"$70M is a lot of money and it is hard to believe that the Astros product was damaged that much by the move so from that standpoint, Crane seems to have made a good business deal."

This is really the point that I've been emphasizing. I don't like the move, but I can't blame Crane too much for making a business decision. Owners may like baseball, but they're still spending money to make money.

"However, do you think any other team would have taken the offer?"

Maybe not, but we were in a unique situation. The alternative of moving to the AL West carried many of the same issues.

As far as angering Selig goes, don't forget that Drayton bent over for Selig when it came to paying draft picks slot money. Drayton had enough money to buy the team several times over and he still didn't want to put up a fight.

"Team is too plain bad to risk losing any fans who may or may not come back when we're respectable again is what I'd argue"

The flip-side of that would be that you don't want to risk 70M when your revenues are so low anyway.

I'm sure a few fans are going to be lost in the move, but winning is still going to be the determining factor. If we start winning, the average fan isn't going to care which league we're in. On the flip-side, staying in the NL isn't going to keep fans coming to see a lousy team.

"The flip-side of that would be that you don't want to risk 70M when your revenues are so low anyway."

$70 million is just the price for someone in a poor financial position and Crane's associated baggage as rayaway has tried to explain. Selig wouldn't have the same negotiating hand with someone who didn't need help from MLB. Suggesting "move to the AL or you don't get the team - here's $70 million" would be the deal for a prospective owner with Drayton-type pockets doesn't make any sense

MLB investigated his group's finances prior to the 70M discount being finalized. I would have to think that Drayton did some research of his own before accepting the orignal offer too.

From MLB's perspective, why would you not offer the 70M to a different owner? We were the most logical choice to balance the leagues and we know that they were willing to throw at least 70M at the problem. The only difference is that an owner with less baggage might have been able to squeeze a few extra million out of the deal.

"Suggesting "move to the AL or you don't get the team - here's $70 million" would be the deal for a prospective owner with Drayton-type pockets doesn't make any sense"

Offering the money still makes sense. Let's not forget that Drayton agreed to the move before the sale and he still holds a stake in the team. Drayton could have ponied up the extra 35M and made MLB's discount meaningless. If this were purely a financial issue for Crane, obviously an owner with Drayton-type pockets (Drayton) didn't think it was worth paying an extra 35M to fight MLB.

I have no problem with Crane. I'm just saying that his deal was financed heavily by debt and that a different buyer might have not been so easily swayed by the discount. You and others talk about how this was a sound business deal. I contend that since he needed so much help from other investors to own the team, the best business deal would have been for him to walk away.

" Let's not forget that Drayton agreed to the move before the sale and he still holds a stake in the team."

Please tell me you aren't trying to say Drayton agreed to the move without Cranes input and then poor Crane said but....but....but I don't wanna go to the AL.

Like I said, the thread title is harsh because there hasn't been time to right the ship. I hope Crane's plan to "work harder and smarter" than the other teams will make up for the team being heavily leveraged. A recent study showed that the Astros financials rank 21st which is why I was surprised that MLB was willing to extend the Astros above the MLB debt threshold in the first place. I don't "blame" Crane for the move because I see the business sense in moving, I just don't see the necessity to sell the team in the 10th largest market to a group that probably can't support a top 10 payroll. Hopefully, the reduced price will lead to an earlier exit from the debt and be able to put a MLB product back on the field sooner. I don't think there as any argument that MLB put Crane over the barrel "move to AL or you don't get the team" and when Crane asked for compensation, MLB put Drayton over the barrel "if you want to sell the team this year, cut your price". Your term "unique situation" is appropriate to use when describing this issue. While I am on board with the team moving forward after 3 years of wondering, I believe the chain of events which led to the "unique situation" would have been different if the new owner would have been a cash buyer.

:::I'm just saying that his deal was financed heavily by debt and that a different buyer might have not been so easily swayed by the discount:::

I contend that Crane was less swayed by the money, and more swayed by the "If you don't agree to change leagues, we aren't going to approve the sale of the Astros to your group."

Well, we aren't going to argue that Bud Selig is a <dick.

which brings us back to the title of the thread

"obviously an owner with Drayton-type pockets (Drayton) didn't think it was worth paying an extra 35M to fight MLB."

by "Drayton-type pockets" I meant a hypothetical owner who wouldn't need help purchasing the club. Drayton bent over backwards not to fight the commissioner so I would exclude him as an example

I'm addressing this to you but it applies to other responses too.

"Drayton bent over backwards not to fight the commissioner so I would exclude him as an example"

That fact that Dryaton bent over backwards reinforces my point. People are arguing that Crane's weak finances opened him up to taking discounts and bending over for Selig. Given that Drayton essentially did the same thing despite having money to burn, I don't think it's a sound argument.

" People are arguing that Crane's weak finances opened him up to taking discounts and bending over for Selig. Given that Drayton essentially did the same thing despite having money to burn, I don't think it's a sound argument."

Drayton moved the Stros to the AL? Gee I must have missed that.

"Drayton moved the Stros to the AL? Gee I must have missed that."

He agreed to the Stros moving as a pre-sale condition.

"Given that Drayton essentially did the same thing despite having money to burn, I don't think it's a sound argument."

From the beginning of his tenure Drayton always asked how high when Selig told him to jump is what I'm trying to communicate here. No matter the issue. So I'd fully expect him to climb on the trampoline on this matter as well. That's why the ideal owner would've been someone with McLane's bankroll as long as it wasn't McLane

is my point

I hope you know I'm expecting a policy paper from you why gas prices are so high even though Bush & Cheney are out of office

"He agreed to the Stros moving as a pre-sale condition."

Only because the guy buying the team came crying to him. He did that for Crane NOT Selig.

Hey little prince, can I borrow some of the thousands you've saved on gasoline since those rapists left office? I want to buy an NL baseball team.

"Only because the guy buying the team came crying to him. He did that for Crane NOT Selig."

If Crane came crying to Drayton in need of a discount, Drayton could have given it to him. Instead he let MLB contribute 35M.

"If Crane came crying to Drayton in need of a discount, Drayton could have given it to him. "

LOL -I'm done. You obviously don't get it and never will.