please tell me you don't believe that Drayton McLane is actually losing money in Minute Maid Park. i defend Drayton all the time...but his claims that he's still losing money are absolutely indefensible.
The man owns like 600 mllion dollars. Hes like the 25th richest person in America. Whocares if he loses 1 million a year.
It hasn't been the lack of payroll that has prevented the Astros from hitting in the playoffs 4 of the past 5 years.
You gotta spend money to make money. Sure, we've been let down by Biggio and Bagwell, but that doesn't mean we couldn't have a good team in place. If we had payed Randy, If we had payed Kile(RIP), and with the emergence of Miller and Oswalt, there's no way we couldn't win the World Series last year.
please tell me you don't believe that Drayton McLane is actually losing money in Minute Maid Park. i defend Drayton all the time...but his claims that he's still losing money are absolutely indefensible. No, I think he's probably break-even or so. But if you increase payroll from $60MM to $120MM (as the initial poster proposed), you're going to take massive losses, because revenues aren't going to increase that much to cover the new costs. My $40MM estimate assumes maybe $20MM in extra revenues from all the hype over presumably acquiring some star free-agents, etc. Nobody -- including McNair -- is going to find that acceptable. Keep in mind that payroll *has* increased dramatically with the new stadium. Drayton increased it and took losses as soon as the stadium deal was approved -- those last few years at the Dome saw the payroll increase from the $30-35MM range to $50-$60MM. That was done knowing that the revenues would increase in 2000. Everyone just looks at 2000 to 2002, but no one considers that the payroll hike happened earlier than that. Houston has a bad TV deal -- that's the core problem. It's ranked something like 19th or 20th in the MLB. Part of that is due to the nature of Houston sports fans, part could be bad negotiations on the part of management. That still doesn't change the fact that Houston revenues aren't all that spectacular. The man owns like 600 mllion dollars. Hes like the 25th richest person in America. Whocares if he loses 1 million a year. Perhaps the reason he has $600 million is doesn't throw away money all the time.... It hasn't been the lack of payroll that has prevented the Astros from hitting in the playoffs 4 of the past 5 years. Exactly. This team has been more than competitive with its payroll. That may not last, but it shouldn't be an excuse for the last 5 years.
If we had payed Randy, If we had payed Kile(RIP), and with the emergence of Miller and Oswalt, there's no way we couldn't win the World Series last year. What good would they have done? Mlicki gave up *1* run and we lost 1-0. Would Randy have been expected to pitch a shutout? Miller pitched and we lost his game too. If the team can't score, it doesn't matter how great pitchers you have in place. We had arguably the best offense in the NL in '98, '99', and '01 (discounting Colorado). Spending money isn't the solution. Hitting the damn ball is.
Sure, we've been COMPETATIVE, but our division has always been considered the weakest, except for this year, but people have changed their minds about that. Teams that have won the World Series the last 10 years are all in the top ten in payroll. As long as there isn's a salary cap in baseball, you won't see teams with our budget winning the whole damn thing.
3 of those series were against the braves. Our hitters were dominated by guys like Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz. Why do the Yankees keep winning? They have good players at every position, not superstars, but very good at what they do. When it comes to pitchers, however, they have guys who could be aces on every other staff in the league. Do I need to name them?
3 of those series were against the braves. Our hitters were dominated by guys like Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz. I've never understood this argument. Other teams in the playoffs have no problem beating the Braves -- they've only won one WS in the last decade. The Yankees, Marlins, Padres, Cardinals, etc all have been able to score on and beat them. Yet they magically shut down our lineup every year? Every team in the league hits in the playoffs except the Astros. It has nothing to do with the fact that we face great pitchers because everyone does. Why do the Yankees keep winning? They have good players at every position, not superstars, but very good at what they do. When it comes to pitchers, however, they have guys who could be aces on every other staff in the league. Do I need to name them? Again, you ignore the fact that we had those players too -- we still lost. We had Randy Johnson in a 100+ win season. He went 0-2 because Biggio, Bagwell, Alou, Everett, etc couldn't hit. We had Mike Hampton in his superstar year. He went 0-1 because we couldn't hit. We had Darryl Kile in '97. Same story. Shane Reynolds, the most mediocre of the bunch, won our only 2 playoff games in the last 5 years. There's no reason to think having one of these pitchers last year would have made ANY difference because our pitching did just fine. At best, they would have replaced Mlicki, who gave up one unearned run. Would they have done any better? Not likely. At some point, the players have to learn to hit the ball just like every other team that wins in the playoffs does.
The fact of the matter is that if you do not shell out the money in baseball, you WILL NOT win. The Astros will never will unless they increase their payroll and bring in a couple of studs. Its that easy. Our payroll is 19th in baseball. There are 18 teams that have a higher payroll. Why can the other owners afford to do so?
