I know we will never know for sure whether or not he loses money or not...however, the one compelling thing Drayton has going against his claim is this... He is a business man who runs the team like a business....a successful business. That being said, given his view on running a business and making it successful, it would be hard to believe he would stay in a business which lost him money consistantly every year.
I said in my previous post that I have no idea what Drayton's making or losing. I haven't heard him claim anything in a few years. I could be wrong about that last part though. You make a claim and then will not back it up. Priceless. And you criticizing me going personal? That's hilarious coming from some closet case who came across my profile on Match.com and decided to start a thread in an attempt to embarass me. Not to mention, accusing me and my friend of lying. Trust me, you don't anger me. You amuse the hell out of me.
Wrong, yet again. They traded him in June after 2 months of hitting .256, 4 homeruns and 30 rbi's. This from a guy expected to be a run producer. Not to mention the team had no intention of picking up his 15 mil option(neither did any other MLB team) for the following year, and thus wanted to get something for him. He also had just hit .202 in may and was halfway through a June that saw him hit .236, with no power in either month. Would you rather they kept him and not made room for Carlos Beltran? He hit .221 with 16 homers in Arlington(a notorious hitters park) in 05 btw. Face it, the guy is not that good. Heck, even Jason Lane could have put up better numbers at a fraction of the cost in 2004, and he outperformed a 5 mil texas hidalgo last year. Lastly, you are right they traded Wagner partly due to salary concerns, but it did not help his case that he blasted the owner at the end of the season. I don't understand how that makes Drayton frugal. He took that money and signed Andy Pettitte, and then he increased the budget in 05 with roger's arbitration numbers and the increases in contracts for Pettitte, Bags, etc. Furthermore, how long were you going to wait to give talents like Dotel and Lidge their chance to pitch in the 9th inning, at a fraction of Billy's cost. The Astros are not the Yankees or RedSox of the world, they have to rely on good management and developing their own talent to remain competitive, which they have done for more than a decade. I'm sorry you expect them to spend like the Mets, the Yankees or Boston, even though you yourself should know it's not feasible in baseball's current economics and understand the economic side of any business.
i'm not asking to be a jackass. you said you played at a high level. i played some high school ball. i'm just curious. i have no experience playing college ball...or anything with pro ball. in what capacity did you work with astros senior brass? and honestly, it's not a very personal question when you volunteered the information in the first place.
You couldn't be more wrong, my sorely mistaken friend. Nomar is merely a shell of what he was a few years ago, and is still the same price. The Dodgers overpaid for him and will soon see there error of their ways. And why should Purpura go out of his way to change this team? A team that has often been credited as having the best clubhouse chemistry of any team in baseball. I'm sure some of you guys heard the announcers in the World Series talk about how something like 7 of the 9 Houston starters had been in the Houston organization for most of their career. That's a big reason as to why the team chemistry is so good. How have we gotten worse? I call a trip to the World Series a booming success. But, I guess you prefered the 1st round playoff exits of previous years. And by the way, where would you have wanted Nomar to play? I agree we need more offense. Hell, everyone can see that. But Nomar wasn't the answer. There's a reason why Purpura has this job... he knows what he's doing.
I'm not disputing anything else in your post but Charlie Casserly has a job, doesnt me he is any good at it. Matt Millen has a job, doesnt mean he is any good at it. I have a job, doesnt mean.......oh wait, I'm pretty good at what I do
Personally, I'm hoping he does well, but my expectation is that he won't. There's no real reason for that, but that's just my thinking. I think if he struggles early, it may be time for him to retire.
Rondell White, like any other baseball player, wants to play. Unless you want to bench Jason Lane - who's better than White already and is likely to improve while While is in decline - we can't guarantee him playing time. We have Lane in RF and Berkman in LF. Where do you put White? Why would he come here to be a bench player when he can be a starter elsewhere?
Tejada Get 'er done. He plays a key position that we are woefully lacking in offense. Trade for him. Send 'em Lidge, Everett, and a prospect or two. There's a huge bucket of offense. Then let the outfield/1st base situation sort itself out. If we get Tejada, all of a sudden Lane doesn't look too bad in right, does he?
Question......Has Pupura signed ONE FA that wasn't already an Astros since he's been GM???? I know he can sign his current players....but I can't think of ONE player to sign with the Astros as a Fa since he's been GM. Maybe he just sucks and can't negogiate with players doesn't already have a relationship with!
