We will not do a Cleveland-style rebuilding
…or whatever Lincoln said. Seems appropriate right now.
Starting with their last competitive seasons as year one:
Whether the M’s got lucky this year or when which team outperformed, they both came back to putting up wins at a competitive level at about the same time.
Dave and I (mostly Dave) argued all through these years that the M’s didn’t need to undergo a slash-and-burn rebuilding: their crazy revenue streams meant that they could afford to bring in quality stop-gap veterans, develop players, and sign young guys like Beltre to long-term contracts if the opportunity came up. They ended up spending a ton more money than the slash-and-burn Indians without any return on that investment.
Here’s the big one, though:
Maybe Howard Lincoln and all his people are far more savvy than we give them credit. Sure, we (and USSM readers) mocked their payroll figures, rolled our eyes at claims that the teams would be competitive, but the fans kept coming out. Maybe it’s the park, or something else at work, but they managed to keep the turnstiles spinning while putting up horrible records and some almost unwatchable teams.
Or maybe Cleveland’s just a lot smaller market with a park that doesn’t seem new and exciting anymore, so they don’t have a lot of room for error when the populace isn’t excited.
Anyway, it’s interesting to compare the Indians of 2005 with the Mariners of 2007 (hey, Broussard’s on both teams!) and think about how the Mariners match up as a franchise looking to compete.
Comments
37 Responses to “We will not do a Cleveland-style rebuilding”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Cleveland feels rejected as a sports town, Seattle isn’t much better of course. But when the face of your city puts on a Yankees hat that has to hurt.
It is never a bad day when the Yankees get eliminated though.
I wonder in 5 years when the Indians, Rockies, and Dbacks are still competitive if Lincoln will rethink the whole rebuilding thing?
I heard someone somewhere (NPR?) mentioning that Indians, Rockies, and D-Backs were all in the bottom third in salary.
Two teams that rebuilt themselves with a farm system, one team that probably shouldn’t be here but got here with the farm and castoffs, and a Moneyball disciple with dump trucks full of money.
Here are the salary rankings (and the Rockies salaries). Consider that over the last seven seasons the highest salaried team in baseball has won the Series exactly zero times, while a team in the middle third or lower has won it twice (Florida in 2003, St. Louis in 2006).
Enh, so the M’s are hopeless. Cheer up, at least this keeps happening.
“Maybe Howard Lincoln and all his people are far more savvy than we give them credit. Sure, we (and USSM readers) mocked their payroll figures, rolled our eyes at claims that the teams would be competitive, but the fans kept coming out. Maybe it’s the park, or something else at work, but they managed to keep the turnstiles spinning while putting up horrible records and some almost unwatchable teams.”
I think the Cubs had the same problem. The GM didn’t feel motivated to put out a good team because despite them having below average team for the past few years, the fans still came out and the stadium would still sell out for i guess its historic prescence. I think the fans got frustrated eventually so they made the team ‘fool proof’ so they couldn’t lose, yankee style (throwing alot of money at free agents to fill gaps). And also bringing in Piniella probably helped, but you get what I mean.
I think the Mariners are attempting to do the same thing but haven’t been as saavy as far as picking up free agents, but a couple have proven to be hidden gems (Guillen, Batista).
I think the general idea is that when a team has a high payroll, they probably think, why build talent from within when they could buy proven talent.
Uh, Batista’s a hidden gem? He isn’t, really, any more than Washburn is. They’re both 3rd-4th starters who’ll post not-horrible ERAs and eat up innings- if they get lucky with the defense some year they’ll end up with a low ERA. Washburn’s peripherals are worse than Batista’s, but Washburn, like other lefty finesse pitchers (think Jamie Moyer) gets better mileage out of them.
Your farm system SHOULD be able to produce a Batista/Washburn level starter every couple of years. THAT would be a “hidden gem”. Paying 8-9 million on a multiyear deal for a 3rd or 4th starter for 200 innings of “eh” ERA isn’t- it’s throwing piles of cash for a player who’s maybe at the 60th percentile of MLB starters.
