SI's Best and Worst Owners

[Art]

That's fine. But where to 99.9% of all people get their information, whether misguided or not?

And THESE are the people that shake their head wistfully when I say I'm a Skins fan.

I live among two fan bases -- Minnesota and Green Bay -- and neither has anything but fondness for Washington. Fans get their information from more places than just the media. They get it from reality. They all see us acquire players and talented coaches and envy that. Save our own division rivals who think we're horrible idiots, a feeling we share for them, the general fan thought is we're pretty fortunate.

When they shake their heads wistfully, it's your duty to mock their basic intelligence and factual understanding of things and make them feel ridiculous, because, frankly a simple airing of the facts tends to side against such people. As you've seen here, much of the negative toward Snyder is fiction. If Snyder were making personnel decisions, I'd hate him too. If he were overruling his people, I'd think he was an idiot.

People here have actually expressed some ANGER at moves we HAVE NOT EVEN MADE simply because they heard we might have wanted to once. It's that level of ridiculousness that you are confronted with that makes your job easier when you simply assert an owner's job is simple. Provide the people he hires with what they tell him they need to succeed, and hire good people, and don't let your own ego or thoughts overrule those of the men you hire. In these fundamental ownership responsibilities Snyder has been quite good.

The valid flaw against Snyder is the stadium experience he's allowed to deteriorate. I'd go so far as to question the termination of people at Redskins Park in an offseason we spent $160 on players. To me, the Redskins are more than just the players, they are also the people who do the dirty work around the Park. I think Snyder could be more open and accessible to the right people -- namely me -- and could do a better job of putting into the public eye the exact role an owner has -- the one I outlined -- so people start to grasp it.

In these ways, I've openly complained about Snyder in the past, as each is a factual, valid flaw in the man and none requires any hypothetical or false reason to hate him.

[ttr77]

When they shake their heads wistfully, it's your duty to mock their basic intelligence and factual understanding of things and make them feel ridiculous, because, frankly a simple airing of the facts tends to side against such people.

My duty? Nah...my duty used to be to pay for my tickets and go to the games. The organization's duty was to provide value.

They didn't...so my duties have changed. I now feel that it is my duty, as a former season ticket holder, to keep my allegiance quiet and root for the team from my couch.

In these ways, I've openly complained about Snyder in the past, as each is a factual, valid flaw in the man and none requires any hypothetical or false reason to hate him.

I don't hate the man. I've never met him. But I do hate what he has done to the team I grew up watching. That team has been transformed into nothing more than a marketing machine. If I were a stockholder, I'd love what he's done. But, alas, I am simply a fan.

A quiet one.

[TheLongshot]

There's less downside to how we do things, but there's a downside to how all teams do things. Teams that are typically strapped provide lavish Paragraph 5 deals to players and are not willing to guarantee any of it, thus creating cap cuts. We have more flexibility than any team in the league, because we can ALWAYS minimize base salary every year in guarantees to acquire someone. Acquiring Jason Taylor in August is an example of that flexibility, unmatched in the league.

We only had that flexibility because we couldn't do a deal for a WR. Normally, we don't have that kind of cap space. Actually, that's one of the downsides is that we normally don't have that kind of cap space once we get to training camp. Many other teams do have that kind of flexibility because they don't come close to filling their cap.

I was commenting to someone who suggested that after San Francisco tendered Lloyd he was about to be cut. We did trade for him.

You had said that we signed him to an offer sheet.

I don't believe we paid extra for Portis. We paid what it would cost to acquire an elite runner. That Portis was younger and eager helped assure that cost was not too burdensome.

We paid what it took to get him. Portis' value was more because he was still under his rookie contract and didn't have to be traded. The same could be said for Cutler, particularly since he didn't nessicarily want a new deal.

Portis was drafted in 2002. He came to Washington in 2004.

:doh:

You are right. I totally misread that part since it was mixed in with Cooley. BTW, I don't remember Vinny saying that he liked him in 2002.

[VaBeachRedskin]

Again, your count is off. They've drafted 5 backs in that time. (Bell, Miree, Clarett, Torain, Hills) This year they signed a few backs (Arrington, Buckhalter, LaMont Jordan) and drafted Moreno in the first round.

Miree and Hillis are fullbacks and those 3 FA additions plus Moreno were added by a new administration that changed the offensive scheme.

So to recap, the Shanahan regime spent 3 picks on RBs during the time period (with 1 of them being our 2nd rounder) and we spent 2 picks on RBs during that same time.

