What evidence do we have that Angelos...

[JTrea81]

And where are they now?

They made the playoffs and won the AL East.

We can worry about winning in the playoffs once we actually get there. How you get there isn't important.

[crissfan172]

Macphail wanted to grow the arms.

We didn't spend enough on amateur talent.

I'd say that's probably the best proof.

[glorydays]

They made the playoffs and won the AL East.

We can worry about winning in the playoffs once we actually get there. How you get there isn't important.

It must matter otherwise you wouldn't throw your daiy tantrums. Admit it... The only way you believe the team can win is your way which ironically is what you piss and moan about AM. You both have proved to be wrong and AM is gone.

1 down...

[Dannyboy]

They made the playoffs and won the AL East.

We can worry about winning in the playoffs once we actually get there. How you get there isn't important.

This... makes no sense at all.

[JTrea81]

This... makes no sense at all.

It does though. Why worry about sustaining a playoff run when you are miles away from the playoffs?

First you get there, then you can add the parts and pieces to advance.

This is how the 1996-1997 Orioles did it. They got to the playoffs in 1996 and then got the pieces to advance that next offseason, improving their defense by getting Bordick and moving Cal from short to 3B, replacing Bonilla with Davis (though Hammonds got the majority of the playing time), and adding Key to the rotation.

[crawjo]

I view all this as a bunch of second-hand guessing that is quite unpersuasive. The Orioles have been awful for the last 14 years, and the natural instinct is to blame someone for it, and Angelos certainly deserves blame. But that does not mean that the Orioles cannot win with Angelos as owner. I would also note that the deals he has reportedly nixed were not good ones for the Orioles...weren't we supposed to get the decaying corpse of Marcus Giles for Roberts? Yeah, I'm glad that didn't happen.

Anyway, the reason the team failed this year is not because of the owner. The team failed because the players failed, and Angelos did not cause a highly regarded young pitcher like Brian Matusz to suddenly develop into one of the worst stating pitchers in baseball history.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is some evidence that Angelos is a meddlesome owner, but I'm not sure in this respect how different he is from many other owners in the game. What I'm also trying to say is that **** happens, and some of what has happened to the Orioles is due to bad decision making, some due to poor performance, and some to just plain bad luck. I really don't agree with those who act as if nothing this organization does will matter unless Angelos sells the team. Although it sounds kind of silly to call the owner of a team the scapegoat for its failures, I do think that there is an oversimplification going on when people act as if everything that goes wrong for this club can be laid at the doorstep of the owner.

[24fps]

I view all this as a bunch of second-hand guessing that is quite unpersuasive. The Orioles have been awful for the last 14 years, and the natural instinct is to blame someone for it, and Angelos certainly deserves blame. But that does not mean that the Orioles cannot win with Angelos as owner. I would also note that the deals he has reportedly nixed were not good ones for the Orioles...weren't we supposed to get the decaying corpse of Marcus Giles for Roberts? Yeah, I'm glad that didn't happen.

Anyway, the reason the team failed this year is not because of the owner. The team failed because the players failed, and Angelos did not cause a highly regarded young pitcher like Brian Matusz to suddenly develop into one of the worst stating pitchers in baseball history.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is some evidence that Angelos is a meddlesome owner, but I'm not sure in this respect how different he is from many other owners in the game. What I'm also trying to say is that **** happens, and some of what has happened to the Orioles is due to bad decision making, some due to poor performance, and some to just plain bad luck. I really don't agree with those who act as if nothing this organization does will matter unless Angelos sells the team. Although it sounds kind of silly to call the owner of a team the scapegoat for its failures, I do think that there is an oversimplification going on when people act as if everything that goes wrong for this club can be laid at the doorstep of the owner.

This is an excellent post. Nonetheless it will bounce off the entrenched biases like a super ball off concrete.

[DrungoHazewood]

I view all this as a bunch of second-hand guessing that is quite unpersuasive. The Orioles have been awful for the last 14 years, and the natural instinct is to blame someone for it, and Angelos certainly deserves blame. But that does not mean that the Orioles cannot win with Angelos as owner. I would also note that the deals he has reportedly nixed were not good ones for the Orioles...weren't we supposed to get the decaying corpse of Marcus Giles for Roberts? Yeah, I'm glad that didn't happen.

Anyway, the reason the team failed this year is not because of the owner. The team failed because the players failed, and Angelos did not cause a highly regarded young pitcher like Brian Matusz to suddenly develop into one of the worst stating pitchers in baseball history.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is some evidence that Angelos is a meddlesome owner, but I'm not sure in this respect how different he is from many other owners in the game. What I'm also trying to say is that **** happens, and some of what has happened to the Orioles is due to bad decision making, some due to poor performance, and some to just plain bad luck. I really don't agree with those who act as if nothing this organization does will matter unless Angelos sells the team. Although it sounds kind of silly to call the owner of a team the scapegoat for its failures, I do think that there is an oversimplification going on when people act as if everything that goes wrong for this club can be laid at the doorstep of the owner.

