Not sure how you came to that conclusion.... Crane got in to a business he knew next to nothing about and has made a bunch of mistakes along the way. He's knee deep in this catastrophe. It's ironic for him to whine about needing the money to compete when he's currently not make an effort to compete.
"It's ironic for him to whine about needing the money to compete when he's currently not make an effort to compete." I get what you are saying to an extent, but then I don't. He is building this team to win for the long term. Nothing done in free agency could have made this team a contender. There were no quick fixes. They are working their a$$es off to build a dominant farm and to make this team a powerhouse. It's hard for me to believe that people still don't understand this. I thought Astros fans were sharper than that.
Astros County tweeted this link tonight and thought it was interesting. http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2013...tml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter How MLB splits your TV dollars Written by Dave Warner on 17 May 2013. Last week, we examined how your cable and satellite bills will pay for Major League Baseball’s billion-dollar TV deals. Now let’s look at what that means for the teams themselves. How does baseball distribute your money? We know that MLB’s new national TV contracts with ESPN, Fox, and Turner will more than double the amount of money each team received from those three networks. Where the previous contract paid teams an average of $25.53 million each per year, next year’s contract will pay teams an average of $51.67 million per year. Having an additional $26 million on hand seems useful. Now lets take a look at the local TV deals. Much of this data was compiled by Wendy Thurm of Fangraphs, with some data from around the web filling in the gaps. Some of the numbers are rough estimates, with escalators in place for the New York Yankees (4%) and Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (2.5%). Clearly, if there were no revenue sharing, small-market teams would be at a huge disadvantage. MLB’s collective bargaining agreement, however, stipulates that teams share 34% of their local TV money. The shared pool is then split evenly among all thirty teams. That means every million dollars a team makes from its local TV deal is worth $11,133.33 to the other 29 teams. With that in mind, let’s take a look at how much total TV money each team will make in 2013: Is that enough to cover escalating player salaries? Let’s take a look at how these numbers compare to 2013 payroll numbers, which were taken from Forbes: As you can see, only three teams are capable of covering their payrolls with TV money alone, and two of them -- the Astros and the Marlins -- have slashed their payrolls to the point of being woefully uncompetitive. The Padres’ new deal with Fox Sports West, on the other hand, puts them in a slightly better position, even though they’re a bit off the pace of the Giants and Diamondbacks right now. Of course, TV money is far from the only source of revenue for teams. Gate revenue alone will make up the gap for nearly every MLB team. In fact, gate revenue is expected to cover the entire payroll for at least four teams -- the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and Twins. Then there’s the $150 million dividend that MLB Advanced Media is expected to add to the pool, which ships another $5 million to each team. To say nothing of concessions, in-stadium advertising, and so on. Still, you can see from that chart how important revenue sharing is for small market teams -- especially for teams like the Reds, Braves, and Athletics, who make so little from their TV deals. So how much more do teams stand to make from next year’s TV deals? In order to determine that, we have to factor in a few things. First, we have to figure out how much the Dodgers will make next season. Their new contract with Time Warner Cable is worth $7 billion over 25 years, which averages out to $280 per year, but chances are there’s an escalator clause in that deal, so as to minimize TWC’s short-term risk. If it’s the same as with the Yankees’ deal with YES (4%), TWC could pay the Dodgers about $170 million next season. (Let’s also assume that the Dodgers will agree to share 34% of that, even though MLB’s settlement with Frank McCourt would permit them to share much less.) We’ll also factor in the escalator clauses for the Yankees and Angels, as well as the Mariners’ purchase of ROOT Sports Northwest, which could put the M’s on the same level as the Red Sox, who own NESN. The Dodgers’ new deal alone adds more than $44M to the shared revenue pool. That will add about $1.47 million to every MLB team’s bottom line. Now what happens when we put these estimates next to 2013 payrolls? Suddenly, the number of teams that can cover their payrolls with TV money alone rises from 3 to 12, and most of them are small market teams. Sure, teams like the Athletics will have to keep Moneyballin’ to remain competitive, but they will benefit greatly from the additional $27.6 million generated from new TV deals. So will the Braves, Pirates, and Rays. They can keep their teams intact and perhaps make a run at the playoffs. More of these big local deals are coming. The next TV deal for the Phillies, whose current deal with Comcast expires in 2015, is expected to be worth almost triple the $35 million they’re getting now. On top of that, the Cardinals, Cubs, Diamondbacks, Rays, Rockies, Tigers and White Sox could all see increases in their TV deals in the next 5 years. Of course, these local TV deals will only go up as long as cable and satellite TV subscribers are willing to foot the bill for them. Right now in and around Houston, TV carriers and baseball fans alike are rebelling against the Astros and Comcast. Is that merely a reaction to an owner who doesn’t seem to care about winning, or will we see more fans start to reject these added costs on their cable bills? The next few years could be quite telling.
