Skip to content

How evil is your team’s owner?

Apr 5, 2013, 8:52 AM EDT

Star Wars Anniversary

That’s not exactly the phrasing the writers of the linked story  use — they use a colorful metaphor that starts with “a” and ends in “hole” and which we here at HBT would never, ever say ourselves — but you get the idea.

Now, granted, this comes from Mother Jones, which comes at things from a way left perspective, so you may differ as to the relative evil occasioned by acts of team owners. For example, when Royals owner /Wal-Mart CEO David Glass was asked about child labor and said “you and I might, perhaps, define children differently,” you may view that as a positive message of empowerment for kids in Bangladesh who are bucking the liberal claptrap about how they should be in school or off playing someplace rather than assembling things that help someone in Iowa cook their bacon faster as opposed to something truly monstrous. That’s not for me to decide!

I will say, though: learning that Al Gore once called Liberty Media CEO/Braves owner John Malone “Darth Vader” actually makes me like Malone way more than I used to, so this stuff can be complicated.

Lots of fun facts about team owners I never knew before here. But I gotta tell ya, reading this, I almost get the idea that if you have some money and run a business, Mother Jones is gonna think you’re an a-hole. Just a gut feeling.

  1. chill1184 - Apr 5, 2013 at 8:56 AM

    I tried to give Mother Jones a chance but too much class warfare bs was in that article.

    • Old Gator - Apr 5, 2013 at 12:17 PM

      Right wingers only call it class warfare when workers fight back.

      • 18thstreet - Apr 5, 2013 at 4:34 PM

        I like Mother Jones would not object to the accusation of engaging in class warfare.

  2. bmorelikeme - Apr 5, 2013 at 9:01 AM

    I couldn’t get past the first one, any article that trys to paint Peter Angelos as a good person will anger the masses of Baltimore.

    Most hated man in Charm City.

    • goskinsvt - Apr 5, 2013 at 9:09 AM

      I came to post the exact same thing. Total joke of an article.

      • Old Gator - Apr 5, 2013 at 12:17 PM

        Fools. Peter Angelos is a genius.

    • sdelmonte - Apr 5, 2013 at 9:26 AM

      Strictly from a liberal PoV, Angelos has always been a good guy. His stand against replacement players was a result of that. And for a long time, I liked him and the O’s merely because he took a principled pro-labor stand.

      Which doesn’t excuse how he runs his team, of course.

  3. yahmule - Apr 5, 2013 at 9:11 AM

    They went way too easy on most of these ****s.

    • heyblueyoustink - Apr 5, 2013 at 9:34 AM

      Yes yes, I am sure they are all part of the League of Shadows or the Brotherhood of Evil mutants or something.

      • yahmule - Apr 5, 2013 at 11:28 AM

        Nope. Most of the really good thievery is brazen and blatant and blissfully ignored by the pacified masses.

      • heyblueyoustink - Apr 5, 2013 at 11:57 AM

        The masses have only themselves to blame for it. At what point do we look in the mirror?

        Oil addiction for instance. Electric car sits next to a Camaro and an SUV. What chances does the electric car or hybrid really have in this country?

      • Old Gator - Apr 5, 2013 at 12:19 PM

        I would classify them as Illuminati, but I could see Scrooge McLoria unscrewing all but one of the light bulbs in his chandelier to save a few cents a day on electricity.

  4. heyblueyoustink - Apr 5, 2013 at 9:19 AM

    Keep politics out of baseball, just my general philosophy, and sports in general where you can.

    Because once you start, say by finding out the NFL is a “non profit tax exempt” entity or the way colleges spread their money around to different programs and why, really it’s a black hole nothing ever escapes.

  5. Francisco (FC) - Apr 5, 2013 at 9:21 AM

    Wow, the article actually brought up whether how much money was donated to the Democrats by the Red Sox? What does that have to do with being a hole in the ground?

