Again, are you serious? Florida went from a near mid-season debacle to playing their butts off and earning the wild card and turning that momentum into a dream season. Outside of the "dream season", as a franchise, they have been nearly as far away from great as it gets. Oakland has been good, on the other hand, but not great. Maybe they could've been great, had they not traded away their great players. Maybe they could have had the fan excitement and high expectations to surround their ballclub had they hung onto their best players. The fact of the matter is that, no, they don't have the revenue. But nor do they have an owner willing to pay to keep their best players or to go get the best players to create excitement to thus generate more revenue. This small market you speak of in Oakland doesn't seem to have any adverse effects across the bay some twenty minutes away in San Francisco. There are small and large markets throughout the country; being in a small market doesn't correlate with having small revenues nor does being in a large market correlate with large revenues. Your stance on that topic is weak and can be refuted by numerous examples. You say that my "theory" is the winning brings money, which to say the least, is completly inaccurate from any thing that I said. How about reading what I said, yea. Aside from that, yes the Marlins didn't make a consistant effort, and you finally got something right, but then you come right back with false remark say they didn't have the revenue to stay competitive. Hello, they didn't get the chance to generate solid revenue consistantly. Wayne Huizenga bought a championship and abruptly dismantled the team so he could sell it. Do you think the fans were buying into that team the year after? The fans were outraged, as they would be everywhere, small and big markets, if their owner did that. Do you honestly think that if Steinbrenner pulled that stunt in New York, or Henry in Boston, that fans would be lineing up at the gates the next season? And yes, Houston's revenues are up this year, but you never answered why. Don't worry because it was a retorical question anyway. The answer: because of increased fan excitement and expectations. And how did that happen? They convinced the fans the team had a chance by bringing in the players to do it. It's all very simple, and you want to turn it into rocket science.
Huh? You do realize that a majority of any team's revenue comes from its TV and radio contracts? The Yankees can spend whatever they like because they have a huge TV contract. The Rangers for example have a far better TV deal than the Astros do. The Astros' TV deal is just another bad contract that the home team is saddled with for the time being. Once they can renegotiate next year or the year after or whenever it is, hopefully that will give the owner (whoever it may be) more money to work with. On the other hand, McLane's cries of poverty ring hollow not only because he's wealthy beyond any imagination, but also because his books are closed. The public has no idea whether the club makes money or loses money and to what degree.
So what if Florida was a wild card? Why did they have to unload players AFTER winning the World Series? Where was the excitement and increased revenues? Come on, Oakland has done more than enough to generate excitement. The problem is they just don't have the revenues. Just like, say, Houston. I don't see how it is weak. Both New York teams make tens of millions more than Houston on tv revenue alone. Local operating revnue dwarfs Houston's as well. Sure, there are teams like St. Louis that have great revenue in small markets, but Drayton is stuck in Houston, which is a football town. Maybe you point is that Drayton should try harder to make Houston like St. Louis. Maybe he should, but you also have to be realistic in what he can accomplish. What makes you say they never had the chance to generate revenue? I am sure Huizenga looked at his bottom line for that year and saw that he was losing money. So he had to gut the team for financial purposes. Do you think he just wanted to gut the team for the heck of it? Florida is no different from Oakland or Houston, they have to keep their payroll at a certain level. How much are Houston's revenues up? I bet it's not enough to bump up our payroll by, say, $20 million. No, it isn't rocket science. The Astros are in the middle of the pack in payroll and middle of the pack in revenue. Sounds about right to me.
Television and radio are just two of the many streams of revenue that a team and its owner have. Judging by your statements concerning the Astros TV deal, it doesn't seem that you have a clue as to what Drayton's intentions are. The fact is, that he turned down the Fox Sports Net deal due to the creation of an Astros and Rockets sports network similar to that of the YES network. I'm not saying that Houton's revenues would be greater than that of the Yankees, but that being in a smaller market doesn't necessitate not putting together a team that creates excitement which directly, in turn, creates revenues.
What are you talking about? Again, TV is by far the largest revenue stream, dwarfing ticket sales, concessions and merchandising. What do "Drayton's intentions" have to do with anything? He signed a sub-par TV deal. Why he did that is of little concern to me. Putting together a team that "creates excitement" then "creates revenues"??? Are you joking? So the draw goes from 25k to 35k per night, which at (let's say) an average of $20 per ticket (of course most of the additional seats sold due to "excitement" [!] will be low-dollar seats - but let's just suppose), that adds up to a whopping $16 million or so of "excitement money." PER YEAR. That covers the salary of one top-line player. Four percent of the team, and a far greater percentage (sadly) of the team's payroll.
Use you head. The point of the wild card statement was to show you that they were far from recently great as you say. What players did they have to unload? Rodriguez was on a one year deal. Encarnacion was expendable to make room for Cabrera, and Lowel was resigned. And the revenues from last season? My guess would be that they are in the owners pocket. Just like Drayton. What has Oakland done to generate excitement? Trade the likes of MVPs Tejada and Giambi. They haven't made any moves, they've relied on home grown talent. It's weak because small market teams can have large revenues too, which you already seem to know as you explained in the quote below despite trying to delegitimize facts by saying so and so a "football town". In which case I don't know why you brought that up in the first place because it's ridiculous and easily refutable. Sure, there are teams like St. Louis that have great revenue in small markets, but Drayton is stuck in Houston, which is a football town. Maybe you point is that Drayton should try harder to make Houston like St. Louis. Maybe he should, but you also have to be realistic in what he can accomplish. You're fishing for clues, but you have none, and it's highly apparent. Don't try to justify what you don't understand.
