I've already contributed in the "Two Cheers" and shout box discussion. But to reiterate - nothing in the MLB rules requires the majority owner to run the team - even by proxy (i.e., Ellis and Lincoln). John Stanton or Chris Larson, both minority owners, could take over tomorrow if Yamauchi said yes. With the club at an all-time secure financial position with the ROOTNW deal, this would be the dandiest of all times to take a fresh look and give Lincoln and Armstrong their deserved applause on the way to a distinguished retirement. Whether Gillick might be then invited to be club president under the new configuration is neat to speculate. Maybe as a two-year "transitional" (read "transformational") guy with the new ownership/control alignment as they get their feet on the ground? Can any one suggest someone else who could better add on to JackZ's strengths and make the club stronger, right now, today? Meanwhile, then look for the guy who could do it longer term. But I believe the time is exquisitely right for a transition at the top - without going through a sale.
.
Gordon and PHXTerry have an interesting tennis volley going on in the shout box. Thusly:
............
Terry: Writers all over the USA are calling for Wedge's and Zduriencik's heads. Obviously a change in those two isn't going to mean a change in Seattle baseball.
Gordon: Attendance isn't bad compared to the last year or two ... financial strength is excellent by any standard. The new TV deal is locked and loaded, and the equity buildup is sterling. The yearly cash flow is positive, as always. The ownership committee is getting what it wants.
Terry: Yeah, but if an F-500 company made $300 mill and should have made $500 mill, what does a board do in response to that? Cleveland's dry rot should make any franchise nervous about continued losing.
...........
Larry Stone's article calls for a regime change which is, as far as I can tell, out of character for Larry. He has been understandably using a light touch when it comes to his relationship with the F-500 company that is the pivot around which his job circles.
We know of very few cyber-fans in Seattle who wouldn't welcome a change at the steering wheel - say, Pat Gillick as president. How likely is this?
As Stone points out, Wedge and Zduriencik are in the last years of their contracts. From a boardroom perspective, that definitely creates a Grand Strategic Crossroads situation in 2013. As you evaluate Jack Zduriencik, you do evaluate the infrastructure that hired him.
............
The ownership committee has always cared 90% about "financial strength" and 10% about on-field results. When that ownership committee reports to Yamauchi-san, it is going to be held accountable 90% financials (and corporate "brand"), vs. 10% on-field results, because Yamauchi-san obviously couldn't care less about 2nd place vs 4th place in the standings.
In the past, Lincoln and Armstrong have always served at their discretion, based on their impeccable relationships with other committee members and based on their delivering the 90-10 priority that trickles down from above.
To what extent do 10 years of losing, and downhill attendance trends, create an environment in which Committee Members start to murmur about improved results? It all depends on the individual human beings who sit on that board. Some people would be inclined to stay the course. Other people would get tired of the same old processes that return the same old results.
Yes, we realize that Yamuachi-san is nominally "retired." But there is a dynamic, sometimes almost imperceptible, that drives the composition of the ownership committee. In order to effect change, you've got to have the sea winds at your back.
..........
This last winter, the Mariners did bid on Josh Hamilton. The previous winter, they did bid on Prince Fielder. The actions of the last few years do hint at an increased priority towards winning.
In that boardroom, they do discuss winning, do consider it one of the corporate missions, and committee members would prefer to sit in the suites and watch a product that they are proud of. Whatever the financial reports, no board member wants to turn on the TV and watch the country complaining about its corporate brand. The Starbucks CEO doesn't prefer to make a pile of money, and watch talk show hosts laughing at the horrible taste of its coffee.
Has the decade's worth of losing begun to weigh in with the committee members, enough so that their Institutions (Lincoln and Armstrong) are subject to evaluation? Do the political dynamics within the boardroom even create the possibility of broaching the subject of change? A lot hinges on Lincoln's and Armstrong's capital with Yamauchi-san ... as a board member, it's tough to raise the subject, if Yamauchi-san himself is completely satisfied with his American interfaces.
Based on that Yamauchi-Lincoln interface, I'd be pretty skeptical about any significant pressure coming to bear on Lincoln.
...............
The Mariners seem to be, for some reason, increasingly concerned about wins and losses. Personally, I doubt that this concern is going to directly affect Lincoln and Armstrong. Much more likely that the Committee would get together for a Grand Strategy session, and decide that a Pat Gillick GM type is the way to roll up its sleeves and get to work again.