  6. sportsdrenched - Apr 5, 2013 at 9:27 AM

    if MotherJones told me the sky was blue I would go outside to check. I thought most of these were a bit of a stretch. Lots of class warefare, not enough focus on actual a-holeness. Just because you made a fortune doesn’t make you an a-hole. But I’m pretty sure the majority of the owners are a-holes, but not for the reasons MJ’s uses.

    • paperlions - Apr 5, 2013 at 9:45 AM

      Yeah, I really don’t care who donates to which party. Rich and powerful people have ALWAYS used their wealth and power to defend and increase that wealth and power….and no one ever became rich and powerful by being a nice guy. Today’s technology and globalization just makes it easier for them to do that without geographical or geopolitical constraints.

      • historiophiliac - Apr 5, 2013 at 1:04 PM


    • yahmule - Apr 5, 2013 at 11:48 AM

      Professional sports teams owners are the most entitled class of welfare queens in the country. And nobody has their backs like Joe Sixpack.

  7. hasbeen5 - Apr 5, 2013 at 9:35 AM

    The uber left hates rich guys that donate to Republicans? Shocking.

  8. quintjs - Apr 5, 2013 at 9:36 AM

    While most of that article wasn’t that interesting, the line on Lew Wolff – “He gave just $2,500 to federal candidates in the 2012 cycle” made the whole thing worth it.

  9. Charles Gates - Apr 5, 2013 at 9:52 AM

    Mother Jones uses ‘donates to the Republican party’ as a significant barometer of evil. Just as when pundits use the word conservative/liberal as a negative descriptor without context as to why, I have a hard time continuing to listen.

    • Ben - Apr 5, 2013 at 9:59 AM

      Given the generally paleolithic state of the Republican Party, that’s not unfair. It’s unfair to the moderately conservative portion of the country that’s been pushed out by the fringe, but the Republican party has moved so radically right that the whole party has been tarnished. The Republican party is further right than they’ve ever been.
      Don’t believe me? Handy dandy graphs.
      This is the party that’s going to lose Iowa and Alaska because it can’t find senate candidates who aren’t nutjobs. That’s insane. Those are Republican states.

      • hasbeen5 - Apr 5, 2013 at 10:14 AM

        The party that trots out McCain and Romney is further right than ever?

      • Ben - Apr 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM

        Yup. Did you bother reading what I posted? I think there’s a pretty strong argument to be made that Richard Nixon was more liberal than Barack Obama. Nixon gave us the Clean Water Act, the EPA, a minimum tax on the wealthy, and he supported a guaranteed national minimum income. Not wage, income.
        Hell, Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to illegal immigrants and increased taxes multiple times during his terms. Not even Democrats do that anymore.

      • Charles Gates - Apr 5, 2013 at 10:28 AM

        I am not talking about the current stance of the Republican Party, the ‘extreme’ segment or otherwise. I’m saying that when someone says something to the effect of, ‘But that idea is so conservative…’ — meaning bad, that they’ve said nothing to be. The titling of opponents as evil without context just on the basis of them being opponents is such a topical ploy that I don’t give it much gravity. Why are they evil? i.e. Why are they your opponents? Sorry, ‘Gave money to the Repubs’ doesn’t pass the muster.

      • Ben - Apr 5, 2013 at 10:36 AM

        That’s the point though, there is context. Conservative for many has come to stand for bigoted, homophobic, retrograde, obstructionist, and devoid of ideas. Saying “that’s conservative” has become a synecdoche for bigoted, homophobic, retrograde, obstructionist, and devoid of ideas. The context is built into the phrase.

      • goskinsvt - Apr 5, 2013 at 10:59 AM

        Holy crap shut the hell up about politics.

      • Charles Gates - Apr 5, 2013 at 11:15 AM

        You’re right, that *is* the point. The titling of the opponent has, unfortunately, built the context into the phrase. But you still need to say why conservative is evil (which I’m assuming is your opinion, though acknowledging that evil may be a tad strong). You first need to link it to conservative ideas, not conservative people. Then explain why it’s evil/wrong/suboptimal or what have you. (In the case of bigotry and homophobia, sure, that’s pretty easy).

