If you owned the Orioles, what decisions would require your approval?

[MDtransplant757]

3 hours ago, LookitsPuck said:

In any business, a C level has to justify high priority/high cost/hirings/etc. items to ownership and the board.

In any business, a Director has to justify high priority/high cost/hirings/etc. items to C levels

Etc.

I don't buy for one second anybody's opinion that GMs (see: Duquette) should have carte blanche over all major trades or free agent signings. Those people *have* to make their case as it ultimately affects the bottom line. Which can affect marketing. Which can affect ticket sales. Etc. etc.

Here's my thing. If a GM comes to me as an owner and says, "Well, trading Player A for X, Y and Z is in the best interest for the organization, but players X, Y and Z aren't really going to have an impact now or in the future on the club...it's largely a salary dump." As an owner, would I really want to trade a star which would impact the rest of the season all to save a few bucks if it doesn't mean it'll have a sizable impact in the future? Hell no.

You. Have. To. Make. Compelling. Arguments.

And I doubt Duquette does a good job of that. MacPhail clearly did. He was able to trade a blue chipper in Erik Bedard. He was able to trade a blue chipper in Miguel Tejada. He was able to get buyin multiple times from ownership when the club needed it most. Now, MacPhail *wasn't* good in the free agent market. But he was a fantastic trader.

Anyways, I just hate this argument that ownership shouldn't have a say in baseball operations. It's *his* club. It's *his* money. He damn well should have a say in those things. Now, if ownership feels he knows baseball decisions better than his GM? Than that's a problem. Either with Angelos or with the quality of the people Angelos hired.

Just my $0.02.

MacPhail also traded from a point of leverage with some amazing chips to trade from with Bedard and Tejada. 

To answer OP's question, i'd asses the situation with my analytics department and the GM year by year with a plan for the future in mind. I'd also be heavily invested in analytics in baseball and the international market. Problem is that current ownership the exact opposite. 

[eddie83]

3 hours ago, LookitsPuck said:

In any business, a C level has to justify high priority/high cost/hirings/etc. items to ownership and the board.

In any business, a Director has to justify high priority/high cost/hirings/etc. items to C levels

Etc.

I don't buy for one second anybody's opinion that GMs (see: Duquette) should have carte blanche over all major trades or free agent signings. Those people *have* to make their case as it ultimately affects the bottom line. Which can affect marketing. Which can affect ticket sales. Etc. etc.

Here's my thing. If a GM comes to me as an owner and says, "Well, trading Player A for X, Y and Z is in the best interest for the organization, but players X, Y and Z aren't really going to have an impact now or in the future on the club...it's largely a salary dump." As an owner, would I really want to trade a star which would impact the rest of the season all to save a few bucks if it doesn't mean it'll have a sizable impact in the future? Hell no.

You. Have. To. Make. Compelling. Arguments.

And I doubt Duquette does a good job of that. MacPhail clearly did. He was able to trade a blue chipper in Erik Bedard. He was able to trade a blue chipper in Miguel Tejada. He was able to get buyin multiple times from ownership when the club needed it most. Now, MacPhail *wasn't* good in the free agent market. But he was a fantastic trader.

Anyways, I just hate this argument that ownership shouldn't have a say in baseball operations. It's *his* club. It's *his* money. He damn well should have a say in those things. Now, if ownership feels he knows baseball decisions better than his GM? Than that's a problem. Either with Angelos or with the quality of the people Angelos hired.

Just my $0.02.

Why should Dan have to make compelling arguments? His trade proposals are his arguments. He had permission last year to deal Britton and it fell thru and not because of Dan. Not trusting your GM is great for morale. Once you agree with a general direction then back off and let the person do their job.

The Orioles lost for 14 years, it isn’t like the “Angelos Way” was working. An owner can’t pick and choose when they will go along with a trade or not. Any owner is going to be involved with a deal for a player like Manny. That said the owner sets the course for the franchise. What exactly is the course around here? 

 

[jamalshw]

3 hours ago, LookitsPuck said:

In any business, a C level has to justify high priority/high cost/hirings/etc. items to ownership and the board.

