AL West Getting Smarter
Dave · October 4, 2005 at 4:11 pm · Filed Under Mariners
John Hart stepped down as GM of the Texas Rangers this afternoon and named 28-year-old Jon Daniels as his replacement. Daniels is one of the most respected assistant GMs in the game and has a very bright future ahead of him. He is from the new class of baseball executives trained at an Ivy League school, but he also has a tremendously deep respect for scouting and subjective talent evaluation. He’s firmly in the school of “as much good information as possible” rather than casting his lots with the stats or scouts crowds.
The Rangers are in good hands with Daniels. The competition in the AL West just got a little bit tougher.
Comments
82 Responses to “AL West Getting Smarter”
Darn — I guess that means the Willie Boom Boom Dynamite for Alfonso Soriano deal won’t go through now…
I’m quite impressed that us Gen-X’ers are being shown such respect. That’s an impressive feat for him (and Epstein before him).
Strictly speaking, I think Daniels is too young to qualify as Gen-X, as disturbing as that it.
For what it’s worth, there seems to be some element of concern that Showalter’s still going to run the show.
28 YO, I think is a Gen Y (do we need a war to define our generation?) or the last years of Gen X.
But yeah, sounds like the AL West is getting tougher. Maybe 90 wins could mean a divison title?
Daniels was born in the 1970s. He’s Gen X eligible IMO.
JMB: I disagree. I was born in 1979. I was 11 when Pearl Jam’s Ten was released. Being born in the 70’s doesn’t make someone a Gen-Xer.
I think, technically, Gen-X refers to the children of the baby-boomers. Maybe we could find out when Jon Daniels’ parents were born.
Well, part of the problem is that nobody can decide where Gen-X stops and Gen-Y begins (including this wikipedia article, which is where I took my definition). I was born in 1978 and don’t consider myself part of Generation Y.
I don’t think your use of parents as the deciding factor works, either; my parents, while at the end of it, are in the Baby Boom generation, but my brother was born in 1984 and ceratinly nobody would call him Gen X.
Technically, “Gen-X” means whatever Billy Idol and Douglas Coupland want it to mean; as a matter of practice, I think you can break it down rather simply: if you can remember Kennedy getting shot, you’re a boomer; if you can’t but you can remember Reagan getting shot, you’re GenX; and if you’re too young for any of that, you’re Gen-Y. Though I suppose there’s a Gen-Z nipping at their tails now too.
Well, Wiki says 61-81.
I forget that it’s been 25 years since 1980. Damn, I’m getting old!
Anyway, the point is this: Texas has got out from under the A-Rod contract and now has smarter management; the Angels have a deep-pockets owner and a recent history of winning, and Oakland has Beane. The M’s need significant upgrades every year just to keep pace. And keeping pace, when the current pace is bringing up the rear, isn’t good enough.
Again, this points all the way to the top. As long as Howard Lincoln is CEO, the M’s will never see a championship. In spite of thanking him in person (during 2005 FanFest) for taking a little step forward and signing Beltre and Sexson, I don’t see him stepping out of his comfort zone and management philosophy. He hasn’t changed, really, and as far as ownership is concerned, he’s not a failure, so I don’t expect him to be leaving any time soon. He can rotate GMs, Managers, and Players all he wants, but the way he functions as a CEO hasn’t really changed.
Actually, Gen-X and Gen-Y are best defined by whomever is pitching the ad campaign. You youngsters will know you’ve arrived when Pearl Jam replaces Led Zeppelin on the Cadillac commercials.
Then again, Paul DePodesta hasn’t exactly set the world on fire.
If you can remember the Phillies winning the World Series in 1980, but can’t remember the infamous 10-game slide of 1964, you’re Gen-X
Nah, just kidding. A better way to put it might be that this new trend of GM’s under the age of 30 is pretty cool.
I’m looking forward to seeing what happens with the Rangers this off-season, then. They have about the same weak spots right now as we do, don’t they?
PositivePaul: I’m not entirely convinced that a CEO willing to spend ~$90 million can single-handedly ruin a team or bring them to the World Series. I’d be interested in hearing your defense.
