BP: Are the Astros Really Losing Money?

[Navin R Johnson]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=19605

Pay article.  Basically says that when you add in national revenue, the Astros are making ~60+ million a year after expenses.  But that the paying down the debt that Crane incurred to buy the team could be/is eating that up.  If so then 30 million dollar payroll for the foreseeable future could be the Astros lot in life....

[BizidyDizidy]

No reasonable definition of whether you are making money includes paying down debt principal - that is effectively the same as putting money in the bank. That said, the cashflow is what it is, and still may preclude raising payroll.

[HudsonHawk]

No reasonable definition of whether you are making money includes paying down debt principal - that is effectively the same as putting money in the bank. That said, the cashflow is what it is, and still may preclude raising payroll.

I didn't read the article, but I don't think anyone is saying that.  They're simply saying that much of the money being made is going to pay off debt and that's going to limit payroll.

[jbm]

"The Astros have lost money for the last five seasons" is what Crane is reported to have said. 

So, am I supposed to assume that a 20 mil payroll is necessary to justify the 600+ mil price?  Is this just really bad PR on Crane's part or the new reality for Astros fans?

[Mr. Happy]

"The Astros have lost money for the last five seasons" is what Crane is reported to have said. 

So, am I supposed to assume that a 20 mil payroll is necessary to justify the 600+ mil price?  Is this just really bad PR on Crane's part or the new reality for Astros fans?

Part of the purchase price is allocated to the exclusivity of being in the ownership fraternity. There are wealthy folks out there who are willing to pay a premium for membership in the club.

[Limey]

"The Astros have lost money for the last five seasons" is what Crane is reported to have said. 

So, am I supposed to assume that a 20 mil payroll is necessary to justify the 600+ mil price?  Is this just really bad PR on Crane's part or the new reality for Astros fans?

Clubs use all sorts of creative accounting and business structures to shield and divert income.  IIRC, Drayton used to claim that the Astros lost money while playing in the Dome...but the Dome was owned by a different company of Drayton's, and his AstroDome company charged the Astros rent, plus collected all the parking and concession revenue.  So, while the Astros may have lost money, AstroDome USA (or whatever it was called) made out like a fucking bandit.

He was just moving money from his front pockets to his back pockets so that, when asked about not paying so-and-so his fair market value, Drayton could pull his empty front pockets out of his pants and shrug.

[Ron Brand]

+1 to this. The closest to the truth you'll ever get from an owner is when they tell you they'd like for the team to be more profitable. It's unlikely that it's so hard to buy a team just so that they can become the next sucker to lose money.

[BizidyDizidy]

"The Astros have lost money for the last five seasons" is what Crane is reported to have said. 

So, am I supposed to assume that a 20 mil payroll is necessary to justify the 600+ mil price?  Is this just really bad PR on Crane's part or the new reality for Astros fans?

This kind of jibes - the article (based on Navin's summary at least) says they are clearing $60mm, so previous payrolls above $80mm or so would have led to losses.

As Mr. Happy alludes to, the real money is in the appreciation on these things (they don't make more of them). It's more like art investing. However, if you really want to make out like a bandit, being shitty with a $20mm payroll is probably the best/safest way to do it (granted, a lot depends on how much of the typical team's income in MLB is from national/shared vs. local/not-shared sources. I have only looked at NBA, where the national money is enough that a low payroll pretty much guarantees decent income).

[jbm]

Clubs use all sorts of creative accounting and business structures to shield and divert income.  IIRC, Drayton used to claim that the Astros lost money while playing in the Dome...but the Dome was owned by a different company of Drayton's, and his AstroDome company charged the Astros rent, plus collected all the parking and concession revenue.  So, while the Astros may have lost money, AstroDome USA (or whatever it was called) made out like a fucking bandit.

He was just moving money from his front pockets to his back pockets so that, when asked about not paying so-and-so his fair market value, Drayton could pull his empty front pockets out of his pants and shrug.

