Gammons Article on Selig's Stand Against Selling Players

[Ksyrup]

This is very interesting. And, I have to give the guy credit where it's due - this was the right thing to do. However, it seems kind of ridiculous to draw the line on giving cash in a trade, but then allow teams to save millions by trading high-priced talent for scrubs, like when the Blue Jays traded Mondesi to the Yankees for a nobody and saved $13 Million in the process. Is that really any less of a concern for the industry?


Commissioner recalls Finley's fire sales in the '70s

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Peter Gammons
Special to ESPN.com


Aug. 1

Bud Selig remembers the night of June 15, 1976.

The then-owner of the Milwaukee Brewers remembers it well, in fact.

"I was trying to get Sal Bando," said Selig. "Charlie Finley answered the phone, 'Finley's Meat Market.' He told me he wanted between $1 million and $1.5 million for Bando. I told him I'd give him prospects, that I had some good prospects.

"He told me, 'I don't want any prospects, what would I do with them?'," Selig recalled. "I tried to suggest that he needed players to put on the field, and he told me to forget it."

That afternoon, Finley had extracted $2 million from the Boston Red Sox for Joe Rudi and Rollie Fingers, and $1.5 million from the New York Yankees for Vida Blue. In Boston -- courtesy of then-general manager Dick O'Connell's notes, provided by the Yawkey Foundation -- the Red Sox had tried several combinations of trades involving players and money ranging from a 5-for-5 involving some of Boston's potential free agents (including reigning MVP/Rookie of the year Fred Lynn) to a 3-for-2 that would have sent $2 million, catcher Andy Merchant, outfielder Rick Miller and pitcher Jim Willoughby for Rudi and Fingers.

"Finley says forget the damn players," O'Connell noted on June 14.

That night 27 years ago flashed across Selig's mind when he heard at 12:30 a.m. ET on Thursday that the Reds had shipped Aaron Boone and Gabe White to the Yankees for Brandon Claussen and $3 million. He talked to Sandy Alderson and told him that he would not approve it.

Alderson called Selig at 9:30 a.m. ET on Thursday to tell him that both the Yankees and Reds asked that he reconsider. "No way," Selig said. "There's no way that they're going to exceed the $1 million limit."

Selig did agree to talk to Reds owner Carl Lindner and Yankees president Randy Levine. "They made their cases, but I made mine in pretty strong terms," says Selig. "I told them that they'd have to restructure the deals with prospects and do it with Sandy. They weren't happy about it, and I probably used some choice language, but this is all part of a competitive balance problem that this industry faces."

In the end, the Yankees agreed to add pitcher Charlie Manning and make it $1 million in cash for Boone. They split off Gabe White, made it $400,000 and added low-level prospects.

"So I at least got it cut in half," says the Commissioner. "The Boston deal (for Scott Williamson) exceeded the $1 million limit ($1.25 million), but that was our error and we'll work it out.

"Look, I understand that players being sold off like this is a serious concern, and something that troubles fans -- and me," said Selig. "But there's only so much I can do. I tried to do something."

It is not lost on Selig that the same two teams that bought Rudi, Fingers and Blue at the 1976 deadline filled Lindner's pockets with $2.65 million as he unloaded his best pitcher and his best player.

"I thought about that immediately when I got word of the Boone deal," says Selig. "How could I not think about it? I was trying to get Sal Bando and all I was offering was players when all Charlie wanted was cash."

[mckerney]

"Look, I understand that players being sold off like this is a serious concern, and something that troubles fans -- and me," said Selig. "But there's only so much I can do. I tried to do something."

It is a concern with the fans? Is he really that out of touch? Or is it just that he didn't like paying cash when he was acting as a GM/Owner so he doesn't want anyone else to do it?

[mckerney]

Dola:

How did someone so out of touch with things become commishioner?

[Leonidas]

"There's only so much I can do"

Gee, like disapprove the trade in the first place?

Bud wants to take a stand, but not so much it will piss his fellow own.., err I mean the owners off.

[ISiddiqui]

It is a concern with the fans? Is he really that out of touch? Or is it just that he didn't like paying cash when he was acting as a GM/Owner so he doesn't want anyone else to do it?

I'd think most fans would want at least a prospect in return to give them hope. If it's trading players for money, then it just looks like the owner is padding his own pockets while making the team worse. At least with a player in return, maybe the owner saves some money, but it doesn't look as bad.

Remember, perceptions count.

[damnMikeBrown]

Like we even care. Not like we built the Red's a new stadium or anything. I'm just happy that Cincinnati sports franchises are on the same page now, and adopting "The Bengal's Way".

