At the time of awarding a MLB team to Arizona the talk was they were admitted with the caveat that they would move to the AL if needed. I've looked back through the news at that time and can't find anything in writing to that agreement.

(08-20-2013 06:20 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  At the time of awarding a MLB team to Arizona the talk was they were admitted with the caveat that they would move to the AL if needed. I've looked back through the news at that time and can't find anything in writing to that agreement.

That provision was in effect for something like two to five years from inception and then expired. I don't have a link, but that is my pretty clear recollection.

(08-20-2013 06:13 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 06:48 PM)Memphis Owl Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 12:13 PM)75src Wrote:  Chandler agreed to Robinson coming in even though Chandler knew it would mean his contract would not be renewed when it was up. The previous commissioner, Landis, blocked integration even during WWII when players were scarce due to the draft.

The present commissioner, Selig, is bad for baseball. We had the AL move forced on us even though it would have made more sense to have his former team, the Brewers, go back to the AL.

I agree with 69 that McLane went along with Selig too much. McLane went along with the draft slot bonus limitations even when it was voluntary. That cost the Astros several players who did not sign.

Moses was a big villian in that the only way the Dodgers were going to get a new stadium in New York was to move out to Queens (in flushing where the Mets ultimately moved). Much of the identity of the Dodgers came from its Brooklyn location. The Dodgers had wanted to move to the location where the Nets are now located.

(08-16-2013 11:15 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 12:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Finally watched the movie on the flight home from Amsterdam last Saturday.

Overall, I thought it was quite good. A few negatives:

1. As I have stated before, I don't think Walter O'Malley and Happy Chandler have ever gotten adequate credit for their roles, primarily fighting the other owners. The movie did not correct that.
2. The guy playing Red Barber came nowhere close to replicating Barber's very distinctive voice.

On the positive side, there were several scenes where the emotions Robinson must have experienced came through pretty clearly.

I'm not surprised that O'Malley wasn't mentioned as he and Jackie were never close especially after O'Malley bought out Rickey and traded Jackie to the Giants. Since Rachael was involved in the film I'm sure the film makers were well aware of her feelings. They replayed the Ghosts of Flatbush the other night...very good documentary about the Dodgers, Robert Moses, and the move to LA.

Absolutely correct on the history of the Dodgers.

Ebbets Field was crippled by location due to the lack of parking. In Post-War Brooklyn, with the population shift (and customer base) to the Long Island suburbs there was no future for the Dodgers at Ebbets.

The current location of Barclays Center is the approximate location planned for the new Dodgers stadium. It would have been above the Brooklyn terminus for the Long Island Railroad. It was a perfect location to allow easy access from Nassau and Suffolk counties by commuter trains.

It was a pure power play by Moses.

On another history point, before the Dodgers acquired the rights to Robinson, those rights were held by the Red Sox.

Around the time of his discharge from the Army, Robinson had a tryout at Fenway Park. He was superb. Most of the witnesses were Red Sox staff. As I heard the story, the witnesses were ugly. That killed any thoughts of the Red Sox breaking the color barrier.

Also of interest, the Red Sox held the rights to Willie Mays.

Just think of the 50's Red Sox with Robinson and Mays in addition to the great Ted Williams. Baseball history could have been very different Red Sox becoming the Dynasty in the place of the Yankees...

Of course Robinson and Mays had no chance playing in Boston as the Red Sox were the last team to have a black player on their MLB roster when Pumpsie Green joined them in 1959,

Red Sox were last bastion of racism in baseball. Opposite extreme from Celtics, with opposite results in terms of championships.

The Astros had to do such a drastic rebuilding because McLane had left the minors bare and the rebuilding was delayed so long. It should have started around 2007 when they did not spend the money to re-sign Petite and the Astros had dropped out of contention. The rebuilding finally started around 2010 when they started to trade off the veterans.

I agree with 69/70/75 that the Astros will be contenders for quite a while once the minor leaguers are ready to move up. My guess is that they start being contenders again around the 2015 or 2016 season.