[Art]

Miree and Hillis are fullbacks and those 3 FA additions plus Moreno were added by a new administration that changed the offensive scheme.

So to recap, the Shanahan regime spent 3 picks on RBs during the time period (with 1 of them being our 2nd rounder) and we spent 2 picks on RBs during that same time.

Seriously, VA, you're not being obtuse. We had Portis. We may have acquired a backup back for various reasons, but we had Portis. Our running game was set. Denver never got the production it was looking for. They were constantly shuffling in new runners to try to get more. They never got themselves settled and just recently took another first-rounder to account for the fact they don't have Portis.

If you even MILDLY liken what they've gone through since they got rid of Portis and what we have you're simply TRYING to play foolish.

[MassSkinsFan]

I'd rather have an owner who swings and misses while trying to put a good team on the field, than an owner like Bill Bidwell, who for years was the biggest cheapskate in the league and has only recently begun spending money. And look where it got him!

Your example is slightly off - do you like having an owner who goes to bat blindfolded swing and miss every year?

[Art]

If Snyder is blind, it's solely because the driver of his car is blind. If Campbell plays like last year, we'll be 6-10 to 9-7 and some of you will think Snyder doesn't get it. If Campbell emerges as a legitimate QB, we'll be 10-6 to 12-4 and you'll never quite figure out how it must also be Snyder's credit.

In actuality, he gets neither blame nor credit for the mistakes of the people picking the players. That's not his job. He doesn't do that job. If Gibbs and company were wrong on Campbell, it's unfair to stain Snyder because of it. It would be unfair to give him credit if Campbell works out, too, though, one could MILDLY argue that feeling pressure from this offseason that if Campbell emerges it could be because of the drive provided by the Danny.

But even that's a stretch.

[VaBeachRedskin]

To Art's point - and to the SI nonsense that started this - Mike Silver formerly did this "best and worst" for SI before he left for Yahoo. In Silver's case he ranked EVERY NFL owner from top to bottom. In his years doing it for SI, Snyder was always among his top 5 owners. At Yahoo last year, Snyder was #3. His reasoning resonates with much that Art has said (glad to hear from you, Art)

Yahoo.com, Sept. 2008, Mike Silver ranks the NFL owners

"3. Washington Redskins - Daniel Snyder: When most fans hear Snyder's name, they blurt out words to describe him that might not be suitable for network television. Here's the first one that comes to my mind: Awesome. Snyder generates revenue like a money-printing machine (his team ranks first in the NFL, at a reported $312 million, and is also atop the league in sponsorship dollars), happily spends it to improve his franchise and makes his players - you know, the ones who destroy their bodies on Sundays for the pleasure of the masses - feel pampered and appreciated. He is the closest thing to former 49ers boss Eddie DeBartolo, and eventually he'll get the rings to prove it.

What went down Sunday at Redskins Park tells you all you need to know about Snyder's ownership style. While attending the Skins' first practice of training camp, Snyder and executive vice president Vinny Cerrato winced as veteran defensive Phillip Daniels went down with a knee injury. On their way to lunch in the cafeteria, they learned that Daniels had suffered a season-ending torn ACL. After sitting down with coach Jim Zorn and defensive coordinator Greg Blache, they began discussing their options. "I want to win," Snyder told the group. "Let's do what we have to do to win." Concluding that disgruntled Dolphins defensive end Jason Taylor was by far the best player they'd have a chance to acquire, Snyder gave the go-ahead to make a trade. Before finishing his meal Cerrato was on the phone with Parcells, Miami's executive vice president of football operations, discussing a trade for the 2006 NFL defensive player of the year. By that evening the deal was done, with Washington giving up second- and sixth-round draft picks, and Snyder agreeing to shell out $16 million over two years, the remaining money on Taylor's contract. Because of Snyder's aggressive approach, the 'Skins were able to acquire Taylor before their NFC East rivals, the Giants, could work out a three-way trade with the Dolphins and Saints that would have sent Taylor to New Orleans for second- and fifth-round picks, followed by a swap of Taylor for tight end Jeremy Shockey.

