If the 2008 Mariners were good for anything - aside from knocking Bill Bavasi out of a job (have you heard that Felix Hernandez hasn't yet signed an extension?) - it's that, looking back, they provided a yin to the 2009 edition's yang. A year ago, ours was among the most toxic clubhouses of which I've ever heard. There were cliques and disagreements and nobody got along. This season, however, was the complete opposite, as there were ticklings and ice cream pies and Carlos Silva giving Ichiro a piggy-back ride. Over these last two years, we've been given a thorough look at what it's like on both sides of the coin, and it turns out players generally enjoy a happy clubhouse more than a nasty one. We all saw the postgame celebration on Sunday. We all heard Felix talk to Angie Mentink.
With that in mind, I have a question. Or more like a bunch of questions that are closely related to each other:
- Let's say, hypothetically, that Felix signs an extension with Seattle next month. And let's say that, among the various reasons, he cites how much he enjoys playing on this team and how glad he is to be sticking around.
Do you give any credit at all to the clubhouse atmosphere for fomenting the whole thing? Would Felix have been willing to sign had there been a lousy environment, or even just a less pleasant environment, instead of such a happy, supportive one? Maybe he would've been willing to sign, but would he have been willing to sign the same contract? Maybe he would've cost more. Would you then give credit to the atmosphere for the difference between what he signs for and what he hypothetically would've signed for in the other circumstance?
I guess the big question here is, do players care about clubhouse environment when they're in contract negotiations? I mean, I'm sure they care to some degree, but do they care enough for it to make a difference, be it financial or otherwise? If in Universe A you have this year's Mariners team and this year's Felix situation, and in Universe B you have the same Felix situation but a less pleasant clubhouse, is there any difference in the probability of Felix re-signing? Is there any difference in the cost? What about with, say, a lower-profile free agent?
These are open questions, because I don't have the answers. The cynic in me says that it's all money money money, and then winning and location, and anything else is insignificant, but I honestly don't know. It's not hard to envision that this team's clubhouse could help lure people in or lure people back, but it's also not hard to envision that it wouldn't. So.
?
I think it could be the deciding factor in a decision
though I’d think that the first three priorities would be winning/money in some order, stability, and location, all things being equal, it would be easy to see a guy pick his current team because he likes the atmosphere, or pick another team because the other players were very welcoming or texted him and told him how much they wanted him to come, etc.
I know that in the NBA at least, free agents always talk about getting recruited by current players on a prospective team, and that can make a big difference when the money is equal (which it often is in the NBA)
seattlebruin - October 6, 2009
I'm sure some players would look forward to being targeted by a team they've heard/seen is fun to be on
Dewey N - October 6, 2009
Hmmm...
I’m one to believe that winning and a good clubhouse go hand-in-hand. I mean if you don’t have the loose clubhouse than it affects your quality of work. Its hard to say, but i would think you would want to gravitate more to the team that has the sense of humor.
C-Nage - October 7, 2009
Not sure.
I don’t really think it is as big of a deal as we want it to be, but at the same time, in no way will it hurt. I want to say that guys are looking for that great clubhouse chemistry and camaraderie, but would certain players take more money to go to a city/team they didn’t really care about? Sure. Would players take less money because they love the city of Seattle and the guys in the locker room? Sure. But at the end of the day, it’s still a business and I’m not sure it has as big of an impact as we all want it to.
I just wish every potential contract we sign had a provision that said, “If and when you sign this contract, Sweeney will hug you every day and then ice cream pie you in the face if you do anything remotely good.”
Kyle Rancourt - October 6, 2009
Ok...I'm having major deja vu...
Did this exact post get put up a couple months back? Because this is uncomfortable.
But yes, I would guess any baseball player would have some attraction to what he feels is a “fun” team. But what is that? How many players are really different from last year to this year, and do you thing they really make a difference?
Last year Ichiro was a “clubhouse cancer” (as he was many other years)…now he’s tickle-me Elmo. I think it comes down to expectations and performance.