        The branding you fly to attach denigration to conservatism, I’m guessing, wouldn’t fare too well if someone said ‘That’s so liberal,’ or ‘That’s so black,’ or That’s so gay,’ or That’s so ______ .’

        My point, again, is that when one says the word conservative/liberal as a negative descriptor without context as to why, I have a hard time continuing to listen.

      • yankeesgameday - Apr 5, 2013 at 12:08 PM

        The Republican party wants to save itself then they need to force the Tea Party out of their Republican umbrella and make them field their own far right candidates as a third party that must manage their own fundraising without suckling at the Republican war chest. Maybe then we’ll get back to some semblance of balance and cooperation between elected.officials instead of polluting the party with conspiracy theorists and obstructionists.

        You want to call yourself a Tea Party, go be a party on your own and blather on at the fringes while grown ups can get back to responsbile governance.

  10. aceshigh11 - Apr 5, 2013 at 10:19 AM


    • heyblueyoustink - Apr 5, 2013 at 10:57 AM

      Nah, alot of folks on the left love their Obama phones!

      • 18thstreet - Apr 5, 2013 at 4:46 PM

        The Lifeline Program dates back to 1985. We’ve been giving free phones to poor people for nearly 30 years.

      • stlouis1baseball - Apr 5, 2013 at 5:38 PM

        I personally know (3) people who have these phones. And yes they love them. Why wouldn’t they? They are friends of mine. Not close friends…but people I would call friends. They each have applied for (and been granted) disability…or are currently re-filing after being denied the first time. Word is they typically deny your first attempt and grant the disability benefits the 2nd attempt. They come by this information from like minded individuals who are milking the system. And yes…they are milking the system. Two of them are construction workers who work for cash. The other one cleans houses (or cash). I have lots of friends who’s polilical views differ from mine. I have some who’s work ethic differs from mine. In any case…I always make it a point to tell them “your welcome” for their Obama phones.
        Separately: 18th street is correct in that the Lifeline Program dates back to 1985. He is patently wrong with regards to us giving “poor people” free phones for nearly 30 years.

    • albertmn - Apr 5, 2013 at 12:00 PM

      I always find it funny how when “liberals” want to help someone they are ruining America. I also find it odd that Republican and religious seem to go hand in hand, and God would teach you to help others, yet the religious Republicans don’t want to help anyone but themselves. Aren’t Christian Republicans a self-contradiction?

      • Old Gator - Apr 5, 2013 at 12:28 PM

        Well, I read the other day that paleontologists have discovered a cro-magnon (human) / neanderthal skeleton, based on DNA analysis.

        Half human, half neanderthal. That’s almost the same as a moderate Republican.

      • hasbeen5 - Apr 5, 2013 at 12:48 PM

        Christianity teaches the individual to help others, not to lobby the government to do it for them.

      • historiophiliac - Apr 5, 2013 at 1:13 PM

        I’m sorry, hasbeen, I must’ve missed the part where the Bible says not to use government as a tool for good. When you’re going to make blanket statements like that, you should say “my Christianity” instead of hijacking everyone’s prerogative. There are a lot of different theological takes on these issues and Christians differ on these points. No one can speak for all then.

      • hasbeen5 - Apr 5, 2013 at 1:26 PM

        So where in the Bible does it say we should rely on government for charitable acts. And it’s been shown that people who identify as conservative are more charitable with their personal income than those who identify as liberal. It’s not that we don’t want to help people, but we want to decide where our charity goes, rather than letting the government give it to causes that we do not support.

      • Old Gator - Apr 5, 2013 at 2:07 PM

        hasbeen: Unfortunately for conservatives with their heads up their asses, you did make your preferences known at the voting booth. More people apparently decided they would like government services to continue than wouldn’t, as part of a more widely held belief that no group – you know, like poor pregnant immigrant women – usually reviled or ignored by right wing assholes and self-trumpeted “good Christians” should suffer unnecessarily. That’s called democracy. Even a mass murdering right wing swine like Bush, with his conservative majority in congress, couldn’t put an end to it – much as I’m sure he would have liked to.