Let's just say I completely disagree. He's the man in charge. He hires the GM whose philosophy most matches his own. He hires the folks who run the various parts of the organization. He sets the tone. He sets the budget.

And it's all failed. For a long time. All of it.

[scOtt]

And where are they now?

At home, beaten by a younger, cheaper, more talented team.

[SammyBirdland]

It was reported that Angelos picked Showalter, overriding MacPhail's choice (Wedge). Does that count?

[24fps]

Let's just say I completely disagree. He's the man in charge. He hires the GM whose philosophy most matches his own. He hires the folks who run the various parts of the organization. He sets the tone. He sets the budget.

And it's all failed. For a long time. All of it.

But setting the tone and setting the budget is intrinsic to the role of owner. It is their prerogative even if it isn't always evident. To suggest that PA is being meddlesome for exercising control over the budget and setting general guidelines on direction goes against reasonable expectations.

As far as hiring the next GM, I think it's safe to say that he won't hire anyone whose judgement and professionalism he doesn't trust, but then again neither would any of us in his position. I don't think that has to mean absolute alignment in point-of-view. This may be a meaningless distinction in practice, but the chance that it isn't gives me reason to hope. Below the highest levels (GM for example) does any of us really know how much oversight he chooses to have over the hiring process these days? The degree to which he is rumored to protect certain people is a genuine concern, but right now there's a whole lot more shadow than substance to that issue.

Yes he is the man in charge and all responsibility ultimately devolves to him, but to end the discussion there kills any possibility of even a moderately nuanced understanding of the situation.

To me, there's still no clear indication that primary responsibility for the continued mediocrity of the last four years lies anywhere other than in the GM's office, granted with a liberal dose of bad luck mixed in. I've said in the past that I'm fully open to being convinced otherwise and that remains the case, but reflexive PA bashing is a dead end, an activity that produces no light and precious little heat.

[ShaneDawg85]

I'm glad he did. Vlad was a risk that was worth taking that MacPhail wanted no part of. It didn't quite work out the way it was planned, but still the risk was worth it IMO.

If only he'd gotten involved with the Tex negotiations and when Matt Holliday was available...

No, it wasn't. It was a complete and utter failure. All of the warning signs were that that he would fall off the cliff. He did it in 2009, he did it through the second half and in the postseason in 2010, and we already knew he was getting older and had no defensive value at all. But no, we needed him to put butts in the seats and provide lineup protection, of which he provided zero. Vlad was a mistake from the beginning, and nothing will ever change that.

[allstar1579]

It's not a point of what Pie did, or Reimold's 2010, it's about evaluating young talent and giving it a chance to develop. It's about doing so at a far less cost that signing someone like VLAD. So to your point, yes. Ideally, I'd like better talent, but I'd rather see a Robert Andino than a Rollins at second base. Absoloutely. Free Agents are the worst possible way to try and win. The absoloute worst. Particularly in context to our payroll. Not only that, but the type of FA's we sign and that are even realisitically available to us (like Vlad/Lee) are typically the worst of the worst. Why don't you understand that?

Repeatedly taking risks with low probabilites of success are not "good moves".

Again, win what exactly ? A .500 record ? A playoff berth?

With you on this. FA should be icing on the cake, not the eggs, milk and sugar in the cake mix.

[Sports Guy]

I view all this as a bunch of second-hand guessing that is quite unpersuasive. The Orioles have been awful for the last 14 years, and the natural instinct is to blame someone for it, and Angelos certainly deserves blame. But that does not mean that the Orioles cannot win with Angelos as owner. I would also note that the deals he has reportedly nixed were not good ones for the Orioles...weren't we supposed to get the decaying corpse of Marcus Giles for Roberts? Yeah, I'm glad that didn't happen.

Anyway, the reason the team failed this year is not because of the owner. The team failed because the players failed, and Angelos did not cause a highly regarded young pitcher like Brian Matusz to suddenly develop into one of the worst stating pitchers in baseball history.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is some evidence that Angelos is a meddlesome owner, but I'm not sure in this respect how different he is from many other owners in the game. What I'm also trying to say is that **** happens, and some of what has happened to the Orioles is due to bad decision making, some due to poor performance, and some to just plain bad luck. I really don't agree with those who act as if nothing this organization does will matter unless Angelos sells the team. Although it sounds kind of silly to call the owner of a team the scapegoat for its failures, I do think that there is an oversimplification going on when people act as if everything that goes wrong for this club can be laid at the doorstep of the owner.

Of course it is...We don't have the proper depth. We don't have the proper instruction. We don't have the proper development. We haven't made the right moves.

The list goes on and on....PA is a monster reason for all of that.

[weams]

It was reported that Angelos picked Showalter, overriding MacPhail's choice (Wedge). Does that count?

It appears that Wedge is Boston's top choice.