Comments for U.S.S. Mariner

Comment on Historical Relationship Between Money And Wins by kinickers77

kinickers77 — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:15:42 +0000

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/marinersblog/2017455301_study_shows_link_between_payro.html

I’m curious on your response to this, Dave.

Comment on Running For Cancer Research by JimmyTheGeek

JimmyTheGeek — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:44:08 +0000

I gladly donated this afternoon. Good luck with the run.

Comment on Running For Cancer Research by nwade

nwade — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:28:37 +0000

Aw yeah, Takin’ It To The Streets!
Happy to provide support (and thanks for pointing out CharityNavigator.org – never heard of them before, but what a great tool).

Comment on Running For Cancer Research by jared_kopp

jared_kopp — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:57:19 +0000

Go Dave!

My girlfriend (who happens to be a fundraiser for LLS here in the Bay Area) ran a half at the Avenue of the Giants last spring.

The prep can be rigorous (I would know as I found myself training along side her more often than not) – but the reward is great.

Good luck with your fundraising and your training!

Comment on Are Lefty Relievers the New Market Inefficiency? by vertigoman

vertigoman — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:37:32 +0000

“This has happened before, it will happen again”-6 from BSG

Comment on Running For Cancer Research by Mariners35

Mariners35 — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:59:05 +0000

Give to good charities, see life saving research get done. Hm. I suppose this is one instance where there IS a historical relationship between money and wins.

Good on you for giving back, and congrats again on your recovery.

Comment on Running For Cancer Research by Envirohawk

Envirohawk — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:47:42 +0000

Glad to help. Looks like Team Dave is already off to a strong start.

Good luck with the run and with your health, Dave.

Comment on Historical Relationship Between Money And Wins by Johnny Slick

Johnny Slick — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:31:09 +0000

Okay but just going by salary alone is not really addressing what you’re talking about. It’s not like every city has a fixed amount of money that they pump into their club every single year. Seattle in particular is a bit of a fair-weather city (this is not a knock) wherein if the team wins 100 games the Mariners could probably foot a $200M payroll (as long as they keep winning anyway) whereas they lose money if they consistently lose 90+ with an $80M one. The teams up at the top of that payroll list are either right at the top of that revenue cycle or else in the case of the White Sox they’re coming down off of it (and it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that the Sox are losing money).

There would be a bigger problem if a team like, say, the Rays got lucky/smart, won 90 games for a couple years running, and then had to sell off all their players because the revenue didn’t go up enough to be able to pay their stars. I guess this *did* happen with Oakland in the early 2000s but I’m convinced that has more to do with a bad stadium and less than viable location than the league as a whole.

Comment on Historical Relationship Between Money And Wins by make_dave_proud

make_dave_proud — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:16:59 +0000

> Once you factor in the extra playoff spots that have been added, it becomes clear that lower profile teams now have a better chance of walking away with a World Series title than at any point in recent history.

Very true. But this is irrelevant in a conversation about money and wins, unless wins = post-season success. I equate wins to winning over multiple seasons, as opposed to one-off World Series bliss.

I look at it this way: at one point, British odds-makers were taking bets on PGA golf tournaments for “Tiger Woods” or “The Field” (everyone else.) Given the option, if bets on MLB season wins were permitted for “Top 5 teams by salary” vs. “The Field”, I’d take the Top 5 bet. The reason: the odds are with me.

Comment on Historical Relationship Between Money And Wins by greentunic

greentunic — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:09:35 +0000

If the Mariners or the D-Rays or the Rangers spent $15M per win on a couple guys, they’d be dead in the water. That certainly doesn’t make thing non-feasible for a team like the M’s to compete. It just means they have to play smarter.

Couldn’t put it better myself. Unless I quoted someone else.

“If we play like the Yankees in here, we’ll lose to the Yankees out there.”

Name that film.