Astros pushed for Andy/Pettite and Clemens were "frustrated with Astros team culture"

Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps it *is* a difficult concept to understand.

I would wonder how many folks here who demand that McLane pay salaries from his own wealth actually own a business, or have ever even *sniffed* owning a business?

 

While I am not really enthused about joining this ridiculous debate, I would like to clear up a few things.

1. Pettitte wanted 16 mill per year and wanted to have total control on whether the 2nd year was picked up. For a player who had shown signs of elbow problems and even missed an entire year for the Astros, it would seem that any true baseball person would have said to themselves. "Too big of a risk". The money could be spent elsewhere. Not good baseball sense to make a deal like that.

2. Not signing the draft picks was not good but signing them would have been even worst. They were 3rd and 4th round picks wanting 1st round money. In baseball all money is guaranteed. So you would have been paying 3 to 4 times the money for completely unproven major league talent. Again, unless you are the yankees, I think this would have been a bad decision long term.

3. AS for offering arbitration to Clemens and Pettitte. You can't just low ball them. You are at the mercy of the judge about what they get paid. Lets say you offered Clemens 12 mill and he asked for 25 mill (understand that his prorated salary was 21 mill). Clemens led the league in ERA so you would think he would get a raise. So the judge went in Clemens favor (which they do more often than not). Now you have to pay him big bucks now and hamstring your payroll structure. All this because you wanted a draft pick when they signed somewhere else? Not very smart

4. Drayton most definitely complained about money early on in his tenure here but has done it much less in recent years. The only time he even mentions it is when people say he does not spend enough. The payroll has gone steadily up in recent years. Drayton has made moves when needed (IE The Big Unit). Now I can say that he may have spent it in the wrong places but at least he is trying. The idea that just because a player is on IR does not take away from the total payroll number is just flat out dishonest. Does Drayton still write the checks? Yes he does.

 

Great. Now you can put the 'no owner does this' statements to bed. Thaksin Shinawatra bought Manchester City and gave the coach 100 million dollars (50 M pounds) to buy new players. There isn't just one example of this.

Sure it does. It refutes your argument that owners don't spend money out of their own pockets. If one takes your statement that 'every owner does this at first' at face value then your argument really has problems.

There is no indication that every organization ends the year with a zero balance sheet. Your awfully quick with the declarations of 'unfounded, inaccurate hogwash' while throwing quite a bit of it around yourself.

Not at all. It's a zero sum game. Every dollar Steinbrenner reinvests in the Yankees is a dollar not going in his pocket. That is, in effect, a dollar out of his pocket. Your assertion that owners don't spend money out of their pockets is just silly.

Handled above.

Yes, they did. We've already seen how valid your 'not a one' declarations are in this thread.

 

And you know this how? How about showing some numbers to back up your in depth knowledge on the subject matter. Or instead how about you just tell me why the owners of the big market teams complain about smaller market teams taking advantage of the profit sharing system. But knowing your arguments I guess we will likely get more of the same msn

 

What I'm suggesting is that Steinbrenner doesn't artificially prop up one organization, particularly a MLB club, with revenues from another business he owns.

I don't expect McLane to take McLane Distribution money and throw it into the Astros to cover operating costs. If a for-profit entity can't cover it's own operating costs over the long haul, then it's a failed venture and it needs to die.

 

How much did McLane purchase the team for?

How much is it worh now (ballpark figure - no pun intended)?

 

Every team wants to win...Some are more committed than others, but it doesn't necessarily mean $$$...

I think Roger is just getting old and Andy, well he sux and it'll show next season when the Yanks get bounced early again...Well, unless they get Santana...

 

Nope. Which is exactly the point. On one extreme we do actually have sports owners who will continue to fund an unprofitable enterprise. Especially in the arena (pun intended) of sports ownership, which has to do more with prestige or branding than with profit, in many although probably not even most, cases.

Yes. OK, and in some cases they continue to do this in effect. Once profitability is reached then an owner might use the profits to reinvest in increasing outlay or in some cases may even infuse cash into a profitable enterprise. This does happen in professional sports.

