Oil and Water

by abender20 on Mar 31, 2009 8:59 AM PDT in Seahawks News & Rumors

There will be no link today. I've had something on my mind for a while, and so today's piece is original to FG.

Teams have two potential outcomes at the end of a season: Either a team wins the championship or fails to do so. As a fan of a team, we act accordingly. For the majority of us, most of our time as fans is spent anticipating improvement. Even during the truly wonderful seasons (2005 for the Hawks), there's always a tinge of bitterness if the championship t-shirts don't have "Seattle" written on them. Something that could have gone right didn't, and it's up to next season for the team to right that wrong.

Along the way, particular players inevitably capture our imagination. I remember watching Shaun Alexander in limited duty toward the end of Ricky Watters' career and thinking how great he could be. Sure enough, he spent the next five seasons setting fire to opposing defenses. As the combination of variables converged to put an end to Alexander's rampage, I was torn. The Hawks would be better after moving on from a clearly diminished Shaun, but every time I saw him in a Seattle jersey I thought of the man who scored five touchdowns in a half on a Sunday night against Minnesota. I knew he wasn't helping the team but I could not quite let go.

Growing attached to players is natural. Great teams create heroes, bad teams have bright spots. Watching players grow from potential to production is one of the great aspects of sports, faith validated before your eyes. What about when the players we love are no longer as effective enough to merit the salary they draw or the playing time they command? It's important to remember why we root for players in the first place: wins.

Player turnover is inevitable. Even the best, most entrenched players will either retire, get cut or traded, or grab a cold helping of bench. When evaluating these moves from the perspective of fans who want to see a winning team, we need to discard fondness. There is nothing wrong with fondness for fondness' sake. After all, growing attached to players enhances the experience of rooting for a team. However, if what you really love is the success of your team, you have to be willing to take an objective look at the same players who made you vacate your seat rapidly for a more comfortable position two feet in the air. What do we really have to gain by watching our heroes languish?

You should love your team. You should also have love for the players on your team. It's both of these interests that make fandom worthwhile. But, when it comes time to evaluate moves or plan for the future, heed the timeless advice of The Offspring: You gotta keep 'em separated.

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

This is why I don't understand why fans demand loyalty

from players and call them greedy when they go to the highest bidder. If a team and their fans are willing to cut a player once they are no longer useful or when their skills are diminished, it’s in the players best interest to maximize their profit (revenue actually, since I’m not sure cutting down costs is their goal) while they still can.

As for me, I definitely have an irrational love for certain players, which is why I think it would be hard to be a GM. GM’s know most of their players on a personal level, and while most fans are only fans of some players on a team, after a few years, everyone on the roster is a player that the GM hand picked, so they were all guys that at some point the GM was high on. I can’t imagine trading a Julian Peterson or a Gary Payton, or even drafting a QB in this years draft, considering Hasselbeck is only 34. Thirty four is obviously old in NFL years, but there’s a chance that Hasselbeck plays well until his late 30’s, and drafting a QB, while not a personal slight, will probably feel like a personal slight to him no matter what. Luckily for us, Hasselbeck seems to be a classy guy, and I’m sure if we do draft a Stafford, he will mentor him in the appropriate manner.

by LantermanC on Mar 31, 2009 9:26 AM PDT reply actions

Classic Jerseys

This is probably why I never buy a jersey of a current player. You never know when they will be cut, traded, leave as a free agent, or heaven forbid, suffer a career threatening injury. And trust me, with the few I have purchased, those have all happened to my favorites. I go with the old jerseys, guys who retired and were always know for being a member of that team, even if they did have a one year or two year dalliance with another team. But keep that Alexander jersey. In a few short years, we will forget the reasons he left, and we will remember him as being a Seahawk and nothing else.

by uscar on Mar 31, 2009 10:41 AM PDT reply actions

Counter Perspective

This is also something I’ve thought a lot about.

I agree generally with your sentiment but I think there’s an aspect to this debate that the hardcore fan misses. As people who go to FieldGulls and read about the Seahawks and blog we should recognize that in the pool of ‘Seahawks fans’ we are probably a minority. We look at mock drafts, or write mock drafts. But most fans watch the Hawks on Sunday. They buy the occasional jersey and go to the occasional home game. That’s it.

So we might care about wins. But ownership cares about fans. Increasing the number of fans, the number of tickets they are willing to buy and the amount of merchandise they are willing to purchase and wear. This brings the team revenue. As hardcore fans, we should also care about revenue. This is because revenue allows the Seahawks (Paul Allen) to afford larger contracts and better facilities and lead to wins (in theory).

What does all this mean? It means that when we talk about the value of a player we have to analyze his ability to increase odds of winning AND his ability to bring in fans and sell jerseys. Lofa Tatupu has a higher value than someone with the exact same brain and physical ability but with a different name. Tatupu has a fanbase. That means that the team can pay slightly more for him than he is worth on the field and it makes perfect sense.

I think the best example of this might be the Mariners recent signing of Griffey.

I’m sure this theory has limited application. And we all know that winning the superbowl erases any amount of lost star power. But realistically winning the Superbowl is a long shot. We are hoping to be competitive for the Superbowl year in and year out. That means building and maintaining a happy fan base. That fan base must be larger than the us. It includes people who bought Shaun Alexander jerseys right up to the end.

I’ll end this with where my personal thoughts come from on this. I love Walter Jones. And now he’s clear at the end of his career. The Seahawks are almost guaranteed to pay him more than he is worth on the field this year. But if they kick him to the curb, I’d be disappointed. my feelings toward the Seahawks would be just a bit tarnished, my pride in having a great owner like Allen would diminish. Every time that 12th man flag flies a slight smirk would cross my face and I’d remember that my team kicked my favorite player to the curb in a ruthless cost benefit decision.

