The Seattle Mariners have been a mostly bad baseball team over the past decade. This is hardly a controversial statement: the M’s have gone a decade between playoff appearances, eight years without a ninety win season, and have lost at least ninety games in three of the last four campaigns. That this run of mediocrity has coincided with one of the worst offensive “attacks” in baseball history has only magnified the team’s poor play. The performance on the field has been so bad that the organization ran an advertisement not only recognizing but also poking fun at the team’s ineptitude.
Through it all, a sort of bond has developed among the most dedicated members of the Mariners fanbase. The sentiment behind this bond is best captured by the aforementioned commercial, in which a man about to get a chest wax shrugs off the possibility that the procedure may be painful by saying, “Oh I can handle pain… I’m a Mariners fan.” While I find the commercial hilarious (I still can’t believe they ran that) and the losing frustrating, I think we Mariners fans ought to be thankful. I’m not declaring that we ought to accept losing or strive for mediocrity, but rather that we should have a little perspective. For as bad as things at Safeco Field have been lately, we can still take some measure of solace: at least we’re not rooting for the Oakland A’s.
I bring all this up in light of the recent trade between the A’s and Boston. Yesterday, Oakland agreed to send Andrew Bailey and Ryan Sweeney eastbound in exchange for Josh Reddick and prospects Miles Head and Raul Alcantera. It’s the latest move in an off-season in which the A’s appear to be simultaneously rebuilding and testing the fortitude of their dwindling fanbase to the brink. The A’s had already shipped off Gio Gonzalez and Trevor Cahill while Rich Harden, Josh Willingham, and David DeJesus left (or will likely leave) via free agency. By trading Bailey, the A’s dealt what was probably the most well known and marketable player remaining on the roster.
From a baseball standpoint, these moves make all the sense in the world. The A’s aren’t competing next season or any time in the immediate future. Combine that with one of the smallest payrolls in the game and it’s a no-brainer to deal established talent before it gets expensive.
For the fans though, this has to be maddening. The A’s have been reconstructing since the 2006 ALCS and it’s a process that will last at least a few more seasons. In fact, the trades this off-season aren’t even that bad compared to some of the departures of years past. This isn’t an exhaustive list by any means, but over the past decade, the A’s have dealt away Mark Mulder, Tim Hudson, Rich Harden, Dan Haren, Carlos Gonzalez, Matt Holiday, Huston Street, Nick Swisher, and Mark Kotsay. They also lost Barry Zito and Miguel Tejada to free agency. To add injury to insult, Eric Chavez, the one homegrown talent the A’s locked up long term, had his career derailed by a never ending stream of injuries that limited him to 154 games from 2007 through 2010.
In contrast to the revolving door of players coming in and out of the Bay Area, the one constant in Oakland has been the presence of The Coliseum. While just about every other major league team either renovated their stadium or moved into plush new digs, the Athletics continued to play in a dilapidated football stadium that even general manager Billy Beane calls “a dump.” Owner Lew Wolff has tried to get a new stadium, but if his proposition of the hour (a move to San Jose) comes to fruition, many A’s fans will abhor the shift more than they do The Coliseum. An Oakland to San Jose move is hardly akin to the Giants and Dodgers leaving New York, but the switch would undoubtedly be seen as a betrayal by some Athletic fans.
Add it all up, and fans in Oakland might have the worst dilemma in pro sports. They root for a team that constantly deals its best players, plays in an eyesore, has one of the smallest payrolls in the league, and receives little in the way of national recognition. The only obvious end to the team’s current business model would be a relocation that takes the franchise out of town, and even that idea has been held up by none other than the A’s geographical rival in San Francisco, who insists that such a move would infringe upon the Giants television market. It’s a mess, and it’s one with no palatable answer for a lot of A’s fans.
I don’t mean for this to be a suggestion that rooting for the M’s has been enjoyable lately. The team hasn’t been fun to watch, is having a pretty brutal off-season (though that’s mostly because of what division rivals have done as opposed to any any self-inflicted wounds,) and is a long shot to contend in the next couple years. Still, it never hurts to have a healthy dose of perspective. Things in Seattle are much better than they are in Oakland and at the very least, we can count on watching our favorite team in a beautiful ballpark for the foreseeable future. For as bleak as 2012 looks right now, there is talent and stability within the organization. And as Oakland can attest, that second caveat is quite important.
Pro Ball NW Archive 2007-2012 
If they A’s find their way to San Jose they will become dangerous. Thank the baseball gods that the Astro’s are moving into the cellar.
I love baseball but it needs to progress. There is a reason why football is so popular and its not just because of the hits, or because there is one game a week and every game counts. The problem with baseball is that fans want winning teams and in baseball, there are only a few. You can have a franchise in your town and it makes the playoffs once every 5-10 years. Seattle is not an outlier, many teams are like this.