In any business, a Director has to justify high priority/high cost/hirings/etc. items to C levels

Etc.

I don't buy for one second anybody's opinion that GMs (see: Duquette) should have carte blanche over all major trades or free agent signings. Those people *have* to make their case as it ultimately affects the bottom line. Which can affect marketing. Which can affect ticket sales. Etc. etc.

Here's my thing. If a GM comes to me as an owner and says, "Well, trading Player A for X, Y and Z is in the best interest for the organization, but players X, Y and Z aren't really going to have an impact now or in the future on the club...it's largely a salary dump." As an owner, would I really want to trade a star which would impact the rest of the season all to save a few bucks if it doesn't mean it'll have a sizable impact in the future? Hell no.

You. Have. To. Make. Compelling. Arguments.

And I doubt Duquette does a good job of that. MacPhail clearly did. He was able to trade a blue chipper in Erik Bedard. He was able to trade a blue chipper in Miguel Tejada. He was able to get buyin multiple times from ownership when the club needed it most. Now, MacPhail *wasn't* good in the free agent market. But he was a fantastic trader.

Anyways, I just hate this argument that ownership shouldn't have a say in baseball operations. It's *his* club. It's *his* money. He damn well should have a say in those things. Now, if ownership feels he knows baseball decisions better than his GM? Than that's a problem. Either with Angelos or with the quality of the people Angelos hired.

Just my $0.02.

I agree with this (generally). This is the way it should be. I'm not the room, so I have no way of knowing if Duquette is making good arguments or not. I have no way of knowing if Angelos is being reasonable or not. You need to sell the owner, but the owner needs to be willing to listen to his guys, too. I get the nod to MacPhail, but that was also a much different situation. I'd argue Tejada was held too long anyway, but he was in a position where we had lost for a long time and the fan base had become uninterested. He only had to sell the idea that fan favorite Player A was going to be gone and we'd have to sell the team around something else. He and fans both knew that with or without Player A the Orioles weren't going to compete so it wasn't selling the idea that we're changing philosophies. It's just selling that we're going to surrender some value today for potential value tomorrow when that value may amount to something in the W/L column.

Today's situation (and at the deadline) was different. While the O's were slipping going into the trade deadline, they were still within shouting distance of the Wild Card. Yes, their pitching was bad, but they were there. Trading Britton, while not completely giving up, was essentially punting on the idea of 2017 for 2018 and beyond. Trading Machado now would be much the same unless DD can sell Angelos on a better 2017 results without Machado (say he gets a couple strong starters). That doesn't seem likely so, to trade Manny, he has to sell the move for the future and thus sell the owner on another year in the cellar when he may still believe winning is possible.

[LookitsPuck]

1 hour ago, eddie83 said:

Why should Dan have to make compelling arguments? His trade proposals are his arguments. He had permission last year to deal Britton and it fell thru and not because of Dan. Not trusting your GM is great for morale. Once you agree with a general direction then back off and let the person do their job.

The Orioles lost for 14 years, it isn’t like the “Angelos Way” was working. An owner can’t pick and choose when they will go along with a trade or not. Any owner is going to be involved with a deal for a player like Manny. That said the owner sets the course for the franchise. What exactly is the course around here? 

 

The Orioles lost for 14 years...but MacPhail largely built the core for 2012 and beyond. So if you want to give credit for Duquette turning around this franchise, you also have to give credit to Angelos and MacPhail, too.

Yes, I'm sure Angelos has meddled on certain trades. But being in upper management, I know that CEOs and Owners rarely (if ever) give full autonomy to a certain person. That's why Dan has to make a compelling argument. If Duquette is simply slapping a trade on Angelos's desk and saying, "Sign this." He should get turned down every.single.time.

Now, I don't think that's happening. But let me ask you which is a better way of phrasing things for an owner:

"Peter, our pitching in 2017 is in dire straights. We can't properly contend even if we somehow fall into the playoffs. At this point, we're better off trading Britton now while he still has some value and is controllable for another season. The Astros have an offer on the table that I feel is the strongest that we'll get not just now, but also during the offseason. We should trade him now and rebuild for 2018 and beyond."

