Comments on: MLB.com takes different approach to covering team

By: JH

JH — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:40:30 +0000

Yes, I’m pretty damn certain that the amateur scouting department has no say in how the manager sets his lineups, and that the manager isn’t fielding teams with the express intent of losing.

By: JH

JH — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:40:05 +0000

Yes, I’m pretty damn certain that the amateur scouting department has no say on how the manager sets his lineups.

By: Gomez

Gomez — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:31:36 +0000

Are you absolutely certain, JH? The team has the worst record in the AL, and there’s virtually no hope of climbing from where they are. There wasn’t any hope a month or two ago and there isn’t now, nor will there be the rest of the season.

How are ticket sales already not negatively impacted, and just how much extra marginal damage can be done to said ticket sales from just fielding a far-from-optimal team to improve your chances at the #1 pick (while obviously insisting to the media that you’re trying to win)?

It’s not as infeasible or foolish as you state it is. With some PR/media subtlety, it’s actually pretty easy to pull off.

By: JH

JH — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:31:29 +0000

56. I really, really don’t think the Mariners are proactively playing for the worst record in the league to get the top draft pick. Organizations just don’t think that way. Even teams like the Rays who have acknowledged in recent years that it’s not their time by avoiding spending money to try to scratch their way towards mediocrity don’t go out and actively bat inferior hitters to pad loss totals.

The Mariners are an especially unlikely team to employ this strategy. A losing record effects immediate ticket sales far more than a potential #1 panning out and becoming an ace in the next 4 years will. The Mariners aren’t going to purposefully undercut their revenue stream for the next few seasons for a better chance at landing a great college pitcher. No way.

By: argh

argh — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:02:16 +0000

Apparently it’s just me but the headline on this article at the Mariners’ site is really the frosting on the cake:

Riggleman makes due with rotation

Perhaps the young intern was yearning deeply for ‘doodoo’ and just had to settle.

By: Jeff Nye

Jeff Nye — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:21:07 +0000

gwangung, don’t get me wrong; I understand exactly why people feel that way.

I guess I just don’t think there’s much in the way of productive conversation that can be had if you’re starting from the assumption that the organization is dumb and will never stop being dumb.

If the solution to this offseason ends up being to throw a ton of money at Mark Teixeira (which I’m personally terrified of), I’ll gnash my teeth along with everyone else; but until then, I’d rather put on my rose-colored glasses and imagine what a smart(er) org could do to turn the team around.

By: gwangung

gwangung — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:07:50 +0000

Water seeks its own level, so to speak. That is to say, Riggs was blessed to have a brain that’s in synch with Mariners’ thinking.

That’s been pretty obvious to me…

It’s an easy trap to fall into (and don’t get me wrong, I’m as frustrated with this team as a lot of you are), but the first thing that has to happen before this team can improve is to get smarter, so could we maybe take that as a given from now on and talk about what could happen if they WERE smarter?

…which makes it hard for me to speculate presuming if they WERE smarter. This just doesn’t seem like a competent sports organization (and they’re not firing on all cylinders on top of that).

By: fermorules

fermorules — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:39:21 +0000

People, do you think it’s coincidence Riggleman wound up in the M’s organization?

Water seeks its own level, so to speak. That is to say, Riggs was blessed to have a brain that’s in synch with Mariners’ thinking.

By: Gomez

Gomez — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:41:16 +0000

Lazy may be a strong term for what it is, sure.

And pardon the typos. I do proofread these comments some before I post them, but yikes. I counted three in that last comment.

By: Jeff Nye

Jeff Nye — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:11:57 +0000

While I won’t go so far as to call it “lazy”, Gomez hits the nail on the head; we all know this organization hasn’t historically done very smart things, but what’s the point in bringing that up again and again every time we talk about how the team might get better?

It’s an easy trap to fall into (and don’t get me wrong, I’m as frustrated with this team as a lot of you are), but the first thing that has to happen before this team can improve is to get smarter, so could we maybe take that as a given from now on and talk about what could happen if they WERE smarter?