Were the Astros always so cash poor? Forgive my ignorance, but I thought we were pretty much average when it came to how much we spent. It's only the last couple years I've heard talk of the Astros being strapped for cash and unable to sign free agents. Has this always been the case and I just somehow missed it? Or is Crane just not the spender McLane was? Recent comments from Crane make it seem like we're one of the cheaper teams.
Crane is full of crap. Not only does he physically resemble Roger Dorn in Major League 2, he runs the team like Dorn did.
(Ignoring the warning signs that led to the gross incompetence that led the Astros to be bullied into switching leagues as well as becoming one of the worst professional sports franchises North America has ever seen) How can there not be some level of incompetence/dysfunction when the Astros are the one's who entered into a deal that apparently is not workable for them? Are you saying they are simply victims?
Crane's net worth (low) and overall debt he took on to buy the franchise are playing into this. Drayton was able (and willing) to dip into his own personal wealth to ensure the franchise was going good... and once MMP was drawing 3 million fans a year, the team paid for itself... and helped spur the impetus to form a RSN. Crane doesn't have any of those luxuries. He's maxing out revenue at MMP by adding awful billboards and utilizing "dynamic" pricing on tickets. He's certainly saving on the big league club payroll at the moment because he doesn't "have" to spend. Without a lucrative TV deal, and with Crane's financial iffiness, the Astros may indeed be strapped for cash till the team improves enough to sell out every single night.
The market bubble for RSN's burst right around the time these negotiations for carriage began. They're still viable as a company because advertisers love live sports... they're less DVR-able, and there are plenty of games to feature advertising. However, cable/satellite companies no longer automatically want to pass on high carriage fees to every single subscriber, when only a small fraction of them want the games. Teams don't want to be on a premium tier because it lessens their exposure of what they previously had.
But isn't the speculation that the Rockets are fine with the deal? Financially, it appears to be workable for the Rockets. The Astros mistake was not doing their due diligence in assessing whether the deal was ever going to be financially viable in the first place. As well as having no foresight and being blind to their own deteriorating situation. Granted, **** happens...but given the way the organization has been run for the past decade it really isn't much of a surprise that they would screw the pooch on this. The Rockets mistake was partnering with the Astros' sinking ship.
Do you think the Rockets are fine with their games not being on TV anywhere? The Rockets signed onto a deal that gave a franchise with different interests - MLB teams are much more dependent on local TV revenue - control over the distribution of their product. Not only that, but they did so with total uncertainty as to who would own that team, because we've known for a long time that Drayton wa looking to sell. That's what makes the Rockets stupid. The Astros didn't screw the pooch any more than the Rockets. The Astros are pursuing their own interests and have the power to do so. The Rockets signed a deal that allowed them to do that at the Rockets' expense. They misread the market just as badly as the Astros and Comcast did.
The Rockets read the situation poorly in aligning with McClane when everyone could see he was getting ready to sell the team. They should have included an out in the event the Astros ownership changed.
Disagree. The deal appears to be financially workable for the Rockets. The fact that the NBA depends less on RSN revenue than MLB teams is irrelevant, as each party should have taken there own circumstances into consideration before agreeing to the deal. I guess if you want to say the Rockets should have done a better job evaluating the Astros' financial situation than the Astros did, then okay...but I'd argue that seems a bit unfair. Rockets were gullible to put their trust into such a poorly run organization. Screw reading the market...don't come to the table with a bum in the first place.
Dont put words lin the rockets mouths to defend crane. i dont know why this has turned into rockets vs stros but les isnt out thete b****ing publicly. that alone is commendable.
I think it turned into a feud because Rockets fans have put the blame on the Astros for the deal not getting done. It's probably fair to assume that somehow the Rockets made a mistake if they entered a deal at the whims of the Astros though.
Who owns the Astros is irrelevant. The Rockets were going to make that deal even if Satan himself owned the Astros. The deal, on paper (the figures thrown around) was too good to pass up. Add in partial ownership, and it was going to happen. They misread the situation in putting their media rights in the hands of not one, but two entities that were going to look out for their interests whether it was good or bad for the Rockets.
Les didnt need this clusterfarce to sign howard so chill out on the he screwed up. he is fielding a contender because he had the foresight to hire a groundbreaking stat geek.not tanking
A bankrupt CSN-H with no carriage deals is not financially viable for the Rockets. It has nothing to do with evaluating the Astros' financial situation - it has to do with understanding that the Astros' interests and goals for the network are not the same as the Rockets. The Rockets, like the Astros, had no contingency plan for what would happen if they couldn't get the rates they wanted. The Rockets would have settled for less - but they signed a deal that took away their ability to do that.
So you think the Rockets are happy to be partners in a bankrupt channel that doesn't let the majority of their teams watch their team? If not, they screwed up getting themselves into that mess.
Maybe les was trying to help the new guy in town whxh would be even more commendable considerlng he isnt out their complaining in the media
Obviously it's not irrelevant since its the Astros that have held the deal up. Crane has a lot more incentive to hold out than McClane because he went into debt just to buy the team.
Major this isnt directed at you there are people in this thread who will always defennd stros ownership and be more critical of rockets simply because they are bigger baseball fans and that dumb crap has made its way here. les isnt the best pr guy but i never question his integrity. i cant say the same for crane or our uncle.
Crane has a lot more incentive to hold out because an MLB Franchise is built around local TV revenues far more so than an NBA franchise. That would be the case regardless of ownership or debt levels.