That was the jist of the article: Crane must be parsing words, cause they made money the last five years.  My point is that if believed by the audience, saying "We lose money with a payroll at 80 milllion" is tantamount to saying "We are poor now, get used to it."

In sum, why lie if it isn't going to benefit you?

[chuck]

This kind of jibes - the article (based on Navin's summary at least) says they are clearing $60mm...

Grossing $60MM? No way.

[BizidyDizidy]

60mm of profit - i can't read article so just going by the post

[jbm]

Author's estimate:
Revenues
63 mil - from MLB
78 mil - local revenue

Expenses
81 mil - payroll last year
Front office costs - unknown
lease, upkeep, op cost of MMP - unknown

He admits that there is a lot of guesswork in his estimates, but overall, he has trouble believing that his unknowns consume the remaining revenues.  Therefore, the phrase that "the Astros lost money last year" is untrue in the common understanding of the phrase at least.

[WakePhil]

60mm of profit - i can't read article so just going by the post

Its estimated revenues less MLB payroll, its even higher than gross profit. If you use the Pirates' leaked financials as a comparison, it'd be taking 75% of the revenues against 40% of the operating expenses and saying "they made it."

In a nice bit of symmetry, that calculation actually works out to $60M for the 2008 Pirates. They reported $22 million of operating income that year.

[roadrunner]

The thing is, even if the Astros had all the money in the world I would want them to operate exactly as Luhnow has.  I'll reserve my complaints until 2015ish.

[HudsonHawk]

The thing is, even if the Astros had all the money in the world I would want them to operate exactly as Luhnow has.  I'll reserve my complaints until 2015ish.

Not me.  I'd want them to go out and sign the best players possible, no matter the cost.  And when those guys are finished, go out and sign some more.  When you have an unlimited budget, fuck this "rebuilding".

[pots]

Not me.  I'd want them to go out and sign the best players possible, no matter the cost.  And when those guys are finished, go out and sign some more.  When you have an unlimited budget, fuck this "rebuilding".

I agree, an unlimited payroll has Bourn playing ceter field batting 9th

[jbm]

I've never understood why the transition period needs to be so fucking bleak, unless Crane is broke of course.  In the blogs and articles I've read, the writers always assume it has to be either complete frugality (the approach that only pure, true fans can understand), or be the fucking Dodger model, paying out the ass for everything (the approach that dumbass heathens prefer). 

Whether the Astros are competitive in 2016 doesn't depend on feasting on top ramen today or on whether there is greater marginal depth in AA and AAA, it depends on whether Wade's and Luhnow's drafts and major trades targeting top talent were productive.

[Bench]

I've never understood why the transition period needs to be so fucking bleak, unless Crane is broke of course.  In the blogs and articles I've read, the writers always assume it has to be either complete frugality (the approach that only pure, true fans can understand), or be the fucking Dodger model, paying out the ass for everything (the approach that dumbass heathens prefer). 

Whether the Astros are competitive in 2016 doesn't depend on feasting on top ramen today or on whether there is greater marginal depth in AA and AAA, it depends on whether Wade's and Luhnow's drafts and major trades targeting top talent were productive.

I guess one theory is that you need a few years of 1-1 picks.  Only way to make sure you accomplish that is to completely bottom out the major league team.

[Noe]

Not me.  I'd want them to go out and sign the best players possible, no matter the cost.  And when those guys are finished, go out and sign some more.  When you have an unlimited budget, fuck this "rebuilding".

"Yeah!" - George Steinbrenner (after he built the YES network)

[Noe]

I've never understood why the transition period needs to be so fucking bleak, unless Crane is broke of course.  In the blogs and articles I've read, the writers always assume it has to be either complete frugality (the approach that only pure, true fans can understand), or be the fucking Dodger model, paying out the ass for everything (the approach that dumbass heathens prefer).  

