Depending on what we have to give up, I think you have to seriously look at this deal. $15MM/per for just 2 seasons for his production is easily worth it. And if Bagwell does retire or Clemens is gone, the money is right there. A middle of the lineup with Abreu, Berkman, and Ensberg would be as good as any in the NL. The big question is what does Philly want from us.
I follow your reasoning above, but this part of it is quite the big assumption. It would be just as big for me to assume he comes back and jacks 35.
I was in a rush when I wrote that. I meant Bagwell's contract is off of our books at the end of this upcoming year. If all things are equal... The point is, we gamble for one year. If we dont win it all or come close, we can always trade Abreu the year after or even during the season. It is a $15 million gamble.
It's also not a huge gamble in the grand scheme of things. The big gambles are the 4-7 year deals where they really affect your flexibility in the long-term. I suspect McLane is much more comfortable with 1 or 2 year contracts like this, and rightfully slow. A bad long-term contract for a team with our size market can be a big drag (Richard Hidalgo), but a 2 year deal has no long-term drawback in terms of our competitiveness.
Hey, since we were talking about it yesterday I found this: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10136689/. Although the article can only be based in educated conjecture (since the books aren't open), it's conjecture I trust more than my own due to the sources it consults. It says that this season of success will most likely put the Astros "further into the black". That means, I guess, that they made money. I wonder how much? I wonder when the franchise got into the black? Of note is the concept of the franchise's value versus the concept of whether it's actually making money. Years ago, the value was up but McLane could have made money only by selling the team because it wasn't making money (only accruing additional value). Now it appears both fronts are looking very attractive. I want me some Abreu.
I think that even if Bags' contract is on the books this year....and we have to pay Roger....that we splurge. They are about to lose Wags....what about sending them Qualls and Lane?
obviously I am not a businessman, but dont companies frequently withhold dividends to reinvest into the business? that is all that I am advocating the stros do. we have played more games in the last two seasons than any other team which leads me to believe that we have accrued quite a bit of cash from being on national tv as well as the extra 20 or home games we have played yet the only increase in salary in the past two seasons was Rog's raise. oh yea and go foch yourself msn, there is no need to act all high and mighty in regards to me addressing the simple fact that yes, drayton could afford to spend more $.
How do you know that for sure? I have a hard time believing that there are NO owners that do that...espsecially the wealthier ones.
No, please expound. But can you provide more than one example? And no, it doesn't make good business sense.
It's an educated guess, and I believe it would prove out accurate. In the same way that you wouldn't expect your CEO to dip into his salary in order to get you a raise or a better Christmas bonus, no one should expect Drayton McLane to dip into his own finances for any salary. Where would the line be drawn?
That seems very plausible. If that's what you meant when you said, "McClain[sic] is either the richest or second richest owner in the game," then forgive me for misunderstanding. I'm sorry my retort came across as a personal attack. It's an argument (Drayton is rich so he should spend) that I get tired of because it's so wrong. I didn't mean for it to come across as flaming on you personally. If you meant that the man should dip into his personal wealth, then respectfully I believe you are dead wrong. If you meant something more akin to what you said above, that seems quite plausible. There is a difference between Drayton McLane and the Astros. If Drayton is rich, then good for him. If the Astros aren't making money, then they aren't. If they are, then I hope they trade for Mr. Abreu. Go Astros!
I dont think thats a good analogy ....Bonuses and salary are USUALLY based on production....at least after the 1st year. Also...when I had my own business, I used to give away MY personal Jets, Knicks, Nets tickets to employees who went above and beyond...or perhaps buy someone dinner if i saw them at a restaurant (out of my own pocket)....i know its a different extent but i would imagine what I did wasnt that uncommon...but it may not be the norm either.
But that's precisely it--based on production; not based on the depth of the owner's pockets. It's not uncommon to give gifts--Drayton bought Roy O a tractor (or so it was reported), but gifts and dinners do *not* equate to personnally funding salaries and bonuses.
Looked it up myself. Abramovich and European Football In 2003 he became the owner of the companies that control Chelsea Football Club in the United Kingdom. This immediately raised his profile in Britain where the tabloids noted the Russian connection by humorously dubbing the club Chelski. As soon as Abramovich took control, he poured massive investment into the Club, bringing to it the finest footballing and managerial talent that could be obtained, with money no object. The Club also embarked on an ambitious programme of commercial development, with the aim of making it a worldwide brand and not simply a local football club. The result was near-instant success: Chelsea finished its first season after the Abramovich takeover in second place in the Premiership. The following season they moved into first place and reached, also, the semi-finals of the Champions League. They are now the dominant force in English football. See main article Chelsea Football Club. This man's wealth utterly dwarfs McLane's. But notice the aim of his investments in the club: to turn it into a worldwide money-maker. He still isn't personally funding salaries just to do it; he's leveraging (hopeful) championships against a potential windfall of worldwide profit.