If you’re playing for the Yankees and you play .500…well, that sucks. The city attacks you, the owner is on your case, and life is shit. If you’re playing for the Royals and you get to .500 it’s a great year. Obviously you want to play for a good team and succeed, but only to a degree…you want a playoff berth, but not stupid expectations.
Sidi - October 6, 2009
It most certaintly helps if everybody loves each other.
Slurvey - October 6, 2009
It might depend on the player
Some might be more inclined to want to be with a ‘fun’ clubhouse to the point that they would accept less money / less prestige / etc. But others would find the clubhouse atmosphere to be pointless (perhaps they hate everyone, perhaps they want to win above all else, perhaps they just want the biggest paycheck).
My cynical self says that more players would care about money or winning than whether or not a clubhouse is fun. And clubhouses change. No one who cared about clubhouse antics would have given the M’s a discount after 2008’s debacle. But add a few players, take some away, and the atmosphere is completely different. What happens in 2010 if Griffey and Sweeney and a few others aren’t there and replaced by less amusing players? I would wonder if a player would take that into consideration as well.
Gihyou - October 6, 2009
I'd rather get paid less and be among friends
than get paid more and work with jerks.
Course with millions involved my tone might change. It’s hard to say, really. But I’m sure a positive clubhouse is much harder to wave goodbye to.
MT Olson - October 7, 2009
Thinking about this, I don't believe team chemistry plays any role in a player's decision to re-sign with a team.
Money, location, and organizational direction seem to be the biggest issues.
Look at Griffey, A-Rod, and Ichiro. Each made separate decisions to stay or go based on different things. Griffey wanted out based on location. A-Rod wanted out based on money. Ichiro likely decided to re-sign because location and loyalty. Each of them were playing on winning teams at the time they made their decisions. However, team chemistry was likely at its highest for Griffey and A-Rod while being the lowest for Ichiro.
I know players make friends and become personally close to a few individuals, but team chemistry can be replicated anywhere. I could see a player like Felix wanting to stay because he is personally close to a teammate, but even he realizes this is a business and you cannot count on that teammate being there every year. Beltre appears to be that teammate and Felix sees the uncertainty surrounding his situation.
Team chemistry may incite the impulse to want to re-sign, but I don’t believe it factors into the negotiation process. So it may be to front office’s advantage to use the 2009 team chemistry to simply get Felix to open talks on re-signing since most of their leverage is gone.
Wilder. - October 7, 2009
I would say Money >>>> winning > location > chemistry
vivaelpujols - October 7, 2009
I would say Money +/- (Winning + Location) - (|Chemistry|/10).
CapSea - October 7, 2009
I don't think you propagated that error right.
Zwakamatsu - October 7, 2009
Of course, money and location can be somewhat connected.
Aaron Campeau - October 7, 2009
Call me crazy
But I don’t think a player who is making a decision between $60 million and $80 million makes that decision based on money at all. What difference does that make? Once you get to that point, it doesn’t make a sniff of difference in your quality of life. My life would be different if I had an extra 10% of salary. At that level, there is no real difference.
The reason players (or actors, or corporate executives) want more and more money is that a salary represents prestige and respect. We’re psychologically predisposed to compare ourselves to our peers and to base our self-worth on those comparisons. A player making $2,000,000 a year (unless he’s particularly well grounded) doesn’t compare himself to the regular people in the stands making a tiny fraction as much; he compares himself to the other guy in a similar role making $4,000,000.
A person making over $10,000,000 a year could take half his money and burn it, and it would make almost no difference to his life; in fact, that is what many athletes do, to all intents and purposes. What they want is to be able to say to themselves, I make more than that guy.
b_rider - October 7, 2009
The thing is...
This way of thinking, while natural, is stupid. A good work environment and deep friendships are much more important to happiness than money.
b_rider - October 7, 2009
Given Felix's background, the money is not all about him, or all for him
He has not just his own family to support, but his hometown community to give back to, and things he probably wants to do because he grew up poor (if I recall correctly).
