Jump to content

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


JTrea81

Recommended Posts

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

Is this really a confusing concept to you? For some/many people, building a .500ish team does not qualify as "doing a good job". In fact, it looks a lot like "doing a mediocre job".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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.

The GM job wasn't exactly posted as Flanagan and Duquette were still employed. MacPhail's hiring was basically a coup brought on by Angelos. MacPhail was his guy that he brought in from the outside.

Angelos has never said why he brought Andy in to this day or how that process even occured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this really a confusing concept to you? For some/many people, building a .500ish team does not qualify as "doing a good job". In fact, it looks a lot like "doing a mediocre job".
People were pretty happy about the team in the offseason, seeing it as being capable of being over 500 and using that as a stepping stone for the future.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the lack of a build up on the international front has always been troubling, although we're seeing some positive results there, and I suspect PA is the main reason why more money is not invested in that market.

Otherwise, I think he's had a lot of bad luck and a lot of the people who bash him now thought he had put together a good core and has at times made good moves to supplement them. Now the core has not developed well and some of the vets brought in and retained have disappointed. I suppose he can be blamed for all of that, but I think a good portion of it should likely be chalked up to bad luck. Plus, some should look in the mirror as they call AM terrible or whatever.

So I guess the point where I would have been more supportive of a change is recently, when it because apparent that the team was well behind where they should be, largely due to guys that I expected more of and/or wanted being disappointing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

This is kind of how it went for me, too. I have had doubts over the last year or two but everything crystallized with that international spending interview he gave to Melewski. Particularly when that followed a draft where we did not go for many overslots. Extending Hardy was just more evidence. Don't get me wrong, I love Hardy and normally would be glad to have him around, but MacPhail has just shut down too many avenues for talent acquisition for an organization with an absolutely pitiful level of talent. You only get so many opportunities and MacPhail seems to let all of them pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of job does it mean he was doing? A bad job?
He did an ok job putting together a team to reach 500 or so for the 2011 season. He did a terrible job addressing the long term. If you are a short sighted thinker, as you appear to be, then you think he did a good job.

If you are thinking more long term and realize that one decent year isn't good enough to ignore the long term issues than you think he didn't do a good job.

It just depends on which side of the fence you choose to be on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What disconnect? Most people (and I would assume you as well) would agree that it's easier to go from 80+ wins to 90+ wins than it is to go from 60+ wins to 90+ wins.
Yes and no.

If some of the reasons you have gotten to 83 wins(to pick a number) is because some of your 1 year vets had good seasons, then how much does it matter?

In other words, if those guys leave(or if they stay and then fall off a cliff at their older ages), you would still have to replace their production AND add even more talent..and not just talent but elite talent.

So, it just kind of depends on how you got to that number and if you believe that the subsequent moves can and will be made to get to that next level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the lack of a build up on the international front has always been troubling, although we're seeing some positive results there, and I suspect PA is the main reason why more money is not invested in that market.

Otherwise, I think he's had a lot of bad luck and a lot of the people who bash him now thought he had put together a good core and has at times made good moves to supplement them. Now the core has not developed well and some of the vets brought in and retained have disappointed. I suppose he can be blamed for all of that, but I think a good portion of it should likely be chalked up to bad luck. Plus, some should look in the mirror as they call AM terrible or whatever.

So I guess the point where I would have been more supportive of a change is recently, when it because apparent that the team was well behind where they should be, largely due to guys that I expected more of and/or wanted being disappointing.

I agree with all of this...my objections to MacPhail have nothing to do with Lee and Vlad sucking or whatever. The specific decisions I question:

The Atkins signing

Lack of aggressive overslot drafting

Lack of aggressive international presence (as a stated philosophy, no less)

Giving up a pick for Mike Gonzalez

I think that's my list. But that's enough to damn him, in my eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What disconnect? Most people (and I would assume you as well) would agree that it's easier to go from 80+ wins to 90+ wins than it is to go from 60+ wins to 90+ wins.

If the entire Phillies organization were in the last year of their contract, they would not be situated well for the future. Simply ticking ".500" off your to do list isn't enough to constitute "building towards being competitive". You have to have a core you are building around and a reason to think that next year the team will be improving, as opposed to stagnating or potentially even slipping backwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I have to disagree to a certain extent here. I think that the O's are in last place has everything to do with the discuss on whether MacPhail is to blame and whether he should stay. If the O's were at .500 this discuss would probably be greatly muted.

So the perception by a fairly large group of fans that follows the O's closely is very relevant to the discussion. It says we could not predict what has happened over that last few months. It says we thought MacPhail did a good enough job to put a winning team on the field. We were wrong. Events have proved that.

So it is the right thing to do to say why were we wrong. Why did the team that MacPhail put together not produce.

1) Connor messing with the pitchers seems to not have been productive and from some of Matusz comments sounds like it could have been harmful. The fact that Connor said that Tillman and Bergy could not be fixed at the major league level is concerning. I can't imagine Bamberger or Miller or even Griffin making that statement. I think Connor's shortcoming have to be related to Buck's decision not MacPhail's.

2) Go right down the lineup

Roberts - Most thought he would do better this year otherwise posters would never have thought the O's were going to play .500 ball. His injury is self inflicted and Roberts bears the blame.

Markakis - His two and a half month slump is not MacPhail's fault.

Lee and Vlad - While signing them was MacPhail decision the Hangout did not expect them to anywhere near this bad. If we could not predict their failure then expecting MacPhail to predict it sound unfair to me.

Scott - No way to predict is labrum tear. Hard to pin on MacPhail.

There you have the pitching staff and the top and middle of the order. They failed for different reasons. None of which we as avid fans saw coming.

Greg makes the point that MacPhail is responsible. I have not problem with the thought that because he is GM he is responsible. That is the job. But when you go one layer deeper. It doesn't fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with all of this...my objections to MacPhail have nothing to do with Lee and Vlad sucking or whatever. The specific decisions I question:

The Atkins signing

Lack of aggressive overslot drafting

Lack of aggressive international presence (as a stated philosophy, no less)

Giving up a pick for Mike Gonzalez

I think that's my list. But that's enough to damn him, in my eyes.

I agree that the Atkins signing was bad, although not very costly in the big picture, and giving up the pick for Gonzo was bad. I think if we really analyzed other teams the way we do the O's, we would find examples that are roughly as bad with a lot of teams.

I think the spending on the draft has been decent and as stated I would guess that PA has a lot to do with limiting the spending on that and the international market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning the argument that last off-season was good for the present but almost worthless for the future, well it seems like that's not totally the case. Reynolds was always considered both a guy for the present and future, while everyone else was just considered for the present. Well as I argued before, Hardy, Lee, and Vlad could turn out to be good for the future. The latter two have been worse than just about anyone imagined and thus won't be helping. However, Hardy could have been traded, but is now locked up long-term.

So last off-season landed 2 good to very good players who are now locked up for awhile at reasonable costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...