(08-24-2013 08:17 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  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.

Houston itself is not a small market, but Houston does not have the large media market that true big-market teams have. Part of that is geographic. The region that is closer to Houston than to any other MLB city is fairly small and not densely populated. Houston as a TV market is relatively smaller than Houston as a market, and TV dollars drive the bus now. But part is due to mismanagement as well. Given the geography, what I would have done starting in the 1990s is to get the Astros on every satellite dish in Latin America. Not as lucrative as the US market, to be sure, but a hell of a lot more lucrative than no market. And growing quite rapidly in spots. Plus, you do that and you could create your own version of what the Braves have, where every kid in about a five state area grows up watching the Braves and wanting to play for them, so you can draft them deep and sign them cheap and keep a huge talent flow going. Imagine having that kind of presence in a talent-rich area not subject to the draft. Of course, that advantage if it had been created might be coming to an end--or at least curtailment--under current developments. MLB is taking over international distribution rights, and it is looking more and more like we will have an international draft in a couple of years. But if the Astros had been out front and proactive, they could have created some significant competitive advantages.

And no, Crane did not have to agree. He could have walked away from the deal. And Drayton would still own the team and still be looking for a buyer, and would probably have taken a large bribe to move it to the AL by now. Neither Crane nor any other prospective buyer (of which there were none) was going to be able to buy the team and keep it in the NL. Crane's choice was not between paying $600 million for an AL team or paying $700 million for an NL team. It was between paying $600 million for an AL team or buying no team. Crane made the business decision that buying an AL team was better than buying no team. I have a hard time finding fault with Crane for that.

(08-24-2013 08:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-24-2013 08:17 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  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.

Houston itself is not a small market, but Houston does not have the large media market that true big-market teams have. Part of that is geographic. The region that is closer to Houston than to any other MLB city is fairly small and not densely populated. Houston as a TV market is relatively smaller than Houston as a market, and TV dollars drive the bus now. But part is due to mismanagement as well. Given the geography, what I would have done starting in the 1990s is to get the Astros on every satellite dish in Latin America. Not as lucrative as the US market, to be sure, but a hell of a lot more lucrative than no market. And growing quite rapidly in spots. Plus, you do that and you could create your own version of what the Braves have, where every kid in about a five state area grows up watching the Braves and wanting to play for them, so you can draft them deep and sign them cheap and keep a huge talent flow going. Imagine having that kind of presence in a talent-rich area not subject to the draft. Of course, that advantage if it had been created might be coming to an end--or at least curtailment--under current developments. MLB is taking over international distribution rights, and it is looking more and more like we will have an international draft in a couple of years. But if the Astros had been out front and proactive, they could have created some significant competitive advantages.

And no, Crane did not have to agree. He could have walked away from the deal. And Drayton would still own the team and still be looking for a buyer, and would probably have taken a large bribe to move it to the AL by now. Neither Crane nor any other prospective buyer (of which there were none) was going to be able to buy the team and keep it in the NL. Crane's choice was not between paying $600 million for an AL team or paying $700 million for an NL team. It was between paying $600 million for an AL team or buying no team. Crane made the business decision that buying an AL team was better than buying no team. I have a hard time finding fault with Crane for that.

I agree with the 1st paragraph but not the second. MLB had to settle the inbalance in the leagues for the next CBA which was expiring. Had Crane balked, it is likely that some other team, maybe even Milwaukee or Arizona, would have had to move. And I guess I just believe that they would not have let the $ 600 million walk away. And, even if he walked away, I'm not sure Lane would have caved because moving the team then, given his standing at the time, would have depressed its value even further.

Crane just wanted to be a member of the club. And he sacrificed the Astros' NL tradition and history to do it. Now you may not think that is worth very much, or may prefer the AL. But spending $ to follow an athletic team is an emotional consumer decision. I and apparently many other fans don't appreciate the move and am reacting with my wallet.

Maybe the Luhnow plan will work and Crane will step up to pay going rates when the talent demands it. Some fans have short memories and will forgive and forget when the team starts winning. But...if the team does not win and goes the way of the Expos or the Royals, it could get ugly as there is no reservoir of long term hard core fans.