Whether the Astros are competitive in 2016 doesn't depend on feasting on top ramen today or on whether there is greater marginal depth in AA and AAA, it depends on whether Wade's and Luhnow's drafts and major trades targeting top talent were productive.

Okay, understood. However, how long does it take a good crop of draft picks to blossom? At the major league level, how long can you keep a team together at a club control cost? If the budget does not go up, doesn't it make sense that the fire sale of good young talent when they're ready to be very competitive is a reality?

I'm just asking because I don't know what TeamCrane intends in terms of budget for long term. Right now, it's understood... but are the Astros going to be the Pirate model of old that basically fed the Chicago Cub team with good young talent that was ready to get the big pay day? And lastly, weren't the Astros selling off guys like Michael Bourn and Hunter Pence because they feared the pay day for those guys and is that still the modus operandi of this organization?

If so, enjoy George Springer only until he becomes a really good player that requires a big pay day... he may not be around for very long.  BTW - I don't think they will stay a cheap organization, but I have nothing to base that on other than common sense. That typically gets me in trouble following a team, I expect them to use common sense to not only draft, nuture, give a chance to play, and then *retain* young talent with some sort of plan. Cycling only club controlled young talent is not going to do it.

[Ron Brand]

I've never understood why the transition period needs to be so fucking bleak, unless Crane is broke of course.  In the blogs and articles I've read, the writers always assume it has to be either complete frugality (the approach that only pure, true fans can understand), or be the fucking Dodger model, paying out the ass for everything (the approach that dumbass heathens prefer). 

Whether the Astros are competitive in 2016 doesn't depend on feasting on top ramen today or on whether there is greater marginal depth in AA and AAA, it depends on whether Wade's and Luhnow's drafts and major trades targeting top talent were productive.

I don't think Crane is broke, but I think he's only going to put so much money out there for this investment and probably has his eye on its projected return. The bleakness, I think, comes from the pressure of two directions. Upward pressure from the costs and inflation of multiyear contracts, which they're uninterested in giving out for mediocre players. Downward pressure from the agreed-to plan with his investors to pay down the debt as soon as possible. Hopefully, this focus on paying down the debt means that once they've all made their money back then they really will invest in higher-priced contracts. For now we're left with the 55-65 win seasons instead of the 70-75 win ones.

From what I've read though, we shouldn't expect them to be in the market for any splashy free-agent signings at all, because they want to have a steady minor-league pipeline of cost-controlled players. That's a great plan, but staying that course will be very difficult as Noe points out. This could break all kinds of different ways, and we will learn much more about Crane, et al. when guys like Springer and Correa mature and get to arbitration years.

[Noe]

From what I've read though, we shouldn't expect them to be in the market for any splashy free-agent signings at all, because they want to have a steady minor-league pipeline of cost-controlled players. That's a great plan, but staying that course will be very difficult as Noe points out. This could break all kinds of different ways, and we will learn much more about Crane, et al. when guys like Springer and Correa mature and get to arbitration years.

Agreed. Not signing big named players now because they're paring down the debt is fine and understood. But an investment means you expect ROI. So if you invest in drafting, nuturing, and letting good young talent to play, then low win seasons is understood. But then to not retain them is going to show a different side of the plan that I will be sad to see (if it happens). I'd hate to see George Springer become an All-Star on another team because the Astros are still dealing with cost containment and not necessarily with competitive spending (at that point).

Maybe they expect to always have a pipeline in the minors to replace guys like Springer or Singleton when they're ready to get the big pay day? If so, might be interesting to see how they pull that off. I mean, it kinda worked for the Florida Marlins (for two world championships).

[Limey]

I've never understood why the transition period needs to be so fucking bleak, unless Crane is broke of course. 

Crane is the front man for a consortium of business investors and, he personally, has a small investment.  I think it's going to be hard to get the ownerS to pony up the funds for players until they are convinced it will make a positive impact on revenue.  Chicken...meet egg.

