Source: MacPhail Out as GM

[JTrea81]

Sure - you may have to switch the person who is leading the change - but it is the owner's responsibility to make sure that the philosophy remains consistent from leader to leader.

The owner's job is to hire the right people to lead the franchise to prominence and them to give them the resources to do so. It doesn't matter what the philosophy is as long as the team is successful and wins.

There doesn't have to be an "Oriole Way" or a "Ray way." All that there has to be is a way to win.

[scOtt]

And yet, Trea doesn't see the SEVERAL cases of irony in that post...

[SilentJames]

The owner's job is to hire the right people to lead the franchise to prominence and them to give them the resources to do so. It doesn't matter what the philosophy is as long as the team is successful and wins.

There doesn't have to be an "Oriole Way" or a "Ray way." All that there has to be is a way to win.

[sangar]

Unfortunately, I've already given out my quota of rep this morning. I still wish to thank you for a good laugh.

[SrMeowMeow]

So what you're saying is... MacPhail couldn't wine and dine?

Bingo.

HAhahahehahhehehehahahuheakehuehaehaheheh

[DrungoHazewood]

They made the playoffs two years in a row after they spent that money, winning their division twice.

You're one of the few people who think that repeating the '96-'97 Orioles is a great thing to shoot for. Would two playoff births, including an 80-something win team that lucked into the postseason, be nice? Sure. But after washing out of the playoffs early, twice, and ending up with a very expensive 71-win team full of a bunch of mid-30s underachievers? Wow, that's what we've been living through for the past 15 years.

I guess you think the Soriano deal was great, since they did get those six playoff games after they signed him, and now have to just deal with the five or six years of 1 or 1.5 WAR for an untradeable $17M a year.

[JTrea81]

You're one of the few people who think that repeating the '96-'97 Orioles is a great thing to shoot for. Would two playoff births, including an 80-something win team that lucked into the postseason, be nice? Sure. But after washing out of the playoffs early, twice, and ending up with a very expensive 71-win team full of a bunch of mid-30s underachievers? Wow, that's what we've been living through for the past 15 years.

I guess you think the Soriano deal was great, since they did get those six playoff games after they signed him, and now have to just deal with the five or six years of 1 or 1.5 WAR for an untradeable $17M a year.

And what if the Cubs had won the WS? Would it have been worth it then?

Perhaps we may never have that opportunity to build something for a run like the Orioles used to have from the 60s-80s.

It may be time to accept that we may only be able to setup for a 3-4 year runs and then have periods of rebuilding.

[SrMeowMeow]

And what if the Cubs had won the WS? Would it have been worth it then?

Perhaps we may never have that opportunity to build something for a run like the Orioles used to have from the 60s-80s.

That's the point. The contract was bad and the decision was stupid, regardless of the outcome.

[Can_of_corn]

Unfortunately, I've already given out my quota of rep this morning. I still wish to thank you for a good laugh.

I got him.

[Hooded Viper]

And what if the Cubs had won the WS? Would it have been worth it then?

Perhaps we may never have that opportunity to build something for a run like the Orioles used to have from the 60s-80s.

It may be time to accept that we may only be able to setup for a 3-4 year runs and then have periods of rebuilding.

Trea you deal in a fantasy world. The key to the highlighted phase is that they DIDN'T win a WS. So if's and buts candy and nuts. The Soriano deal is one of the worst in the history of the game and everyone with a brain, including Soriano, knows it.

[Sports Guy]

And what if the Cubs had won the WS? Would it have been worth it then?

Perhaps we may never have that opportunity to build something for a run like the Orioles used to have from the 60s-80s.

It may be time to accept that we may only be able to setup for a 3-4 year runs and then have periods of rebuilding.

Not if you do things correctly...or in other words, do things the opposite of the way you want and think they should be done.

[JTrea81]

Not if you do things correctly...or in other words, do things the opposite of the way you want and think they should be done.

And how much longer are you willing to watch this team lose to see if they ever can build that model?

[DrungoHazewood]

And how much longer are you willing to watch this team lose to see if they ever can build that model?

Since I've already put the team in a kind of maintenance mode, only checking in once in a while to see how badly they've done, I'd say a very long time indeed.

[JTrea81]

Since I've already put the team in a kind of maintenance mode, only checking in once in a while to see how badly they've done, I'd say a very long time indeed.

That may be fine for you, but at least for me I'm still invested, and I want to see a winner now.

[SrMeowMeow]

That may be fine for you, but at least for me I'm still invested, and I want to see a winner now.

I thought you were quitting or something. When does that happen, again?