I/O:  The Red Sox are behind the Mariners.  Hey, c'mon, everybody wants to win! 

CRUNCH:  One thing we can agree on:  competition at the highest levels is tougher than it sounds.  ;- )

......

Here is my argument against the idea that "everybody wants to win equally."   I could be wrong.  :: ahem ::

OK, wow, we look up this morning and the Mariners have a chance make the playoffs this year!  Dr. D is positively choked with admiration.

What about the last 37 years, gentlemen, shall we consider those also?  The Mariners have a track record, which track record includes "this year's Robinson Cano free agent followup."  Everybody around baseball was mystified by the M's lack of free-agent support for Robinson Cano.  Remember?

And here we are, 10 runs in 7 games or whatever .... what was that year the M's were .500 in July with unbelievable starting pitching (Felix, Bedard, Pineda, Fister, Vargas or somesuch) and then the offense's futility caused them to give up, lose 17 in a row :- ) and throw in the towel?

.....

Maybe this year they win.

Perhaps an incoming tidal wave of young, cheap, cost-controlled players will override their organizational insincerity about fighting for a championship.  Perhaps they'll win despite the fact that they don't want it as much as Arte Moreno does.  It won't prove anything, to me, about their sincerity.

.

Another Layer of Complexity:  the Paradigm of Prioritization

The "mantra" is "everybody wants to win."  Let's nuance that, and recognize that everybody wants a lot of things.  The question is balancing your wants.

Two priorities, among many, for which CEO's are responsible:

• Winning the World Series*  (or becoming a primary concern, or leading Market X, or "branding" yourself as youthful, or whatever)
• Maximizing this year's positive cash flow

30 teams want both, yes.  In that sense "everybody wants to win."  But!  Each of the 30 teams has a subtly different prioritization of those two things.

I don't think you can seriously argue that there is a problem with the 1976-2013 Mariners' prioritization of those two things.  Right after the Cano signing and the sound of crickets following, the East Coast -- not me! -- loudly called into question the M's commitment to winning.

I don't think anybody IN baseball DOES argue about whether there's a problem here.  There is.

.

One (Not-So-Great) Investor's Remarks on the Subject of "Cash Flow"

1) Profit, by the way, is realized on sale.  This year's cash flow is not "profit" as my accountant would define it.  The Mariners are realizing a colossal profit, whether or not this year's cash flow is positive.  This year's cash flow is really just an "operating expenses" issue.

2) For those who just joined us:  you buy an 8-plex for $200k, you sell it later for $500k ... whether your rent was +$1000 to your plumbing in this calendar year is incidental.  Slum lords, like Donald Sterling, make sure their yearly cash flow is +$1000 just on principle.  Not because they need it.

3) And, that $300k profit on the 8-plex ... of course you can spend it now.  It's called a "line of credit."  You take out a $100k second mortagage now, spend the $100k on your wife's Xmas, and then when you sell the 8-plex you get back $200k in pocket (rather than $300k) from the $500k sale price.  You can easily move $100k of profit from "sale date" to "today."  Real estate investors in fact DO this.  Constantly.  I've done it several times myself.

I don't know any fellow RE investors who view this any differently than I just explained it.

All 30 MLB teams have these lines of credit -- "early profit extraction" -- and it is why they can take a $27M "loss" for the 2013 season.  

The Mariners prefer to lead baseball in "yearly positive cash flow."  If this means they lose on the field, well .... you have to set priorities, right?  As Chuck Armstrong put it, quote, "You can't get carried away with" the idea of winning.

.

All's Well that Ends Well, Dept.

The M's nixing of Nelson Cruz' 28 HR and 74 RBI (just in the first half!) -- on the grounds of "responsible spending" -- was pretty flippin' Donald Sterling-like.  In my opinion.

Rich men --- > spend dimes to make dollars (millions to make billions).  The Seattle Mariners sign their TV deal, declare Cruz (and every single other player like him, kiddies) too expensive the day after, and ... much of Seattle declares them "responsible."

Personally, I declare them devoid of a competitive soul, at levels above Zduriencik.  But then, that's just my opinion.  It's my opinion in the full sense of the word "opinion."

Soul-less?  How dare I?  The ownership committe is not giving me tires for my money.  It's only giving me a "pennant race."  The flags in left field are in order of the standings!  

These aren't exhibition games; these games are marketed to us as having more value than exhibition games, precisely because of the standings and the playoffs.  MLB.com leads off with the standings, Mariners.com provides standings news, Mariners.com bills the A's vs M's as a pennant-race showdown, etc. etc.

That's all in the world we get for our $30 seat and $5 Pepsi.  The pennant race.  You're surprised I'm angry when the committee does not try to give us that?

.....

The 1990's M's had Randy Johnson, Ken Griffey Jr., Edgar Martinez, Alex Rodriguez, and Jay Buhner.  James' acid comment, "The 1950's Braves managed to parlay Warren Spahn, Henry Aaron, and Eddie Matthews into one championship and a long series of excuses.  The 1990's Mariners appear to have outdone them."  The CEO in charge then, is in charge now.  Dr. D wearied of excuses some 15 years ago.

Perhaps tomorrow, they'll take on a boatload of salary and turn this team into something with bad intentions, "embarrassing" Dr. D in the eyes of the superficial reader.  That would be great.  

If the Mariners won a championship this year, or next, or in 2016, it would prove certain things.  One thing it certainly wouldn't prove: that 1976-2013 didn't occur.  Another thing is wouldn't prove in Dr. D's mind:  it wouldn't prove anything about the M's sincerity.

....

Perhaps people who live in Japan, who don't like baseball (which is fine), continue to view the Mariners as a 1992-95 "gift to Seattle" (which was fine) and believe that they owe the city nothing more than a "competitive team and a nice night at the ballpark," even though the city paid for its $0.5B stadium.  If so, this would all be fine:  I only ask them to say that, before I buy my ticket to their ballgame.

This would be one version of sincerity, to tell us that they will provide us mediocrity because everybody above "zero" is a gesture of goodwill.  TELL me that there will be no pennant fight, and I'm fine.  Don't sell the pennant race, though, unless you mean it.

....

What proves sincerity, to Dr. D., is sacrifice made towards an honorable goal.  Definition of gullibility:  Susie says X, does Y, and you believe X.  A noted psychologist, 70 years old, taught me that.  When a drug addict says one thing and does another, and you listen to the words, you are being gullible.

The Mariners signed two players who "brand" their franchise, players who are marketed on TV.  Then they refuse to complete the team.  That is what they have done.

From the Committee's standpoint, "sacrifice," that would mean raising payroll to bring in excellent players for the 25-man roster.

Moreno, by the way, is paying $154M in player salary this year.  The M's are paying $90M.  That's like playing $260 roto where your opponent gets $440 on draft day.  I'll guarantee you that SABRMatt could win any roto league in the world on 60 minutes' preparation.

The Mariners could easily spend $30, $40, $50M more in yearly payroll, starting right now.  They prefer not to.  That is prioritization.

Sacrificing from the top down -- spending money in a 100% attempt to provide a great end product -- THAT would be sincerity.  Lotsa teams do it. 

Your friend,

Jeff