Astros pushed for Andy/Pettite and Clemens were "frustrated with Astros team culture"

[Oski2005]

The Astros tried hard to bring back Andy Pettitte

Sorry for the delay this morning. Technical problems. So let's get right to the latest from the winter meetings:


Andy Pettitte stuck to his pledge that he would either be a Yankee or a retiree in 2008, informing the Yankees on Sunday that he would return. But the Astros _ for whom Pettitte pitched from 2004 through 2006, and, more relevantly, who play major-league baseball in the city where Pettitte lives _ made a hard push.

Among those who called Pettitte in recruiting efforts: New manager Cecil Cooper, ace Roy Oswalt, slugger Lance Berkman and veteran starting pitcher Woody Williams, who has a longstanding relationship with Pettitte and Roger Clemens.

Pettitte had to be somewhat tempted. But one underreported aspect of Pettitte's and Clemens' time in Houston was their frustration with the Astros' team culture _ that, unlike the Yankees, the Astros, in the two pitchers' minds, weren't 100 percent committed to winning.

http://blogs.trb.com/sports/baseball/blog/2007/12/the_astros_tried_hard_to_bring.html

[MadMax]

Hey, Roger...don't get your ass blown out in Chicago during the WS, and we have a much better chance.

[jopatmc]

They're right. The Astros are not a win at all costs organization. They are a win at a set price ballclub.

[MadMax]

They're right. The Astros are not a win at all costs organization. They are a win at a set price ballclub.


Only the Yanks (and now the Red Sox) are a win at all cost organization...and that's only because they make a bazillion times more revenue than everyone else.

These guys aren't in this to lose money.

[RocketManJosh]

They're right. The Astros are not a win at all costs organization. They are a win at a set price ballclub.

Yeah I agree ... I guess the only teams Andy was willing to pitch for were NY and Boston.

[Aceshigh7]

I've never understood why Drayton insists on running this organization like a business and is unwilling to play with the big boys. The guy is a billionaire by far. He could afford to spend an extra 20 or 30 million a year to really make some impacts. Hell, he probably wouldn't even take that much of a loss, because it is likely revenue would increase as the team got better, (see, Pettitte & Clemens, 2004).

If I owned this team and was Drayton's age and knew that no matter what my family's future was secure and i'd never have to worry about money again, i'd treat this team like a hobby, and i'd do whatever it took to put us in prime position to kick ass.

[MadMax]

I've never understood why Drayton insists on running this organization like a business and is unwilling to play with the big boys. The guy is a billionaire by far. He could afford to spend an extra 20 or 30 million a year to really make some impacts. Hell, he probably wouldn't even take that much of a loss, because it is likely revenue would increase as the team got better, (see, Pettitte & Clemens, 2004).

If I owned this team and was Drayton's age and knew that no matter what my family's future was secure and i'd never have to worry about money again, i'd treat this team like a hobby, and i'd do whatever it took to put us in prime position to kick ass.

Who does that though? No one I can see in MLB.

The Yankees still MAKE money, even despite their payroll. On occasion you will hear them say, "we're not signing this guy to that kind of money." They did it with ARod's initial offer...and they did it in the Beltran sweepstakes, when they just dropped out.

No one just spends and spends and spends without any thought of whether they're losing money.

[msn]

I've never understood why Drayton insists on running this organization like a business and is unwilling to play with the big boys. The guy is a billionaire by far. He could afford to spend an extra 20 or 30 million a year to really make some impacts. Hell, he probably wouldn't even take that much of a loss, because it is likely revenue would increase as the team got better, (see, Pettitte & Clemens, 2004).

If I owned this team and was Drayton's age and knew that no matter what my family's future was secure and i'd never have to worry about money again, i'd treat this team like a hobby, and i'd do whatever it took to put us in prime position to kick ass.
And your team would go bankrupt.

The Yankees spend because the Yankees have money--not because George has money. It's not that hard of a concept to understand. A business stands on its own two feet; you don't don't underpin it with personal wealth or it'll die a quick and painful death.

Let me clue you in on how many owners invest their own personal finances into their baseball teams: Precisely zero. To expect it of McLane, or any owner, is inane and stupid.

[Surfguy]

I'm personally shocked that we were trying to get Andy back for this season after we let him go over...what...two million and an option for a second year?

Give it up already! Screw Andy and screw Roger. Keep them gone.

Also, is the "not 100% committed to winning" a knock against the players, management, or both? I mean...obviously the Astros are more limited in the dollars they can spend than the Yankees. Is that what they mean in reality? The Astros don't spend enough to be committed to winning?

[Aceshigh7]

And your team would go bankrupt.

The Yankees spend because the Yankees have money--not because George has money. It's not that hard of a concept to understand. A business stands on its own two feet; you don't don't underpin it with personal wealth or it'll die a quick and painful death.

Let me clue you in on how many owners invest their own personal finances into their baseball teams: Precisely zero. To expect it of McLane, or any owner, is inane and stupid.

Purchasing the team in the first place is an investment of their personal finances. Drayton is one of the richest sports owners in the country. Add to that his age and he could lose an extra 30 million a year for however long he has left to live and it wouldn't affect him or his children's inheritances. Actually, with the added investment in talent, revenues would almost certainly increase. We could see close to 4 million in attendance.

[MadMax]

Purchasing the team in the first place is an investment of their personal finances. Drayton is one of the richest sports owners in the country. Add to that his age and he could lose an extra 30 million a year for however long he has left to live and it wouldn't affect him or his children's inheritances. Actually, with the added investment in talent, revenues would almost certainly increase. We could see close to 4 million in attendance.

The place seats 40K. Assume 41K tickets sold every game, which would mean SRO every game....that's 3.3 million fans. No where near approaching 4 million.

No one is investing personal funds in payroll. No one. The Astros are either a going organization, or they're not. It's all a business at the end of the day...like it or not.

[Major]

Purchasing the team in the first place is an investment of their personal finances. Drayton is one of the richest sports owners in the country. Add to that his age and he could lose an extra 30 million a year for however long he has left to live and it wouldn't affect him or his children's inheritances.

Billionaire businessmen don't get to be billionaires by making stupid financial decisions.


Actually, with the added investment in talent, revenues would almost certainly increase. We could see close to 4 million in attendance.

That would be really impressive, given that MMP's capacity is in the lower 40,000's. You'd have to fit people in aisles, maybe 2-to-a-seat, stick some on the field, etc...

[wrath_of_khan]

Add to that his age and he could lose an extra 30 million a year for however long he has left to live and it wouldn't affect him or his children's inheritances.

Is this the linchpin of your argument? If so, then it's ridiculous.

Please find me examples of anyone willing to spend/lose $30 million a year on a "hobby."

Charity, maybe. But a hobby? Come on. That's just naive.

EDIT: For an apples-to-apples comparison, please find examples of owners in any sport who were happy to put their own money into a team losing tens of millions of dollars. If any existed, then maybe - maybe - we could criticize Drayton for not doing same. If it's never been done before (and I suspect it has not), then why should Drayton be the only one?

[msn]

Purchasing the team in the first place is an investment of their personal finances.
Purchasing any business is--at first. How many business owners continue to support their business with personal funds? Come on, how many? Name them. This is not a hard concept to understand.

Drayton is one of the richest sports owners in the country. Add to that his age and he could lose an extra 30 million a year for however long he has left to live and it wouldn't affect him or his children's inheritances. Actually, with the added investment in talent, revenues would almost certainly increase. We could see close to 4 million in attendance.
As Max and Major have effectively pointed out, the point has sailed cleanly over your head.

[Aceshigh7]

Okay, I goofed on MMP's capacity, but still, there is always room for improvement, and if attendance really is that close to peak capability, we should have alot more payroll flexibility to go make waves in the market.

The fans of Houston have done their part. It's high time Uncle Drayton does his part. We lost Pettitte over just a few million and Clemens as well. Pettitte was true to his word not to exercise his option year. Mclane is too much of a bottom line thinker. He's been that way for years and he's still that way. Portugal, Hampton, Kile, trading away Cammy and Finley for peanuts.... Houston deserves better.

[bwarren]

Purchasing the team in the first place is an investment of their personal finances. Drayton is one of the richest sports owners in the country. Add to that his age and he could lose an extra 30 million a year for however long he has left to live and it wouldn't affect him or his children's inheritances. Actually, with the added investment in talent, revenues would almost certainly increase. We could see close to 4 million in attendance.

While it is true that the purchase of a team inherently comes from outside resources, it is also true that in most instances the money will be recouped eventually through the sale of the team.

The problem with your argument is that it is based on the premise that the owners of sports teams treat their clubs as giant toys or playgrounds instead of a business seeking to make a profit. Name me one team for which this is true.

I'll save you the time and effort -- there is no team out there who puts winning entirely ahead of profits when the two come into conflict.

If you want to somehow argue that the Astros could still be profitable while maintaining a payroll of 150-200 million dollars, then go right ahead. I would be very interested to see how you can defend such an argument. Instead, you want the Astros to spend like New York or Boston without the television deal or merchandising revenues of the Yankees or Red Sox.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the sport as a whole for not seeking a more equitable sharing of media revenues, much like what the NFL has today. That would make a much bigger difference in parity than any luxury tax or salary cap.