[mckerney]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
I'd think most fans would want at least a prospect in return to give them hope. If it's trading players for money, then it just looks like the owner is padding his own pockets while making the team worse. At least with a player in return, maybe the owner saves some money, but it doesn't look as bad.

Remember, perceptions count.

Maybe, but he was using a story about how he as a GM personally prefered to trade with prospects instead of money to justify preventing other teams from using cash in trades, when they may prefer to hold onto prospects and not giving the fans the impresson that they're selling out the future, or on the other side have more money to pick up a big free agent, instead of someone who may not help for years, and that's if they ever do.

[clintl]

I'll tell you how much the fans care. The last year Finley owned the A's, after he broke them up and gave away the team's stars for almost nothing, the team was terrible and the attendance was 300,000 for the whole season. They would routinely fail to draw 1,000 fans for weeknight games. I still think the reason the Giants are much more popular than the A's in the Bay Area dates back to the end of Finley's ownership. The Giants made a lot of boneheaded moves during the '70s and early '80s, but there was never a time they weren't at least trying to field a decent team.

Bowie Kuhn was right to void those A's trades for cash in the '70s. I think a cash limit on trades is still a good idea. Whether it's $1 million, or some other number can be debated, but it seems pretty clear the Reds ownership might be trying to pull a Finley.

This is one of the few times where I think Selig is making a great deal of sense.

[Draft Dodger]

well, I think $elig is a great commi$$ioner

[ISiddiqui]

I dunno, mckerney, if my favorite team was on hard times and decided to sell a player for cash, straight up, I'd be pissed (not counting Soccer, where that is what always happens). I'd much rather be getting some players in return, even if they aren't that great, give me players over money anyday.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
I dunno, mckerney, if my favorite team was on hard times and decided to sell a player for cash, straight up, I'd be pissed (not counting Soccer, where that is what always happens). I'd much rather be getting some players in return, even if they aren't that great, give me players over money anyday.

I can't stand the man (tho, I do hate Fehr more) but I gotta agree with Selig on this one. Same thoughts, here, tho I want it to be an honest attempt- you want to give my team $3M, give me a prospect who might bring in that much income from fans in future years.

SI

[oykib]

So if you guys were Expos fans, you're teling me that you'd rather see Vlad and Javier Vasquez walk or get traded for some bullshit prospects rather than get a payoff of fifty million for them.

The truth is that limiting the payoffs hurts the small market teams, not the big market ones. There are plenty of measures that could be taken to improve the competetive balance that don't include either stealing money form the players or stealing money from the wealthier owners. But Selig and his fellow hardline owners want nothing to do with them.

[Alan T]

Players have been sold from one team to another for as long as baseball has been around.. Why suddenly 130 years later is this a huge deal? Any club that chooses to sell off players get what they deserve as far as perception of the fans or lack of talent back.

I would think I would much rather see teams getting cash back in a deal if that meant being able to keep a younger player around longer with that cash.. The bigger problem is not that owners get cash back in a deal, it is what they do with that cash back.

The Oakland A's have routinely gotten some cash back in some deals over the past few years. They did so in order to be able to afford to bring in additional other players while staying within a payroll constraint. THat is an excellent use of selling off a player. On the other hand it fully appears that the Reds just want the extra money to go in the owner's pockets...

I don't think the problem is selling of players, that has gone on forever. The problem would be an owner's lack of committment to the team.

[tucker342]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
I dunno, mckerney, if my favorite team was on hard times and decided to sell a player for cash, straight up, I'd be pissed (not counting Soccer, where that is what always happens). I'd much rather be getting some players in return, even if they aren't that great, give me players over money anyday.

Agreed

[kcchief19]

Bottom line: the commissioner's office has the right to veto any trade involving more than $1 million in cash, so Selig was completely right in what he did -- and I'm far from being a Selig fan.

Buying players for cash is completely different any other deal. Trading off salary saves a team money, but it doesn't actually cost a team anything. But if owners can sell off players, pocket the cash and decimate the team then cut town, it could make big market vs. small market even more ridiculous.

I would hazzard to guess that most small market teams are worth more sold for parts than as one. If MLB didn't own the Expos, they would probably sell for $50-$75 million on the open market. If they had an owner, he could sell off Vladimir, Vidro and everybody else for that much or more. Then who would buy the Expos? For how much?