(08-19-2013 05:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To respond to another of Nola's points, yes I do believe things will get better. Not just because they tell me that but because of verifiable factual data. For the years 2008-2011 the Astros' minor league teams had the worst combined record of any team's affiliates for three out of the four years, and were 29th in the other year. And their farm teams averaged a year older than their leagues, meaning their players were even worse prospects than their records indicated. And the 2011 version was 30 games behind 29th. That's an amazing record of futility. In 2012, by contrast, in part due to Ed Wade's dumping veterans for prospects and in part due to Jeff Luhnow's continuing that practice plus having one of the best drafts in team history, the caliber of farmhands improved to the point that the Astros' domestic farms had the BEST combined record of all 30 teams. That incredible turnaround has continued this year; Astros farm teams are now down to league average age or below, and a few days ago every single Astros farm team above rookie ball--Ok City, Corpus, Lancaster, Quad Cities, Tri-Cities--was in first place, and every team had a winning record. Will all those prospects turn into great major leaguers? Certainly not. But the odds strongly favor enough of them doing so to make the Astros contenders for a couple of decades. Not a sure thing, but definitely the way to bet.

(08-20-2013 07:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 06:13 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 06:48 PM)Memphis Owl Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 12:13 PM)75src Wrote:  Chandler agreed to Robinson coming in even though Chandler knew it would mean his contract would not be renewed when it was up. The previous commissioner, Landis, blocked integration even during WWII when players were scarce due to the draft.

The present commissioner, Selig, is bad for baseball. We had the AL move forced on us even though it would have made more sense to have his former team, the Brewers, go back to the AL.

I agree with 69 that McLane went along with Selig too much. McLane went along with the draft slot bonus limitations even when it was voluntary. That cost the Astros several players who did not sign.

Moses was a big villian in that the only way the Dodgers were going to get a new stadium in New York was to move out to Queens (in flushing where the Mets ultimately moved). Much of the identity of the Dodgers came from its Brooklyn location. The Dodgers had wanted to move to the location where the Nets are now located.

(08-16-2013 11:15 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  I'm not surprised that O'Malley wasn't mentioned as he and Jackie were never close especially after O'Malley bought out Rickey and traded Jackie to the Giants. Since Rachael was involved in the film I'm sure the film makers were well aware of her feelings. They replayed the Ghosts of Flatbush the other night...very good documentary about the Dodgers, Robert Moses, and the move to LA.

Absolutely correct on the history of the Dodgers.

Ebbets Field was crippled by location due to the lack of parking. In Post-War Brooklyn, with the population shift (and customer base) to the Long Island suburbs there was no future for the Dodgers at Ebbets.

The current location of Barclays Center is the approximate location planned for the new Dodgers stadium. It would have been above the Brooklyn terminus for the Long Island Railroad. It was a perfect location to allow easy access from Nassau and Suffolk counties by commuter trains.

It was a pure power play by Moses.

On another history point, before the Dodgers acquired the rights to Robinson, those rights were held by the Red Sox.

Around the time of his discharge from the Army, Robinson had a tryout at Fenway Park. He was superb. Most of the witnesses were Red Sox staff. As I heard the story, the witnesses were ugly. That killed any thoughts of the Red Sox breaking the color barrier.

Also of interest, the Red Sox held the rights to Willie Mays.

Just think of the 50's Red Sox with Robinson and Mays in addition to the great Ted Williams. Baseball history could have been very different Red Sox becoming the Dynasty in the place of the Yankees...

Of course Robinson and Mays had no chance playing in Boston as the Red Sox were the last team to have a black player on their MLB roster when Pumpsie Green joined them in 1959,

Red Sox were last bastion of racism in baseball. Opposite extreme from Celtics, with opposite results in terms of championships.

I can do you one better....the first black player in the NHL was Willie O'Ree who played his first NHL game for Boston in Jan of 1958.

(08-20-2013 08:50 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 07:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Red Sox were last bastion of racism in baseball. Opposite extreme from Celtics, with opposite results in terms of championships.