[MadMax]

Okay, I goofed on MMP's capacity, but still, there is always room for improvement, and if attendance really is that close to peak capability, we should have alot more payroll flexibility to go make waves in the market.

The fans of Houston have done their part. It's high time Uncle Drayton does his part. We lost Pettitte over just a few million and Clemens as well. Pettitte was true to his word not to exercise his option year. Mclane is too much of a bottom line thinker. He's been that way for years and he's still that way. Portugal, Hampton, Kile, trading away Cammy and Finley for peanuts.... Houston deserves better.

You're only looking at it from the glass half empty viewpoint...along the way he's added Clemens, Pettitte, Kent, Lee, Alou, Caminiti, and paid big to keep guys like Oswalt, Biggio, Bagwell and Berkman.


Mark Portugal??? Really??? :D

[Refman]

Add to that his age and he could lose an extra 30 million a year for however long he has left to live and it wouldn't affect him or his children's inheritances.
So if he lives another 10 years and loses $30M per year...how exactly does having $300M less not affect the inheritance of his children?

Dumbest thing ever written.

[msn]

Okay, I goofed on MMP's capacity, but still, there is always room for improvement, and if attendance really is that close to peak capability, we should have alot more payroll flexibility to go make waves in the market.
They do have payroll flexibility. They *are* attempting to make waves. The point of this thread is that they went hard for Pettitte.

The fans of Houston have done their part. It's high time Uncle Drayton does his part. We lost Pettitte over just a few million and Clemens as well. Pettitte was true to his word not to exercise his option year. Mclane is too much of a bottom line thinker. He's been that way for years and he's still that way. Portugal, Hampton, Kile, trading away Cammy and Finley for peanuts.... Houston deserves better.
<ul><li>Pettitte was *never* coming back. It's been well-documented. As such, we did *not* lose him over "a few million". Nor did we lose Clemens over "a few million".</li><li><b>All</b> owners are "bottom line thinkers". The Yankees and Red Sox, the standard to which you seem to hold the Astros, have a substantially higher income than do the Astros. Why do you continue to ignore this? Ah, because it's inconvenient to your whining and to your agenda to bash McLane. Carry on.</li><li>Hampton had made it clear he was leaving. The Astros wisely got some talent in return rather than watch him walk for nothing. At least straighten out your facts before moaning and whining.</li><li>Kile's offer from the Astros was pennies less than Colorado's. What the Astros learned from that: they haven't gone to arbitration, not even once, since. I think the Houston fans that "deserve" something have gotten a pretty nice run of over 10 years without an ugly arbitration battle.</li><li>Cammy and Finley trade was to make room to keep Bagwell, Biggio, and other budding stars (Hampton, etc.) as there was not enough income to pay everybody. Even the Yankees let some players go.</li></ul>Got any more drivel for us?

[Aceshigh7]

So if he lives another 10 years and loses $30M per year...how exactly does having $300M less not affect the inheritance of his children?

Dumbest thing ever written.

Because his children would still have an inheritance likely in excess of one billion dollars. There comes a point when you have such an amount of money that the exact value becomes rather moot. One billion or one billion, three hundred million can't feel much different.

And as I pointed out earlier, the chances of actually losing 30 million every year is unlikely, due to the increased revenue having a real winner would likely bring.

[MadMax]

Because his children would still have an inheritance likely in excess of one billion dollars. There comes a point when you have such an amount of money that the exact value becomes rather moot. One billion or one billion, three hundred million can't feel much different.

And as I pointed out earlier, the chances of actually losing 30 million every year is unlikely, due to the increased revenue having a real winner would likely bring.

I'm thinking it's a lot easier to spend $300 million of someone else's money than if it was your own! :D

[msn]

There comes a point when you have such an amount of money that the exact value becomes rather moot.
If you believe this the rest of your life, it is likely you will never have one million dollars, much less one billion.

One billion or one billion, three hundred million can't feel much different.
If you had 10 C-notes ($1000), and I took three of them, would you be pissed? 30% is 30%, and it is substantial no matter how many zeroes there are at the end of the figures.

I'm thinking it's a lot easier to spend $300 million of someone else's money than if it was your own!
Quoted for truth.

[bobrek]

...Pettitte was true to his word not to exercise his option year. Mclane is too much of a bottom line thinker. He's been that way for years and he's still that way. Portugal, Hampton, Kile, trading away Cammy and Finley for peanuts.... Houston deserves better.

According to published reports, although Pettitte opted out of his contract, there is an agreement that he will get the exact same money as if he had not opted out if he chooses to sign with the Yankees.

[Major]

Because his children would still have an inheritance likely in excess of one billion dollars. There comes a point when you have such an amount of money that the exact value becomes rather moot. One billion or one billion, three hundred million can't feel much different.


What if he plans to give a chunk of that to charity? Should he throw $30MM a year into the Astros for no reason when that could go to more beneficial causes?


And as I pointed out earlier, the chances of actually losing 30 million every year is unlikely, due to the increased revenue having a real winner would likely bring.

What makes you think adding money would make this franchise substantially more successful? It's arguably already the 4th most consistently successful franchise over the past 10-12 years behind Boston, NY, and Atlanta (maybe add the Cards in there). There are plenty of teams that spend money and don't win any more than they did when they weren't spending.

[MadMax]

By the way...Andy's account is that God told him to go to New York. His words. If that's true, then far be it for Drayton to interfere with God's will.

[Oski2005]

It's not like Drayton's networth is 1.2 billion just sitting in a bank account, the majority of it is $800 million in shares of Wal-Mart he owns

Guess where the other 400 million of his projected net worth is coming from.:rolleyes:

[weslinder]

How did Pettitte and Clemens know that the Astros weren't 100% committed to winning?

They expressed interest in signing Pettitte and Clemens.

[rhester]

By the way...Andy's account is that God told him to go to New York.

and do what?

[Groogrux]

By the way...Andy's account is that God told him to go to New York. His words. If that's true, then far be it for Drayton to interfere with God's will.

God told me to make fun of Andy's asschin.

[gunn]

I love how when anyone says anything about Drayton not spending enough money all the homers come out to lynch that person.

[yobod]

You're only looking at it from the glass half empty viewpoint...along the way he's added Clemens, Pettitte, Kent, Lee, Alou, Caminiti, and paid big to keep guys like Oswalt, Biggio, Bagwell and Berkman.


Mark Portugal??? Really??? :D

Exactly! I'm sick and tired of hearing the argument that Drayton doesn't spend enough. The man spends plenty. If anything, I would buy an argument that he spends in the WRONG spots, but that's about it. The Astros recent failure has nothing to do with not spending enough (he spent $120M on TWO players this offseason); it has everything to do with the fact that we have no farm system, and no depth. If Pettitte and Clemens want to use the fact that the Astros "don't have a winning culture" as an excuse for their money-grubbing, then that's more a knock on their own character than anything Drayton could have done. If anything, Drayton has brought winning baseball to a mid-market team, which in this economy, is really, really hard to do. There have been few teams in our market size that have been as consistent as the Astros over the last 15 years.

[Mr. Clutch]

I love how when anyone says anything about Drayton not spending enough money all the homers come out to lynch that person.

LOL, yeah I was thinking the same thing. I knew that's how the thread would be before I even opened it.

Not sure who is right, but it seems like Pettitte/Clemens agree with the anti-Drayton side.

[Major]

I love how when anyone says anything about Drayton not spending enough money all the homers come out to lynch that person.

I love when people come and whine about our owner treating his team like a business like every other owner in the league. I also love when people come in and say someone else should run a business inefficiently and lose money so they can personally be entertained.

[Mr. Clutch]

I love when people come and whine about our owner treating his team like a business like every other owner in the league. I also love when people come in and say someone else should run a business inefficiently and lose money so they can personally be entertained.

Except we dont know exactly how much he is making or losing. We dont really know if he's running it like a business or being cheap.

[Major]

Except we dont know exactly how much he is making or losing. We dont really know if he's running it like a business or being cheap.

We do know his payroll numbers, attendance and market size. Compared to other owners, he's running it pretty similarly.

[msn]

I love how when anyone says anything about Drayton not spending enough money all the homers come out to lynch that person.
Who's lynching Aces? A bunch of posters jumped on his inaccurate commentary. The only ad hominem in this entire thread, so far, has been yours.

The ridiculous notion that the Astros don't spend money has been shot down by solid facts over and over and over and freaking over again ad nauseum. If a bunch of people jump all over such drivel, I'm sorry if that offends your sensibilities.

I love when people come and whine about our owner treating his team like a business like every other owner in the league. I also love when people come in and say someone else should run a business inefficiently and lose money so they can personally be entertained.
Five stars.

[TheFreak]

Continuing to start Biggio at 2nd and lead him off every game so he can get 3000 hits is not being 100 percent committed to winning.

[Groogrux]

Not sure who is right, but it seems like Pettitte/Clemens agree with the anti-Drayton side.

Yet Clemens has no problem taking money from him with his personal services contract.

[gunn]

I love when people come and whine about our owner treating his team like a business like every other owner in the league. I also love when people come in and say someone else should run a business inefficiently and lose money so they can personally be entertained.

