Should Frank Navin be in the HOF?

[Chuck9788]

Do you feel Frank Navin deserves posthumous HOF recognition?

Navin (1871-1935) was the principal owner of the Detroit Tigers for 27 years, from 1908 - 1935. He also served as vice president and acting president of the American League. His Tigers won 5 AL pennants and 1 World Series (1935).

[clydepepper]

How 'bout 'Captain Outrageous' Ted Turner?

I think any owners elected should have had a positive effect on more than just their own team and with the Super-Station expanding fandom, Ted certainly did that. He owned the Braves for close to a quarter century, and after his own 'Steinbrenner' period, he hired the right baseball people and brought Championship caliber Baseball to Georgia for the first time. Under Ted's ownership, the Atlanta team won their only World Championship and dominated their division throughout the decade of the 1990's.

IMO, he deserves induction far more than Frank Navin...and his doesn't have to be posthumously awarded, which, if you remember how Ronnie Santo got treated, means a whole lot!
-

[esd10]

August herrman should go into hof before navin

[Klrdds]

Owners are a tough question ,but yes I agree that they should have brought more to the game in a broad fashion than their owning their team for an extended time or just winning championships .
I believe Navin is HOF worthy as possibly Briggs and maybe Fetzer , when considering Tigers owners and their successful history.
Also it seems that you can define ownership and HOF worthiness almost by the decade, that is there always seems to be 1 or 2 owners who influence a decade and then someone else assumes the mantle. That is why I believe there are 4-8 others owners who also should be considered for HOF induction.
For the teens and 20s Navin was a force as was August Herrmann , who should go in also. However both are long shots with the current Veterans Committee make up and voting IMO .

[Fred]

What about JT Brush? Lot's of potential candidates. I think the HOF should create a new section and call it "Pioneers" or something like that. That section could include players from the 19th century that probably deserve enshrinement but don't meet the criteria due to the way baseball was played way back when. Still blows me away there's no room for players like Ross Barnes (and others).

[steve B]

I say yes!

Mostly because I've had this for a few years

[nat]

Originally Posted by Fred

What about JT Brush? Lot's of potential candidates. I think the HOF should create a new section and call it "Pioneers" or something like that. That section could include players from the 19th century that probably deserve enshrinement but don't meet the criteria due to the way baseball was played way back when. Still blows me away there's no room for players like Ross Barnes (and others).

There's already one of those. You can be elected as a player, a manager, an umpire, someone from the negro leagues, or a pioneer/executive. Clark Griffith is in as a "pioneer/executive" as are Tom Yawkey, Bill Veeck and lots of other folks.