Interesting Article: It's Okay To Be Critical

[MrOrange82]

Well, it is true that some things cannot be proven. But the Orioles just plain rolled over for teams before Buck got here. Hell even the fans left town for Yankee or Redsox games. Buck came in and almost immediately started poking at the Yankees and the Redsox. You might say it's the players. I say it started with comments like this:

?I?d like to see how smart Theo Epstein is with the Tampa Bay payroll,? Showalter said. ?You got Carl Crawford because you paid more than anyone else, and that?s what makes you smarter? That?s why I like whipping their butt.?

Managers are NOT responsible for who is in the dugout. They are accountable to what they do with em. Buck has done a lot, and while he gets plenty of criticism here. Orange, you are getting blow back because you seem to be saying he has built nothing. So, let me ask you a question. What part of Oriole baseball is worse today than the day Buck arrived? And if you have something, I'd like to know if you think that falls under his job?

Again, I never, at any point in this thread, took the position that Buck is a bad manager, or that the Orioles are worse with him than without him. I was actually the second person in the thread to criticize the original blog post for saying nothing of value.

IF I wanted to play Devil's advocate in this case, I'd point out a couple of things:

First, I questioned the use of the word "built" with regards to what Buck's done. As you said, managers are not responsible for who is in the dugout; rather, managers are responsible for HOW those players perform once they are IN the dugout. Accordingly, if you're removing Buck from the player acquisition process, what has he "built"? Did he personally restructure the minor leagues? Did he staff all the minor league teams? Did player personnel decisions at the major league level have to win his approval in each and every instance (of course he had input, but he wasn't the guy out there signing people to contracts)? "Building" implies more than inspiring confidence in the players on the ML roster. It implies more than liaising with the media. It even implies more than setting a tone and trying to foster a "culture of winning." "Building" implies hands-on activity, brick by brick, from the ground up. It implies more than what a typical manager is responsible for.

Second, I'd ask you (and everyone else) to examine the qualities of the ML rosters that Buck has had to work with, as opposed to the rosters of his predecessors. Buck has clearly had more talent (at the least, more DEVELOPED talent) than guys like Trembley, Perlozzo, and Mazzilli ever had. Furthermore, did you know that Buck is the only manager that the O's have ever had whose teams carried payrolls of $84 million or more every year that he's been the manager, including the team's first year over $100 million? Even in the aberrant 2007, when Trembley's Orioles had a payroll of $93 million, the roster was weighed down by aging, underproductive veterans like Payton, Mora, Tejada, and Millar, and the pitching staff gave 103 starts to Daniel Cabrera, Steve Trachsel, Brian Burres, John Leicester, Radhames Liz, Jaret Wright, Victor Santos, Kirk Birkins, and Victor Zambrano (who combined for an ERA of more than 6.20). Between 1998 and 2010, the Orioles carried payrolls of more than $74 million just two times. Once in 2007, and once in 2000 ($83 million).

Did Buck spur Angelos to finally open up his wallet and get better players? Was he the catalyst that led to the Adam Jones extension and the Jimenez signing (a first of its kind for Orioles pitchers)? Maybe. But I don't actually know his level of involvement, so I'm not going to just give him the credit when, perhaps, DD deserves most, if not all, of the credit. Or maybe Buck deserves some credit, but only indirectly, because winning in 2012 sparked something in Angelos and made him want to splurge on some players. However you slice it, if fans are going to heap credit on Buck for "building" something here, they should be able to describe with some measure of particularity what, exactly, it is that he built, and how.

I think Buck is a good manager in most areas. I question his on-field decision making in a few other areas. At bottom, my only point is that it's reasonable to examine/discuss the assumptions that underlie statements like "But anyone who thinks that Dave Trembley, Sam Perlozzo or Lee Mazzilli could have built what Buck has built in his time here is insane." (emphasis added). Because one could just as easily argue that those guys never had anything resembling the advantages that Buck has had.

[foxfield]

You asked a question that you seem to think is not being answered. What has he BUILT?

I simply asked you what aspect of the Orioles organization is worse than it was when he arrived and how would you attribute that to him? I didn't say he was the best thing since sliced bread, I didn't say you were insane, I didn't say you thought Buck sucked, I didn't even really say I disagreed with you. I was simply trying to get you to come at this from another angle.

If he didn't build anything, what does that mean.

Are you saying he is merely Forrest Gump? A feather that carelessly floats through MLB not really doing anything but being in the middle of it and often getting credit? Because it sounds like that's what you are getting at.

