Lincoln, Armstrong, and the business side
Speculation and more speculation from a still jet-lagged author
Much is frequently made of what kind of a leader Howard Lincoln is, as a representative of the team’s ownership group, of which Nintendo of America forms the bulk. Lincoln is the Chairman and CEO of the company, and Chuck Armstrong is the President.
Howard Lincoln gets singled out for a lot of attacks. He’ll say things like “we have talked to a lot of season-ticket holders over the course of the last year, and one of the things we hear consistently is the following, we love this team, we love to watch major league baseball in Safeco Field, we appreciate the fact it is safe, secure, offers a family-friendly environment, and yeah, we’d like to see the team win (so would we) but nevertheless we like to come to Safeco Field. ” (msb sent us a whole transcript of an interview he did. msb is awesome, and feel free to thank her when you see her in the comments)
That kind of talk makes the serious fan blanch. The immediate reaction is “who the heck are they talking to?” followed by “would people please stop telling them that?”
Lincoln has fought the widespread belief that the team only wants to field competitive teams, and seems to make it a point to slip “World Series” in every time he says something like that. A statement like that, where he seems to say “we know the fans will come out to Safeco Field no matter what as long as it’s safe, secure, and family-friendly” is always paired with “of course, we fully intend to be contend next year and eventually win a World Series”.
The front office is also dishonest to the fans and the public on a regular basis, both in downplaying the profitability of the franchise and in other, generally financial, matters. This is not hard to prove and our dissent on these topics are easily found, so I’ll spare everyone a rehash. They have also in past years gone in front of small crowds and said that they budgeted a payroll for x attendance, and if more people came out they’d be able to spend more. When many more fans showed up, no players were acquired, and at the end of the year, Lincoln would say that the books were closed, and no profit would (or could) carry over to be used for payroll the next year.
Dishonesty from the heads of companies, particularly in accounting matters, where real profits can easily be turned into paper losses (or the reverse) while still using recognized, above-board methods, is unfortunately common. For a baseball owner, it’s almost a condition of the job. Still, the effect of this is that the suits are not to be believed when they say things like “we expect to compete this year” or “we are committed to providing a top-tier product”. There’s almost no point to evaluating those statements as true, or false. We must look at what they do, and how that matters.
The role of ownership in any team depends greatly on the owner. Peter Angelos was willing to spend a ton of money to build a great team, started to screw around with who ran it, and how, and they still haven’t recovered. The Twins owner, Carl Pohlad, is one of the richest people in the world, and his role with that team has been to allow them extremely small payrolls and fight for a new, publicly-funded stadium. George Steinbrenner has famously muddled in his team’s affairs and, at times, let his baseball people run them (for instance, when he was banned for misconduct). Groups with distributed ownership are generally less involved than a single person with their personal fortune heavily invested in the team, obviously.
What we know about the Mariner ownership, now that it’s moved to Nintendo of America, is that they have generally not gotten their hands dirty. In “Out of Left Field” the only instance where ownership mattered in the pursuit of Japanese players. There are a couple of others we know of or were rumored:
- an earlier trade of Randy Johnson was opposed by local ownership (possibly one of the Microsoft guys) and later approved
- ownership was behind Jarvis being showcased and then after one horrible outing, Lincoln told Bavasi he could dump the guy into the Sound
We also know that for all their talk about fan-friendly, the ownership either doesn’t pay attention sometimes or is willing to look the other way if they’re convinced a player would help the team (Al Martin is a particularly good example here, but there are others).
The Mariners, as a business, are amazingly successful. From team stores to non-baseball revenue they make off Safeco Field, they’re a money-making machine. Armstrong’s primary interest, as head of the ownership group, is to make more money. A winning team would be nice, but if a losing team made more money, last season would be a prelude to a decade-long dirge. When they listen to their baseball people pitch a particular deal, their primary thought is not “will this get us a World Series” but “is the return worth the cost?”
This brings the business side into baseball decision in many organizations. Is it worth it to spend too much to bring back the team captain because the backlash will affect ticket sales? Will signing an expensive free agent sell enough season tickets?
It’s reasonable to assume, knowing what we know about ownership in general and how the relationships work, that Bill Bavasi, the team’s GM, operates under a set of restrictions.
Monetary:
- Keep payroll under this number
And intangibles:
- Ownership has to consent (either in advance or before a deal is made) on (all deals/deals involving certain players)
- Ownership can make some decisions against the GM’s advice (for instance, while the GM may feel a local, popular guy wants one year and $10m too much on a contract, ownership may decide that it has to be done)
- If you’re going to acquire with a player with baggage that might cause a public relations issue, consult us first
The second is the most interesting dynamic. We know, for instance, that the highest profile trades are often tampered with. In some cases, this is why teams have to get at least one major-leaguer in dumps of high-profile players: ownership wants to be able to point at a clear return, and is unwilling to risk having a basket of prospects all fail.