Deanna said:”I’m looking forward to seeing what happens with the Rangers this off-season, then. They have about the same weak spots right now as we do, don’t they? ”
yah, their papers are all over the available free agent pitchers (btw, Cleveland has just said they are preparing a multi-year offer for Millwood) — I think they might have that ‘left-handed sock’ taken care of …
I was born during WWII. Too old for a boomer. What does that make me other than an old f**t.
As someone who has read the book Generation-X, I tend to agree with the Douglas Coupland comment. And as a person too young to belong to that generation would like to add that Generation Y is the stupidest, laziest name for a generation in recorded history. I prefer to think of us as the “Generation-that-has-to-pay-for-the-selfish-indulgences- of-the-Boomers Generation.” Or the “Screwed Generation” for short.
so where do those of us who barely edge in as a Boomer, but didn’t get any of the fun selfish indulgences and still will be screwed fit?
interesting discussions in the LA papers about the decision to ‘part ways’ by Tracy & DePo (“it was a mutual thing!”) particularly talking about the inability to agree about player evaluation
Dave,
The previous Texas owner was from a Ivy League school.
Tom “Cheap Channel” Hicks has probably just read Moneyball and has reached the same conclusions that “businessmen” Frank McCourt and Rogers Communications did – hire a young stathead hotshot to run the team as cheaply as possible in maximize profit$/limit lo$$e$. Win the playoffs? The book says it is a crapshoot, so why bother?
“It’s not the GM, it’s still the ownership, stupid”
The guy who should be worrying is Buck S.
It’s not the GM, it’s the ownership?
I don’t disagree, but where is it that Lincoln (and probably Armstrong) is screwing up? It’s not in the raw budget numbers, but where? Allowing mediocrities to hang on in management? Not giving your GM enough discretion? Where?
Other than being totally wrong on nearly every point, nice post, tede.
Texas already has some pretty good player talent. Combine that with better management, which the hiring of Showalter and now Daniels might seem to indicate, not to mention the shedding of ARod’s contract, and I am more concerned about the AL West competition.
Based upon productive result, alone, the A’s seem to always be a concern. And beyond the results, there might be something to that whole Billy Beane is a genius thing.
While I don’t think Stoneman of the Angels is any genius, they have a fully stocked farm system that makes me green with envy. Unless Stoneman were to really screw things up, I can’t see the Angels being a weak team for the next 5 and maybe 10 years.
That leaves our poor Mariners… It’s easier to critique something that is in front of my eyes every day, but even considering this bias, I can’t seem to picture an easy ride to a World Series in the next 5-10 years with 3 significant hurdles to cross right in our own AL West backyard.
And while I don’t believe all of our problems stem from Lincoln and his authorized $80-90 million annual budgets, I do believe that we’re getting less bang for our buck in terms of enlightened ownership than I generally see around the major leagues.
I think I’ll withhold judgment on Daniels and the notion that the “…AL West just got a little tougher.” until that is proven to me. If you take the mystique away from Epstein managing the Red Sox to the Championship–they did have the second highest payroll in Baseball after all–and exclude Billy Beane from the argument–a man who is anything but an Ivy Leaguerâ€â€you’re not left with a lot of proof that we should expect Daniels to be any sort of wunderkind.
#21 “I don’t disagree, but where is it that Lincoln (and probably Armstrong) is screwing up? It’s not in the raw budget numbers, but where? Allowing mediocrities to hang on in management? Not giving your GM enough discretion? Where? ”
Here’s a couple….
Rigidly adhering to his yearly payroll budget which prevents/limits midseason adjustments in personnel at the trading deadline or in the case of 2000/01 when revenue exceeded their projections, failing to increase the payroll budget.
Sending Piniella a written reprimand when in response to a reporter’s question, Piniella complimented the Houston Astros for risking a midseason trade (IIRC, the Randy Johnson trade).