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by kcchief19
I would hazzard to guess that most small market teams are worth more sold for parts than as one. If MLB didn't own the Expos, they would probably sell for $50-$75 million on the open market. If they had an owner, he could sell off Vladimir, Vidro and everybody else for that much or more. Then who would buy the Expos? For how much?

Well, we had that collection a while back to buy that aircraft carrier. If this happens, I think it's time to pass the hat around again.

SI

[Taur]

I wonder if we will ever see player loans in baseball.

I think this would allow some small market teams to compete with the big boys; as the teams would be able to loan their high priced players away during bad seasons and then get them back for the following seasons. It could also help TV ratings as more all-star type players would find themselves on Playoff teams at the end of the year.

Yes, you would see you favorite player loaned away during a bad season, but you would also see him return next year. The road out of town would not be a oneway street anymore.

[tucker342]

That would be a really great idea.

[ISiddiqui]

Can we have player leases as well?

[mckerney]

Originally posted by Taur
I wonder if we will ever see player loans in baseball.

I think this would allow some small market teams to compete with the big boys; as the teams would be able to loan their high priced players away during bad seasons and then get them back for the following seasons. It could also help TV ratings as more all-star type players would find themselves on Playoff teams at the end of the year.

Yes, you would see you favorite player loaned away during a bad season, but you would also see him return next year. The road out of town would not be a oneway street anymore.

Wasn't that already done with Juan Gonzalez

[stkelly52]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
I dunno, mckerney, if my favorite team was on hard times and decided to sell a player for cash, straight up, I'd be pissed (not counting Soccer, where that is what always happens). I'd much rather be getting some players in return, even if they aren't that great, give me players over money anyday.

If you would hate it so much in baseball, why are you fine with it in Soccer? Trading for cash really seems to work well in soccer, why wouldn't it in baseball?

[oykib]

Originally posted by Taur
I wonder if we will ever see player loans in baseball.

I think this would allow some small market teams to compete with the big boys; as the teams would be able to loan their high priced players away during bad seasons and then get them back for the following seasons. It could also help TV ratings as more all-star type players would find themselves on Playoff teams at the end of the year.

Yes, you would see you favorite player loaned away during a bad season, but you would also see him return next year. The road out of town would not be a oneway street anymore.

That sounds like a good idea. But it would be terrible in application. Right now, you always hear squawking about how some teams ruin pennant races by making stupid trades with some of the teams involved. Most times it's just sour grapes from some front office that was outmanuevred. But sometimes they have legitimate gripes.

Imagine all the squawking there would be if the Rangers loaned A-rod to the Yankees for the balance of his '03 salary and the Yanks lost nothing else.

Also, in soccer, loans are usually made to teams in parallel or lower leagues. Imagine if a player that you loaned out had a chance to affect your season. There are just too many issues with loaning. As for the million dollar limit, it had nothing to do with the integrity of the game. Commissioner Kuhn (like most people in baseball) hated Charlie Finley. Finley was the Billy Bean of his day-- only he was more abrasive and was another owner, so they couldn't get rid of him. Basically it was a move to hasten his exit from the owners box, and to get back at him for years of percieved abuses. As a side note, the smart owners knew that these sales of players were giving the union irrefuteable evidence that the top players had marginal values in the millions per season.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by Taur
I wonder if we will ever see player loans in baseball.

I think this would allow some small market teams to compete with the big boys; as the teams would be able to loan their high priced players away during bad seasons and then get them back for the following seasons. It could also help TV ratings as more all-star type players would find themselves on Playoff teams at the end of the year.

Yes, you would see you favorite player loaned away during a bad season, but you would also see him return next year. The road out of town would not be a oneway street anymore.

Eww... that just feel so... dirty.

SI

[clintl]

Originally posted by oykib
As for the million dollar limit, it had nothing to do with the integrity of the game. Commissioner Kuhn (like most people in baseball) hated Charlie Finley. Finley was the Billy Bean of his day-- only he was more abrasive and was another owner, so they couldn't get rid of him. Basically it was a move to hasten his exit from the owners box, and to get back at him for years of percieved abuses. As a side note, the smart owners knew that these sales of players were giving the union irrefuteable evidence that the top players had marginal values in the millions per season.

I was a Bay Area baseball fan when Finley was pulling this stuff, and I can tell you 100% for sure that Finley was not the Billy Beane of his day. A more appropriate comparison might be with George Steinbrenner, except without the infinite supply of cash. His meddling hurt the team, he broke contracts (one of which directly caused the team to lose Catfish Hunter as the first big dollar free agent), and he tried to break roster rules in the middle of a World Series. Then, as soon as free agency came into being, he dismantled the team and never even tried to put a competitive squad on the field during the rest of his ownership. He was very, very bad for baseball, and if the other owners and Bowie Kuhn wanted him out of baseball, they had very good reasons for it.