I can do you one better....the first black player in the NHL was Willie O'Ree who played his first NHL game for Boston in Jan of 1958.

I knew that and started to add it, but figured that you and I might be the only ones to know or care.

Bruins had a black player before Red Sox did.

I understand that long-time NL fans feel a certain way about the DH. But could someone explain why an AL Houston team would be worth less monetarily than an AL Houston team - especially considering how many tickets you can sell to Rangers fans? (and, for that matter, Yankees and Red Sox fans....)

(08-20-2013 11:02 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  I understand that long-time NL fans feel a certain way about the DH. But could someone explain why an AL Houston team would be worth less monetarily than an AL Houston team - especially considering how many tickets you can sell to Rangers fans? (and, for that matter, Yankees and Red Sox fans....)

At least two reasons:
- AL teams cost more to run, because the DH costs more than your Nth pitcher.
- You lose a fair number of fans. Whether that's because of fan opposition to the DH, or loss of long-time opponents, or just fan opposition to change of any kind would be hard to say (although the Brewers provide at least one data point, however imperfect, that fans did particularly object to an AL-to-NL switch).

If the switch were financially neutral or a financial gain, then of the 15 NL owners who were continuing their ownership, one of them would have been willing to switch. The fact that none were is telling.


In the Astros case, another reason may stem from moving to a West division instead of Central: more West Coast games (when you're home is in the Central time zone) --> lower TV revenue. But if Arizona or Colorado had gone to the AL West, Houston would almost certainly have gone to the NL West, so that might be a wash.

Conversely, if Milwaukee had gone to the AL Central, then presumably Minnesota or KC would have been bumped to the AL West, which would have been really painful for them.

Houston lost about 90 years of National League tradition-50 years in the Major League and 40 years of being an NL farm team mostly Cardinals AA with about 3 years Cubs as AAA. The traditional matchups are now gone.

This season, the Astros are not paying much more for a DH than a marginal player. Pena started the season at about $2M. He got cut so they are mostly using minimum salary players. It will change in the future when the Astros get to be contenders again. Although I do not like the DH, it does not change my enjoyment of the game that much. Anyway, college ball has the DH and I enjoy it.

(08-21-2013 10:27 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 11:02 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  I understand that long-time NL fans feel a certain way about the DH. But could someone explain why an AL Houston team would be worth less monetarily than an AL Houston team - especially considering how many tickets you can sell to Rangers fans? (and, for that matter, Yankees and Red Sox fans....)

At least two reasons:
- AL teams cost more to run, because the DH costs more than your Nth pitcher.
- You lose a fair number of fans. Whether that's because of fan opposition to the DH, or loss of long-time opponents, or just fan opposition to change of any kind would be hard to say (although the Brewers provide at least one data point, however imperfect, that fans did particularly object to an AL-to-NL switch).

If the switch were financially neutral or a financial gain, then of the 15 NL owners who were continuing their ownership, one of them would have been willing to switch. The fact that none were is telling.


In the Astros case, another reason may stem from moving to a West division instead of Central: more West Coast games (when you're home is in the Central time zone) --> lower TV revenue. But if Arizona or Colorado had gone to the AL West, Houston would almost certainly have gone to the NL West, so that might be a wash.

Conversely, if Milwaukee had gone to the AL Central, then presumably Minnesota or KC would have been bumped to the AL West, which would have been really painful for them.

Thanks for graciously ignoring my AL/NL typo. I'd be interested in the basis for the claim that you lose fans in an AL-to-NL switch (George's second bullet). I'm not doubting it - I just can't think of when it might have happened recently.

I agree the West Coast TV games are a nuisance.

Excuse my ignorance, but when the perceived need arose for a NL-to-AL switch, why didn't the Brewers just switch back? Seems like Selig could've facilitated that.

I think the negatives for the Astros were loss of long-time rivalries and the west coast time zone for road TV games.

As George noted, if they stayed in the NL they were likely going to the west with an Arizona move, so that's probably a wash. This way they at least have the Rangers in central time, so that's a plus versus NL West.