Upon the trade's completion, Snyder sent his private jet to pick up Taylor's wife and children in the Dallas area; it then flew to South Florida to collect the newest Redskins player and transport him to training camp. That's the same jet that, last December, whisked quarterback Todd Collins up to Boston in time to join his wife (who'd been induced into emergency labor) before she gave birth to the couple's son. After Hurricane Katrina Snyder flew tight end Robert Royal to New Orleans to collect his family, who hopped aboard the jet and returned to Northern Virginia. And last December he chartered a 747 to fly the entire team to slain safety Sean Taylor's funeral in Miami. That move wasn't about winning; it was about doing the right thing. When Snyder finally hoists the Lombardi Trophy one of these years, it might be worth biting your tongue - at least in front of the kids."

I don't see how the Jason Taylor story helps him as a football guy. To me it shows his Madden personality of wanting to add the biggest names possible and also his penchant for trying to pound square pegs into round holes. Snyder's aim might be true (though I am starting to question that), but his football sense is just not there.

[Art]

I don't see how the Jason Taylor story helps him as a football guy. To me it shows his Madden personality of wanting to add the biggest names possible and also his penchant for trying to pound square pegs into round holes. Snyder's aim might be true (though I am starting to question that), but his football sense is just not there.

We suffered a surprising, late injury to a key cog. Snyder gave the team the ability to go find a replacement. Taylor, himself, got hurt, but, the move was considered at the time to be a very intelligent one because it showed great flexibility and execution at the time. Because Taylor got hurt, we tend to think less fondly of what he could have done if healthy for us. That happens.

[Skinsinparadise]

It does astound me that so many of you mindlessly believe Snyder is actually grading players -- he's said he's not and has affirmed it since -- or working the phones in trade discussions. He works the phone with agents during trade discussions, as the acquisition process is the one he's specifically involved in. He allows direct negotiation and he knows what Schaffer can do with the cap to make deals fit.

I agree, I have argued this with others at different times. Does it really make sense to people here that Danny is staying late up at night and reviewing tape of players and giving them grades? He gives a list of players for Vinny to consider on draft day, and Vinny is simply the figure head who gives the players the welcome to the Redskins call? If so why bother having Vinny or guys like Scott Campbell with a football background?

In the Doc Walker radio interview with Danny and Vinny which was on not that long ago, and likewise in the interview with Scott Campbell which was posted on this site, it was layed out pretty clearly how they made decisions. And I have yet to read anything that contradicts it, including from the team's media naysayers.

Even JLC, who is far from a fan of the FO, spelled it out in his expose/hit on the team after the 2006 season. I believe it was in that article or if not another one around that time -- how the team makes personnel decisions via a wish list that is put together by committee (not by Snyder)

Snyder would ultimately come in and help get the players from that list. Snyder is depicted as the closer, deals with the compensation for the signing and woos the player to ensure they do sign.

So if you don't like for example the acquistions of Jason Campbell or Mark Brunnel -- fine, but if you google both moves you'd see Gibbs' finger prints all over those moves, not Snyder.

I also recall for example Saunders being mentioned as the coach who was especially into Brandon Lloyd and how he had the best hands in the NFL and really wanted the team to chase him. Saunders I recall liked Duckett and Gibbs liked Duckett too from the time he was flirting with working with the Falcons owner before he came back to the Redskins.

Even the less transparent moves where it might not be as obvious as to how it evolved like the pursuit of Haynsworth -- the finger prints IMO point to others not Snyder. For example: Blache mocking the team's pass rush saying they couldn't sack a bag of groceries, Vinny's press conference after the season where he mentioned improving pass rush as a major priority, and I recall in an interview after the signing, Zorn saying he watched a lot of tape on Haynsworth before FA opened.

I am OK with Snyder but don't like everything he does such as I am not a fan of most of their draft pick trades for veterans. But I really don't get the Dan Snyder is calling all the shots crowd. We all read most everything we can get our hands on about the team, based on that, it's tough for me to see how people come to the conclusion of Danny being the guy picking the players.

[Thinking Skins]

If Snyder is blind, it's solely because the driver of his car is blind. If Campbell plays like last year, we'll be 6-10 to 9-7 and some of you will think Snyder doesn't get it. If Campbell emerges as a legitimate QB, we'll be 10-6 to 12-4 and you'll never quite figure out how it must also be Snyder's credit.

In actuality, he gets neither blame nor credit for the mistakes of the people picking the players. That's not his job. He doesn't do that job. If Gibbs and company were wrong on Campbell, it's unfair to stain Snyder because of it. It would be unfair to give him credit if Campbell works out, too, though, one could MILDLY argue that feeling pressure from this offseason that if Campbell emerges it could be because of the drive provided by the Danny.