[sporadic]

Crane is the front man for a consortium of business investors and, he personally, has a small investment.  I think it's going to be hard to get the ownerS to pony up the funds for players until they are convinced it will make a positive impact on revenue.  Chicken...meet egg.

He is not willing to pony up when it will not make a drastic difference in wins and is not going to spend $30MM for 10-15 aditional wins a year.  Right now, everything is centered around developing the best farm system in baseball.

[HudsonHawk]

Crane is the front man for a consortium of business investors and, he personally, has a small investment.  I think it's going to be hard to get the ownerS to pony up the funds for players until they are convinced it will make a positive impact on revenue.  Chicken...meet egg.

But the answer to the chicken/egg thing is simple and obvious.  The egg came first.  Likewise, it will take an investment before you will see results on the field.  You just have to be confident you're making good decisions. 

[Bench]

But the answer to the chicken/egg thing is simple and obvious.  The egg came first. 

It's not a difficult conundrum at all.  We need a new saying.

[jbm]

He is not willing to pony up when it will not make a drastic difference in wins and is not going to spend $30MM for 10-15 aditional wins a year.  Right now, everything is centered around developing the best farm system in baseball.

These goals don't have to be at odds: he can at least strive to not totally suck and develop the farm at the same time. 

IMO, he should also consider public perception.  There is a difference between an organization who refuses to put the shittiest team imaginable out for the fans, and an organization which is all too comfortable with it.  Those perceptions stick. 

[Limey]

But the answer to the chicken/egg thing is simple and obvious.  The egg came first. 

Wrong.  It was the fish.

[sporadic]

These goals don't have to be at odds: he can at least strive to not totally suck and develop the farm at the same time. 

IMO, he should also consider public perception.  There is a difference between an organization who refuses to put the shittiest team imaginable out for the fans, and an organization which is all too comfortable with it.  Those perceptions stick. 

It is their opinion that they cannot get that much better simply by spending money, but they can improve the farm, drastically (as they have).  You will never hear what I heard said in public, because of the negative public perception, but they are doing exactly what they think is best for the long term future of the club.  At least they have a plan, and are sticking to it...they will start spending when pieces start to develop, but it is a numbers game (need to pack the farm full first).

[Navin R Johnson]

Noe's Pirates comparison is what worries me.  You have to think that CraneCo is hoping to be more like the Ray's than the Pirates .  My hope is Lunhow can pull it off.  But that means sucking from 2009 to at least 2014 with a remote chance to be decent (around .500) in 2015 and maybe competitive in 2016.

The Rays lost 90 or more for 10 years.  Then Friedman showed up, they lost 101 and 97 games before winning the NL East with 97 wins in 2008.

Difference is, by the time AF took over the team had these guys on the active MLB roster, Crawford, Baldelli, Upton, Zorbist, Delmon Young, Shields, Kazmir.  Then in 2008 they bring up Longoria.  All were the fruits of sucking for 8 years prior.  The Astros are in year 5 of sucking.

Maybe by the end of next year, Singleton, Springer, DDs, Villar, Cosart and Folty are up and contributing, then Correa could be our Longoria in 2016.

Or maybe the Astros will be the Pirates...

[jbm]

It is their opinion that they cannot get that much better simply by spending money, but they can improve the farm, drastically (as they have).  You will never hear what I heard said in public, because of the negative public perception, but they are doing exactly what they think is best for the long term future of the club.  At least they have a plan, and are sticking to it...they will start spending when pieces start to develop, but it is a numbers game (need to pack the farm full first).

The amount they can spend on the farm is capped, and at a level marginally greater than other teams.  In other words, they cannot be investing much more than other clubs that have payrolls over 25 mil. 

[Navin R Johnson]

they will start spending when pieces start to develop

Hope you are right, but that is just a guess (hope) at this point. No different from the people guessing Crane will never spend big.

[sporadic]

Hope you are right, but that is just a guess (hope) at this point. No different from the people guessing Crane will never spend big.

