Jump to content

Anyone have a link to MacPhail's Q&A from today?


ChaosLex

Recommended Posts

I've been reading snippets off the WNST Twitter feed (please don't shun me!), so Lord knows if it's as "bad" as they're making it out to be. I would guess probably not. :P

Apparently, AM was asked about Pujols and he said the possibilities the O's splurged on him next offseason were "remote." Not exactly earthshattering news, but there you have it.

Anything else come out of the Q&A?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I've been reading snippets off the WNST Twitter feed (please don't shun me!), so Lord knows if it's as "bad" as they're making it out to be. I would guess probably not. :P

Apparently, AM was asked about Pujols and he said the possibilities the O's splurged on him next offseason were "remote." Not exactly earthshattering news, but there you have it.

Anything else come out of the Q&A?

Why would the O's spend 10/300 MM on Prince Albert when they can get Prince Fielder for 7/140? :laughlol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was there today - AM was fantastic. He answered almost any question you can imagine - he even talked about Vlad which I found interesting since he hasn't even officially signed yet.

I'm not gonna go back and forth and try to relay all his answers. Im sure there will be be a place to hear it online eventually, as there was a good amount of press there.

I encourage everyone here to listen if you can - it was by far the most candid I have heard AM since he became our GM and he literally talked about almost everything - and gave solid answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been reading snippets off the WNST Twitter feed (please don't shun me!), so Lord knows if it's as "bad" as they're making it out to be. I would guess probably not. :P

Apparently, AM was asked about Pujols and he said the possibilities the O's splurged on him next offseason were "remote." Not exactly earthshattering news, but there you have it.

Anything else come out of the Q&A?

Nobody's gonna shun you for that. Be careful, though...reading those things can drive you insane. I had to unfollow them to get away from it. Also...I really didn't need Ravens news cluttering up my feed, but I digress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was the occasion for the press conference?

I have not found it on the web yet.

He was a speaker at a sports law symposium at the University of Baltimore School of Law. The topic was operating a Major League team in the era of free agency. Nestor was there and was shocked, SHOCKED, that he was only allowed to ask a single question. I didn't realize Nestor had such a keen interest in the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general I agree with him, although I question how some of the moves made this offseason fit into that ideology.

I get the impression from those comments that BAL will not make a huge push for Prince Fielder next season. I don't see how the "perfect storm" that he felt during the Tex saga could present itself for Fielder, and we didn't even land Tex.

So, I've got to wonder if his plan is to let the young pitchers grow and continue to sign Vlads and Lees year after year.

If FA is definitively out of the question as an avenue to acquire long-term, elite pitchers and bats, I think AM needs to show more creativity on the trade market.

He rarely loses trades, but I think he needs to show that he can acquire good, young targets on the market. Reynolds and Pie were good examples, but both were buy-low bargains.

It would be nice to see AM pursue young, established, 2-3 starting pitchers like Floyd, Marcum, Garza or Liriano. I'd also like to see him pursue young, blocked bats like Alonso, Kila or Banks.

Obviously, you don't want to get beat on the deal, and you don't want to dip too far into your young core to acquire these guys, but I think AM is fooling himself if he thinks he can assemble a contending rotation solely from internal options, particularly when Jordan's draft record has been spotty and we are not investing much into international talent.

He's right that the FA market is inefficient and potentially damaging to the long-term plans of mid-market teams. But when you cut off an entire avenue for acquiring top talent, you need to work the other avenues overtime to compensate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general I agree with him, although I question how some of the moves made this offseason fit into that ideology.

I get the impression from those comments that BAL will not make a huge push for Prince Fielder next season. I don't see how the "perfect storm" that he felt during the Tex saga could present itself for Fielder, and we didn't even land Tex.

So, I've got to wonder if his plan is to let the young pitchers grow and continue to sign Vlads and Lees year after year.

If FA is definitively out of the question as an avenue to acquire long-term, elite pitchers and bats, I think AM needs to show more creativity on the trade market.

He rarely loses trades, but I think he needs to show that he can acquire good, young targets on the market. Reynolds and Pie were good examples, but both were buy-low bargains.