In essence, you're saying that all the owners in the league are equally committed to winning? And if you know how much money Drayton is clearing why don't you let me know.

[ima_drummer2k]

I think "not 100% committed to winning" actually translates into "not willing to pay me what I want them to pay me."

:rolleyes:

[Major]

Not sure who is right, but it seems like Pettitte/Clemens agree with the anti-Drayton side.

I don't think Clemens was terribly committed to winning. If he was, he would have joined the Astros early in the season instead of waiting until late June. Given that we missed the playoffs by 1.5 games, perhaps had he actually tried to give his team the best chance to win, we might have made the playoffs in 2006.

Clemens was always about himself - nothing more. Pettitte was different, though.

[gunn]

Who's lynching Aces? A bunch of posters jumped on his inaccurate commentary. The only ad hominem in this entire thread, so far, has been yours.

The ridiculous notion that the Astros don't spend money has been shot down by solid facts over and over and over and freaking over again ad nauseum. If a bunch of people jump all over such drivel, I'm sorry if that offends your sensibilities.


Five stars.

What facts are those?

[msn]

And if you know how much money Drayton is clearing why don't you let me know.
Awesome. The Astros don't have any employees or overhead or a ~$100M payroll or prima donnas to take care of. Drayton is making money hand over fist--and pocketing it all! McScrooge!!!!11

[msn]

What facts are those?
Each individual piss-and-moan act has been shot down by clear facts. Which one would you like to dredge up? Hampton? Kile? Randy Johnson? Beltran? Oh, and there's the $100M+ payroll and all.

Those facts.

[Major]

In essence, you're saying that all the owners in the league are equally committed to winning?

No - I said all the owners treat their teams like a business. That means they are going to put sustainability over all over factors, including winning. Winning brings revenues. Spending can (but not always) increase winning. Each business will spend to the point where it's reasonable for their circumstances, and no more. That's why the Royals will maintain a $30 MM payroll - that's what they need to be sustainable. The Astros will have a $90 MM payroll (top 1/3rd of the league), because that's what gives them the most value. The Yankees will have a $200 MM payroll for the same reason.

All the teams would love to win - none is going to consistently lose money to do so. Some teams have the resources to spend like crazy to try to win all the time (the Yankees). Others simply don't and resign themselves to not winning (the Pirates). The Astros are somewhere in the middle, but have done more than their share of winning during the Drayton era.

[gunn]

Awesome. The Astros don't have any employees or overhead or a ~$100M payroll or prima donnas to take care of. Drayton is making money hand over fist--and pocketing it all! McScrooge!!!!11

You don't really know? Wow couldn't have guessed that. So basically, you're just talking out of your rear right now, right? Because you are presenting it as if you know, but you really don't.

[A-Train]

By the way...Andy's account is that God told him to go to New York. His words. If that's true, then far be it for Drayton to interfere with God's will.

Drayton has a billion dollars. He can buy off God AND still have plenty to leave his children...

[msn]

You don't really know? Wow couldn't have guessed that. So basically, you're just talking out of your rear right now, right? Because you are presenting it as if you know, but you really don't.
You don't really know? So basically, in accusing Drayton McLane of pocketing money he could use to improve his product, you're just talking out of your ass, right? Because you present your case so dogmatically. But in reality, you don't know.

The facts of how the Astros have spent money indicate that the team is willing to spend money when it's feasible. That is plainly visible.

[gunn]

Oh, and there's the $100M+ payroll and all.

You mean that 85 million dollar payroll right? The one where he was paying 15 mil to a player that didn't play? Hell you might as well say that he had a 150 million dollar payroll if you are going to account for people that don't play.

[JayZ750]

Pettite...maybe, but Roger Clemens. C'mon, the guy was on vacation 9 months of the year.

this is a joke right? don't blame the fact that the team didn't win while you were here on your performances, but on the team itself.

Don't blame the fact that you could never win until you joined an already dominant team on your success or failure, but the culture of the organizations you were on.

Piss off Roger.

[gunn]

You don't really know? So basically, in accusing Drayton McLane of pocketing money he could use to improve his product, you're just talking out of your ass, right? Because you present your case so dogmatically. But in reality, you don't know.

The facts of how the Astros have spent money indicate that the team is willing to spend money when it's feasible. That is plainly visible.

I wish I could be a child with my arguments too. Not transparent at all.

[jakedasnake]

I'm personally shocked that we were trying to get Andy back for this season after we let him go over...what...two million and an option for a second year?

Give it up already! Screw Andy and screw Roger. Keep them gone.

Also, is the "not 100% committed to winning" a knock against the players, management, or both? I mean...obviously the Astros are more limited in the dollars they can spend than the Yankees. Is that what they mean in reality? The Astros don't spend enough to be committed to winning?

I don't know who it is intended for if true, but I can see them talking about the players rather than the organization itself. Maybe they didn't think the players did enough to prepare for every game like they do in New York or maybe they don't take it hard after a loss like the Yankees would.

[Major]

I wish I could be a child with my arguments too. Not transparent at all.

You have yet to make an argument. All you have done is whine. What facts back up your argument (whatever it may be)?

[msn]

You mean that 85 million dollar payroll right? The one where he was paying 15 mil to a player that didn't play? Hell you might as well say that he had a 150 million dollar payroll if you are going to account for people that don't play.
Ohhhh, that's rich. Let's just penalize McLane for career-ending injuries. He spent the money, did he not? And if he had let Bagwell go rather than pay him, all the "cheapsters" would have been chirping all the louder, and they would have for once had an actual point.

[Mr. Clutch]

I don't think Clemens was terribly committed to winning. If he was, he would have joined the Astros early in the season instead of waiting until late June. Given that we missed the playoffs by 1.5 games, perhaps had he actually tried to give his team the best chance to win, we might have made the playoffs in 2006.

Clemens was always about himself - nothing more. Pettitte was different, though.

Well Clemens is 46 or whatever and he probably can't go a full season. It's proabably smarter to rent him for half a season and have him for the playoffs.

I wouldn't say he wasn't committed to winning the way he pitched for us at his age. He was sick. His overall ERA was what, under 2.50???

My only point is that Clemens and Pettitte have insight into the organization that we don't have. They may not be right, but since we dont REALLY know all the finances, it's interesting info.

[msn]

I wish I could be a child with my arguments too. Not transparent at all.
Nice ad hominem. I'm sorry you completely missed the point, so let me spell it out: your making an assertion that McLane is cheap is even less founded on observable facts than my opinion that he's not. As such, until you provide an actual argument, you're the one "talking out of your rear."

But that's how weak, unfounded arguments go. They move from some whiny, unfounded complaint or accusation, to sidestepping a bunch of facts and information that points the other direction, to finally lobbing insults. If you continue this pattern, you may actually get your wish.

[Major]

Well Clemens is 46 or whatever and he probably can't go a full season. It's proabably smarter to rent him for half a season and have him for the playoffs.

Then he should have let the team make that decision. He should have said "I'm available whenever you want me - I'm committed to this team, you tell me what you need". Instead, he wavered and waffled such that the Astros couldn't make any decisions on the offseason knowing whether he would be there or not. And then he limited himself to pitching from the end of June and on.

My only point is that Clemens and Pettitte have insight into the organization that we don't have. They may not be right, but since we dont REALLY know all the finances, it's interesting info.

That certainly is true - and what jakedasnake suggested could be true (that they players weren't as concerned with losing or whatever) - but that has nothing to do with Drayton and his "commitment to winning". Clemens doesn't know the team's finances any more than we do.

[JayZ750]

Well Clemens is 46 or whatever and he probably can't go a full season. It's proabably smarter to rent him for half a season and have him for the playoffs.

I wouldn't say he wasn't committed to winning the way he pitched for us at his age. He was sick. His overall ERA was what, under 2.50???


he could have kept giving us that hometown discount, though, right?

[gunn]

No - I said all the owners treat their teams like a business. That means they are going to put sustainability over all over factors, including winning. Winning brings revenues. Spending can (but not always) increase winning. Each business will spend to the point where it's reasonable for their circumstances, and no more. That's why the Royals will maintain a $30 MM payroll - that's what they need to be sustainable. The Astros will have a $90 MM payroll (top 1/3rd of the league), because that's what gives them the most value. The Yankees will have a $200 MM payroll for the same reason.

All the teams would love to win - none is going to consistently lose money to do so. Some teams have the resources to spend like crazy to try to win all the time (the Yankees). Others simply don't and resign themselves to not winning (the Pirates). The Astros are somewhere in the middle, but have done more than their share of winning during the Drayton era.

I think that to say "all owners treat their teams like a business" is a blanket statement. Of course it is a business that they are in, and not a club, but to level their commitments by saying as such is wrong.

[Major]

I think that to say "all owners treat their teams like a business" is a blanket statement.

Absolutely it's a blanket statement - a true one. These teams ARE businesses and they are treated as such. No owner is going to sit and lose $30MM/yr from their personal money in order to win. It's a dumb business strategy and it won't happen. If you can name a single team, NBA, NFL, MLB etc that does such a thing, please let me know.

