Number 185 on the Forbes 400 list...

No Les Alexander?

 

tom hicks makes about a quarter million less, yet spends more on his players. he pays a rod good, and chan ho good, and other guys good.

carl pohlad is pretty rich too. he should sign some players. I think the twins won the central because somebody has to win the central.

Drayton can sign a key big time big name free agent. he needs to quit being shiesty.

 

I have two questions...

1) Where is Steinbrenner??

2) If Drayton is the 2nd richest owner, why can we never afford to bring in big name free-agents?

Just two questions I was wondering.

 

Not makes. The Forbes number is an estimate of net worth not annual income.

People would argue, too, that an owner's net worth is irrelevant. The revenues the team brings in should dictate the expenses (and the Rangers bring in more revenue than the Astros, according to Forbes).

 

Not the second richest owner, the second richest single person to own a team. Corporations own several teams and are not included on the Forbes list of the richest people.

I, too, wonder why Drayton doesn't sell off personal holdings just to make fans who insist that he spend as much on payroll as teams who bring in significantly more revenue happy. I mean, what does he need with that big house. He should sell that and put it to payroll. Wal-Mart stock? That's a bad investment. He should, instead, sell it and use that to have lured Chan Ho Park to Houston instead of letting him get away to Arlington.

Of course, you don't get to be worth $1.1 billion by letting your companies run in the red. The Astros have a payroll that's in line with what the revenues of the team are. The Yankees are fortunate enough to have revenues that far exceed that of the Astros and, therefore, are able to spend singificantly more money on payroll.

What you should be asking yourself is why George Steinbrenner is so greedy. Despite having the highest payroll, his team still brings in far more profit than Drayton's team. He should be using that money toward adding payroll, shouldn't he? I mean, to be consistent, you should want every owner to spend more than his team brings in, right?

If I were Drayton, I think I'd just pull a Twins/Marlin and cut payroll to the bare bones and take big profits from the team. It's obvious that spending what the revenues dictate doesn't win any friends, so why bother? If the fans are going to complain and call you a cheap skate anyway when you run the team pretty darn near break-even, then he might as well make as much as possible. If fans are going to complain, might as well make some serious profits and fulfill what they already think of you.

I'm sure every one of us would sell our houses and our stocks and whatever other assets we might have to get some good free agents for the Astros. Too bad Drayton is too cheap to do the same. I guess he just has no respect for the fans.

 

mrpaige- You do know that there are certain things a billionaire can afford to do, more than most of the posters here right? Just checking...

 

The concept is the same, though, these people are complaining that the Astros (as an organization) don't go into debt each year in order to have a higher payroll (which may or may not translate into more wins, by the way). I suspect that none of us, if we were in the same position as McLane, would run the team any differently in regard to payroll. I'd venture to bet that many of us would actually spend less than the Astros do now knowing that unless Drayton pulls out an additional 4% to 5% or more of his net worth each year just to have a payroll that is near the top of the Majors.

And to do that, Drayton would have to sell off non-baseball assets. So you're really asking Drayton to sell off personal items or other investments just do you'll feel better about the Astros (and not necessarily to make them a better team. Spending another $40 million on payroll is not anywhere near a guarantee of on-the-field success).

But he's a billionaire, so he should sell off his personal assets to make the fans feel better. Baseball isn't about winning and losing, apparently. It's about how much your owner spends. Tom Hicks = Good Owner. Drayton McLane = Bad Owner.

I understand. I wonder if we could convince Hicks and McLane to consider trading franchises (of course, Hicks is going to be following a McLane strategy and cutting payroll to be in line with revenues because he can't afford to spend more than the team brings in anymore. But he's different because he's estimated to be worth $725 million. He should be willing to go personally broke to bring in some free agents and make the fans feel better.)

 

1) Where is Steinbrenner??


He spends more money than richer people than him. I've been saying this FOREVER.

 

But he doesn't go into debt to spend it. He spends it because the team brings in a good deal more than he spends. If Steinbrenner owned the Astros instead of the Yankees, you can bet the Astros payroll would not be markedly different. It might well even be lower if Steinbrenner required the same profit from the Astros as he currently gets from the Yankees.

EDIT:

Think of it this way. If we eliminated private ownership of baseball teams and had a system where the teams were owned by the citizens of the cities in which they play. Further, we pretend that every team has to breakeven at the end of each year. They cannot make a profit, nor can they post a loss. Using the Forbes numbers from the 2001 season, the Yankees owned by the citizens of New York would get to spend an additional $18.7 million on their team. That's on top of a payroll that's in the $120 million - $125 million range.

The citizens of Houston would get to punch up their payroll, too, of course, by $4.1 million to somewhere in the high $60s.

So Drayton McLane is a bad owner for not spending that additional $4.1 million that we'd spend if we collectively owned the team, while Steinbrenner is a hero even though he fails to spend an even larger amount of money that currently shows up as profit on his balance sheet.

(By the way, the Mets, Angels, Braves, Mariners, Giants, Cubs, Rockies, Tigers, Pirates, Brewers, Padres, Reds, Athletics and the aforementioned Yankees all had higher profits than the Astros in 2001, according to Forbes. Ten teams were willing to go into the Red: the Rangers, DBacks, Dodgers, Cards, Red Sox, Indians, Blue Jays, Devil Rays, Expos, and White Sox. Obviously, five teams made profits that were smaller than the Astros. Only three of the eight playoffs teams from 2001 had expenses higher than their revenues, according to Forbes - the Indians, DBacks and the Cards. The Astros had the lowest profits of the profitable teams who made the playoffs).

 

good post mrpaige. I'm tired of all the people b****in and moanin cause Drayton won't spend more on the club even though they probably never even watch the games on tv much less go to them.