The average fan greatly outnumbers us and the average fun wants to believe that sports are about something more than winning. About personality and character and, yes, loyalty.

Indulging that average fan from time to time probably makes sense for the bottom line and as a result makes sense for the hardcore fan too.

by Snuffleupagus on Mar 31, 2009 11:32 AM PDT reply actions

Where should the line be drawn?

Did we hang onto Alexander long enough for the average fan? Or too long? Or did the fact that we kicked him to the curb at all count as a negative to the franchise?

I agree with some of your points, you put it well. However, I was curious what you thought about that.

by cashless on Mar 31, 2009 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions

personal opinion

I think the Alexander situation was alright. But I moved to the East Coast and so my perspective on the average fan isn’t that great.

I also feel like this theory works a lot better in baseball where the careers are much longer and there’s no salary cap. If a baseball player makes $5 million but sell $7 million in merchandise or tickets then they are a good decision, almost regardless of on field production. Football is trickier because that player is taking up cap space.

Alexander stuck around until it was pretty clear that he wasn’t that good anymore and the blame couldn’t be reasonably shifted to the offensive line any longer. I think there was value in sticking it out that long. I should point out that I’m not claiming there was equal value, just that I feel like people around here completely ignore this potential value.

by Snuffleupagus on Mar 31, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions

Most people will forget or forgive abrupt treatment of the elderly if the team is successful.

If the player in question is not an real impediment to winning, there’s no need to kick them to the curb. Ultimately, the lowest common denominator is success. Win and all other sins will be forgiven.

by abender20 on Mar 31, 2009 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions

I agree

I guess I view it as a chicken and the egg. You need money to win. you need fans to make money. And some players get more fan dollars than others. Even after they’re over the hill.

Winning and losing will always have some randomness to it. So I think that maintaining fan good-will is important to the financial success of an NFL team because you need to be able to make it through the rough years (like last year). But I’ll be the first to admit that these ideas exist on the thinnest of margins and are probably only genuinely applicable in the rarest of situations.

by Snuffleupagus on Mar 31, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions

Wins

It’s true to judge a player’s value in how many fans want to buy his jersey or see him, but it slightly misses the point – fans will come when their team wins. How many Red Sox fans were there during and after 2004? Or George Mason fans when they went to the final four? I’m on the east coast, and their campus store was sold out – literally, there was no clothing left. A beloved player like Lofa or Walter Jones – people speak with pride of them and wear their jerseys, but the casual fan is only going to come and buy things when the team is winning.

by Jerikantilles on Mar 31, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions

I would also like to take this opportunity to say that I also miss Alexander.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 31, 2009 12:46 PM PDT reply actions

Me too.

One of my favorite Seahawk moments being there to watch in person was Alexander steamrolling the Raiders in Husky Stadium for 266 yards, a then single-game record. ( http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=211111026 ).

by Misfit74 on Mar 31, 2009 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions

"On his 88-yard burst, he got a good block at the line of scrimmage from rookie guard Steve Hutchinson"

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 31, 2009 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions

to be honest

I don’t have any particular love for the Seahawks or their players. I love football, because it’s the epitome of competition on so many levels.

I follow the Seahawks because they’re here, in the city where I live. I respect those of you who live somewhere else but still root for our team up here in South Alaska. But I probably wouldn’t do that if I were in your shoes.

One fascinating aspect of the competition in the NFL is the construction of rosters in the context of a salary cap. That’s the part of the game that’s played during the “offseason”. It’s also the part that abender is talking about in this article. I like to see the team I watch win that part too, and I completely agree with what abender is saying about the need to put aside any sentimentality.

A season isn’t lost if it doesn’t result in a championship, btw. Yes, that’s the ultimate goal. But some seasons have to be looked at as steppingstones along the way. New players and coaches need time to perfect their craft. If the team is implementing a new offensive or defensive scheme, it might take a season or two to iron out the wrinkles and elaborate on the basic design. As long as I see progress along any or all of these lines, I would never count a season as a loss, whether it ends in a Super Bowl or not.

by Mr Fish on Mar 31, 2009 2:33 PM PDT reply actions

With regards to your last point, I agree wholeheartedly. Not winning a championship != failure.

There is certainly satisfaction to be gained from:

Improvement over the previous year
“Winning an offseason”, as you put it
The improvement of young players
etc.

However, all of these incremental goals are part of the ultimate goal to win the Super Bowl. You don’t love an improvement over the year before in a vacuum, but rather because it means the team has made strides towards contending.

by abender20 on Mar 31, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions

Yes, that's what I was trying to say, but wasn't able to formulate it as clearly as you

by Mr Fish on Mar 31, 2009 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions

Well, every year is a new year.

If your on the Seahawks 53 man roster at the begining of the season… then I love you. The offseason has an air of uncertainty. It makes you question were your loyalties lie (Hasselbeck? Cutler? or Sanchez). But as a fan you have to have a short memory. I will not have a problem yelling my lungs out, in hopes that Maurice Morris will fumble the ball at his homecoming.

Cogito Ergo Sum

by censor1979 on Mar 31, 2009 4:08 PM PDT reply actions

Here, here to the above point!

It’s all about what jersey their wearing come Sunday. I may give a former player a courtesy clap in a show of sportsmanship but that’s where it ends if they are playing the Hawks. As far as the debate as to whether a season is a bust if they don’t win it all, well it is…

by AZ Hawk on Apr 1, 2009 7:37 PM PDT up reply actions