OR

"Peter, we're in the thick of things in the Wild Card. Britton is a valuable chip to us, but the Astros are offering us something that just isn't going to be that impactful this season or potentially even next season. It's a long term play and it's certainly not a sure fire thing. But we do like what the Astros are offering, even if it's not that strong. But who knows, maybe Britton gets hurt...so this is probably what we need to do."

It's these nuances that matter. I've seen Duquette speak in public...the man is awkward. What he says to the media is awkward. Is it beyond the realm of possibilities that Duquette sometimes can flub a negotiation topic with Angelos? I'd say it's just as likely as Angelos meddling.

And that's my rub. 

We have to make assumptions here because we're not behind closed doors with these guys. But any successful businessman (and Angelos *is* a successful businessman even if he's not a great baseball mind) understands making short term decisions vs. long term decisions. But it's all about conviction.

I have a feeling that Duquette having 1 year left on his deal probably didn't (and maybe still doesn't) have full conviction to try and push for a rebuild because...how does that affect his future in the industry?

[LookitsPuck]

1 hour ago, MDtransplant757 said:

MacPhail also traded from a point of leverage with some amazing chips to trade from with Bedard and Tejada. 

To answer OP's question, i'd asses the situation with my analytics department and the GM year by year with a plan for the future in mind. I'd also be heavily invested in analytics in baseball and the international market. Problem is that current ownership the exact opposite. 

Britton is an amazing chip. As is Machado. They're arguably just as good if not better chips than both of those guys. 

What leverage did MacPhail have that Duquette didn't/doesn't? Or are you strictly talking about ownership?

Because 2017 isn't an aberration. A historically (or near historically) poor starting rotation doesn't get turned around in a season...especially not one with the O's farm system. I'd say that is an extremely compelling argument for upper management.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, LookitsPuck said:

Britton is an amazing chip. As is Machado. They're arguably just as good if not better chips than both of those guys. 

What leverage did MacPhail have that Duquette didn't/doesn't? Or are you strictly talking about ownership?

Because 2017 isn't an aberration. A historically (or near historically) poor starting rotation doesn't get turned around in a season...especially not one with the O's farm system. I'd say that is an extremely compelling argument for upper management.

Was, Britton was an amazing chip.

The team let all that value slip away so they could finish last with him last year.

[LookitsPuck]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Was, Britton was an amazing chip.

The team let all that value slip away so they could finish last with him last year.

No argument from me that he should have been traded prior to the 2017 season. His value would have been much higher.

But he was an elite closer at the time. You'd hope he could net something equivalent to what the Red Sox got from the O's for Andrew Miller or what the Yankees got for Chapman.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, LookitsPuck said:

No argument from me that he should have been traded prior to the 2017 season. His value would have been much higher.

But he was an elite closer at the time. You'd hope he could net something equivalent to what the Red Sox got from the O's for Andrew Miller or what the Yankees got for Chapman.

At what time, prior to the 2017 season or during the 2017 season? 

[eddie83]

10 minutes ago, LookitsPuck said:

The Orioles lost for 14 years...but MacPhail largely built the core for 2012 and beyond. So if you want to give credit for Duquette turning around this franchise, you also have to give credit to Angelos and MacPhail, too.

Yes, I'm sure Angelos has meddled on certain trades. But being in upper management, I know that CEOs and Owners rarely (if ever) give full autonomy to a certain person. That's why Dan has to make a compelling argument. If Duquette is simply slapping a trade on Angelos's desk and saying, "Sign this." He should get turned down every.single.time.

Now, I don't think that's happening. But let me ask you which is a better way of phrasing things for an owner:

"Peter, our pitching in 2017 is in dire straights. We can't properly contend even if we somehow fall into the playoffs. At this point, we're better off trading Britton now while he still has some value and is controllable for another season. The Astros have an offer on the table that I feel is the strongest that we'll get not just now, but also during the offseason. We should trade him now and rebuild for 2018 and beyond."