If all those numbers are correct, MLB salaries in general are about to head way up with the added revenue. The divide between the haves and have nots is gonna grow
He is putting out a team that has no shot to compete. There are other teams who have built great farm systems without having to be the laughingstock of baseball. By competing it doesn't mean being a contender, it means having a decent shot a winning a ball game which this sad sack team does not have on a night to night basis. The team has sucked balls for 3 years already.
I don't think you fully appreciate how bad the farm system was from top to bottom before the team started this process. The farm system was gutted. There were no you stars that were going to come up. The players at the major league level were not getting it done and were aging. The team was going to end up being very, very bad. Without using trades to build up the farm, they would never turn it around. At least now, a lot of baseball people around the country think that the Astros will be good in a few years.
I'd like to see what CSN Houston's books look like these days. Seems like they cut the team a big paycheck without first making sure the Network could generate the revenue to pay the team.
You don't have to be historically bad to build the team back up. This isn't the NBA where the No 1 pick could turn the team around. You don't put a **** team on the field and then raise ticket prices to see the good teams. I understand what the are doing, I just think they are doing it the wrong way by not giving their fans much to watch. We are finding out now why MLB was so wary about giving Crane a team.
Yeah I do realize how bad it was and I didnt say the trades were all bad. Our payroll is so low that we could have filled in with decent free agents at positions we are awful at these days. There are also Baseball People who think the Astros are stooping to an embarassing low level to tank for the No 1 pick every year.
Anyone arguing that the approach of building up the farm system isn't the right one doesn't know what they are talking about. The overall "system" is obviously heading in the right direction. I do agree that we should have added a few more solid pieces just to have a more competitive team this year, especially another middle of the road starting pitcher. We are 7-11 when Norris or Harrell start, 4-20 when anyone else throws. Being bad and drafting high (and well may I add) is great, 4-20 is a disgrace though. As i've said before, the key will be Crane. Will he spend when the time comes, or just rake in huge profits. I know some have stated they "know" he will spend at the right time, others have said he won't. . .none of us really know yet though
The money advantage when picking number one under the new cba is huge. If you don't understand that then whatever.
Sorry, but being a 75 win team and therefore having no advantages moneywise in the draft due to not picking top two is very idiotic. You gut it down under this new cba to get the money advantages and multiple top prospects. This is what they've done and will do until their target year which is probably 2015 or 2016.
Yes, or until never and just rake in hundreds of millions. Only time will tell what this jerk really has planned
Signing a mid level free agent or two and winning an addition 10 to 15 games won't solve the overall problem and would probably prolong the rebuilding process.
There is zero leverage left for CSN/Astros/Rockets after these comments. My guess is something gets done pretty quickly. I think it's interesting timing considering Postolos is gone now.
Crane wasn't around when the initial deal with the Rockets and CSN was put together...that was Drayton. It's clear to me that CSN/NBC drives the ship in these negotiations...I read that in the comments here and in previous articles..and common sense tells me they're the experienced party in negotiating carriage rights deals, as this is playing out in other cities around the country. The Rockets/Astros aren't in the business of negotiating deals with Uverse, Suddenlink, etc.
I think you're right. There are only two ways this plays put from here: 1. A deal gets worked out at something approximating an average RSN rate, or 2. This drags out until continuation of the network becomes financially infeasible. I hope it is the first option...and quickly.
On the first part, If you have read my posts you know that is exactly what i've been saying for quite some time. We have no idea what he has planned. Some think he will spend when the time is right, some think he won't, but until that time gets here we have no idea... As for the jerk part, i'm not assuming anything there, he has more than proved that he is a jerk, I won't waste time typing all of the proof he has given us
Starting to sound like #2 is approaching much faster than they thought possible. Which kind of makes me smile I do hope a deal gets worked out though, and soon