[foxfield]

I would also point out the rather obvious point that Dave Trembley, Sam Perlozzo and Lee Mazzilli have all somehow missed ever being hired to manage another team.

I would say that Buck could be fired tomorrow and work by the all star break, but that is only opinion.

[MrOrange82]

You asked a question that you seem to think is not being answered. What has he BUILT?

I simply asked you what aspect of the Orioles organization is worse than it was when he arrived and how would you attribute that to him? I didn't say he was the best thing since sliced bread, I didn't say you were insane, I didn't say you thought Buck sucked, I didn't even really say I disagreed with you. I was simply trying to get you to come at this from another angle.

If he didn't build anything, what does that mean.

Are you saying he is merely Forrest Gump? A feather that carelessly floats through MLB not really doing anything but being in the middle of it and often getting credit? Because it sounds like that's what you are getting at.

That's just it...I don't think the O's are worse off. I wonder how much of the credit for various improvements should go Buck's way, but I think the organization as a whole is clearly stronger now than it was under past administrations.

[wildcard]

I don't buy the aggressive hitting cliche. Presley is wise enough to maximize the strength of the hitters he has to work with. He doesn't buy into the fools' errand of trying to make them into something they aren't. If he had patient hitters I am sure he would take advantage of their patience. He doesn't have them.

But can he develop them? I question that. Manny and Schoop are pieces of clay he can be influenced on their hitting approach. Can he develop them into patience hitters over years? Presley's approach doesn't seem like is lends itself to that.

Presley does some nice work. I will not argue that. But developing power is his game. I am not sure he even tries to develop patience.

[wildcard]

Again, I never, at any point in this thread, took the position that Buck is a bad manager, or that the Orioles are worse with him than without him. I was actually the second person in the thread to criticize the original blog post for saying nothing of value.

IF I wanted to play Devil's advocate in this case, I'd point out a couple of things:

First, I questioned the use of the word "built" with regards to what Buck's done. As you said, managers are not responsible for who is in the dugout; rather, managers are responsible for HOW those players perform once they are IN the dugout. Accordingly, if you're removing Buck from the player acquisition process, what has he "built"? Did he personally restructure the minor leagues? Did he staff all the minor league teams? Did player personnel decisions at the major league level have to win his approval in each and every instance (of course he had input, but he wasn't the guy out there signing people to contracts)? "Building" implies more than inspiring confidence in the players on the ML roster. It implies more than liaising with the media. It even implies more than setting a tone and trying to foster a "culture of winning." "Building" implies hands-on activity, brick by brick, from the ground up. It implies more than what a typical manager is responsible for.

Second, I'd ask you (and everyone else) to examine the qualities of the ML rosters that Buck has had to work with, as opposed to the rosters of his predecessors. Buck has clearly had more talent (at the least, more DEVELOPED talent) than guys like Trembley, Perlozzo, and Mazzilli ever had. Furthermore, did you know that Buck is the only manager that the O's have ever had whose teams carried payrolls of $84 million or more every year that he's been the manager, including the team's first year over $100 million? Even in the aberrant 2007, when Trembley's Orioles had a payroll of $93 million, the roster was weighed down by aging, underproductive veterans like Payton, Mora, Tejada, and Millar, and the pitching staff gave 103 starts to Daniel Cabrera, Steve Trachsel, Brian Burres, John Leicester, Radhames Liz, Jaret Wright, Victor Santos, Kirk Birkins, and Victor Zambrano (who combined for an ERA of more than 6.20). Between 1998 and 2010, the Orioles carried payrolls of more than $74 million just two times. Once in 2007, and once in 2000 ($83 million).

Did Buck spur Angelos to finally open up his wallet and get better players? Was he the catalyst that led to the Adam Jones extension and the Jimenez signing (a first of its kind for Orioles pitchers)? Maybe. But I don't actually know his level of involvement, so I'm not going to just give him the credit when, perhaps, DD deserves most, if not all, of the credit. Or maybe Buck deserves some credit, but only indirectly, because winning in 2012 sparked something in Angelos and made him want to splurge on some players. However you slice it, if fans are going to heap credit on Buck for "building" something here, they should be able to describe with some measure of particularity what, exactly, it is that he built, and how.

I think Buck is a good manager in most areas. I question his on-field decision making in a few other areas. At bottom, my only point is that it's reasonable to examine/discuss the assumptions that underlie statements like "But anyone who thinks that Dave Trembley, Sam Perlozzo or Lee Mazzilli could have built what Buck has built in his time here is insane." (emphasis added). Because one could just as easily argue that those guys never had anything resembling the advantages that Buck has had.