Cardinals are the one rivalry it hurts to lose. But Rangers should be at least a push. Yankees and Bosox are a gain. Whether rivalries will spring up with Angels and A's to replace old Dodgers/Giants is a question, but those were from the NL West days and not nearly as big as they used to be.

As long as AL has DH and NL does not, AL teams will be slightly more expensive to own, and AL will have more talent so quality of AL ball will be slightly better overall. As a fan, I can live with that. I think the time has come for both leagues to adopt the DH. I would actually prefer an 8-man batting order, but that's not going to happen.

To me the biggest negative is the elimination of any NL footprint in Texas, and the lack of any AL footprint in the mountain zone. But I think that's more a problem for MLB marketing than for Astros fans. Since AZ doesn't do daylight time, the Diamondbacks are arguably a Pacific time zone team, but they are physically located in the mountain zone.

My son hated the DH at the start of the year but now loves it.

(08-21-2013 01:22 PM)MJY Wrote:  Excuse my ignorance, but when the perceived need arose for a NL-to-AL switch, why didn't the Brewers just switch back? Seems like Selig could've facilitated that.

This whole 20 year charade was to get the Brewers to the NL. Bud needed a *itch to get that done, and Drayton has always been Bud's *itch.

I think the Brewers are still owned by Selig's family. The Brewers probably wanted to go to the NL because Milwaukee had been traditionally a NL town with the Braves.

(08-21-2013 01:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 01:22 PM)MJY Wrote:  Excuse my ignorance, but when the perceived need arose for a NL-to-AL switch, why didn't the Brewers just switch back? Seems like Selig could've facilitated that.

This whole 20 year charade was to get the Brewers to the NL. Bud needed a *itch to get that done, and Drayton has always been Bud's *itch.

(08-21-2013 02:31 PM)75src Wrote:  I think the Brewers are still owned by Selig's family. The Brewers probably wanted to go to the NL because Milwaukee had been traditionally a NL town with the Braves.

Of course the Braves were in Milwaukee for a whopping 13 years (1953-65). By the time the Brewers moved to the NL (1998), the city had more than twice as many years in the AL (28) as NL.

(08-18-2013 06:27 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 04:26 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  MLB rules prohibit moving a team without the owner's consent.

The move was not Crane's to consent to. The move was a pre-condition of the sale, set by MLB and made possible by the consent (i.e. complicity) of McLane, not Crane.

(08-18-2013 04:26 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  If Crane would have said no, then either McLane would have agreed to the move...

Correct.

(08-18-2013 04:26 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  ...or kept them in the NL until another buyer was found. As hated as McLane was in the last few years, he was not going to move the team.

False. As a lame duck owner, McLane didn't care about the future of the team. All he cared about was getting rid of it.

(08-18-2013 04:26 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  Why you guys continue to defend this man is beyond me.

No one here has said that Crane is an angel. But of the three parties involved in the switch -- McLane, MLB, and Crane -- it is overwhelmingly clear that Crane is the LEAST blameworthy of the three, because he came in after the other two had teamed up and had already thrown the city and its fans under the bus. The fact that Crane was able to bargain down the price can be seen as either to his credit or his discredit, but either way, it's a far less blameworthy act than what McLane and MLB had already done.

More generally, your apparent devotion to singling Crane out as the root of evil is not helping your credibility.

(08-18-2013 04:26 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  Of course the Astros' organization wants to defend their current owner so the spin is in full gear.

This appears to be an ad hominem, or at least an inchoate one. In any case, so what?

(08-18-2013 04:26 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  But it is a free country and if you want to believe what they say and the better days are ahead, that ls ok.

This is a worthless statement -- and again, one that undermines your credibility.
- If your intention is to inform the reader that people are entitled to their opinions, that point is already so well-known as to make your statement completely devoid of value.
- If the intention is really (as one suspects) to take a back-handed swipe at opposing opinions in the false guise of a "high ground" position, the tactic is so transparent and ineffective as to make your statement, again, valueless.
- If the intention is to indicate that you genuinely respect reasoned opinions that differ from you're own: well, it is not clear that such is actually the case.

