The DH isn't going anywhere, even though it is stupid that MLB has two separate sets of rules. The most powerful union in professional sports isn't going to give the DH up easily, and the owners are more likely interested in things like salary caps and player maximums.
I think the former is POSSIBLE (though unlikely). I think the latter is damn near impossible because it involves the union approving it.
I doubt it even raises an eyebrow. The teams in the AL East won't admit it, for decent reason. The rest of them already know. Minnesota knows their franchise isn't worth as much as Milwaukee's. The Angels and A's know they aren't worth what the Dodgers and Giants are. Hell, the Rangers at their best ever just sold for $100MM less than the agreed purchase for the Astros at their worst ever. This isn't news for any owner.
From a baseball perspective the Rangers were at their best ever, but business wise they were bankrupt. The Astros at the worst ever baseball wise, but business wise had just started a regional sports network and turning a profit despite the product on the field. I don't think league has much to do with value. The most valuable teams are in large metro areas and have a wealth of history behind them.
I'd argue that a significant portion of the Astros ability to turn a profit despite a bad few seasons is that they play in a more entertaining league, that more people want to watch.
Wes, you are smart but this post is stupid. The A's are in a terrible location that can't sustain them and won't build them a stadium. The Angels are also in a smaller market that's why they aren't nearly as valuable as the Dodgers. I'm sorry, but you've used terrible examples to illustrate your point here. Three AL teams in small markets who've had stadium issues vs three teams in larger (comparatively) markets who haven't. The Yankees are more valuable than the Mets! The Red Sox are more valuable than the Brewers! AL=Better league!
Or that they are in a relatively stable market with an owner who is not in financial problems. The Rangers had been relatively useless as an organization with only small doses of success in their history. The owner's finances completely collapsed and he entered bankruptcy. He had no television deal. The comparison is a terrible one. In the relatively short time since the sale, the new ownership has turned the Rangers into a cash cow and could easily sell the team at a large profit, just a few short years later. They've signed a huge television right's deal and have raised the team's name cache significantly.
MarkBermanFox26 Mark Berman http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/spo...ners-set-to-vote-on-astros-sale#ixzz1dRrD7inX
Does moving to the AL make it tougher or easier to win the World Series? That's the only thing that should matter, but that probably hasn't even entered the equation. And the fans aren't even consulted. We aren't even ask. The most obvious thing the Chronic could do would be to run a poll. Have they done that? If not, how come? Because the poll would probably say that fans/customers want no part of the AL, and that would irritate Lord Selig, and Dicky wouldn't ever want to run the risk of doing that. There's literally no one in the room looking out for the fan's interest, not The Grocer, not Crane, not MLB, and not even the local paper, which I will now refer to as the Houston Shill. I think moving to the AL sucks. I hate the idea, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate it.
What I don't get is where is MLB getting the $80 million or so to pay Crane to go to the AL? If this move is going to cost the league THAT much, does it really have to be made? I doubt the league will recover that cost, as I don't see an Astros move to the AL generating extra revenue for anybody.... so its basically a sunk cost in order to try to balance everything out.
MLB has national TV contracts with FOX, ESPN, and TBS. The FOX contract is worth $400MM/yr, but not sure about the others. For simplicity, lets say the contracts total $600MM/yr - that's $20MM/yr being distributed to each team. If they spread the payment out over, say, 4 years, that's $20MM/yr or about $666,000 per team per year for 4 years. Not saying this is the solution, but it's a way to pay for it without too much damage if they go that route.
Good question: on the downside, the Astros have a league with some major "have" teams in the Yankees and Red Sox. That makes getting the wildcard spot more difficult and makes the playoffs more difficult. Also, having a DH as opposed to some scrub bench player means higher payroll requirements. On the upside, in a general sense, the division is probably a bit weaker in that it has no real historically wealthy franchises. Certainly Texas is very good now, but the Cubs and Cardinals both have more resources on a regular basis than any of the AL West teams, though Anaheim has had some pretty high payrolls in recent years. Plus, you're going from a 6-team division to 5, so the competition is a little less in that respect. There's no reason to conduct a poll - everyone knows the results. That's why Crane is getting a $50-$80MM discount - there's universal agreement that the franchise will be worth less as a result of being in the AL and losing its history. But ultimately, this is a business decision for the business owners.
The Yanks and Sox will only be taking up 1 of the other playoff spots and they're going to add an extra WC because of the move to the AL so in reality it shouldn't effect our playoff chances. The divison has only 4 teams to compete with and two are rebuilding. Rangers and Angels spend but no reason we can't spend at their level....they aren't the Sox or Yanks.
Don't you think that's an expensive way to even out the league, without much benefit seen (financially) in return? We know they can expand the playoffs NOW, without changing the # of teams/league. That alone should increase revenue and the value of the tv contracts. What else is gained financially from the Astros moving? Am I missing something? Again, it seems like a sunk cost that MLB won't regain just by making this move alone.
Yeah - I don't really see the benefits to MLB, but obviously they see this as making the product better in some way. If that's the case, then $80MM is probably a small one-time cost given that this would be a 20+ yr type decision. If it were me, I would try to contract away 2 teams and get to 28, or expand and get to 32. I think having interleague every day is silly, so I don't know the benefits at all - but they clearly seem to think there is something there.