50% of all teams that made the playoffs in the NFL one year will not make it back the next year. What this means is that the likelihood of your team making the playoffs in two-three short years is great (minus the Lions). And why is this possible? Because the NFL has more playoff spots, one extra round of games (wildcard weekend), and the money from all advertising is given equally across all teams. In other words, the NFL is a bit more socialist. It gives all teams a starting chance. Of course some payrolls are a little larger and can spend a little more, but the revenue that is equally distributed at the beginning to all teams allows small market teams like the Packers, Colts, and Titans to compete with large market teams like the Giants, Patriots, and Cowboys.
The pure capitalism of the MLB allows teams like the Yankees and Phillies to buy the talent that grew up in everyone else’s farm system (which is why I always tell people that the Yankees have 20+ farm systems…their own and the rest of the MLB). Sure, some teams can manage on great farm systems because of their proximity to Latin America (e.g. Atlanta, Miami Marlins, Rays, etc.). But when you have small market teams, low payrolls, (e.g. Athletics), it has to take something ingenious to tip the game in their favor (i.e. create a new type of scouting system).
In sum, stop allowing the big market teams to take up all the primetime spots and eat up all the profits from advertising and we need the payroll cap to be reasonable and set for all markets because there is just no real competition when teams can buy championships.
I’m sure I’m in the minority, but I’d be very disappointed to see baseball move in that direction. I want dynasties, lovable losers, David and Goliath– the storylines are better that way. Parity is boring. Seeing a team like the Rays reach the top of a system stacked against them by being smart and innovative is 100x more enjoyable than seeing a ~level playing field where any number of teams could emerge depending on the year.
I’d also argue that the shorter season as well as more player volatility and movement induce randomness into the NFl that isn’t present in baseball.
And I agree with Jon, parity is boring. If I wanted to see everybody succeed 40% of the time I’d go to a roulette table.
Please take me with you to the roulette table that gives you a 40% chance for success.
I agree. The NFL’s equality comes from what makes MLB’s postseason so unpredictable, with so few games everything’s completely random. In both the NFL and MLB bad teams can go on great runs and good teams can go on losing streaks, the difference is that 162 games weeds out the flukes. That’s why the pirates didn’t make it to the postseason this year, but the 2001 mariner’s didn’t win the world series. The more games played, the less random and more meaningful the results.
So the Seahawks beating the Saints in the playoffs last year was predictable? Was that not a David/goliath scenario? The Rams and Kurt Warner wa expected in the late 90’s and with the Cardinals in the 2000’s? And when has there ever been a fluke of a team to win the Super Bowl? For the most part, teams who win the NFL championship, is the best team the entire year. And the rare times, its the David/Goliath scenario (e.g. Giants upset Patriots).
So there is definitely more unexpectedness out of the NFL. Its every year that a team surprises people and gives hope to their community and around the country that maybe their team can do the same. In the MLB? When has that ever really happened? The Rays do not give me hope because they are a product of their great farm system and proximity to Latin America. Ever notice Seattle drafts Pacific Northwest players?
Again, I’m not asking for a shortened season, but no one can say that the MLB playoffs are more unpredicatble when the Yankees win two or three championships every decade (on average) and its usually the same teams in the playoffs (therefore, compeition is lacking). No one can say there are more dynasties in baseball than football either.
I agree. The NFL’s equality comes from what makes MLB’s postseason so unpredictable, with so few games everything’s completely random. In both the NFL and MLB bad teams can go on great runs and good teams can go on losing streaks, the difference is that 162 games weeds out the flukes. That’s why the pirates didn’t make it to the postseason this year, but the 2001 mariner’s didn’t win the world series. The more games played, the less random and more meaningful the results.
I clarified in my message below. But the gist is, I woldn’t want the seasons shorter. And I would argue that there are no dynasties in the NFL (probably more..Steelers of the 70’s, Patriots of the 2000’s…..49ers and Cowboys of the 80’s and 90’s…..what is there in Baseball? Yankees of the 20’s, Yankees of the 30’s, Yankees of the 40’s, Yankees of the 50’s?)
And there are lovable losers in the NFL. Detriot Lions? Saints? But in the NFL, there is a better chance of tose teams turning it around. The Giants who beat the Patriots? Huge upset. huge Daid and Goliath. Any given Sunday. I understand its a different game, but money does give you an edge, helpsto buy championships. If 29 to 32 teams were to rely on the draft while two or three teams had the money to buy the talent fromother teams, it tips the scales in a hufe way in my opinion.
Can you post a link to the commercial? They don’t run on TV in Portland.
Hasn’t the last decade been more aggravating for we M’s fans because it was preceded with a number of years of success? I’ve been a fan since ’77 and until ’95 the M’s ineptitude was in many ways equal to that of the past number of years–but it was lengthier. There just wasn’t an expectation of winning because it had never happened (and wasn’t going to with the cast of characters that kept being put out there–anyone remember Byron McLaughlin in the bullpen?). When Griffey came along everything changed and we had the first M’s generation give way to the 2nd M’s generation. Ichiro has largely marked the 3rd generation–and except for his rookie season the team hasn’t fared very well this generation. Who will mark the 4th M’s generation? Some are anxious to have it be Fielder. But with the exception of the Langston trade, when have the M’s really ever truly been on the plus end of a ‘superstar’ trade for the long-haul? Some hope Ackley will lead the way with a youth movement. Maybe. Regardless of how things shake out this off-season and in the next 1-2 years, I will continue to revel in what being an M’s fan really is all about–we are, in effect, New Age Cubs fans. We haven’t been at it as long, but our collective misery–and hope–remains endlessly entertaining. I was entertained by Bill Stein, Spike Owen, Rupert Jones, Bob ‘Scrap Iron’ Stinson, Mike Parrott, et. al. and choose to continue to be entertained by Carp, Gutierrez, Pineda, et. al.–even though I am at least as equally aggravated by them as I was by Stein, Owen, Jones, Stinson, and Parrott…..and Byron McLaughlin….
