| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 09-05-2011 |
Starting last week, Prospect Insider began taking an in-depth look at the State of the Seattle Mariners, from the 2011 season to the lack of impact bats to how the farm system can and will help in 2012. I'll also tackle the performance of GM Jack Zduriencik, whose contract was just extended Thursday. Tuesday, PI profiled scouting director Tom McNamara. Thursday I took a look at the candidates to get some time in September. Friday, we talked about Michael Saunders and his future in the organization. Today let's dive into the club's ownership group and its officers.For years now Chairman and CEO Howard Lincoln as well as team president and COO Chuck Armstrong have taken a beating from fans and occasionally the media for their decisions, commitment to winning baseball and their apparent involvement in the baseball decisions for the Seattle Mariners. I've written a few negative pieces to that effect myself.
By all accounts available to us, the front office, above the general manager, has been heavily involved in baseball decisions. Do any of us know this for fact? I don't, but there's also never been any evidence to the contrary.
An example incident for such involvement is three summers ago when Armstrong nixed a deal that would have sent left-hander Jarrod Washburn to the New York Yankees. I'm not sure I ever saw any good intel on what the return would have been, but Armstrong admitted he killed the trade because he though the M's weren't getting enough back.
To be fair, the club had just fired Bill Bavasi and were running with Lee Pelekoudas as interim GM -- this is a more acceptable butting-in, as ultimately Armstrong and Lincoln both have to do their jobs.
But enough of that. I'm not here today to talk about mistakes made in the past -- not theirs, not mine. The 'suits' as I began calling them several years ago, have done nothing but support the baseball people in this organization for the last three years, and the ownership group that includes Chris Larson, Minoru Arakawa, Wayne Perry, Frank Schrontz and Rob Glaser, has continued to spend more money than the "about 50 percent of projected revenues" that the organization wants to spend.
Clearly, to anyone with a brain, the ownership is anything but cheap, and they are willing to go above and beyond their financial schemes if it helps the team win.
Most importantly, perhaps, Lincoln and Armstrong have put their trust in Jack Zduriencik, which is what fans should want their favorite teams to do. Baseball people should make baseball decisions. When money beyond the plan becomes part of the equation, Lincoln, Armstrong and the ownership group have to become involved.
Between 2003 and 2008, Lincoln and Armstrong were often quoted in the papers and heard on local radio stations speaking of the direction of the club. Now, those interviews are directed at Zduriencik. Lincoln and Armstrong have to be commended for this.
Nobody cares more about the employees of the franchise -- players, coaches, salesman, those that hold administrative
positions -- top to bottom -- than Lincoln and Armstrong.
The performance of Zduriencik and the team on the field reflects greatly on both of them, but from all of the conversations I have had with people inside and outside the organization the past several weeks, nobody cares more about the fans and building a winner than Lincoln and Armstrong.
They cringe the same way you do when the team loses a tough game or when they fall far enough out of contention that it looks like another "wait 'til next year" cry.
As someone who has been very critical of how the organization has been run in the past, I've now become convinced the organization has learned from its past failures and have a much better process in place for success. It still comes down to the talent added by the personnel department, but there's just no reason for the vigor toward Lincoln and Armstrong and the ownership these days.
We all screw up -- I sure do, you all see that when a mistake is made because it's written all over the internet. But there comes a time when the past is the past and credit is deserved for good choices. If you believe Zduriencik is doing a good job, the suits in the organization deserve a ton of credit for that.
And for me, staying the course and giving Zduriencik and his staff a real shot to get something done here is just as important as the hire itself. The industry often tells me that the best attribute of Billy Beane and Theo Epstein is patience.
Zduriencik has the same patience, and alas, so do Lincoln, Armstrong and the ownership group here in Seattle.