Crane did not have the option of buying the Astros as a NL team. You are criticizing him for not taking a choice that he didn't have. Door #1 was buy the Astros as an AL team, Door #2 was buy no team. You are attacking him for not choosing Door #3 when there was no Door #3.

The real reason that an AL team is worth less goes back to TV markets. If you go to the AL west, you now have a division that's mostly two time zones away from you, and adding a bunch of games that start at 9 pm diminishes the value of your TV market. The PV of that impact is probably a lot more than $70 million, but MLB could get out for $70 million because of the unique circumstances. It's probably more like $200 million, and maybe Crane could have held out for that, but's that's really the only negotiating he could have done. And if we accuse him of money grubbing for $70 million, how would we feel about $200 million?

As for what would have happened if Crane walked away. Drayton would have been stuck with the team, because there was no other buyer. Nobody but Crane had expressed significant interest in several years. Some version of the Nolan Ryan group that bought the Rangers was a possibility at one time, but Drayton wouldn't deal and once the Rangers opportunity came up, they went that way. I think Drayton would have been offered some cash to move, probably a lot more than it took to get this deal done, and in his position of weakness would have taken it. Nobody else was going to move without MLB spending a bunch of money to cover the TV rights issue, and Drayton is enough of a whore to take the money and run.

Milwaukee makes sense from a propriety standpoint, but that means somebody--KC or the Twinkies--have to move from AL Central to AL West, and they have both blocked that move because of the TV issue. Colorado or Arizona makes more sense from a geographic standpoint. It makes sense for each league to have a footprint in each geographic area where there are multiple teams--NY, Chicago, LA, SF Bay, Missouri, Texas, Florida, Maryland/DC, intermountain west. Arizona actually came in under an agreement allowing it to be moved during its first few years, but that time has expired. And since Arizona does not observe daylight time, it is really a Pacific time zone team for TV purposes, so you end up impacting a bunch of teams. The one state that has two teams without both leagues is PA, but there are AL teams close by--Cleveland, Baltimore, Yankees. The Phillies actually make some sense to move, with Pittsburgh moving east to replace them--they are historically the least successful NL team, and Philly baseball was dominated by the AL Athletics almost until they moved, so historically it's an AL town. But you push Toronto to central and end up with the same KC/Minnesota issue. Moving AZ or CO would require Houston to move to the NL West. That creates the same TV problem, but reunites the Astros with historic rivals Dodgers and Giants, and Astros survived in that division before (albeit with Reds and Braves to balance the time zones for TV). I would have held out for that if I could have, but I just don't think it was ever on the table.

In many ways, the situation we now have is like an expansion team. Probably more like the Texans than anything else. The key will be the player development program. If this turns into another Kansas City situation, it could get very ugly and stay there. There really is no reservoir of hard core fans and the organization needs to find a way to address that. Winning would clearly help. I think Luhnow knows what he is doing and I think it will work. He has already made it work pretty spectacularly in St. Louis (of course, Dayton Moore was a big part of the Braves run, so that's no guarantee). The big problem Houston sports franchises have had is that owners have been in it for quick buck (or big tax writeoff), not the long haul. Bob McNair seems to be an exception, and the Texans are now considered to be the fifth most valuable franchise in the NFL. Can the Astros replicate that? I don't know. They don't have a Cardinal Nation regional fan base. They've pretty much punted Texas to the Rangers (aside, while "Texans" was not exactly a nickname of original inspiration, it did position the franchise to become the team of choice for every Cowboys-hating football fan in Texas, and was brilliant in that regard). Their potential TV network is very limited geographically. They might have had a shot to do some pioneering in the social media area, but they have let Allyson Footer get away and I'm not sure who they have to spearhead that (MK??). I really don't know how the hell they make money other than winning every year. That seems to be the plan, so I'm just hopeful they can execute it.

Putting aside the whole DH argument (I think it's a garbage rule - you know, that basic rule of baseball - 9 men, not 10), the Astros, in my view, have been sent to the corn field (Twilight Zone fans will understand). The points regarding the city of Houston and its historical ties to National League baseball have been made by other posters. But, I don't think that it can be over-emphasized that there is an emotional attachment to a franchise that supersedes its geographical location.

As a native Houstonian, I have grown up with two professional teams that began here (Oilers and Astros), and have seen each, in different ways, taken away. I realize that the Texans are here, and I wish them well, but it will never be the same, no matter their level of success. I feel the same about the Astros. I am a fan of the NL Astros, and that franchise is gone forever. I hope that this new team does well, but it never will be the same.