Making hires over interview performance (Bob Melvin) rather than resume or philosophy
It’s the George Argyros era all over again run by smarter people. (Except for repeat offender Chuck Armstrong.)
#22 Tom Hicks fan? Or do you think Buck will still be there on Opening Day 2007?
Man, Grady Fuson really got shafted by Texas. I feel for him a bit.
Is there an explanation floating out there as to why Fuson left Texas, and didn’t end up as the successor to Hart?
1) Hire Buck Showalter.
2) Wallow in mediocrity for a few seasons.
3) Fire Showalter.
4) Win World Series the following season.
Worked for the Yanks and D-Backs.
Anyone hiring Grady Fuson?
+ Anyway, the point is this: Texas has got out from under the A-Rod contract and now has smarter management +
Weeellll.
Getting out from under the A-Rod contract and having smarter management consists of one negative and one positive from my point of view.
A-Rod may not be my favorite person on the planet, but I’m not sure how the Rangers are better off paying him $8 mill/year to push the Yankees to championships. Get out from under the Chan Ho Park contract and you’ll really be doing something.
They just aired sound bytes from Jim Leyland’s Detroit press conference. The guy pulled a complete Sgt. Schultz “I don’t know anything about this league or this team’s players” (in so many words). The guy looked pretty unprepared – especially for a guy who left his last dream job (Colorado) and for a guy who had supposedly been rumored to be getting this job for weeks. (Ahh to be a friend and former employee of the GM.)
So by 2008 we’ll see another hockey/baseball owner (Illitch) hire another youthful Ivy League stathead…..
If you cannot remember Mariner baseball BEFORE Junior…you are Gen-Y.
25. Since when is making a midseason trade for a playoff push a key ingredient in developing a contending team over a 5-10 year period? It isn’t like there are always apples hanging on the tree that the Mariners failed to pluck. The real problem with the team is the lack of a consistently, or even inconsistently, producing farm system. It seems that Lincoln is devoting the resources to shore this up–the question is whether the current GM and crew will have time to see results because the current major league team is such a loser.
Well, the farm system is #1….but it goes back to recognizing and developing talent, which has its impact on constructing the roster (which I’d guess I say is 1a).
Going back to Lincoln, I think much of his problem is that he doesn’t recognize the unique properties of baseball as a business, where individuals are not quite as interchangeable as they are in even the gaming industry. From his perspective, a team manager is far down on the totem pole, as are the players….yet they are integral to the success of the team as a whole. Not sure he realizes this even now…
If you saw Star Wars in the theatre, Gen-X
Wiki (pedia) is wrong. Consider the source.
….and another thing. I don’t subscribe to the kind of opinions that have been floated on this site (previous threads) that suggest the manager of a team has little affect as to the success of a team. The Mariners appear to me to be a decidedly dispassionate team. The only time they have played with passion and ultimately success was when they had a passionate manager. Perhaps we need a more passionate front office.
Really? Passion trumps talent?
Umm…I don’t think so….
Lincoln’s biggest problem is the ultimate goal of the franchise.
Instead of a simple goal; Assemble the best baseball team we can with x dollars the M’s goal reads like a corporate mission statement…within certain financial parameters, assemble a team of nice guys that complete the family fan friendly Safeco ballpark experience while assuring a respectable return on investment for the 15 club owners. Secondarily establish the Mariner franchise as a branded logo within the community ensuring future generations of fans to propogate the northwest baseball experience furthering merchandise sales.
Shrike said:”Is there an explanation floating out there as to why Fuson left Texas, and didn’t end up as the successor to Hart? ”
supposedly because they extended Hart…. “It was a very difficult decision,” Fuson said. “I have been engaged with the minors and Major Leagues, and the successes in both departments. It’s not about me being the GM or not being the GM. It’s been a great ride, but I thought it was important to do the right thing for [Hart] as he goes forward with his leadership.”
mZak, ‘consider the source’.