There's no room for mass criticism right now, and while the club has to win in the big leagues before fans will crown them in any manner, there's deserved credit to be handed out here. It starts and ends with this group of officers, and it's my opinion that things are being done right.
m\'s-suits-to-be-commended
Comments
The following 34 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: Lombardie360 on 09-05-2011 17:52:41 Great article. Every single "message board mariner fan" across the net should be forced to read this one. It would do wonders for all future discussions regarding the team. Also I was curious to see you tackle Prince Fielder's impending free agency (your response in the previous posts' comments mentioned it would happen Monday). Is that article coming next? I hope so as I need it to point to during future alcohol fuled debates. |
| 2. By: randallball on 09-05-2011 18:00:54 Great stuff Jason. It has become far too commonplace since 2001 for every single move that doesn't work out and every shortcoming on or off the field to be blindly blamed on ownership and their "meddling". Perhaps a few more fans and so-called team experts can take a cue from you here and applaud their work. |
| 3. By: Edman on 09-05-2011 19:35:22 We live in a world of scapegoatism. Politically, everyone blames the president, the Democrats or the Republicans. It's far easier than digging deeper for the truth. It's easier to have a target. In the case of the Mariners, it's Howard and Chuck. You don't see them getting the credit for the good things that happen. In fact, it's been said by some that they got lucky, in hiring Jack. Some can't even give them credit when they deserve it. The other side of the coin is that they've had their lessons to learn, and it appears that they have. You take a risk in hiring someone else, you go through a another learning process. Some even try to refer back to Yamauchi, insisting that he's pulling the strings, when he handed off control of the franchise several years ago. No doubt, there will be many who don't want to face the truth, and continue their personal rants. Some prefer their personal beliefs rather than accept that they may not be right. It's just the way of the world, and is worsened by the internet, because they feel their voices are more powerful. It's almost cultish. But maybe a few will look at the rationality of it all, and stop letting themselves be pursueded by hatred. We're all baseball fans, even Howard and Chuck. I know that's hard to believe, but as Jason said, they feel the same pain the rest of us do when the M's struggle. |
| 4. By: Jason A. Churchill on 09-05-2011 20:15:34 Lombardie, Next up is a piece on Jack and the plan moving forward. Right after that I'll start sprinkling in pieces on trade bait, trade targets, et al. |
| 5. By: dewey on 09-05-2011 22:36:00 Edman i do have one question and i promise im not being a wise guy if they extend Itch 3 years who gets the credit our blame for that Yamaguchi our Jack? Some may think its a horrible move some may think its a great move but who would you blame our credit since he isnt pulling the strings anymore as you put it? |
| 6. By: baseballman on 09-05-2011 23:05:06 dewey, not edman obviously, but what's the point in dealing with future hypotheticals? You won't find the answer you're looking for...Ichiro hasn't been extended, so why talk as if it's a sure thing? Yet another fine piece JAC. Too often Howard and Chuck have been blamed for everything, some of it deserved. But it's a great sign to see baseball people making baseball decisions for the Mariners. |
| 7. By: dewey on 09-05-2011 23:36:36 Baseball i didnt talk if it was a sure thing i asked a question? I am not in the front office so all of the blaming that goes on here is Hypothetical i believe isnt it ? Unless someone on this board works in the MARINERS FRONT OFFICE.I agree i do like the way its heading but the one thing i will say until we get some power in that lineup it will allways be a uphill battle.Im proably just stating the obvius there. |
| 8. By: Bellacaramella on 09-05-2011 23:46:12 I'm a skeptic, Jason. I think Chuck Armstrong's relationship with Ken Griffey Jr. hamstrung Jack's ability to make a better baseball decision at the time (2009). Inexplicably (from a baseball standpoint) the team brought Junior back in 2010 and it was a disaster and as a fan I have to wonder what role Chuck and Howard will play in the "baseball decision" that will need to be made about Ichiro next year. Frankly, based on their track record, I don't trust them. |
| 9. By: Edman on 09-06-2011 01:35:03 First of all, Yamauchi gets zero blame, since he's little more than an advisor. He signed over control of the Mariners which is run by a group of owners, as Jason pointed out. The only interest he has is that Minoru Arakawa is his son-in-law. dewey, the answer is simple. Jack gets the responsibility for signing Ichiro, good or bad. He's the GM, he makes those decisions. Are there doubters? Absolutley, look at #8. He/she ties in Chuck Armstrong into the signing of Ken Griffey Jr. The M's didn't have any budget flexability when they signed Griffey. Everyone knew that. The fact that Jack waited so late in the off-season says that it wasn't driven Armstrong. It it was, they'd have signed him early in the off-season to allow them to market KGJ. Armstrong probably had input, but I have every confidence that Jack ultimately made the decision. |