Okay I guess I’m the socialist here. I think the equally distributed earnings, salary cap and partially non-guaranteed contracts are good things and would make the MLB more competitive and enjoyable for the non-blessed by fortune teams and cities. I know it won’t happen in my lifetime (I’ll be 75 next month) but it just seems to be fairer to me. I guess fairness in something of an antiquated idea nowadays, which I find sad.
To be compared to the A’s, that makes me feel better.
The system works, the owners cry wolf, but the truth of the matter is a lot of small market owners, pocket the cash instead of reinvesting:
The Padres were actually baseball’s most profitable team of 2010, San Diego had an operating income of $37 million.
Baseball’s “small market” teams cashed in thanks to fat checks from the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers and other big market clubs. FORBES says those high-revenue teams sent more than $400 million to the bottom feeders.
Several teams with low attendance were able to post operating profits of at least $10 million. Among them: the Pittsburgh Pirates ($25 million), Kansas City Royals ($10 million), Oakland Athletics ($23 million) and Marlins ($20 million).The solution for the A’s is to move. Not to San Jose, but to Las Vegas. With interleague schedule increasing next year and thereafter, what a great time to place a team in Vegas. Just think, take a vacation, see your team, etc., etc. Please don’t make an argument about gambling and sports. It seems like all major cities have casinos now, including Seattle. Vegas is big enough to support a team, plus with 40 million visitors, it’s viable.
I should clarify……I never meant that the MLB season should be shortened. Definitely wouldnt be the same if we had one game a week, but the NFL builds rivalries, and I would say it builds dynasties just like the MLB.
First, I commend MLB for moving the Astros to the AL West. It may look disastrous for the Astros for the short-term, but I think in the long run, it will add a rivalry to Texasand it will be more equal to all divisions.
As for the dynasty conversation, what dynasties are there in the MLB? Yankees? Of course. Phillies? Hardly. Red Sox? Hardly. There is one dynasty really.
In the NFL. Packers. Cowboys, Steelers, 49ers, Patriots. Etc. You can name a decade and debate who owned it. In the 90’s, was it the Cowboys or the 49ers? In the 2000’s, the Patriots? I would think so. You can’t do this for baseball, for the most part.
My whole point was that limiting the payroll so that all teams have to work within a budget, so then teams like the Yankees/Redsox/Pillies can’t outbid everyone, makes the game more competitive. I am not saying we need to shorten the season, we need to limit the amount of payroll for each team (then maybe players can play more for the game and fans and be loyal to a team more than money). You split all royalties from advertising to all teams, not just the teams who you ut on ESPN. It gives an even more disadvantage to teams who are still rebuilding (and doesn’t it seem that the same teams are always rebuilding?)
But its just an idea. If I am a Yankees fan, I may like the system the way it is. But if I am a fan of every other team, I have to remember that there can be decades between playoff appearances. I guess being a Mariners fan, I am just looking for anything to see a little bettercompeition against the powerhouses.
On the A’s — I’m always curious why it is that there is insufficient hatred for this team among M’s fans. I suppose a lot of people around here weren’t following the M’s when the A’s used to pound them into dust in the late 80’s and early 90’s. With players like McGwire, Canseco, Henderson 1 and 2, Stewart, Eckersley…I freaking HATED those guys. Then I actually visited Oakland and learned to hate the town as well. I hate the A’s and hope they suck forever and ever.
As for revenue sharing — the word “parity” is a misnomer for the goal of spreading the wealth around. I think the word “hope” is better. You don’t need the year-to-year chaos of the NFL, where lineman change uniforms like underwear, to ensure fans have legitimate hope their team will one day be decent. But you simply can’t have teams that function effectively as AAA teams for the big boys. Fans can’t watch as their team is dismantled every couple of seasons to keep payroll down. The league needs to find shared revenue sources as well as balance the market power of some of the big teams so every FA conversation doesn’t start with the same three teams. How about a percent of local TV deals goes into the pot? How about another team in New York, or at least in the underserved Northeast somewhere?
That said, the M’s only have themselves to blame for failure. They’ve been in the upper half of salaries this whole decade and have been terrible for most of it. The emptying of the farm system by Gillick followed by inept drafts under Bavasi have crushed us. We CAN afford a player like Fielder if we choose to. And we can build a winner here. Just have to give it some time. Some luck wouldn’t hurt either. Hey baseball gods…quit crushing our players with freak diseases and accidents, ok? Thanks.