First, as to "the move was not Crane's to consent to." If Crane had not agreed to buy an AL team, there would have been no sale. No sale means no money to Lane, which would not make him happy. If an alternative buyer came along offering less money that would have hurt the other owners as well.

Two, as to "All he cared about was getting rid of it," meaning Lane, you left out "for the most money." If he been stuck with the team, moving it to the AL would have reduced attendance ever more. If he had to sell to someone else, apparently that would have been for less money.

Third, I never said Lane or Selig were blameless. I just don't want to put money in Crane's pocket who I consider complicit.

Fourth, I don't know where you get your understanding of credibility, but it is standard in court to show bias of witnesses. The fact that current Astro employees would defend Crane is hardly surprising.

Fifth, I was giving you an olive branch as to our differing opinions. If you chose to reject it, fine. It has pointed out by many observers that fans of teams often see the world through rose-colored glasses. And, some fans prefer AL baseball and/or like to see the Rangers more often. I can respect that. But I have made a consumer choice not to spend money on the Astros due to this move.

Finally, I have often disagreed with many other posters, but I don't recall ever having my thoughts, or theirs, classified as "worthless."

(08-21-2013 02:31 PM)75src Wrote:  I think the Brewers are still owned by Selig's family. The Brewers probably wanted to go to the NL because Milwaukee had been traditionally a NL town with the Braves.

(08-21-2013 01:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 01:22 PM)MJY Wrote:  Excuse my ignorance, but when the perceived need arose for a NL-to-AL switch, why didn't the Brewers just switch back? Seems like Selig could've facilitated that.

This whole 20 year charade was to get the Brewers to the NL. Bud needed a *itch to get that done, and Drayton has always been Bud's *itch.

Speculation at the time also had it that Selig's family did not want to compete with the free spening Yankees and Red Sox.

(08-19-2013 05:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To respond to another of Nola's points, yes I do believe things will get better. Not just because they tell me that but because of verifiable factual data. For the years 2008-2011 the Astros' minor league teams had the worst combined record of any team's affiliates for three out of the four years, and were 29th in the other year. And their farm teams averaged a year older than their leagues, meaning their players were even worse prospects than their records indicated. And the 2011 version was 30 games behind 29th. That's an amazing record of futility. In 2012, by contrast, in part due to Ed Wade's dumping veterans for prospects and in part due to Jeff Luhnow's continuing that practice plus having one of the best drafts in team history, the caliber of farmhands improved to the point that the Astros' domestic farms had the BEST combined record of all 30 teams. That incredible turnaround has continued this year; Astros farm teams are now down to league average age or below, and a few days ago every single Astros farm team above rookie ball--Ok City, Corpus, Lancaster, Quad Cities, Tri-Cities--was in first place, and every team had a winning record. Will all those prospects turn into great major leaguers? Certainly not. But the odds strongly favor enough of them doing so to make the Astros contenders for a couple of decades. Not a sure thing, but definitely the way to bet.

I agree that a strong farm system can help build a perennially strong franchise. But there are examples of teams with perpetually good farm systems not doing so well at the big league level due to a combination of factors such as some prospects not working out, others leaving as free agents due to low pay after five years, trades to avoid high pay due to arbitration awards, trades that don't work out and poor coaching and/or management.

In other words, it takes more than just a good farm system. I can cite the Pirates, until this year, and the Royals, as examples, of teams with great drafts and winning minor league teams who failed at the big league level. For all their success, both the A's and Marlins have been inconsistent, although much better overall than the Astros, so getting to their level would be an improvement.

It is good to be somewhat hopeful due to the talent in the minor leagues, just not irrationally exuberant. For the Astros to be successful, they will also have to have stable management and quality veteran leadership which comes at a fair price. And we won't know whether this ownership will measure up until the team gets there.