But even that's a stretch.

But if thats the case then how do you define a "good owner" vs a "bad owner"? They all can use these excuses.

I judge JKC as a good owner because we won 3 SB trophies under him, and went to a fourth. In the process of that, we kept a nucleus together and stayed very competitive. But I also (partially) fault JKC for what happened to this team in the 1990s. We treated our stars like trash. We wouldn't fire Norv. We couldn't handle disputes between Norv and Casserly (or couldn't handle them well). Some of thats got to go onto the hands of JKC.

Similarly, some of our lack of success in the 2000's has to go on Snyder. How much blame you give him and how good/bad of an owner you call him is a subjective scale, but he shouldn't be immune from any blame because he's not the coach and he shouldn't be praised simply because he "spends money".

[TheLongshot]

I don't see how the Jason Taylor story helps him as a football guy. To me it shows his Madden personality of wanting to add the biggest names possible and also his penchant for trying to pound square pegs into round holes. Snyder's aim might be true (though I am starting to question that), but his football sense is just not there.

What I see is this:

• Key player goes down for the season
  
• Discussing options, Snyder gives them carte blance to do whatever they need to do to address the issue for this season
  
• The FO decides that Jason Taylor is the best available option
  
• Snyder says go ahead and make the deal
  

In there, I didn't see anything where Snyder was picking a big name out of the hat or selecting players. The responsibility of Taylor is clearly on the FO there.

[VaBeachRedskin]

Seriously, VA, you're not being obtuse. We had Portis. We may have acquired a backup back for various reasons, but we had Portis. Our running game was set. Denver never got the production it was looking for. They were constantly shuffling in new runners to try to get more. They never got themselves settled and just recently took another first-rounder to account for the fact they don't have Portis.

If you even MILDLY liken what they've gone through since they got rid of Portis and what we have you're simply TRYING to play foolish.

I would say that they had been getting the production they were looking for in the running game under Mike Shanahan. You also say they spent another 1st rounder on a RB, do you know the last time that Denver drafted a RB in the 1st round? 1985. Under Shanahan's system he didn't need to have a settled position as the runner didn't matter as much as the scheme.

[artmonkforHOF]

Al Davis is a complete bafoon and should NEVER be anything but the worst owner in the history of sports

recently yes, but from 1966 through the mid 1980's, a lot of people might have called him the best owner in sports.

It is sad to see that Danny Boy is only behind Al-circa 1967-Davis, and the owner of a team who just went 0-16.

this just reminds me of how bad I want a GM, and a tough guy GM who will Danny to go F off when his stupidity starts rearing it's head.

[VaBeachRedskin]

What I see is this:

• Key player goes down for the season
  
• Discussing options, Snyder gives them carte blance to do whatever they need to do to address the issue for this season
  
• The FO decides that Jason Taylor is the best available option
  
• Snyder says go ahead and make the deal
  

In there, I didn't see anything where Snyder was picking a big name out of the hat or selecting players. The responsibility of Taylor is clearly on the FO there.

I fully agree with you on that, but with how Snyder has conducted himself he is a part of those FO discussions.

[Thinking Skins]

What I see is this:

• Key player goes down for the season
  
• Discussing options, Snyder gives them carte blance to do whatever they need to do to address the issue for this season
  
• The FO decides that Jason Taylor is the best available option
  
• Snyder says go ahead and make the deal
  

In there, I didn't see anything where Snyder was picking a big name out of the hat or selecting players. The responsibility of Taylor is clearly on the FO there.

Even in this minute point, its on Snyder to put the front office in place, so he still should bare some responsibility for this move.

[MassSkinsFan]

An owner's job is to provide for his coaching staff to produce.

An owner is judged on the intelligence of his hires, not whether the hire works out or fails.

I call BS!

Part of any manager's job is not only to provide the resources to succeed, but to monitor the progress and adjust as needed. By your logic, if the CEO of Bank of America made sure he hired the best people as his executives, then walked off and checked in a year later, he'd have fulfilled his job regardless of the outcome. (Well, maybe there's a bit of hyperbole there but...).

My point is that there's always someone responsible and accountable for getting things done and ultimately the highest person in the organization is most responsible and accountable for the organization's success. In this case, winning is one of the things needing done; the other is making money. So, our Danny is responsible for both yet only delivering on one - the one that the fans don't really care about.

