Selling Your Soul
.
Dr. K's point right here:
"The franchise value has increased from 48% over those nine years, but over the time period the value of the Rangers has increased by 120% and the value of the Angels by 417%*."
Lemme pull rank here a bit, as (apparently) the Seattle blogger most familiar with 7th-floor steering committees. F-500 execs live and die by market share, live and die by the question of, "How are we doing compared to other people selling the same thing?"
Dr. Kelly's point not only has traction; it's a point that has so much traction that it had buried jemanji in oblivion. It hadn't even occurred that the appreciation had been so low for the Mariners. 48% over nine years is only 5.3% per year, and that is pitiful at these corporate levels, in this industry sector. 10%, 12% per year would be only marginally acceptable. The Rangers have scored over 30% per annum, calculated straight-line in retro.
Bloggers and Warts Spiders talk "profit" when, in fact, yearly cash flow is a trivial consideration compared to appreciation. The profit is when you sell (and that profit is fairly liquid, can be -- and is -- pulled at any time through bank loans).
For the Mariners it's a LITTLE different, because they're not EXACTLY a Seattle's Best Coffee that could be PUT TO DEATH by a Starbucks. The Mariners, almost uniquely, face no competition for market from other MLB franchises. But do you notice how hyper-sensitive the Mariners are even to the Sonics and Seahawks? Who don't play, mostly, at the same time they do?
The execs can and do look at Kelly's issue -- 1.2x and 4x growth for AL West teams while they saw a piddling 0.5x growth over a decade -- and they panic, believe me. Now I finally understand why the Mariners' puzzling willingness to bid on Prince Fielder last year.
..............
I think I read that the M's attendance drop, over the last decade or so, has been THE largest in SPORTS. Other teams have gone from winners to losers, but other teams have not lost their soul, have not decided that the pennant race is peripheral to what they do.
You could compare bloggers' outrage to the Royals' temerity in deciding to trade for James Shields. For many bloggers, the pennant race is peripheral to making smarter-than-thou decisions. You can certainly argue that Wil Myers is too precious to give away; Bill James is arguing that at BJOL. What you can't do is multiply that variable times the variable of "The Royals Have No Right To Try To Win."
It is precisely here, in the barren wilderness of non-pennant-race prioritization, that Dr. D has been wandering since the 2001 trade deadline. The Mariners decided that they couldn't get carried away with winning. The 2001 Mariners had briefly enjoyed the fruits of their 1999-2001 windfall: a $400M taxpayer stadium coupon, and the dazzling brilliance of Pat Gillick. Thanks to the taxpayers and Gillick, the Mariners' shot-callers were local celebrities for a few years.
Except for the five-year blip caused by the taxpayers and Gillick, and the little asterisk of the wasted Piniella-Griffey era, the Mariners since 1977 have played soulless baseball.
Do the Mariners want to win? All sports teams are interested in that, just like all fathers are interested in having sons who adore them. Some fathers prioritize that more than other fathers do. Some fathers have soulless family relationships. It didn't happen because they set losing as a goal. It happened because they didn't pay the price necessary to have families that were filled with joy and love. They didn't prioritize.
Sports teams have tons of priorities: franchise appreciation, and the corporate "brand," and to be good community citizens, and to win by the way, and to have a great relationship with Nike, and to feather their next TV contract nest, and to have players who don't go to jail, and 1,000 other priorities. Some teams put "winning" higher on that list than do others. Guess where Magic Johnson puts it on HIS list?
...............
As Sandy says, Hamilton's marquee value in and of itself *isn't necessarily* the key to a turnaround; neither is winning, exactly. It's a sense that you have a team, from the CEO down, a team that "wants to win" as Magic Johnson put it when he just authorized the latest Greinke cash splurge in Dodger Blue.
The M's sold their soul, and they have paid dearly. Hamilton, plus other adds, would have been a big step towards reclamation of that soul. What they do now, I dunno.
The Mariners don't sell tires or widgets or tax preparation. They sell a pennant race. The Royals traded for James Shields because of a PENNANT RACE. Whether it was correct execution is totally irrelevant. The corporate mission is what defines your brand and your future.
Since the trade deadline 2001, Silentpadna and I have been waiting for a team that wants to win as badly as its rivals do. There have been a few minor signals now, that this may be changing somewhat. We'll see.
..............
Great article, Dr. K.