In the Mariners’ case, think of it like this: Lincoln has great things to say about Willie Bloomquist, and apparently sincerely believes that great things happen when he’s in the lineup. Lincoln’s expressed interest in having Bloomquist play everyday to show what he’s capable of, and so on.
Say that Bavasi disagrees: he sees Bloomquist as a useful bench player, but Bloomquist is likely to make $2m in arbitration. Bavasi wants to let him go. Would the ownership step in and force spending that small but significant chunk rather than lose him?
Or, say Bavasi wants to acquire a Marcus Giles clone, and can get MGC for a bag of cashews. Would the ownership authorize the cashew giveaway if it meant Bloomquist would assuredly never play a regular infield position?
It’s hard to say. In the past, there’s been almost no evidence of direct intervention in cases like that. But consider it a little further:
- Griffey demanded a trade
- Randy had feuded with management for years, and was forcing a trade
- Alex Rodriguez took the team to free agency
It’s natural that a person like Lincoln would respect and leave alone a GM of Pat Gillick’s stature. He might argue his case, but be extremely reluctant to overrule the judgment of someone known as the best GM in baseball. Coming into this year, Bavasi may be a better GM than Gillick (which is a whole other discussion) but with two terrible seasons here and no media seal of approval, the temptation to substitute his judgment for Bavasi’s will be much stronger.
There have been few cases in the ownership’s history where you might look for fingerprints. Dan Wilson’s retention, for instance, but even that wasn’t much money. Jamie Moyer’s 3-year deal was rich for a home-town favorite, but not out of the realm of reason.
This also becomes more important as Lincoln & Co. try to balance the fan issue (which I wrote about earlier). If they’re attached to Bloomquist, and they believe the fans are attached to Bloomquist, and they think it might be the last straw to trade away the scrappy local boy, they might step in.
And then we’re in trouble. The more frequently and the more directly ownership gets in the way of the baseball people, the less well the organization will do, the worse the team will fare, and the dimmer the fan’s chance of seeing a good team in the near future will be. It’s unfortunate that this year, as the team faces a huge season that could return them to grace or damn them to a long purgatory in the AL West cellar, the pressure and temptation for those at the top of the organization to meddle is greater than it has ever been.
Until we see that start to happen, though, we should discard public statements by Lincoln or Armstrong that show they don’t have a good idea of what makes a productive ballplayer, or how to construct a winning team. As long as they give people who do know those things enough money and freedom to do their jobs, the business side’s baseball opinions aren’t relevant, no matter how dumb they may seem.
Comments
58 Responses to “Lincoln, Armstrong, and the business side”
Howard Lincoln lives down my street. Requests for house egging should specify brown or white eggs.
Awesome post, Derek. Keep the good work coming.
Re #1: Brown eggs should do nicely.
You live in Howard Lincoln’s neighborhood? Tell your butler to use brown eggs.
Good stuff, and generally sensible advice. If you listen to Howard and take it as gospel, you’ll go insane as a fan.
Free-range turkey eggs. You gotta have style, yo.
Great post DMZ.
Carl Everett is one guy they vetoed.
IIRC, they knew about Al Martin’s bigamy/messy divorce but they did not know about the fake USC football bio. Towers said he was going to DFA him anyway before the trade. That he simply couldn’t play again reveals the M’s poor scouting of NL teams.
The yuppie owner who blocked the Fred Claire deal for Randy Johnson deserves our thanks (Valez and the wrong Guerrero). But there is also the “rumor” of Joey Cora being resigned circa ’97-’98 because allegedly he was a favorite player of one of the owner’s kids.
Beyond payroll there is the degree of participation of the front office in the hiring of Melvin (quite a bit) vs. Hargrove (not as much).
Brown AND white.
I am convinced that the Freddy and Guillen trades were because the ownership wanted them gone because Freddy won his abitration hearings and Guillen was his drinking buddy. Bavasi got rid of them but it was not his choice to get rid of them. Ownership declared to Bavasi that they must go.
I am glad those two are doing well. I am saddened because I felt ownership destroyed those relationships. I am just concerned that they are going to screw things up with the new batch of kids (Felix, Yuni, Reed, etc.) because they want to save a couple bucks in arbitration.
I vote for Ostrich eggs.
That article is pretty damned good, but very depressing. Even with the last paragraph, I feel like the organization just isn’t going to do the things we need to do to be competitive. I get that feeling even more intensely when I look at what the Angels, Athletics and Rangers are going to do to try to improve.
