[Forbes] Why Jim Crane Could Become Baseball’s Most Controversial Owner

These sort of shakedowns happen all they time, some times they're true, sometimes they aren't, but there's always the money angle, always.

 

Can someone post a summary, this is so long

 

I heard that the Astros will be getting new caps soon when he takes over.

Spoiler

 

Sorry, I try not to be sarcastic.

 

A heavily-leveraged purchase leaves no room for negative public perception, as witnessed in the Dodger debacle. I'm not so sure the future bodes well for the Houston team as it compares to LA, lacking both brand and winning cache. The Dodgers will survive McCourt, as their loyal fan base and city support will ultimately win out, once that goon is run out of town. The Crane group engages an organization suffering drought conditions from top to bottom, and may be engaged in deficit spending for years to come in an effort to regain respectability, to say nothing of contender status. The similarities (lightning-rod owners) are too striking to ignore.

 

The Astros are nowhere in the debt situation that the Dodgers are...even with the new deal.

The media dollars under the new TV deal make all the difference in the world.

 

ah, facts make so much more sense than impressions...

 

MLB released this back in early June. There are 9 tems out of compliance with the MLB's rules regarding debt....those teams are:

Dodgers

Mets

Phillies

Cubs

Rangers

Orioles

Tigers

Marlins

Nationals

Out of compliance means the team's debt exceeds 10x their annual revenue.

My understanding is that projected revenues under the new media deal mean the 'stros will not be on that list.


http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6621842

 

“@jonmorosi: Selig says #Astros will be approved in "very near future" but doesn't know if it will be July or August.”

 

not sure the timing really matters. crane will be the one approving or disapproving trade scenarios at the deadline.

 

The sooner the better. House cleaning needs to happen now.

 

ready for this to be done though. ready for some new news.

- The Astros are sold to Crane; he'll take over when the owners approve, which they'll do sometime between the next equinox and the next solar eclipse.
- The Astros still suck big hairy donkey balls.
- Water is wet.

 

it really bothers me how people ignore this guy's history. we get so caught up on stupid racial issues, where some idiot celebrity says something stupid and you have a thirty five page thread on some stupid insult on youtube.

the houston media has largely ignored this issue. this is real structural discrimination that affects people's livelyhoods. this is a real topic, even he's supposedly found Jesus

 

i hear ya...but he hasn't made any comments for us to comment on. there are allegations, and that's it. if he had come out and made some dumbass comment, we could all talk about it.

 

its not good enough for you that the general councel corraborated these statements. i really don't care if he's the owner or not, if the guy has the money so be it. but my point is overall we get caught on these stupid arguments when shaq makes fun of the english language or (can't remember name) calls rutgers basketball team "nappy headed hoes" or whatever. but this is the type of thing (allegedly i guess) that goes on that affects real people

edit: shaq makes fun of yao and the chinese language

 

great point with regard to the effect on real people. if all that's true, it more than sucks.

i wasn't aware of the general counsel thing.

 

Agreed. We do not know exactly what happened and what his actual involvement was. Allegations are easily made. If he shows a pattern of poor behavior owning the Astros then he will be called on it.

I do not think it is fair to crucify him based on allegations.

 

crucify is a strong word in regards to what i'm saying.

not calling you out for not reading max, I don't know if you are asking but the general councel thing is in the article in the op

 

I'm with you theoretically on this, pgabs. I remember reading that the lion's share of the charges didn't stick, as in he was in effect found "not guilty" (I'm forgetting the proper terminology). So my question is how much real discrimination, if any, happened. And, if there's even an ounce of it, it's reprehensible and dude should be taken to task for it.

The other issue is, is practicing real, destructive discrimination something that renders a person unredeemable for public service? You mention his "finding Jesus" (hadn't heard that), and if so then good--but what about earning the trust of a community and a work force? Is it possible? Can he do what's right, and demonstrate equitable dealings with everyone enough, to redeem himself in that sphere?

disclaimer: I'm genuinely seeking an opinion here, not trying to stir up anything, and I'm actually not sure how I feel about it, other than there's a part of me that believes that ALL people, assuming they're still breathing, can be redeemed for some value to society, even if there are sphere in which they simply aren't to be trusted any more.

 

#1 The fact that he may or may not have found Jesus means little to me. There are many people who claim they found Jesus that are simply bad people. The inverse is true as well.

#2 I don't think that he needs to "redeem" himself based on what is known at this time. Allegations of discrimination are common place, some have merit, and some do not. I have handled cases on both sides, and often times it is never known exactly what happened.

You have a valid concern if the issue continues to resurface...