Your limited perspective on what a manager is hurts your argument. To say that a manager does not make a big difference in the players that are in the dugout depends on the manager. Trembley didn't manager up in the organization any further then the GM. Buck manages to the owner. He has a relationship with Angelos. He has his respect. That opens up many more possibilities for Buck to build the organization. That goes from how the Spring Training facilities looks and functions to the acquisition of All-Star players like Davis and Cruz.

A manager, is not a manager, is not a manager. They have different amounts of effect on the organization. Buck's effect is about as deep as it gets with the Orioles.

[MrOrange82]

Did Buck spur Angelos to finally open up his wallet and get better players? Was he the catalyst that led to the Adam Jones extension and the Jimenez signing (a first of its kind for Orioles pitchers)? Maybe. But I don't actually know his level of involvement, so I'm not going to just give him the credit when, perhaps, DD deserves most, if not all, of the credit. Or maybe Buck deserves some credit, but only indirectly, because winning in 2012 sparked something in Angelos and made him want to splurge on some players.

Your limited perspective on what a manager is hurts your argument. To say that a manager does not make a big difference in the players that are in the dugout depends on the manager. Trembley didn't manager up in the organization any further then the GM. Buck manages to the owner. He has a relationship with Angelos. He has his respect. That opens up many more possibilities for Buck to build the organization. That goes from how the Spring Training facilities looks and functions to the acquisition of All-Star players like Davis and Cruz.

A manager, is not a manager, is not a manager. They have different amounts of effect on the organization. Buck's effect is about as deep as it gets with the Orioles.

I accounted for everything you talked about in the post you quoted. And I primarily mentioned the theoretical manager's "role" to follow foxfield's line of reasoning. What you did was offer some general examples of why you think it's fair to call Buck a builder. Again, as you can see from the first line of the above quote, I accounted for that opinion. I don't share it, because I don't think there's a ton of truly concrete proof to support it, but you're entitled to that opinion.

I am kind of curious now, though...if one of those players that Buck helped to land turns into a flop, does Buck share in the blame, or does that still rest with the GM? What if Jimenez really does turn into an expensive bust? Does Buck take some of the blame there? Or are there solid, verifiable sources that demonstrate Buck's involvement in the acquisitions of some players, but not others?

[wildcard]

I accounted for everything you talked about in the post you quoted. And I primarily mentioned the theoretical manager's "role" to follow foxfield's line of reasoning. What you did was offer some general examples of why you think it's fair to call Buck a builder. Again, as you can see from the first line of the above quote, I accounted for that opinion. I don't share it, because I don't think there's a ton of truly concrete proof to support it, but you're entitled to that opinion.

I am kind of curious now, though...if one of those players that Buck helped to land turns into a flop, does Buck share in the blame, or does that still rest with the GM? What if Jimenez really does turn into an expensive bust? Does Buck take some of the blame there? Or are there solid, verifiable sources that demonstrate Buck's involvement in the acquisitions of some players, but not others?

I am sure Buck has a hand in every major acquisition decision that is made for the O's. And he and DD hold responsible for them all. More then what that player does, if a major acquisition turns into a boat anchor - what it will do to the team's ability to contend is more important. Buck shares in all that. Good and bad.

[Frobby]

I don't buy the aggressive hitting cliche. Presley is wise enough to maximize the strength of the hitters he has to work with. He doesn't buy into the fools' errand of trying to make them into something they aren't. If he had patient hitters I am sure he would take advantage of their patience. He doesn't have them.

Well, I have mixed feelings on this one. Some of the comments that Buck and Presley make suggest to me that they are a bit too indulgent of their players' (especially Jones') overly aggressive habits. Throw in the fact that Presley himself was a hacker who had a .290 career OBP but a good ISO (.173), and it makes you wonder if he projects his own tendencies and inabilities onto players who are more talented than he was and more capable of balancing patience and aggessiveness if given the right instruction and feedback. That said, the Orioles have been an impatient team for many years, going back to before either Buck or Presley was here, and Duquette has not exactly brought in a bunch of guys who have a track record for being patient hitters. Add the fact that guys like Machado and Schoop were rushed to the majors before they were fully developed as hitters in the minors, and it makes Presley's job pretty difficult. So, I can see it both ways on this one.

