Fighting For Scraps
Yestrerday, Chuck Armstrong confirmed what everyone had assumed going into the winter – the payroll will be about the same as it was last year, meaning that our projections that the team has about $10 million or so to spend should be about right. If they move Aardsma, they might have something more like $14 million. Their total spending allowance this winter is going to be somewhere in that range.
The problem is that we’re seeing prices go crazy right now, so $10 million may not buy what we thought it would a few weeks ago. Ty Wigginton just got a two year deal at $4 million a year this morning, and Ty Wigginton is terrible. Even beyond the Jayson Werth contract, we’re seeing significant inflation for marginal players. It looks like we might be back to a market where a mediocre bench player costs a few million bucks, and even lousy everyday players are getting deals that would eat up half of the money the team has to spend. Given that the Mariners really need to acquire at least three or four players, that’s a huge problem.
So, if you’re wondering why the M’s are in on guys like Gregg Zaun, blame the market. Until all these teams blow through their cash and everything calms down, the M’s simply aren’t going to be able to make a reasonable signing. A quality DH isn’t going to take less money than Wigginton just got right now – they’re going to need to come to the reality that it might be one of the last few jobs available this winter. Much like Russell Branyan had the market set in on him late, the Mariners are probably going to need to have a guy find himself unemployed in January before they are able to get someone to agree to a deal on their terms.
Barring a trade, this is probably going to be a pretty boring week for the M’s. The shift in the market has made it impractical for them to try to land a starter in free agency right now.
Thanks for screwing us Bavasi.
Not that Wigginton isn’t terrible, but these are the same Rockies that are paying almost as much for just one season of the equally terrible Jose Lopez, so Ty probably looks like a bargain in comparison.
Incrementalism-on-the-cheap is not a management philosophy designed to generate a lot of season ticket sales, particularly for a team coming off a season of triple-digit losses.
Incrementalism-on-the-cheap is not a management philosophy designed to generate a lot of season ticket sales, particularly for a team coming off a season of triple-digit losses.
Bavasi going out and signing Beltre and Sexson in 2005 didn’t exactly jack season ticket sales up, though. The problems with 2011 attendance were baked into the cake when 2010 was such a huge pile of suck. Blowing cash on free agents now won’t help much, and signing the wrong free agent for too much money will definitely hurt.
If anything, this market helps with making Vargas and Aardsma more attractive trade bait (as their costs are somewhat controlled), so there is an upside to this.
There is NO management philosophy that generates lots of season ticket sales except years of wins, wins, wins.
Accordingly, approach the off-season to generate those years of wins, wins, wins.
Absolutely. As the M’s customers this is what we should demand. Wins. And until the team gives us wins we shouldn’t spend money on their product.
If we spend money on their product and they aren’t putting out a winning team, then why would the M’s ever worry about a winning team when they’re making money without one?
Maybe a little more research would help your perspective. They aren’t going to make money this year, and they’ve admitted it.
If you don’t want to go to games, don’t go. But I’m not quite sure how a call for everyone doing the same increases the prospects of them winning.
It’s depressing, but it is what it is. Hopefully there will be better choices on the blue light specials chosen this year – less head cases, less injury risks, and as much time given to new guys as possible.
If 2010 fell apart thanks to old n busted, hopefully 2011, when it fails, will fail with youth. (Well, while tolerating the exception of the typical “veteran presence argle-bargle the Ms will go get in the next month or so…) I’d rather see a rookie struggle, with the possibility of instruction, improvement or just getting shipped off, than to see a veteran complete his collapse.
The odds have to be good that at least one of Pineda, Saunders, Smoak, Ackley, Moore and the rotating-cast-of-bullpen will have a decent year. Right?
Finally, an organization dedicated to fighting for me.
They could ALL put up below average years (.710 OPS, etc.) and still be a step up from last year.
For the person who says that not showing up for games won’t change anything regarding the product on the field, I say it has a better chance of doing so than showing up for this sad team. If revenues go down, management/ownership has two choices;
1- Fold up and sell
2- Put a better product on the field.
My other pet peeve is reading over and over how ownership CAN’T add payroll, CAN’T do this, and CAN’T do that. The word should actually be WON’T. There is a big difference. We have one of the highest radio contracts and TV contracts. We have continually been a top 15 team in attendance. If we are losing money (never believe ownership when they say that BS), ten there are other team losing even more than are twice as good as ours.
In the immortal words of Howard Lincoln, “It isn’t my job to win a championship. It is my job to make a profit”.
Keep feeding the money machine and you will receive the same product- Business 101.
It took me a minute, Scraps. Okay, more than one.
Comment of the day, no doubt about it.
I read that, and I understand that. But thanks for the cliff notes version.
Because if we, as fans, tie our support (read: money spent on M’s) of the Mariners product to winning, then the M’s will have to put forth a winning team in order to get us to spend money on them and, thus make a profit.
Remember businesses do not exist to provide a product or service. They exist to make money.
If th Mariners were on the verge of great success in 2011, aggressively chasing FA’s ASAP would make some sense. But they aren’t, so waiting for the market to settle out has less importance. The worse that can happen is that they find themselves short of talent at the end of spring training. So they win 73 games instead of 77 – that isn’t going to make a lot of difference to fans.
My other pet peeve is reading over and over how ownership CAN’T add payroll, CAN’T do this, and CAN’T do that. The word should actually be WON’T. There is a big difference. We have one of the highest radio contracts and TV contracts. We have continually been a top 15 team in attendance. If we are losing money (never believe ownership when they say that BS), ten there are other team losing even more than are twice as good as ours.
So, the 2008 Mariners must have been a much better team than this year’s team, since they spent about $20 million mo-oh, wait, you mean they both lost 100 games? And the Cubs spent $150 million this year for a 5th place team?
The team’s problem isn’t spending money (this isn’t Pittsburgh, or even Oakland). The team’s problem has been spending it on the right players.
Because if we, as fans, tie our support (read: money spent on M’s) of the Mariners product to winning, then the M’s will have to put forth a winning team in order to get us to spend money on them and, thus make a profit.
Why do people think that somehow the M’s are still drawing 3 million a year? Guess what? They’re actually down to where they were attendance-wise in the early 1990’s, before any playoffs or real history of consistent winning (and in a metropolitan area much larger than in the 1990’s). So… basically, yes, this has already happened (and I would be willing to bet there will be some games in the cold parts of early April and/or late September where the crowd might not break 5 digits, or if it does, not by much).
Stop it – the horror that was last season was finally starting to blur into the background for me, and now you had to go and pull it back to the foreground! 😀