| 10. By: docsmith on 09-06-2011 10:01:15 I've never thought Armstrong/Lincoln deserved the irrational level of animosity that has been directed toward them. The rational portion, sure. So, while I don't consider myself a "Armstrong/Lincoln" hater, and have never questioned their intentions, they have a long history here and a lot of it isn't that good. I give them credit for Jack and the current development of our farm, being part of the group that saved baseball, and the free agent signings and success under Gillick. But I have to remember the losing, that so very little talent (until recently) has been homegrown in their tenure, the amount of talent they inherited, an odd number of minor leaguers within the M's farm testing positive for PEDs, for all the good that occured under Gillick's watch the farm was bare, and the Bavasi fiasco. I could go on about their handling of Bavasi. But their position is oversight and where I fault them the most is not recognizing what bad decisions Bavasi was making...in trades, in FA signings and the draft. It seemed that their comments were based on wins and losses and not good fundamentals. So, I really hope you are right and that they have learned and improved. Even if they haven't, the way they operate I think may work with the right GM (so it gets down to if Jack is the right GM). And the ultimate reality is that they are (in part) the owners of the Mariners. This really is their organization. |
| 11. By: Rudolf on 09-06-2011 11:07:42 The Bavasi fiasco is too recent to give these guys full trust. I love the direction of the team, and it would seem things are going right, but how on earth did they let that crap happen right in front of them? |
| 12. By: Edman on 09-06-2011 11:51:01 Rudolf, Jason never said nor did he imply giving them full trust. I doubt that anyone would. But, how about not blaming them for everything that goes wrong? Ichiro gets playing time, and some insist that Howard and Chuck are behind it. That Wedge is being told to play him. That kind of crap is paranoia. Jack shouldn't get all the credit for the good things, while Howard and Chuck are always responsible for the bad. It's just not that simple, yet many try to do just that. By all appearances, Jack has been running the show, from a baseball standpoint. |
| 13. By: Edman on 09-06-2011 12:06:00 I also think there is kind of an double standard going on. Many don't want Howard and Chuck to interfere with the GM. Yet, docsmith blames them for not interferring with Bavasi when he was the GM. In a management position like Howard and Chuck's, there is a certain level of trust you have to put in the guy you hired to do the job. You don't want them micromanaging the GM. So, you have to trust that he and those he's hired are doing their jobs. Ultimately, their jobs are on the line. And, when Howard and Chuck realized that Bavasi was not going in the right direction, they fired him. Was it too late? Perhaps. But, the last thing you want is to start telling them how to do their job. Bavasi's decisions got him fired. Jack is under the same scrutiny, as are all GMs. Jack does the same thing at a different level. He has to trust what his Field Manager, Scouting Director and staff, and player development people tell him. He can't and should not try to micromanage what they do. He has to trust that he's put the right people in those positions to be able to make the proper decisions. When something is big enough, they go to Jack to resolve it. It's like any other business. You build an organization around people you trust who understand your priorities and expectations. That said, ultimately, Howard and Chuck get the credit for Gillick and Jack......but they also bare the responsibility for Bavasi. Too many Bavasi's, and they'd be fired too. |
| 14. By: davelee99 on 09-06-2011 12:13:08 Edman, You have no idea how much influence Yamauchi chooses to exert on Mariner's management -- and neither do I. The facts are that Nintendo of America (NoA) is the majority owner of the Mariners and Yamauchi is the single largest shareholder of NoA. Minoru Arakawa, Yamauchi's son-in-law, (now retired) and Howard Lincoln were hired by Yamauchi to manage NoA. Lincoln is NoA's representative on the Mariners Board of Directors You don't think Yamauchi has any influence? You can, obviously, believe what you want, but don't present it as fact when it is clearly not. |
