As someone that has been critical that we didn't get a bat in past years, I would just like to say that Drayton has done a good job this year. When a team spends over a 100 mil and the third most in the major leagues, if they lose it isn't the owners fault. He has supplied a high budget team this year. Sadly, a lot of it is Bagwell's salary, but we all wanted him signed long term. I was critical of the Stubbs situation in the other thread, but even in that case he was willing to spend money (it was mlb not wanting him to that stopped it, if those rumors are true). Seems like those winning years have made him realize how important it is to spend money and win, hopefully it continues over the years.
Tough to argue, but why not. 1st - bank on Uncle D putting 1/2 Bags' salary back into the bank. 2nd - bank on Uncle D breaking even on Roger signing. 3rd - don't bank on Uncle D OKing the cost of a needed bat this season, drat-on.
How will he break even on Clemen's salary? An analysis was done and it was shown Clemens will only bring in an additional $750,000 assuming attendance increases in the same general vicinity as it did last year (~3500 per home game).
1) Any evidence supporting your claim that we should "bank" on the Astros recouping 50%? Or recouping anything at all? 2) Completely wrong. Not even close. 3) Payroll is already over 100 million. I think he's extended enough this season. There just isn't pleasing some people. Absurd. Our ownership is absolutely fantastic. They consistently provide a winning product.
#1 - the CW supports that opinion, which I accept. You don't have to. #2 - last year RC started with 'stros. This year tix will spike, and will carry over to other games. Again, I believe this to be true. You don't have to. #3 - play off revenues, if p/o realized, offset lots of salary.
He has done everything an owner could do to win on the field....now if those danged players would just start swinging those toothpicks on their shoulders.....
1) What is CW? 2) Let's analyze your reasoning. Last year, Roger Clemens started more games than he will get a chance to this year. So that will have a positive impact on the extra revenue he generates, because of a spike? Please clarify your position, it doesn't seem to make any sense. 3) Evidence of how playoff revenues offset a substantial amount of salary please.
Let's just focus on #2. Let's assume that the Astros overall attendance spikes for every single remaining home game based on what Clemens did last year. The study estimated that Clemens will bring in about $750,000 over 10 starts which amounts to $75,000 per game. The Astros have around 50 home games left. Multiply that by $75,000 and you get only $3,750,000 which is less than 30% of what Clemens gets paid. Again, please explain where the rest of the ~$9,000,000 will come from.
Drayton let Kent go over just a few million. His rbi bat might have got us over the hump last year in the WS. We'll never know. Drayton didn't offer Rocket arbitration last december. True, he might not have come back right away anyways. But he might have. If we had Rocket in our staff from the beginning of the season I think we would have a few extra wins.
I question that math, but even if I'm wrong with that I stick by the rest. And I don't buy the math. I am not hatin' on Drayt'n, I am just not leading his parade.
Why stop there? Start making excuses for all the signings: He let Roy have a bulldozer so he would only have to pay him $11 million instead of $14 million. He paid Lance $12 million a year only because he knew his commitment to fitness, healthy eating, and being a student of the game would rub off on the rest of the team. He gave Pettite a $30 million dollar contract only because he likes the host of Around the Horn (who looks just like him). He gave Bagwell his enormous contract only because he wanted to cash in on the enormous mid-90's goatee popularity.
Explain why you question the math. I think he's being majorly generous with the numbers. Explain the rest. Where are the numbers that indicate playoff revenue will make up for "alot" of salary. Explain what CW is.
Drayton "let" Kent go because the organization's financial status was tied up while waiting on the Beltran situation. Clemens broke down late last season. There is no indication that he wanted to come back. In fact, it's a logical supposition that Clemens wanted to come back later in the season to preserve his arm. Not offering him arbitration was a smart move regardless.
Of course, that means Burke - who had critical hits against both Atlanta and St. Louis - is not even on the team, and Biggio's defense in left field might mean we never get close to the World Series.
$75,000 per game = 3700 X $20. So, ticket + concessions = $20/head? All teams figure X$ per person in the park. The Astros' average is >, much > than $20. Every home p/o game in the NBA = >$1mm profit. What is it in MLB? Drayton talked about how last year's profit margin was all made in the post season. CW = conventional wisdom.
I beg to differ. That trend began during the '60's. I grew one in '67, and still have it. In fact, I've been married for over 25 years, and my wife has never seen me with a "shaved chin." Dammit, Drayton should have given me that contract Bags earned!
He's counting that as an attendence spike for each remaining game. Not likely. NBA irrelevant. What Drayton says to the media irrelevant.
I was simply posting the numebrs that the article a couple of weeks back posted. In 10 starts you would need an additional 1.2 million in revenue per game for Clemens to pay for himself. How do you arrive at that math? There is absolutely no freakin way that Clemens in and of himself will increase the Astros revenue by even 6 million. I did find one mistake in my original post. Clemens' starts last year did not bring in an additional 3700, it was 2700.