[oykib]

I didn't mean that Finley was Beane in the sense of working with limited resources. What I meant was that he had more mental capital than the owners of his day, and he rubbed everyone the wrong way by pointing out how much smarter than everbody thta he was.

[TroyF]

I agree with Bud Selig on a pretty rare basis. I didn't have a problem with him calling the all-star game last year for example. (Nothing he could do about it once all the pitchers were used). I agree with him on this one.

Baseball has a perception problem (in addition to their plethora of real problems) He needed to take a stand and do something. Even if he really couldn't do a lot. The Reds still get 1.4 million and a handful of prospects. Prospects sometimes hit it big, even guys you haven't heard of. The money would go into the Reds pockets while they fire their next general manager for not building a world class pitching staff on 25 dollars and a bag of beer nuts. At least the prospects have a shot.

The perception is better the way Selig tried to do it. ANY indication that the commish is trying to do something about it is good for the game.

This single gesture won't fix everything. It won't even begin to fix everything. Still, you have to start somewhere.

TroyF

[Ryan S]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
"The Boston deal (for Scott Williamson) exceeded the $1 million limit ($1.25 million)

Some stand!

Selig is a waste of space, and the sooner Major League Baseball gets a proper commish the better.

[TroyF]

Ryan,

Selig said he'd make that up. Still, he let "two" deals slide through that let the Yankees pay the Reds 1.4 million dollars. The two teams easily could have came up with a way to have figured out an easy way to work in the extra 250k had they needed to. Besides, 1.25 million dollars is a little ways away from 3 million.

TroyF

[Ryan S]

It is still over Selig's limit, and there is no excuse for letting it pass if you want to enforce the law. If he wants this rule, it must be applied in all circumstances, be it $100 or $5 million over the limit.

Ignorance is no excuse for MLB in this case, and the Yankee's are justified in complaining.

[clintl]

Originally posted by oykib
I didn't mean that Finley was Beane in the sense of working with limited resources. What I meant was that he had more mental capital than the owners of his day, and he rubbed everyone the wrong way by pointing out how much smarter than everbody thta he was.

I don't think that was true, either. He had a lot of good young players who matured all at once, but other than that, it's hard to see much that he did right. He was a complete buffoon during all the years he owned the A's in Kansas City.

[oykib]

Originally posted by clintl
I don't think that was true, either. He had a lot of good young players who matured all at once, but other than that, it's hard to see much that he did right. He was a complete buffoon during all the years he owned the A's in Kansas City.

Of course it's true. You can't build a three-time World Series winner without some advantage over the other owners. Finley was not well-liked. So, after the fact, people have downplayed his skills.

But he did acquire all those players in the first place. They didn't just fall in his lap. He was the most active scout in his office. Which, of course, was part of the problem. A lot of the guys in his own front office didn't like him either.

[TroyF]

Originally posted by Ryan S
It is still over Selig's limit, and there is no excuse for letting it pass if you want to enforce the law. If he wants this rule, it must be applied in all circumstances, be it $100 or $5 million over the limit.

Ignorance is no excuse for MLB in this case, and the Yankee's are justified in complaining.

Sorry Ryan, but I think every case is different. No matter what "I" think, Selig admitted he made a mistake and said he'd correct it. How? Who knows. At least he had the guts to admit a mistake.

I don't think it was a mistake. he let the Yankees give the Reds 1.4 million. The Red Sox gave the Reds 1.25. He took the perception that Boone was strictly being sold out of the equation and gave the Reds an extra couple of prospects.

Far be it from me to defend a guy I really don't like, but I think people hate the guy so much it ceases to matter WHAT he does. It will always be wrong. It will always draw ire. There isn't anyway Selig can change that perception at this point. He should resign over that, if for no other reason.

TroyF

[oykib]

Originally posted by TroyF
Sorry Ryan, but I think every case is different. No matter what "I" think, Selig admitted he made a mistake and said he'd correct it. How? Who knows. At least he had the guts to admit a mistake.

I don't think it was a mistake. he let the Yankees give the Reds 1.4 million. The Red Sox gave the Reds 1.25. He took the perception that Boone was strictly being sold out of the equation and gave the Reds an extra couple of prospects.

