3rd time a charm? __________________________ <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Astros have asked Judge Hughes for oral arguments on their CSNH Ch. 11 appeal during week of March 24. Rockets on board with those dates.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/443933017753399296">March 13, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
What are the odds this nonsense gets wrapped up before the season? What happened to the streaming or mlb network options Jimmy?
If the oral argument is March 24, I doubt that the appeal will be decided before April 1. If the network remains in bankruptcy (a very good chance this happens), the reorganization will likely take much longer.
Nothing can be done if their rights are still tied exclusively to Comcast. Any alternate "streaming" methods would likely have to be part of a buyout agreement of sorts, since Comcast technically would lose those possible viewers. And yes, I'm presuming Comcast won't be rushing to DTV any time soon to hash out a deal. Uverse would probably be the first one to sign on if the rates were favorable... mainly because they already spend a good amount on advertising for the network.
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2014/03/astros_media_rights_competitiv.php Despite the Astros Legal Claims, More Money's Not the Key to Competing With Texas By John Royal Thu., Mar. 13 2014 at 9:00 AM
I agree generally that money isn't a guarantee to building a winner. But it's very difficult to argue that, particularly in baseball, more revenues don't provide an inherent advantage. It would be silly to argue otherwise.
I agree. For every Oakland story. There are 3-4 Pittsburgh and KCs. Even though the pirates have been decent to good the last couple of years they went thru 18 years of total crap to get there. I'm willing to bet The same people who say you don't need money to win would be just as upset if the Astros went on a 17 year pirate like streak. And yes I know there are other factors but having funds can help fix mistakes made in other areas.
The problem became that Drayton gambled on more profits by settling for lower media rights with a potentially higher reward via majority stake in the Network. It was a high risk move that didn't pay off.
I never took the claims that they needed Texas or Seattle money to mean they could never be competitive without that added revenue. I took it to mean they couldn't really be competitive in the FA market and in overall spending. Of course a really well run team can be successful with low payrolls, but having the flexibility to spend a little more helps in a lot of ways when mistakes are made (or when an opportunity at that last piece presents itself). That article did a wonderful job knocking down that strawman.
Or, more revenues helps them stop doing things like stashing 24 year olds to get an extra year of club control. Allows them to draft the BPA, and not just for sign ability issues. Allows them to take on payroll at the trade dealing. Allows them to not trade arbitration eligible players due to arbitration raises alone. Basically, it allows a team to stop masquerading as a small market team in a top 10 media market.
Doesn't that article kind of ignore the idea that network losses eat into the Astros nominally high rights fee? I'm not sure that the Astros are arguing that their rights fee in and of itself is too low, but that it becomes unacceptably low when offset by their share of the network' operating deficit. My general problem with most of Royal's article is that he appears to presume that viable carriage options are out there. I can't recall seeing any evidence that that's currently the case. In fact, the most recent information we've received is from the Rockets reporting that their recent search efforts proved fruitless and that either a large cash infusion or buyout by Comcast is the only realistic option at present.
Last I saw, they were #10... http://www.tvb.org/media/file/TVB_Market_Profiles_Nielsen_TVHH_DMA_Ranks_2013-2014.pdf
No need to get offensive or bring Nazism into this. Hell, Ashby himself said it on the TELECAST the other day that he was being stashed for contract reasons... was surprised he wasn't using the company line of that he needed more "developing".
You've got to be kidding me. Pretty much within 5 posts in every thread in the Astros Forum you bring up Springer not being called up. We get your point.
Ok... thanks. Sorry, I didn't know I was about to break the internet. . Also keeps me from complaining of the awful state of the team as is. Regardless, a pretty dumb thing for you to compare anybody to. In this case, I was pointing out the difference between what small market teams with low revenue have to do... vs. teams like the Rangers who call up guys like Profar and have them work things out at the MLB level (because they're not worried about when they're going to have to pay him). All part of the DISCUSSION about what revenues can do for a team. I was genuinely surprised that Ashby (an Astros employee) decided to bring it up on CSN-H's telecast. Back to the topic at hand, as I'm no longer "allowed" to talk about player X as decreed by the minister of propaganda... CSN still isn't on the air...
