COLEMAN EYES SCHOTT REPLACEMENT AS ALLEN TAKES INTERIM HELM
NL President Leonard Coleman said he plans to meet with Reds
Owner Marge Schott early next week to begin selecting a managing
executive to run the team, according to Hal Bodley of USA TODAY.
Coleman and Schott are to find an agreed upon successor within 60
days as part of the deal in which Schott gave up control of the
team through the '98 season. Pirates President Mark Sauer,
former Angels President Richard Brown and Dick Wagner, former
President and GM of the Reds and Astros, are all mentioned as
candidates (USA TODAY, 6/13). Interim CEO John Allen said
yesterday, "One thing I will make clear and it's been made very
clear to me, I'm not a puppet here. I will be making some
decisions and there will be some changes made" ("SportsCenter,"
ESPN, 6/13). Allen said he will run more promotions and try to
increase attendance at Riverfront Stadium. He wants to "liven up
the music played during games, possibly reduce ticket prices" and
put up banners acknowledging the Reds World Championships.
Allen: "We have no recognition that we won a World Series"
(WASHINGTON TIMES, 6/14).
SPIN WHEEL: More media reaction on the deal between MLB and
Schott. In Cleveland, Bud Shaw writes Schott should have only
given up control of the Reds "if the fake commissioner can say
(without his nose growing) that she has hurt the game worse the
canceling the World Series did" (Cleveland PLAIN-DEALER, 6/13).
In Hartford, Dennis Horgan writes MLB owners "have managed to
beat up this pathetic women, a dolt by common acclaim. After
making a terrible mess of the best sport ... they can now swagger
around in hollow bravado" (HARTFORD COURANT, 6/14). In St.
Louis, Bernie Miklasz notes that "everyone involved" in the
Schott matter "behaved poorly," from Schott, owners, media, and
Acting Commissioner Bud Selig. Miklasz writes Selig "shows no
strength in confronting baseball's major problems" (ST. LOUIS
POST- DISPATCH, 6/14). But in DC, Thomas Boswell notes Selig
"finally did something right." Boswell: "The game's owners,
through their Executive Council, were not attacking Schott's free
speech. They were defending their own legitimate self-interests"
(WASHINGTON POST, 6/14).