[gunn]

Ohhhh, that's rich. Let's just penalize McLane for career-ending injuries. He spent the money, did he not? And if he had let Bagwell go rather than pay him, all the "cheapsters" would have been chirping all the louder, and they would have for once had an actual point.


Am I right? Nice diversion tactics. "It really wasn't 100 million worth of actual players that took the field and contributed to the team, but lets make it look like it was to boost my argument."

[texanskan]

Who do I trust more Drayton or Andy?

Let's see Andy.

Andy was going to take less money to stay here (split the difference in the yankee/astro offer) and wanted the OPTION on the second season.

What did Andy do after year number 1, he DECLINED the option because he was not ready to make a decision. Everyone on this board was like "Andy is done" "screw him and Clemens" "there is no way he would decline a player option"

Well Astro fans need to rethink their position on this issue because looking back Drayton looks cheap and classless and Andy looks honest.

[Major]

Am I right? Nice diversion tactics. "It really wasn't 100 million worth of actual players that took the field and contributed to the team, but lets make it look like it was to boost my argument."

No - you're not right. The payroll was $100 million. You're adding caveats to boost your own argument. Namely that, due to a career ending injury 6-years after signing a contract, we should pretend that money is not an actual cost to the Astros despite them having to pay it. Again, you're acting like this isn't and shouldn't be run like a business, despite the fact that it is the very definition of a business.

[Major]

Who do I trust more Drayton or Andy?

Let's see Andy.

Andy was going to take less money to stay here (split the difference in the yankee/astro offer) and wanted the OPTION on the second season.

What did Andy do after year number 1, he DECLINED the option because he was not ready to make a decision. Everyone on this board was like "Andy is done" "screw him and Clemens" "there is no way he would decline a player option"

Well Astro fans need to rethink their position on this issue because looking back Drayton looks cheap and classless and Andy looks honest.

I fully agree that the Astros should have signed Pettitte. That was a stupid decision - that has nothing to do with whether Drayton is a cheapskate owner. He simultaneously spent $17MM on a hitter (which I also thought was a bad move at the time).

As for who you should "trust" - no one is suggesting you trust Drayton's words. Drayton hasn't even talked about finances in years. Just look at his actual actions. It's easy to see. There's no "hiding" or lying or anything like that - these are factual, public actions. Signings, payroll numbers, other team's payroll numbers, etc.

[msn]

Am I right?
Nope.

Nice diversion tactics.
Actually, pretty poor diversion tactics on your part. The fact of the matter is Drayton McLane spent well over $100M on his payroll in 2006. Players have season-ending injuries all the time; it's ridiculous to arbitrarily remove one guy's salary figure because he was hurt. The money was spent in an attempt to make the Astros better, and that's the bottom line.

[bobrek]

Who do I trust more Drayton or Andy?

Let's see Andy.

Andy was going to take less money to stay here (split the difference in the yankee/astro offer) and wanted the OPTION on the second season.

What did Andy do after year number 1, he DECLINED the option because he was not ready to make a decision. Everyone on this board was like "Andy is done" "screw him and Clemens" "there is no way he would decline a player option"

Well Astro fans need to rethink their position on this issue because looking back Drayton looks cheap and classless and Andy looks honest.

Pettitte declined the player option with the understanding that he could go back to the Yankees at the previous contract level.

"Cashman said Pettitte called him and they spoke for 10-20 minutes. Pettitte has a standing offer of $16 million he can accept at any time. Cashman wouldn't discuss whether the team would entertain a new deal."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3096412

Certainly looks like a win-win situation for Pettitte. Although he declined his option, he can pick it right back up if he wants.

[Jared Novak]

IMHO there is a legitimate gripe with McLane.

Its not that he doesn't spend money, he's proved that he'll spend when we're close, i.e. Pettitte, Clemens, Lee, extending Oswalt, etc. McLane wants to win and win on a a budget.

The problem is that McLane has continued to whine about how much money he has lost since owning the Astros. If he is such a savvy businessman, why continue to own an asset that is a money pit? McLane promised to open the books and show that he had lost money as he contended when challenged that he wasn't losing money. Then we were told that Selig forbade him to open the books. So how is it that with a new stadium, concessions from food, drinks, parking, merchandise, radio and television revenues, MLB profit-sharing, etc. has McLane lost money?

The other beef that I have with McLane was the draft last season. Purpura lack of moves and faliure to makeup for the teams shortcomings was his doing, but it certainly looks like McLane set him up to fail. Not allowing Purpura to offer arbitration to Clemens, Pettitte, and Springer prevented us from getting 1st round picks and compensatory picks. With the signings of Lee and Williams we lost our own 1st and compensatory picks.

The failure to sign our own 3rd and 4th round picks was ridiculous and only hurt the farm system. Drafting Chad Jones (a known high risk signing) and saying the day after the draft that it was pretty much known what his demands were and that the Astros wouldn't meet said demands. In total the Astros spent $1.58 million on the entire draft last season. This upcoming draft we'll have the 10th overall pick, the bonus for last year's 10th pick was $2 million and the salary slot was $1.8 million, thats over double what they spent the entire last draft on just one player. At that Selig was encouraging teams to sign players under the salary slot. So is McLane going to allow Wade to draft the players with the most talent, or "signable" players? And will McLane balk at the price it will cost to sign the drafted players?

McLane talks about building a champion and then in his next breath wants to tell us about financial loss and the financial stability. IMO its this kind of talk that soured Pettitte and Clemens on the Astros' "winning" attitude. McLane will spend the money, its just that he moans and groans about it when he does.

[texanskan]

Pettitte declined the player option with the understanding that he could go back to the Yankees at the previous contract level.

"Cashman said Pettitte called him and they spoke for 10-20 minutes. Pettitte has a standing offer of $16 million he can accept at any time. Cashman wouldn't discuss whether the team would entertain a new deal."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3096412

Certainly looks like a win-win situation for Pettitte. Although he declined his option, he can pick it right back up if he wants.

the bottom line is that in a world of greed Andy has values and I trust what he says. Houston is my hometown and if I were Andy I would of pitched in New York and then come down here as a free agent as well because it is my home but if I would of been jacked around I would of left as well.

Andy's signing brought Roger and in three season we won 3 playoff series in the other 40+ season for the Astros they have won 0

[Major]

The problem is that McLane has continued to whine about how much money he has lost since owning the Astros.

Please find a quote anytime in the last 4 or 5 years to this effect. I don't think he's said anything except for things along the lines that "we're going to have a reasonable payroll" over this period.

I'd say you're blaming him for quotes referring to the 1990's.


The other beef that I have with McLane was the draft last season. Purpura lack of moves and faliure to makeup for the teams shortcomings was his doing, but it certainly looks like McLane set him up to fail. Not allowing Purpura to offer arbitration to Clemens, Pettitte, and Springer prevented us from getting 1st round picks and compensatory picks.

Have we ever heard that it was Drayton that declined arbitration as opposed to Purpura not wanting to offer it?

[gunn]

Nope.


Actually, pretty poor diversion tactics on your part. The fact of the matter is Drayton McLane spent well over $100M on his payroll in 2006. Players have season-ending injuries all the time; it's ridiculous to arbitrarily remove one guy's salary figure because he was hurt. The money was spent in an attempt to make the Astros better, and that's the bottom line.

Of course, now I see it. You guys are right despite not having any legitimate facts to back up your assertions based on wild homerism, and I am wrong for calling you out on it. Thank you so much for showing me the light.

[Jared Novak]

Please find a quote anytime in the last 4 or 5 years to this effect. I don't think he's said anything except for things along the lines that "we're going to have a reasonable payroll" over this period.

I'd say you're blaming him for quotes referring to the 1990's.



Have we ever heard that it was Drayton that declined arbitration as opposed to Purpura not wanting to offer it?

After the 2005 NLCS when we made it to the World Series, McLane said that with the revenues he would make from the World Series that it would be the first time the Astros would be in the black. I'll look back and see if I can find the quote in the paper, but it was vintage McLane.

[msn]

Of course, now I see it. You guys are right despite not having any legitimate facts to back up your assertions based on wild homerism, and I am wrong for calling you out on it. Thank you so much for showing me the light.
This is an amazing post. I've listed facts in this thread, others have listed facts in this thread, you've listed none. You are now accusing us (and namecalling) of the very thing that you alone are doing! It's not the pot calling the kettle black, it's the soot-laden pot calling the freshly cleaned linen black! Wow, man. Just wow.

[Major]

Of course, now I see it. You guys are right despite not having any legitimate facts to back up your assertions based on wild homerism, and I am wrong for calling you out on it. Thank you so much for showing me the light.

You're on your 10th or 15th post here and you have yet to provide a single fact or argument of substance, legitimate or not. You're actually here telling other people that they haven't provided legitimate facts?

[Groogrux]

Of course, now I see it. You guys are right despite not having any legitimate facts to back up your assertions based on wild homerism, and I am wrong for calling you out on it. Thank you so much for showing me the light.

It's about ****ing time.

After the 2005 NLCS when we made it to the World Series, McLane said that with the revenues he would make from the World Series that it would be the first time the Astros would be in the black. I'll look back and see if I can find the quote in the paper, but it was vintage McLane.