And yeah, this was ALWAYS what it was about- making sure the attendance didn’t implode.
Chuck Armstrong surely remembers what the 1980’s and early 1990’s were like- and if spending money on payroll to keep the team fan-friendly convinces the fans they mean business, then that is what they will do.
The problem is if 2008 turns out to be an implosion… it’s going to get ugly. The last time Bill Bavasi finished in second was with the 1998 Angels. He was gone by NYE 1999.
6 – Youre right, hidden gem probably isn’t the right choice of a word. Batista was solid, but nothing special. And paid alot too. But I am just saying, compared to the Jeff Weaver signing, Batista doesn’t look so bad. ut you’re right, a farm system should be able to produce starters like them, but apparently alot of teams are struggling to even find stable 3rd or 4th starting pitching, hence, why mediorce free agent pitchers are getting huge raises.
Point is, the Mariners aren’t going to focus on building from within, like they should, but they will probably end up just using all their money that they have to try to find proven talent to patch up their holes until there is no way they could lose, like other teams with big budgets will do.
Ronnie Belliard, BTW… there’s your 2B the M’s bring in to beat out Lopez. Belliard’s like young Vidro. Or something.
Wow….that gets my vote of the worst idea of the day. Lopez needs to play plain and simple. Granted it’s taken Lopez a while for his bat to come around he’s still only going to be 24 next season. Meanwhile, Belliard is under contract for the next two years with the Nationals which means you’d have to give up something to get a guy who only has gap power. At age 22 a nondepressed Lopez had 170 hits….how many times has Belliard done that? never. Ok he came close in 2004 with 169 for Cleveland at age 29. He’s 8 monthes younger than Vidro, so calling him young is sort of a misnomer. Also what’s with the extreme variations in Belliard’s lefty splits from 06? Anyways, the bottomline is Lopez is going to be a great player don’t mess with him.
dunno if it is a step towards rebuilding or a ostrich-like retrun to the past, but Stone looks at the likely coaching candidates today
Wow….that gets my vote of the worst idea of the day. Lopez needs to play plain and simple. Granted it’s taken Lopez a while for his bat to come around he’s still only going to be 24 next season. Meanwhile, Belliard is under contract for the next two years with the Nationals which means you’d have to give up something to get a guy who only has gap power. At age 22 a nondepressed Lopez had 170 hits….how many times has Belliard done that? never. Ok he came close in 2004 with 169 for Cleveland at age 29. He’s 8 monthes younger than Vidro, so calling him young is sort of a misnomer. Also what’s with the extreme variations in Belliard’s lefty splits from 06? Anyways, the bottomline is Lopez is going to be a great player don’t mess with him.
Well then, Belliard it is…. 🙂
“No October Magic For Usually Clutch Jeter”–NY Post.
you gotta love it.
I think that a similar comparison with Arizona would look much the same. Their nadir came in the same 2004 season as the Mariners but Arizona lost 111 games compared to the M’s 99.
But both Cleveland and Arizona are better positioned moving forward because they have younger teams and have a lot more payroll flexibility to address their needs. That is my complaint with the Mariners approach to rebuilding. And it is not as though they were an entertaining team to watch in 2005 and 2006 so I doubt that had much to do with the lesser drop-off in attendance.
As previously noted, the M’s are a lot like the Cubs. I also think a reasonable comparison is the Orioles of about 5 years ago, which is a little frightening. For a number of reasons – great lease, good stadium, thriving metropolitan area – winning isn’t as important to the M’s as it is to a lot of other teams… for now. It might all come crashing down in a few years if they don’t get their act together.
Remember folks, we have a CEO and ownership that is blissfully happy about 88 wins with the 6th highest payroll in baseball and not making the post season 6 consecutive years.