        And you’ve also nicely ignored historiophiliac’s point, which was that urging individual charity is not exclusive of creating government services. I’d also like to make the point that this is a secular society, not a “christian” one, whose constitution – yeah, the same one right wingers are always pointing to in order to preserve their “sacred” gun rights – very explicitly bars that government from valorizing or acting preferentially towards or according to the precepts of any religion at the same time that it guarantees all of their adherents the right to practice or not amongst themselves as they see fit, within reasonable bounds. And may it always remain so.

      • asimonetti88 - Apr 5, 2013 at 2:13 PM

        Old Gator, and you nicely ignored several of hasbeen’s points. Why does it not surprise me that yet another political discussion has delved into partisan name calling, stereotyping of opponent’s political beliefs, talking points and rhetoric? Meanwhile, independents such as myself sit on the sideline shaking our heads wondering when we will have a rational discourse based in reality on actual policies.

      • historiophiliac - Apr 5, 2013 at 2:45 PM

        It’s not about “relying,” hasbeen. In a democracy/republic where government is supposed to be a tool of the people, doing acts of charity through government services can be a legitimate tack for Christians. The Bible doesn’t say on this one way or the other. See the Christian Socialism movement. (Bonus: the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Christian Socialist.) I’m trying to point out to you that there are differing Christian views on these things. You are assuming that your view is universal and it is not.

      • hasbeen5 - Apr 5, 2013 at 2:48 PM

        OG, I’ll try to address each of your points.

        On election results: You’re right, the people spoke. I’m not all that surprised, given the percentage of citizens who pay no taxes. Of course they want the services, they’re receiving them, not paying for them.

        Poor pregnant immigrants: No one wants to see these groups suffer, I just don’t want to pay for their choices. Immigrants, citizens, whatever.

        Mass murdering swine: For someone who so obviously prides himself on the fact that he’s more well-read than most, you can do better than this. It’s stupid on many levels, but if the war were such a terrible thing with no possible positive outcome, why did the new Commander in Chief not simply call it off and bring everyone home?

        Personal charity and government services: If the government takes more of my money, I have less to use to my discretion.

        Constitution: You’re just plain wrong here. The Constitution prohibits a State religion (ie Church of England), but the founders clearly drew on Christian principles when laying the framework for our government. Nowhere does the Constitution prohibit Nativity scenes in a City Hall or any of the other nonsensical extremes to which that idea has been taken. It simply prohibits persecution on the grounds of religion.

      • Old Gator - Apr 5, 2013 at 5:19 PM

        Well, let’s see now. First off, I haven’t said anywhere that I supported the way Obama handled the war in Iraq – but as long as we’re on the subject, having inherited that horrible mess that Bush created after blatantly lying to us about the extent of the threat from Saddam, I think Obama did wind it down about as quickly as it could safely have been wound down. That infamous left-wing interest group, the International Red Cross, was already estimating in the vicinity of a half million casualties, the overwhelming majority of them civilians, before Obama was elected. The vast majority of those killed in Iraq after Obama’s election were, again, civilians caught in the crossfire between feuding religious groups that Bush’s war of lies and corruption unleashed in the first place.