Interesting post but I think you underestimate the influence the head of a business has on all product lines. I have heard, from people who would definitely know, that Lincoln is a nightmare to work for and incredibly insecure. I think it’s unlikely the Mariners turn things around until Lincoln is gone.
Too often when we speak of the Ms “ownership” we speak only of the gaggle of local luminaries represented by Howie.
While the Public Facilities District that built and owns Safeco Field doesn’t own the MLB franchise, without the PFD building for “Howie & Friends” the most expensive field with the most lucrative lease in all baseball (Forbes) Chuck would not be able to deliver the profits he does for Howie and Friends.
I don’t know if this link is current, but the PFD Board Members and Staff need much more scrutiny.
Exactly what are we getting for the most expensive baseball field ever built? Exactly what are we getting for offering the best lease in baseball?
Howie and Chuck managed to redefine “competitive”. If these folks who run the PFD can’t set them straight, I bet we can find a PFD Board and Executive Director who can.
Floyd, can you cite any sources, or is it all on a hush hush basis?
Wow – of 7 PFD Board Members, 4 roll off this year (looks like December 1st).
I can’t cite sources but it is of a very high nature.
“The PFD Board of Directors consists of seven members. Four members are appointed by the King County Executive and confirmed by the Metropolitan King County Council. Three members are appointed by the Governor. Of those, one is nominated by the Speaker of the House and one is nominated by the Senate Majority Leader. Board members serve as volunteers for four-year terms.”
How hard could it be to get DMZ appointed?
can someone tell me exactly the job descriptions and roles of Armstrong and Lincoln?
I know that much, but what decisions are each of them responsible for? Apologies if this seems like a naive question, but it’s never been clear to me.
I blame a majority of the fans for ownership/management’s apathy toward winning a World Series. If the fans in the Pacific Northwest weren’t ignorant dolts, then guys like Howard Lincoln would probably be more focused on fielding a competitive ballclub; it is because wins would be directly associated with the profitability of the franchise.
Yet, the above paragraph notwithstanding, I still believe that some members of ownership and management are naive imbeciles — just like a majority of the fans — who are more focused on political-correctness, family atmospheres, and individual players, rather than the actual success of the team. It is, essentially, a goddamn farce.
In the end, thankfully, the other professional teams in the Pacific Northwest (e.g., Seattle Seahawks & Seattle Supersonics) are seemingly managed in a fiscially sound manner, with the main objective still being the winning of a championship.
Apparently Howard Lincoln has no organizational warm fuzzy love for Jaime Bubela
The “fan friendly” criticism gets completely blown out of proportion. A business must market the product that it has. The M’s have not won lately, so not surprisingly, their marketing has emphasized other aspects. The M’s have successfully developed a strong secondary market by selling, for lack of a better word, the niceness of their players and their stadium. Can it be annoying? Yes, unmercifully so. But look at the bigger picture. The fact that the M’s continue to draw despite a poor product on the field has prevented ownership from drastically cutting the payroll. As one of what Lincoln calls the guys sitting with his arms crossed, it kills me to hear the casual fan next to me say that Bloomquist should play everyday or cheer louder for the inane hydroplane race than a Felix strikeout. But I’d rather complain about sitting in a section filled with the baseball equivalent of the know-nothing party than complain about the M’s trading Jose Lopez because they cannot afford his arbitration-eligible years.
And if ownership values “fan favorite” players above winning, how come there are no “fan favorites” on the roster anymore? Arguably, Moyer is the only one left, but if he returns, it will because he was the M’s best starter not named Felix.
Yeah, it’s fun to blame ownership. They certainly deserve blame for not authorizing trading deadline payroll increases in years past, for doublespeak on budgets and profits, and for instituting a code of conduct for a public stadium that arguably violates free speech protections. And everything that comes out of Lincoln’s or Armstrong’s mouth should be viewed with hearty skepticism. But the reasons why the M’s have not won the last two years are poor personnel decisions and an almost decade-long neglect of the draft and minor league system, not anything that ownership has allegedly done.
And if ownership values “fan favorite†players above winning, how come there are no “fan favorites†on the roster anymore?
Uh… what?
Edgar = retired
Wilson = retired
Bloomquist = here
Ichiro = here
21 I think he is referring to Olerud and Boone.
Or, to echo what Bavasi himself has said, there’s room for that kind of sentiment on a comfortable, winning team. A GM becomes much less tolerant when that kind of thing blocks efforts to compete, which is another source of stress on that relationship.
DMZ, given your pesrpective on Lincoln, do you think this portends anything in particular for this offseason in preparation for ’06?