Are you actually suggesting that it is a good idea or acceptable to have a business that operates at a loss? Entities that use the overall asset value to rationalize loss operations eventually run out of luck. It is a recipe for disaster. The accountant in me just shuddered.
^^^ I find very few things in life more hilarious than listening to lawyers talk about business. See Exhibit A above. There are many times when operating at a loss makes sense. I recently worked with young beverage company which is pouring 110% of free cash flow into marketing in hopes of boosting their sales. Since beverage companies are valued at a multiple of sales when sold, their move represents sound financial judgment. Companies that are looking to gain market share which they will monetize in the future also can justify operating at a loss for a period of time. There are many instances where this makes solid business sense. However, that is not the argument I'm making with the Yankees. What I was saying is that while they may be 'losing money', the value of their combined entities when you factor in the value of the franchise as well as the YES network, is increasing. You also have to remember that depreciation factors into this equation as well. With the stadium representing a large chunk of the value of the team, it factors in heavily. Since depreciation expense is the allocation of a historical cost, you've likely got some non-cash charges running through the income statement related to the last round of sprucing up of Yankee stadium. This is just one example. In reality, a team's stadium may not be depreciating in value, but rather appreciating. In this case, the net income figure on the income statement would be misleading. The takeaway here is that operating losses may not always be the best way to measure the financial health of a baseball team. Actually, I can explain it better. Refman and Major are not financial contributors to this site. If everyone behaved this way, Clutch would be operating at a loss. Does that make sense to you? HARRRR!!!!!
How about lawyers who are also accountants? You have some business degree and did a little work in business and all of a sudden you think you're Donald Trump. I was an accountant long before I became a lawyer...but carry on with your ramblings. Now he attempts to introduce "evidence" so he can appear to know law as well as many other topics he knows ZERO about. How cute. Emphasis on young. Many businesses operate at a loss in their infancy. They have to. It takes time to get your product accepted on the open market. You don't generally see many successful businesses almost a century into their existence say "What the hell, operate at a loss." And what I was saying is that using this rationale to justify loss operations will, over time, backfire. The materiality of the non-cash expenses will depend largely on whether the last round of sprucing up the stadium was done with cash or debt. Payments on debtload may or may not exceed any depreciation effect. Doubtful. Nobody ever thought of having a 40 year old ballpark as a plus. That's why they keep building new ones. This may be true in the case of a corporate owned baseball club. It is MUCH less true in the case of family ownership. I doubt seriously that many individual owners would want to use the profits from their other businesses to subsidize the day to day ops of the baseball team in the long term. You keep coming back to this. Likely as a way to detract from your lack of understanding of the topic at hand. Refman and Major contribute intelligent dialogue. There are some conTributors to the tipJar who cannot make the same claim. (Caps in the above sentence are intentional...read between the lines).
So will you contribute money to the site? Seems as though a lawyer who makes a decent wage should be able to contribute. Your wife is also a lawyer, if memory serves. A dual-income household with no ability to contribute even a spare $10? That strikes me as odd. Or cheap. Or both. By the way, how an asset is financed (cash, equity, debt) has no impact on it's depreciation treatment. Where did you study accounting? A&M? HARRRRR!!!! Returning to the topic of the thread, Drayton is making serious money off the Astros. You can't use that as an excuse for not upgrading the team. Especially after stiffing Roger.
If the cost of an asset is depreciated using a 40 year, straight line method, and it is financed using 20 year debt, the depreciation expense will be smaller (likely) than the cash used to service debt. It makes a big difference in terms of the relationship between the statement of cash flows and the income statement. And yes, I will be adding to the tipjar. I was absent for a while. I have been consumed by analyzing the insane bankruptcy amendments.
You are talking about principal amortization, not interest expense, I presume. 'Debt service' is P + I, just so you don't make that mistake in the future. Yes, principal repayment in not included in the income statement, but is on the cash flow statement. That only furthers the case that the income statement isn't a good tool to use because of the stadium accounting treatment, which was my point all along. More importantly, I commend you on deciding to contribute. Your contribution will make a nice Christmas bonus. I believe a good benchmark is $0.01 per post ~ $57 (for you)