Remember that the next time you support this team or buy any Seattle Mariners paraphernalia.
I’m not saying get Mark Cuban on the phone (although a passionate owner like him couldn’t hurt), you almost wonder if the Mariners outgrew this absentee ownership a long time ago and it’s time to push for an ownership that won’t necessarily devote $200 million to payroll every year, but get the best in scouting that baseball has to offer along with devoting whatever reasonable amount of payroll you need to win every year.
Regarding payroll flexibility, the M’s are actually in pretty good shape – after next season.
2008 Expiring Contracts:
Sexson $14m
Vidro $6m (+ vesting option)
Ibanez $5.5m
Johjima $5m
Bloomquist $1m
2009 Expiring Contracts:
Beltre $12m
Washburn $10m
Batista $10m
Putz $5m (+ team option)
Players Currently under Contract for 2010:
Ichiro $12m (+ $5m deferred)
Betancourt $3m
Lopez $2m
#16: Only one problem, if this team makes the postseason, guess who the GM will be?
Best haiku I’ve seen in a while: From ESPN insider chat..
Sizemore rounding third . . .
Here’s Damon’s throw to the plate . . .
Bounce bounce bounce bounce bounce
If the team makes the postseason next year, it means the team improved a lot. I would trade playoffs for Bavasi keeping his job every year.
As to your other point, the team already spends more money on scouting than almost every other team and employs one of the best amateur scouting departments in baseball.
Grizz, I appreciate forward thinking as well.
But Cleveland and Arizona and Colorado have the money to spend next season on top of already having made it to the playoffs. If the Mariners sign Guillen and cannot unload Sexson they will have nothing to extra to spend for 2008. The salaries of Weaver et. als. are committed to increases for other players already under contract.
Jeter at the plate
Clutch situation, men on
He swings…double play!
saw that at least once per game in the series. I wonder if any of the Jeterfelaters have had the scales fall from their eyes yet? Nah, probably not. Love is blind.
Wow, that second graph is really, really telling. Cleveland spends its money just so much more efficiently than the Mariners do.
I can’t really subscribe to the “the Mariners just want to make money” theory TOO much; while I’m sure revenue is a primary concern, any sports organization is going to be filled with people that want to win, from the players to the coaches to other people who have chosen that as their line of work.
You can argue how much of a priority the Mariners put on winning over other considerations, but there’s no question that they want to win.
#19: Plus how great can a scouting department really be if the Mariners can’t make the playoffs in 6 years, and 3 other clubs that built themselves up with homegrown talent are in the LCS this week?
Certainly I agree that the Mariners have always done a pretty good job scouting homegrown talent the last few years, but I also believe that until that homegrown talent gets on the field, they are merely a piece of paper.
And quite honestly, with the exception of the M’s bullpen, and a couple other guys like Felix, Betancourt, Lopez, and Adam, there haven’t been a ton of successes with our minor league system so far.
Idk, maybe I’ll end up being wrong over the next couple years because we have a few promising guys on their way.
But the fact is, our “homegrown talent” has produced 0 postseason births in 6 years. So there probably at least a little undeserved praise going on when people say that the Mariners amateur and minor league scouting is so great.
Of course half of our problem is we either don’t know how to use them in the minors or we trade them all away for Baseball Tonight “analysts”, and that’s not the fault of the amateur scouts.
But, I’m just saying, we haven’t made it to the playoffs in 6 years, the Rockies, D-Backs, and Indians are playing for trips to the World Series this week.
Something to think about. . .
Minor league talent development is such a crapshoot, though, that I really think that results-based analysis (which is bad in general) is particularly unfair when evaluating a farm system’s success.
Referring to the Future Forty, there’s a reason that almost everyone who isn’t already in the big show has a 7 or more as their “risk” number. It’s just so hard to say what could happen.
Some guys get injured and never make it back, some guys just can’t make the jump to the majors, etc etc.
