Add new comment

I completely get the idea of wanting ownership "intent" on winning. And it may well be that Seattle doesn't have that leadership. But, my own (3,000 mile distant) view is more along the lines of management that does want to win - (compared to franchises like Pittsburgh, Tampa (until their leadership turnover), or KC for the past couple of decades.
The evidence does not suggest that Seattle is "just" about the fan-friendly experience and winning is irrelevant so long as the club makes a profit.
After 88 wins in 2007, they increased payroll from $106 to $117 million in an effort to win. The result was 101 losses. The cutting payroll FOLLOWED the abysmal failure of attempting to win via FA acquisition route.
While I get the concept that lack of passion to win can create a self-fulfilling prophesy of loss ... passion to win is no panacea. Talk to the Cubs and Mets fans about clubs willing to spend huge sums failing to win year after year. Passion alone does not bring competence.
Where I think the Seattle fans might be mistaken is in the belief that demonstrating a passion for winning (while still losing) will somehow change the landscape of what is feels like to be a Mariner fan. It won't. Mets fans do not sit around applauding management for "having the guts" to overpay Santana and Bay and Beltran and Jose Reyes on their way to another 4th place finish in the NL East.
Seattle at this moment has a core of young players with HIGH probability that some number will improve. Who and how much is the big unknown. Before 2012, Seager, Saunders and Jaso were *NOT* the suspects for the foundation for a decade of winning.
My view is that too many are writing off Ackley and Montero and even Carp too quickly, (sorry, but I never was a Smoak fan), so 2013 is NOT IMHO a "lost cause", any more than Oakland's or Baltimore's 2012 was a lost cause in December of 2011.