Spoomeister - October 7, 2009
Uh, the difference between $60M and $80M is substantial
you don’t want to be that guy that inexplicably left $20M on the table. It’s not like a lot of these guys are known for their financial savvy and restraint.
seattlebruin - October 7, 2009
Nor are they guaranteed another payday.
That’s a shitload of money to give away for tickles.
Teej - October 7, 2009
I'm not saying that you should give it up for no reason.
I’m just saying that, given the limited real marginal benefit of the extra money, it is not rational to use that as the prime deciding factor (as it almost always is). Unless, of course, it’s not about the money at all, but about stoking your ego.
b_rider - October 7, 2009
Take taxes out, too.
$60 million quickly becomes ~$30 million.
Wilder. - October 7, 2009
And let's be honest, $30 million dollars is hardly worth getting out of bed for.
abender20 - October 7, 2009
It's an insulting number.
Call me when you get serious.
Wilder. - October 7, 2009
These guys spend at least 8 hours every day together
and that’s just for home games. That suggests to me that a player with control over his destiny would want to be in an environment where he likes the guys he’s surrounded with, at least on some level. At the Ichiro level, money doesn’t matter so much – he’s going to get his money no matter where he goes, so it seems that “a good place to be” might become a factor at some point. I don’t think “good chemistry” translates automatically into a winning ballclub, nor is it a dealbreaker in a contract negotiation, but it can’t hurt in either case.
pdb - October 7, 2009
I think no one knows Felix well enough to say for sure. Nor can we generalize to all players.
Spoomeister - October 7, 2009
I think it matters to the player for sure...
but to quantify its value would be next to impossible. Isn’t that why chemistry has always been ignored anyway?
The only thing I have to compare to it would be the beer-league hockey teams I play on. Over the course of the years I’ve played on a bunch with varied degrees of friendship. It sure would make a difference to me who I’d choose if they were all offering jobs.
88fingerslukee - October 7, 2009
Players are smart enough
to know that chemistry is unpredictable. Would it factor into someone’s decision in late March to sign a one year deal? Maybe. Would it factor into someone’s decision to sign a four year deal in December? Probably not. Players have seen how fast clubhouse environments change, and unless the good atmosphere is produced by a few key guys who were likely to stick around (eg Ichiro and not Sweeney), I can’t see them or their agents (who also have a financial interest in this) letting that become a dispositive consideration.
hejuk - October 7, 2009
This is very true.
b_rider - October 7, 2009
Hrm
What good is money if you’re not truly happy coming to work every day? Sure, a lot of these guys will make more than most of us will ever see in our lifetimes, but at what point do you really just stop caring about being comfortable in your job?
I’m guessing that there are players that can probably shake it off and just do their jobs and get paid and not care about chemistry – but I’m guessing that there are probably a whole lot more that care that they get along with their coworkers.
Great, now this post has made me think of something I need to do and don’t have enough time to do this morning. Grrrr….
section331 - October 7, 2009
Depends on the player.
How’s that for a generalized remark?
But I think it does come down to the person, and to where the person is in his life.
msb - October 7, 2009
I thought Beltre had a good quote the other day.
Emphasis mine:
I think at a certain point, making top dollar isn’t the most important thing to athletes. The players who put their money somewhere reasonably safe are going to be comfortable for the rest of their lives. But when you’re young and you’ve worked this hard and spent years in the minors waiting and then more years making the league minimum, you want that big payday. It might be your only shot to buy the house you dreamed of, secure your kids’ college funds, spoil your mother, etc. I don’t begrudge a young man like Felix for a second if he heads into free agency looking for his market value.
How much is he willing to give up to stay in Seattle? I won’t pretend to know, because it depends on the man. But I imagine it’s not a ton. You only have so much time in this game.