The fact of the matter is that if you do not shell out the money in baseball, you WILL NOT win. The Astros have had the best team in the NL in 2 of the past 5 years ('98, '01). They were picked by many, many people (not fans) to reach the World Series. Unless you can tie their inability to hit in the postseason to low payroll, I don't see the connection. If their *highly paid players* had performed reasonably well in any of their postseasons (like other highly paid players do), they could have been World Series contenders. I don't see the connection to money there. I agree that there's certainly a correlation between money and wins -- money makes it easier to win. But the Astros over the last five years and Oakland the last few years have both proven that it's not absolutely necessary. That doesn't mean that the system shouldn't be changed, but you can't blame any of these teams' failures on lack of money. They had the best teams in the league and simply choked.
Our players choked. That is correct. But, if we had 2-3 more stars on the team, the probability of all the players choking would be less. Our chances of winning would therefore increase. Why is it that the Yankees dont choke? Its because they have enough good players where if some of their stars dont show up, the others can still step up and help the team win. We lack those "other" players. If Bagwell, Biggio, and Berkman dont show up to play, we will lose. However, if we added a couple more stars to the team, we would not always have to rely on the bats of the killer B's. Thus, our payroll increases and so does our chances in the playoffs.
The best regular season team is not necessarily best equipped for playoff success. The difference in a choker and a champ is the difference between Billy Wagner and Mariano Rivera. They're both great but one has that ability to raise his game while the other just keeps plugging away like he usually does. In the playoffs, you have to raise your game and the Astros are just not able to do that offensively. We have a bunch of mistake hitters.
Major - I agree entirely with you that you can't blame McLane for the playoff shortcoming of regular season all-stars.... but I don't think McLane just "broke even" last year or in 2000. We're talking about 3 million fans in attendance in 2000...there are a handful of clubs that have ever done that. If this weren't a money-making proposition, he wouldn't have ponied up for his portion of the new ballpark.
If Bagwell, Biggio, and Berkman dont show up to play, we will lose. However, if we added a couple more stars to the team, we would not always have to rely on the bats of the killer B's. Thus, our payroll increases and so does our chances in the playoffs. True, but since 1997, we haven't just been the Killer B's. In 1998/99, we had Alou, Bagwell, and Biggio all putting up all-star numbers. We had Hidalgo/Everett having good years. In 1998, Sean Berry at 3rd base was no slouch either. In 2001, we had Biggio, Bagwell, Alou, Berkman and Castilla all having good to great years -- that's 5 out of 8 guys. Those are about as good as you get. There aren't many teams with more firepower than that outside of NYY, who can buy whoever the hell they want. Atlanta had Paul freaking Bako as their catcher last year. I understand the idea of adding an extra bat or two, and agree that would be great. But regardless, the teams we did put out there had more firepower than any other team in the league those years. Ultimately, they have to shoulder the responsibility for collapsing. but I don't think McLane just "broke even" last year or in 2000. We're talking about 3 million fans in attendance in 2000...there are a handful of clubs that have ever done that. If this weren't a money-making proposition, he wouldn't have ponied up for his portion of the new ballpark. On the money-making issue -- much of the benefit of the new ballpark is simply that it drastically raised the value of the franchise. If he ever chooses to sell and assuming baseball doesn't collapse on itself, he will be able to make quite a bit of money. I'm only referring to annual profit / losses. On the 3MM fans thing, that's true. However, keep in mind that ticket prices were dirt cheap at Enron that first year (they have risen since but attendance has also dropped). For example, Ballpark at Arlington prices, I believe, were roughly twice that of Enron prices. 3MM fans at $20 a ticket is only $60MM in revenues. Comparatively, 2MM fans at $15 a ticket (estimate at the Dome) was $30MM -- that's a $30MM increase, but payroll increased $30MM (from $35 to $65) and rent prices increased. Those numbers are just estimates, but the ticket revenues alone I don't think bring that much of an extra profit.
Major, The fact that you are citing that the Astros increased their payroll from 30MM to 60MM is irrelevant. Every team in baseball has had that kind of an increase between that time. In 1995 the Astros had a payroll of 33.5MM. It is now 63MM. In 1995 the Yanks had a payroll of 58MM. It is now 126MM. Atlanta had a payroll of 46MM. It is now 93MM. Cleveland was 39MM. It is now 79MM LA was at 36 MM and now they are at 95MM Minnesota was at 15MM and now they are at 40MM Cards were at 28MM and now they are at 74MM ETC...... EVERY team pretty much at least doubled their payroll from 95 until 2002. MOST of them more than doubled. We on the other hand did not even double our payroll. The fact that Mclane raised the payroll is no big deal because every team in baseball increased their payroll by a greater percentage. Its called inflation my friend. Mclane is obviously oblivious to this fact.
major -- wait...he sold PSL's at Enron...and new luxury box revenues came in...and then he sold 3 million tickets. i'm sorry..i don't buy that he EVER lost money in the new ballpark for those given years. i'm just not buying it...and he ain't opening the books to show us, anyway.
Drayton is first and foremost a businessman. Be not mistaken. He is not losing money, and will not own and operate a business that is a loser - which a few ballclubs (namely those with inferior cribs and crappy media deals) are.
