built and the current one is only getting older and more dated as the years roll on.


by 7foot3 » Thu Feb 09, 2012 1:21 am
pup wrote:By far my favorite part of this story.
The 2/3 of the league that operates under the disguise of small market constraints is unhappy with the result of the latest CBS, which they signed off on without a moment of thought.
You have the votes boys. Make changes. Don't continue to get your lunch money taken then go crying to your mom because you are hungry.
by pup » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:30 am
7foot3 wrote:pup wrote:By far my favorite part of this story.
The 2/3 of the league that operates under the disguise of small market constraints is unhappy with the result of the latest CBS, which they signed off on without a moment of thought.
You have the votes boys. Make changes. Don't continue to get your lunch money taken then go crying to your mom because you are hungry.
One, I'd like to know where you found out that they signed off without a moment of thought. And two, its just not that simple. There are a lot of sides to please in a CBA negotiation. The small-market owners did get overdue some lasting changes when it came to revenue sharing, but they gave up their only chance to outspend the larger markets - in the draft.
by e0y2e3 » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:51 am

by pup » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:55 am
e0y2e3 wrote:Six pissed off owners in the NBA managed to add months to the lockout.
Six.
From that perspective it looks like everyone in the MLB is comfortable sitting on their cash cow.
by e0y2e3 » Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:02 pm

by pup » Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:05 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:Of course, it's not like those six in the NBA actually got anything competitive or balanced achieved, they just got a bigger piece of the pie to go away.
Return to Cleveland Indians & MLB
Users browsing this forum: Am I Here Again?, andrew6586, cappy1920, Dnthateonthepronk, ekauff86, leadpipe and 6 guests