Teej - October 7, 2009
I think at this point the most important question for Felix
is whether or not the stalkers in other cities are more or less frightening than Robert.
Sec 108 - October 7, 2009
I would never harm him.
Robert - October 7, 2009
That's what most stalker perverts say.
Teej - October 7, 2009
I'm banking on him realizing this and making that a positive in Seattle's favor.
We all know the stalkers in NY and Boston are way worse.
Sec 108 - October 7, 2009
So are their state income taxes.
Matthew - October 7, 2009
Yeah
But don’t you need a lock of his hair for your doll?
section331 - October 7, 2009
Maybe for players later on in their careers the money matters less because they've already made a decent amount
But this is Felix’s first chance to make some money at what he does so I think any concessions he’ll make will be minimal.
OlSalty - October 7, 2009
Can't the Ichiro re-signing in 2007 indicate that intangibles can play a role in these decisions?
When he re-signed, didn’t Ichiro make a point to say that his decision to return was the fun he was having in a winning season and his close relationship with John McLaren? Ichiro didn’t re-sign for pennies as a result, certainly, but he did return, for an arguably below-market contract, and I believe he at least publically credited those intangibles.
Two problems there:
1. That decision probably didn’t look that great to him in 2008.
2. Felix and Ichiro are two completely different people, in two different stages of their careers. Most people don’t think like Ichiro – or they would be significantly more awesome – and so using him as an example isn’t probably the smartest thing.
Chris Hafner - October 7, 2009
Another thought
is that “team chemistry”/atmosphere probably has some influence on players Jack Z can bring in that are struggling with other clubs on how they do here. A player like say, Snell, probably is going to be helped not just by the difference in coaching but also the difference in atmosphere. I believe in life, really everything we experience and accomplish is affected by our attitudes and belief systems. We tend to be more able to do what we honestly believe we can do especially when our surrounding environment is supportive of that confidence and optimism. Of course, a player like that might feel great in the new clubhouse emotionally and still struggle with their baseball skills, but I just think they’re much less likely to find a way to turn it around without that positive reinforcement.
olystuart - October 7, 2009
I guess my point was
that this “intangible” could help us achieve the kind of WAR improvement we need with the limited cash flow that we’ve got. If it’s not true that we’re in a great position to take underachieving players and help them improve their game and feel better and more confident, we’re much more … well, screwed.
olystuart - October 7, 2009
Chemistry can make a difference...
….but talent makes a much bigger difference.
I can see going after chemistry when you’re considering folks who are roughly equal to each other in talent…but consider the talent first, chemistry second.
rtang - October 7, 2009
Did you read the post at all?
Graham MacAree - October 7, 2009
I know the answer to this
Jeff Sullivan - October 7, 2009
Our team would be a lot better if we had more pork filled players.
CapSea - October 7, 2009
So are you saying we shouldn't sign Muslim players?
seattlebruin - October 7, 2009
Tough to say.
They’re pretty good at hitting a long bomb, but only once. That, and they often get picked off by the Israeli players.
CapSea - October 7, 2009
Or Jewish players.
Wilder. - October 8, 2009
I think this is actually the biggest benefit of good clubhouse 'chemistry'
It can help you to sign a player who was deciding between two different clubs, and make him take your contract over some other (probably equal contract). ALternately, you might get a small discount on a contract because the player would prefer to play for you, so you save a little money.
After all, you would probably choose to work in a place that you really loved working, and really liked your coworkers, over a place where you were neutral or negative towards those things. And you might even take a little less money to do it.
If we get a discount on Felix of only 5%, a small percentage, then thats still a million a year, which means it more than pays for Griffey and Sweeneys salaries for 2008.
ARock - October 7, 2009
I look forward to 2008.
But I don’t know if we should bring in Griffey and Sweeney.
Wilder. - October 7, 2009
It may be an over simplification but think about it like you would any other job,
Zwakamatsu - October 7, 2009
Disregard this.
Zwakamatsu - October 7, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.