| 15. By: docsmith on 09-06-2011 12:44:59 #13/Edman...."Blame" is a bit more negative than what I was going for. I try to credit them for positive and fault them for negative general trends in the organization. Like I said, I am not an Armstrong/Lincoln hater. I actually agree with your statement except that I think they held onto Bavasi too long. Giving him the opportunity to succeed was good, but as the direction the team was moving was not turning around, I do think they should have made a correction sooner. But this is management, and if something goes wrong on your watch you own at least partial responsibility. So, I don't view it as a double standard. I've actually always viewed the "baseball people make baseball decisions" as a little too extreme as when those decisions do not have the organization going in the direction you want, action has to be taken by "non-baseball" people. |
| 16. By: Edman on 09-06-2011 13:19:43 Agreed, davelee. It is my opinion. But not seeing a rash of Japanese players on the major or minor league rosters, I doubt that Yamauchi is providing player input. Certainly, he wants financial responsibilty, as any stockholder would. |
| 17. By: cptobvious on 09-06-2011 21:57:50 I think the main thing that is missing with this ownership, the root of what the masses complaints are about, is something that was written by Malcolm Gladwell on Grantland. The fact that owners buy teams like they buy art, for the prestige and 'psychic benefits'. Fanbases, weather they admit it or not, long for owners like Mark Cuban who will pour everything they have into making a winner, 'no matter the cost'. Another great example of this is Terry Pegula who recently purchased the Buffalo Sabres. I remember watching his presser when he bought the team and how he was in tears talking about his favorite Sabre players and how he'd do whatever it takes to finally bring a Cup to Buffalo. His quote I will never forget was 'if I wanted to make money, I'd drill another oil well'. That's the problem with Seattle's ownership group in my opinion. Not that they are willing to "spend more money than the 'about 50 percent of projected revenues'", but that the treat the team like a for profit business annually. The short-term earnings being a large concern for this team is what irks a lot of people. This group whenever they decide to sell, will make absolute bank on their 1992 investment (that was orginally never said to be an 'investment' but a gift to seattle for its support of Nintendo), far exceeding any returns they could have gotten in most other ventures. When ticket purchasers and supports in general see the nickle and diming going on while the team is making short-term AND long-term gains while there are owners like Mark Cuban and Terry Pegula out there, that is where the disconnect is, not weather or not these guys 'care'. |
| 18. By: Lailoken on 09-06-2011 22:13:24 The Bavasi debacle should have been instructive for this front office & to their credit they did learn from that mess. Even Gillick had his flaws, he left the farm system is poor shape. This FO has deferred to a baseball man who wants to do right on all levels of the organization with a thorough & thought out plan. The bad salaries are mostly off the books (Figgins is about all that's left & maybe Ichiro if you believe he has entered his decline phase). With talent in the upper minors, young cost-controlled talent on the big league roster, & the suits taking their rightful place in the background I commend the suits. I commend Howie & Chuck. May their hard-earned lessons in baseball & humility bring a World Series to Seattle! |
| 19. By: Edman on 09-06-2011 22:52:57 cptobvious, I'm just curious what other Mark Cuban or Terry Pegula type wouldbe owners are out there jumping at the opportunity to buy the Mariners? I would put cash money on a bet that if either of them was experiencing a $10 million net loss a year, they'd change their tune about winning at any cost. That's owner speak and nothing more. They expect a profit. Even Steinbrenner expected a profit. Nobody is an owner out of charity. That's just a myth. It's an absolute myth that owners don't expect profits anually, even the Cuban's of the world. Every sports franchise has that expectation. Let me ask you this. You buy a house in 1992. Equity rises, but there is nothing you can realize until you sell your house, or take a home equity loan against your house. Do you have money in your pockets to spend? No, to utilize any of that equity, you have to take a loan on the apparent value of your house? You still have to pay off your home equity loan and it's interest, when you sell. It's not free money that you can spend until then. Far exceeding any returns they could have gotten from other investment? Are you serious? Sports franchise equities are nothing compared to other investments that could be made, netting billions of dollars. Best to stay away from that comment. Go find one of the kind of owner that you seem to think is out there salivating to buy a Major League baseball team. But don't pretend like those kinds of owners are simply out there for the taking. BTW, if you don't think that Cuban and Pegula evaluated profitability before they invested, you're fooling yourself. They're business men first, fans second. There are no sports genies out there willing to grant three wishes. |