Yeah, why would anyone trust an encyclopedia written by “the laziest man in baseball”?
tede said:”They just aired sound bytes from Jim Leyland’s Detroit press conference. The guy pulled a complete Sgt. Schultz “I don’t know anything about this league or this team’s players†(in so many words). The guy looked pretty unprepared – especially for a guy who left his last dream job (Colorado) and for a guy who had supposedly been rumored to be getting this job for weeks.”
ah, Classic Leyland… no bull
when asked about ‘managerial style’ he had plenty to say…
“There are certain things which aren’t optional,” he said. “Being on
time, playing the game right, being a team, being a teammate and being
a team player, those are mandatory. I can assure you, we will be a
team. We will play the game right. We’ll respect the game and respect
each other. Those are no-brainers. Those are not optional. I’m not
hard-nosed. I love the players. But it’s my responsibility as the
manager to get the most out of each individual player and mold that
into a collective effort. I’m not looking for problems, but there is a right way and a wrong way to go about things. I have no idea how many games this team can win. I wouldn’t even guess. But we will be prepared to win every game we possibly can.”
I agree with 37’s point, though I wouldn’t have put it in terms of passion. I’d say our ownership if completely disengaged from the product they put on the field. Don’t forget that our majority owner has NEVER SEEN A GAME. That fact still astounds me. It is like one of those facts that one knows to be true, like the sheer size of the universe or the number of times a minute a hummingbird flaps its wings, but still can’t quite believe.
Do I think that having an owner that is completely engaged with the team translate into better performance on the field: yes. Does passion automatically translate into championships: yes and no. Steinbrenner is a case in the affirmative, Mark Cuban is a case in the negative.
Personally, I’d prefer it if the Ms had an owner sitting in the seats right above the Ms dugout. Wouldn’t necessarily translate into wins, but at least the fans would know the owner cared as much about winning as they do. Having the boss sitting in judgement above you might also encourage the players to make sure they weren’t wasting any at bats.
Uhm, the Mariners do have owners sitting in those seats. It’s just not the one majority owner you’re talking about. Or is it former majority owner; didn’t he transfer his ownership to Nintendo during this past season?
I was born in 1974, and I think I’m almost too young to count as Gen-X (even though my parents were born in 1945, making them just pre-boom).
Make Kim Ng your GM, hire Larry Dierker as your manager, and watch the team win.
Mr. Tang:
No of course not, passion does not trump talent. But talent does not succeed on its own.
Ive lived on the basis that Gen Y ended in 78 and Gen X started the following year. So another question is when did this “Internet Generation” start?
Talent may not succeed on its own, but passion is not the only path to success. Or are you arguing that, say, Joe Torre is not a success?
For what it’s worth, my opinion is that a manager may have more to do with team success than many people think. But it’s certainly not on the silly, gross, superficial level that most fans think on. Being passionate or showing visible passion is far, far, far less important than getting your players to play with passion…and the two are NOT connected.
I strongly believe that among several contenders, the Lou Pinella move was the greatest move made yet for our beloved franchise. We need an equivalent this winter and I have to say that I don’t think it’s out there — doesn’t have to be the manager.
The AL west is a competitive division. I really wonder what it’s going to take to get the Mariners out of the cellar. I don’t require that they compete for a title next year, that just seems masochistic to expect, but it would be nice to see some .500 ball.
Even given that lowered expectation, I think our odds of that are about 10-1.
39 – Exactly right!
#48
I think if you go back an read my original post, you’d find we’re pretty much in agreement with what you’ve said here. I am a fan of Joe Torre’s. I think the Yankees have talent, but also play with passion, or as #43 says, it may not be passion per se, but a focus or intensity.
A cohesiveness. I don’t believe a team can do this on its own, talent or otherwise.
On the free agent front, this is definitely going to be a competitive bidding market.
We’re looking to improve. The Yankees and BoSox are probably both dissatisfied with how this year went. Toronto’s payroll is increasing from $50 million to $85 million.
There should be a lot of money being thrown around, and there aren’t many good players at whom to throw it.
43. Do I think that having an owner that is completely engaged with the team translate into better performance on the field: yes. Does passion automatically translate into championships: yes and no. Steinbrenner is a case in the affirmative, Mark Cuban is a case in the negative.