I am merely relaying what I heard...hope it was truth.  Came from a very, very credible source (that was relaying conversations with Crane).

[chuck]

Here are two things I know. One is that Crane and friends financed the purchase in part with a $220,000,000 loan. That has got to decrease their spending flexibility across the board. Two is that next year the team will receive a hefty raise in their revenue due to a large increase in national broadcast revenue. I would think that if next year's payroll is rock-bottom then that will be a clear sign that ownership does not intend to spend money on free agents and that they hope they can get a Friedman-like performance out of Luhnow.

[Navin R Johnson]

I am merely relaying what I heard...hope it was truth.  Came from a very, very credible source (that was relaying conversations with Crane).

He has said things of that nature to the media since arriving.  Exactly what else would you expect him to say?  I hope he is being sincere, but we really wont know for sure until around 2016 at the absolute earliest.

[Navin R Johnson]

Here are two things I know. One is that Crane and friends financed the purchase in part with a $220,000,000 loan. That has got to decrease their spending flexibility across the board. Two is that next year the team will receive a hefty raise in their revenue due to a large increase in national broadcast revenue. I would think that if next year's payroll is rock-bottom then that will be a clear sign that ownership does not intend to spend money on free agents and that they hope they can get a Friedman-like performance out of Luhnow.

Why would they spend next year, what is the difference in 100 and 90 losses.... Just pay down the debt, field a shitasticteam, and hope to keep stocking up the farm system.  I just can't imagine they start spending on free agents, regardless of how much money they are making, until they think it would make a difference.  At this point that is probably 2016.

[WakePhil]

The amount they can spend on the farm is capped, and at a level marginally greater than other teams.  In other words, they cannot be investing much more than other clubs that have payrolls over 25 mil. 

Only capped on acquisitions through the draft. They can, should and seem to be investing more heavily in the talent identification and development side, as well as acquisitions outside the draft.

Would be interesting to see if all this spending is actually disproportionately higher than other organizations, or simply catching up after years of neglect. Either way, its likely money better spent than on the MLB roster.

[moriartp]

Only capped on acquisitions through the draft. They can, should and seem to be investing more heavily in the talent identification and development side, as well as acquisitions outside the draft.

International spending is also capped, but they'll have the largest pool there too.

[Noe]

I am merely relaying what I heard...hope it was truth.  Came from a very, very credible source (that was relaying conversations with Crane).

I have no source, and I hold out hope he (Crane) is about spending wisely when the time comes. Time will tell and I am of the opinion he will spend when the time comes. I just dread to think that the plan is something different from that at this point and it is a highly unfounded fear at this point.

[Navin R Johnson]

#1 thing you can hope for in an owner is one that hires really smart baseball folks, lets them do their job and stays out of the way.  So far that seems like exactly what Crane is doing.  From the baseball side of things I give Crane high marks.  From the business side of things I like the new uniforms, everything else has been a disaster.

[Randy Watson]

It is their opinion that they cannot get that much better simply by spending money, but they can improve the farm, drastically (as they have).  You will never hear what I heard said in public, because of the negative public perception, but they are doing exactly what they think is best for the long term future of the club.  At least they have a plan, and are sticking to it...they will start spending when pieces start to develop, but it is a numbers game (need to pack the farm full first).

I know two of the investors.  The plan is to not spend money for a couple years on the big league roster -- which really would not help all that much any way and might cost us 1-1 slots -- and pay down the debt principal as much as possible (they aren't just servicing interest).

Then, once the debt is paid down, at the same time we should be competitive again.  Less debt and more cash flow available for contracts.

Seems like a reasonable plan to me.

[jbm]

You should advise them to communicate that plan.  As it stands right now, they just look exceedingly cheap, and many fans reasonably expect it to continue.

People talk about the Tampa model.  Sure, it has worked on the field, but not in the stands, even when they have great teams.  The lack of fan enthusiasm can't all be attributed to transplants, or whatever the present excuse is.  If it becomes ingrained that the rookie fans enjoy now will later be shipped for prospects, why invest your emotions. 