It’s nice to see I’m not the only one who thought Lincoln’s comments to Art Thiel were obnoxious and counter-productive to winning baseball games. When the subject was being discussed last week I generated some criticism for my pessimism, and Lincoln had several defenders speak up.
I still think the M’s need to have several major things go right for them in order to succeed next year. Some of those are going to have to be the sorts of things that are out of their direct control — Beltre coming back to somewhere in between ’04 and ’05, for instance; no one suffering a Valdez/Olivo level total meltdown — and I remain less than perfectly confident that the sorts of things that ARE in their control — free agents, for instance — are going to come out the way they should.
I’d say you’d have to include Moyer as a “fan favorite”. Guardado is probably there now as well.
A quibble:
Armstrong’s primary interest, as head of the ownership group, is to make more money.
That should read “Lincoln’s primary interest…”- Armstrong’s not head of the ownership group, (that’s Lincoln[‘s job as Chairman of the Board of Directors), as you noted above.
Armstrong was President of the M’s in the 80′s as well. This is a puff piece, but it gives you some background:
http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/lawyer/issues/58/mariners.html
Note that Armstrong considers himself on the baseball side of the operation.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/mariners/2002534096_ston02.html
“It’s incumbent on us  me, Bill (Bavasi), the baseball guys  to try to get the kind of players that will get this turned around as quickly as we can, as opposed to embarking on the Cleveland approach,” Armstrong said. “Cleveland has such a nice little ballclub, yet we’re averaging 10,000 more a game. We think we have a compact with the fans  ownership does.”
Armstrong is fully aware of the perception of some that the loyalty of Mariners fans could work against them. Since the fans keep flocking out through losing seasons, the reasoning goes, the club isn’t motivated to maximize the product.
Not true at all, he said.
“We don’t take them for granted,” Armstrong insisted. “We know we have to put a good product on the field. If we did take it for granted, we would have adopted more of a Cleveland approach and cut back.
“But we also want to have players that are proud to represent Seattle. We tell our players they are role models. That’s why I’ve been so personally devastated that we lead the league in both major- and minor-league steroids violations.”
Note that Armstrong explicitly compares what their approach to Cleveland- even though Oakland regularly stays competitive with FAR less salary expenditures than Seattle’s made. But remember, Armstrong comes from a time that really predates acceptance of sabremetrics. Bill James and all were laughed at by baseball executives back in the 1980′s, and I’m sure Armstrong took offense to how his employees and associates pat Gillick and Roger Jongewaard were characterized in Moneyball (and somewhat unfairly as well- Jonggewaard actually has a hell of a resume in terms of finished product from scouting and player development with the Mets and the Mariners).
I think the binary thinking (either you spend a lot of money or you aren’t trying to compete) comes a lot from Armstrong’s days in the 80′s, where the team COULDN’T compete. Any time anyone got really good and was in danger of breaking the budget (think Mark Langston), it was time to ship them off, or we’d have to let guys like Mike Moore walk away as free agents. That being said, it doesn’t seem to sink in that if it was all about Money, Steinbrenner would be working on his umpteenth defending championship, and Baltimore and Texas (who have shelled out big dollars at times) would have much better records of success than they do. They need to be thinking about how to use their ample financial resources more wisely and what’s keeping them from doing that, rather than thinking of salary as almost a checkbox requirement (“OK, we’ve spent 85 million on salary and we spend oodles on player development and scouting, we’re doing our jobs”). As of yet, I don’t see anything that indicates they are reassessing their overall methodlogy and looking at WHY they are failing- maybe it’s happening behind closed doors but I don’t see it.
Oh, and a propos of comparing Seattle to Cleveland:
Cleveland has won exactly 3 less regular season games than Seattle since 2003.
Tampa Bay has won 6 more games than Seattle in the last two years.
The Mets have been in the top 5 for salaries for years and years- to nearly zip effect since 1999.
It’s CLEARLY not about how much money you spend, and I wish the hell the team would quit arguing that point about how this proves commitment. Screw commitment- show me you know what the hell you are doing.
#25 Steve, I think some of the criticism was based on your statements that you’d rather see a championship team in a rundown raucous ballpark (not your words but I think your sentiment). I do agree with you that Lincoln’s comments seem to value the “facility/environment” part of the entertainment experience (which, after all, is what is sold with a sporting event ticket) over the “winning the game/being a champion” side. There’s value to the team, the fans, and the community in keeping Safeco Field a great place to watch a ballgame, and I’d be disappointed if that were allowed to degrade.
I do agree that a few obnoxious but talented players would be a good thing. Anyone who doesn’t think that Seattle fans won’t get behind this hasn’t heard the roars of approval that Danny Fortson gets at the Key (FWIF Fortson appears to be a decent guy off the court but a bit of a headcase/instant foul generator on). So, tarnish the shiny image of the Men in White, sure, but keep the stadium experience a positive one.