Add to that the fact that the Mariners, at the major league level, have this weird bias against utilizing talented young players, and I don’t think you can really point to what you’re pointing to as an evaluation of the quality of their farm system.
From Scott Boras on ESPN.com, this is exactly what agents want teams to believe. It is what teams like the Mariners buy into, and in turn end up overpaying for a guy’s past performance. No, the Mariners won’t go after a contract this big, but Boras’ words could be put into the mouth of any agent trying to sell the M’s on their veteran of choice.
“You don’t talk about projections,” Boras said. “You really talk about what he has done. The key point to what Alex has done is that over the last 10 years is that when you are talking about home runs, RBIs and runs scored, no one in baseball history has ever done what he has done over the last 10 years. The consistency of having the 35 home runs, having the number of RBIs and runs scored.”
Plus how great can a scouting department really be if the Mariners can’t make the playoffs in 6 years, and 3 other clubs that built themselves up with homegrown talent are in the LCS this week?
Tom, I certainly feel your frustration, and would have preferred for Bavasi to move on, but Bavasi does not deserve blame for amateur scouting and player development under his watch. Bavasi has been around for only four years, not six. His predecessor left the cupboard essentially bare, and despite the stupid “push the kids” philosophy, the Bavasi regime has, for the most part, done well developing the leftover talent (Felix, Putz, Lopez, Jones, Balentien, and even guys like O’Flaherty and Rowland-Smith). As for drafts, Bavasi did not have a first or second round pick in 2004, but has done well in subsequent years, as with international free agents (including the starting catcher and second baseman). This is not the NFL or NBA where most draft picks contribute right away. It usually takes 3 to 4 years to develop a prospect. The players comprising the core group of talent added by Bavasi are still 20 years old or younger (Triunfel, Tillman, Aumont, Butler, Ramirez, Martinez, Liddi, Halman).
The salaries of Weaver et. als. are committed to increases for other players already under contract.
I am not sure that is true, especially if Guillen departs. Weaver ($8m), Ramirez ($2.5m), Reitsma ($2m), and Rhodes ($1m) amount to a $13.5m reduction in salary. Only Ichiro (net $1m with his deferred money), Batista ($3m), Putz ($1m), Betancourt ($1m), and arbitration-eligible Sherrill (maybe $1m) are committed to salary increases, for a total of about $7m.
Guillen ($5.5m in 2007) and Broussard ($3.5m) could provide additional salary relief.
I’m pretty sure Baseball America gave the M’s horrible grades for the ’05 and ’06 drafts. Didn’t that just come up here in the last few days?
I’m pretty sure Baseball America gave the M’s horrible grades for the ‘05 and ‘06 drafts. Didn’t that just come up here in the last few days?
No, I believe those were BA’s retroactive grades for the catastrophe known as the M’s 2002 draft. That was the one where the first three picks were Mayberry (unsigned)/Womack/Martinez-Esteve (unsigned).
It was only slightly worse than the 2001 draft (Garciaparra/Rivera — yes, Rene Rivera was a 2nd round pick/Wilson) and the 2000 draft (no picks in rounds 1 through 3/Hays/Van Dusen/Strong).
And people wonder why the M’s have produced so little homegrown talent the last few years.
It was only slightly worse than the 2001 draft (Garciaparra/Rivera — yes, Rene Rivera was a 2nd round pick/Wilson)
I believe that Rivera was taken with the compensation pick from A-Rod signing with Texas.
That’s right. We lost A-Rod and took Rivera as compensation.
Okay, thanks Grizz.
