Friday Astros News: Drayton McLane thinks sell
I'm back home for the Christmas Holiday, and it was startling to wake up Thursday morning and walk into the kitchen to find this article in the sports section of the Chronicle. Apparently, the whole "Drayton would consider selling the Astros" story-line has some legs to it. The revelation that the team was almost sold to Houston businessman Jim Crane in 2008 was somewhat startling, considering what a fixture Drayton McLane, Jr. has been with the Astros for the better part of two decades. To read the pseudo-obituary that Richard Justice penned was surreal, to be honest.
While all things, good and bad, must come to an end, I get the impression that most of us would be happy to see McLane sell the team and be on his billionaire way. Which is fine. I mean, the proof is in the pudding, and the Astros' pudding hasn't tasted good in a few years. To think, however, that Drayton's sole objective in buying the Astros was to turn a profit and speak to genteel civic luncheons is misguided. As much as we jump all over him for failing to sign draft choices or allowing the somewhat egregious signings of Carlos Lee, Woody William, Kaz Matsui, et al, I can't help but look past that and to the big picture of baseball in our city.
When Drayton McLane bought the club in 1992, the Astros had reached the playoffs a whopping total of three times in thirty seasons. Their home ball park was the Astrodome, and while we all love the place, it wasn't the greatest place to play or see a ball game. Attendance was minuscule, and the team was a distant third in popularity behind the Warren Moon led Oilers and an up and coming Rockets club. As Justice notes, the Astros were sold for $117 million in 1992, approximately on par with the San Francisco Giants. With the club valued at nearly four times that amount in 2009, McLane the businessman surely has to be pleased at the return on his investment.
As fans (ok, we're all beyond being called fans...super-fans?) we don't particularly care about the profitability of the Astros, beyond any effect it has on the product on the field and our record in the NL Central. Bottom line for the front office means a completely different thing than the bottom line for fanatics like us. Of course, winning on the field usually leads to winning at the box office. Which is truly the confusing part of the Drayton McLane saga for me. For such a savvy businessman, he has seemingly lost his way in determining what will best help his on field product these past few seasons. Attempting to compete by signing veteran free agents and neglecting the backbone of any baseball team- its farm system- has obviously cost Drayton in the short and long run. Surely he has to have realized that.
Now, with the Texas Rangers having gone through one of the more harrowing sales in sports that I can remember, it seems appropriate to consider Drayton McLane's sports-mortality. When ultimately his eulogy is given, I would like to think that fans will remember him for being the man who ushered baseball into relevancy in the collective mind of Houston sports fans, and gave the community a team they could be proud of. He may be a control freak to an extent, and we may not always agree with his hires, fires or in-betweens but if winning is the ultimate measure of a team, an organization and an owner, Drayton McLane has been a success. I told DQ just this past week that I don't care if the Astros never employ a sabermetric idea, as long as they get back to winning games and contending for playoff spots. Looking at the game objectively allows us to have a different appreciation for the decision making process of an organization, which by and large is a good thing.
Often times though, we neglect to mention that baseball is as much about emotion, the emotion of fans, players, coaches and ownership, as anything else. From what I can discern, emotion was lacking in 1992 surrounding our Astros. Their fanbase today is many times over what it was in the early 90s, due in no small part to McLane's ownership. We may get upset with him, but at least there is a palpable feeling towards the team, which I cannot say for certain was the case years ago. In wishing Drayton a fast exit from our lives, let's not be too hasty to dismiss his role in improving baseball in Houston.
0 recs |
16 comments
|
Comments
Everyone loved Drayton when he bought the team and immediately signed Doug Drabek and Greg Swindell. Of course, neither did much with the team and soured McLane on the whole idea of giving pitcher’s long-term contract. That led to the team losing out on the Randy Johnson sweepstakes in 1998 because Drayton wouldn’t guarantee a fourth year.
Still, never let it be said that Drayton didn’t spend money for flashy moves. He kept Biggio and Bagwell around, signed Hidalgo to a huge deal after his ‘breakout’ season. He brought in Jeff Kent, Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte. He approved some huge blockbuster deals for the aforementioned Johnson, Moises Alou and Carlos Beltran.
Whatever Drayton’s faults may have been, it’s easy to see that the team was much better early in his tenure than late. The main difference is that early on, McLane hooked up with Gerry Hunsicker, a possibly great General Manager who was able to draft well without having the kind of money available to many teams. A McLane-owned team had to draft well consistently to compete for the playoffs.