It would be nice to see AM pursue young, established, 2-3 starting pitchers like Floyd, Marcum, Garza or Liriano. I'd also like to see him pursue young, blocked bats like Alonso, Kila or Banks.

Obviously, you don't want to get beat on the deal, and you don't want to dip too far into your young core to acquire these guys, but I think AM is fooling himself if he thinks he can assemble a contending rotation solely from internal options, particularly when Jordan's draft record has been spotty and we are not investing much into international talent.

He's right that the FA market is inefficient and potentially damaging to the long-term plans of mid-market teams. But when you cut off an entire avenue for acquiring top talent, you need to work the other avenues overtime to compensate.

Looks like MacPhail's idea of using Tampa as a model is a modified approach. The Rays don't sign many players the cost more then $5M. Damon was the only one this year. Meanwhile, the O's added 5 players who salary are $5M or more. Lee, Vlad, Reynolds, Hardy, and Gregg.

Sounds like he will spend money just not on a long term contract for a $100M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Few points:

-Texas lost because of what they put around AROD, not the AROD deal itself.

- We offered Tex 144M apparently. We had heard 140-150...Now it seems like a number was given.

- How have we BOOSTED the amateur scouting?

- Yes, we have signed FA hitters..but not good ones for the most part. That's a poor answer.

- He keeps pointing out we have spent more on signing bonuses over since 2007. Of course, we have also been the team drafting at the top and getting guys like Machado and Wieters have driven that number up. IMO, this is also a weak argument by him and in no way represents what they should be spending on amateur talent.

- Again, you may want to emulate the Rays AM but your actions are nothing like them.

The more I read from AM, the more obvious it is that he isn't the GM to take us where we need to go. He is the guy to start off on the right path but he can't finish it. Of course, as long as PA is the owner, no one likely will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I've got to wonder if his plan is to let the young pitchers grow and continue to sign Vlads and Lees year after year.

If FA is definitively out of the question as an avenue to acquire long-term, elite pitchers and bats, I think AM needs to show more creativity on the trade market.

He rarely loses trades, but I think he needs to show that he can acquire good, young targets on the market. Reynolds and Pie were good examples, but both were buy-low bargains.

It would be nice to see AM pursue young, established, 2-3 starting pitchers like Floyd, Marcum, Garza or Liriano. I'd also like to see him pursue young, blocked bats like Alonso, Kila or Banks.

While I agree with much of this post, especially regarding the draft and pursuing international talent, I think MacPhail's approach, aside from scouting, etc., is being underrated. Why should we qualify his acquisitions with "well, they were good moves, but he bought low." Why shouldn't he be buying low on players like Reynolds/Lee/Pie? Teams like the Red Sox can afford to buy a top tier player after he's had a career season (Crawford) and just hope he can maintain that production. Unless the stars align, and there's a top tier free agent with almost no demand, we clearly can't do that. And it's usually foolish to go after the mid-tier players like VMart or Carl Pavano. That leaves us with the retreads. Honestly, I'm okay with that. Target players who, for whatever reason, are being undervalued (down year in Lee's case/strikeouts in Reynolds' case), but have significant upside. Isn't that what money ball is all about? I honestly think, because of the Rays' recent emergence, the shift in baseball thinking has moved so radically toward young players, that many older players are getting a little undervalued. Look at Sabaen's band of creaky heroes. He bought Huff dirt cheap and Huff carried them to the playoffs. Obviously the Giants weren't in the AL East and a lot went right for them, but isn't that the case with every playoff team?

I'm not suggesting we go out and sign a bunch of old guys, but I also don't view stop-gaps as negatively as most people do around here. I'd much prefer we give good players in their mid thirties one year deals than give multiple year deals to players in their early thirties. The upside is still there, but the potential to damage your team long term is not. Flexibility is a good thing. MacPhail's scavenger approach strikes me as a smart way to supplement a young core.

Another thing about these huge free agent deals is we honestly don't know how it's all going to work out. It's a bit of an arms race, with teams, especially in the AL East, giving out big deals and hoping to stay afloat. Let's say the Jays turn into a juggernaut in the next few years like some people are predicting. If the competition becomes so fierce that a team like the Yankees doesn't consistently make the playoffs (let's say once every third year), the loss of revenue for a team with such large and long-term financial obligations could be devastating. I don't think this is just wishful thinking on my part (because obviously I don't want the Jays to become another powerhouse). While New York has had very expensive contracts on the books for a long time now, the competition hadn't been as fierce until just the past few years. The only way they can afford those contracts is if they keep winning. My point here, I guess, is I don't think this AL East arms race is sustainable.

