At what point was it clear to you MacPhail was not "the guy?"

[24fps]

On Opening Day 2010 I had serious misgivings about the way AM handled the offseason - brave words about wins mattering reinforced by the acquisition of nothing more than Millwood, Gonzo, Tejada and Atkins. While the specifics are hazy now, I seem to remember several debates about missed opportunities that offseason, but like most, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and settled back to see what would happen. When it became clear that the strategy wasn't ever going to work, I kept waiting for AM to do something about it. Anything.

Finally Atkins was released, and a short while later MacPhail referred to his decision to sign him as "a swing for the fences". Oh, really?

I can put up with a lot of things, but I won't tolerate someone peeing on my shoes and telling me it's raining. At that point he lost me forever.

[TiredofLosing20]

The right guy for what? I thought and still believe he was the right guy to rebuild the organization under Angelos. I wasn't sure he was the right guy to build this team into an AL East contender and I still don't know if he is or not. As we sit here today I have serious doubts. I think he has made mistakes (like every GM) but I also think he has done a lot of things right.

[Tony-OH]

I am not sure that MacPhail is not "the guy".

I think Connor messed up the pitching staff. He is clearly Buck's problem.

I think injuries have been a problem and if MacPhail is held to a budget by PA their may not be enough money to get the kind of backup players that Boston or New York would have. So is it MacPhail's fault that the budget has to balance with revenues. The responsible lies somewhere between PA and MacPhail but I don't know where. I doubt that changing GM's helps that problem and could make it worse if PA ends up not trusting the new GM.

Non performance of the FA's. Yes, MacPhail has a responsible here, but when 72% of the Hangout think he did a good job this winter it hard to say he picked the wrong players and have any credibility in making the comment.

I'd like to see a better solution, but change or the sake of change does appear to be the right move.

This is just so silly it doesn't even deserve a comment but since you seem so sure of yourself that you made up your own thread then said it again here, I guess I'll have to step up. Just because 72% thought the Orioles would be better then .500 does not mean 72% felt MacPhail was the right guy for the job. I thought the Orioles were going to be better this year, but I have had doubts about MacPhail's leadership for years.

MacPhail has had four years to improve the club and the Orioles are still in last place and have no true impact prospects above A-ball. That's failure regardless of whether we thought they would be better or not.

I'm not going to say that MacPhail hasn't done some good things, because he has, but you have to look at the body of work and most importantly, results. You can blame bad luck or injuries all you want, but at the end of the day the Orioles are in the exact place he found them, and there is little believe that this is going to suddenly change with him at the helm.

[Sports Guy]

I am not sure that MacPhail is not "the guy".

I think Connor messed up the pitching staff. He is clearly Buck's problem.

I think injuries have been a problem and if MacPhail is held to a budget by PA their may not be enough money to get the kind of backup players that Boston or New York would have. So is it MacPhail's fault that the budget has to balance with revenues. The responsible lies somewhere between PA and MacPhail but I don't know where. I doubt that changing GM's helps that problem and could make it worse if PA ends up not trusting the new GM.

Non performance of the FA's. Yes, MacPhail has a responsible here, but when 72% of the Hangout think he did a good job this winter it hard to say he picked the wrong players and have any credibility in making the comment.

I'd like to see a better solution, but change or the sake of change does appear to be the right move.

72% of the hangout felt we would be a 500 team...That doesn't mean 72% felt he did a good job.

[ledzepp8]

72% of the hangout felt we would be a 500 team...That doesn't mean 72% felt he did a good job.

Then WTF does it mean?

[Sports Guy]

Then WTF does it mean?

Exactly what I said.

What are you not understanding?

[Tony-OH]

Exactly what I said.

What are you not understanding?

Don't argue with the lollipop brigade, all is well Rob, all is well....

[Sports Guy]

Don't argue with the lollipop brigade, all is well Rob, all is well....

LOL...Very true.

[ledzepp8]

Exactly what I said.

What are you not understanding?

Why would 72% think the team would be over 500?

[ledzepp8]

Don't argue with the lollipop brigade, all is well Rob, all is well....

Nice to see you continue to skirt your own forum rules.

[Sports Guy]

Why would 72% think the team would be over 500?

Because the team put together by AM(and those before him) was good enough to be 500.

But just because you believe that doesn't mean you think AM is/was doing a good job.

You are assuming that just because you believe one, that means the other is true and that's just not the case...In fact, its a rather short sighted view on things.

[Moose Milligan]

Nice to see you continue to skirt your own forum rules.

Ahh, as my aunt used to tell me... "Cruisin for a bruisin."

For me, it was Atkins. Laugh all you want, but it was pretty inexcusable to think that that guy was going to be a good ballplayer for us. It was a dumbass move.

MacPhail does have a lot of blame to take but I still believe the majority of this mess is because of Angelos.

Does anyone remember what GM candidates were being considered by the Orioles at the time? I'd like to know if in hindsight there was anyone who we'd rather have now.

[Moose Milligan]

Because the team put together by AM(and those before him) was good enough to be 500.

But just because you believe that doesn't mean you think AM is/was doing a good job.

You are assuming that just because you believe one, that means the other is true and that's just not the case...In fact, its a rather short sighted view on things.

This is very zen.

[ledzepp8]

Because the team put together by AM(and those before him) was good enough to be 500.

But just because you believe that doesn't mean you think AM is/was doing a good job.

You are assuming that just because you believe one, that means the other is true and that's just not the case...In fact, its a rather short sighted view on things.

What kind of job does it mean he was doing? A bad job?

[SrMeowMeow]

I'm sure he's not the guy. For me, it was a slow build focused mainly on gleaning insights about his draft and international strategies. His general approach seems uncreative. If I reached a "breaking point", it was his recent comments re: international spending, but I don't really think in those terms.