absolutely. crane has a deal already...he's being asked to agree to something else. if you want to make him an offer, fine...otherwise, his deal expires at the end of November.
I think, if a move to the AL is necessary, that MLB should move up the start times in Oak, Anaheim and Seattle for the night games. I don't think it's a big deal, especially if its a balanced schedule, but it would really even out everything. I'd also want another all-star game within the next 5 years.
If I am Jim Crane, I my lawyers to draft the following up in lawyerese: As compensation for my agreeing to move my NL franchise to the lesser league, MLB and Bud Selig agree to the following terms: Houston hosts six All-Star games in the next 30 years; AL to drop the DH immediately and permanently after the 2011 World Series; Bud Selig agrees to appear at MMP for the home opener each of the next five seasons. Just before the bottom of the third, Selig agrees to meet Jim Crane on the mound and kiss his ass before all of Houston's screaming fans. These are the non-negotiable terms. The other AL clubs don't agree to abandon the stupid girly-rule DH, no deal. No ass-kissing, no deal. No All-Star games, no deal. How's about it, Bud?<br /> <br />
On the flip side, we would get to see them play the Rangers more often, and the East coast games would start much earlier....in the evenings. I guess the trade off is the WC games, but we do have San Fran, the Pads, the Dodgers and the Rockies already. DD
LOL - I meant for us here in Texas the games would start at 6pm and end earlier.....because they were in the East coast time zone. Sorry if I were unclear there. DD
erm... the East Coast games start at 6:10 or 6:35 (depending on the city) already, whether you're in the NL or the AL. Watched a Braves, Pirates, Mets, Nationals, Phillies, or Marlins game lately? :grin:
<table border="1"><tr><td><b>Real Baseball </b></td><td><b>Junior "baseball"</b></td></tr><tr><td>Marlins</td><td>Rays</td></tr><tr><td>Nationals</td><td>Orioles</td></tr><tr><td>Braves</td><td>Blue Jays</td></tr><tr><td>Reds</td><td>Indians</td></tr><tr><td>Pirates</td><td>Red Sox</td></tr><tr><td>Phillies</td><td>Tigers</td></tr><tr><td>Mets</td><td>Yankees</td></tr></table> ...looks about even to me.<br />
Interestingly enough, there are only three west coast teams in the AL, while there are five "western" teams in the NL: 3 in PST, 2 in MST. Shouldn't MLB look to balance that out? Seems like NL teams are at a disadvantage with travel and late-night games here.
Ultimately, you're right - if Crane is content to walk away, then no one has leverage on him. McLane not wanting to look foolish, though - that's what I'm getting at: doesn't it incentivize McLane to lean on Crane? I mean, he wants the money, regardless. But he devalues the franchise considerably with a failed dog and pony show. Take the oft-mentioned Viking sale. Fowler agrees to buy them for $625MM; holds a press conference (pre-approval), financing falls through... And Zygi Wilf winds up getting them for $600MM. The public fiasco of sale #1 absolutely impacted sale #2. There were two ways to do this: privately or publicly. Drayton made it public, very public, which changes the dynamic considerably. It invites a third party (the media) into the mix because there's a fourth party (the fans) tuned in and anxious for news.
The whole Rangers thing seems so contrived to me. They're the freaking Rangers, for cryin' out loud. It's not like they're some storied franchise over whom we're green with raging envy. Until very recently, they were irrelevant and nearly invisible. Who gives a rat's ass about the Rangers??
Yeah, but I still think they're driving this move. I lived in Dallas for 10 years and the Astros actually had a really nice following there; even had their own radio affiliate for a while. Assuming they aren't either all gone or undercover Ranger fans rooting for the nearest successful team, I think you underestimate how potentially cool the rivalry could be, given the Astros' history there. Especially when you factor in Cowboy-heavy Austin and San Antonio, which are kind of up for grabs, baseball fan-wise. I'll say this much: If the Astros are good, meaningful games against the Rangers would be far more intriguing to me than equally meaningful games with St. Louis. I have family and friends in Dallas; I'm sure many others here do as well. I always enjoy Cowboy/Texan and Maverick/Rocket smack.
Having lived in SA and currently in Austin, I disagree, historically, about the fans being up for grabs. Both are typically Astros towns. The fan base in Austin has changed a bit this year because of the transfer of the RR Express to the Rangers from the Astros and the success of the Rangers vs. the Astros. That said, you still see A LOT more Astros gear in central Texas than you do any other team.
You're explained that position to me a few times, Ric. I understand what you're saying as far as your tastes. But I have more family in Kansas, Arkansas, and Georgia than in Dallas. The Rangers just don't do anything for me. And, the whole thing does seem contrived. Remember how they created the "rivalry" series and we had to give up a couple series from our scheduled AL division to see the Rangers twice? So we missed out on the Angels or something once, and then either the Sox or Yankees. But we got to play the (at the time quite) irrelevant Rangers! *yay!!!* It's a "rivalry"; 'cause look--they're like just a couple inches apart on this 'ere map! Whoopdy-freakin doo.
Leroy, you would be correct. Unlike our beloved Texans, the Astros have historically (I don't know about recently) worked hard to market their brand in Central Texas. Not just the "caravan", but also cultivating an extensive radio network and aggressive advertising. I wish the Texans would follow suit.
Good point; I thought about the # of Astro fans in Austin, primarily because of RR, as soon as I hit "submit". But, yeah - I suspect Austin will start going up for grabs with RR and the Rangers' ascension.