(I almost want to say "get off of my lawn", but I don't feel THAT old).

The Astros were ahead of the curve with their Venezuelan academy. Had that continued and expanded to the Dominican Republic they would have had a stream of talent (before the coming International draft) that was relatively cheap and combined with the satellite idea for Latin America would have paid dividends for years.

Reid Ryan spoke to SABR tonight before the Astros game. A few points about matters that have been discussed or at least brought up here:

George Springer may become the first 40-40 guy in minor league history. He has 41 steals and 37 homers between AA Corpus and AAA Ok City with 8 games left. He will probably not be brought up in September. Reason: He does not have enough years in the minors to be subject to the Rule 5 draft, and therefore by keeping him off the 40-man roster they can protect another player who is subject to the Rule 5 draft. He will probably be with the big club next year, and several more like him should seriously upgrade the talent level.

The cable TV contract is a disaster. If they can't get something resolved, it could put them in a Tampa Bay/Oakland type revenue bind for 20 years. Because they are tied to the Rockets, they can't get into markets like New Orleans and San Antonio and OklahomaCity, who would like to get the Astros but have their own NBA teams. Ryan did not say anything about litigation, but looking at the way he described it, I have to believe somebody is going to haul somebody into court over this.

The radio deal also has problems. Ryan's approach looks like developing a network with stations all over the state, like in the old days.

Ryan did not seem to be a fan of the Woodlands AAA club idea. There are pros and cons and it has not been decided yet. He thinks there are advantages to keeping clubs in places like Corpus and Austin and New Orleans, where they are trying to develop their fan base. He said his conversations with his father indicate the the Frisco farm for the Rangers has not been a great success.

(08-24-2013 10:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Reid Ryan spoke to SABR tonight before the Astros game. A few points about matters that have been discussed or at least brought up here:

George Springer may become the first 40-40 guy in minor league history. He has 41 steals and 37 homers between AA Corpus and AAA Ok City with 8 games left. He will probably not be brought up in September. Reason: He does not have enough years in the minors to be subject to the Rule 5 draft, and therefore by keeping him off the 40-man roster they can protect another player who is subject to the Rule 5 draft. He will probably be with the big club next year, and several more like him should seriously upgrade the talent level.

The cable TV contract is a disaster. If they can't get something resolved, it could put them in a Tampa Bay/Oakland type revenue bind for 20 years. Because they are tied to the Rockets, they can't get into markets like New Orleans and San Antonio and OklahomaCity, who would like to get the Astros but have their own NBA teams. Ryan did not say anything about litigation, but looking at the way he described it, I have to believe somebody is going to haul somebody into court over this.

The radio deal also has problems. Ryan's approach looks like developing a network with stations all over the state, like in the old days.

Ryan did not seem to be a fan of the Woodlands AAA club idea. There are pros and cons and it has not been decided yet. He thinks there are advantages to keeping clubs in places like Corpus and Austin and New Orleans, where they are trying to develop their fan base. He said his conversations with his father indicate the the Frisco farm for the Rangers has not been a great success.

That's a very interesting point about being tied to the Rockets. They would have to offer tier pricing to cable systems. One cost for both teams where possible and one for the station without the Rockets. Was it apparent that this was even thought about when the deal was being drawn up. I know this is typical for other cities/teams (Comcast Chicago with Bulls and Sox/Cubs) but it seems like given where both the Astros and Rockets were when this was drawn up a dual ownership was not the best for either team.

(08-25-2013 06:31 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  That's a very interesting point about being tied to the Rockets. They would have to offer tier pricing to cable systems. One cost for both teams where possible and one for the station without the Rockets. Was it apparent that this was even thought about when the deal was being drawn up. I know this is typical for other cities/teams (Comcast Chicago with Bulls and Sox/Cubs) but it seems like given where both the Astros and Rockets were when this was drawn up a dual ownership was not the best for either team.

My general impression of the cable deal is that not much was thought about when the deal was being drawn up. I think Les and Drayton just saw big potential dollars and got greedy without thinking through the consequences.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander...n-history/

Quote:Jim Crane ... owns the worst team in the majors and is quietly making more money than any baseball owner in history.