Which, if you could get Gillick to GM at the age of 75, we presume would turn the trick. There are a few guys around who can take talent and turn it into first place over the course of a single winter.
That's my opinion I could be wrong,
Jeff
Comments
Mild Mannered Reporter Larry Stone is very measured in his approach to M's problems and how to fix them. Stone is well-respected in Seattle and in sportswriting circles generally, in part because of his even-handedness and in part because of his considerable writing talent. Thus, I find his bluntness in this article, in blaming Lincoln and Armstrong explicitly for the M's current unhappy situation, very surprising. I would love to speak with Larry candidly and ask him what particular straw broke his camel's back.
I think the answer would be running re-cycled retread Bonderman out to the mound, when the M's are supposed to have the most pitching depth in the high minors. But that is speculation on my part. What bears watching is whether Larry's goring Lincoln and Armstrong encourages other local sportswriters to pile on L & A. E.G, John McGrath at the TNT and other established writers like him.
In other words, Larry has set himself up with this article, to attack L & A if (when) they fire (fail to renew) GMZ and Sgt Wedge & blame Z & Wedge for the M's failings. Larry is perfectly positioned now to take the high ground when Z & Wedge are let go and point to L & A as the true villians in the M's sad story.
Baker, on the other hand, with all his direct criticisms of M's Management and its tight-fisted ways, has, to my knowledge, not explicitly blamed L&A by name for the sorry state of the franchise. It will be interesting to follow Baker over the next few weeks to see if he follows Larry's lead & starts naming L & A by name as the root cause of the ills of the M's franchise. Stay tuned, but, in my opinion, this article by Mild Mannered Reporter Larry Stone was a major move in the blame game.
The ownership, as I understand it, is Nintendo 51 percent, Ellis, Larson and a bunch of other guys 49 percent. Yaumachi owns a controlling interest in the Nintendo stock that owns the Mariners.
We do not have the benefit of the Mariners bylaws to know exactly how its boardroom works, but, The Nintendo vote is already by proxy. Howard Lincoln is Nintendo. He works for Nintendo and his job is to control the 51 percent stock in a prudent manner. If he were to vote for some other director to be chairman for him, then that would equal him giving his job to someone else. Nintendo cannot let a non Nintendo employee run its company.
I think the major complaint with the M's board is that there is no tyrannical Daddy Warbucks to write obscene checks and demand results. We need someone to step in, and sign Morse, Morales, Kershaw Nelson Cruz, and maybe bring the freak home. This is not a problem with the direction by the board. I serve on a couple of small town charitable boards, and when we are out of money, we stop doing things. It is just the nature of the beast. There is a gambling axiom that says that you do not waste your entire stake on one bet. You don't bet the farm, as it were.
It does no good to say the board should be richer. They probably agree. If someone with a billion dollars or so wanted to buy the Mariners and get serious about winning I have no doubts they would sell it. It would be their civic duty to do so. The problem is that billionaires are hard to come by Cough Jeff Bezos cough. Also, wouldn't you rather have your local billionaires helping the poor, like Bill Gates, or improving science, like Paul Allen?
I think the board should get full cred for this TV deal which will make Ms fans very happy in the near future. Maybe they can raise payroll to 120 million or so as befits the M's status of being the MLB baseball team for five states and Japan.
One of the other Microsoft ultra-rich guys is getting into semi-legal marijuana. Bill Gates doesn't seem to have any interest in sports, even as a local civic interest. The Amazon people don't seem too interested in sports either and we certainly don't want the Starbucks guy involved with the Mariners. Maybe the guy who has been trying to bring the NHL and NBA to Seattle would like to buy the Mariners.
Of course, being a rich sports guy that is highly invested in the team doesn't always mean success. Look at the Dallas Cowboys or the Orioles outside of the Pat Gillick era (and the last two years). Steinbrenner's Yankees were pretty lousy for almost 20 years too.
... the moment when the press smells blood, and then its reaction is usually quite frantic as it rushes to the kill. :- )
For some reason, L&A have never been anywhere near that tipping point... perhaps, as Mojo pointed out, because Lincoln is the rep of Nintendo and there is no reasonable way for the public to influence his placement. No blood in the water, no feeding frenzy.
.........
Especially on the vids, by the way, Geoff Baker Live!, he has been *very* uncompromising in his analysis about Armstrong's quarter-century's worth of zero accountability in the W column.