So there’s another way to look at those graphs/numbers. From a business perspective, gross revenue is nice but profitability is better. There are a bunch of other factors in this (I don’t know how the ticket prices at the Jake compare to the Safe, nor how concessions or memorabilia sales stack up) but just looking at the raw payroll and attendence numbers, again taking 2001 as the basis for Cleveland and 2003 as the basis for Seattle, we can divide payroll by attendance to talk about how much was spent by the team in payroll for each marginal spectator:
Year CLE SEA
..1..$29..$27
..2..$30..$28
..3..$28..$33
..4..$19..$36
..5..$21..$40
In other words, Cleveland was spending half as much to get a butt in a seat as Seattle was at the same stage of the rebuilding process. And while we’re comparing different years, overall year-over-year salary growth across MLB as a whole has only been in the %6 range since 2003. Even if we compare to the same years, Cleveland has been spending less than $30 in payroll per spectator each of the past couple of years vs $40 for Seattle this year (and $36 last year).
Again, it may be that the person walking through the turnstile at Safeco produces more revenue than the same person at Jacobs Field, but I doubt it’s 33% more. So while the Mariners may feel happy about their attendance numbers, they shouldn’t be feeling very comfortable about the costs they’ve been paying to achieve it. If efficiency and profitability are a measure of success as a business, Cleveland is making them look bad.
joser (31),
it seems like you’re suggesting a direct correlation between the two (wins and attendance). I think the Mariners managment operates on the belief that wins alone DO NOT put people in the seats / pay the bills. I think if you look at the Mariners last few years of attendance, you find that, while taking a hit, attendance has never been that bad, comparative to other teams.
In reading quotes from Lincoln and Armstrong, I get the strong impression that winning is secondary. That’s not how they draw people. Here’s a good quote from Armstrong:
I just can’t say enough about our great fans. We’ve marketed hard to the women and families demographic.
I have two mantras that I tell our gameday people[…], “I want you to pretend two things: One, I want you to pretend that every fan at Safeco Field is sitting next to a seven-year-old child, and if behavior is not appropriate for a seven-year-old child, you warn them. And if it’s still not appropriate, you ask them to leave. The second mantra is that even though you cannot affect what is going on the playing field, and even though you see the same ticket holders every day, I want you to pretend that this is the only day in that fan’s life that they will come to Safeco Field, and we want them to have a positive experience.â€
In order to get the roof–because it was a huge expense–I personally went down to Olympia and lobbied with the legislature and told them that it was our goal that, within five years, we wanted Safeco Field to be the No. 1 tourist attraction in the entire Pacific Northwest. Last year, in 2004, our fifth season, Zagat’s Family Guide ranked Safeco Field as the No. 1 family tourist attraction in the Pacific Northwest–ahead of Mount Rainier, the Space Needle, Snoqualmie Falls–all those things. I think that’s what we market to, and that’s one of the reasons why our attendance has done so well in spite of our poor record on the playing field the last two seasons.
I think that says a lot about the team’s attitude towards winning. I think it also explains a lot about why the Mariners seem to hold on to those “face of the franchise” players for so long: it appeals to those kids and families, the casual fans.
A article in Forbes magazine (4/25/05 article) also had a few choice quotes about Mariners’ money-making:
The Mariners rank third in television ratings–measured as a share of each team’s local market–behind the Red Sox and the Cardinals. Five years ago the team negotiated a ten-year deal with Fox worth $250 million. Only the Yankees, Mets and Braves generate more local media revenue.
and
The team charges an average of $24 per ticket, fifth highest in the league. According to Chicago’s Team Marketing Report, a family of four is going to spend $173 at the ballgame, including parking and food; the league average is $156. Pretty good for the owners, who persuaded King County taxpayers to pick up 63% of the $517 million bill for construction of the six-year-old stadium.
Also helping the bottom line is a sweetheart stadium deal. The team runs the stadium and keeps all revenue from food and beverages, suites and parking. In addition, the Mariners book 150 to 180 nonbaseball events like graduations, parties and proms each year, from which they generate an estimated $5 million to $8 million. The team does not have to begin sharing 10% of its operating profits with the county (as specified in the 1996 lease) until the team’s “cumulative net loss” is eliminated.