And more details on the CSN television deal:

Quote:The regional sports network Comcast SportsNet Houston pays the Astros $80 million a year to show their games — about $50 million more than the Astros got under their previous deal.

The massive boost in revenue means that the Astros have plenty of spare money. They could pay for their current payroll six times over with money from their local television deal alone. And they bring in nearly $40 million from other television and radio deals.

(08-26-2013 03:32 PM)chrisc Wrote:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander...n-history/

Quote:Jim Crane ... owns the worst team in the majors and is quietly making more money than any baseball owner in history.

And more details on the CSN television deal:

Quote:The regional sports network Comcast SportsNet Houston pays the Astros $80 million a year to show their games — about $50 million more than the Astros got under their previous deal.

The massive boost in revenue means that the Astros have plenty of spare money. They could pay for their current payroll six times over with money from their local television deal alone. And they bring in nearly $40 million from other television and radio deals.

Of course, they fail to point out the losses the Astros took as 45% owner of CSN-Houston.

(08-26-2013 03:37 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  Of course, they fail to point out the losses the Astros took as 45% owner of CSN-Houston.

Click through to page 2, they spend several paragraphs discussing that issue.

"But even if the Astros’ roughly $23 million loss [from CSN-Houston] were included, they would still have an estimated operating income of $71 million, higher than any team in history."

Minor point, I think there is a typo in the article. $99 million minus $23 million is not $71 million, and $23 million is not 45% of $63 million, BUT $28 million is 45% of $63 million and $99 million minus $28 million is $71 million, so I think the $23 million number should be $28 million.

Major points,
1. I wish the article were more specific about defining exactly what "operating income" or "estimated operating income" means, because there is some possible ambiguity there and that could make a tremendous difference in how to interpret the results. I doubt that a finance writer would define "operating income" in the strict accounting sense, particularly given that there are some very specialized accounting issues involved in a sports franchise.
2. Bottom line, they are getting $80 million of their revenues from an enterprise that lost $60 million. That's not sustainable. The cable TV contract is what happens when Drayton and Les get greedy, and there are some really severe implications for the Astros going forward. I don't know how this gets resolved, only that I sat with another lawyer (like myself a transactions/tax guy) and listened to a description of how things are working with it, and we both came away convinced that it was going to have to change, and quickly, and that litigation was going to be necessary in order ot change it.
3. The big criticism seems to be that they have slashed payroll and are getting by with essentially a AAA team. My question is this--suppose they hadn't dumped all those salaries, suppose they still had Pence and Wandy and Happ and all those guys, how many games would they be winning? Does it make sense to punt the future in order to win 70 games instead of 50 this year? Or is the intelligent approach to do what they have done, recognize the train wreck they inherited for what it is, and get about the rebuilding process as quickly and as totally as possible?

A big problem with their network is that the fans are unable to watch the Rockets and Astros but can watch other teams. About the only time I can see the Astros is when they are playing the Rangers because the local bars can get FSN and all the Rangers game. I see many more Spurs games on television than Rockets game although I live in the Houston Metro area. Both teams are going to have to work at getting their fans back when they finally work out the television contract problem.

I agree with 69 that it does not make sense to keep high price veterans if they are unable to get you in the pennant chase. The Astros had stopped being in a pennant chase by by 2007 when that year just turned into a Biggio retirement party. Drayton left the cupboard bare and the only good way to restock it was to rebuilt the minor system. Free agents only help if your base team is already able to compete for the pennant and one or two players can put it over the top.

(08-24-2013 09:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Crane did not have the option of buying the Astros as a NL team. You are criticizing him for not taking a choice that he didn't have. Door #1 was buy the Astros as an AL team, Door #2 was buy no team. You are attacking him for not choosing Door #3 when there was no Door #3.