Not so - taking on debt is not the only option. I've already given examples of privately owned teams getting cash infusions from owners. Since the Yankees are privately held, the dollar for dollar decisions are either in his pocket or out of his pocket. That his spending is rewarded by increased value is not a foregone conclusion, since as we know from most sports - you can spend money and still not have a winning team (see the Dave Winfield Yankees of the 80s).

 

Did the Astros make a profit last year? My opinion is that sports franchises are more than 7/11s. They represent a city or geography and the people in it. They aren't like a movie. I'm baffled at how some people can think all organizations are the same. Are the Marlins a 'win at all costs' organization? No. Are the Yankees? Yes. Are the Astros? I don't think many people would say that - so I can understand why a player would want to be part of the 'win at all costs' organization.

 

I never said all organizations are the same.

I merely that no organization tries to "win at all costs." Not one in MLB. The Yankees absolutely have limits...and they throw them out there from time to time. They tell ARod to stick it when he opts out....they tell Beltran they're not gonna pay that much. No team is "win at all costs" in baseball.

 

I think you are taking the phrase in a literal sense.

 

Ok, so your objection is to the phrase 'win at all costs.' We could agree though that some organizations are 'win at costs higher than others?'

My point isn't even that money will solve the Stros problems - better to have a good GM and Manager. But there is a reason big league ownership is the provence of mainly of billionaires and why corporations that buy teams usually get out. There should be a love affair between the city and the team, the owner and the team. They can still make money - sure! Drayton bought the Stros for 103M and now they are worth (est) 440+ M dollars. He's not getting raked over the coals. So if he isn't putting all of the profit back in then I'm disappointed. Billionaires can find a lot better places to put their money than major league teams if they really are just after profits. 10% returns are not the provence of billionaires. I just hate to be stuck in the middle where we're spending but not enough in some cases. It affects who you get and who you keep. And I don't blame players for going where the ethos is different.

 

Curiously those are all organizations that have higher revenues.

 

There are organizations with higher revenues who are NOT in that category too, though. We aren't hurting for revenue. Our revenue was 184M last year and operating + player expenses was 124M. I'd like to see that extra 60M go back into the team. That IS what a team that 'wins at all costs' or at least that 'wins at cost higher than others' does.

 

My understanding is that payroll was around $100 million, including Bagwell's number. You would have them throw $160 million at payroll?

Again, I come back to expectations. I don't think there's a team in the league that will spend ALL of its profits from the preceding year on payroll the next.

 

Some teams will go farther than that and lose money to fund payroll - the Yankees took an overall $50 M loss because of their $200M payroll in fiscal 2005.

 

I was unaware of that. I'm surprised.

 

OK. So, no owner, after initial investments, puts money from his own pocket into player salaries.

No, I don't have the numbers of what owners have brought home. Do you? I'm not the one making these ridiculous accusations; if you and gunn and other whiners want to do so, the burden of proof is on you.

My argument is based upon common business sense. If your business can't stand on its own two feet, and you have to ferret personal wealth or monies from other business interests into it, beyond some obvious initial investment of course, then before your business will go down and take you with it. It's unfathomable to me how hard this is to understand. Have any of you who are clamoring for this ever owned a business?

As to the initial investment issue, I've involved in quite a few mergers and acquisitions in recent years, and I can tell you there is a windfall of investment from the new ownership at the outset. But after a year at the most (and more often 6-9 months), the money tree is bare and the company is expected to to stand on its own two feet. Further developments in infrastructure, etc. are handled with internal capital, not from the parent company or its owner.

That's the common sense my argument is based on. My original statement was, to expect McLane or any owner to fund salaries from his own pocket is inane and stupid. And that's where I still stand.

 

But they have a long, stable history. They have a revenue structure that will continue to make money. They have an incredibly huge market.

You can't do that in Houston. Pull that off two out of five years, and there won't be a "Houston Astros."

 

I addressed this above.

Because they want to make money. (That was difficult.)

Right! You have *still* provided zero facts to back up your argument. You who entered the thread only to call people "homers" who don't agree with your position.

It's possible, gunn, for us to disagree on this issue without all of your BS.