[Reuben]

Agreed. Not signing big named players now because they're paring down the debt is fine and understood. But an investment means you expect ROI. So if you invest in drafting, nuturing, and letting good young talent to play, then low win seasons is understood. But then to not retain them is going to show a different side of the plan that I will be sad to see (if it happens). I'd hate to see George Springer become an All-Star on another team because the Astros are still dealing with cost containment and not necessarily with competitive spending (at that point).

Maybe they expect to always have a pipeline in the minors to replace guys like Springer or Singleton when they're ready to get the big pay day? If so, might be interesting to see how they pull that off. I mean, it kinda worked for the Florida Marlins (for two world championships).

This pretty much nails my feelings. I really, really hope they spend to retain their young talent (hopefully locking them up with "security"-type extensions early on, a la the Rays/Longoria/etc.).

I feel like I read somewhere that they are not strictly following a "Tampa Bay" model, because they view the Houston market as capable of sustaining a larger payroll. More like St. Louis model perhaps (and remember, Luhnow built the Cards #1-ranked farm system without the advantage of having the #1 pick every year - in fact, he usually picked near the end of every round. I don't think they went way over-slot for guys much either.). Develop talent, keep it, use your surplus prospects to trade for the MLB talent you need to fill in, and maybe spend wisely here and there on modest FA signings. That's my hope, at least.

[Navin R Johnson]

You should advise them to communicate that plan.  As it stands right now, they just look exceedingly cheap, and many fans reasonably expect it to continue.

Maybe because stating this confirms that this ownership group couldn't afford this team?

The only way they could afford it was running out a AAA lineup, while charging Houstonians, advertisers, cable outlets/etc.. MLB prices for half a decade+, to finance their purchase. 

Basically MLB stuck us with 7+ years of shit, that the fans have to pay for, so Drayton could sell the team for what they consider market value.

[Ron Brand]

You should advise them to communicate that plan.  As it stands right now, they just look exceedingly cheap, and many fans reasonably expect it to continue.

You should advise them that their entire PR machine from the very beginning has been a shit show on the order of, say, Milli Vanilli or New Coke. They might give a damn about the fans, but the persistent message is Fuck Them, We'll Keep The Idiots Who'll Stick Around For Anything Until The Team Starts Winning Again.

[Limey]

Basically MLB stuck us with 7+ years of shit, that the fans have to pay for, so Drayton could sell the team for what they consider market value.

It's like if, say, BMW were charging the same premium prices for their cars, but fitting them with sub-standard, malfunctioning engines.

Eh?  Oh.

[Ty in Tampa]

People talk about the Tampa model.  Sure, it has worked on the field, but not in the stands, even when they have great teams.  The lack of fan enthusiasm can't all be attributed to transplants, or whatever the present excuse is.  If it becomes ingrained that the rookie fans enjoy now will later be shipped for prospects, why invest your emotions. 

Tampa Bay has many problems, first and foremost a shit stadium in a poor location. No one here claims that they don't go to games or don't care about the Rays because the owner is cheap. Miami is who you are thinking of.

[Ty in Tampa]

You should advise them that their entire PR machine from the very beginning has been a shit show on the order of, say, Milli Vanilli or New Coke. They might give a damn about the fans, but the persistent message is Fuck Them, We'll Keep The Idiots Who'll Stick Around For Anything Until The Team Starts Winning Again.

What could they tell you?

[Ron Brand]

What could they tell you?

Milli Vanilla Say, New Coke Tastes Great!

[Ty in Tampa]

Milli Vanilla Say, New Coke Tastes Great!

We've Got A DH Now!!

[Navin R Johnson]

You should advise them that their entire PR machine from the very beginning has been a shit show on the order of, say, Milli Vanilli or New Coke. They might give a damn about the fans, but the persistent message is Fuck Them, We'll Keep The Idiots Who'll Stick Around For Anything Until The Team Starts Winning Again.