Wow, what damning evidence that is! What a flippin' whiner he is! :rolleyes:

[Jared Novak]

Wow, what damning evidence that is! What a flippin' whiner he is! :rolleyes:

If you like to hear a billionaire talk about losing money incessantly, then more power to you.

[gunn]

This is an amazing post. I've listed facts in this thread, others have listed facts in this thread, you've listed none. You are now accusing us (and namecalling) of the very thing that you alone are doing! It's not the pot calling the kettle black, it's the soot-laden pot calling the freshly cleaned linen black! Wow, man. Just wow.

What facts? Your slight of hand 100 million dollar payroll? I haven't listed anything because that was not what I came in here to do. All I have ever wanted was for you guys to show me some numbers that show if Drayton increased the payroll he will be losing money.

[Groogrux]

If you like to hear a billionaire talk about losing money incessantly, then more power to you.

The last time you can even remember him saying anything about it was two years ago and from what you posted, it's not even that bad. If you call that incessant, then what do you call the whining by the anti-Drayton people?

[Groogrux]

What facts? Your slight of hand 100 million dollar payroll? I haven't listed anything because that was not what I came in here to do. All I have ever wanted was for you guys to show me some numbers that show if Drayton increased the payroll he will be losing money.

Can you explain how Drayton caused or knew that Jeff Bagwell's injury would occur? Thanks!

[bobrek]

the bottom line is that in a world of greed Andy has values and I trust what he says. Houston is my hometown and if I were Andy I would of pitched in New York and then come down here as a free agent as well because it is my home but if I would of been jacked around I would of left as well.

Andy's signing brought Roger and in three season we won 3 playoff series in the other 40+ season for the Astros they have won 0

Your post seemed to indicate that Pettitte did a noble thing for the Yankees by declining the player option 2nd year of his Yankee contract. My post is simply letting it be shown that Pettitte can essentially pick up his player option for the entire 16 million whenever he wants. In other words, it is no big deal that he declined the option. He opted out of it KNOWING that he could opt back in for the same amount of money. Where are the "values" and nobility in that?

[Jared Novak]

The last time you can even remember him saying anything about it was two years ago and from what you posted, it's not even that bad. If you call that incessant, then what do you call the whining by the anti-Drayton people?

McLane has owned the team since 1992. In that time he has talked about money this and moeny that several times. Because my quote was from two years ago you disregard it. Now you're being naive.

I think the anti-Drayton people should look at the signings he has allowed, but they are correct in the arguments that they make that McLane can be cheap at times, see not signing Pettitte last season and the 2007 MLB Draft.

[gunn]

All I have ever wanted was for you guys to show me some numbers that show if Drayton increased the payroll he will be losing money.

Which is what you guys original contention was based off of Aces comment.

[msn]

What facts?
They were listed, in bulleted form, in response to someone's standard whine about different players who left the team.

Your slight of hand 100 million dollar payroll?
No, that $100M was very real, and every penny was paid out. The "slight of hand" is your pathetic attempt to explain it away by acting like Jeff Bagwell's contract doesn't count. It's amazing how you keep accusing me of the things you are doing.

I haven't listed anything because that was not what I came in here to do.
Precisely. You haven't listed anything. Yet you accuse others who have of not doing so. Pathetic. And I predict you'll continue to ignore the various facts that have been posted, or else attempt to dismiss them while accusing others of sidestepping the issue!

[Major]

If you like to hear a billionaire talk about losing money incessantly, then more power to you.

You claimed he was incessantly whining about it. Your evidence is one apparent quote from 2005 when he said the Astros would be in the black that year. So the only quote you have that he incessently whines about losing money is one time when he said he wasn't losing money.

Huh? :confused:

[Jared Novak]

You claimed he was incessantly whining about it. Your evidence is one apparent quote from 2005 when he said the Astros would be in the black that year. So the only quote you have that he incessently whines about losing money is one time when he said he wasn't losing money.

Huh? :confused:

Yep.

Because he said it was the first time the Astros would be in the black since he owned the team.

Why continue to own an asset when you contend that it is losing you money? Why would billionaire businessman McLane continue to hold on to the Astros if they ae burning a hole in his wallet?

[Major]

All I have ever wanted was for you guys to show me some numbers that show if Drayton increased the payroll he will be losing money.

No one has claimed that though. People have claimed its run like a business. Those are not at all the same thing.

[gunn]

No, that $100M was very real, and every penny was paid out. The "slight of hand" is your pathetic attempt to explain it away by acting like Jeff Bagwell's contract doesn't count.

It doesn't count when you use it as a fact to show that Drayton is going the extra mile to improve this team. It's not an improvement when it was known that said player was never going to take the field. It was a backloaded, ballooned contract for a player that was done. Thats not an improvement.
The contract was paid. But so was mail clerk's. Why don't you add him to the total payroll too.

[HayesStreet]

Please find me examples of anyone willing to spend/lose $30 million a year on a "hobby."


Roman Abramovich, Russian billionaire and owner of English soccer/football club Chelsea, has spent close to 300 million pounds, that's 600 million dollars, on players in the last few years. Thats out of his pocket.

Both sides seem to be overstating the reality of the situation. Billionaire owners do spend money 'out of their pockets' to buy talent. When Steinbrenner bought the Yankees for something like 12 million bucks he put a lot of his own money into the organization. Once they became flush with success he continued to dump the organization's gain/profit back into the organization. The Yankees don't really 'make' that much money because they take all the profit from the network etc and put it back into the organization. That IS money from Steinbrenner's pocket because he could be like other owners and take that money home. Instead he has a win at all cost attitude which includes taking money from his own pocket if necessary. The same can be said from other owners such as Mark Cuban, who has paid quite a bit of cash out of his own pocket to revamp the Mavericks, from the Dolans, who have pissed away hundreds of millions in bad deals, or DeAngelos is Baltimore.

The flip side is how long can you do that if you aren't in a major market, and that issue is undeterminable. If the Astros followed that model they could be the dominant team in the Houston, San Antonio, New Orleans, Oklahoma, New Mexico, even Dallas markets, among others.

[Major]

Yep.

Because he said it was the first time the Astros would be in the black since he owned the team.

So where's the incessant whining about losing money? You still haven't provided that. I can't imagine him saying one time that he's not losing money is what you were thinking of as "incessant whining about losing money".


Why continue to own an asset when you contend that it is losing you money? Why would billionaire businessman McLane continue to hold on to the Astros if they ae burning a hole in his wallet?

Clearly, you're not a businessman. There are plenty of reasons to do it when the asset changes in value.

[Major]

It's not an improvement when it was known that said player was never going to take the field. It was a backloaded, ballooned contract for a player that was done. Thats not an improvement.

So you knew 8 years ago that a 35-yr old Jeff Bagwell was going to suffer a career ending degenerative shoulder 6 years later?

[msn]

It doesn't count when you use it as a fact to show that Drayton is going the extra mile to improve this team.
First of all, it counts regardless. Second of all, I never said he's "going the extra mile to improve the team."

The contract was paid. But so was mail clerk's. Why don't you add him to the total payroll too.
Agreed! In fact, I beat you to it. I have already mentioned the overhead and other employees once in this thread.

[Groogrux]

It doesn't count when you use it as a fact to show that Drayton is going the extra mile to improve this team. It's not an improvement when it was known that said player was never going to take the field. It was a backloaded, ballooned contract for a player that was done. Thats not an improvement.
The contract was paid. But so was mail clerk's. Why don't you add him to the total payroll too.

When Drayton and Bagwell agreed to the contract, where they aware that the last couple of seasons would be ones where Bagwell wouldn't take the field?

[msn]

Roman Abramovich, Russian billionaire and owner of English soccer/football club Chelsea, has spent close to 300 million pounds, that's 600 million dollars, on players in the last few years. Thats out of his pocket.
Touché. You found one example.

When Steinbrenner bought the Yankees for something like 12 million bucks he put a lot of his own money into the organization.
So does every owner at first; that proves nothing.

Once they became flush with success he continued to dump the organization's gain/profit back into the organization. The Yankees don't really 'make' that much money because they take all the profit from the network etc and put it back into the organization.
And so does every organization; they just don't generate that kind of revenue.

That IS money from Steinbrenner's pocket because he could be like other owners and take that money home.
Unfounded, inaccurate hogwash. You act like owning an ML franchise is some kind of financial windfall, when that is far from the case.

Instead he has a win at all cost attitude which includes taking money from his own pocket if necessary.
No, it doesn't. The Yankees organization supports itself; Steinbrenner doesn't support it from his own pocket! Holy crap, I can't believe anyone would believe such nonsense.

he same can be said from other owners such as Mark Cuban, who has paid quite a bit of cash out of his own pocket to revamp the Mavericks, from the Dolans, who have pissed away hundreds of millions in bad deals, or DeAngelos is Baltimore.
None of these covered expenses "from their own pockets". Not a one.

[Major]

So you knew 8 years ago that a 35-yr old Jeff Bagwell was going to suffer a career ending degenerative shoulder 6 years later?

Also, since you know these things in advance, can you tell us what to expect from Berkman and Lee in terms of health over the next 5-6 years of their contracts?