Far be it from me to defend a guy I really don't like, but I think people hate the guy so much it ceases to matter WHAT he does. It will always be wrong. It will always draw ire. There isn't anyway Selig can change that perception at this point. He should resign over that, if for no other reason.

TroyF

I'd have to disagree with you there Troy. Selig himself has a perception problem. His last collective bargaining deal was definitely targeted at the Yankees. It's well known that he is in the camp of the hardliners that want to limit player salaries and wish to punish any owners who aren't with the program. Steinbrenner is obviously the worst offender in that regard.

It's not shocking that Selig, then, decided to punish Steinbrenner and let the Sox slide. Honestly, there really is no difference in a $1 violation and a million dollar violation. If I were Steinbrenner I'd have been in front of the arbitrator the same day.

[Craptacular]

Wow! It's amazing to see anyone stick up for Bud!

On a totally unimportant side note, the dealership I bought my new car from yesterday lies right next door to Selig Used Car Sales. Maybe he'll go back to that when his reign as commish is over.

[TroyF]

Originally posted by oykib
I'd have to disagree with you there Troy. Selig himself has a perception problem. His last collective bargaining deal was definitely targeted at the Yankees. It's well known that he is in the camp of the hardliners that want to limit player salaries and wish to punish any owners who aren't with the program. Steinbrenner is obviously the worst offender in that regard.

It's not shocking that Selig, then, decided to punish Steinbrenner and let the Sox slide. Honestly, there really is no difference in a $1 violation and a million dollar violation. If I were Steinbrenner I'd have been in front of the arbitrator the same day.

Yankee fans are laughable.

Selig said it was a mistake. He said it would be fixed. Give him a month to take care of it before you go to your arbitrator.

TroyF

PS: I know this will start the "you just hate the Yankees" routine, so you can save it. I don't hate the Yankees. It's not like the Red Sox are a heck of a lot different. I hate the big market mentality in baseball. I hate the small markets who don't even try to put a winner on the field because of the big market excuse. There is a middle ground. King George has ZERO interest in finding it. In order to get him to move 1/2 of an inch, everything does have to be directed toward him. That's his own damned fault.

[clintl]

Originally posted by oykib
Of course it's true. You can't build a three-time World Series winner without some advantage over the other owners. Finley was not well-liked. So, after the fact, people have downplayed his skills.

But he did acquire all those players in the first place. They didn't just fall in his lap. He was the most active scout in his office. Which, of course, was part of the problem. A lot of the guys in his own front office didn't like him either.

I think Finley's record does not support your assertions. He bought the A's before the 1961 season, and sold them late in 1980. That's 20 seasons he owned the team, so we have quite a long record to look at. Over those 20 seasons, his teams had a collective 1549-1677 record (.480 winning percentage). They had 10 winning seasons and 10 losing seasons. They won the three world championships and five division titles, but they also finished last 6 times (including twice in expansion years). They lost 100 or more games 4 times under Finley's ownership, and 105 or more twice.

Complete stupidity cost him two star players the team lost for nothing: Ken Harrelson, who he released in 1967 after "rowdyism" on a team flight (Harrelson then signed with Boston and helped them win the AL pennant), and Catfish Hunter, whose contract Finley breached by not paying $50,000 into an insurance annuity (Hunter, of course, then signed with the Yankees as baseball's first big-money free agent). Finley's reprehensible conduct during the Mike Andrews affair during the 1973 World Series ultimately led to the resignation of manager Dick Williams, who couldn't stomach Finley any more. He threatened to send Reggie Jackson back to the minors during a contract dispute following Jackson's 47-HR year in 1969. His players filed an NRLB complaint against him in 1967. His behavior throughout the Kansas City years was bizarre, and mostly hurt the team. Every time the team seemed to making some progress, he made a stupid move that set them back.

He may have had enough of an eye for talent to sign some good players, but there was little else that he did right, and his overall record places him below average as an owner.

And FWIW, Bay Area fans detested him, even when the A's were winning.

[Ryan S]

Originally posted by TroyF
Sorry Ryan, but I think every case is different. No matter what "I" think, Selig admitted he made a mistake and said he'd correct it. How? Who knows. At least he had the guts to admit a mistake.

But it was a mistake which should never have been made. If the (unpaid) commish of the FOBL can check over every trade in the league for rules violations, I expect the (well paid) leaders of Major League Baseball to notice a violation in a trade which was headlining ESPN.com. Especially when you screw with the team's biggest rivals over the same issue.

By admitting this mistake he is admitting incompetence, and quite frankly, this follows a long line of crazy decisions from the commissioners office.