| 20. By: gwangung on 09-06-2011 22:56:04 "That's the problem with Seattle's ownership group in my opinion. Not that they are willing to "spend more money than the 'about 50 percent of projected revenues'", but that the treat the team like a for profit business annually. " So...how many world championships does Cuban have? One? Isn't that kinda small for a sample size to be comparing Cuban and the Ms? |
| 21. By: Bellacaramella on 09-07-2011 03:32:59 Edman, when you're talking about a guy with personal net worth in the $3B range buying a sports property for $190M, you can't begin your argument with "Let me ask you this. You buy a house in 1992..." And I don't know about Mark Cuban, but Terry Pegula is a sports genie: http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=99316 Like Mr. Yamauchi with the Mariners so many years ago, Pegula's investment probably saved the franchise. The difference is Pegula has an emotional connection with the team that every die-hard Sabres fan can relate to. That may be good or bad. If you ever wondered about the fan-as-owner dynamic, the Sabres are going to be interesting to watch: http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/columns/bucky-gleason/article528785.ece |
| 22. By: Edman on 09-07-2011 09:31:32 Ironic, really. Some criticize Mr. Yamauchi. He saved baseball in Seattle, at a time when Seattle held some of the richest people in America. He did what Bill Gates, Paul Allen and others wouldn't do, and he's the villian to some. Without a doubt, Seattle was extremely close to losing the Mariners, and it took Slade Gordon's efforts with Mr. Yamauchi to keep them here. I can virtually guarantee that had he not held control of the M's, and someone like Howard Shultz (see the Oklahoma City Thunder) did, if they lost money, they would be in jeopardy. Shultz is a local owner, and regardless of his love of Seattle and it's people, he sold the Sonics because he was tired of losing money. The winning at any cost argument only holds up with a billionare's who want expensive play toys and a need to hold a spotlight and seek public appreciation. You can find one of those for Seattle, move them on in. But, two examples in the hundreds of sports franchises in America, don't indicate a high likelyhood. If fans have the opinion that those who own sports franchises should only care about winning, they're in for a long misserable ride. They aren't out there waiting to fulfill a fan's desire. |
| 23. By: safecochatter on 09-07-2011 11:42:13 to Mr Lincoln and Mr Armstrong: Best wishes! Hope you enjoy your retirement! |
| 24. By: petermag on 09-07-2011 13:41:35 ...this is too soon. A couple of years doesn't undo 28 years of Chuck Armstrong's poor budgeting and meddling. People have every right to criticize Yamauchi and Nintendo. A professional sports team is a publicly subsidized entity that is supposed to add community value. Criticism of ability to run a great organization should be expected when accepting public dollars. |
| 25. By: Edman on 09-07-2011 14:08:05 petermag,you need to get your facts checked. The Mariners are not getting money from tax payers. Safeco Field was partially funded by the taxpayers, but not the Mariners directly. Safeco Field does add community value. Don't they sell hotdogs, hamburgers and generally give the people of this state a place to enjoy events, some not even related to the Mariners? The difference is that because of nature of how Safeco Field was built, it put public assistance in the spotlight. Ever take a look at those big container cranes on the waterfront, near Safeco Field? You paid for them. It's business. Not even the Yankees, as wealthy as they are, completely paid for their statdium. It's the price you pay if you want a Major League baseball team in your city. Let's suppose the M's had moved to Tampa Bay. What do you think it would require to entice a new team to Seattle? A completely tax payer paid for stadium, before the league would even consider moving to Seattle. Sounds to me like it would have had to have been done, unless you like AAA baseball a whole lot. And did you know that your tax dollars help provide tax breaks to the Boeing Company, Microsoft, Adobe, etc. in order to keep them in the state? Do you feel that you have a right to tell them how to run their business? It's just not that simple. |
| 26. By: Edman on 09-07-2011 14:28:46 safecochatter, is that an attempt at sarcasm? If so, you may have a few years to wait. |
| 27. By: Nusser on 09-07-2011 14:40:04 Well, I certainly would hope that after 30 years of mostly futility that a person would eventually learn from their mistakes ... Forgive me if I'm still skeptical. Living 34 years without so much as a World Series appearance will do that to a person. |
| 28. By: petermag on 09-07-2011 14:47:43 Hey Everyone. Some great resources for understanding and fact-checking on the front office and Nintendo are "Game Over" by Sheff and of course "Out of Left Field" by Art Thiel. There's also a great transcript of a lecture that Chuck Armstrong gave to the UW Business school back in 2006 online. It really helps you understand Armstrong's business strategy. Also, in 2008 Lincoln had a great interview with Art Thiel in the P.I. where Lincoln inferred that the Twins organizational model was the new model he was pursuing. Just want to make sure you guys have some good resources. |
