That's because you didn't have to suffer thru the John J McMullen years. Believe me, ol' John J makes Uncle Drayton look like Mark Cuban.
Ford Motor Credit? I thought that it was GE Credit Corp that once held the paper on the Dome and the Astros.
It was both. I don't remember how it exactly played out, whether it was a dual thing or whether one sold to the other. But I *do* remember that it sucked.
...from an article at the Chron last January: Now, this article sheds a positive light on that period. I remember the Astros getting younger and that working out for them, but they got rid of some good players in the process and weren't willing to bring anyone in. As soon as McMullen came, Nolan Ryan came. Then in '82 it was Don Sutton. Good times.
http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index....e-of-the-astros&catid=26:editorials&Itemid=39 What's Changed with Jim Crane and the Sale of the Astros? Written by Maury Brown Monday, 28 March 2011 13:49 Here’s something to chew on as the season is about to begin: unless there is a dramatic change, both Texas MLB clubs will see new ownership in less than one year. The twist to the story is, the one that appears headed to own the Houston Astros very nearly wound up owning the Texas Rangers. Of course, he nearly owned the Astros once before. When Richard Justice of the Houston Chronicle reported last week that Jim Crane was the one who is close to – if not sown up – the sale from Drayton McLane, the word bandied about was “shocked”. After all, word was that when Crane stiffed McLane at the 11th hour in 2008 when he tried to initially sell it, he was furious. And then there was the Rangers auction sale. Those within the league had made it adamantly clear Crane, and Mark Cuban, who he partnered with just days before the auction sale, were not wanted, and likely would not have been approved by 75 percent of the league’s owners to have the sale completed. So, what changed? Let’s start with the Rangers. In that instance, while Crane certainly made no friends by ditching McLane at the last minute (rumor was, the Astros had already worked up a press release saying the sales agreement had been reached), with the Rangers it may have been more about wanting Nolan Ryan in The Lodge more than it was about Crane backing out. So, what’s different with the State of Astros Nation now compared to 2008? This one is harder to know, at least without being a close confidant of McLane. Maybe time healed the wounds, but a betting man would say it’s about Drayton wishing to get out of the baseball business, and having the value of the club increase due to not only the Rangers auction, but the capacity to leverage being part owner in a regional sports network, the newly formed CSN Houston. Finally, this deal is being brokered behind closed doors, so here’s an aspect that will be harder to come by: how much of the sale will be leveraged? If there’s one thing that’s giving Bud Selig real heartburn these days it’s the likes of Tom Hicks, Frank McCourt, and the dealings around the Mets that have clubs getting themselves into serious amounts of debt. With the financial markets easing back up on granting loans, Crane’s ability to have a cash component in the deal that might be labeled “hefty” would be more on the order of what the Commissioner’s Office wants to see. The bottom line is the bottom line. No one is certain how Crane will run the team any differently than McLane. In that, he’s been quiet in the media. This isn’t to say that if Crane stays as such, he would be the first owner to act that way as heaven knows the Lerners with the Washington Nationals are about as “blank slate” as you can get. So, if it comes to fruition, it’s surprising that Jim Crane will wind up with the Houston Astros, except when you dwell on it further it’s only surprising if the past influenced the present. When it comes to business, it can all change depending on the seller and the buyer. Now, about how MLB’s owners will vote to approve the sale? If it’s gone this far, Selig has already held a straw vote. If Crane’s the man for McLane, then Crane appears to be the next owner of the Houston Astros. Of course, in business, the deal’s not done till the deal’s done. McLane could always be the one leaving Crane at the altar this time, rather than visa-versa. "There is no agreement with anybody, and there are at least three that are far along in the process," McLane said Friday from Temple, Texas. "Jim Crane is certainly one of them. There are several others. There is no agreement, and it's a wide-open field. It's a long process."
Once Crane takes over, one of the first things he needs to do is fire Tal Smith and see if he can get Hunsicker to take over that job. I'm sure it would be ok since Tal is President of Baseball Operations and the Hun is Executive VP of BO for the Rays, so it technically is a step up.