This.  The business side of the Astros is to running a baseball team, what Dr Michael Brown is to being a father & husband.

[Limey]

Milli Vanilla Studio Vocalists Say, New Coke Tastes Great!

[Ty in Tampa]

I don't think there's much they could do at this point to keep the fringe-interested interested. This shitstorm has to be weathered for any good to come out of it.

[Limey]

I don't think there's much they could do at this point to keep the fringe-interested interested. This shitstorm has to be weathered for any good to come out of it.

They couldn't get people to go for free last year.  Until they put a consistent winner on the field, the masses won't come back.

[Ron Brand]

They couldn't get people to go for free last year.  Until they put a consistent winner on the field, the masses won't come back.

Yes. They have succeeded in weeding out the casual fans and are moving on to weeding out the less fanatical ones. Only the ones who are willing to work at it will be Astro fans. Everyone else can enjoy the Rangers.

[Navin R Johnson]

I don't think there's much they could do at this point to keep the fringe-interested interested. This shitstorm has to be weathered for any good to come out of it.

Footer and JD come to mind.  Instead we get a clusterfuck of cheerleading/corporate speak from the social arm of the club and a massive downgrade in the broadcast booth.   And because of this group 60% of Houstonians cant watch the Rockets and there is a better than decent chance they wont be able to watch the Astros.

[Bench]

From the baseball side of things I give Crane high marks.  From the business side of things I like the new uniforms, everything else has been a disaster.

That should be the 2013 team slogan.

[Ty in Tampa]

I see it as a good thing. Too much shit other than baseball being focused on recently.

[Noe]

It's like if, say, BMW were charging the same premium prices for their cars, but fitting them with sub-standard, malfunctioning engines.

Eh?  Oh.

I know someone who resembles this remark... eh? Oh!

[Noe]

I see it as a good thing. Too much shit other than baseball being focused on recently.

Which in turn, test the maturity of the baseball market in Houston. FWIW, you can still draw fans in St. Louis because they, the nominal baseball fan, understand to a degree and will support the team/organization. Just don't freaking lie to them, and they'll support a tear down to build back up approach. Same I would think in other baseball mature bergs like Cincy, Boston, New York, Philly, and Chicago. Oh wait, in Chicago, it's about keeping the beer flowing that keeps 'em coming around!

So Houston is going to go through a baptism of sorts, we've had fiddy years to prove we can maintain a baseball fandom (and most of the nation doesn't believe we can live through this because we are a football town only). So either let the beer flow (at cheap prices at the MMPUS) or keep the status quo and realize just how good a baseball town we really are. Or maybe we're just the typical "We back a winner" town, which is pretty okay by me too.

[roadrunner]

This pretty much nails my feelings. I really, really hope they spend to retain their young talent (hopefully locking them up with "security"-type extensions early on, a la the Rays/Longoria/etc.).

I feel like I read somewhere that they are not strictly following a "Tampa Bay" model, because they view the Houston market as capable of sustaining a larger payroll. More like St. Louis model perhaps (and remember, Luhnow built the Cards #1-ranked farm system without the advantage of having the #1 pick every year - in fact, he usually picked near the end of every round. I don't think they went way over-slot for guys much either.). Develop talent, keep it, use your surplus prospects to trade for the MLB talent you need to fill in, and maybe spend wisely here and there on modest FA signings. That's my hope, at least.

Remember the Mike Hampton and Billy Wagner trades?  It's not always about just retention.

[Ty in Tampa]

Which in turn, test the maturity of the baseball market in Houston. FWIW, you can still draw fans in St. Louis because they, the nominal baseball fan, understand to a degree and will support the team/organization. Just don't freaking lie to them, and they'll support a tear down to build back up approach. Same I would think in other baseball mature bergs like Cincy, Boston, New York, Philly, and Chicago. Oh wait, in Chicago, it's about keeping the beer flowing that keeps 'em coming around!