We've debated about this before, but I fully agree with MacPhail's stance on trading for established starters like Liriano. Good starting pitching is extremely hard to find and these guys almost always bring major packages back. I think it's better to avoid these players unless you absolutely have to have them, which we don't. Liriano or Floyd, etc. would be nice to have, but would it really be smart to give up Tillman or Britton, cost controlled pitchers with upside, plus whatever else we'd have to throw in, for two years of a pitcher that's already starting to get expensive? We praise AA and Friedman for trading Marcum and Garza, getting younger and cheaper, but we criticize MacPhail for not pursuing these pitchers? Isn't acquiring one of these pitchers the exact opposite of what we should be doing?

Considering the attrition rate for pitchers, I don't think it's a good idea to give up young talent for proven arms, especially ones with an injury history (Liriano).

It seems strange to me that many on this forum are advocating trading Guthrie, while many of the same people are advocating acquiring an arm like Floyd. This strikes me as a case of the grass is always greener. These pitchers may be better than Guthrie, but the difference between the two, especially considering the volatility of pitchers, doesn't warrant a total shift in philosophy (trading Guthrie/trading for Liriano). I'm much more sympathetic to the trade Guthrie line of philosophy than I am for the trade for Floyd/Marcum/Liriano philosophy.

Sorry, this one got a little on the long side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Few points:

-Texas lost because of what they put around AROD, not the AROD deal itself.

- We offered Tex 144M apparently. We had heard 140-150...Now it seems like a number was given.

- How have we BOOSTED the amateur scouting?

- Yes, we have signed FA hitters..but not good ones for the most part. That's a poor answer.

- He keeps pointing out we have spent more on signing bonuses over since 2007. Of course, we have also been the team drafting at the top and getting guys like Machado and Wieters have driven that number up. IMO, this is also a weak argument by him and in no way represents what they should be spending on amateur talent.

- Again, you may want to emulate the Rays AM but your actions are nothing like them.

The more I read from AM, the more obvious it is that he isn't the GM to take us where we need to go. He is the guy to start off on the right path but he can't finish it. Of course, as long as PA is the owner, no one likely will.

Well obviously he was being lobbed softballs and AM wasn't being asked the tougher ones you would ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Few points:

-Texas lost because of what they put around AROD, not the AROD deal itself.

- We offered Tex 144M apparently. We had heard 140-150...Now it seems like a number was given.

- How have we BOOSTED the amateur scouting?

- Yes, we have signed FA hitters..but not good ones for the most part. That's a poor answer.

- He keeps pointing out we have spent more on signing bonuses over since 2007. Of course, we have also been the team drafting at the top and getting guys like Machado and Wieters have driven that number up. IMO, this is also a weak argument by him and in no way represents what they should be spending on amateur talent.

- Again, you may want to emulate the Rays AM but your actions are nothing like them.

The more I read from AM, the more obvious it is that he isn't the GM to take us where we need to go. He is the guy to start off on the right path but he can't finish it. Of course, as long as PA is the owner, no one likely will.

A few counterpoints:

ARod's deal was of a magnitude to prevent the Rangers from building around him. I think AM made it quite clear that ARod performed to expectations and the Rangers still never competed, attendance did not increase meaningfully, and the organization was worse off.

We have boosted amateur scouting. It's been posted here about increases internationally and domestically - including the recent hire of a US crosschecker from the Rangers. The changes may not be to the extent you would like, but it would take a fairly uneducated reader to deny we have boosted scouting.

Our draft position has been a major function of our total spend, but I believe we have generally outspent TBR over the past few years - particularly in overslot signing after the fifth round. The number of guys receiving over $150k after the fifth round has improved substantially under AM - including the $1M spent each on Olhman and Coffey.

I can understand one's dislike of our GM on several levels - including not moving fast enough in multiple areas, but I think most of the criticisms above are quite hollow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...