LMAO, but Dallas is? Another reason why Cuban was unsuccessful was because there were rumors that he wanted to move the Rangers to Downtown Dallas and build a ballpark there.
He needs to completely GUT the front office... Tal is a nice guy, maybe make him an honorable assistant to the assistant to the GM of the team. Astros currently have one of the most out of touch and outdated front offices. Tal was ahead of the curve and inventive 35 years ago.... now they need to just bury him under his hill and start over. Other than Wandy there is not a single player on the team that is well above average.... Pence is a constant tease, but when you get down to it he is a mediocre starter. Myers is one 6-pack away from putting his wife through the windshield and Happ is baseball code for mediocre..... don't even get me started about that seal in left field or the punching Judy walrus who will play first base.... or the shortstop that will be lucky to get on base 25% of the time.... and the farm system, full of mediocre C+ prospects and future middle relievers and utility players.
That must be Neilsen's by number of televisions. I find it odd then that the Astros and Rockets are worth more than the Mavericks and Rangers respectively. Texans don't do too bad either considering they have never made the playoffs. So I think Cuban is wrong, maybe Houston isn't a HUGE market, but if Dallas is a bigger one it's not much bigger if any at all.
Houston is the bigger city, but the Dallas-Fort Worth media market is larger. The Rangers and Astros probably are worth fairly similar dollars, while the Rockets probably aren't far behind the Mavs. I think Cuban sees more growth in Dallas, than he does in Houston (I'm sure the Mavs value has increased substantially under him), he also probably doesn't want to own a team from a city in the same division as the one he already owns. And I'll throw in the fact that Houston fans suck. Houston should be a much better sports town than it is. Atlanta is the same way. Consistently put out a good, not great product, and watch as stadiums can't sell out consistently.
According to Forbes the Rangers and Astros are very close to each other. As for the Rockets, they are ahead of the Mavs in worth, not behind. As for the fan base, Dallas is no better. Where were the Mavs fans before Cuban? Before Dirk? You ask a lot of any city if you expect them to sell out on a nightly basis in the NBA when their team is mediocre. Unless you are the Lakers or Knicks, that just isn't happening for most of the league. That's just the nature of the NBA and MLB. Atlanta is not that bad overall, their NBA fan base is horrible though. They aren't loyal at all and even though they have a decent team now they still struggle(Rockets come into this season 5th ranked most valuable franchise and Atlanta is 23rd). Rockets are still one of the NBAs most valuable franchises, so I don't see how the fans are bad. I think you judge the fanbase in the playoffs and big games, it's hard to sell to people to come out on a random Wednesday night for a game against the Twolves. I think for Cuban it has more to do with what you said about operating in a rival city. Because when it comes to sports most owners just want to have a stable franchise I think. One where they can have a few losing seasons and still be successful financially (like here in Houston) because no matter where you are if you start to win, the money will start rolling in.
horse puckey. Houston fans don't "suck" any more than any other city's fans. Unless you're the NE or freaking Chicago, weekday games rarely sell out. Anywhere. You're asking 40,000 people to come to 81 games, 45 to 50 of which are while they are either at work or have to be at work the next morning at 7 or 8. "sellouts" are *not* a good way to measure how good fans are in a city. And btw, attendance was outstanding while the Astros were good--in fact, more than one national writer remarked that McLane had "turned Houston into a baseball town." The fans here don't suck. After having to put up with their team being tossed around between lenders after bankruptcy, living through John McMullen, living through Bud Adams taking away their NFL team, etc. and then the comedy of errors the last nine years (but hey--at least we have a team!!) we ought to be happy they show up to *anything*.
Yup no questioning it back in the early 2000s-2006 Houston was a baseball town. I heard it referenced as one multiple times. And the Texans were still sucking it up and the Rockets weren't fairing much better.
Houston fans are interesting, we have our diehards and bandwagon jumpers. If a team does well then the momentum lasts a good while but if they go down again...then it gets ugly. Normally, fans don't just stop coming back but there are a ton of casual fans that if they don't see a major step forward toward competing...just leave and wait it out.
