Jump to content

Is MacPhail Coming Back After the Season, and Do You Want Him To?


Greg Pappas

Is MacPhail Coming Back After the Season, and Do You Want Him To?  

119 members have voted

  1. 1. Is MacPhail Coming Back After the Season, and Do You Want Him To?

    • Yes, he’ll return, and Yes, I want him back.
    • Yes, he’ll return, and No, I don’t want him back.
    • No, he won’t return, and Yes, I want him back.
    • No, he won’t return, and No, I don't want him back.


Recommended Posts

I don't think AM is perfect but I think he's done a fine job. I want him back for many reasons.

1. Continuity - something completely lacking since PA has owned the club.

2. I don't think we could get someone WE would consider markedly better. Don't think PA would hire "that guy" anyways.

3. A new GM means Angelos is getting directly involved with the club... NEVER a good thing.

4. "Be careful what you wish for..." I hate to imagine who PA would choose to replace him. He's let go some of the best talent we've had, Gillick, Wren (and Davey...) and he's hired some of the WORST (Syd Thrift.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Yes, he'll come back (unless Bud retires) and yes I'd want him to. He's really the only GM that gotten any sort of autonomy under Angelos. I'm afraid that autonomy wouldn't remain for a new GM.

The organization is, without a doubt, on the upswing. They'll get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, he'll come back (unless Bud retires) and yes I'd want him to. He's really the only GM that gotten any sort of autonomy under Angelos. I'm afraid that autonomy wouldn't remain for a new GM.

The organization is, without a doubt, on the upswing. They'll get there.

The only reason he's had autonomy is that he's more conservative than Angelos. And autonomy hasn't meant much because he hasn't done anything with it.

I'd rather take the chance that PGA is willing to give autonomy to the next GM because of how his plate was less full when he no longer ran the club day to day. I'm not sure he'd want to go back to having all the control again.

I want somebody who is willing to spend his money. I know he'll only give a certain amount, but if the allocation can be made for quality instead of quantity, particularly not pissing it away on middle relievers and washed up first basemen, this team could improve rapidly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has turned into proof of Trea's opinion that Angelos has won.

People are willing to accept less than an acceptable GM simply because they're afraid of the alternative. Nobody's actually arguing that AM is better than ok. Nobody's made the case that he's capable of turning the O's into a winner. Yet nearly half want him back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PA would never hire anyone the OH pecieved to be better than AM, so I hope he stays. His replacement is likely to be far worse. It's AM, or hope PA sells the team to Cal, IMO.
By "Cal" you mean Mark Cuban, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By "Cal" you mean Mark Cuban, right?

I'm not sure Cal would be much better than Angelos frankly. Cal seems pretty conservative when it comes to certain things.

Cal as a minority owner however with somebody who is more aggressive and willing to spend as the majority owner would be ideal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason he's had autonomy is that he's more conservative than Angelos. And autonomy hasn't meant much because he hasn't done anything with it.

I'd rather take the chance that PGA is willing to give autonomy to the next GM because of how his plate was less full when he no longer ran the club day to day. I'm not sure he'd want to go back to having all the control again.

I want somebody who is willing to spend his money. I know he'll only give a certain amount, but if the allocation can be made for quality instead of quantity, particularly not pissing it away on middle relievers and washed up first basemen, this team could improve rapidly.

You don't think MacPhail would spend Angelos' money if he had authorization to? I don't buy that for a second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't think MacPhail would spend Angelos' money if he had authorization to? I don't buy that for a second.

No way. MacPhail wouldn't spend the Tribune's money.

Angelos wants MacPhail to stay because he knows Andy won't ask for anything much. He's been getting everything he's asked for because he hasn't asked for enough IMO.

MacPhail will never ask Angelos to spend because he doesn't believe in spending himself. I think Buck's presence caused the increased spending this offseason, but it's not like they increased spending by a ton. The Vlad signing was above the budget, so the team really had a budget of about $80 million. $18 million of that going to Gregg, Gonzalez and Lee. MacPhail certainly has pissed away a lot of money for a guy who doesn't like to take risks on big contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way. MacPhail wouldn't spend the Tribune's money.

Angelos wants MacPhail to stay because he knows Andy won't ask for anything much. He's been getting everything he's asked for because he hasn't asked for enough IMO.

MacPhail will never ask Angelos to spend because he doesn't believe in spending himself. I think Buck's presence caused the increased spending this offseason, but it's not like they increased spending by a ton. The Vlad signing was above the budget, so the team really had a budget of about $80 million. $18 million of that going to Gregg, Gonzalez and Lee. MacPhail certainly has pissed away a lot of money for a guy who doesn't like to take risks on big contracts.

Yes, because 3 players getting 18M over 1-2 years is the same thing as giving a 390 LB first baseman 7 years and 175 dollars, and giving Jose Reyes 100M. There is nothing crippling about giving Lee a 1 year deal, or even making a stupid contract to two relievers for 2 years. They are stupid contracts, but not crippling like the ones you propose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. "Be careful what you wish for..." I hate to imagine who PA would choose to replace him. He's let go some of the best talent we've had, Gillick, Wren (and Davey...) and he's hired some of the WORST (Syd Thrift.)
Haha, "Be careful what you ask for, you might get it." :laughlol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, because 3 players getting 18M over 1-2 years is the same thing as giving a 390 LB first baseman 7 years and 175 dollars, and giving Jose Reyes 100M. There is nothing crippling about giving Lee a 1 year deal, or even making a stupid contract to two relievers for 2 years. They are stupid contracts, but not crippling like the ones you propose.

Try $18 million in one year. The contracts to Fielder and Reyes are only "crippling" if they don't perform. What happens if they lead us to the playoffs and maybe a WS title?

Everybody always mentions the downside, but nobody looks at the upside of signing two franchise altering players.

Worst comes to worst the Angelos family has to sell the team because of financial issues - that's a win in my book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try $18 million in one year. The contracts to Fielder and Reyes are only "crippling" if they don't perform. What happens if they lead us to the playoffs and maybe a WS title?

Everybody always mentions the downside, but nobody looks at the upside of signing two franchise altering players.

Worst comes to worst the Angelos family has to sell the team because of financial issues - that's a win in my book.

Maybe people will look at the upside of signing two franchise altering players, when you start talking about two franchise altering players.

Once again, Jose Reyes is only slightly more valuable than JJ Hardy.

Once again, do you consider Nick Markakis a "franchise altering player"? Coming into this season, he's been worth more in WAR (according to Baseball Reference) than Prince Fielder. Would you give Nick Markakis the kind of money you want to give Fielder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try $18 million in one year. The contracts to Fielder and Reyes are only "crippling" if they don't perform. What happens if they lead us to the playoffs and maybe a WS title?

Everybody always mentions the downside, but nobody looks at the upside of signing two franchise altering players.

Worst comes to worst the Angelos family has to sell the team because of financial issues - that's a win in my book.

You are advocating spending 40% or so of the entire payroll on two players and then recycling arb eligible guys and dumping them before they get expensive. If you hadn't noticed, our farm system is pretty incapable of sustaining that, and it doesn't look like that's going to change as long as PGA owns the team.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to be honest and say I'm lukewarm on McPhail returning. He didn't do anything monstrous to screw up the team, but he really wasn't aggressive in any fascet of his job. I can understand not handing out monster contracts while we were in the cellar, but to sheep on the international front is inexcusable.

Additionally, he's continued the pattern of half rebuild/half contend. Wasting millions every year on average, or below average BP arms and aging retreads is the way to stay in 5th place. Signing Tex would have likely been a waste of money, in a vaccuum. Andy needed to make our farm system the absolute best in baseball, and he only got about halfway. I understand that you can't just throw 20million at the draft every year, but he was beaten CONSISTENTLY by the Rays and BoSox in the compensation game. I know it's all hypothetical, but if we had had the number of picks Tampa did in the draft, thrown 25million at BPAvailable for the top 10, punted the rest of the draft, and traded away the Guthries, Scotts, and even Markakis' of the world, we'd have the best farm system by a MILE within 1-2 years.

That puts us in line to sign Marquee free agents by 2014, when the current core is mostly at their peaks, Machado and Bundy are in the majors, etc. This is all very pie in the sky, but something I feel a truly great General Manager would have viewed as the necessary way to compete in the AL East. No matter if you're on the "Trea'ian" side of the FA argument or not, what McPhail has done has seemed very half-assed.

My bet is that he is offered a contract extension, but turns it down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...