| 29. By: Edman on 09-07-2011 16:19:02 Art "Still Complains to This Day About Safeco Field" Thiel? Okay, we know he was completely unbiased. |
| 30. By: cptobvious on 09-07-2011 20:35:26 Edman: #19 - no owner's sole means of income is their sports franchise. If that were ever going to be the case their ownership would never be approved. You are once again using the fallacy that a sports franchise is a normal business, if you would read the article I referenced you might be enlightened. It is not. It is a passion project. In the world of finance, it is a long-term investment at best. Back to the art example, if I were a rich guy I might think about buying a picasso for a huge sum of money. Now while I have my picasso it sits in my house and I look at it every day and enjoy it. While it is sitting in my house for me to look at it is a huge cost to me, it earns nothing by hanging on my wall and I am paying out the butt to insure it. However in 10-15 years or whenever I am done with it, I sell it for likely big profit as these are extremely rare. That is how you need to view a sports franchise. I don't mean to completely rip off the article completely, but tell me why if the NBA is losing retarded amounts of money, why are franchises continually selling for all-time highs? #22 Howard Schultz sold the team because he kicked and screamed because the city and state wouldn't finance another stadium after they just poured $100m into key arena in renovations. To this point, he bought the team in 2001 for $200m and sold in 2006 for $350m. Ouch, he made out terribly. Additionally, according to forbes, the Sonics only lost money in 1 of the seasons Howard owned the team. |
| 31. By: Marlin Man on 09-07-2011 22:59:55 JAC- are you going to share your thoughts about Wedge with us also? M.M. |
| 32. By: Edman on 09-08-2011 11:35:00 cptobvious, please do share with us a list of owners and ownership groups that spend more money than they make, on and view their ownership as a passion project. I'll narrow it down for you, we'll just confine it to baseball. I want to know how many of them inflate their budgets, to fill that passion. How many have a business model that justifies spending more now, for profits they may realize in ten or more years. Shultz wanted Key Arena remodeled why? So he could do what? Yes, make more money. I guess his passion didn't include the city of Seattle. Nor, was he willing to spend any of his money in advance of selling the team. He wasn't going to do it unless he got the assistance of the city and state. So, apparently, his passion was limited by money. By your example, he would get his investment back later, when he sold the franchise. I never said sports franchises are a normal business. But, they do operate on the principles of business. The owners got rich because they maximize their investment. And that means not letting emotions dictate business decisions. I'll await your list. |
| 33. By: petermag on 09-08-2011 14:21:45 Captobvious- You make some solid points and make a lot of sense. Not sure if you read much of Art Thiel's stuff but you really should. He talks about a lot of this stuff and doesn't just shoot from the hip without doing research. He's a journalist we are really lucky to have in Seattle. I just love informed opinions like his. Thanks again for your thoughts! |
| 34. By: Edman on 09-08-2011 14:45:01 petermag, we all have our opinions about journalists, but I find that Thiel's work is often biased and that reflects in just what he researches. You can research a lot of stuff, but if you disregard portions of the research that don't support your preconceived opinions, it's doing half the work. Thiel is a curmudgeon, IMO. He's paid to write controvercial material. He's an editorialist, not a reporter. Thiel supports more idealistic points of view, rather than practical. He probably still whines about public funding for Safeco Field. Good thing he's not in New York. He'd be screaming bloody murder for a team as wealthy as the Yankees receiving public money to assist in building new Yankee stadium. Fans need to sparate "idealistic" from "practical". In an ideal world, every owner would have unlimited budgets and have payrolls exceeding $200 million dollars. But, that's not how it works in the real world. Besides, money really isn't the issue. It's effectively using the money that you have. When the time is right, I expect the M's to boost the payroll substantially. But, now is not the time. There isn't a solid enough core to go spend money simply to spend it. And, since Mark Cuban was discussed, I'll share this tidbit. I happened to catch Politically Incorrect on HBO recently. Mark was a guest and they were talking about the United States potentially going bankrupt. His response to that was (paraphrasing)...."The government can print as much money as it needs" That's all there is to it? You simply print it? I found that quite amusing. |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
|
|
 |
|
|
| Copyright 2010 Prospect Insider | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome |