Zero.Point.Zero

[Bob Kohm]

You clearly like the idea of screwing fanbases over by moving their teams around willy-nilly.

Getting a little emotional now, Mike. What fanbase would we be screwing by moving the Astros? The former one that used to give the Astros mediocre at best support, as evidenced by the numbers?

There are teams that are a LOT more interested in moving than the Astros, and you don't see them moving to these new markets you like. Maybe the grass really isn't greener in those markets.

MLB isn't sanctioning the moves, Mike, as we both know. Look at the war the A's have had to fight just to move down the freeway.

Having said that, your comparison to the Nationals move is wrong on at least a couple points, the second one being a key problem with all your thinking.

1. The Astros farm system was in worse shape than the Expos/Nationals.

Is it worse now than the Expos was at the time of the move? That's the germane argument.

2. The DC metro area was a much better market than any of the places currently available.

Absolutely. How was the Tampa market when the Rays moved in? Granted their attendance sucks, too due to the badly situated stadium, but all around they're much more successful that Houston, yes? The actual Carolinas combined market would be better than or at least rival markets like Pittsburgh, KC, Cincy, Oakland, Tampa, San Diego, etc. We've seen over the past few years how teams can succeed in those markets, haven't we? Yet we see a train wreck in Houston, Miami, Chicago, etc. Clinging to the big market/small market paradigm is so very contradictory to your embrace of new stats, isn't it-- evaluating teams by their market size looks pretty akin to evaluating pitchers on their W-L, really

[Kevin Seitzer]

But they haven't. In 14 of the seasons over those 30 years where the Astros have been .500 or better, they've finished at the 50% or worse line in attendance. Those years include 1986 (Lost NLCS, 7/12), 1997 (Lost LDS, 8/14), 1998 (Lost LDS, 8/16) and 1999 (Lost LDS, 8/16).. and they just barely peeped above the bottom 50% in 2005 when they made the Word Series and yet were 7/16 in NL attendance. That's pretty robust evidence of a team with a lackluster fanbase over the long term, no? Those numbers also include Minute Maid Park years. Hell, the year that Minute Maid opened (2002), the team went 84-78 and were still in the bottom half for attendance (9/16), even with the winning team and brand new park.

Big market vs. small market? This is a team that in 2012 was outdrawn by a similarly crappy Colorado team, by Pittsburgh and KC, by Cleveland and Minnesota. Those teams all sucked that year, too, Mike. The potential for higher revenues over the long term if all you go by is market size favor Houston, of course-- but there's no need to stick it out long term when you can reap short and mid-term benefits from the Astros club somewhere else and reap better long term benefits from a new team in Houston ten years down the road without the baggage and drag on fanbase that the Astros embody. You open a new, profitable market while a market that should turn a future profit reinvigorates and prepares to hand you that profit. Just doesn't seem all that harebrained, Mike

Winning has a lag effect on attendance, and sustained winning has a bigger effect. The sustained winning of the 1990s and early 2000s is what drove the average attendance of 2.8 million over a 10-year period that I mentioned earlier. You can call that lackluster if you want, but no available market is going to sustain an attendance anywhere within shouting distance of 2.8 million over a 10-year period. You keeping harping on the idea that Houston ought to be able to produce more attendance than that, but I keep reminding you that's irrelevant. I think it probably can produce more attendance than it did even during what so far was the heyday of the franchise, but even if it can't, so what? You're dating a 7, and because you're mad she's not a 10, you go shack up with a 4 to prove to her how ugly she is? Being in the middle of the pack in attendance is still better than moving to the smallest market in baseball out of spite. Why would an owner want to do that? The fact that some other owner could reap the "new, profitable market" of Houston a few years down the road is actually a reason for an owner to want not to move, I would think!

[Bob Kohm]

Attendance is a poor indicator of the health of a franchise. This is where teams get their revenue streams from. Houston is doing rather well despite the attendance/ratings

The question becomes, Jason, what are Houston's next "Media"or "Sponsors" numbers going to look like? Right now they're eking out a number in the neighborhood of Baltimore and Milwaukee. After so many years of bad play and eroding fanbase, though, while the popularity of the game falls... where does that number go? If people aren't watching or coming to the park, why are companies goign to up sponsorship dollars? they aren't they're going to fall.

[joncarlos]

Big market vs. small market? This is a team that in 2012 was outdrawn by a similarly crappy Colorado team, by Pittsburgh and KC, by Cleveland and Minnesota. Those teams all sucked that year, too, Mike.