My biggest problem with his tenure as Astros’ owner is the Jerry Jones Complex. McLane thought he could run the team as well as his baseball people. That helped when he wooed Roger and Andy, but it hurt in the Kent and Beltran decisions. It hurt in the Woody Williams decision. But, ultimately, it hurt the team’s reputation. Do the best and the brightest baseball people want to work with the Astros when a guy like Hunsicker can be run off? Do the best talent evaluators like working for guys like Jones and Dan Snyder? No, McLane’s biggest problem was he got too tied up in the team. In the beginning, he didn’t know enough about baseball to be dangerous. In the end, he knew too much.
by David Coleman on Dec 18, 2009 9:24 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
McLane’s self-imposed budget cuts may reflect a view that the franchise can be sold for a higher price if the payroll is low. (I’m not sure I agree with that perception, though….if attendance continues to decline, I would think that has more negative consequences for the franchise value.) If that is what’s happening, then I hope he gets a sale done sooner rather than later, so the Astros don’t limp along in “strip down” mode.
Before we anticipate too much from sale speculation, I think we’ve learned (from the Cubs and Rangers) that a sale can take a long time, and the team’s moves go into a limbo state during that time. Contrary to what people think, the Rangers have not yet been sold. One group has been given a negotiating window. And apparently it will be a longer process in order to get creditors to agree to the deal and obtain approval from MLB.
While I agree that there is some excitement for Astros’ fans in thinking that a sale could improve the current situation, it’s also a big unknown—since a new owner could be worse, for all we know. The key questions for me would be: (1) does the new owner intend to infuse the Astros with more spending? and (2) what kind of management team does he intend to bring in ?
by clack on Dec 18, 2009 9:27 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
McLane
McLane took us from terrible leadership to adequate…but I don’t think any owner of a small market team is ever going to make the locals happy…ultimately, ticket sales and television viewership allows larger numbers of free agents…and we just don’t have the fan base really to support a larger effort. Of course, we’d like to think the billionaire could afford to do it for all of is, the reality is that these guys have to make the numbers work…When the entire Angels team is purchased for about the same price as Mark Teixera’s contract, there is a problem in baseball that is much larger than who carries the moniker of Astros owner.
---AstrosFan (Austin Lawyer and Sports Fan)
by AstrosFan on Dec 18, 2009 12:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think you’re underestimating the role of revenue sharing in profitability. Every team gets a VERY generous share of the MLB TV and MLB.com monies. Even if the Astros didn’t have a good regional TV deal with Fox Sports Houston or decent attendance figures, they’d still be able to maintain a payroll similar to the one they have currently.
The whole reason the Astros are in a ‘budget crunch’ this season is because they spent money badly in the past. It’s that simple. I cannot buy the theory that some teams just can’t compete. Look at the Minnesota Twins. Their payroll may edge above 100 million after Mauer’s extension. Every team in the majors has the money to be competitive. Some just don’t choose to use it.
by David Coleman on Dec 18, 2009 3:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Flordia Marlins
are another example and they have horrible attendance, quite possibly the worst. Yet they’ve won 2 championships in the last 12 years. They also are looking to make another run in a few years, all while operating under 60 million. Imagine if they had another 30 million to play with.
by timmy_ on Dec 18, 2009 3:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To clarify
the highest payroll they’ve had, in the past 12 years, was 60 million in 2005. Both championship seasons they were under 53 million.
by timmy_ on Dec 18, 2009 3:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Marlins live on luxury tax revenue sharing though
The last I looked the luxury tax transfer (basically a payment by the Yankees and Red Sox) to the Marlins exceeded the Marlins’ payroll. Marlins are living off a rich man’s version of marxism. :) Really, I refuse to accept the Marlins as a model, because they have abused the system.
by clack on Dec 18, 2009 4:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think their attendance speaks for their abuse of the system, and I know that was a bit of a topic last year when their payroll was at like 16 million. Hopefully when they move into a new stadium they’ll be able to stabilize the payroll instead of having to build it up then tear it down.
by timmy_ on Dec 18, 2009 4:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
ditto for the Pirates
I’ve heard a few media comments that make me think that issue will be addressed somehow in the next CBA.
by ol Pete on Dec 19, 2009 10:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It...
It is not that they can’t compete, but they can’t make mistakes and they can’t really fight over international free agents. If the Yankees make a mistake with a $65 million, 3 year deal, they just buy it out, or eat it and sign another guy. The Astros have to make every decision count, and mistakes are punished for the remainder of the contract. Also, if they spend the money to develop talent, they only have a couple of years to get the most out of them, again mistakes being punished if they try to lock them up long term. Do the Astros get some revenue from other sources? Yes, but they don’t have the huge dollars coming in from their TV contracts that big market teams do.
And Mauer is like Roger Clemens. When it makes sense to pay the local hero because it generates high levels of interest, you pay the guy. McLane did that too.
---AstrosFan (Austin Lawyer and Sports Fan)
by AstrosFan on Dec 18, 2009 4:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Whose fault?