(08-21-2013 04:23 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 05:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To respond to another of Nola's points, yes I do believe things will get better. Not just because they tell me that but because of verifiable factual data. For the years 2008-2011 the Astros' minor league teams had the worst combined record of any team's affiliates for three out of the four years, and were 29th in the other year. And their farm teams averaged a year older than their leagues, meaning their players were even worse prospects than their records indicated. And the 2011 version was 30 games behind 29th. That's an amazing record of futility. In 2012, by contrast, in part due to Ed Wade's dumping veterans for prospects and in part due to Jeff Luhnow's continuing that practice plus having one of the best drafts in team history, the caliber of farmhands improved to the point that the Astros' domestic farms had the BEST combined record of all 30 teams. That incredible turnaround has continued this year; Astros farm teams are now down to league average age or below, and a few days ago every single Astros farm team above rookie ball--Ok City, Corpus, Lancaster, Quad Cities, Tri-Cities--was in first place, and every team had a winning record. Will all those prospects turn into great major leaguers? Certainly not. But the odds strongly favor enough of them doing so to make the Astros contenders for a couple of decades. Not a sure thing, but definitely the way to bet.

I agree that a strong farm system can help build a perennially strong franchise. But there are examples of teams with perpetually good farm systems not doing so well at the big league level due to a combination of factors such as some prospects not working out, others leaving as free agents due to low pay after five years, trades to avoid high pay due to arbitration awards, trades that don't work out and poor coaching and/or management.

In other words, it takes more than just a good farm system. I can cite the Pirates, until this year, and the Royals, as examples, of teams with great drafts and winning minor league teams who failed at the big league level. For all their success, both the A's and Marlins have been inconsistent, although much better overall than the Astros, so getting to their level would be an improvement.

It is good to be somewhat hopeful due to the talent in the minor leagues, just not irrationally exuberant. For the Astros to be successful, they will also have to have stable management and quality veteran leadership which comes at a fair price. And we won't know whether this ownership will measure up until the team gets there.

As I said, a strong farm system does not guarantee success. See Pittsburgh and Kansas City recently (though both may be turning it around this year) or closer to home go back to an Astros farm system that had Morgan, Staub, Dierker, Wilson, Wynn, Watson, Mayberry, Rader, Geronimo, and did not get it done.

But that's the way to bet. In particular, it's the only smart bet for so-called small market teams. One example of its working very well was the Astros farm system of the early 90s that led to the successful run of the late 90s and early 2000s. And that's with losing two of the best products of that system--Johan Santana and Bobby Abreu--due to less than stellar decisions at the top.

Drayton inherited the best scouting and player development in baseball, and proceeded to decimate it. He put the big league club on a fixed salary limit, and then used half of that to sign 2 or 3 high ticket free agents. This necessitated a "stars and scrubs" approach under which the Astros gave more innings pitched and plate appearances to sub-replacement players than any teams other than the cellar dwellers, while trying to contend. Drayton ran the team to suit his ego instead of listening to his baseball people.

He left the franchise in a complete mess. And the AL shift was forced on Crane as a condition of the sale. If Drayton had plowed back the funds necessary to keep the development pipeline going, the franchise would have been in a much stronger position, and probably better able to fend off the AL transfer. You're not going to transfer one of your top teams from one league to the other, for any number of reasons. But a franchise in deep trouble is a much easier shift target.

Drayton fared far better with the local media than did his predecessor, John McMullen, primarily because of success on the field, and because McMullen let Nolan Ryan get away to the Rangers. But the on-the-field success was largely due to the products of the player development system that McMullen built (when he finally realized that was the way to go) and Drayton destroyed, and Drayton lost Ryan to the Rangers a second time, as an executive, and that one may end up hurting more. My personal experiences with McMullen always went quite well, probably because they were about the navy and ships more than the ball club. I've never quite understood why the local media hated McMullen so much and loved Drayton so much.