Steinbrenner also owns a team in a league that allows him to basically spend money freely. Cuban has to work against a salary cap. And that’s excluding the fact that basketball and baseball are dramatically different games, not to mention in terms of how individuals directly affect the team’s fortunes.
Also, Steinbrenner owned the team in the 80’s and early 90’s, when the Yankees were a perennial doormat. His passion did not net them better performance then. I still remember the night Andy Hawkins threw a no-hitter and the Yankees still lost 4-0.
In terms of on-field impact, don’t confuse “passion” with “fiscal capability to buy the league’s best talent each and every year by outbidding the entire league”.
Passion or no passion, most teams still have to operate under a finite budget, still have to generate revenue and leave it to the General Manager to make personnel decisions.
some ownership info:
January ‘92 local politicians talked with John Ellis about putting together a local group of owners. That month The Baseball Club of Seattle was formed (by John McCaw and fellow McCaw Cellular executives Wayne Perry and Rufus Lumry) and announced its $125 million cash offer for the team, which included the purchase price of the club and operation cost. The principal investor was Hiroshi Yamauchi, whose investment was an expression of thanks to the region for the success of Nintendo. During negotiations with Major League baseball, his interest was dropped to 49 percent (which was held in irrevocoble proxy by his son-in-law Minoru Arakawa, Redmond-based president of Nintendo of America) so that the majority of the team was controlled by local owners.
This group was made up of a Microsoft group headed by Chris Larson (the highest minority investor), Rob Glaser, Craig Watjen and Jeff Raikes ; a McCaw Cellular group headed by John McCaw, Perry & Lumry ; small shares held by Boeing’s Frank Shrontz & Puget Power’s John Ellis, and seven others. In 2001 John McCaw sold his shares to VoiceStream Wireless Chairman John Stanton. In 2004 Yamauchi officially transferred his shares into the Nintendo ownership pool as an estate-planning move.
the last list I saw was:
Howard Lincoln, chairman and CEO, Board of Directors (left Nintendo in 2000)
Christopher Larson, senior program manager for Microsoft
John Ellis, retired chairman and CEO of Puget Sound Power and Light
Frank Shrontz, former chairman and CEO of The Boeing Co.
Wayne Perry, vice chairman Nextlink Communications and former president of McCaw Cellular
Craig Watjen, former Microsoft treasurer
John Bauer, executive vice president of Nintendo of America
Carl Stork, Microsoft executive
Judith Bigelow, partner in Seattle law firm Preston Gates & Ellis (married to Stork)
Raymond “Buck” Ferguson, Seattle, a business consultant and former Microsoft executive
Rob Glaser, former Microsoft vice president who founded Internet company RealNetworks
Jeff Raikes, Microsoft senior vice president
Bill Marklyn, former Microsoft project manager
John Stanton, chairman, CEO and director of Western Wireless Corp. and VoiceStream Wireless
Rufus Lumry, founder of McCaw Cellular and founder of Acorn Ventures
I am irresistably moved to say that, given this lineup of ownership, they would have no problem buying out the Nintendo shares if they so desired….
or even Albania.
Why would they want to? Is there some detriment to having Nintendo own 49& of the club?
55 – Exactly.
The only initiative Howie & Chuck can even hope to get mutual agreement on is, “Hey, we promise not to lose a bunch of money, OK?”
Ellis forced this group together “for the good of the community.” Howie and Chuck’s big nightmare is that a losing franchise will lead to “unpleasantness” among their friends and neighbors, and what a terrible cocktail hour that would be for everyone involved.
I want pennants! I really don’t give a crap about keeping a long list of local luminaries “pleased with their association with the Seattle Mariners Baseball Blub”.
Don’t get me wrong – I admire Chuck and Howie as executives. They’re making money in a very tough business and, from a distance anyway, they seem to recognize an obligation of public service stewardship. Told to go win pennants and get the team in a WS, I suspect they’d do the city and themselves proud.