        And we’re still with that paranoid whining about a “war on Christmas,” are we? Yeah, I did hear that Sarah Palin was writing yet another mindless book on that subject, come to think of it. No one is “persecuting” religions about nativity scenes or other religious displays, except insofar as they’re erected on public property like schools or town halls – where, for example, folks like me who don’t buy into organized superstition don’t want our tax dollars being wasted foisting such nonsense on the general public.The constitution draws a clean line between religion and government, thank you founding fathers, and the Supreme Court that reaffirmed that line repeatedly was helmed by one of its most conservative chief justices ever – a guy named Earl Warren, and read the constitution very literally in coming to its conclusions.It’s a very different thing to be influenced by religious “principles” as opposed to religious dogma. Besides, many of the founding fathers were third-degree Freemasons and those principles influenced the way they framed and structured our government about as powerfully as Christian doctrine did – not to mention how much of “Christian doctrine” already existed in enlightenment philosophy, or in much older religions like Buddhism or Zoroastrianism (both of which had their own trinities five hundred years before Christ). The SCOTUS understood what you seem not to: that keeping church and state radically separated is critical to guaranteeing religious freedom for everyone. Nativities on private property or private school grounds are just fine with me and those who are more extreme in their contempt for organized superstition than I am and who still don’t want to look at them there are shit out of luck, as you are when you don’t want your tax money taking care of unfortunates in other circumstances. Or like I was when my taxes funded the barbaric war my craven elected representatives gave our corrupt imbecile former president the authorization to wage.

  11. cosanostra71 - Apr 5, 2013 at 10:55 AM

    I found this line amusing:

    “Hedge funds, of course, have produced some of the worst excesses in an industry notorious for them, while arguably producing little of merit for society.”

  12. pilonflats - Apr 5, 2013 at 11:29 AM

    politics suck. politicians suck. baseball good. football good. ufc good. pizza good.

    • albertmn - Apr 5, 2013 at 12:02 PM

      ufc isn’t more me, but I agree with the rest of your points (especially the first two). FYI – I don’t have anything against ufc, it just isn’t something I watch.

  13. pensfan603 - Apr 5, 2013 at 12:22 PM

    This article should of focused on all the business indevers they went into, and how fraudulent and fake they are. For example John Henry having someone run baseball ops for the Red Soxs, and showing no care for the red soxs at all almost making it a point that last seasons who goal for him was to Make it so by the end of the year he could sell the Red Soxs for over a billion dollars to spend on Liverpool.
    So much good things, or the story about the Green Monster and How he Told larry Luccino to force his GMs to make huge free agency splashes. Or how as a kid he use to sit inside and watch kids play wiffle ball in his front law and how thats where his dream to become an owner came from. Great stories like this instead of talking about their political views who cares about that?

    • Old Gator - Apr 5, 2013 at 12:29 PM

      I agree. It takes more than politics to make an asshole.

      Or maybe less.

  14. janessa31888 - Apr 5, 2013 at 12:41 PM

    So we should condemn all rich people? Aren’t there any nice ones left?

    • stlouis1baseball - Apr 5, 2013 at 5:07 PM

      Yep…condemn them all Janessa. Those greedy, old, racist, insensitive white guys.
      If they make more than $50,000 annually they are gruby little money hungry bastards.
      All of them! You know what? Scratch that.
      I am now including anyone who is above 50, caucasian..and makes more than $50,000 a year.
      Because I know how they feel. I know how they think. I know who they DON”T donate too.
      Because they keep it all. RAGE!


  15. unclemosesgreen - Apr 5, 2013 at 3:41 PM

    This article really validates OG’s viewpoints on Scrooge McLoria. But it also inadvertenty gave McLoria some talking points for his next offensive talking offensive: “Hey, I’m still more beloved in Miami than Fidel Castro.”

  16. stlouis1baseball - Apr 5, 2013 at 5:03 PM


  17. yousuxxors - Apr 5, 2013 at 5:25 PM

    most of our founders were atheists. 9/10 people on welfare are old people. why is politics on a baseball board. the right has gone so far right it has swung the entire country towards the right so it seems the left is trying to get super left so they can meet in the middle again which always seems to be the best solution. most of the country is center leaning right and they get drowned out in the nonsense from both extremes. the extreme is never good, right or left. our country worked so good because both sides would work together and meet in the middle but now both sides won’t work together and its crazy. where did the respect go for each others ideas?

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Stanton (2745)
  2. B. Crawford (2577)
  3. Y. Puig (2432)
  4. G. Springer (2327)
  5. C. Correa (2220)
  1. H. Ramirez (2206)
  2. J. Fernandez (2110)
  3. D. Wright (2101)
  4. J. Hamilton (2100)
  5. H. Pence (2073)