Astros blocked CSNHouston deal?

Here's the point that I believe that folks overlook: The providers such as Viacom or Fox force the carriers to carry far more channels than they'd like to such as Fox requiring Directv to carry F/X, F/X Movies in order to get the regional FSN. They can do this because they realize that unlike their other programming which is subject to timeshifting (and the fast-forwarding through commercials) through the use of DVRs, sporting events lose their allure if not watched in real time. So they can force these deals upon the carriers who need to attract advertising dollars. The carriers, in turn, then pass the cost off to their subscriber base especially those folks who don't give one whiff about MLB. They aren't concerned about those Alastros sheep who will gladly pay any price to see their team but they also realize that there aren't enough of them to make much of a difference.

Now the Alastros are in a precarious situation here. Thanks to Selig, MLB and Crane, they are now in direct competition with the Rangers who have a TV deal that pays them $80M per year - a TV deal that will broadcast Rangers games over a state where the Alastros are for all intents, invisible. And, unlike with the Alastros, the Rangers' ownership has NOT taken steps to run off most of their existing fanbase so they can expect attendance at the Ballpark in Arlington to approach 3M while Crane & Co. can only dream of that level of fan interest. Now Crane gets $25M from MLB so his payroll is basically covered but attendance at Minute Maid is expected to be dismal until they can generate a new fan base. No, he desperately needs this deal to happen because it's that TV money that will be the difference between actually their actually contending someday or becoming a Texas version of the Mariners, Royals or Pirates. Without those $$$, Crane won't be able to continue to sell hope to the faithful of better days ahead. Even in the event that Ludnow rebuilds the farm system and it starts producing players, Crane won't be able to afford to keep them which in MLB is the kiss of death.

Bottom Line: This impass will drag on for some time. There is simply no incentive for the carriers to tack on an additional $3.40 for a product for which they don't believe there exists much demand. Add in the fact that CSN lacks the programming leverage of a Fox or ESPN. If the carriers really felt there was money to be made here, this deal would have been completed a long time ago.

 

If you read that, which again, I'd love to see in print, it still makes me feel uneasy. I feel even such statement is at best very malleable, and at worst, very deceptive. Technically, the team was a player in free agency this year in picking up Pena, Veras, Ankiel, and Bedard. It's a very easily defended comment down the road.

And frankly, while the team has to be supplemented with free agents when the time comes, what most concerns me is the team's ability and/or willingness to retain it's own homegrown prospects once a few of them have established themselves at the big league level. Based on how this rebuilding process is structured (which, again, from a baseball prospective I have no problem with), a majority of these guys will be FA elibigle w/in the same window. It will be a huge pool of money needed, and again, I have seen no evidence that this ownership group will dig into their pockets if it doesn't make sense to the bottom-line. There are some owners over time that have shown to value winning over profit (knowing that if there is the former, the latter will often follow)...this does not appear to be one of them. His choice, of course, to run the team however he likes (as he has already brazenly made crystal clear to the fan base).

 

Jim Crane is arrogant.

Jim Crane is business first.

That is my impression of Crane. I don't consider either of those things a bad thing. Potential to be Mark Cuban, but unfortunately with shallower pockets.

 

All owners value profit above all else. They sacrifice profits to increase the brand, which leads to a higher value on the team, which equals profit.

 

I don't even believe it's that involved. To quote my earlier post, here's how the TV deals work:

In a year when the team does well, the reset [for broadcast fees] is due to the team doing well. When the team is doing poorly, the rates will jump just as much because they need money to rebuild the team. Cable and satellite companies grudgingly succumb, no matter how illogical the deal. Every provider feels forced to carry the same channels, lest customers flee to a competitor.

The networks see sports as a no-lose racket, with ESPN as its piper. The sports channel charges cable companies $5 a month per customer, by far the highest monthly fee in national television. While that may seem a pittance, it's big money when spread over the 100 million U.S. households with pay TV. So now you have NBC and CBS who have launched their own sports channels. Another channel from FOX is on its way. Even regional sports channels are starting to broach that $5 mark. Their bet is that viewers will always be willing to pay more. And more. And more.

Though baseball has long played with a rigged financial deck, it's about to get perilously worse. Still, it's safe to say that these fixed odds have deposed generations of fans in smaller cities across the land. In any given year, half the teams are in the midst of three- to five-year rebuilding projects, since they're financially barred from the faster route of free agency.

Crane & Co. aren't being particularly diabolical here - they are merely attempting to exploit MLB's current economic environment.