But nobody in that entire group lusts for a WS ring. Their judgement is too sensible, their social contacts too important and they’ve made their bones in the community already. Choosing to pursue a WS at this point in the ol’ career just wouldn’t evidence sound judgement, now would it?
It does not matter who owns the team — the team will not be allowed to operate at a loss from year-to-year. The team’s failure on the field the last two years is due to poor baseball personnel decisions (namely, giving large, multi-year contracts to declining players) and neglect of the draft and minor league system, not ownership.
Well, actually, Albania would be less than pocket change.
Actually, I’d disagree that none of the ownership group are lusting for World Series rings. The Microsoft people, in particular, are all pretty competitive (testosterone driven, even; that’s why they were top dogs at Microsoft) and it’s pretty well known that Chris Larson is extremely competitive and has long been known to be an absolute sports nuts on the level of the folks around here.
It’s that these folks just don’t know the nuts and bolts of how to win (as do 2/3 of the folks actually running baseball teams). And they’ve given management to the wrong people (two of which, IMAO, are still with the team)
61, I work at Microsoft, and I can tell you there’s no huge surplus of testosterone here, quite the opposite. There is a lot of geek fury and nerdgasms when sci-fi moies come out.
I couldn’t disagree more.
A reason “those large multi-year contracts” were given to “declining players” is because of ownership’s entertainment-based approach.
The value placed on aging, popular, nice, good-looking, family-oriented, “pillar of the community” players with declining skills is a function of ownership’s entertainment-based values.
I certainly mean no dig at any particular owner, Chris Larson in particular or MSFT in general.
The organization is simply not built to win. The organization is built to maintain financially viable baseball entertainment in Seattle. Which it successfully does.
Um, Smeg, SF geekiness doesn’t preclude testosterone….(and from charity contests I’ve been involved in, there’s a lot of competitiveness among the higher ups at Microsoft….)
Ownership places so much value on “aging, popular, nice, good-looking, family-oriented, ‘pilar of the community’ players with declining skills” that they allowed the two players most fitting that description to be designated for assignment at mid-season the past two years.
66 – Exactly.
A winning club doesn’t break camp with them.
Well, a winning club needs to be more ruthless about dealing the fan favorites when they aren’t producing. That’s where catering too much for the fans CAN hurt you on the field.
If the team values popular players over productive players, why are Boone and Olerud not breaking camp with the team next year? In fact, exactly who on next year’s team fits that description? Maybe Moyer, if he comes back (which is not a given), but Moyer also happens to be the team’s best starter outside of Felix.
69 – The problem isn’t that Boone & Olerud aren’t breaking camp with the team NEXT year. The problem is that Boone & Olerud (and Wilson, Pokey, WFB…) broke camp THIS year.
In addition to difficult baseball judgements, Seattle has a whole other category of spurious value. Somebody has a spreadsheet saying Olerud on the team is worth X butts in seats, Boone is worth Y butts and Wilson Z.
Factoring in that spurious value makes already difficult baseball judgements impossible. And that’s why ownership matters.
#62
Very funny. I’m still cracking up.
Olerud did not break camp with the team this year. Wilson (the backup catcher), Reese, and Bloomquist (the utility infielder) had a combined salary of less than $3 million. They had about as much responsibility for the team’s failure this year as Jaime Bubela.
It is pure speculation that any of the owners have made Bavasi make personnel decisions based on who is popular with fans. And, no, Lincoln’s statement that the team will avoid acquiring known head cases (which removes a handful of players like Kenny Rogers, Milton Bradley, and Raul Mondesi from consideration) is not the same thing as saying the team values Pollyannas over production.
I don’t believe the Ms ownership makes as much negative difference as many make it out to.
This whole site, as I understand it, is about a quest for knowledge, a more scientific, testable/provable way of looking at the game. For those who feel that the current Ms ownership is the problem, where is your proof of this? (and please, don’t trot out tired old pieces of quotes that beatwriters and radio sports jocks take completely out of context specifically in order to inflame and excite their readers and listeners). This does not constitute proof. Opinion, restated no matter how many times or in how many different formats, is not equivalent to truth.
