O's scouting LHP Chen Wei-Yin and SS Hiroyuki Nakajima; D.Stockstill returning?

[Sports Guy]

I'm glad SG took up the cause while I was away from this thread. I'm also surprised that Frobby, LJ and Drungo are giving PA the benefit of the doubt here, and in one case are postulating that I think 100% turnover in one offseason is possible.

I specifically pointed to the Stockstills only. I specifically mentioned before hiring a new GM. That's all I was talking about and it is bothersome to me that they are somehow guaranteed to be back next year. Now I'm left to hope that the new GM has some autonomy, whereas pushing a decision like this a couple of weeks would have sent a totally different signal.

Yep, its mind boggling to me.

3 of the smartest people on this site(baseball or otherwise) and they still seem to just be ok with this.

I don't get it.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Yep, its mind boggling to me.

3 of the smartest people on this site(baseball or otherwise) and they still seem to just be ok with this.

I don't get it.

Maybe that should tell you something...

[Lucky Jim]

Yep, its mind boggling to me.

3 of the smartest people on this site(baseball or otherwise) and they still seem to just be ok with this.

I don't get it.

I'm blushing. I think the only difference is a year's, honestly. No one among us would think that the GM shouldn't be able to completely make-over the organization by next year. Again, I just don't know to what extent continuity is important, and to what extent changes are available to be made. Lord knows, I want change myself. If they hire the right GM, and he can do what he wants by next year, then I'm okay.

[mweb]

Where was someone stating this?

See the guy who took up "the cause."

[Lucky Jim]

I've been to Copenhagen but I readily admit that I will have to look those names up.

I was really just joking - didn't want that to come off as snarky. I'm on a quantum physics (for dummies) kick these days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_%28play%29

[Sports Guy]

Maybe that should tell you something...

Yes...that some people expect way less than I do...You have consistenly been a poster who has accepted mediocrity, so I expect that from you.

But the smart posters? I expect more from them.

[mweb]

The new GM isn't really going to be allowed to do those things anyway.

In fact, if they bring in a guy like Dipoto, Levine or LaCava, I would argue that their #1 job would be doing exactly what you said.

And even if they wanted to keep some or all of what is left here, it should be THEIR decision, not a decision that is made for them.

I agree that the new GM should have total control. I also agree with you that chances are he won't and PA will force him to keep certain guys, possibly including the Stockstill's.

However, I don't see a problem with keeping guys around for an extra year and allowing the GM to bring in his own guys. Thus he would have "his guys" and he'd be able to talk to people who have a lot of experience in the organization. If he's allowed to re-assign guys and let them go after next year, I think it may be a net positive to have them around during the transition.

I guess if your point is that you'd rather see them dumped now so you know PA won't force them on the new GM long-term, I can see that. Sign of a greater problem, etc.

[Sports Guy]

I'm blushing. I think the only difference is a year's, honestly. No one among us would think that the GM shouldn't be able to completely make-over the organization by next year. Again, I just don't know to what extent continuity is important, and to what extent changes are available to be made. Lord knows, I want change myself. If they hire the right GM, and he can do what he wants by next year, then I'm okay.

But we already know that he has the Stockstills(for example) for all of 2012..So, we are now talking 2013 before he can POSSIBLY get rid of them and he may not even be allowed to do that.

That is an issue right now...The new GM has basically already been told, BEFORE INTERVIEWING, that he doesn't have the power a GM should.

That is the beginning message right off the bat.

That's not a good message in any way.

Now, like I said, Drungo may have a point(and maybe you do as well) when you talk about not being able to get rid of everything at once...but let the new GM make the decision for himself. Let him "interview" these guys, get their thoughts, look at their track records, research them, etc....If when he does all of that, he feels they are worth it to keep around, I fully support that decision.

But to not even be given a chance to do that? I'm sorry but that's incredibly poor.

[Sports Guy]

I agree that the new GM should have total control. I also agree with you that chances are he won't and PA will force him to keep certain guys, possibly including the Stockstill's.

However, I don't see a problem with keeping guys around for an extra year and allowing the GM to bring in his own guys. Thus he would have "his guys" and he'd be able to talk to people who have a lot of experience in the organization. If he's allowed to re-assign guys and let them go after next year, I think it may be a net positive to have them around during the transition.

I guess if your point is that you'd rather see them dumped now so you know PA won't force them on the new GM long-term, I can see that. Sign of a greater problem, etc.

That's part of it....As I just said, this should be a decision made by the new GM...it should be forced on him.

If he wants to keep these guys around because he likes their ideas, knows they know the system, etc....I am fine with that.

But to have it forced on him? There is no scenario where that is a good thing to do to someone that you want to turn around an organization that is woefully behind basically everyone.

[Lucky Jim]

But we already know that he has the Stockstills(for example) for all of 2012..So, we are now talking 2013 before he can POSSIBLY get rid of them and he may not even be allowed to do that.

That is an issue right now...The new GM has basically already been told, BEFORE INTERVIEWING, that he doesn't have the power a GM should.

That is the beginning message right off the bat.

That's not a good message in any way.

Now, like I said, Drungo may have a point(and maybe you do as well) when you talk about not being able to get rid of everything at once...but let the new GM make the decision for himself. Let him "interview" these guys, get their thoughts, look at their track records, research them, etc....If when he does all of that, he feels they are worth it to keep around, I fully support that decision.

But to not even be given a chance to do that? I'm sorry but that's incredibly poor.

This is only true if they can't be fired or re-assigned. You may be right that they can't - and that would be absurd - but I don't know that, myself. As MWeb said, if this does, effectively, lock guys into positions of influence that's a joke. I can understand your suspicions and fears, obviously.

[mweb]

That's part of it....As I just said, this should be a decision made by the new GM...it should be forced on him.

If he wants to keep these guys around because he likes their ideas, knows they know the system, etc....I am fine with that.

But to have it forced on him? There is no scenario where that is a good thing to do to someone that you want to turn around an organization that is woefully behind basically everyone.

Well lots of guys are going to be under contract when the new GM comes in. That's the way it works with any organization. Then if he is given control, he can bring in new people, re-assign people, and let go people, or just let their contracts run out.

[Sports Guy]

Well lots of guys are going to be under contract when the new GM comes in. That's the way it works with any organization. Then if he is given control, he can bring in new people, re-assign people, and let go people, or just let their contracts run out.

Fine...He obviously can't just get rid of people and break their contracts.

But some appear to have been re-signed, while their contract runs out at the end of the year.

That's poor. No way anyone can justify that as a smart decision.

[Sports Guy]

This is only true if they can't be fired or re-assigned. You may be right that they can't - and that would be absurd - but I don't know that, myself. As MWeb said, if this does, effectively, lock guys into positions of influence that's a joke. I can understand your suspicions and fears, obviously.

But who cares about them even being able to be re-assigned? We know that Dave Stockstill is a PA crony and we know that the biggest issue for this organization is how poor its run and how awful PA is...yet we come up with excuses as to why its ok for them to be in the organization?

I don't care if they can be demoted to ticket taker, they shouldn't be part of this organization unless the new GM says its fine with him.

[mweb]

Fine...He obviously can't just get rid of people and break their contracts.

But some appear to have been re-signed, while their contract runs out at the end of the year.

That's poor. No way anyone can justify that as a smart decision.

I'm not saying it's smart, I don't know that it's dumb though either.

[Sports Guy]

I'm not saying it's smart, I don't know that it's dumb though either.

So, you think there is a chance it is smart for the GM to NOT be allowed to see who he wants to surround himself with?