The Seahawks better learn from the Mariners

There was a time that the Mariners were beloved here.

The stadium was packed. People had flags and T-Shirts.

Every business had the radio or TV turned to the games. And everyone stopped everything they were doing when Griffey was batting, Edgar was up or Randy was pitching.

Eventually Randy started to get 'old' and they got rid of him. But the fans watched him literally carry (with another pitcher) a borderline expansion team to the playoffs and win it for them.

It pissed a lot of people here off, especially when Griffey got dealt and the excuse was guys were getting older and we had to replace them.

We did replace them, somewhat. We got Hernandez eventually and people got a little excited about that occasionally when he pitched. But for the most part, getting rid of aging stars just got us average players that were soon forgotten.

And that crazy love this city had for the Mariners, so strong that literally barely making it into the playoffs on that Joey Cora hit (not even to get into the World Series, just to get to the next playoff series which we lost) became a seminal moment. That same love vanished overnight.

You could not give away Mariner gear then.

When people say they love the team, they really love the players. When you release those guys, you better find something good for people to cling to afterward or they will get bitter.

If Bennett or Sherman ends up being some difference maker on a team that makes it to the SB? People are going to hold it against the Seahawks and they are going to desert the team. Not for lack of loyalty but because they will feel bitter & burned.

That SB built a lot of goodwill up but that SB loss, combined with how it was handled and the years of underperforming steadily chipped away at it. If this team misses the playoffs even a few years while its former stars go on to help other teams win them? People will drop their 12 flags quickly.

There better be a sense of urgency with whatever changes they are making.

Scrap that entire subject.

We have Paul Allen not some foreign uninterested owner.

The Seahawks orgnization is miles ahead of the mariners. It's not even close

If the Mariners would win some games, people would love them again too.

Yes we love the players, but I think you have it backwards. Most of us would say we love the team ahead of the players.

Winning is what sells tickets. You could keep an aging core, but as soon as they start missing the playoffs every year because they are hurt, old, and slower the ticket sales will fade then too.

Except that the organization isn't the issue.

It isn't the organization.

This town is not Cleveland. It will not support losers.

Cleveland Browns fans or Cubs fans will dutifully fill stadiums even during losing years. We do not do this.

Ask Husky football or basketball fans how quickly stadiums empty out when the wins leave.

So when you trade or lose stars, that are one of the few things that keep people loyal - then you better win, because losing favorite players while turning in disappointing seasons is a good way to get fans here to drop you quickly.

TwistedHusky":1xtnatqm said:

Except that the organization isn't the issue.

It isn't the organization.

This town is not Cleveland. It will not support losers.

Cleveland Browns fans or Cubs fans will dutifully fill stadiums even during losing years. We do not do this.

Ask Husky football or basketball fans how quickly stadiums empty out when the wins leave.

So when you trade or lose stars, that are one of the few things that keep people loyal - then you better win, because losing favorite players while turning in disappointing seasons is a good way to get fans here to drop you quickly.

Click to expand...

You are arguing against your own point. The way to win is to keep the core of the team young and hungry. Extending expensive, aging veterans has never been a recipe for success in football.

You say winning is most important, but then argue for keeping expensive old players. They don't go together.

No what I am saying is that when you get rid of 'aging' stars and then you go into the tank, while those same 'aging' stars go on to be stars for other teams you lose a lot of goodwill and a lot of loyalty.

People understand that teams age and need to let go of once great players.

But letting go of the greats and then replacing them with average nothings, and proceeding to falter without those guys? While they push another team forward?

That becomes very difficult to forgive and it takes a long time to recover from that. You cannot win forever, regardless of the book title. So you better have a way of nursing that loyalty built up in the winning to carry you through to the next winning period.

If you drive those people away? It makes that job much more difficult.

The team isn't trying to replace stars with average nothings. They are trying to find new stars. And to do that you have to make room for them by letting go of the older players.

If the Hawks didn't let Hasselbeck go when they did (because the fans love him and he took them to the playoffs in 2010) then they could miss out on Wilson. Although T-Jack bridged them, Hass was still playing in the NFL when Wilson came on the scene. Should the Hawks have just kept extending and starting Hasselbeck because the fans were loyal to him?

If they didn't trade away David Hawthorne (because the fans liked him at MLB) and kept extending him then they might miss out on Wagner.

Even Richard Sherman was a replacement for Marcus Trufant (a fan favorite, Pro Bowl CB). Back in 2011 you think fans loved the idea of Trufant being replaced by a 5th round rookie? Richard Sherman became a star when his playing time opened up.

If you just hang on to the older guys you most assuredly will not win a lot of games if you hang on too long. You might also miss out on some future stars because there is no spot for them on the roster or they get no playing time. It sucks when our favorite players have to go. But in the NFL that is how it works if you want to stay competitive.

Seymour":1vlf1pjt said:

Scrap that entire subject.

We have Paul Allen not some foreign uninterested owner.

Click to expand...

Amen.

OP was comparing apples to rotten oranges...

Some of your don’t seem to remember the 90s when the Seahawks were playing to a half empty stadium. Op is right that if they become a perpetual loser again they will lose many fans. The rest of you are correct that the current ownership most likely won’t let that happen.

TwistedHusky":36x7qst3 said:

No what I am saying is that when you get rid of 'aging' stars and then you go into the tank, while those same 'aging' stars go on to be stars for other teams you lose a lot of goodwill and a lot of loyalty.