[msn]

Also, since you know these things in advance, can you tell us what to expect from Berkman and Lee in terms of health over the next 5-6 years of their contracts?
Werd. Maybe also let us know if Lance will pack on 30 extra lb's. Then maybe we should spin him off to the Giants, along with Burke, for Lincecum. :D

[gunn]

So you knew 8 years ago that a 35-yr old Jeff Bagwell was going to suffer a career ending degenerative shoulder 6 years later?

You have to put the point in context with the original assertion.

[Major]

Roman Abramovich, Russian billionaire and owner of English soccer/football club Chelsea, has spent close to 300 million pounds, that's 600 million dollars, on players in the last few years. Thats out of his pocket.

Is Chelsea a profitable company?


Both sides seem to be overstating the reality of the situation. Billionaire owners do spend money 'out of their pockets' to buy talent. When Steinbrenner bought the Yankees for something like 12 million bucks he put a lot of his own money into the organization.

Yes - it's called an initial investment. Most business owners do this.

Once they became flush with success he continued to dump the organization's gain/profit back into the organization. The Yankees don't really 'make' that much money because they take all the profit from the network etc and put it back into the organization. That IS money from Steinbrenner's pocket because he could be like other owners and take that money home.

This is total nonsense. The company generates the income and incurs the expenses. If the expenses are higher in a given year, the business takes out debt to pay for it and then pays that back with future profits. The reward for Steinbrenner's initial investment when he first bought the team is in the increased value of the team. He's not paying anything out of his pocket on a yearly basis.


Instead he has a win at all cost attitude which includes taking money from his own pocket if necessary.

No, he doesn't.

The same can be said from other owners such as Mark Cuban, who has paid quite a bit of cash out of his own pocket to revamp the Mavericks

No, he hasn't.

[msn]

You have to put the point in context with the original assertion.
Trying to wiggle your way out of it again, eh?

Your argument here is stupid. The quicker you can abandon it and let it die, the better off you'll be.

[Major]

You have to put the point in context with the original assertion.

What on earth is your original assertion? You're just complaining about random things with no rhyme or reason. When your argument is blown up, you change it up or move onto something completely unrelated.

Why don't you try this - summarize the argument you are trying to make in one, longer coherent post instead of all these one-line nonsense things that address a multitude of unrelated things. Tell us exactly what your assertion is and then explain the reasoning behind it.

[msn]

Nah, he "didn't come here to post facts."

[gunn]

Second of all, I never said he's "going the extra mile to improve the team.".

I didn't see any quotes. Besides that, you had no problem listing "100 million dollar payroll" as one of the reasons behind showing that Drayton spends the money to improve the team. Paying injured players doesn't count as an improvement.

[msn]

How many business owners continue to support their business with personal funds? Come on, how many? Name them. This is not a hard concept to understand.
Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps it *is* a difficult concept to understand.

I would wonder how many folks here who demand that McLane pay salaries from his own wealth actually own a business, or have ever even *sniffed* owning a business?

[Dennis2112]

McLane has owned the team since 1992. In that time he has talked about money this and moeny that several times. Because my quote was from two years ago you disregard it. Now you're being naive.

I think the anti-Drayton people should look at the signings he has allowed, but they are correct in the arguments that they make that McLane can be cheap at times, see not signing Pettitte last season and the 2007 MLB Draft.


While I am not really enthused about joining this ridiculous debate, I would like to clear up a few things.

1. Pettitte wanted 16 mill per year and wanted to have total control on whether the 2nd year was picked up. For a player who had shown signs of elbow problems and even missed an entire year for the Astros, it would seem that any true baseball person would have said to themselves. "Too big of a risk". The money could be spent elsewhere. Not good baseball sense to make a deal like that.

2. Not signing the draft picks was not good but signing them would have been even worst. They were 3rd and 4th round picks wanting 1st round money. In baseball all money is guaranteed. So you would have been paying 3 to 4 times the money for completely unproven major league talent. Again, unless you are the yankees, I think this would have been a bad decision long term.

3. AS for offering arbitration to Clemens and Pettitte. You can't just low ball them. You are at the mercy of the judge about what they get paid. Lets say you offered Clemens 12 mill and he asked for 25 mill (understand that his prorated salary was 21 mill). Clemens led the league in ERA so you would think he would get a raise. So the judge went in Clemens favor (which they do more often than not). Now you have to pay him big bucks now and hamstring your payroll structure. All this because you wanted a draft pick when they signed somewhere else? Not very smart

4. Drayton most definitely complained about money early on in his tenure here but has done it much less in recent years. The only time he even mentions it is when people say he does not spend enough. The payroll has gone steadily up in recent years. Drayton has made moves when needed (IE The Big Unit). Now I can say that he may have spent it in the wrong places but at least he is trying. The idea that just because a player is on IR does not take away from the total payroll number is just flat out dishonest. Does Drayton still write the checks? Yes he does.

[HayesStreet]

Touché. You found one example.


Great. Now you can put the 'no owner does this' statements to bed. Thaksin Shinawatra bought Manchester City and gave the coach 100 million dollars (50 M pounds) to buy new players. There isn't just one example of this.


So does every owner at first; that proves nothing.

Sure it does. It refutes your argument that owners don't spend money out of their own pockets. If one takes your statement that 'every owner does this at first' at face value then your argument really has problems.

And so does every organization; they just don't generate that kind of revenue.

There is no indication that every organization ends the year with a zero balance sheet. Your awfully quick with the declarations of 'unfounded, inaccurate hogwash' while throwing quite a bit of it around yourself.

Unfounded, inaccurate hogwash. You act like owning an ML franchise is some kind of financial windfall, when that is far from the case.

Not at all. It's a zero sum game. Every dollar Steinbrenner reinvests in the Yankees is a dollar not going in his pocket. That is, in effect, a dollar out of his pocket. Your assertion that owners don't spend money out of their pockets is just silly.

No, it doesn't. The Yankees organization supports itself; Steinbrenner doesn't support it from his own pocket! Holy crap, I can't believe anyone would believe such nonsense.

Handled above.


None of these covered expenses "from their own pockets". Not a one.

Yes, they did. We've already seen how valid your 'not a one' declarations are in this thread.

[gunn]

Unfounded, inaccurate hogwash. You act like owning an ML franchise is some kind of financial windfall, when that is far from the case.

And you know this how? How about showing some numbers to back up your in depth knowledge on the subject matter. Or instead how about you just tell me why the owners of the big market teams complain about smaller market teams taking advantage of the profit sharing system. But knowing your arguments I guess we will likely get more of the same msn

[MadMax]

Not at all. It's a zero sum game. Every dollar Steinbrenner reinvests in the Yankees is a dollar not going in his pocket. That is, in effect, a dollar out of his pocket. Your assertion that owners don't spend money out of their pockets is just silly.

.

What I'm suggesting is that Steinbrenner doesn't artificially prop up one organization, particularly a MLB club, with revenues from another business he owns.

I don't expect McLane to take McLane Distribution money and throw it into the Astros to cover operating costs. If a for-profit entity can't cover it's own operating costs over the long haul, then it's a failed venture and it needs to die.

[Drewdog]

How much did McLane purchase the team for?

How much is it worh now (ballpark figure - no pun intended)?

[rrj_gamz]

Every team wants to win...Some are more committed than others, but it doesn't necessarily mean $$$...

I think Roger is just getting old and Andy, well he sux and it'll show next season when the Yanks get bounced early again...Well, unless they get Santana...

[HayesStreet]

Is Chelsea a profitable company?

Nope. Which is exactly the point. On one extreme we do actually have sports owners who will continue to fund an unprofitable enterprise. Especially in the arena (pun intended) of sports ownership, which has to do more with prestige or branding than with profit, in many although probably not even most, cases.


Yes - it's called an initial investment. Most business owners do this.

Yes. OK, and in some cases they continue to do this in effect. Once profitability is reached then an owner might use the profits to reinvest in increasing outlay or in some cases may even infuse cash into a profitable enterprise. This does happen in professional sports.


This is total nonsense. The company generates the income and incurs the expenses. If the expenses are higher in a given year, the business takes out debt to pay for it and then pays that back with future profits. The reward for Steinbrenner's initial investment when he first bought the team is in the increased value of the team. He's not paying anything out of his pocket on a yearly basis.


Not so - taking on debt is not the only option. I've already given examples of privately owned teams getting cash infusions from owners. Since the Yankees are privately held, the dollar for dollar decisions are either in his pocket or out of his pocket. That his spending is rewarded by increased value is not a foregone conclusion, since as we know from most sports - you can spend money and still not have a winning team (see the Dave Winfield Yankees of the 80s).

[HayesStreet]

What I'm suggesting is that Steinbrenner doesn't artificially prop up one organization, particularly a MLB club, with revenues from another business he owns.

I don't expect McLane to take McLane Distribution money and throw it into the Astros to cover operating costs. If a for-profit entity can't cover it's own operating costs over the long haul, then it's a failed venture and it needs to die.

Did the Astros make a profit last year? My opinion is that sports franchises are more than 7/11s. They represent a city or geography and the people in it. They aren't like a movie. I'm baffled at how some people can think all organizations are the same. Are the Marlins a 'win at all costs' organization? No. Are the Yankees? Yes. Are the Astros? I don't think many people would say that - so I can understand why a player would want to be part of the 'win at all costs' organization.