The team’s cumulative net loss in 1999, when the agreement began, was $200 million, including $47 million in aggregate losses from 1995 to 1999, plus $153 million in stadium debt. With the cumulative loss currently down to $108 million, it will be years before the team has to fork over any profits to the county. Says Richard Walden, a team lender for J.P. Morgan Chase: “The Mariners have one of the best stadium deals in the history of baseball.”
I think all of this shows that the Mariners don’t need to win to do well. I’m sure they’d like to win, but I don’t think we should assume that it is the top priority of the ownership/management team. Meanwhile, there are teams like the Indians. Teams that probably NEED to win to make money. Poor bastards.
Actually, I’m not suggesting anything of the sort. I didn’t mention wins anywhere in my post, and nothing in my analysis is contingent on winning a single game. I was talking strictly about how much they paid in payroll vs how many people attended the games. Now, I don’t know what their intent was in jacking up their payroll as much as they did; presumably it was either to win games or to persuade their customers that they were trying to win games — which suggests the Mariners think that winning games (or at least giving the appearance of trying to do so) correlates to attendance. Whatever the case, it hasn’t paid off. They would have been better off, from a profitability standpoint, to have not signed Sexson and Beltre et al and just relied on a bunch of scrubs and their family-friendly marketing to pull in the sheep, er, fans.
But of course there actually is a trailing correlation between wins and attendance:
Year…Wins…Rank
2001….116……1
2002…..93……1
2003…..93……2
2004…..63…..10
2005…..69…..12
2006…..78…..15
2007…..88…..16
The M’s, at the top of the heap just five years ago, are now right at the middle of the 30 teams in attendance. Clearly, they’ve outperformed the Indians (who bottomed out at 25th and even now are only 21st) and, as you said, thanks to all their sweetheart deals on the stadium they don’t have to draw as well to make more money. But the Indians are paying a lot less to be where they’re at. So if butts in seats pay the bills, then the Mariners are not getting as many of them as they used to, and — the point of my original post — they’re paying a lot more than they need to to get the ones they have.
Interesting. In the Forbes article (http://members.forbes.com/global/2005/0425/036.html) they pointed out that, at the time (2005), the Mariners were actually paying a lower percentage of their revenue out in payroll (50%) than the league average. I excluded that point, because obviously it’s no longer true since the payroll jump when they signed Sexson and Beltre. So, after dropping from 2nd to 10th in 2004, they bumped up their payroll significantly in 2005, perhaps in recognition that a certain level of success IS necessary to keep up interest. I think the Forbes article shows that, at least for the Mariners, butts in seats is not the only way to pay the bills. But it is probably the biggest chunk, and the most variable.
So you’ve convinced me – they really ARE trying to win, they’re just not very good at it. Well played.
FWIW, the ‘fan cost index’ for 2006 (the last data they list); my question– does the ‘average’ family of four really buy all the crap they factor into a ballpark visit?
and a column on some raised prices opening day around baseball this season
BTW, my attendance numbers (which match DMZ’s) and rankings are from here.
Interesting facts buried in there. Sure you might guess that the Yankees, Red Sox, and Cubs (in that order) draw the closest to 100% attendance on the road, but who’s number 4? Would you believe the Mets? And obviously with rabid fans and the smallest stadiums, the Red Sox (over 100%, Fenway is groaning) and Cubs get the most sellouts, but who’s number 3? Not either New York team, but SF. Thank you, Barry. (Interestingly the Angels, who’ve been #3 or #4 in percentage the last couple of years, dropped down to #6 this year.)
Isn’t Cleveland as a city also struggling economically? IIRC part of the problem with the Indians’ low attendances was that wages were relatively low and stagnant and the populace didn’t have a lot of disposable income, thus they didn’t go out of their way to attend games (and you’ll notice that, even as their attendance has risen, it hasn’t quite returned to previous levels)… whereas Seattle is a more prosperous town (even factoring in the dot com crash) where a lot of people have a lot of disposable income.