but they didn't have hawkins when they traded for wolf. the rotation does not pitch deep into games - even mohler, who's probably been our most consistently effective pitcher, hasn't gotten beyond the 6th inning in 10 of his 15 starts. so the bullpen was being taxed; they had to address it. otherwise, they were going to wear down (possibly kill) brocail. a middle reliever was a priority with or without the acquisition of wolf. you all keep acting like it's $40M - it's less than $4M for 2 players!!! it's a drop in the bucket and i can't imagine it having any long-term impact, especially considering they've signed, like, all but 4 of their draft picks this year. you've made up an assumption and are now arguing it; we have no idea how mcclane allocates his money or whether he incorporates a rob peter to pay paul policy with it. if he had said, "i'd rather spend this money on wolf and hawkins then wasting it on scouts" - ok; it's not good. as long as the major league activity is not in any way derailing the rebuilding of the farm, i'm not going to be too concerned. and the cat - where are you, man? i have to do this all by myself??!!?
Even if you just assume that it's just a one time 4 million dollar hit that won't have any repercussions on any other budgeted area. The astros would still be better served to use that one time 4 million hit to invested in another area that will hasten the rebuilding effort.
hawkins has been an effective reliever; none of these guys have. if the idea is to try and be competitive, they're gambling hawkins can have a greater impact. look, i'm not defending the move, per se; i just don't think it's worth b****ing about. he's not costing you much money (especially if NY is helping); the prospect you dealt wasn't a part of your future; there will be no short- or long-term consequences... and the upside is maybe he has some gas left and he helps us secure a .500 record - what's the harm????? if we had jonathan papelbon wasting away at round rock or if drayton announced that hawkins' acquisition would require a ticket increase... i could understand the piss and vinegar. but it's a cheap play to hopefully finish strong. i'm just at a loss why people are complaining that the team - whether they're good at it or not - is trying to be competitive and win games. it's like i'm on bizarro planet, or something.
this makes no sense!! go back and reread your first sentence: if we assume the deals have no "repercussions on any other budgeted area"... then why are you assuming they will have repercussions on any other budgeted area????????!!!!!?!??! like major, you're making up an assumption and then getting upset about said made-up assumption. my guess is that if another aspect of the baseball operation needed $4M, that a) mcclane, if properly persuaded, would pony up; and/or b) mcclane would have nixed these deals if, say, latin american operations needed it. again, it's (likely) not this one lump sum of cash he uses to fund the entire organization.
look, i'm not defending the astros up and down. but i understand what seems to be their thought process and it's really not that egregious, imo. they have 3 of the best players in baseball (all with NTCs): is it worth blowing that up to start from scratch when you don't have anything in the pipe to help supplement or expedite the rebuilding process? they showed in may that if everone is clicking, they can be a good team. so next winter, they add some parts: maybe a sheets and/or a garland; maybe towles or bourn gets straightened out; perhaps oswalt bounces back to form; maybe wandy finally puts it all together; maybe pence makes the leap.... i mean, it's not inconceivable that this nucelus can be the foundation of a good, competitive team. as long as they don't start mortgaging the future again, this is likely the best course of action for the major league team; it beats a roster of jason lanes and runelvys hernandez, which is what you'd have if you started from scratch - with no guarantee it'll get better any time soon.
Because they, we can safely assume (like every other single team is baseball) , do not have (and have reached) a cap on what they can spend on player development and talent acquisition. (i.e. international signing). Because there is no cap on how much they can spend in these areas, they can therefore spend more. I assume even you won't argue this point? correct? Therefore, whether or not it affects the planned budget in these area, it still could be alternatively used in these other areas because there is not a capped amount of money that is spent. see above for the answer. get the concept?
Except it's not really much of an assumption. I guess if Drayton doesn't understand Business 101, then maybe he doesn't do things that way. But assuming he's not simply crazy, then he didn't just throw $4 million of his own money away in the hopes of winning 2 or 3 more games this year. That money will come from somewhere, and it's not going to be his pocket. We have no idea WHERE the money will come from, but at the end of the day, it's going to come from somewhere else in the Astros' budget. There are only two options here: 1. He's willing to lose $4 MM for the chance to finish 4th instead of 5th. 2. That money is coming out of the Astros' budget. He's enough of a businessman not to do #1. I guess there's one other option - most disturbing of all - that Drayton is actually convinced that Hawkins and Wolf give this team a legit chance for the playoffs, and thus the $4 MM out of his pocket is to make the playoffs. But in that scenario, we have a really, really delusional owner which doesn't bode well at all for the future. But beyond that, if you have $4MM to spend on Hawkins and Wolf, then you were better off spending that money on developing the farm system; adding scouts; expanding your academies; signing Latin American players; etc. Even if you think the prospects were crap, I don't see how it's possible that this trade doesn't hurt the rebuilding process. Any money you spend on this season takes away from money spent on rebuilding.