[MadMax]

Did the Astros make a profit last year? My opinion is that sports franchises are more than 7/11s. They represent a city or geography and the people in it. They aren't like a movie. I'm baffled at how some people can think all organizations are the same. Are the Marlins a 'win at all costs' organization? No. Are the Yankees? Yes. Are the Astros? I don't think many people would say that - so I can understand why a player would want to be part of the 'win at all costs' organization.

I never said all organizations are the same.

I merely that no organization tries to "win at all costs." Not one in MLB. The Yankees absolutely have limits...and they throw them out there from time to time. They tell ARod to stick it when he opts out....they tell Beltran they're not gonna pay that much. No team is "win at all costs" in baseball.

[gunn]

I never said all organizations are the same.

I merely that no organization tries to "win at all costs." Not one in MLB. The Yankees absolutely have limits...and they throw them out there from time to time. They tell ARod to stick it when he opts out....they tell Beltran they're not gonna pay that much. No team is "win at all costs" in baseball.

I think you are taking the phrase in a literal sense.

[HayesStreet]

I never said all organizations are the same.

I merely that no organization tries to "win at all costs." Not one in MLB. The Yankees absolutely have limits...and they throw them out there from time to time. They tell ARod to stick it when he opts out....they tell Beltran they're not gonna pay that much. No team is "win at all costs" in baseball.

Ok, so your objection is to the phrase 'win at all costs.' We could agree though that some organizations are 'win at costs higher than others?'

My point isn't even that money will solve the Stros problems - better to have a good GM and Manager. But there is a reason big league ownership is the provence of mainly of billionaires and why corporations that buy teams usually get out. There should be a love affair between the city and the team, the owner and the team. They can still make money - sure! Drayton bought the Stros for 103M and now they are worth (est) 440+ M dollars. He's not getting raked over the coals. So if he isn't putting all of the profit back in then I'm disappointed. Billionaires can find a lot better places to put their money than major league teams if they really are just after profits. 10% returns are not the provence of billionaires. I just hate to be stuck in the middle where we're spending but not enough in some cases. It affects who you get and who you keep. And I don't blame players for going where the ethos is different.

[MadMax]

Ok, so your objection is to the phrase 'win at all costs.' We could agree though that some organizations are 'win at costs higher than others?'

Curiously those are all organizations that have higher revenues.

[HayesStreet]

Curiously those are all organizations that have higher revenues.

There are organizations with higher revenues who are NOT in that category too, though. We aren't hurting for revenue. Our revenue was 184M last year and operating + player expenses was 124M. I'd like to see that extra 60M go back into the team. That IS what a team that 'wins at all costs' or at least that 'wins at cost higher than others' does.

[MadMax]

There are organizations with higher revenues who are NOT in that category too, though. We aren't hurting for revenue. Our revenue was 184M last year and operating + player expenses was 124M. I'd like to see that extra 60M go back into the team. That IS what a team that 'wins at all costs' or at least that 'wins at cost higher than others' does.

My understanding is that payroll was around $100 million, including Bagwell's number. You would have them throw $160 million at payroll?

Again, I come back to expectations. I don't think there's a team in the league that will spend ALL of its profits from the preceding year on payroll the next.

[HayesStreet]

My understanding is that payroll was around $100 million, including Bagwell's number. You would have them throw $160 million at payroll?

Again, I come back to expectations. I don't think there's a team in the league that will spend ALL of its profits from the preceding year on payroll the next.

Some teams will go farther than that and lose money to fund payroll - the Yankees took an overall $50 M loss because of their $200M payroll in fiscal 2005.

[MadMax]

Some teams will go farther than that and lose money to fund payroll - the Yankees took an overall $50 M loss because of their $200M payroll in fiscal 2005.

I was unaware of that. I'm surprised.

[msn]

Great. Now you can put the 'no owner does this' statements to bed. Thaksin Shinawatra bought Manchester City and gave the coach 100 million dollars (50 M pounds) to buy new players. There isn't just one example of this.
OK. So, no owner, after initial investments, puts money from his own pocket into player salaries.

No, I don't have the numbers of what owners have brought home. Do you? I'm not the one making these ridiculous accusations; if you and gunn and other whiners want to do so, the burden of proof is on you.

My argument is based upon common business sense. If your business can't stand on its own two feet, and you have to ferret personal wealth or monies from other business interests into it, beyond some obvious initial investment of course, then before your business will go down and take you with it. It's unfathomable to me how hard this is to understand. Have any of you who are clamoring for this ever owned a business?

As to the initial investment issue, I've involved in quite a few mergers and acquisitions in recent years, and I can tell you there is a windfall of investment from the new ownership at the outset. But after a year at the most (and more often 6-9 months), the money tree is bare and the company is expected to to stand on its own two feet. Further developments in infrastructure, etc. are handled with internal capital, not from the parent company or its owner.

That's the common sense my argument is based on. My original statement was, to expect McLane or any owner to fund salaries from his own pocket is inane and stupid. And that's where I still stand.

[msn]

Some teams will go farther than that and lose money to fund payroll - the Yankees took an overall $50 M loss because of their $200M payroll in fiscal 2005.
But they have a long, stable history. They have a revenue structure that will continue to make money. They have an incredibly huge market.

You can't do that in Houston. Pull that off two out of five years, and there won't be a "Houston Astros."

[msn]

And you know this how? How about showing some numbers to back up your in depth knowledge on the subject matter.
I addressed this above.

Or instead how about you just tell me why the owners of the big market teams complain about smaller market teams taking advantage of the profit sharing system.
Because they want to make money. (That was difficult.)

But knowing your arguments I guess we will likely get more of the same msn
Right! You have *still* provided zero facts to back up your argument. You who entered the thread only to call people "homers" who don't agree with your position.

It's possible, gunn, for us to disagree on this issue without all of your BS.

[VesceySux]

I'm not going to weigh in on Drayton, but I WILL say that this whole argument about payroll size is stupid, IMO. I'll reference my post in another thread:

Team payroll rank of World Series champs (in this decade):

2007: Red Sox - #2 (Astros were LOWER)
2006: Cardinals - #11 (Astros were HIGHER)
2005: White Sox - #13 (Astros were HIGHER)
2004: Red Sox - #2 (Astros were LOWER)
2003: Marlins - #25 (Astros were HIGHER)
2002: Angels - #15 (Astros were HIGHER)
2001: Diamondbacks - #8 (Astros were LOWER)
2000: Yankees - #1 (Astros were LOWER)

So, of the 8 World Series played since 2000, the Astros have had a HIGHER payroll than the eventual winning team 50% of the time. I'd say that's pretty good.

Food for thought: Looking at teams with > $100 million payrolls in the last few years:

2007: 3 of the 8 teams (38%) made it to the playoffs; 1 in WS (13%) - WON!
2006: 2 of the 5 teams (40%) made it to the playoffs; 0 in WS (0%)
2005: 2 of the 3 teams (66%) made it to the playoffs; 0 in WS (0%)
2004: 3 of the 3 teams (100%) made it to the playoffs; 1 in WS (33%) - WON!
2003: 2 of the 5 teams (40%) made it to the playoffs; 1 in WS (20%)
2002: 2 of the 4 teams (50%) made it to the playoffs; 0 in WS (0%)
2001: 1 of the 3 teams (33%) made it to the playoffs; 1 in WS (33%)
2000: no teams above $100 million: Only 2 of the top 5 payroll teams made it; 1 in WS (20%) - WON!

There's just no guarantee of making the playoffs with a $100 million payroll, let alone going to the World Series (or heck, even WINNING it). Sorry.

[HayesStreet]

OK. So, no owner, after initial investments, puts money from his own pocket into player salaries.

Which my very first example of Abramovich disproves. Ok. So yes, owners do continue to put money from their own pockets into players and their salaries. I can't be any more clear about this - factually, when you say 'no owner' you are wrong.

No, I don't have the numbers of what owners have brought home. Do you? I'm not the one making these ridiculous accusations; if you and gunn and other whiners want to do so, the burden of proof is on you.

Why is someone a 'whiner' when they point out some organizations do spend more of money than others and that it is understandable a player might take that into account? There are no 'ridiculous accusations' happening anywhere but your mind. I have met my burden by giving multiple examples of organizations acting as I have described while you have failed to do anything but exercise the rhetoric of denial.

My argument is based upon common business sense. If your business can't stand on its own two feet, and you have to ferret personal wealth or monies from other business interests into it, beyond some obvious initial investment of course, then before your business will go down and take you with it. It's unfathomable to me how hard this is to understand.

Your problem is that your first and most basic assumption is flawed. Sports franchises are not common businesses. They are by and large the provence of the ultra rich and are bought and owned for reasons other than pure profit motive. They are vehicles of prestige and fancy. The model does not fit in your neat little columns. A normal business would not attain universal market share and then completely disassemble the team and the mechanisms responsible for doing so (as the Marlins did - twice). The reason you are so confused is that you are starting with a poor and non analogous assumption. I hope that helps.

Have any of you who are clamoring for this ever owned a business?