OR

"Peter, we're in the thick of things in the Wild Card. Britton is a valuable chip to us, but the Astros are offering us something that just isn't going to be that impactful this season or potentially even next season. It's a long term play and it's certainly not a sure fire thing. But we do like what the Astros are offering, even if it's not that strong. But who knows, maybe Britton gets hurt...so this is probably what we need to do."

It's these nuances that matter. I've seen Duquette speak in public...the man is awkward. What he says to the media is awkward. Is it beyond the realm of possibilities that Duquette sometimes can flub a negotiation topic with Angelos? I'd say it's just as likely as Angelos meddling.

And that's my rub. 

We have to make assumptions here because we're not behind closed doors with these guys. But any successful businessman (and Angelos *is* a successful businessman even if he's not a great baseball mind) understands making short term decisions vs. long term decisions. But it's all about conviction.

I have a feeling that Duquette having 1 year left on his deal probably didn't (and maybe still doesn't) have full conviction to try and push for a rebuild because...how does that affect his future in the industry?

Who knows how it all plays out. No doubt Andy set this thing up for Dan. Dan is not a smooth talker. 

At the end of the day a trade was made and fell through. If the owner gives the go ahead to deal him for the future,  the deal should not be shut down because of an “advisor”. 

[eddie83]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Was, Britton was an amazing chip.

The team let all that value slip away so they could finish last with him last year.

They have a hard enough time getting the owner to deal players at the deadline, now they are going to move him coming off a playoff berth with the core still in place? 

[Frobby]

The difference between MacPhail and Duquette is that MacPhail was brought in with a mandate to undertake a rebuild.    That’s why he came here.    Duquette was not brought here to do that.    Moreover, I have to think that Angelos has been unwilling to give a lot of deference to Duquette after the Toronto episode.

[MDtransplant757]

12 minutes ago, LookitsPuck said:

Britton is an amazing chip. As is Machado. They're arguably just as good if not better chips than both of those guys. 

What leverage did MacPhail have that Duquette didn't/doesn't? Or are you strictly talking about ownership?

Because 2017 isn't an aberration. A historically (or near historically) poor starting rotation doesn't get turned around in a season...especially not one with the O's farm system. I'd say that is an extremely compelling argument for upper management.

 

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The difference between MacPhail and Duquette is that MacPhail was brought in with a mandate to undertake a rebuild.    That’s why he came here.    Duquette was not brought here to do that.    Moreover, I have to think that Angelos has been unwilling to give a lot of deference to Duquette after the Toronto episode.

This is your answer, puck

[interloper]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The difference between MacPhail and Duquette is that MacPhail was brought in with a mandate to undertake a rebuild.    That’s why he came here.    Duquette was not brought here to do that.    Moreover, I have to think that Angelos has been unwilling to give a lot of deference to Duquette after the Toronto episode.

What really grinds my gears is that while I understand there might be a mandate against rebuilding in this organization, rebuilds can be done fairly quickly. The Red Sox went from last to first in a year. If you make wise trades and signings, there's no reason you can't effectively retool in a year or 2 and compete. There's an argument to be made that depending on the return for Manny, the team could be better without him.

If you see the writing on the wall a couple years in advance, go ahead and make those moves to continually bring in young talent. The team can spend a really substantial amount of money, too, and that's a great asset. We just aren't forward thinking enough. 

 

[eddie83]

If Angelos is that upset at Dan for the Toronto situation then why penalize the team for it? It’s petty and counterproductive. If you are so mad at the person then let them leave or fire them. 

[LookitsPuck]

Just now, MDtransplant757 said:

 

This is your answer, puck

I'd be inclined to believe that Angelos is holding a grudge over Duquette due to the Toronto episode. 

That said if Duquette is given authority to put Machado on the trade block, does that argument hold that much water?

As for before re: MacPhail, yes he came here to do a rebuild. Duquette should be able to push Angelos in the direction that this club needs a rebuild in 2018 and beyond. The only way I see that not happening is if for some reason (maybe reputation?) Duquette is telling Angelos that the O's should/can compete in 2018. Maybe to save his own arse. I don't know.