***
In many ways, the situation we now have is like an expansion team. Probably more like the Texans than anything else. The key will be the player development program. If this turns into another Kansas City situation, it could get very ugly and stay there. There really is no reservoir of hard core fans and the organization needs to find a way to address that. Winning would clearly help. I think Luhnow knows what he is doing and I think it will work. He has already made it work pretty spectacularly in St. Louis (of course, Dayton Moore was a big part of the Braves run, so that's no guarantee). The big problem Houston sports franchises have had is that owners have been in it for quick buck (or big tax writeoff), not the long haul. Bob McNair seems to be an exception, and the Texans are now considered to be the fifth most valuable franchise in the NFL. Can the Astros replicate that? I don't know. They don't have a Cardinal Nation regional fan base. They've pretty much punted Texas to the Rangers (aside, while "Texans" was not exactly a nickname of original inspiration, it did position the franchise to become the team of choice for every Cowboys-hating football fan in Texas, and was brilliant in that regard). Their potential TV network is very limited geographically. They might have had a shot to do some pioneering in the social media area, but they have let Allyson Footer get away and I'm not sure who they have to spearhead that (MK??). I really don't know how the hell they make money other than winning every year. That seems to be the plan, so I'm just hopeful they can execute it.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about Crane. I don't believe that MLB would have let him walk away with the $ 600+ million. I agree with WR about the move destroying some fans' emotional ties to the team.

On the Astros future, I think you and many others give Luhnow too much credit for the Cardinals success. Tony LaRussa and Walt Jocketty turned them around long before Luhnow showed up with traditional methods. Before he left for the Astros, Luhnow's star was dimming as his minor league autonomy had been reduced by John Mozeliak. Many of his "Faberge eggs" turned out to be rotten.

Tearing the castle down is not the only way to build a winner. And going 72-90 or better will put more fans in the seats than going 62-100 or worse. Teams in mid-market sizes or better can be built up from the middle of the pack. A couple of examples are the Reds and the Brewers. Don't kid yourself - payroll was cut to make more $ to pay off the acquisition debt.

(08-26-2013 05:54 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  We'll just have to agree to disagree about Crane. I don't believe that MLB would have let him walk away with the $ 600+ million. I agree with WR about the move destroying some fans' emotional ties to the team.

Well, it's pretty clear that MLB TOLD Crane that he could take his $600 million and walk unless he agreed to the AL move. You can believe they didn't really mean that, but there's no factual evidence to support that belief. The move absolutely destroyed some fans' emotional ties to the team. But you're criticizing Crane for not taking an option (Astros staying in the NL) that wasn't there. What do I think would have happened? The owners would have turned down Crane. Drayton would go crying to Bud because he didn't have a buyer. Owners would have come up with $150 million or so to tide Drayton over (in exchange for moving to the AL). Drayton would have sold to the first buyer who met his price--who might well have moved the team to Charlotte or wherever.

Quote:On the Astros future, I think you and many others give Luhnow too much credit for the Cardinals success. Tony LaRussa and Walt Jocketty turned them around long before Luhnow showed up with traditional methods. Before he left for the Astros, Luhnow's star was dimming as his minor league autonomy had been reduced by John Mozeliak. Many of his "Faberge eggs" turned out to be rotten.

Luhnow will be the first to credit Jocketty and LaRussa. Any time you have a group involved, there's probably no exact way to allocate the credit. It's pretty clear that Luhnow probably deserves more than zero credit but less than all the credit, same as Jocketty and LaRussa. And even if it were mostly Jocketty's and LaRussa's doings, wouldn't it be reasonable to infer that Luhnow would have learned a lot working alongside them? And wouldn't that be enough to make him an attractive candidate?

What is incontrovertible is that during Luhnow's tenure with the Cardinals (2003-10) their scouting, drafting, and player development were all far superior to the Astros'. Since Mozeliak inherited Luhnow from Jocketty's team, and new guys ordinarily like to replace holdover guys with their own guys, I wouldn't infer too much from role changes under Mozeliak.

Quote:Tearing the castle down is not the only way to build a winner. And going 72-90 or better will put more fans in the seats than going 62-100 or worse. Teams in mid-market sizes or better can be built up from the middle of the pack. A couple of examples are the Reds and the Brewers. Don't kid yourself - payroll was cut to make more $ to pay off the acquisition debt.

Look, they didn't exactly break up the 1927 Yankees here--or even the 2003 Marlins. That's the part I don't understand, people act like there was some way that this team could have been any good if they had kept the old guys.