[oykib]

Originally posted by TroyF
Yankee fans are laughable.

Selig said it was a mistake. He said it would be fixed. Give him a month to take care of it before you go to your arbitrator.

TroyF

PS: I know this will start the "you just hate the Yankees" routine, so you can save it. I don't hate the Yankees. It's not like the Red Sox are a heck of a lot different. I hate the big market mentality in baseball. I hate the small markets who don't even try to put a winner on the field because of the big market excuse. There is a middle ground. King George has ZERO interest in finding it. In order to get him to move 1/2 of an inch, everything does have to be directed toward him. That's his own damned fault.

I don't see what's laughable about it.

Let's take my points one by one.

He and George Steinbrenner are on the outs

Steinbrenner has explicitly said so on a number of occassions in different interviews. There are numerous second-hand reports of this as well.

Selig is with the hardliners and is out to get the owners that don't fall in line

Putting the 60/40 debt rule into effect after twenty years of dormancyis ample proof of that. If you want more, you can just look at how the CBA is structured, or look at the previous CBA.

Eahc of those agreement srewards one thing: maintaining a low salary. Easch of those things punishes one thing: spending more than your peers.

We can all agree that Steinbrenner is the biggest offender. So doesn't it appear somewhat shady that he disallows the Yankee trade for violating the same rule that his friend's team (that was able to be purchased because this same commissioner manipulated the process so that a lower bid from said friend was accepted over a better bid, where the other party had a previous agreement to take over a future major league team) was allowed to go through.

I agree with Ryan's post about there being no difference between $100 and a million dollars in the case of enforcing the rule. The rule says that you can't deal more than one million. The fact that he slectively enforced it shows that he is playing favorites.

All of these things are true whether or not you are a Yankee fan. If Steinbrenner doesn't protest, then Beane or Gillick should be next in line. One or the other of their teams is likely to be in a position to lose out on a playoff spot because of the unfair advantage gained by this.

[oykib]

Originally posted by clintl
I think Finley's record does not support your assertions. He bought the A's before the 1961 season, and sold them late in 1980. That's 20 seasons he owned the team, so we have quite a long record to look at. Over those 20 seasons, his teams had a collective 1549-1677 record (.480 winning percentage). They had 10 winning seasons and 10 losing seasons. They won the three world championships and five division titles, but they also finished last 6 times (including twice in expansion years). They lost 100 or more games 4 times under Finley's ownership, and 105 or more twice.

Complete stupidity cost him two star players the team lost for nothing: Ken Harrelson, who he released in 1967 after "rowdyism" on a team flight (Harrelson then signed with Boston and helped them win the AL pennant), and Catfish Hunter, whose contract Finley breached by not paying $50,000 into an insurance annuity (Hunter, of course, then signed with the Yankees as baseball's first big-money free agent). Finley's reprehensible conduct during the Mike Andrews affair during the 1973 World Series ultimately led to the resignation of manager Dick Williams, who couldn't stomach Finley any more. He threatened to send Reggie Jackson back to the minors during a contract dispute following Jackson's 47-HR year in 1969. His players filed an NRLB complaint against him in 1967. His behavior throughout the Kansas City years was bizarre, and mostly hurt the team. Every time the team seemed to making some progress, he made a stupid move that set them back.

He may have had enough of an eye for talent to sign some good players, but there was little else that he did right, and his overall record places him below average as an owner.

And FWIW, Bay Area fans detested him, even when the A's were winning.

The fact that he had bad people skills doesn't mean that he wasn't better at putting teams together. His record isn't really ample evidence either. Connie Mack is one of the acknowledged gereat baseball minds of all time. Mack had a career losing record too. He had that record with the same team, for many of the same reasons.

Finley, like Mack, knew how to acquire top talent. But they were also the same in that they wouldn't operate at a loss to do it. They both would rather have totally tanked the season and fill the team with scrubs than deal with exorbitant demands from stars.

As far as what happened to FInley with losing his players-- that's just the way owners operated back then. He wasn't the only guy that it happened to either. His bad people skills just made people that much more happy to jump ship on him.

[clintl]

Bad people skills = bad management. And when it comes to losing good players for bad reasons, nobody comes close to Finley's blunders.

As far as being preferring to tank the season than deal with the so-called exorbitant demands of stars, I think that is a major weakness on the parts of both Mack and Finley. They are basically telling their customers to go to hell. No wonder their teams were not supported by the fans.

Finley was a bad owner, plain and simple, and Harrelson was right when he called him a menace to the game.