The key is "right now" - he's not remotely concerned about that, and rightfully so. The brand was already destroyed by McLane's last few years and Crane is in a long-term rebuilding plan. If it works, then 3 years from now, no one will care about the CSN-H disaster or how people perceived the team in his first 2 years of ownership.
And taking a bad long-term deal is good for the brand? Houston fans will almost always support a winner... and getting the best long-term deal is the best chance they have to become one.
This x100000 if he takes a bad long term deal that means he's at a competitive disadvantage with other teams in that division for the next 20 years, then he'll be judged far more harshly for that than he ever will for one year of crappy CSN Houston.
The long term deal is not out there with the other carriers. its just not, the money is drying up. we've already discussed this in this thread and I think there is consensus on that.
I'm so tired of hearing about this "bad long term deal." You're letting Crane and the Astros hoodwink you
Rightfully so?????? His long term plan shouldn't include pissing off large chunks of his fan base with stupid comments, boorish behavior and depriving many of them of the ability to watch the team. Crane is alienating his business partners like comcast who he will need at some point. The owners didn't really want this guy as an owner and now it's obvious why.
a 20 year deal...relative to what other teams in the division have already obtained. in a sport where they don't really share those local media dollars. what am i missing? I don't mean that like a jackass, I'm asking seriously. Local TV dollars may be the single most significant stream of revenue that an MLB franchise earns.
New article up if you have a Chron subscription.....I don't: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/spo...laim-of-a-dire-future-4899096.php?cmpid=btfpm
And if he builds an organization that puts forth a winning product at the major league level, no one will remotely care if his stupid or boorish.
What you are missing is that you are buying the narrative that a deal other than the one he wants is a "bad deal" when it isn't. The Astros are not going to be at a competitive disadvantage against teams in their division unless it's by choice. An apples to apples comparison with FSN for the Rangers doesn't work.
Not sure I understand. The M's have a deal with Root that's worth a ton. The Rangers and Angels both have great deals. I would assume our local media deal will always be smaller than the Angels just given the size of the LA market. Why is the apples to apples comparison with the Rangers not appropriate?
The only report we have of it is from Crane...who says it was about 50 cents on the dollar of what Comcast told him they'd be bringing to the table. And that those offers only came in a handful of times over the course of the last year or so.