The castle was already torn down before Crane and Luhnow got there. The last five years under Drayton, the Astros had one winning season and averaged 73 wins a year. In Drayton's last year, 2011, they won 56. And in Drayton's last 4 years, the collective record of all farm teams was 30th out of 30 three times and 29th the other, and the 2011 farm teams finished 30 games out of 29th. And the farms were a year older than league average across the board, indicating that they were worse prospects than even that dismal record would suggest. They were old, they were awful, and there was no help on the way. That's about as bare as the cupboard can get.

Building from the middle of the pack wasn't an option because they couldn't get to the middle of the pack. If they had kept everybody, they weren't going to go 72-90. There wasn't that much talent there. I'd say the choice was more like going 62-100 with no hope for the future or going 52-110 with a farm system full of prospects. And as for cutting the payroll to pay off the debt, what a brilliant business strategy. You've got no chance this year regardless, so clean up your balance sheet now so that when you start getting good again you'll have the cash flow to go get the one free agent you need to put you over the top. And as a season ticket holder, I can tell you that I'd much rather watch this bunch lose than watching the 2009 and 2010 and 2011 teams lose.

There are no guarantees of success. But that farm system has gone from worst to first, at the same time getting younger, so the odds are that help is on the way, and a lot of it. They've had two drafts that were exceptionally productive in the eyes of most knowledgeable baseball observers. They're where Washington and Pittsburgh and Kansas City five years ago. There's no certainty where they will end up, but it's almost certainly better than the alternative.

I'm no huge fan of Jim Crane. I am troubled by the allegations of racism in his primary business, particularly considering that I always felt that there was an anti-Hispanic bias in the McLane era, maybe even an overall anti-minority bias. But I'm not going to criticize him for not choosing alternatives that were not available to him. And I think that's what you're doing here.

(08-26-2013 04:19 PM)chrisc Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 03:37 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  Of course, they fail to point out the losses the Astros took as 45% owner of CSN-Houston.

Click through to page 2, they spend several paragraphs discussing that issue.

"But even if the Astros’ roughly $23 million loss [from CSN-Houston] were included, they would still have an estimated operating income of $71 million, higher than any team in history."

Ah, well, what has been pushed by the media did not include that.

(08-26-2013 08:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 05:54 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  We'll just have to agree to disagree about Crane. I don't believe that MLB would have let him walk away with the $ 600+ million. I agree with WR about the move destroying some fans' emotional ties to the team.

Well, it's pretty clear that MLB TOLD Crane that he could take his $600 million and walk unless he agreed to the AL move. You can believe they didn't really mean that, but there's no factual evidence to support that belief. The move absolutely destroyed some fans' emotional ties to the team. But you're criticizing Crane for not taking an option (Astros staying in the NL) that wasn't there. What do I think would have happened? The owners would have turned down Crane. Drayton would go crying to Bud because he didn't have a buyer. Owners would have come up with $150 million or so to tide Drayton over (in exchange for moving to the AL). Drayton would have sold to the first buyer who met his price--who might well have moved the team to Charlotte or wherever.

Quote:On the Astros future, I think you and many others give Luhnow too much credit for the Cardinals success. Tony LaRussa and Walt Jocketty turned them around long before Luhnow showed up with traditional methods. Before he left for the Astros, Luhnow's star was dimming as his minor league autonomy had been reduced by John Mozeliak. Many of his "Faberge eggs" turned out to be rotten.

Luhnow will be the first to credit Jocketty and LaRussa. Any time you have a group involved, there's probably no exact way to allocate the credit. It's pretty clear that Luhnow probably deserves more than zero credit but less than all the credit, same as Jocketty and LaRussa. And even if it were mostly Jocketty's and LaRussa's doings, wouldn't it be reasonable to infer that Luhnow would have learned a lot working alongside them? And wouldn't that be enough to make him an attractive candidate?

What is incontrovertible is that during Luhnow's tenure with the Cardinals (2003-10) their scouting, drafting, and player development were all far superior to the Astros'. Since Mozeliak inherited Luhnow from Jocketty's team, and new guys ordinarily like to replace holdover guys with their own guys, I wouldn't infer too much from role changes under Mozeliak.

Quote:Tearing the castle down is not the only way to build a winner. And going 72-90 or better will put more fans in the seats than going 62-100 or worse. Teams in mid-market sizes or better can be built up from the middle of the pack. A couple of examples are the Reds and the Brewers. Don't kid yourself - payroll was cut to make more $ to pay off the acquisition debt.