What happens when it becomes profitable and opportune for the ownership group to move the team to Japan or maybe even Beijing? Sayonara Mariners.
#30: Won’t happen. The league (and for all practical purposes, the commissioner) has veto power over moving a franchise.
What happens when it becomes profitable and opportune for the ownership group to move the team to Japan or maybe even Beijing? Sayonara Mariners.
Uh, I seriously doubt any MLB team gets overseas.
First off, consider that there’s only been ONE team that’s moved in over 30 years, and that was from someplace where the market died for years and MLB had to step in as ownership for the team- and the team moved to someplace inside the US.
Secondly, why the hell is anyone going to watch a road game for your team that’s at 3 am (this applies to Japanese fans as well as US ones)? And a road trip that includes a 6,000 mile plane ride from the West Coast and totally screws up body clocks might make players and the MLBPA a bit upset. Unless you plan on adding a LOT of off days to the schedule…
Thirdly (and, arguably, most importantly), a team move to a new market means no expansion fee for MLB owners to share. Note that the Expos/Nationals sale WILL generate revenue for MLB, but it’s an exception.
Folks should be careful about taking too much from what Lincoln says NOW. How do you sell the Mariners to the casual fan in 2005/2006? Well, not by emphasizing the baseball side…you stress the stuff that’s not going to change and are attractive to the casual fan.
That said, I really don’t think much of Armstrong as a “baseball” person and Lincoln has to show me a lot more before I accept him as a competent owner…
From Larry Stone’s article:
You gotta love how Chuck gives himself “mulligans” for finishing dead last in the AL West, but is “personally devastated” by PR black eyes.
If you think there will ever be a winning tradition in Seattle as long as Chuck is one of the “baseball guys”, you’re kidding yourself.
DMZ, the criticism of “fan favorites†relates to players kept for their perceived popularity, not their performance. I do not think you are seriously suggesting that Ichiro’s presence on this team is due mainly to his popularity, not his production. Ichiro also does not exactly fit the warm, fuzzy community-oriented profile; his appreciation comes from what he does on the field, not off. And regarding Bloomquist, this site’s FAQs, if not you individually, have begrudgingly acknowledged his value as a near league-minimum utilityman and pinch runner. Considering their roles, neither Ichiro nor Bloomquist (as a 25th man) bumped a more deserving player from the roster. (And yes, the last part was hard to write.)
I had the Bavasi quote to which you refer in mind. Losing brought a new reality. Since then, the team designated Olerud and Boone for assignment and put Edgar and Wilson out to pasture rather than persuading them to come back for one more year as a sideshow attraction. Their replacements are younger, better players who again do not fit the warm fuzzy profile. The assertion that ownership values a player’s position in the community above all else is unsupported.
I’ve been pleased that both Bavasi & Hargrove haven’t let themselves be pulled into the ‘WFB as everyday player’ vortex– hopefully they are making that plain upstairs.
Steve Thornton said:”It’s nice to see I’m not the only one who thought Lincoln’s comments to Art Thiel were obnoxious and counter-productive to winning baseball games.”
my problem with Thiel’s piece is that I felt he was using just those quotes that he thought were useful to get across his column point — which is not surprising, gievn that he is a columnist — but I’d like to know if Lincoln expanded on some of the thoughts with Thiel as he did on KOMO.
Somebody above mentioned Guardado as a fan favorite. Is that why the team didn’t trade him at the deadline? I thought that was unforgiveably stupid. A good closer is essentially useless to an under-.500 team: all he’s doing is saving the occasional, meaningless win. However, teams with postseason ambitions never feel they have enough in the bullpen. The M’s could’ve gotten some good prospects for Guardado, and I’ve been baffled ever since the deadline as to why that didn’t happen.
DMZ, the criticism of “fan favorites†relates to players kept for their perceived popularity, not their performance.
Um… yeah, like my point about Wilson, again.
I do not think you are seriously suggesting that Ichiro’s presence on this team is due mainly to his popularity, not his production.
You asked for fan favorites who are on the team, and why/why not. That’s what I gave. You can move the goalposts all you want, it’s just annoying.
Ichiro also does not exactly fit the warm, fuzzy community-oriented profile; his appreciation comes from what he does on the field, not off.
Uhhh.. okay. But not really. People like him because he’s cool, not just because he’s a good player. The persona, and his style of play, are as much a part of his popularity as production.
And regarding Bloomquist, this site’s FAQs, if not you individually, have begrudgingly acknowledged his value as a near league-minimum utilityman and pinch runner.