On this - what do you think the team's minor league budget is? Including running the academies and all that? Even if it were $20 MM a year (and I'm guessing it's nowhere close to that), that's a 20% increase in your minor league budget. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things at the major league level, but it certainly is on the minor league level.
To explain it further with examples. What you are saying (and correct me if i'm wrong) is that, for example, lets assume that Drayton has a 2 million dollar annual budget for signing international. you are arguing that if he spends 4 million on the mlb club over it's projected budget it shouldn't matter if it doesn't affect the 2 million on international signings. correct? What i'm saying is that the team's spending on international signings isn't limited to 2 million per year even if their initial budget was. They can spend 3 million, 5 million, 10 million... While the 4 million addition to the mlb club doesn't affect the planned budget to the international signings, it could have been used to augment that area's budget, which would provide a greater benefit to the organization.
exactly; so why are you capping it? other than it gives you something to gripe about, LOL... there's no reason to assume the acquisition of wolf and hawkins (especially at their prices) is in any way, shape of form negatively impacting any other part of the organization. besides, organizations don't operate like that. if he has a $16M budget for international scouting and $100M budgeted for the major league roster... if he ends up only spending $95M on the roster, he doesn't then apply that $5M savings to some other part of the operation.
or... he's budgeted $120M for the major league roster and was sitting at $115M a week ago. possible? again, you're making as assumption - with no way of verifying it - and then getting upset about it.
i have no idea; but if he's budgeted $20M for his minor league operations and... $150M for his major league operations and then ends up spending $20M and $145M, resppectively... he's probably putting that $5M in his pocket or applying it to other areas of the team where's he incurring losses to try and balance things out. the problem is your and DD's position assumes he's taxed out and over budget in every single area of the team/operation. pretty large assumption, wouldn't you agree?
Sorry, I'm here. My first instinct is to be critical, as I was after the Wolf deal. But the more I think about it, the more I can't recall in recent years when money has been a stumbling block for McLane. Rebuilding isn't going to happen; we all need to just accept that, until there's a new owner. And Ric makes excellent points -- if Oswalt returns to form, this team has a nucleus that would win, with more spare parts. Sure, this team is throwing away $4 million on a wasted season -- but when's the last time that $4 million made a difference? If anything, the reputation of this team the last few years has been for overpaying, not lowballing. It's bizarre, but it's Drayton's money -- not ours. I do agree that the criticism is a little excessive given that most people are talking in hypotheticals of how it could negatively impact the team, instead of giving concrete examples.
The budget is irrelevant though - that's not how a business works. The actual money is what matters at the end of the day, while the budget is just for planning. The money is in the bank account. It's either going to get spent or it's going to be net profit to him. Let's say your example is true - Drayton was planning to spend $120MM but only had allocated $115MM. One of the following things is true: #1: He was going to make $5 MM more in profit than he had planned; and now he's not. Meaning he just threw away his own money to go from 5th place to 4th place, which gets back to my scenario #1 and is highly unlikely unless he's just stupid. #2: He was deadset on spending that money somewhere - in which case, all of the things I listed (scouts; academies; etc) are better places to spend the money. Regardless of the scenario, spending that money on Hawkins and Wolf is the worst thing you can do.
Except it doesn't require any such assumption. All it requires is that he understands the basics of business. Even if he has excess money, he can take that as profit. If he makes $5MM more this year, he can afford to take $5MM less in profits next year. We saw that in reverse in the 1990s when he upped payroll and accepted losing money in the late 1990s knowing he'd recoup it when the new stadium was ready. You can't just look at one year independently.
well there's HIS cap; if he has $10M budgeted, he's not gonna necessarily add $4M to it if he winds up with a surplus is some other area. hopefully, they've determined that $10M will be enough to get done what they need to get done.
Would you rather have Russ Springer in our bullpen than not? $4 MM can buy one elite setup man or two pretty good ones. For a bullpen that sucks as bad as ours does, $4 MM would make a huge difference there.
major, why do you consider having an owner who'd rather finish in 4th place than 5th place a bad thing? sincere and honest question; i'd like to know what your problem with it is. i know at the end of the day, every place but 1st place is irrelevant. but if he's willing to take risks and spend money so he can finish 4th not 5th, doesn't that bode well for when we're perched in 2nd place and looking to get over the hump? is the alternative - not caring where you finish if it's not first - better? again, as long as he's not negatively impacting what has to be his top priority (rebuilding the farm), i not only don't have a problem with it, i admire it.