Look, they didn't exactly break up the 1927 Yankees here--or even the 2003 Marlins. That's the part I don't understand, people act like there was some way that this team could have been any good if they had kept the old guys.

The castle was already torn down before Crane and Luhnow got there. The last five years under Drayton, the Astros had one winning season and averaged 73 wins a year. In Drayton's last year, 2011, they won 56. And in Drayton's last 4 years, the collective record of all farm teams was 30th out of 30 three times and 29th the other, and the 2011 farm teams finished 30 games out of 29th. And the farms were a year older than league average across the board, indicating that they were worse prospects than even that dismal record would suggest. They were old, they were awful, and there was no help on the way. That's about as bare as the cupboard can get.

Building from the middle of the pack wasn't an option because they couldn't get to the middle of the pack. If they had kept everybody, they weren't going to go 72-90. There wasn't that much talent there. I'd say the choice was more like going 62-100 with no hope for the future or going 52-110 with a farm system full of prospects. And as for cutting the payroll to pay off the debt, what a brilliant business strategy. You've got no chance this year regardless, so clean up your balance sheet now so that when you start getting good again you'll have the cash flow to go get the one free agent you need to put you over the top. And as a season ticket holder, I can tell you that I'd much rather watch this bunch lose than watching the 2009 and 2010 and 2011 teams lose.

There are no guarantees of success. But that farm system has gone from worst to first, at the same time getting younger, so the odds are that help is on the way, and a lot of it. They've had two drafts that were exceptionally productive in the eyes of most knowledgeable baseball observers. They're where Washington and Pittsburgh and Kansas City five years ago. There's no certainty where they will end up, but it's almost certainly better than the alternative.

I'm no huge fan of Jim Crane. I am troubled by the allegations of racism in his primary business, particularly considering that I always felt that there was an anti-Hispanic bias in the McLane era, maybe even an overall anti-minority bias. But I'm not going to criticize him for not choosing alternatives that were not available to him. And I think that's what you're doing here.

I think the spin has been on the AL move for some time, knowing how unpopular it was then and still is now. Selige and Crane disregarded the fans' desires so I do not credit their explanations. Nothing Crane has done since then, particularly in regard to this issue, the "10 million dollar" comment, the gutting of the big league roster, the trashing of what was once a beautiful stadium and the utterly stupid TV contract, has changed my opinion. As Mel Antonen of USA Today put it, "Were I an Astros fan, I'd be livid." Given what Forbes has reported today, there is no shortage of money justifying the 3rd straight 100 loss season.

One other point in response to the above - Mozeliak proceeded Luhnow with the Cardinals and was chosen over him to be GM by DeWitt. Jocketty was said to be fired because he objected to the autonomy given Luhnow which was eventually taken away by Mozeliak.

Luhnow does deserve some credit for the Cards' farm success, but it was pretty good even before he got there, having produced such stars as Pujols and Molina. I just think any joy over the Astros' improved farm system is misplaced until results are achieved in the show. Developing a good minor league system and putting together a winning major league roster are not necessarily the same skills, as Whitey Herzog noted in his autobiography.

(08-26-2013 09:17 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  I think the spin has been on the AL move for some time, knowing how unpopular it was then and still is now. Selige and Crane disregarded the fans' desires so I do not credit their explanations. Nothing Crane has done since then, particularly in regard to this issue, the "10 million dollar" comment, the gutting of the big league roster, the trashing of what was once a beautiful stadium and the utterly stupid TV contract, has changed my opinion. As Mel Antonen of USA Today put it, "Were I an Astros fan, I'd be livid." Given what Forbes has reported today, there is no shortage of money justifying the 3rd straight 100 loss season.

One other point in response to the above - Mozeliak proceeded Luhnow with the Cardinals and was chosen over him to be GM by DeWitt. Jocketty was said to be fired because he objected to the autonomy given Luhnow which was eventually taken away by Mozeliak.

Luhnow does deserve some credit for the Cards' farm success, but it was pretty good even before he got there, having produced such stars as Pujols and Molina. I just think any joy over the Astros' improved farm system is misplaced until results are achieved in the show. Developing a good minor league system and putting together a winning major league roster are not necessarily the same skills, as Whitey Herzog noted in his autobiography.