Begrudgingly? You’re attributing motive and attitude where none exists. My (our, if I may) beef has always been with the belief that Bloomquist was much more than that. You’ll find I’ve written many times about how Bloomquist-as-a-scrub still means he’s an outstanding athletic talent by any reasonable standard. I bear him no ill will.
[snip] The assertion that ownership values a player’s position in the community above all else is unsupported.
I don’t think any author here has made such an assertion. We’ve argued correctly that community value is a characteristic the team values in their players, but no one’s ever said it’s the greatest thing, or the even one of the most important things they evaluate.
The mulligan quote is a bit out of context, as my snippet makes clear Armstrong believes the fans will go away if the baseball continues to be bad. Or do you think he didn’t notice the crowds under 10,000 the M’s would draw at times in the 1980′s?
And why shouldn’t he be upset at an organization that is producing more positive steroid tests than any other organization? Congress is blustering about the topic, and clearly baseball management is concerned about it. Would you think these concerns were overblown if Mariner farmhands were being caught gambling on baseball or using coke?
If you think there will ever be a winning tradition in Seattle as long as Chuck is one of the “baseball guysâ€Â, you’re kidding yourself.
So, the fact that the M’s went from being the D-Rays of the 1980′s to where they were in in good chunks of the 1990′s and 2000-2003, he gets no credit for, but he’s responsible for the debacle of 2004-2005?
At least try and be fair about the guy- I don’t think he’s a genius, like that puff piece I linked to wants to make him into, but there’s direct evidence that he can be part of a “winning tradition”- the fact that the M’s HAVE had some success under Armstrong’s tenure. Whether the M’s would be served better by a different approach (read: replacing a lot of management, including the GM) and whether Armstrong’s the guy to make that happen is another question, but I don’t think it’s so much to ask to not make it sound like the M’s have been the D-Rays all the time Armstrong has been here.
Can anyone else picture Howard Lincoln going around the stadium talking to fans and imagine the fans using the term “family friendly”? I know plenty of family fans but I can’t imagine any of them using this term which seems to have been coined my Mariner management. The quote by Lincoln to Thiel seems like projection at its worst. It’s Mariner managment hoping and praying and projecting that their cash cow (returning fans) think just like they do.
It’s Mariner managment hoping and praying and projecting that their cash cow (returning fans) think just like they do.
You know, I kind of marvel at the fact that somehow Mariner management is continually characterized here by posters as only concerned with the bottom line and fan friendliness and not giving a crap about winning as long as fans show up, but somehow the 800,000 fans that didn’t show up this year as opposed to 2001-2002 (and, presumably, the people who no longer watch or listen to Mariner broadcasts and make them less valuable when contracts come up for renegotiation) are irrelevant to them, especially when I link to a piece by a pretty good local writer (Larry Stone) that quotes the COO as saying they don’t expect the fans to keep showing up if they suck.
EC, I relate to what you’re saying but I don’t think my post above is representative of posters here believing Mariner management is only concerned with the bottom line. Lincoln’s quotes by Thiel are disingenuous to me because: 1) I find it hard to believe that one 1 fan in 10 is paying attention to the game as he makes his rounds, and 2) that fans use the Mariner management term “family friendly.”
My post says nothing about what “other” priorities that Mariner management may or may not have.
Think TYCO and ENRON. Just Kidding. I’ve worked in Marketing reasearch (I was one of those people you avoided in the mall) and it is quite amazing how much companies rely on the average Joe before they put out a product. And the questions they ask are quite simple and leading — sample size is also nothing to be admired. So, if the quotes are true (about FO doing focus groups) then I wouldn’t doubt it if they are just making a team based on what some people say instead of what makes sense in baseball.
I think, if they really ever make it to the World Series, the real test will be to see how they keep the team competitive. They certianly failed after the good years 2001-2002.
I’m glad the article started with the words ‘speculation and more speculation’. I said it before and I’ll say it again, until somebody figures out a way to specifically quantify with hard evidence the degree to which ownership affects the bottom line that we care about – whether we win games/championships or we don’t, it’s ALL speculation.
I just don’t know of a way to objectively quantify the degree to which ownership does or doesn’t make a difference. The As win despite ownership’s stingy ways, and often, the Twins do too, yet the Devil Rays don’t. The Rangers and Orioles don’t win despite the fact that the owners show clear willingness to spend a lot of money. The Ms have won a lot, and most recently lost a lot, yet the ownership has stayed the same over a more than 10 year period (longest in MLB except for Steinbrenner).
I know we all want a scapegoat, and preferably, a really easy one to point out and say ‘there, that guy, he’s the problem’ but the problem is a lot more spread around than just to point to one guy, or one facet of the organization, especially when that facet is the one unchanging element over years of winning and losing.
