Overall population doesn't matter. Population with easy access to ballpark matters more. That said, Astros attendance is fine. 7th in team history in per game. With this being a great team, I expect attendance picks up a little rest of the year.
How are we even discussing a potential future tear down in the middle of another 100+ win season? Edit: I do appreciate the post Snake so wasn’t a dig at you FYI, your outlook pretty much agrees with the fact a tear down isn’t coming any time soon (at least not soon enough to be discussing it).
No, it's a matter of people not going on certain days like midweek games during the school year. The weekend evenings or summer games or whatever might sell out, but there is less max capacity at those. Tickets might also be more expensive, etc. Coors field might be logistically easier to get to. It might be a more fun outdoor experience in Colorado summers that attracts non-fans, etc. There are any number of factors involved. Instead of looking at # of fans attending, why not look at team revenues if the issue is whether the team can afford their players?
I love this argument... as it postulates that every city's sports fandom is generated simply by the population size. Hell, the Mets don't outdraw the Astros and they play in a population size bigger than any other market. Milwaukee is outdrawing the Mets. The Astros being in the top 10 in attendance is great. Colorado being in the top 5 is more a testament for how great a sports city (and how great a venue/experience Coors Field may be) Denver is vs. it being a slight for Houston being bad. Denver used to pack 70,000+ in old mile high stadium when the Rockies first started. The rest of the markets (LA, St. Louis, NYY, Chicago Cubs, Red Sox) are always going to be at or near the top of attendance.
I've loved my experiences at Coors Field and the city of Denver itself has seen incredible growth and has so many awesome restaurants, bars, etc. all around the stadium. Highly recommend checking out a game there for those who haven't been. As for the average attendance argument, there are so many factors (as you have noted) other than population size that go into average attendance. A couple other points you've left out is A) Coors can hold nearly 10k more people than MMP and B) the average ticket price to go to a game at Coors is MUCH lower than going to MMP. I did some research and the average ticket price in 2019 for Coors is ~$27 versus $50 for MMP...so yeah if we expanded our stadium to hold 50k people and dropped ticket prices nearly in half then I think it's safe to say we'd outdraw the Rockies.
Exactly. As I mentioned in my previous post, our average ticket price in 2019 is $50 ($49.85 to be exact) which comes out to revenues of $285M for the year using the current average attendance. Compare that to the Rockies who are only getting $27.29 avg/ticket and it comes out to revenues of only $167M...over $100M less than the Astros. Who cares about the extra 2,000 fans in the stadium on a nightly basis that the Rockies draw. Edit: For those who are interested, according to Statista (the only site I can find with avg. ticket price data), the Astros are the 3rd most expensive in 2019 behind only the Cubs and Red Sox. It claims to take into account flex pricing and is on a weighted basis so it appears to be a correct figure but I can't speak to their accuracy. That being said, if it is correct, if attendance and the avg. ticket price holds for the rest of 2019, we would be behind only LAD, NYY, BOS, and CHC in ticket revenue...and the difference between NYY, LAD and us isn't substantial.
The Astros should try and start their own TV network! More money!!! They can see if the Rockets are interested, as they appear to be cash poor... What could go wrong?!?
That’s the logical number (5/90) for numbers and production. I’d go 5/110 for him being heartbeat of the team if that’s what it took. Nothing more. And honestly I’d probably tell him it needed to be 6/110 just for tax calculation purposes.
Best team over an extended period of time since the late '90s Yankees. That's where we are at now and with a good chunk of the core locked up for the next two seasons, I expect that run to continue.
Only 5 teams have had 3 100 win seasons in a row. I wouldn't be surprised if the Astros have 4 or 5 in a row. I think the record is 4 in a row.
Excellent thread. I've really enjoyed reading all these different take about the Astros future. Now, my turn take a crack at playing armchair GM. Let me preface this by saying I'm a huge believer in the Bill Belichick method of winning by making cold-hearted moves to keep a dynasty intact. 1. Let Gerritt Cole walk in free agency. The price is too high. Thank Cole for his service, hopefully with a ring, and then let someone else give him a huge payday. 2. Trade George Springer in 2020. Springer has been the soul of this team. He was the first ray of hope to emerge from the 100-loss tank job seasons. Houston will be forever grateful to Springer for fulfilling the Sports Illustrated cover prophesy with a World Series win and series MVP. However, this the cold-hearted type of move, which could extend the Astros dynasty for a while depending on what they can get for him. Springer is going to be on the wrong side of 30 looking for a massive payday and the Astros have other financial priorities. 3. Keep Verlander and Greinke only until 2021. Ace pitchers at the end of their shelf life making $70 million combined. Get 3 years of championship contention out of them and then it's time to move on. Bring in the replacements; Whitley, McCullers, and possibly Sanchez if he pans out. If not, then Luhnow should look to work his magic again and find the next great ace pitcher rotting on a losing team. 4. Sign Carlos Correa to a long term deal in 2022. You don't let the next Alex Rodriguez walk, period. If there ever was a SPLASH to be made, then this is the move. Pay him the money. Your franchise will forever be grateful in 20 years when he joins Altuve in Cooperstown. 5. Trim the excess fat to make gravy along the way. Brantley, Reddick, Gurriel should all be prime candidates for trades given their age and the Astros future need to shed salary. That's how I would do it. Altuve, Bregman, Correa -- my ABCs that will someday join the Killer Bs in the Astros Hall of Fame. Alvarez, Whitley, Tucker -- my low cost and high quality farm produce to replenish the stocks. McCullers, Sanchez, Osuna, James -- my young pitchers to possibly develop into a rotation.
Each of the three have 1 year left on their contracts. Brantley is probably the MVP of free agent signings and is top 20 in all of MLB in WAR and OPS. Gurriel has been among the best offensive players in the league since June and plays a pretty good first base. He can also capably play third. Reddick has been terrible offensively for most of the year. Why would you suggest trading either Gurriel or Brantley since they are only contractually obligated for only one more season and each has shown this season that they have plenty left in the tank to be valuable players on a championship team?
Not gheetocheeze, but Brantley and Gurriel don't pitch. I doubt those guys are traded, but if they are, that is the reason.
I just don't see them trading away guys that are really productive during their "window" with no contractual obligation beyond next season. Now if trading either one of them keeps Cole around for 3+ seasons, I'm all for it.
While not likely, I don't see trading Yuli or Brantley to be that far fetched. Even assuming we move Reddick and Marisnick, once we sign a Miley replacement, catcher and a reliever (we're losing a ton of innings from our pen, which I'm positive is the reason we added Biagini) we'll be right back against the tax threshold. If Sanchez finishes the season strong, I think a Verlander, Greinke, Sanchez, FA, Peacock rotation could be good enough to start the year with, but it would leave Luhnow very little financial flexibility to make moves, which we almost assuredly will have to do. If Crane flat out gives him a number, and Luhnow doesn't think he can stay under it, trading Brantley and re allocating his salary to whatever becomes our position of need mid season may be the pragmatic move.
Most of this is incredibly unlikely to work out, while also being massively unpopular. I’m fine with moving on from guys. But you won’t get any kind of return for trading Any of the guys you mentioned, and the going up and comers are unlikely to be better than the guys you are shipping out. Thanks for posting, I sincerely like reading any take talking about stuff like this that is “non stupid” and this fits, but I just think it’s wrong on a whole ton of levels. Game plan it out. What do you think you will get for all those guys you are moving on with 1 year of club control and representative contracts? Not much man. Now, I have no problem with the idea of picking Correa over Cole and Springer, but it takes 2 to make a deal and he just isn’t going to imo. We shall see.