Besides, where are the rules for judging? You make it sound like I ought to be able to look it up in the Code of Federal Regulations. :evilg:

[elkabong82]

Denver spent 3 draft picks on RBs (1 of them being our 2nd rounder) and during that same time we spent 2 draft picks on RBs (well RB). Not really a bunch and thanks for showing me what I already knew about Denver having the better rushing attack since the trade.

Except Denver's been doing it over the years, trying to find a starter. We did it trying to find a back-up. Denver's RB picks were born out of necessity at the starting spot, ours wasn't.

And Denver has used 5 picks on RBs since the Portis trade.

If Denver is so much better off with a tandem rushing attack, then why'd they just spend a 1st on Moreno? Obviously they are still looking for the answer at starting RB. We aren't, but BOTH teams have been fine since the trade. Denver has had a good rushing tandem overall, the Skins have had a good D overall since the trade. Really it was a win-win trade, IMO.

[elkabong82]

These ranking for the owners seem to be based on W-L record and little else. I wonder if the Krafts would be so high on that list if not for the 6th round jackpot they hit several years back.

[Art]

But if thats the case then how do you define a "good owner" vs a "bad owner"? They all can use these excuses.

I've repeatedly stated this. A good owner has three key responsibilities. Hire good people. Stay out of their way. Provide what his people tell him they need. That's about all an owner can do from a football side to be successful.

People LOVE Kraft for some reason. Yet, he was a failure. His teams were losing, and losing. Belichick was about to go on and lose another 10 games when Brady was found. Suddenly Belichick who was a career loser is a genius. Suddenly Pioli, who until now never held a real job without Belichick (Bill's yes man some would say), is the model GM. Suddenly Kraft is great. Kraft picked a coach who'd lost 10 or more games four times in five years. Bad hire. He didn't even hire a personnel guy, but a puppet of the coach, who had full control. Bad hire. Those guys scratch off their lottery ticket and find the game's best player ever, perhaps, and everything seems like a model of greatness. It would anywhere.

Was Gibbs a bad hire? No. Gibbs was highly complimentary of Vinny, which is why Gibbs, not Snyder, gave him more money and responsibility. Gibbs could have gotten rid of him and worked with anyone he wanted. He didn't because Vinny did a good job for him, as proven out by the general quality of the moves we made during Gibbs time. Some bombs, but, Vinny did well in getting the right Redskin grade on most of the guys under Gibbs.

I judge JKC as a good owner because we won 3 SB trophies under him, and went to a fourth. In the process of that, we kept a nucleus together and stayed very competitive. But I also (partially) fault JKC for what happened to this team in the 1990s. We treated our stars like trash. We wouldn't fire Norv. We couldn't handle disputes between Norv and Casserly (or couldn't handle them well). Some of thats got to go onto the hands of JKC.

Similarly, some of our lack of success in the 2000's has to go on Snyder. How much blame you give him and how good/bad of an owner you call him is a subjective scale, but he shouldn't be immune from any blame because he's not the coach and he shouldn't be praised simply because he "spends money".

It is simple to suggest a good owner wins Super Bowls. But, Bill Bidwell's Cards, had they won, wouldn't have made Bidwell a good owner. Sometimes magic happens. So, consistent winning might make a good owner. I don't disagree with that premise, though, in each case you have consistent winning in the cap era, you have a general constant at QB. You win well consistently with a great QB. You don't win consistently without.

Did Kraft find Brady? Did Rooney find Big Ben? Owners don't do that. They ought not get credit for it. They should get credit or critique based on the environment they provide. Most people in the NFL have missed on more players than they hit on. Finding the consistent winner is finding one player to build around. We've not done that for 20 years. Until we do we won't ever be all that much better. ONCE we do, the system we have in place will create a possible dynasty, because, LIKE New England, people WANT to play for us.

Unlike New England, where they want to play to win that championship, because of Tom Brady, they want to play here to get paid. If we ever land at QB, we'll have another reason for them to want to come here.

[VaBeachRedskin]

Except Denver's been doing it over the years, trying to find a starter. We did it trying to find a back-up. Denver's RB picks were born out of necessity at the starting spot, ours wasn't.

And Denver has used 5 picks on RBs since the Portis trade.

If Denver is so much better off with a tandem rushing attack, then why'd they just spend a 1st on Moreno? Obviously they are still looking for the answer at starting RB. We aren't, but BOTH teams have been fine since the trade. Denver has had a good rushing tandem overall, the Skins have had a good D overall since the trade. Really it was a win-win trade, IMO.