Nobody said TV revenues were a small part of total revenues. It's simple and I've already explained it: putting a team together that creates a buzz and high expectations amongst the city and its fans is the root of everything you mention.
It's called cash flow. You don't spend more money than you take in every year. If you do finance for a living, then CERTAINLY you must understand this point. The Yankees, for example, signed a 10 year, ONE BILLION dollar contract with YES. They have revenues 4 to 5 times that of the Astros. This means that under SOUND business principles, they can spend 4 to 5 times what the Astros REASONABLY can in salary. Naive? Me? I don't think so. When MMP sells out, the revenues are about $800,000. So if the stadium sells out EVERY game, that is $65 million. That is pretty close to the current payroll for players. There are licensing revenues, TV, radio, etc. But the team has to pay a coaching staff, front office, their share of the stadium, a scouting staff, and minor league instructors. This eats up a lot of the revenues too. Sounds pretty academic to me. Since I have a degree in accounting and am a bankruptcy lawyer, I'm not exactly the uninitiated.
Depending upon when the current TV contract expires, wouldn't it make sense to put together an exciting team that can seriously compete for the World Series, 2-3 years before the expiration date? Thus, putting together a team that "creates excitement", would ultimately "create revenues" when the TV contract is renewed.
What is your problem? "Creating a buzz" has nothing to do with anything. Hello?!?! A team's TV deal is paramount in MLB. They sign deals on multi-year terms. If a team has a "buzz" (as you call it) one year but less so the next, what impact does that have on the team's TV deal? None, of course.
wow..it sure is easy to spend other people's money. the astros have made splash after splash. particularly for a franchise that NEVER signed free agents prior to the McLane era. kent...pettitte..clemens...beltran. all in the past 1.5 years. i know, i know. the owner gets no credit for any of that. but we do get to blame him when those guys don't hit and we lose ballgames!!! great system, fellas!
Greg Swindell and Doug Drabek. Both failed miserably in living up to expectations. Neither gave Drayton a big hometown discount.
that would be awesome, but i just don't see it...you know, they've got all these deferred pmts. to everyone and if this is the year, I don't see them signing beltran...He is the best CF in the game...we've needed one for so long, but i just can't see drayton spending the money...
There's no need for insults. You have done nothing to prove that "excitement" will bring in the big bucks for the Astros. Drayton and Tal Smith know what they are doing, and they have to keep payrolls low, just like many teams in the MLB, ie Oakland and yes Florida. By your "excitement theory" most MLB teams are freaking idiots for constantly letting big free agents go. Maybe you should go apply for the job then. Reminds me of all the people who constantly call Carrol Dawson an idiot for the free agent picks and drafts he makes. Armchair general managers who think they can make the team into a dynasty in a couple of years.
BOBREK FACT: Beltran's agent has told both the Astros (and Royals before them) that they won't entertain any offers during the season and are going to test the FA market.
!!!! OK. Cash Flow? Please explain? Are you trying to ask me if I know what that means or are you saying baseball is a business based on cash flow.? I really don't understand why you would pick cash flow and throw it out like that. Anyways, since you brought it up... Why don't we discuss its relevance here? Right now, no company is more effective at managing its "cash flow" than Walmart. Walmart's competitive advantage over the Kmart's of the world is due primarily to its negative inventory cycle. Walmart basically demands inventory in advance, sells the product, and then pays for the product 3 months later. Why did I decide to explain negative inventory? Because, Drayton coming from the Walmart camp understands this and perhaps practices it religiously. (i.e when he buys his hot dogs, peanuts, shirts...) I can almost guarantee that his accounts receivable cycle is the shortest in baseball and his accounts payable cycle is as long as there is in baseball. So bringing up cash flow really says nothing. Drayton says he is losing money! I guess he could be depending on the metrics that are being used. If you are telling me that Drayton loses money based on cash flow, I am guessing you are saying that his cash outflow is greater than his cash inflow. OK! MAYBE? But, because of the following quote I don't think you are saying that... Revenue does not only consist of cash. I guess what you really meant was... Drayton has more expenditures than revenues. If you believe that then you are NAIVE! Drayton says he is losing money but the average person doesn't ask him the metrics that he is using. Based on what?...IRR, NPV, RISK ADJUSTED RETURNS, is he including the tax benefits from prior years, is he recognizing revenues later, is recognizing expense earlier.... There is a million ways to make yourself look like you are losing money... NO WAY IS DRAYTON LOSING MONEY THE WAY YOU ARE SUGGESTING! Also, you keep bringing up the Yankees. I don't understand why you keep comparing the Astros to the Yankees but again your argument is flawed. Lets say the Yankees command $100 million more in tv/radio revenue. But, stating that 100 million allows George to ("spend 4 to 5 what the astros can") is not true. The 100 million difference is basically the difference in the respective player payrolls. So in this argument, after payroll expense and tv revenue, George and Drayton are basically in the same boat. George probably has more revenues because he is NYC but he also has more expenses for the same reason. The question is... Do you believe George is losing money? If not, then Drayton isn't either!!!!
BOBREK, I don't remember Boras saying that to the Astros but if you say so then OK. But, if Drayton asks Boras to throw out a number and Drayton matches it... Do you the think deal will get done? The truth is.. Drayton could get it done if he wanted to.... Again, I don't care if he signs or doesn't sign Beltran to a deal. Just don't lie about losing money!
Too funny!!! Not a very good argument IMO. Drayton signed those two to a contract right after he purchased the team. He understood that he had to bring in some contracts before he bought the team. The way I look at it... you can add those two contracts to the purchase price. He purchased the team at a discount, he seized the opportunity!