Small point of contention... the Pirates were in first place on July 18, 2012. Yes they were atrocious down the stretch that year, but their attendance had already started turning around based on a somewhat decent 2011 season.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Getting a little emotional now, Mike. What fanbase would we be screwing by moving the Astros? The former one that used to give the Astros mediocre at best support, as evidenced by the numbers?

I think it's legitimate to be emotional about fanbases. When I was a Royals fan, I got upset when they talked about contracting the Royals. Fanbases don't exist if not for emotion. I am certainly level-headed about the economics of the situation, but little kids don't understand when you move their team out of town, nor should they. Teams ask for an emotional attachment, and they ought to at least think a little bit about that.

MLB isn't sanctioning the moves, Mike, as we both know. Look at the war the A's have had to fight just to move down the freeway.

It's about the RSNs, and that, more than MLB's sanction, is what prevents moves right now.

Is it worse now than the Expos was at the time of the move? That's the germane argument.

The Astros player development system was in worse shape when the new owner bought the team than the Expos system was when they moved to DC. Of course, since we've done two years of work to put things right, it's in much better shape now than it was two years ago.

Absolutely. How was the Tampa market when the Rays moved in? Granted their attendance sucks, too due to the badly situated stadium, but all around they're much more successful that Houston, yes? The actual Carolinas combined market would be better than or at least rival markets like Pittsburgh, KC, Cincy, Oakland, Tampa, San Diego, etc. We've seen over the past few years how teams can succeed in those markets, haven't we? Yet we see a train wreck in Houston, Miami, Chicago, etc. Clinging to the big market/small market paradigm is so very contradictory to your embrace of new stats, isn't it-- evaluating teams by their market size looks pretty akin to evaluating pitchers on their W-L, really

Why are you trying to put a strawman in my mouth? There are more available dollars in the Houston market than the Carolinas, by far. Not even close. I agree that calling Houston the "fourth largest city in America" is deceptive. That's why I haven't talked about that. Of all people on this board, I think I have a pretty good idea where the Houston market stands. But comparing it to the Carolinas is ridiculous.

[james33]

Attendance averaged 2.8 million per year from 1999 through 2008. That's above average attendance, hardly lousy.

True- and this provides some evidence that the area is willing to support a baseball team. But at first glance, this would seem to be a big drop in attendance!

2004: 3.1 million (7th)
2007: 3.0 million (12th)
2010: 2.3 million (16th)
2013: 1.7 million (27th)

When did the tv mess start?

I don't follow the Indians. Any idea what happened in Cleveland - was it only a lousy team, or did they have a tv issue? Their rapid attendance drop makes the Astros' drop look like a gentle slope.

2001: 3.2 million
2004: 1.8 million

[Kevin Seitzer]

True- and this provides some evidence that the area is willing to support a baseball team. But at first glance, this would seem to be a big drop in attendance!

2004: 3.1 million (7th)
2007: 3.0 million (12th)
2010: 2.3 million (16th)
2013: 1.7 million (27th)

When did the tv mess start?

It's a huge drop in attendance. The team was in the World Series in 2005 and still competitive for the playoffs in 2007, but after that point the old owner basically quit caring about the team, and the organization started showing it, both in the win column and in other ways.

The team lost over 100 games in 2011, 2012, 2013, so it shouldn't be a surprise that attendance has hit rock bottom. The TV mess isn't driving the lower attendance, but it does explain how the team can get a 0.0 Nielsen rating. The old TV contract with Fox Sports Southwest expired after the 2012 season.

[cavebird]

Bob, you still have not even attempted to explain how moving a team out of a city "reinvigorates" the market. That is the fundamental basis of your position other than going for short-term gain that could be realized by moving any number of teams around willy-nilly. Is there any history/factual/not-pulled-out-of-your-ass basis for taking a team away to reinvigorate a fan base? And please don't use the Nats. They tried that in the medium term with the second Senators and it flopped. Then they waited 30-plus years and the size of the city jumped astronomically in the meantime.

[cardboardbox]

When the Oilers left Houston, my 2nd favorite team, the 49ers, became my favorite. When they get kind of sucky, and then crappy, I lost all interest in the NFL. My allegiance to the 49ers was too weak to withstand some down seasons. Today I dont give a damn about the NFL and the Texans are just like any other football team. No interest. The NFL lost me maybe forever, or at least for a long time. The same thing would happen if the Astros left. I would never care about an MLB team again.

I think Bob is just playing dumb to have some fun.