 

...Like general manager Jeff Luhnow and first-year manager Bo Porter, Crane has positive expectations. He believes the Astros will be better than the 2012 club that lost a franchise-record 107 games. And he’s willing to spend money midway through 2013 if the Astros defy critics and are competitive in a strong American League West Division.

“Certainly we’re sticking with the plan and we’re bringing in a lot of young talent and holding off on free agency until we’ve got a good nucleus there,” said Crane, who believes the team’s strength this season could be its starting pitching. “People aren’t going to go with this plan forever. We’ve got to build this year, and hopefully next year will be a little better and the year following.”

http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastros/2013/02/09/crane-remains-positive-astros-are-on-target/

 

Thank you for addressing the question. In making a cursory search prior to commenting, I ran across that article as well. It was, in my opinion, a very obtusely worded statement (made off-handed between rounds of golf) that addresses the situation in generalities and appears to not be meant with an eye for anything in the future, but rather, to substantiate the current MO. Further, while it's great the team will still (potentially) be able to bring in a complimentry FA or two in the small window of time that the star prospects are still under club control, what happens when the likes of Correa, Springer, Singleton, DD Jr., Santana, and Folty need to get paid...all in the same time frame? (of course not all of these guys will pan out, but it'd only take 2-3 to succeed to triple the now current payroll)

Anyhow, there'll be no winner to this discussion for a number of years...and until this all plays out, we're all just speculating. I just hope that these lean years do end in a pay off for the fans. I'll stick around, like all of you, and see. In the meantime, I think the conversation can be simplified fairly easily...some of use see view the current owner and his actions to date with a glass half-full approach, others are a bit more skeptical based on his first year at the helm. I, for one, hope to be wrong.

 

I think they'll have no problem going about 4 times the current payroll. Right now, about $100 million is what this market seems likely to support.

In addition to the fact that it's common economic sense, the proof is in the pudding. Jeff Luhnow was one of the hottest executive prospects in all of baseball. He oversaw a Cardinals system that was and still is loaded. If Crane wasn't willing to spend a proportionate amount to the market, then Jeff stays put and waits for a better opening. That simple.

I honestly don't know what there is to be skeptical about. It does not make baseball sense for the Astros to spend any more money than they currently are. Note that I'm not even talking about profits... strictly baseball. This team is going nowhere in 2013. Why spend an extra $35 million to bring in a few more placeholder veterans and win 65/70 games instead of 55? Doing it this way gets you a better draft pick, more draft pool money, and it allows you to save that $35 million and eventually spend it when it could legitimately make a difference in the Astros contending.

From a baseball standpoint, Crane hired one of the brightest minds in the business. Everything over the past year has unfolded exactly as they said and hoped, and going forward, they've essentially said what the plan is. I don't see what reason there is to think they're liars, other than sheer paranoia. Crane won't be Steinbrenner, but I think he'll be every bit as good as Drayton in spending a proportionate amount for the market.

 

Of course it's a vague comment...it's all based on contingencies of what's going to happen sometime in the future. What could he possibly say with specificity regarding that topic that would satisfy your doubt? I'm guessing nothing. He certainly can't comment on specific players.

 

i don't know about others, but since your response quoted me, nowhere have I advocated spending more money at this time.

 

I don't care what you say, I'm just going to go with my gut that you're lying.

Basically, half the arguments these last few pages.

 

If "see is believing" [sic], then you shouldn't have an opinion on it either way. You shouldn't assume or worry he's lying.

 

Crane strikes me as the kind of guy who if he thinks he could turn a bigger profit (not profit v. loss, just a bigger profit) by putting out a worse product, he'd do it.

It doesn't matter this year, we're going to be bad anyway. But I have my doubts about how much of a priority putting the best team out the field as possible will be in the future. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

I do not believe it would be outlandish for the owner to pacify the base somewhat in stating that there is a commitment not only to grow players, but to make every effort to keep them here once successful. If we are going to patiently await their development, I think it'd be nice to know there will be some payoff other than opportunity to later see them dealt for more prospects once they reach their prime. It's a fun parlor trick to tell your fans that there will be better days tomorrow. Once 'tomorrow' does arrive, I'd like for it to stick around past the past clubl control and the arbitration years. I do not want to be the fan who gears up for the one WS run before the inevitable teardown once again (see also Marlins, Florida).

 

i don't know why anyone would blame someone for not trusting this guy

 

That hurts the brand, which hurts the value when he sells it.

 

So why would you say seeing is believing if you're not going to actually follow it? You haven't seen what Crane will do in free agency if the team's competitive.

 

They would not step in. They never did it in Pittsburgh.