This ownership has been in place since 1992. Since then, we have had winning years and losing years and many other facets of the franchise (managers, GMs, players, even home park) have changed as have the circumstances and performance of the teams in our division. But ownership has remained (relatively) constant. So if you’re going to allege that ownership is THE problem, what explains the years we might quantify as successful? What facet of ownership is the problem? Somebody alleges above that having an owner who doesn’t attend the games is the problem, as if that somehow proves ‘lack of passion’. That statement alone is based on two assumptions – 1) that you’re not passionate about it unless you attend the games in person and 2) that being passionate about the sport as an owner actually makes a difference in whether or not the team performs well.
This site has amazing discussions about the merits of players, and sometimes even coaches (though, as pointed out by the authors themselves, so much of an evaluation of pitching coaches for example, is subjective and based on things that we, as fans, simply can’t know because they are not easily measured or quantified). But man, when this site enters into discussions of ownership, the quality of reasoned discourse takes a quick dive.
Hm. From the feed notes, there’s a quote that this is no longer the case. WHich implies it WAS the case previously.
73 – I have to agree with you. A few ending comments;
- I don’t think ownership lacks passion. They have a misplaced passion for profit before wins.
- I can’t, yet, point to any tools that objectively evaluate ownership, management or coaching, especially over time. That doesn’t mean no effect exists, it just means I haven’t got a tool yet.
- Personally I try to avoid discussing ownership or management except during the off season for exactly the reason you note: these discussions tend to degrade quickly.
I wouldn’t put it quite that way; I’d say that they don’t have a good sense for assessing risk that’s inherent in getting wins, nor do they trust the analysis on what each additional win will generate you in revenue.
#73 Another Day. Another Year. Another 90 loss season. And another season ticket invoice from the M’s once again requesting first payment by Game 3 of the World Series (October 25). One difference is that this year they had Mike Hargrove write the pablum letter to season ticket holders (in Marinerdom that means he is definitely returning). At least we got the former CEO (Ellis) to thank for the dancing grounds crew. But even that didn’t keep the owner’s nephew (Arakara) in his 1B dugout seat beyond the 5th inning during Fan Appreciation Night (a rare appearance by him this year).
Anyway, if you want some evidence of the shennigans/finnegans of The Howard, I suggest you read DMZ’s brilliant post from the archives (whatever happened to that guy?) dated July 14, 2004 dated 4:01 AM (at the very bottom of the link…assuming I get the link to work)
http://ussmariner.com/?m=200407&paged=11
Op topic biographical comparisons:
Jon Daniels -age 28, Cornell
M’s brass (as written up in the Media guide):
Dan Evans (age 45) is the only member of M’s front office management to list his age in the Media guide(DePaul grad).
Howard Lincoln – Cal Berkley (same as Frank Mattox and Brian Price)
Chuck Armstrong -Purdue & George Argyros School of Management
Pat Gillick – USC (same as Barbara Hedges and Ron Fairly – a teammate of Gillick’s)
John Ellis – UW
Bill Bavasi – U. Of San Diego
Bob Fontaine – no higher education listed in bio
Lee Pelokoudas – Arizona State
Benny Looper – Southwestern Oklahoma University
Mariner Moose – created in 1990 no higher education listed
#77. I read it, yet I don’t know how it qualifies as evidence. Now, if it were coming to me straight from the mouth of Kevin Mather, the Ms CFO, after he had taken an oath and sworn to tell the truth on the lives of his wife and kids…that might be considered evidence, but even then, unless you actually are able to see the books, alleging that the ownership is lying about taking a profit versus turning it back into the team is just speculation, no matter who engages in it. (And really, I’ve met and talked to Kevin Mather, and frankly, doubt I’d believe him even if he were under oath).
