Astros hot

I'm a big Astros fan. That being said, Drayton (like many owners) lament about lack of revenue, thus their inability to take on larger contracts.

They spin incessantly by claiming annual losses. They fail to discuss, however, that most owners recoup their investment exponentially upon the eventual sale of said team.

Meanwhile, taxpayers pony up public funds to 'ease the financial burden' of the organization via new ballparks, etc... not only does this aid in its primary goal of immediate 'in the black' viability, it also serves to raise the adjusted basis of the team.

Owners, for the most part, are well-versed in money-making. They didn't purchase the team solely for the love of the game. They ran the traps before they made such a huge investment.

My frustration as a baseball fan stems partly from the financial demarcation between large market and small market teams.

(thump).....sorry, that was the sound of me hopping off my soap-box.

Sorry for the tangent....the 'Stros are hopefully poised to make a move in the standings.


Aw heck, lets have pie.

 

Wrong forum...I opened this door, and I apologize.

Refman,

Let me clarify.

I don't believe the owners should be 'expected' to lose money during ownership. I also agree many teams are losing money. However, why are 'salaries escalating at a much higher rate than ticket prices'? Because the owners continue to make individual business decisions to pay them. They don't keep ticket prices lower than other major sports because of altruism, but because raising them in accordance with salaries would make it cost prohibitive for fans thus exacerbating their financial problem. Other sports, i.e. basketball, can better rely on corporate support in the form of skyboxes, etc. thus allowing them to raise ticket prices moreso than baseball. Of course Drayton's modus operani is to break even. I would hope so. My only points are (1) I am not going to take the owners' word with blind allegiance that they are in the financial straits they claim, and (2) if they are, sole responsibility for their condition ultimately falls back on them.

I agree that the financial state of the game has changed since 92'. However, owners are not unsophisticated businessmen. Do you really think they don't produce business models that are modified over time based on changing externalities? Drayton took a financial snapshot of the organization, capital assets, and the financial state of the game in 92'. He has obviously remained fluid in his business assessment. If the business is a financial albatross, no owner would remain for any length of time.

Although 'legacy' might be one reason for team ownership, its surely not primary. Of course, we can't know the EXACT motive of every owner....I do believe, however, that beyond whatever ancillary goodwill ownership might bring them in a community, a primary motive is usually (there might be exceptions, but I underscore 'usually') monetary in nature.

Finally, I'm confused with your assertion that owners should not be 'expected to lose money', but later you cite a reason for ownership being that they want a 'toy'? If it is your position that some owners have so much money that they can afford ownership simply to have a 'toy', then that seems to undercut any argument about financial instability.

Morover, you state that 'most owners knew that this was not a huge moneymaker right off the bat'. Uh, OK, coupled with your 'toy' comment, it sounds like you are saying that (a) they have so much money they can afford to buy a team just 'for fun', and (b) they knew they weren't in this for the money when they bought the team.

Reconcile those comments with the earlier 'owner's should not be expected to lose money during ownership'? If they weren't in this for the money and apparently had so much they could afford to spend a couple hundred mil on a franchise, then why aren't their pockets deep enough to absorb any short-term losses, thus eliminating the 'crying wolf' aspect of their laments?

 

Just because someone CAN afford to lose $10million dollars doesn't mean they WANT to or should be expected to.

There's a reason they have so much money ... it's generally because they don't like throwing it away.

However, why are 'salaries escalating at a much higher rate than ticket prices'? Because the owners continue to make individual business decisions to pay them.

Here's your fundamental problem. The owners aren't allowed to work together -- that's collusion. A couple of owners can afford to spend ridiculous amounts AND turn a profit (NYY, NYM, LA, etc).

What are the other owners to do?

(1) Spend money
(2) Lose and piss off your fans for not spending money
(3) Get lucky and win with less money

Some choose #1 (Texas, Cleveland), others choose #2 (Florida, Tampa Bay) and a few lucky ones fall into category #3 (Oakland, Houston).

However, outside of the lucky few in category #3 (not everyone can win), an owner either has to contribute to the problem or be a pissy "cheapskate" owner. That won't change until the system changes.

 

Major,

I agree with the fundamental problem you posed. I thought my post was too voluminous already, so I didn't go into that discussion.

If all of the owners make financial stipulations with each other, you are right, it is collusion. As it stands now, there is always at least one maverick owner who will pay the exorbitant salary that serves to set yet another bad financial precedent that other players will work off of. I don't disagree with that.

Just because someone CAN afford to lose $10M doesn't mean he WANTS to lose $10M....I don't disagree with that either.

When you said they 'have so much money because they don't like throwing it away' it serves to make one of my points: that these are men versed in making money. They are not derelicts who just 'lucked into' enough money to buy a team. They are in the ownership business because there are avenues for monetary gain. These include annual profits AND/OR realized gain upon subsequent sale of the team.

Read my posts. I never said I was against owners making annual profits. I think they should. As a matter of fact, they are more than entitled to it since they are the ones who took the financial risk in the first place.

ALL I said in my initial post before it was parced was that I disagree with the 'woe is me' line from the owners regarding annual losses. I question the veracity of the numbers that are released. I believe the big payday for these astute businessmen comes, at the very least, on the sale of the team. I believe they go into ownership knowing that. I believe they try, and have every right, to make yearly profits until the time comes to get out of the business and reap their gain. I also believe they throw up their hands and cry 'lack of revenue streams, so build me a new stadium', or 'I may have to take your team to another city, so build me a new stadium' in the meantime. Thats what I disagree with.

The system does have to change, though. Otherwise, the economic disparity between teams will continue to grow.

 

Doesn't matter how hot the 'Stros are. Once the postseason rolls around they will be made Atlanta's biotch again.

 

ALL I said in my initial post before it was parced was that I disagree with the 'woe is me' line from the owners regarding annual losses. I question the veracity of the numbers that are released. I believe the big payday for these astute businessmen comes, at the very least, on the sale of the team.

I agree completely with that. The owner's situation sucks, but they created it, and they'll reap the benefits if and when they fix it.

Doesn't matter how hot the 'Stros are. Once the postseason rolls around they will be made Atlanta's biotch again.


Unless we can avoid Atlanta somehow. My prediction is the day the Astros move into first is the last day before the strike.

 

but they're big boys...if they want out, let them sell the team. these aren't unsophisticated consumers who bought a bad vacuum cleaner from a used car salesman...these are men who spent lots of money and time studying these assets before they purchased them...and ultimately purchased them despite the inherent risks. I don't feel sorry for people who lose money this way. Should they be obligated to lose money?? absolutely not...should they be entitled to make money?? absolutely not.

for the record, i think drayton has easily been the best baseball owner this town has ever seen...but that doesn't entitle him to make money in an industry that has all sorts of flaws.

let me also say i'm not as convinced as you that all the owners who claim to be losing money actually are. and i'll say this...i really doubt the astros are losing money since they moved into the new ballpark.

 

refman -- i was just looking for an opportunity to argue with you! (just kidding!)

i agree with your point...to call Drayton cheap is a big stretch, at best. again...drayton can't swing the bat in the playoffs. he put together a team that got to the playoffs 4 of the last 5 years....if they had performed even half as well in the playoffs as they had during the regular season in 98, 99 or 01, they would have been at least IN the World Series.

 

did anybody see robert horry at the game?
or was that will smith?


i'll say thats bob horry.