And it was 3 on RBs and 2 on FBs. I left off our 2 FB picks when discussing us so I left theirs off as well.

New coaching changed the offensive scheme.

In reality, your second point is what I have been trying to voice this entire time. Both teams made out well. Denver didn't need a stable RB to produce so it allowed them to make a move that worked out for both teams.

[Art]

I call BS!

Part of any manager's job is not only to provide the resources to succeed, but to monitor the progress and adjust as needed. By your logic, if the CEO of Bank of America made sure he hired the best people as his executives, then walked off and checked in a year later, he'd have fulfilled his job regardless of the outcome. (Well, maybe there's a bit of hyperbole there but...).

My point is that there's always someone responsible and accountable for getting things done and ultimately the highest person in the organization is most responsible and accountable for the organization's success. In this case, winning is one of the things needing done; the other is making money. So, our Danny is responsible for both yet only delivering on one - the one that the fans don't really care about.

Besides, where are the rules for judging? You make it sound like I ought to be able to look it up in the Code of Federal Regulations. :evilg:

The CEO is not the owner of Bank of America.

A football team's owner differs from a CEO in that no one wants their owner to ACT as a CEO. EVERYONE wants their owner to hire a CEO, which is either the coach or GM, depending on which you view as more important. The owner of a football team is specifically asked to stay out of the way of his football people and to provide for them. When he doesn't, he immediately becomes a questionable owner.

The owner is not the highest person in the football organization. Not by our wishes. The highest person is generally the coach, or in some cases the GM. The owner is specifically faulted if he allows players to circumvent his coach and come to him with complaints. He's not the person the buck stops at. His people are. Which is why his KEY responsibility is to find the right people.

In this, Snyder has an impressive record of acquiring universally respected men to lead his franchise. They haven't done the job for various reasons. Now we have Zorn. He's the first obviously questionable hire. If Zorn succeeds it'll allow hindsight to have us feel it was a wise move, but, mostly, we'll consider it dubious if he fails as we generally thought it when it took place.

The idea behind Zorn is fine, but, subtract at least 10 if not 20 years from the age .

Danny is not responsible for winning. He's responsible to give the people we demand he give responsibility to what they say they need. If Snyder were responsible for winning, we'd be asking him to make the decisions we all beg him not to make.

[VaBeachRedskin]

Danny is not responsible for winning. He's responsible to give the people we demand he give responsibility to what they say they need. If Snyder were responsible for winning, we'd be asking him to make the decisions we all beg him not to make.

Then Snyder is responsible for holding those in his FO accountable and making the necessary moves to help facilitate putting a winning team on the field. I don't see this accountability in his dealings with Cerrato.

[TheLongshot]

It is simple to suggest a good owner wins Super Bowls. But, Bill Bidwell's Cards, had they won, wouldn't have made Bidwell a good owner. Sometimes magic happens. So, consistent winning might make a good owner. I don't disagree with that premise, though, in each case you have consistent winning in the cap era, you have a general constant at QB. You win well consistently with a great QB. You don't win consistently without.

Well, I'd argue being a good owner or a bad owner can be a variable thing. For example, I think Bidwell has become a better owner in recent years from his willingness to spend what needs to be spent to win. Also, finally abandoning a college stadium for a quality stadium also should get him points.

On the other side of things, you can argue that Al Davis was once a good owner but is no longer. Certainly when you put yourself up as the GM and the team has been pretty dismal for years there is no one to point to but yourself for the problems with the franchise.

[MassSkinsFan]

Steinbrenner has won multiple World Series trophies in multiple eras of baseball. He's a highly successful owner.

Absolutely true.

He knew how to hire great FO talent, and how to let them do the business of putting the good teams together. He also came right out of the gate with some World Series wins during the beginning of his reign.

Unfortunately it hasn't turned out that way for Snyder.

If the Yankees had never gone beyond the ALDS since Steinbrenner took over in 1973 we wouldn't be saying that he was a great owner. Same will be true for Dan S. if we don't get past round 1 of the playoffs any time soon.

George's Yankees went to the WS 10 out of 33 seasons of his active ownership, winning 6 times. That's pretty good. Unfortunately for us Skins fans the organization is not on pace to duplicate the Yankees' success in a similar time period (i.e. GS owned Yanks 1973-2006* v. DS owns Skins 1999-2032).

*I end it there because he stopped his active role in 2006