Also, yeah, I got the same damn letter today and yeah, I’m irritated by it as well. I’ve been a season ticket holder for enough years to push me to the edge. I had written Howard and Chuck a 5 page letter in August, basically telling them I was sick and tired of being taken for granted. That no matter how addicted I am, it has its limits. Their response was to have the Director of Sales call me, and spend over an hour making me feel all validated and listened to, while promising things would change. During that conversation, I heard about those season ticket holder focus groups who, well, I don’t know where they find these folks but they sure as hell don’t speak for me.
They (ownership) know they’re in trouble. They lost 4K season ticket holders last year, and they’re going to lose a helluva lot more this year. My partners aren’t renewing, so I’m dropping to a single seat, and I know at least 5 other long-time season ticket holders who aren’t renewing either and that’s just in my extremely limited orbit.
#79 I wonder too who are being selected for the season ticket focus groups that Howard is crowing about. (And I’ll probably compose my own letter to Howard/Chuck this month).
It looks like their only response so far to the drop off in season ticket numbers is the return of the Businessman/Weekend Season Ticket Plans (1/2 season tickets).
IIRC they were being heavily discouraged in ‘97/’98 under the threat of “buy a full season ticket or lose playoff priority/Safeco seating priority”. And gone completely in 1999 with the move to Safeco
You might tell your partners about the Weekend Plan. They’ll play Boston twice and SF on weekend homestands. One scheduling item to look forward to: next year they’ll host Texas twice for weekend homestands in September – three weeks apart. That looks to be the most unusual schedule quirk in years.
#80.
Yeah, I noted the 1/2 season plan (40 games, mix of weekday/weekend) but nowhere in the literature does it tell you what happens with regard to playoff games (yeah, I know, like that’s anything WE have to worry about). Do you get ‘every other game’ then also?
Also new is the option to buy season tickets for the left field bleachers, and of course, to pay extra money to have guaranteed promo items (something the Rainiers GIVE you just for the sake of BEING a season ticket holder, as I pointed out in my long long letter). That hair-brained idea, of offering us the option of paying MORE to get guaranteed promo items sent to our homes is, so Ms. Traisman told me, something that some other teams do and something that those dreaded focus groups (who told the Ms they didn’t really care about promo items at all) thought was a swell idea.
My response was ‘om, wait, I just sent you a 5 page letter telling you how the Rainiers treat me better, value me more as a season ticket holder than the Ms do, and how I don’t feel I’m getting good return on my decision to spend a huge amount of money (for me) on Ms tix, and your response is to offer me a chance to spend MORE to get what I feel I should be getting in the first place????
She seemed very nice and all, but… (oh, and she also skipped over my complaint about how the Ms offered discount tix for some games this season and I thought they should have just mailed me a check for $6 for each of my seats that they sold for $24 this season, while I, their VALUED season ticket holder paid $30.)
Good luck with your letter; maybe someday we can work our way into those focus groups.
#81
Playoff games & Half Season Seats. In the beginning (1995), the Weekend holder of the Seat got ALL the playoff games- (except the 1 game playoff w/ Anaheim which was understandable with less than 24 hr notice). The Business Plan holder (of the same seat), I believe got sat somewhere else but also got ALL the games. IIRC by 1997, you had to have the entire full season seat to get ALL the playoff games. My guess is that their 2006 policy will likely resemble what it was circa 1997, and you’ll just get a portion of the playoff games. But obviously they won’t be going to the playoffs next year.
Wow the promo thing. I didn’t see that. How far they have come. In the Kingdome, they had a separate season ticket holder entrance (sort of like at Cheney I believe) and you were pretty much guaranteed of getting the promo item if you showed up by game time. The promo items at Safeco have sucked so much recently or been strictly for kids, that I could never envision paying for them (e.g. an Edgar statue that doesn’t look like Edgar). Quite a change from them sending you an autographed Lou Piniella ball as thanks for renewing your season seat.
I would not expect to get into a focus group. My guess is that these focus groups are not entirely random (like the prize drawings on Fan Appreciation Night). Probably the larger accounts, newbies who are most likely to bail, club seat holders etc. – the marginal baseball fan w/ money who is more important to their bottom line. I just wish that this organization had as much baseball savvy as their marketing savvy.