It seems appropriate to mention that Ugueto was suspended for steroids, so at least he and Ryan Franklin will have something to talk about at the 20th reunion of the 2001 team.

Jeff Cirillo came into town with a gaudy .311 lifetime BA and taught M’s fans (and, we hope, the front office) about park adjustments. It was an expensive lesson.

I think Baldwin instead of a stud FA starter was the big mistake. But don’t forget the mid-season acquisitions: Doug Creek and Jopse Offerman. Where are they now? (Rhetorical question; don’t waste time looking them up.)

Yes, well, the decline in interest is as bad as it is because the team has been both losing and churning the roster. Fans are saying, essentially, “call me when you figure out who you think your team is.”

A little bit of stability in the roster plus games in September that matter (even if they don’t make play-offs, but at least are in the race) will stop the bleeding. I really don’t think Seattle can generate sustained fan interest without both.

They blew it in 02 when they didn’t make a real effort to improve the team. Coming off two straight playoff runs and the magic of 01, plus the new stadium, they had huge buzz. The team – after 01 – had two big needs. A top-flight starter and a power-hitting left fielder. Instead, they got James Baldwin, Jeff Cirillo, Rueben Sierra and Luis Ugueto. Really, Ugueto? Here’s a team that is on the verge of winning over a city and establishing at least a minor legacy and they saddle the team with a Rule 5 kid who, despite being on the active roster all year, got 25 PAs, and probably shouldn’t have gotten that many. He should’ve been in AA. Where is he now? Released by KC last year. Not from their big-league roster either. Ouch. He had 31 PA as a major leaguer, all with Seattle. Ugueto in a best-case scenario would’ve develeoped into Charles Gipson. Who the M’s already had on their 25-man roster.

I think it would be a high-risk strategy compared to trading Sexson, for sure- and I’m not at all convinced that an argument of “you should be trading superstar players because they might suck in 2011 after you resign them to a deal next offseason” is really the right way to look at it. The primary consideration needs to be 2007, and maybe 2008- and I think it’s a pretty easy case to make that Sexson is far more replacable than Ichiro in the NEAR future, and the sort-term payoff is better.

Do you think trading team icons like Ichiro would be seen by fans as pissing off the fanbase?

They’re going to draw between 2.4 and 2.5 million.

However, since we’re going to be snarky about this, the Orioles went straight into the toilet, under .500 and into 4th place after 1997 (with the exception of 2003, going 78-84 and making it to 3rd place).

The M’s after 2001: 3, 2, 4, 4 (the first two OVER .500, and over 90 games- in fact they won more games in 2002 and 2003 combined than some playoff participants over both those years. Their luck just sucked.)

And, despite not having a team finishing over .500 since Wade Boggs was playing in the league, the Orioles drew 2.6 million last year. It’s taken them almost 10 years of bad baseball, AND a second team in the area (Washington) to fmake the fans finally give up (this year, the Orioles are going to draw 2.1 million).

My point’s simply this: arguing “oh, teh Seattle fans are stoopid and don’t care about wins and losses and want cuddly faces” doesn’t exactly explain phenomena like Baltimore and Chicago, now, does it? I think, rather, that given a metro are of Seattle’s size, the baseline attendance is around 2-2.2 million even if your team is really the Tacoma Rainiers wearing M’s uniforms, unless you go out of your way to actively piss off the fanbase (think Montreal or Florida).

Wrong. 2001 was the peak of Mariner performance, not Mariner popularity, at least not using attendance as the measuring stick. Mariner attendance peaked in 2002 (as has been pointed out several times already, there’s a lag between winning and increased attendance). Compare apples to apples, please.

Ichiro isn’t going to be traded. He may surprise us and bail at the end of his present contract, as mentioned above, though. If the Ms aren’t seriously contending by the middle of next season, I’d say it’s better than even odds he leaves. It seems clear that being associated with mediocrity sits ill with him. But that’s for next year.

Beltre or Sexson?: Both of them. Oh they won’t both be dealt I feel sure, ’cause the Ms management doesn’t have the stomach for that. If the idea here is to free up salary, then obviously Sexson is the better bet to be moved. The Ms have more and better options to replace him, he’s on a decline path even if it is no certainty that he won’t bounce back next year, and his season this year just wasn’t all that great. But the thing is, it’s not who you give away, it’s who you get (unless you’re looking to offload Jose Guillen, that is). So hang both of them over the wall in the offseason until after some fool buys Carlos Lee, see what offers are floated by then when other GMs sweat a bit and raise their bids, and make the move WHICH BRINGS THE BEST TALENT BACK.

This is about more than $$$. It’s really about changing the mix on the team, and bringing in new talent which makes a greater total. Where is the greater _talent value_ to be found, in trade or in reinvesting Sexson’s salary? Of course if no deal for either Sexson or Beltre includes a nice package coming back then dump Richie and use the dough. —But Beltre has a better chance, to me, of being the keystone in a multi-player package which brings back some _significant_ talent. To me, this is the angle that the Ms should be playing for, with dumping Richie as the back up plan. I’m not saying this to harsh on Beltre; he has real value, if not here equal to his present salary. But I think he’ll bring more back _in a trade_, and so he’s the one to focus on trading if possible. I don’t think we hear as many teams talking about ‘grabbing Beltre’ because the assumption is that he’s signed long-term and the team isn’t dealing him. So call up the other guys, disabuse them of that cannard, and see what they’re willing to pay for him. No matter how one values Richie relative to Adrian, NEITHER ONE is so valuable that he should be kept if a good multiplayer package can be built around _either_ one in a deal. So do the best deal.

In 1997, the last year before the mentioned four years of 4th place finishes, the Orioles drew 3.7 million fans. In 2002, as you mention, they drew 2.6 million fans. A net loss of 1.1 million fans over four years.

In 2001, the peak of Mariner popularity, they drew 3.5 million fans. In 2005 they drew 2.7 million fans, a net loss of 800,000 fans. I don’t know what 2006’s numbers project, but unless they’re going to draw less then 2.4 million fans, they’re not losing fans at a faster pace then the Orioles.

Besides that, the Orioles in 2003 drew 2.4 million fans, in 2004 drew 2.7 million fans, and in 2005 drew 2.6 million fans and they still finished 4th, 3rd, and 4th, respectively.

Conclusion: Using the Orioles as a comp was a really bad idea. In fact, using any fanbase to compare to another fanbase is a really bad idea, because the teams involved are different, the motivations of the owners are different, the actions of the GMs are different, the markets are different. I mean, you have to factor in a ton of aspects before you can compare two attendence records on something so significantly blind as period of losing following periods of winning.

They have WILLIE.

That’s all they need.

The Baltimore Orioles, 2002: 2,682,439. 3rdin the Al in attendance. After FOUR 4th place finishes.

The M’s actually are dropping off QUICKER than the Orioles did. Try again, please.