Start winning games? This team has been winning games and is in the hunt for the division nearly every year. To bring in a "stud" is likely to cost singificantly more than the $6 million left before going into losses. Even sell-outs aren't likely to produce more than $2.5 million for the year in additional revenues. So, if you can get a "stud" for $8.5 million, you might break even financially... of course, that's a huge risk, especially if the team doesn't manage to singificantly change the course of the team's win/loss record (and one person is unlikely to change that much, especially in the regular season. The Astros have been competitive during the regular season for the past several years and sell-outs have not been the norm. Signing one of the best player in baseball at $25 million per season didn't translate into a season of sell-outs up in Arlington. I don't see how signing someone who would earn $8.5 million would translate into that many extra seats sold). In reality, the one $8.5 million salary that is added is probably not going to change either the overall win/loss record or the overall attendance that significantly. So risking taking financial losses in exchange for something that is unlikely to make that much difference either on the field or at the gate is not only bad business, but it's bad baseball.
Couple things here. First off, the Astros may be winning games, but going 6 games above .500 is hardly anything to be proud of. We are going back with the same lineup as last year, meaning, no improvement. If we want to be competitive, there needs to be a change, specially with the fact that the Mets have Glavine and the Phillies have Thome and Bell. We will be fighting against them for the Wild Card. As I stated earlier, on average, the days that Oswalt or Miller pitch generate larger crowds than when Hernandez pitches. So, bringing in Colon may cost our owner some money, but he would get it back because attendance will increase on days that he pitches. On top of that, having a 1-2-3 punch of Colon, Oswalt, and Miller would do wonders in the playoffs. Now, after all these years that Drayton has lost millions upon millions, whats wrong with breaking even? Besides, when he sells the team, I doubt he will need to worry about the 1 million he lost here or the 2 million he spent on that guy. Getting a Colon into your starting lineup will definitely get you more wins than losses. There will be an immediate improvement in record. After Miller and Oswalt, our next best pitcher was Carlos Hernandez. He was 7-5. A trio of Colon, Oswalt and Miller easily gives you 50+ wins from 3 pitchers. That doesnt translate into just a few more wins, the win/loss record will change significantly. Its worth the investment.
You are absolutely POSITIVE that they will average 17 wins EACH next season? Wow...that's pretty bold.
First, I was going on the Forbes numbers which show he hasn't been losing money. If you want to go on the assumption that he's been losing money, then spending more is going to mean losing more than he's been losing. The small additional amount brought in will not offset the additional salaries even if every game of the season is sold out (and those extra folks buy the average amount of concessions). And if you can convince the next owner to go ahead and give Drayton the money he'll be getting when he sells the team now to offset the losses, then I'm sure Drayton would be happy to spend it now, as long as the overall price of the team increases at least by the amount he spends. $1 a year from now (or five years from now or whenever) is not worth $1 today. And who's to say that the Astros would be worth more when Drayton sells as a team that loses money (and may or may not win any more games than it does now) than it would be as a team that consistently makes a small profit while still managing to win the division often and conpetiting for the division nearly every year. If taking losses now doesn't translate into increased gain down the road, then why do it? Nobody has bothered to explain that. The arguments seem to always be that Drayton will get the money back when he sells the team, but that's not true unless the losses he takes now are offset by the increased value of the team. If the Astros are worth $360 million on January 1, 2004 by staying the course and keeping the budget where it is, then the Astros would have to be worth at least $368 million to make up for the lost profit and actual loss the team would take on to sign a Woody Williams-type (actually more since $8 million today is worth more than $8 million on Jan 1, 2004). Is signing a Woody Williams-type going to increase the value of the team by an additional $8 million after next season? If not, then Drayton hasn't made back that money at all. It's like if I buy a house for $100,000. Five years down the road, that house as-is is worth $150,000. If I add a new pool for $20,000, I'm not going to get that $20,000 back unless I can sell that house for $170,000. Saying I'll get my money back because I'll get $150,000 (which is $50,000 more than I originally paid) is incorrect because I would get $150,000 without spending that additional $20,000 on the pool. If I spend $20,000 on a pool only to sell the house for the $150,000 it was worth anyway... or even $160,000, I've actually come out behind what I would have had I not spent the money on the pool.
No, he wouldn't. As I've already said, even if every single game of the season sells out and those people spend about the average amount on concessions, the amount of additional revenue would not offset even Bartolo Colon's current salary. Slightly increasing attendance on only days that Colon pitches would not come anywhere close to offsetting his salary.
I wasnt assuming, I was basing this off comments from Drayton. He has stated that he has lost millions upon millions of dollars. So, if he really hasnt, then the hell with him. Now, you would be correct here. But, you never stated that the $20,000 pool may have made you $25,000.
What about the fact that we would get 50 or more wins from 3 starters? That almost guarentees playoffs. With playoffs come more revenues. With a 1-2-3 punch in the playoffs, come championships.
You aren't going to get 17 wins from each of the starters. It just isn't going to happen. Colon has won more than 17 games twice in his career. 1999 and 2002. Other than that the closest he has come is 15...most season right around 14. Miller has NEVER won 17 games in a season. He's young, so it could happen...but I wouldn't necessarily count on it this year. Oswalt won 14 in 2001 and 19 in 2002. I think we could see him win 20 next year. A better estimate would be 40 games or so.