In my view, the Astros’ downfall occurred in the off-season prior to 2007. A number of bad decisions were made in one swift move which created massive problems for the franchise. First, the Astros signed Carlos Lee to a massive contract. McLane personally negotiated the contract, but I believe that Pupura and Garner were pushing hard for this signing (mostly because of the Astros’ offensive problems in the 2005 World Series). Second, Woody Williams was signed before the Padres even made an arbitration decison on him. I’m not sure whose idea it was, but I wouldn’t be surprised if McLane finally decided to sign the Houston pitcher. The combination of Williams and Lee tossed the Astros’ top draft choices in the trash can. Third, the Astros refused to offer arbitration to any of its 4 Type A free agents, preventing the team from recovering any of the draft choices it lost. Fourth, the Astros declined to give in to Andy Pettitte over a couple of million dollars, which triggered the next bad move. It’s hard to know whether McLane or Tal Smith was the motivating force here, but it appears that someone at the top level just got pissed off at Pettitte and his agent. Fifth, without Pettitte, the Astros were forced (in their view anyway) into a “must trade” situation, sending Hirsh, Buchholz, and Taveras to Colorado. The blame probably lies with Pupura, but probably some of that was forced on him by McLane’s or Smith’s emotional reaction to Pettitte’s off-season approach. Sixth, the Astros refused to sign their remaining upper level draft choices (other than Delome), resulting in what has been regarded as the worst draft in MLB history. Responsibility here? Probably McLane. The Astros’ amateur draft personnel went into the weakened draft believing that they could take risks and pay above slot on their remaining draft picks. Apparently, that wasn’t allowed. As a result the 2007 draft was basically given away. That empty draft probably destroyed the Astros’ farm system.
It’s hard to sort out how much fault to place on McLane and how much lies with the people he hired. I suspect that Pupura sold the Lee signing to McLane by telling him he would save money on draft picks. But I also think McLane liked the publicity of big name signings more than spending money on draft picks. The Lee and Williams signings pressured the budget and led to the Jennings trade as way to save money (by avoiding Pettitte or an alternative free agent pitcher). 2007 was a very bad year to go to the free agent market for slugging outfielders, which is why Lee and Soriano cost so much. If the Astros had just put a placeholder in LF (which many of us suggested), such as Luke Scott, Moises Alou, or Luis Gonzalez, the team could have waited for a future year to pick up leftfielders on the cheap.
It wasn’t all McLane’s fault, in the sense that he relied on some of the advice he was getting. But in the bigger picture, he is responsible for the GM and somewhat dysfunctional decision making process he put in place.
by clack on Dec 18, 2009 5:22 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
I agree with all that
I especially still seethe when i think of Tim Purupura
Even aside from those, however, Astros future was hurt before 2005. Gerry Hunsicker was a genuis at getting the right player at the right tme, but many of his trades came at the expense of the Astros farm system. Commentators inevitably warned the Astros were selling the future for the present. and so it turned out.
Also the Bagwell/Biggio foundation (on and off the field) cannot be understated as a big reason for the Astros success in the 90s – players wanted to play for the Astros. I think we all knew then that the Bagwells and Biggios of the sports world come too infrequently.
I think Bobby Heck (and Ed Wade) are rebuilding the foundation. We may not see any solid results for 2 to 4 years but the new wave will arrive. So far we see "Green shoots’ in pitching, and catchng. Power hitters must be next.
Will McLane be around to see the next contender? My crystal ball is a little hazy on that one.
(P.S. – I blame Carlos Beltran and his agent and not anyone connected with the Astros for his departure and the classless way he conducted the negotiations)
Astros fan for life
by Joe in Birmingham on Dec 18, 2009 6:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ouch.
Spot on.
Hi, my name is Rich and I'm an Astroholic.
by Austin Astroholic on Dec 19, 2009 3:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He lucked out on Hunsicker...
and his loyalty to Biggio and Bagwell helped. That’s it. The fact that Purpururura* replaced Hunsicker shows how much of a fluke it was.
I am launching into a votive-candle campaign—anything to cosmically nudge McLane into Doing The Right Thing.
(*: Not to be confused with any number of Madagascan politicians.)
by va que va on Dec 20, 2009 12:16 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Thanks Drayton
For bringing us Minute Maid Park. And showing the world that Houston is a baseball city. How many times have we drawn 3M in the past decade?
Owners go through up and down cycles just like teams, just like all of us. We don’t know what other businesses Drayton is working on specifically. At least, he is going to sell, when it is obvious he has lost his focus on the ballclub. Getting the payroll down helps the marketability of the team. I just hope we get an owner that is committed to winning.
Baseball sucks for one reason. 80% of the teams heading in to spring training have no chance whatsoever of making the playoffs. At least we are not in Pittsburgh.
by Flying Flounders on Dec 20, 2009 6:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

by 


