[Can_of_corn]

Well, I have mixed feelings on this one. Some of the comments that Buck and Presley make suggest to me that they are a bit too indulgent of their players' (especially Jones') overly aggressive habits. Throw in the fact that Presley himself was a hacker who had a .290 career OBP but a good ISO (.173), and it makes you wonder if he projects his own tendencies and inabilities onto players who are more talented than he was and more capable of balancing patience and aggessiveness if given the right instruction and feedback. That said, the Orioles have been an impatient team for many years, going back to before either Buck or Presley was here, and Duquette has not exactly brought in a bunch of guys who have a track record for being patient hitters. Add the fact that guys like Machado and Schoop were rushed to the majors before they were fully developed as hitters in the minors, and it makes Presley's job pretty difficult. So, I can see it both ways on this one.

I am concerned that Machado's walk rate has decreased from 10% in the minors to 4.4% in the majors (Schoop's has dropped from 7.9 to 3.4).

[Frobby]

Again, I never, at any point in this thread, took the position that Buck is a bad manager, or that the Orioles are worse with him than without him. I was actually the second person in the thread to criticize the original blog post for saying nothing of value.

IF I wanted to play Devil's advocate in this case, I'd point out a couple of things:

First, I questioned the use of the word "built" with regards to what Buck's done. As you said, managers are not responsible for who is in the dugout; rather, managers are responsible for HOW those players perform once they are IN the dugout. Accordingly, if you're removing Buck from the player acquisition process, what has he "built"? Did he personally restructure the minor leagues? Did he staff all the minor league teams? Did player personnel decisions at the major league level have to win his approval in each and every instance (of course he had input, but he wasn't the guy out there signing people to contracts)? "Building" implies more than inspiring confidence in the players on the ML roster. It implies more than liaising with the media. It even implies more than setting a tone and trying to foster a "culture of winning." "Building" implies hands-on activity, brick by brick, from the ground up. It implies more than what a typical manager is responsible for.

Second, I'd ask you (and everyone else) to examine the qualities of the ML rosters that Buck has had to work with, as opposed to the rosters of his predecessors. Buck has clearly had more talent (at the least, more DEVELOPED talent) than guys like Trembley, Perlozzo, and Mazzilli ever had. Furthermore, did you know that Buck is the only manager that the O's have ever had whose teams carried payrolls of $84 million or more every year that he's been the manager, including the team's first year over $100 million? Even in the aberrant 2007, when Trembley's Orioles had a payroll of $93 million, the roster was weighed down by aging, underproductive veterans like Payton, Mora, Tejada, and Millar, and the pitching staff gave 103 starts to Daniel Cabrera, Steve Trachsel, Brian Burres, John Leicester, Radhames Liz, Jaret Wright, Victor Santos, Kirk Birkins, and Victor Zambrano (who combined for an ERA of more than 6.20). Between 1998 and 2010, the Orioles carried payrolls of more than $74 million just two times. Once in 2007, and once in 2000 ($83 million). Did Buck spur Angelos to finally open up his wallet and get better players? Was he the catalyst that led to the Adam Jones extension and the Jimenez signing (a first of its kind for Orioles pitchers)? Maybe. But I don't actually know his level of involvement, so I'm not going to just give him the credit when, perhaps, DD deserves most, if not all, of the credit. Or maybe Buck deserves some credit, but only indirectly, because winning in 2012 sparked something in Angelos and made him want to splurge on some players. However you slice it, if fans are going to heap credit on Buck for "building" something here, they should be able to describe with some measure of particularity what, exactly, it is that he built, and how.

I think Buck is a good manager in most areas. I question his on-field decision making in a few other areas. At bottom, my only point is that it's reasonable to examine/discuss the assumptions that underlie statements like "But anyone who thinks that Dave Trembley, Sam Perlozzo or Lee Mazzilli could have built what Buck has built in his time here is insane." (emphasis added). Because one could just as easily argue that those guys never had anything resembling the advantages that Buck has had.

First of all, you make a lot of valid points in your post, and I am not being critical of you at all for raising them. There is no reason why we should not examine how much credit Buck gets for the relative success of the team for the last 2+ years, or how much blame he should get for why they haven't done better or why they have certain limitations.

On the bolded paragraph, however, I don't think it is legitimate to compare a 2014 payroll to one from 5 years ago, 7 years ago or 10 years ago. Average payrolls have increased a lot in that time. And you could just as easily argue that Buck has been weighted down by Brian Roberts' contract, Nick Markakis' contract, Tysohi Wada's contract etc. as the examples you cite from prior periods.

That said, I'd readily concede that the 2012-14 Orioles have more talent, at the right stage of their careers, than previous manangers had. I just think that he gets a lot out of that talent, and has helped it to develop.

