The "other side" to how AM handled this offseason

[SrMeowMeow]

If you're going to ignore my post, let me summarize everything into one sentence: You are basing a sweeping judgement of MacPhail's offseason on groundless assumptions, your own opinions, a complete lack of knowledge of what actually went on on a high level, and a completely arbitrary timeframe.

[Sports Guy]

No offense, but you all are hardly objective. It was a marginal deal at best. I'm not particularly sorry not to have a handful of middling talents on our 40 man roster as opposed to Roberts.

Second, if you're going to start throwing around transactional suggestions on another team's board, at least be aware of what's going on. Mora has a no-trade stipulation. And there's simply no way he'd uproot his family and head west. Philly? Maybe. The West Coast? Not a chance.

By the way, it's not that it would be worse starting Moore, Cendeno, Murton et al. It's that it wouldn't necessarily be better for us long-term. Right now, AM doesn't particularly think the value of the Cubs' offer is worth the opportunity costs that pulling the trigger would create (i.e., the value of Roberts' on the field or in another trade). I'm inclined to agree.

As for the other points in this thread: I agree with Hank. The only reason to complain is if you think everything needs to get done now. Apparently, SG does. Which is fine. I'm not inclined to agree.

SG thinks things should get done now if the oppurtunity is there to do them.

Clearly it is and has been there.

If the Cubs weren't offering enough for BRob, i wouldn't want him dealt. If we couldn't add a good young player for Murton(for probably not much), then I wouldn't care if we dealt Millar or not.

I do agree that guys like Millar are likely worth more at the deadline but there is a risk involved in that and if we are able to add good, cheap young talent now, we should do that, even if it means taking a little less for Millar.

With Millar(and others) here, Murton can't be had...Without those guys there, we have room for him.

[Sports Guy]

If you're going to ignore my post, let me summarize everything into one sentence: You are basing a sweeping judgement of MacPhail's offseason on groundless assumptions, your own opinions, a complete lack of knowledge of what actually went on on a high level, and a completely arbitrary timeframe.

Glad to hear you say this....Am i supposed to care or something?

I can only discuss things based on my opinion and what is being reported. I can't base my opinion on the unknown.

If we didn't discuss things being reported, this would be a boring place. Speculation and reporting is what drives many threads around here...It is what it is.

[Lucky Jim]

Further, Huff's and Gibbons' value are at their nadir. There's no reason to off-load them now, if there's a decent chance their value goes up later. There's simply no hurry. None.

[Sports Guy]

Further, Huff's and Gibbons' value are at their nadir. There's no reason to off-load them now, if there's a decent chance their value goes up later. There's simply no hurry. None.

I do agree with this....They get mentioned because they are part of the log jam but the reality is they can't be moved in all likelihood although, just as all of you want to point out, you don't know what is going on so to say it is wrong.

[Lucky Jim]

SG thinks things should get done now if the oppurtunity is there to do them.

Clearly it is and has been there.

If the Cubs weren't offering enough for BRob, i wouldn't want him dealt. If we couldn't add a good young player for Murton(for probably not much), then I wouldn't care if we dealt Millar or not.

I do agree that guys like Millar are likely worth more at the deadline but there is a risk involved in that and if we are able to add good, cheap young talent now, we should do that, even if it means taking a little less for Millar.

With Millar(and others) here, Murton can't be had...Without those guys there, we have room for him.

When you claim that the extra time it takes AM to make deals has cost us you really need to take into account whatever marginal value we received for taking that time. If, say, we got the Mariners up from 4 to 5 prospects without giving up anything extra, you need to subtract the value of the prospect from whatever your return for unloading our mediocre talent would be.

I can't say it's worth it. Would I rather have Murton and no Tony Butler or Kam Mickolio? Nope.

[Lucky Jim]

I do agree with this....They get mentioned because they are part of the log jam but the reality is they can't be moved in all likelihood although, just as all of you want to point out, you don't know what is going on so to say it is wrong.

Your overall point is well-taken. When assessing the FO moves, we really need to be objective and appraise the costs of each part of the FO's methodology.

That said, I'm okay with the costs inherent in AM's methodical nature. But you're right to at least call attention to it. If we're doing a serious accounting of the State of the Union, these things should be considered.

[BaltimoreTerp]

If the deals weren't out there to be made or if the young players weren't sitting there for us to acquire, i will totally agree with the stance you are saying here and what many people have advocated.

The difference is, those things are in place for us.

That is the key in all of this. We have the chance to do a lot more and really put ourselves in even better position.

Something tells me that if AM had dealt Millar and Payton, trade BRob for the 4 for 1 Cubs package and we acquired Arias and Murton this offseason, you would all be kissing his azz...Yet, i talk about it and I am not being patient.

This kind of thinking HAS to be some kind of logical fallacy, and I just don't know which.

Of course we would have loved that scenario in general; most of them would be good moves. The Roberts trade would be controversial, but the rest would be great.

However, you are again ASSUMING things that may not be reality. Just because players are available, and even blocked, does not mean they are free. Just because we are willing to pay contracts to get rid of players does not mean other teams want to waste roster spots on what we don't want.

Would you be happy with that same scenario if we traded Penn and Olsen (and maybe others too) for Murton and Arias, and had to take back Jason Marquis to rid ourselves of Payton and Millar?

[BaltimoreTerp]

I don't think every GM does this...But it does seem like AM did just that this year.

If you honestly believe this, then frankly the discussion should end right here, because you are farther out of touch with reality then you have ever claimed I have been in the past.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Your overall point is well-taken. When assessing the FO moves, we really need to be objective and appraise the costs of each part of the FO's methodology.

That said, I'm okay with the costs inherent in AM's methodical nature. But you're right to at least call attention to it. If we're doing a serious accounting of the State of the Union, these things should be considered.

But when the right moves are being made, it doesn't matter.

[Sports Guy]

When you claim that the extra time it takes AM to make deals has cost us you really need to take into account whatever marginal value we received for taking that time. If, say, we got the Mariners up from 4 to 5 prospects without giving up anything extra, you need to subtract the value of the prospect from whatever your return for unloading our mediocre talent would be.

I can't say it's worth it. Would I rather have Murton and no Tony Butler or Kam Mickolio? Nope.

Really?

I am on the fence about Butler but I would definitely prefer Murton over Mickilio and its not even close.

[Sports Guy]

Your overall point is well-taken. When assessing the FO moves, we really need to be objective and appraise the costs of each part of the FO's methodology.

That said, I'm okay with the costs inherent in AM's methodical nature. But you're right to at least call attention to it. If we're doing a serious accounting of the State of the Union, these things should be considered.

Precisely...You have to take into account EVERYTHING!

I have been very complimentary of AM all offseason...I like a lot of things that he has done but that doesn't mean he can't be called out on other things.

[Sports Guy]

If you honestly believe this, then frankly the discussion should end right here, because you are farther out of touch with reality then you have ever claimed I have been in the past.

Can you prove me wrong?

[Lucky Jim]

But when the right moves are being made, it doesn't matter.

This isn't true. Not accounting for opportunity costs is evaluating without complete information. That's never preferable.

[Lucky Jim]

Really?

I am on the fence about Butler but I would definitely prefer Murton over Mickilio and its not even close.

Well, my point is really that I prefer a "no cost" Mickolio to a Murton that costs me a young arm (or the like.)

That's my point about opportunity costs. You have to realize that the extra time it took AM to make that deal very likely yielded an extra prospect at no added cost.