From your list, I think it is safe to say that the better run organizations over the last 5 or so years have been the A's, Rays, and Cardinals, in no particular order. And you can call them "cheap," but I see them as being a lot more efficient and smart with their money than others. Boston, Texas, Los Angeles (both really), and the Yankees have had most of their success due to their essentially unlimited budgets. Obviously, we don't have that luxury - so they really shouldn't be a comp. I think the Cardinals are the best comp for us - and that is going to be in 2-3 years when we are realistically (hopefully) ready for sustain success, to spend wisely when the time is right. The Cards made smart moves by signing Beltran to a great contract, and they also committed a sizable chunk to Yadier Molina. I personally thought that that was an overpay at the time, but I think his play thus far is proving me wrong. And the Cardinals made the right decision in letting their franchise player and one of the best players on the planet (when healthy) walk away via free agency. Are Cards' fans complaining about how cheap their owner is now? Nope, and you know why? Because they have a strong pipeline of talented players, and their offense hasn't really skipped a beat. That's a testament to Luhnow and the rest of the Cards' front office that created that group of talented players. So are we really saying that losing about 2 additional months of a very talented player in Springer is equivalent to letting Albert freaking Pujols walk away in free agency? Putting it all in perspective, it really shouldn't matter if Springer is called up now or is our Opening Day CF. And since there are financial AND 40 man roster incentives to do so, why is this argument still going on? And to your point, I don't think the Astros are trying to "emulate" anyone. There is no perfect comp for us to go by, as both our major league roster as well as our minor league talent was really barren when Luhnow and company took over. And I think and hope that Luhnow, Sij Medjal, and company are smart enough to not rely on how other people did it, and that they can figure it out for themselves. They are doing something no team dared to - and although the early dividends are positive, we won't know how successful this plan will be until another 3 years minimum. For you, me, and all Astros' fans here - let's hope that it is a resounding success.
It isnt quite that simple. A long history of losing will eventually catch up to the Astros, result in less fans watching and attending the games and lower payouts from television, sponsors, etc. Further, this isn't the first time we have seen something like this, the Marlins and Clippers among other professional teams have cashed in with poor teams and low payrolls. If the Astros are still not spending money in 2-3 years, then it is a sign something is really wrong.
They're smart with their money because they have to be. They don't have the resources via their stadiums or their TV deals to be any other way. The Astros shouldn't be in that sort of financial pickle. And nobody wants them to pretend that they need to be either. The main concern is that there really isn't anything in place to prevent them from being "cheap" even though they don't have the same financial constrictions of other teams. The key is that they need to be able to re-sign their own young star free agents. The Cardinals had already re-signed Pujols to his first mega contract when he was more than worth it, and they have done the same with Holliday, Carpenter, and Molina. Astros need to do the same when their players are up for contracts. There's also no reason, market-size wise, that the Rangers should be able to consistently have a higher payroll than the Astros.
It is Bud Selig's fault we are in the AL. Most of the blame for everything else is on Drayton and the people he has had in the front office.
Agreed with just about everything you said (although I don't have enough information to either agree or disagree about your last claim, that there is no reason for the Rangers to have a higher payroll than us). So if we are both in agreement, what exactly is your argument? Regarding locking up star players - those opportunities really haven't presented themselves yet. So do you just have a hunch that Crane will be cheap in the future? I guess you don't think he'll spend money when the time is right. And I think he will, if it makes sense too. Neither of us can be proven right or wrong, until it actually happens (in like 2 or 3 years). So what's the point of arguing hypotheticals? Again, this is probably just a by-product of having a bad MLB team at the moment.
I disagree. I would rather Crane make mega money now and pay off his debts than spend now for meaningless wins and NOT be able to sign big time players when it counts in 3-4 years because he didnt trim his debts earlier. If we had spent 50M more on payroll and it got us 10-12 more wins this year, we would still be among the worst teams and be 50M poorer besides. Now if it turns out that Crane piddles away these easy profits now and tries to justify not spending when it does count, then Houston has a problem indeed.
The Astros are milking the system. That doesn't mean that there isn't something wrong when there appears to be an economic incentive to lose.
If you mean that there is something wrong with MLB, then there is a point to be made. My contention, and the one that means the most to me at present, is that there is nothing wrong with Crane or the Astros on this matter.
Not a hunch... just a concern. Its a concern of all the current "small" market teams... the ones that routinely keep players in the minors longer in order to get out of sooner arbitration/free agency years. I don't want the Astros to be that sort of team... and their surrounding resources says they don't need to be. Its the concern that they may end up being more small market than their market dictates, as it may make better financial sense to do so. That being said, if they continue to earn this sort of revenue, and the CSN stuff ends up being even more profitable with them being a part owner, there's no way this city will let them get away with not re-signing their own guys, or spending money where needed. Around 5-6 years from now, when these sort of issues are going to be apparent, this team needs to have had a modicum of success... or else I don't see how anybody will continue to support a regime that takes about 10 years (with at least 3 #1 draft picks) to build a winner, while continuing to turn a large profit.
Maybe they don't have the resources of the yankees, cubs, or dodgers, but they should be able to spend as much as almost every other team. Houston is a pretty well off city. If they put a decent product on the field fans will show up. They are averaging close to 20k fans putting out a minor league team.
Agreed. That includes the Rangers (who were included in the "unlimited resources" group by the previous poster). Could always be worse. Fans in miami have never seen consistent spending (despite 2 WS titles), and now they're being penny pinched after putting up the bill for a new stadium that was supposed to curtail this sort of action... again, because the system is in place to make lots of $$$ without needing wins or fans.
This isn't a 5-6 year thing - this is a 2-3 yr thing. It's at that point where we should be seeing quality MiLB talent coming to the majors, and the team spending money to fill holes where there is a lack of talent. If you don't see signs of it at that point, something went wrong with "the plan" and things will likely change.
Was referring mainly to the resigning of our own important free agents, which likely will begin when Springer (and cosart/villar if their careers pan out) is up for FA. If the plan goes well, they're still likely going to have a very reasonable payroll even if they have to spend money to fill holes. Its when they have to start spending big-time money, and sign more than just a fill-in free agent here and there, that the spending capability will really be tested.
The Rangers have shown after the past few seasons that spending money is not an issue with them. I think it is not smart fiscal sense, as I feel that it will come back and bite them (see Elvis Andrus contract) and really hamstring their future finances. So although they don't have the "unlimited resources" as the Red Sox, Dodgers, or Yankees, it seems like they spend first, think later. So perhaps "unlimited resources" was not the best choice for me to use there. I think this is simply a timing thing, and that you might not be understanding all of the financial implications involved here. Crane and his partners bought the team just a few seasons ago, with a debt piece to it. So, from a business perspective, NOW is the best time to pay down that debt. For example, reducing our debt by $10M this offseason is better spent than on an average free agent. This is all about planning. Read jim1961's earlier posts, I agree with him, and he succinctly explains it. Either way, there really is no reason for us to continue to go back and forth. You have a concern about something that hasn't even happened yet. On the flip side, I don't share your concern. Neither of us can be proven right or wrong until roughly 3 years from now anyway, so until then, we'll agree to disagree.