The TV deal is Drayton, not Crane. An equity interest in the TV deal was sold as part of the sale of the Astros, so obviously it predated the sale.

I have stated repeatedly that success on the farm does not translate into success at the MLB level. But if you don't think the chances are SIGNIFICANTLY better with the #1 farm system compared to #30, then you're kidding yourself. The skills are different, but not mutually exclusive.

And they didn't gut a roster. The roster wasn't worth a damn to begin with. This team was going to lose 100 games if it had not been "gutted." That's what gets lost in all of this. The Astros had the barest talent cupboard in MLB, by a WIDE margin, before Crane and Luhnow ever got there. Drayton decimated what was the best scouting and player development system in baseball, and his stars and scrubs approach to payroll and roster design meant that the Astros were trying to contend with more guys who didn't belong in the bigs than anybody else except the last place teams. And when the stars got old and left just the scrubs, with nothing in the minor league pipeline, they were toast. This is not a rebuilding job, it's a building job, because there's nothing there.

And it's Selig and Drayton who disregarded the Houston fans rgarding the AL. They found a convenient fall guy in Crane. But there is absolutely zero indication that Crane was ever given the opportunity to acquire the Astros as an NL team. At least not this time around. And it is fair to note that Crane came close to a deal to buy the Astros a couple of years ago, but backed out. In the interim Drayton could not find another buyer. So maybe this was somebody's idea of payback.

As to the "10 million" comment and the monstrosity erected in the outfield, I'm with you on those. I think the latter was Postolos's idea, and he was also the "genius" behind the TV deal from his Rockets days, so it's good riddance that he has been replaced by Reid Ryan. I certainly am no huge fan of Crane. But he's done enough wrong to criticize as is. No need or reason or justification to go after stuff that's not his fault. And getting maneuvered into the AL, and "gutting" the roster, and the TV deal--those are on Drayton, not Crane. The rest is Crane, I'll give you that, just not those.

We're not going to agree. If Crane had not agreed to the move and threatened not to buy the team, the move never would have happened.

I'll leave you with some recent tweets by STL Post Dispatch writer Joe Strauss:

Joe Strauss ‏@JoeStrauss 6h
You sound surprised. Stros fans being played. RT @iowaneck: Waiting for @JoeStrauss insight on Astros owner making $99 million this year.

***

Daniel Edwards ‏@dnledwrds89 5h
@JoeStrauss @iowaneck Disagree. No amount of free agent spending would have helped them this season.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
Joe Strauss ‏@JoeStrauss 4h
@dnledwrds89 So intentionally constructing a 54-win team is acceptable? We disagree.

This is from an experienced well-connected baseball writer with no axes to grind. I think I'll go with his view.

(08-26-2013 10:02 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  We're not going to agree. If Crane had not agreed to the move and threatened not to buy the team, the move never would have happened.

My sources say that's simply not true. And my sources are better than sportswriters. I'm thinking you may have one or more good sources too. Since you've obviously got a pretty big emotional investment in hating on Crane and refusing to blame Drayton, I'm wondering if perhaps you have some sort of connection to any of the front office folks that Crane let go. A bunch of them are friends of mine, and that's one more thing I fault Crane for. He fired folks that there was absolutely no reason to fire. But let's blame Crane for the things that are Crane's fault and Drayton for the things that are Drayton's fault. And three biggies that you're blaming on Crane should actually be on Drayton.

Let me be clear. I think Crane is an a-hole. I'd much rather somebody else own the team. I wish Drayton would have sold to the Nolan Ryan group that morphed into the bunch that bought the Rangers. I wish the owners would let Mark Cuban buy a team. There are a lot of alternatives that I would prefer to Crane. My first response when he turned up negotiating was please let it be somebody else. But I can find enough to criticize that's his fault without having to blame him for things that he really couldn't do anything about.

If Crane had backed out again, the owners would never have let him even talk about buying another team. He knew that, and that gave Selig leverage. Crane had some leverage too, since he was the only buyer who had surfaced for the wreck of a baseball team that Drayton was selling. But yes, I think that MLB would have let Crane walk if he had not agreed to the move, and would have found some way to take care of Drayton--in exchange, of course, for his agreeing to the move.

I repeat, the things you are saying Crane should have done weren't possible. Not with the AL, not with the TV deal, and not with the roster.