So Houston is going to go through a baptism of sorts, we've had fiddy years to prove we can maintain a baseball fandom (and most of the nation doesn't believe we can live through this because we are a football town only). So either let the beer flow (at cheap prices at the MMPUS) or keep the status quo and realize just how good a baseball town we really are. Or maybe we're just the typical "We back a winner" town, which is pretty okay by me too.

That's a very good...and accurate point. Tampa Bay is still an infant when it comes to baseball. It's often said here, because of it's transient nature, to give the team at least one generation for the area to really show what it can give back. I think it's gonna be two...or more.

[moriartp]

Or maybe we're just the typical "We back a winner" town, which is pretty okay by me too.

That's the one. Houston will fill MMP to bursting if the Astros make the playoffs. Otherwise, the city as a whole doesn't give a shit.

[Andyzipp]

That's the one. Houston will fill MMP to bursting if the Astros make the playoffs. Otherwise, the city as a whole doesn't give a shit.

I think you're selling the city short, in that people will come watch if they're "winning" so contention for the playoffs is what will draw, but the window is closing.  If they're big-time losers for 10 years, does that wipeout 1994-2006? 

Did 1987-1992 wipe out 1980, 81 and 86?

[Bench]

I think you're selling the city short, in that people will come watch if they're "winning" so contention for the playoffs is what will draw, but the window is closing.  If they're big-time losers for 10 years, does that wipeout 1994-2006? 

Did 1987-1992 wipe out 1980, 81 and 86?

When they return to contention, the average Houstonian will brag about how they were there to suffer through the dark years, and how they remember Jose Altuve, and how they never gave up on the team.

[roadrunner]

I don't think it would take much for Houston to back the Astros again.  There are too many people who were around for '04-'05 and know how fun it can be.  I know that this is football country, but if the Astros could gain just half of the fanbase support the Texans have right now it would be a huge success for the franchise.  Plus the city is growing like crazy and these Fortune 500 companies have to spend their money on some form of entertainment.

[Noe]

I don't think it would take much for Houston to back the Astros again.  There are too many people who were around for '04-'05 and know how fun it can be.  I know that this is football country, but if the Astros could gain just half of the fanbase support the Texans have right now it would be a huge success for the franchise.  Plus the city is growing like crazy and these Fortune 500 companies have to spend their money on some form of entertainment.

There is an ever so subtle difference, IMHO, between backing a winner and loving a team. I think for an entire city like Houston to embrace and love the Astros, there has to be a huge investment involved. I think Ty's point about "generations" is the key to said investment. When grandfathers speak to grandkids about the days of Menke, Wynn, or Rader goes a long way to getting the love and embrace for a Bagwell, Biggio, and even Berkman into the mix.

I think Houston's love for the team is going to be tested by this whole move to the AL and the next few years of young, no-name (if you will) players and teams. I mean, you have nothing to fall back on other than the past right now... and that sort of saddens most of us. But we'll get over it and a new era will begin and in time, I will be that grandfather talking to my grandkids about the days of Bagwell and Biggio, while they watch as whatever new kid wearing the orange and blue hits a game winning single in the ninth to propel the team and city back into the playoffs. Until then, I don't think we can really fault the here and now fan for wanting to wait and see how this all works out. Backing a winner will come first, hopefully loving the team will follow soon afterwards.

[Ebby Calvin]

Until then, I don't think we can really fault the here and now fan for wanting to wait and see how this all works out. Backing a winner will come first, hopefully loving the team will follow soon afterwards.

I agree.  But I think the general fanbase with increase sooner than most think.  People still like to watch baseball, and everybody loves rooting for the underdog.  Soon enough we'll have some prospect (Springer, eventually Correa) come through the pipeline that could generate interest far quicker than a winning team could.  A moderate amount of team success might be all it takes.

Of course, it'd be nice to be able to watch the fucking games on TV.