Main Sections:
Main Site
Discussion Forum
    All Topics
    New Messages
    Search
    Last Day
    Last Week
    Tree View
    Edit Profile
    Create Login
    Guidelines
    Help
Game Chat
Fund Raiser:
Order Merchandise!

Suggested Reading:
(click cover for info)

cover

Schott = Finley

OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: Schott = Finley
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By finleyshero on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 11:11 am:

Reggie
Rudi
Rollie
Catfish
Bando

McGwire
Isringhausen
Damon
Giambi
Kock
Durham
Guillen
Foulke
Tejada
Hudson

It's obviously a different environment today, and
Schott dumped them over time not en masse, but looking at the sum total of their work, how can you not make the comparison? Schott has had the advantage of his canary in the coalmine, Billy Beane, who allows him to sidestep criticism with his perceived sorcery.

Say what you will about the financial mess MLB is in and the minstrel show it has created of the league, but clearly Schott does not have the financial wherewithal to be a major league owner. So why isn't MLB stepping in to intervene, like they did when they blocked the sale of the team to Bob Piccininni?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By eyleenn on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 11:25 am:

Maybe because Schitt is ready to play the role of Butthead's bitch and quietly let the A's be contracted in 2006?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By whoknows77 on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 11:44 am:

This is proposterous. Finley sold off the whole team en masse and ran the club into the ground. Schott has allowed players to leave, generally as Free Agents, increased the payroll every year, and kept the team competetive.

Furthermore, Damon, Guillen, and Durham were one year (or less) rentals - there was never any intention of keeping them. Koch was traded for Foulke - you can't have both of them. We tried to sign Foulke, he chose to leave. Mac needed to go to leave a spot for G to develop into. Letting G go was a great move. Only Miggie and Huddy are at all representative of what you're saying. And Huddy's contract next year will, most likely, go the way of Giambi's.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By finleyshero on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 02:18 pm:

Hmm, let's see...Finley brought the A's to Oakland, was creative, confronted baseball's establishment and won three World Championships.

You're right...there is no comparison.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By bigthree17 on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 02:58 pm:

I think that's what makes Finley worse. He broke up a dynasty for no good reason, just selling off the parts. The financial landscape of baseball back then wasn't nearly as skewed as it is now.

Don't get me wrong. I think Schott blows. But while he could increase payroll to allow us to keep some (not all) of our homegrown stars, we will never be able to match the resources of the big guns the way the system is set up now. Never.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 04:05 pm:

The difference between Finley and Schott in my opinion is that the first knew talent better than any GM. He was the scout and the GM of his teams.

The main reason Finley decided to sell off the players and the team was because he got pissed with free agency and felt baseball was going down a road he didnd't want to travel on...

Schott knew what he was doing when he bought the A's. He just wanted to be a bottom feeder in baseball, getting the most of what he invested and that is exactly what he has done. Schott got lucky to buy a team with a fantastic farm and scouting system in place (baseball academy and even Billy Beane as scout). He didn't have to build a team with free agents and benefitted from rebuilding from an excellent farm.

Schott should have sinks and toilets as his business inventory instead of baseball players.

He doesn't deserve to be a baseball owner.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By finleyshero on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 05:36 pm:

For once, Lil, I agree with you 100 percent.

(Hope this doen't change your opinion!)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 05:56 pm:

well...and we're still A's fans so there is always room for mutual tolerance.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaktownfan on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 09:12 pm:

Schott did luck into buying this team cheap and keeping the costs cheap while still making money even when the team was doing bad in the mid to late 90s. Then when Beane, not Schott, and company built the farm system up; it was just extra to Schott that the A's were winning and making a profit still at a relavitvely low price when you compare the cost to run this team to other contenders and most of all of baseball quite frankly.

The A's still during this five year run, have been in the bottom quarter in terms of spending. This is coming from a team that has billionaire owners who are the second biggest "contruction/realtors" in California and has been making money since they bought the team.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By ballparkfrank on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 11:01 pm:

My bride of thirty plus years, aka the Queen Bee, has very little interest in the game, in spite of my lifelong addiction (our first date was a Phillies game at old Shibe Park in Philly). When the news about the Hudson trade came on tv, she shouted "Not Tim Hudson! Schott should be shot!" I think that says it all.


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.


 

Questions? Comments? Corrections? Please contact info@oaklandfans.com.