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

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:

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

 

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. b****ing 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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

 

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.

 

Quoted for truth.

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

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.