And I do think Buck has a much bigger role than most managers regarding what goes on in the minors. He frequently comments in his pressers on what some minor leaguer has done that day. He apparently speaks to Ron Johnson (Norfolk manager) daily. He seems to be much more active with the minor leaguers during spring training and finds ways to get guys exposed. He has an overhead camera at OPACY that he uses to make a weekly tape of good and bad plays, show how players should be positioned, etc., that gets circulated and shown to all the minor leaguers. The little vignette about how he made Josh Hart write a paper on Frank Robinson this spring is a small example of the culture he installs at every level of the organization.

There are many examples of little things he does that I don't recall other managers ever giving a moment's thought to, like changing one of the Sarasota pracitce fields to have the exact dimensions of Camden Yards. He always has the players on their toes.

I hope these specific examples give some substance to the points that I and others made previously.

[crawjo]

The idea that the Orioles are "regressing" under Showalter is so patently absurd that it doesn't merit any response. Last year the Orioles "fell back to earth" with 85 wins, which of course was more than the franchise had seen since 1997. The Orioles are infinitely more relevant than they've been in a generation, and honestly I don't think the roster's talent merits anything more than what we've seen. This is not a team built to win 95 games. I'm very happy with Showalter as manager.

[LA2]

Again, I never, at any point in this thread, took the position that Buck is a bad manager, or that the Orioles are worse with him than without him. I was actually the second person in the thread to criticize the original blog post for saying nothing of value.

IF I wanted to play Devil's advocate in this case, I'd point out a couple of things:

First, I questioned the use of the word "built" with regards to what Buck's done. As you said, managers are not responsible for who is in the dugout; rather, managers are responsible for HOW those players perform once they are IN the dugout. Accordingly, if you're removing Buck from the player acquisition process, what has he "built"? Did he personally restructure the minor leagues? Did he staff all the minor league teams? Did player personnel decisions at the major league level have to win his approval in each and every instance (of course he had input, but he wasn't the guy out there signing people to contracts)? "Building" implies more than inspiring confidence in the players on the ML roster. It implies more than liaising with the media. It even implies more than setting a tone and trying to foster a "culture of winning." "Building" implies hands-on activity, brick by brick, from the ground up. It implies more than what a typical manager is responsible for.

Second, I'd ask you (and everyone else) to examine the qualities of the ML rosters that Buck has had to work with, as opposed to the rosters of his predecessors. Buck has clearly had more talent (at the least, more DEVELOPED talent) than guys like Trembley, Perlozzo, and Mazzilli ever had. Furthermore, did you know that Buck is the only manager that the O's have ever had whose teams carried payrolls of $84 million or more every year that he's been the manager, including the team's first year over $100 million? Even in the aberrant 2007, when Trembley's Orioles had a payroll of $93 million, the roster was weighed down by aging, underproductive veterans like Payton, Mora, Tejada, and Millar, and the pitching staff gave 103 starts to Daniel Cabrera, Steve Trachsel, Brian Burres, John Leicester, Radhames Liz, Jaret Wright, Victor Santos, Kirk Birkins, and Victor Zambrano (who combined for an ERA of more than 6.20). Between 1998 and 2010, the Orioles carried payrolls of more than $74 million just two times. Once in 2007, and once in 2000 ($83 million).

Did Buck spur Angelos to finally open up his wallet and get better players? Was he the catalyst that led to the Adam Jones extension and the Jimenez signing (a first of its kind for Orioles pitchers)? Maybe. But I don't actually know his level of involvement, so I'm not going to just give him the credit when, perhaps, DD deserves most, if not all, of the credit. Or maybe Buck deserves some credit, but only indirectly, because winning in 2012 sparked something in Angelos and made him want to splurge on some players. However you slice it, if fans are going to heap credit on Buck for "building" something here, they should be able to describe with some measure of particularity what, exactly, it is that he built, and how.

I think Buck is a good manager in most areas. I question his on-field decision making in a few other areas. At bottom, my only point is that it's reasonable to examine/discuss the assumptions that underlie statements like "But anyone who thinks that Dave Trembley, Sam Perlozzo or Lee Mazzilli could have built what Buck has built in his time here is insane." (emphasis added). Because one could just as easily argue that those guys never had anything resembling the advantages that Buck has had.

I wonder what Buck would have done with the 2004 and 2005 rosters. He worked wonders with the 2012 team--don't know that Quintanilla, Flaherty, Andino, Ford, Tolleson et al were better than what Buck's predecessors had to work with.

[bobmc]

Jon Shepherd's take

[weams]

Jon Shepherd's take

Very nice summary. Thanks.