How can a baseball park be groundball or flyball prone? The park doesn’t produce the groundball, the pitcher does. Or the batter does.
I know we all want a scapegoat, and preferably, a really easy one to point out and say ‘there, that guy, he’s the problem’ but the problem is a lot more spread around than just to point to one guy, or one facet of the organization, especially when that facet is the one unchanging element over years of winning and losing.
Yeah. The problems with the M’s strike me as systemic and organizational, as opposed to being the fault of one of Bavasi/Gillick/Armstrong/Lincoln in particular or even as a group. If you’re spending $170 million+ on payroll, shell out for scouts, player acquisition and travel like crazy, and you end up winning less games than the D-Rays for two years and have a lower nadir than Cleveland had during their 2002-2003 teardown, clearly something is very, very wrong across many aspects of the organization, from free agent signings to talent evaluation to player development.
Now, to the extent that the four guys I just mentioned and the people they hired/took advice from contributed to that, of course they bear responsibility. What concrens me is whether or not they actually HAVE good ideas about how to solve the problem. I’ve seen some encouraging signs (the minor league system looks better stocked with position players than it has been for a while, Bavasi’s stated offseason priorities are EXACTLY what they should be doing, and high draft position is only going to help unless we screw it up), but I worry that the team’s approach is going to be “set good but not budgets for payroll and try and do what we’ve been doing before, but better”- while ignoring the things like the minor league attrition rate of arms (and how other organizations do better at avoiding that) and how minor league sabremetric analysis can inform player personnel decisions- and that if Bavasi goes 80-82 we’ll end up with chaos, slashed budgets and another couple of years of rebuilding, as well as possibly another Good Old Boy GM from the retread pile- and suddenly it’s 2009 and we’re the new Baltimore Orioles, stumbling along not quite knowing how we got so bad or how exactly to fix it.
That should read:
“set good but not great budgets for payroll and try and do what we’ve been doing before, but better”.
And the Mets kind of fit the mold of the Orioles as well- just kind of stumbling along in mediocrity and rearranging deck chairs while the iceberg keeps hulling the franchise year after year.
35/38: On Willie Bloomquist:
Yes, at the MLB minimum, he is a nice little MLB bench player.
When does he become arb-eligible? http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/ has him at 2.029 years of MLB service time, but it has no “as of” date. If that’s as of Opening Day 2005, he is about to become much more expensive.
Uh, DMZ, why would anyone ever criticize a “fan favorite” who was performing well and earning his salary? The goalposts may appear to be moving, but it is because you are running away.
Last time I checked, any appreciation of Ichiro for his “style of play” would come from “what he [did] on the field, not off.” Ichiro is not on the team because he helps Dan Wilson give stray puppies to orphans; he is on the team because he has been one of the best players in baseball since 2001.
Your entire counterpoint rests on Dan Wilson, but as you note in your article, his retention was not for much money. The M’s would have spent almost the same amount to sign a Mike Redmond type.
I also never said that any author asserted that ownership values popularity over everything else, but commenters (in this thread and several threads when you were down under) certainly have made that assertion. I don’t disagree that the team values community involvement, perhaps more than other teams, but its impact on recent personnel moves is negligible at best.
In Lincoln’s postgame interview with Glasgow on the last Friday of the season, it seemed pretty clear that he understood the link between winning and continued strong attendance. I think you really do have to take what he says about a family friendly environment for what it is–a way to maintain a connection with casual fans so that attendance doesn’t take a more drastic drop next season. If the Mariners had to rely on hardcore fans to support their budget, it would never happen. (Same with an Oakland-sized budget.) Anyone who thinks that Lincoln doesn’t want to win is really not giving him credit for being what he is–a hardass businessman who has been about competing and winning his whole life. Mind, I really don’t admire the type, and it doesn’t mean he knows jack about baseball, but I can’t believe the guy doesn’t want to win. The real problem is proper husbanding of the abundant resources the Mariners have. They’ve got plenty of payroll and not nearly enough to show for it, and that has to change. I just hope they understand that building the farm system is a long-term deal, and if they come up with an obnoxious way of selling that kind of sensible plan to casual fans, I’ll find a way to hold my nose and applaud at the same time.
Uh, DMZ, why would anyone ever criticize a “fan favorite†who was performing well and earning his salary? The goalposts may appear to be moving, but it is because you are running away.
I can see this is an argument I really want to continue, because it’s only going to get better.
39 & 46 –
Agree, I’m quoting somewhat out of context.
My point is to illuminate Chuck’s motivation. That Chuck associates dead last in the AL West with a “mulligan” (and gives himself a second), but is “personally devastated” by a PR black eye (to date the Ms have accumulated more banned substance violations than any team in baseball) is anything but out of context.