Yes. Have you? Now you make a few more flawed assumptions. First, that you have some overarching and unassailable insight into business that those who disagree with you don't. In Latin that is a logical fallacy known as Jackassticus Extremis. Second, you again assume a sports franchise is like any other business, which it isn't. Third, you assume the only motive to own any business is profit, which it isn't.

As to the initial investment issue, I've involved in quite a few mergers and acquisitions in recent years, and I can tell you there is a windfall of investment from the new ownership at the outset. But after a year at the most (and more often 6-9 months), the money tree is bare and the company is expected to to stand on its own two feet. Further developments in infrastructure, etc. are handled with internal capital, not from the parent company or its owner.

Well, Gordan - is your expertise in sports franchises? I have already given you a factual example about a sports franchise that shows your analysis is incorrect when applied to sports franchises (see Abramovich).

That's the common sense my argument is based on. My original statement was, to expect McLane or any owner to fund salaries from his own pocket is inane and stupid. And that's where I still stand.

Ah, an appeal to the common. How quaint. My original statement was that I could understand why a player might go to an organization that was willing to spend money to win. I stand by that. I'll follow it up with the observation that you seem to have anger issues and I hope you get help.

[BMoney]

I love how when anyone says anything about Drayton not spending enough money all the homers come out to lynch that person.

Maybe because the points your side (I'm assuming) makes are demonstrably untrue, outdated and flawed. If you are criticizing how Drayton interferes in the organization and doesn't spend enough money on the minor league and scouting system, then your points are valid. Bitching about Carl Everett, Mike Hampton, or the Yankee wonder twins is just silly in 2007.

[HayesStreet]

Maybe because the points your side (I'm assuming) makes are demonstrably untrue, outdated and flawed. If you are criticizing how Drayton interferes in the organization and doesn't spend enough money on the minor league and scouting system, then your points are valid. Bitching about Carl Everett, Mike Hampton, or the Yankee wonder twins is just silly in 2007.

I'm not even saying Drayton should have paid more to keep Andy and Roger. Far from it. If he spend that extra 60M on our scouting and minor league organizations, I'd be tickled pink.

[Murph23]

The Astros are going to be mediocre for at least the next 5 years.

[msn]

Why is someone a 'whiner' when they point out...
You've done no whining. That was directed elsewhere; sorry.

Your problem is that your first and most basic assumption is flawed. Sports franchises are not common businesses.
We obviously disagree on this. I don't mean to imply that I "have some overarching and unassailable insight into business that those who disagree with [me] don't," as you so eloquently accused me of. I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree. Not a bit. But you state your case well (except the ad hominem.)

you are so confused
Jackassticus Extremis.
Well, Gordan
you seem to have anger issues and I hope you get help.
Well done. It takes a lot of courage to call someone you'll never meet a jackass.

[HayesStreet]

You've done no whining. That was directed elsewhere; sorry.


We obviously disagree on this. I don't mean to imply that I "have some overarching and unassailable insight into business that those who disagree with [me] don't," as you so eloquently accused me of. I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree. Not a bit. But you state your case well (except the ad hominem.)


Well done. It takes a lot of courage to call someone you'll never meet a jackass.

I'm over 6'2/200 so I wouldn't have a problem calling you a jackass to your face if I thought you were acting like one, just so we understand each other.

But I rather acknowledge your olive branch and say fair enough - we can agree to disagree. :)

[Major]

Not so - taking on debt is not the only option. I've already given examples of privately owned teams getting cash infusions from owners. Since the Yankees are privately held, the dollar for dollar decisions are either in his pocket or out of his pocket. That his spending is rewarded by increased value is not a foregone conclusion, since as we know from most sports - you can spend money and still not have a winning team (see the Dave Winfield Yankees of the 80s).

Sorry, but no. Owners may loan their teams money, but it will be paid back with interest. Or they'll take on debt. But they are not going to randomly give the team cash unless its necessary for survival (unless they are morons - and since they are all multi-millionaire successful businessmen, I am assuming they understand finance). Again, this is exactly the same case as any private other business.


Our revenue was 184M last year and operating + player expenses was 124M. I'd like to see that extra 60M go back into the team.

Where did you get these numbers? What does your "operating expenses" include? Obviously not stadium debt and other financing issues, but what about all the minor leagues, the academies, marketing, etc?


Some teams will go farther than that and lose money to fund payroll - the Yankees took an overall $50 M loss because of their $200M payroll in fiscal 2005.

As have many other teams, Astros included. Single year numbers are not terribly important to teams, just as they aren't to businesses. None of these teams is structurally going to set themselves up to take losses.


Your problem is that your first and most basic assumption is flawed. Sports franchises are not common businesses. They are by and large the provence of the ultra rich and are bought and owned for reasons other than pure profit motive. They are vehicles of prestige and fancy.

Funny - because your assumption that "pure profit motive" is the focus of common businesses is nonsense. The vast majority of privately-owned businesses do not exist to maximize profit (public companies certainly do, since their owners', the shareholders, goal is to maximize profit). But privately held companies exist for any number of reasons, including improved lifestyle, reliable consistent income, independence, etc. Some try to maximize profits. Others have different goals. But virtually ALL of them work to avoid losses.


The model does not fit in your neat little columns. A normal business would not attain universal market share and then completely disassemble the team and the mechanisms responsible for doing so (as the Marlins did - twice).

Actually, what the Marlins did was the very definition of what a business would do. They tried to attain great dreams, realized that it was unsustainable financially, and then got the hell out. Businesses do these kinds of things all the time, and what the Marlins did was specifically to avoid losing money. Just like every other team (except taken to the extreme).

[Major]

There are organizations with higher revenues who are NOT in that category too, though. We aren't hurting for revenue. Our revenue was 184M last year and operating + player expenses was 124M. I'd like to see that extra 60M go back into the team. That IS what a team that 'wins at all costs' or at least that 'wins at cost higher than others' does.

To expand on these numbers, in 2002, the Astros non-player operating expenses were $54.2 million:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1325

Given that their salaries totalled $100MM last year, and reasonably assuming that their non-player expenses have gone up over the last 5 years, you're looking at expenses pretty similar to the revenues your listed. I'd be curious to see where your expense numbers come from and what they include.

[JayZ750]

Team payroll rank of World Series champs (in this decade):

2007: Red Sox - #2 (Astros were LOWER)
2006: Cardinals - #11 (Astros were HIGHER)
2005: White Sox - #13 (Astros were HIGHER)
2004: Red Sox - #2 (Astros were LOWER)
2003: Marlins - #25 (Astros were HIGHER)
2002: Angels - #15 (Astros were HIGHER)
2001: Diamondbacks - #8 (Astros were LOWER)
2000: Yankees - #1 (Astros were LOWER)

So, of the 8 World Series played since 2000, the Astros have had a HIGHER payroll than the eventual winning team 50% of the time. I'd say that's pretty good.

Food for thought: Looking at teams with > $100 million payrolls in the last few years:

2007: 3 of the 8 teams (38%) made it to the playoffs; 1 in WS (13%) - WON!
2006: 2 of the 5 teams (40%) made it to the playoffs; 0 in WS (0%)
2005: 2 of the 3 teams (66%) made it to the playoffs; 0 in WS (0%)
2004: 3 of the 3 teams (100%) made it to the playoffs; 1 in WS (33%) - WON!
2003: 2 of the 5 teams (40%) made it to the playoffs; 1 in WS (20%)
2002: 2 of the 4 teams (50%) made it to the playoffs; 0 in WS (0%)
2001: 1 of the 3 teams (33%) made it to the playoffs; 1 in WS (33%)
2000: no teams above $100 million: Only 2 of the top 5 payroll teams made it; 1 in WS (20%) - WON!

There's just no guarantee of making the playoffs with a $100 million payroll, let alone going to the World Series (or heck, even WINNING it). Sorry.

Quoted for truth.

The arguing back and forth on spending, as it relates to payroll, is stupid.

I'm not even saying Drayton should have paid more to keep Andy and Roger. Far from it. If he spend that extra 60M on our scouting and minor league organizations, I'd be tickled pink.

Also a valid argument.

Given some of the stats Vescey posted, you may in fact be able to argue the Stros would be better of spending less on payroll and more on other intangibles.

Kinda getting a little back on topic, though, it's hard to imagine what Andy/Roger mean when they say "the organization/culture is not committed to winning." As a fan, it is easiest to associate this with payroll and salary spending. If I had to take a wild guess at what they mean, I'd say its a combination payroll and just intangible things like how Andy/Roger feel about Drayton or the GM at the time or a "feel" about how much winning is emphasized. I would doubt they're referring to the Stros minor league system, or international scouting department.

So, it is all just BS, then.

Roger, as I've already pointed out, was as much of the problem as anything. Waffling about playing vs. not playing. Huge salaries. Strange "commitment" to being a part of the team and when and how.

Payroll, as shown, while certainly correlated to winning, isn't the be all, end all. And I don't really believe that much in the "feel" of the organization. Does playing for the Clippers probably "feel" different than playing for the Lakers? Sure, but assuming the players/coaches during the Shaq championship run were on the Clippers and vice-versa, it would have been a different shade of championship banner hanging in the Staples Center.

I think Drayton is as committed to winning as any other owner out there. Yes, even Steinbrenner. And he's committed to making money.