With the Astros lineup, Colon could get 15 wins. Oswalt could get 20. Miller could get 15. Thats 50 games and being generous with Colon's win total.
I knew what you were basing it on, but your comment was based on a different line of reasoning that I was going from. I was merely noting that I was not going from that line of reasoning and using the Forbes numbers which show a small profit. If we use Drayton's numbers, we're going to be looking at something different. Okay. So prove it to me. Show me how taking on a loss makes a baseball team worth more money than it would already have been worth... and that the value increases are larger than the losses. Prove it. You can't prove it. You can't prove it because it isn't true. If anything, taking losses can make a team worth less money than it would've been worth had it been making small profits. You can't prove that signing a mid-level player is going to make any difference at the gate or in the revenue column. You can't prove that what the Astros have to give up to get a Bartolo Colon won't end hampering the Astros in the future (Not that I'm personally against getting Colon, but I think we have to be honest that getting Colon may not end up making the team that much better. Randy Johnson didn't end up making the Astros that much better. I have little hope that Colon is going to be a bigger difference-maker than Johnson was. And I think we shouldn't pretend that any money spent on Colon or anybody else is going to magically come back to Drayton at some other date because that's unlikely to happen). Until you can prove that any money spent now will actually be made up in the future, you shouldn't really be claiming it to be true. Past history shows that it isn't true.
In regards to extra playoff revenues: The Astros would have to go at least six games into the NL Championship Series to make up for signing a Woody Williams-level player (salary-wise). The Astros have never done that.... not even with Randy Johnson. Again, this is where the risk/reward comes into play. We'll never be able to show a solid financial reason as to why Drayton should spend more money than he is now because of the very small chance it could payoff on the bottom line later on (either through increased revenues or through the extremely unlikely event of increased team value or any number of other ways). The truth is that financially, Drayton's likely best course of action is to just spend what he does spend and take his small profit. The one and only reason to justify spending more is to increase the potential of more wins (which may or may not happen). It cannot be justified through dollars and cents.
This is baseball, for crying out loud. Its a freakin game. Whats the point of owning a team if you arent going to make strydes to make the team more competitive? Sure, an owner isnt in this business to lose millions, but you gotta draw the line somewhere. Taking on a loss now could easily turn into gains later. You wont know until you do it. The name of the game is taking risks. Why wouldnt Drayton just drop his payroll to around 30 million? He would make a killing that way. But, the reason you spend more money is to become more competitive. Taking on a loss now could make your team more competitive. Take a risk now and hope it pays off. If it doesnt, then you are in the same position as 29 other owners. By the same token, you cant prove that a mid-level player wont make any difference. Getting Barolo Colon may hamper the future, but it could also give the team the boost it needs to win it all. That would make the money spent on him well worth it. Then why is it that teams like the Phillies are offering HUGE contracts? There must be a reason behind it all.
Also, you keep referring to 8 mil spent on Woody. That is a huge rip off. Im talking about the 5 million Colon made last year. Big difference between what Woody could do and what Colon could do. Paying Colon 10 million/year is much more beneficial that Woody at 8 mil/year.
No he wouldn't. Just ask the Expos. Drayton is keeping salaries high enough to remain a competitive club...but not so low that there isn't anything to pay to see. It's called responsible business. There was a business in Houston that ran their finances with reckless abandon...it was called Enron.
What you are advocating is reckless finances in the business that is baseball. Just because the ballpark used to be named for Enron doesn't mean they have to run the team like it was Enron.
No. That's not your point. Your point is to lose millions on the chance that it will return millions later. Take a risk because it might (or might not) pay off.
Well worth it to you. It might be well worth it to the person who has spent millions he won't get back. And I don't have to prove that trading for Colon or signing a Woody Williams-type wouldn't pay off. I've continually said that it may or may not make any difference. My whole point is that the risk is higher than the potential reward. Yes, it could pay off in the win column, but the chances are that it won't mean anything more than a first-round playoff exit. There were 13 teams that spent more than the Astros in 2002. Of those, five made the playoffs. Of those who made the playoffs, three exited in the first round. Another exited in the Championship Series. So only one made it to the World Series.... and lost. Spending more money is a bigger risk than you're making it out to be. As a matter of fact, an extra eight wins (Colon's predicted 15 vs. Hernadez' 7 from last season) would've seen the Astros on the outside of the playoffs, too. They lost the division and the Wild Card by more than that. Because there are so few playoff spots and so few Championship Series spots and World Series spots, the odds are always going to be against any team accomplishing those things. That's why the "may or may not happen" is such a good qualifier. You and other people have mentioned several times that if Drayton just adds someone (Colon, in your case), these riches will flow from increased attendance because of more wins, playoff revenues, etc. But, statistically speaking, the more likely result is that the team does only marginally better at best and doesn't go any further into the playoffs (or to the playoffs at all) than they otherwise would have. I mention the risk that these increased wins, higher attendance, etc. might not happen to balance out your insistence that it will. And at least I have the decency to say it may or may not happen (even though it's more likely that it won't, so I should say that these things "probably won't happen" instead of casting it as a more even shot).
