I miss MacPhail

[weams]

You know, when you look at his trades you can clearly say the Orioles got the better end of the deal on most if not all.

He never moved Roberts, Guthrie, Luke Scott or even Markakis when they had value and he hung onto all of his "cavalry" when good scouting and development should have been able to determine who had value who should have been moved when their value was at their peaks.

MacPhail's major free agent signings were guys like Atkins, Gonzales, Gregg, Guerrero, and Lee.

His trades were good, but those FA's they were really horid weren't they.

[.500_OR_BETTER]

Adam Jones was the only "prospect" he ever traded for that actually has been good with the Orioles despite trading Bedard and Tejada when they had value. He never moved Roberts, Guthrie, or even Markakis when they had value and he hung onto all of his "cavalry" when good scouting and development should have been able to determine who had value who should have been moved when their value was at their peaks.

So true it hurts...

MacPhail's major free agent signings were guys like Atkins, Gonzales, Gregg, Guerrero, and Lee.

no words can discribe this....

[DrungoHazewood]

I don't think MacPhail or Duquette would obtain the permission to trade Markakis even if they want to do so.

What Oriole GM has had the freedom to really build a functional organization? It's been 30+ years since that happened. The GM we look most fondly at from recent years are Gillick, and he really just plugged in a series of short-term fixes that left the team as the oldest and most expensive in baseball a few years later. Nobody has ever been allowed to do what's needed to be done. So I'll not shed any tears about MacPhail leaving, but I don't put anything close to full blame on him, either.

It's Angelos. For 20 years it's been Angelos.

[weams]

I don't think Tejada's value was very high when we traded him. There were the steroid problems, the age problem, and the questionable attitude.

It was the day before the Mitchell Report and he had just aged three years. So you are very right.

[mweb]

I'd rather have Dana Eveland and Taylor Teagarden than Cuddyer and Soriano. If Wada pans out, that's one guy that MacPhail would have never considered. I like the strategy of going international. If established MLB players are too smart to come play for the O's, then go abroad where there is a better chance that they don't know any better.

Why not? He signed Koji.

[mweb]

I agree with others who are saying that while AM was decent, it is nice to see the apparently enhanced efforts in the international market and the scouting department. Furthermore, people really should be more patient. So while I was far from an AM hater, I am not yearning for his return.

[Frobby]

So Roy, can you point me to a case of a 69-win team adding a premier free agent, moving up to 80 wins, and that adding 10,000 fans a game? Or are you suggesting that the O's can do it despite it never having happened before?

Here is the closest analogy I could find. The 2004 Brewers won 67 games. That winter, they added Carlos Lee, who had hit 62 HR and 212 RBI in the two preceding years, and who hit 32 and knocked in 114 for the '05 Brewers, who won 81 games.

Net gain? 150,000 fans (less than 2,000 per game).

[scOtt]

Here is the closest analogy I could find. The 2004 Brewers won 67 games. That winter, they added Carlos Lee, who had hit 62 HR and 212 RBI in the two preceding years, and who hit 32 and knocked in 114 for the '05 Brewers, who won 81 games.

Net gain? 150,000 fans (less than 2,000 per game).

What's the percentage increase tho? Milwaukee is pretty strapped even in great years.

I still agree, the fan draw is minimal for "spending money".

[24fps]

Here is the closest analogy I could find. The 2004 Brewers won 67 games. That winter, they added Carlos Lee, who had hit 62 HR and 212 RBI in the two preceding years, and who hit 32 and knocked in 114 for the '05 Brewers, who won 81 games.

Net gain? 150,000 fans (less than 2,000 per game).

Maybe that's a reasonable expectation?

According to your data here it took the Orioles 7 years to lose a million fans (roughly 150,000 per season).

I know, I know, it's a stretch, but there has to be an object lesson about consistency and fan trust in there somewhere.

[Frobby]

What's the percentage increase tho? Milwaukee is pretty strapped even in great years.

I still agree, the fan draw is minimal for "spending money".

2.11 mm to 2.26 mm -- 7.4% increase, roughly. Based on the Orioles's experience in 2004 (290,000 fan increase after signing Miggy, Javy and Raffy and improving from 71 to 78 wins), maybe you could argue for a 350,000 fan increase if the O's were a .500 team. That's not trivial, but it wouldn't come anywhere close to covering the payroll increase from Fielder and whoever else.