People understand that teams age and need to let go of once great players.

But letting go of the greats and then replacing them with average nothings, and proceeding to falter without those guys? While they push another team forward?

That becomes very difficult to forgive and it takes a long time to recover from that. You cannot win forever, regardless of the book title. So you better have a way of nursing that loyalty built up in the winning to carry you through to the next winning period.

If you drive those people away? It makes that job much more difficult.

Click to expand...

Both Bennett and Sherman were average nothings before they got here. Now they are great mouths that are in the way of progress.

They got their chance with a rebuilding coach that was putting together his vision.

Lock the roster down with aging and costly vets then try to claim we "always compete" didn't work for obvious reasons.

Now we have the clean slate (or beginning to have), to start that process over again.

Nobody (that matters) is bailing on this team in a year or 2 of rebuild ball.

JSeahawks":2b5syqb9 said:

Some of your don’t seem to remember the 90s when the Seahawks were playing to a half empty stadium. Op is right that if they become a perpetual loser again they will lose many fans. The rest of you are correct that the current ownership most likely won’t let that happen.

Click to expand...

You may not remember the reason for that at the end, we were going to be the Los Angeles Black Hawks TILL Paul stepped in.

It was Feb. 2, 1996, that then-owner Ken Behring announced his plan to relocate the Seahawks -- which makes the 10th anniversary of the franchise's darkest hour seem even more surreal in light of the Seahawks' appearance Sunday in Super Bowl XL.

Click to expand...

And block an arena being built so the Sonics don't return?

chris98251":1xkm2dxx said:

JSeahawks":1xkm2dxx said:

Some of your don’t seem to remember the 90s when the Seahawks were playing to a half empty stadium. Op is right that if they become a perpetual loser again they will lose many fans. The rest of you are correct that the current ownership most likely won’t let that happen.

Click to expand...

You may not remember the reason for that at the end, we were going to be the Los Angeles Black Hawks TILL Paul stepped in.

It was Feb. 2, 1996, that then-owner Ken Behring announced his plan to relocate the Seahawks -- which makes the 10th anniversary of the franchise's darkest hour seem even more surreal in light of the Seahawks' appearance Sunday in Super Bowl XL.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

There were a whole lot of empty seats way before that was a thing.

The M's are not even in the same stratosphere as the Hawks. Come on. This is a Football town, has been forever.

Not forever.

You don't remember the "Go Mariners....and take the Seahawks with you" bumperstickers?

It was a Husky town, until they started losing.

It was a Sonics town (actually even during some down years)

It was a Seahawks town when at least the team started at least being competitive (Beast Quake).

Sure people were in the stadium during the 2 win seasons but lets not pretend this love affair lasts forever.

This town like winners and does not tolerate losers.

HawkFan72":206l09nj said:

The team isn't trying to replace stars with average nothings. They are trying to find new stars. And to do that you have to make room for them by letting go of the older players.

If the Hawks didn't let Hasselbeck go when they did (because the fans love him and he took them to the playoffs in 2010) then they could miss out on Wilson. Although T-Jack bridged them, Hass was still playing in the NFL when Wilson came on the scene. Should the Hawks have just kept extending and starting Hasselbeck because the fans were loyal to him?

If they didn't trade away David Hawthorne (because the fans liked him at MLB) and kept extending him then they might miss out on Wagner.

Even Richard Sherman was a replacement for Marcus Trufant (a fan favorite, Pro Bowl CB). Back in 2011 you think fans loved the idea of Trufant being replaced by a 5th round rookie? Richard Sherman became a star when his playing time opened up.

If you just hang on to the older guys you most assuredly will not win a lot of games if you hang on too long. You might also miss out on some future stars because there is no spot for them on the roster or they get no playing time. It sucks when our favorite players have to go. But in the NFL that is how it works if you want to stay competitive.

Click to expand...

It is nice to see that some of us get it!!!! NFL (Not For Long)

JSeahawks":2o6ueuxg said:

chris98251":2o6ueuxg said:

JSeahawks":2o6ueuxg said:

Some of your don’t seem to remember the 90s when the Seahawks were playing to a half empty stadium. Op is right that if they become a perpetual loser again they will lose many fans. The rest of you are correct that the current ownership most likely won’t let that happen.

Click to expand...

You may not remember the reason for that at the end, we were going to be the Los Angeles Black Hawks TILL Paul stepped in.

It was Feb. 2, 1996, that then-owner Ken Behring announced his plan to relocate the Seahawks -- which makes the 10th anniversary of the franchise's darkest hour seem even more surreal in light of the Seahawks' appearance Sunday in Super Bowl XL.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

There were a whole lot of empty seats way before that was a thing.

Click to expand...

Umm No there wasn't.

Griffey and The Big Unit both wanted to leave, what the hell are you talking about? Griffey wasn’t old either. At the time he was traded, he was the best player in baseball in his prime. He made it pretty clear he was not going to resign in free agency with the Mariners.

Please stop this garbage.

TwistedHusky":3py4hv5a said:

It was a Seahawks town when at least the team started at least being competitive (Beast Quake).

.

Click to expand...

I take it you weren’t a Seahawks fan prior to 2008?

You’re aware the Seahawks went on a 5 year playoff stretch from 2003-2007 that included 4 NFC West championships and an NFC Championship?

Wow there are a lot of bandwagon Seahawks fans.