Commentary: Mariners are average because of ownership

Commentary: Note to Stanton - the M’s are average because of ownership, not market size

Stanton's statement said the quiet part out loud: Blaming market size for inability to spend more for fear of losing profits.

Ever since I was a kid I’ve always loved those foam fingers proudly announcing "We’re Number One!" Which is why I had a great idea for the next Mariners' promotional campaign after reading the MLB.com interview with team chairman John Stanton, who came out of hiding this week to remind us all why maybe it’s better he *doesn’t open his mouth.

Discussing his team’s payroll, Stanton said, "We’re roughly the 15th-largest market in baseball. We’re pretty much smack-dab in the middle in terms of the size of the market, and that means that we’re about average in our ability to generate revenue…I think, to me, the word that we use a lot – and our objective – is to have a sustainable franchise over a long period of time."

And that, folks, is Stanton’s biggest mic drop of all. Because, finally, Mariners ownership has said the quiet part out loud.

"Don’t blame us for not spending more than an average team! We can’t! We only have an average-size market!"

You mean an average-sized market that can also be expanded to Portland and Vancouver and Spokane, and most of Alaska, even parts of Idaho or Montana, given that the M’s are the only MLB team in the Pacific Northwest? You mean a market with revenue streams galore, as the bustling epicenter of innovation and technology? Home to Amazon and Costco and Starbucks and Microsoft, whose president, by the way, is now part of the Mariners' ownership group?

The M’s had the second-highest operating income in baseball last year according to Forbes and were the most profitable team two years ago. They’re worth $2.2 billion. "But we can’t overspend because of our average market size!" Wink, Wink.

I’d ask Stanton to kindly explain to me how the San Diego Padres, whose official Market Score ranks 24th out of 30 teams, had Top 5 payrolls two of the last three years? How were they able to land big-name free agents and now have three players signed to deals worth 280 million dollars or more? A team that reached the NLCS two years ago, and are still playing right now?

I understand you can win with a lower payroll – and the fact the M’s aren’t doing that falls squarely on the front office. But tonight is about ownership’s unwillingness to open its coffers. Because god forbid they risk the possibility of potentially, maybe, (oh the horrors!) lose money in an effort to swing for the fences on behalf of a somehow-still devoted fan base!

Whether he intended to or not, it’s fitting that there’s a key omission in Stanton’s claim that their "objective is to have a sustainable franchise over a long period of time." He doesn’t say a sustainable winning franchise or a sustainable championship franchise. Just a sustainable one, which reads, in the context of revenue, that all that matters is turning a profit year-in and year-out.

Again – he said the quiet part out loud.

Which brings me back to next year’s campaign. Foam fingers that read "We’re Number 15!" or "Number 16!" or whatever payroll ranking it ends up being.

Because it represents this ownership group to a tee – plus, the foam itself was likely and appropriately formed… from a whole bunch of hot air.