All that said, I am not dead set against Fielder. It depends on just how much the Os would have to pay.

[Fan4Life]

Here is the closest analogy I could find. The 2004 Brewers won 67 games. That winter, they added Carlos Lee, who had hit 62 HR and 212 RBI in the two preceding years, and who hit 32 and knocked in 114 for the '05 Brewers, who won 81 games.

Net gain? 150,000 fans (less than 2,000 per game).

What about:

That Nats are about as close to this in every respect you'll get. They are in our market, they were not a good team in 2010, they spent big money on FA heading into 2011 and their attendance increased around 2000 per game. I suspect if Strassburg wasn't injured all year that may have bump up somewhat more.

[Going Underground]

I think soon we will see where DD is going with this team. You have to give DD more then a year with a barren farm team and not alot of trade chips.

[weams]

I think soon we will see where DD is going with this team. You have to give DD more then a year with a barren farm team and not alot of trade chips.

Ain't that the case.

[hoosiers]

I liked a lot of what AM did. He certainly hoarded his prospects, dealt veterans for prospects and eventually took chances on a tremendous number of prospects from other organizations. That's what he did. Now, folks want to say that few of these guys panned out - that's fine, but that's not AM's fault, IMO - it is the fault of the scouts and advisors (who, of course, AM was responsible for). AM tried to work with the talent that existed and replaced folks when it was apparent they were not working out.

AM's work on the international front is being given half-credit. Folks want the pace of signings to pick up as well as the signings of larger $ talent. That's fine also, but AM took a very, very weak system and had it churning out league top 20 prospects in four years with a decent second wave to follow next year. It was working and it appeared to be working quite well and there were clear indications that AM was going to go after some higher $ signings, but - at the end of the day - only had the one $300k Veloz signing.

AM's signings like Atkins, etc were very poor, but caused minimal damage to the long term view of the franchise - very different that the mess he inherited - Gibbons and the relievers.

AM had four years to turn things around. That's enough time to have made further progress than he did, but, as I said, a lot of blame goes to the scouting network in the organization. AM went through 20+ top 30 prospects from other organizations in his first two or three years - more should have panned out than just Adam Jones.

DD is a very different bird. He is going to make so many moves that he makes several mistakes and hopes that he comes out ahead in the long run. He is going to trade a lot, sign more big $ international prospects, etc. The thing that is comforting with DD is that he is going to succeed or fail with his advisors.

I've never reallly cared about the timing of moves in the offseason. It's DD's ship now. Let him sail it.

[clapdiddy]

I liked a lot of what AM did. He certainly hoarded his prospects, dealt veterans for prospects and eventually took chances on a tremendous number of prospects from other organizations. That's what he did. Now, folks want to say that few of these guys panned out - that's fine, but that's not AM's fault, IMO - it is the fault of the scouts and advisors (who, of course, AM was responsible for). AM tried to work with the talent that existed and replaced folks when it was apparent they were not working out.

AM's work on the international front is being given half-credit. Folks want the pace of signings to pick up as well as the signings of larger $ talent. That's fine also, but AM took a very, very weak system and had it churning out league top 20 prospects in four years with a decent second wave to follow next year. It was working and it appeared to be working quite well and there were clear indications that AM was going to go after some higher $ signings, but - at the end of the day - only had the one $300k Veloz signing.

AM's signings like Atkins, etc were very poor, but caused minimal damage to the long term view of the franchise - very different that the mess he inherited - Gibbons and the relievers.

AM had four years to turn things around. That's enough time to have made further progress than he did, but, as I said, a lot of blame goes to the scouting network in the organization. AM went through 20+ top 30 prospects from other organizations in his first two or three years - more should have panned out than just Adam Jones.

DD is a very different bird. He is going to make so many moves that he makes several mistakes and hopes that he comes out ahead in the long run. He is going to trade a lot, sign more big $ international prospects, etc. The thing that is comforting with DD is that he is going to succeed or fail with his advisors.

I've never reallly cared about the timing of moves in the offseason. It's DD's ship now. Let him sail it.

Good points here. I never got the sense that MacPhail was "all in" on the rebuilding plan, and I'm guessing that part of that was because of the ownership issue. Trading Bedard and Tejada were absolute "no-brainers". I think the thing that frustrates me is that we didn't take advantage of the chance to deal Guthrie, Hardy and/or Scott when the time was ripe.