(08-22-2013 03:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 04:23 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 05:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To respond to another of Nola's points, yes I do believe things will get better. Not just because they tell me that but because of verifiable factual data. For the years 2008-2011 the Astros' minor league teams had the worst combined record of any team's affiliates for three out of the four years, and were 29th in the other year. And their farm teams averaged a year older than their leagues, meaning their players were even worse prospects than their records indicated. And the 2011 version was 30 games behind 29th. That's an amazing record of futility. In 2012, by contrast, in part due to Ed Wade's dumping veterans for prospects and in part due to Jeff Luhnow's continuing that practice plus having one of the best drafts in team history, the caliber of farmhands improved to the point that the Astros' domestic farms had the BEST combined record of all 30 teams. That incredible turnaround has continued this year; Astros farm teams are now down to league average age or below, and a few days ago every single Astros farm team above rookie ball--Ok City, Corpus, Lancaster, Quad Cities, Tri-Cities--was in first place, and every team had a winning record. Will all those prospects turn into great major leaguers? Certainly not. But the odds strongly favor enough of them doing so to make the Astros contenders for a couple of decades. Not a sure thing, but definitely the way to bet.

I agree that a strong farm system can help build a perennially strong franchise. But there are examples of teams with perpetually good farm systems not doing so well at the big league level due to a combination of factors such as some prospects not working out, others leaving as free agents due to low pay after five years, trades to avoid high pay due to arbitration awards, trades that don't work out and poor coaching and/or management.

In other words, it takes more than just a good farm system. I can cite the Pirates, until this year, and the Royals, as examples, of teams with great drafts and winning minor league teams who failed at the big league level. For all their success, both the A's and Marlins have been inconsistent, although much better overall than the Astros, so getting to their level would be an improvement.

It is good to be somewhat hopeful due to the talent in the minor leagues, just not irrationally exuberant. For the Astros to be successful, they will also have to have stable management and quality veteran leadership which comes at a fair price. And we won't know whether this ownership will measure up until the team gets there.

As I said, a strong farm system does not guarantee success. See Pittsburgh and Kansas City recently (though both may be turning it around this year) or closer to home go back to an Astros farm system that had Morgan, Staub, Dierker, Wilson, Wynn, Watson, Mayberry, Rader, Geronimo, and did not get it done.

But that's the way to bet. In particular, it's the only smart bet for so-called small market teams. One example of its working very well was the Astros farm system of the early 90s that led to the successful run of the late 90s and early 2000s. And that's with losing two of the best products of that system--Johan Santana and Bobby Abreu--due to less than stellar decisions at the top.

Drayton inherited the best scouting and player development in baseball, and proceeded to decimate it. He put the big league club on a fixed salary limit, and then used half of that to sign 2 or 3 high ticket free agents. This necessitated a "stars and scrubs" approach under which the Astros gave more innings pitched and plate appearances to sub-replacement players than any teams other than the cellar dwellers, while trying to contend. Drayton ran the team to suit his ego instead of listening to his baseball people.

He left the franchise in a complete mess. And the AL shift was forced on Crane as a condition of the sale. If Drayton had plowed back the funds necessary to keep the development pipeline going, the franchise would have been in a much stronger position, and probably better able to fend off the AL transfer. You're not going to transfer one of your top teams from one league to the other, for any number of reasons. But a franchise in deep trouble is a much easier shift target.

Drayton fared far better with the local media than did his predecessor, John McMullen, primarily because of success on the field, and because McMullen let Nolan Ryan get away to the Rangers. But the on-the-field success was largely due to the products of the player development system that McMullen built (when he finally realized that was the way to go) and Drayton destroyed, and Drayton lost Ryan to the Rangers a second time, as an executive, and that one may end up hurting more. My personal experiences with McMullen always went quite well, probably because they were about the navy and ships more than the ball club. I've never quite understood why the local media hated McMullen so much and loved Drayton so much.

I agree with all of the above, but would add that Houston is not a small market. Lane's mismanagement did leave the team in a mess and allowed Selig to pressure Crane to agree to the move despite what the fans wanted. Loyal Astro fans were not responsible for Lane and should not have been disrespected by such a move. And Crane did not have to agree given that no on else was offering $ 600 million plus.