One thing to keep in mind about less-knowledgeable but devoted fans who only joined the Mariners fan base since the magic 1995 season, is that they probably don’t know where baseball players come from.
Since A-Rod became a regular in 1996, only ONE position player has gone from the M’s farm system to an everyday role (Julio Cruz, Jr.). He was traded away before he finished his rookie season (July 31, 1997, for Timlin and Spoljaric, the same day we cashed in Varitek and Lowe on the infamous Heathcliff Slocumb trade). From that day to 2005, all regular position roles have been filled by trades or FAs. Granted there’s been some success on the pitching side, but that’s only half the team, the success is limited, and the transition is often less-visible as new guys work their way through the bullpen.
If, as many knowledgable posters here believe, Reed, Betancourt and Lopez blossom into decent regulars next year (not to mention Felix), they can provide a “marketing hook” that will pave the way for Clement and Jones and hopefully others in 2007 and beyond. If given the chance, and he takes advantage of the opportunity, Bavasi can educate a whole new generation of baseball fans about how to build a team. He won’t have to rely on the smoke and mirrors of splashy FA signings to keep butts in the seats — he’ll have a winning team that does that. And unlike Oakland, he’ll enjoy the financial resources to keep the best, and fill in the occasional blank through trades and free agency.
39 & 46 –
The aphorism “even a broken watch is right twice a day” comes to mind.
My quote, and point, are very specific. The standard I’m employing is a winning tradition, not “a successful season(s)”.
Chuck has been continuously associated with the Ms since 1984. In that time, the Ms are 1,723/1,771. He’s played for the League Pennant 3 times in 22 seasons and never won it. My point is that Chuck is not “personally devasated” by those facts, and given more time as President of the franchise doesn’t intend to do much about it.
To the contrary Chuck intends, and will achieve, being one of the most profitable franchise’s in baseball year after year. But Chuck only makes his profit with the help of the most expensive ballpark in baseball and the most lucrative lease in baseball (Forbes). Consequently, I don’t feel out of place demanding a winning tradition (or Chuck’s replacement) in return.
What is stupifying to me is that, in Seattle, you have to argue that fans can and should demand a winning tradition.
If fans anywhere else suspected their ownership or managment of thinking the things Chuck and Howie say out loud for attribution, the ballfield would be on fire.
To paraphrase a Cajun in politics, “It’s the profits, stupid.” Chuck and Howie will never invest in a winning tradition unless they’re certain it is the only way to be profitable. They’re not.
So regarding “fan friendly”, does anyone ever bring up the issue of being served concessions by ignorant, incompetent volunteers making minimum wage for their charities?
I avoid buying anything at the stadium whenever possible, but on those occasions when I feel like taking out a second mortgage, it’s galling to have to wait three times as long, pay three times as much, and then see some idiot not even know how to open the cash register…
From Brian Rust: One thing to keep in mind about less-knowledgeable but devoted fans who only joined the Mariners fan base since the magic 1995 season, is that they probably don’t know where baseball players come from…
Bavasi can educate a whole new generation of baseball fans about how to build a team.
Brian, I often agree with your posts but not this time. Bavasi doesn’t need to spend time thinking about educating baseball fans. And to assert that fans need education is rather a stretch. Fans are involved in the game to as much degree as they have passion or reason to be. Bavasi only needs to focus on one thing… winning games, hopefully with enough balance between short term and long term interests of the team. If Bavasi can achieve this goal with ZERO players developed from the farm system, then the fans aren’t cheated any. Fans have the most fun when the team wins. So having that as the overriding objective for your GM is the best way to go.
Rusty is right on. Not every fan is a frustrated wanna-be GM like most of us here. They don’t care about the intricacies of player development, they care about the results: The batting and pitching, the W-L record and the playoff victories.
And from a certain perspective, “casual” or “fairweather” fans who only pay attention when the team is winning have the right idea; why should they devote themselves to a team that doesn’t care if they win or not — or perhaps doesn’t have the brains to know how to win?
But that’s what we have: casual fans who don’t care about winning. The worst possible kind. Instead of behaving rationally, and just going away, they’re still at the ballpark, enjoying their stale sushi and garlic fries and clean carpet and diaper tables and so on, and idly wondering when Bret Boone is batting this inning.
And therefore, ownership, being more rational, feels no particular need to win, or rather to figure out how to win. Much more of this is random or accidental than we like to believe; and a team that has decided to spend the amount of money the M’s have, but doesn’t have the organizational smarts to know how to spend it, will occassionally luck into a season like 2001, but much more often float around in purgatory, like the Cubs, Mets, Orioles. They think they’re driving the train, but they’re really just passengers like the rest of us.