Who's most to blame for this mess?

[tntoriole]

Just now, eddie83 said:

Then why change your mindset a year later? I don’t think Dan pushed for Nick at all. I don’t know about Cruz.

My point is your organizational philosophy flipped flop after one year. Why?  

I have no issue not spending big on a relief pitcher but then a year later you did just that. I have no issue not wanting to risk money on sluggers but then you did at the highest magnitude a year later.  

This is why it looks like a year to year plan around here. I don’t get it. Figure out who you are. They wind up spending big at the end of the run not at the start. Once again that is backwards. 

I attribute the change to what I said was the second part of the events that occurred in that winter.  Dan was making good choices, AND probably doing pretty good in his relationship with Angelos until the issues with Toronto in that winter.  I propose that the reason for the seeming change in mindset is that Angelos started listening more and more to Brady and Buck or his own sons or whomever and much less to Dan. 

So, for example, I attribute O’day to Buck and some Brady, and Davis to Angelos and Brady and Trumbo to Brady and Buck, Tillman to Buck and a bit Brady....but I still think Ubaldo and Gallardo are mostly Dan choices and the trades of Davies for Parra and the cutting of Miggy are all Dan choices as these were seemingly smaller areas that I think remained as Dan’s allowable zone of dumpster moves...all of which turned out terrible. 

So my reason for the change in decision philosophy was not that Dan changed, but that when he went afoul of Angelos, Angelos stopped listening to him very much about the really big decisions...like trading Manny being the biggest debacle. 

[ArtVanDelay]

1 hour ago, Mondo Trasho said:

 

Buck is Buck. He is in my mind a great manager, even today Yankees fans that I know tell me how much of a mistake it was for them to let him go in 1995.

Didn’t they win the World Series 4 out of 5 years after firing him?   I don’t think they made a mistake. 

[Mondo Trasho]

Just now, ArtVanDelay said:

Didn’t they win the World Series 4 out of 5 years after firing him?   I don’t think they made a mistake. 

From what I understand, some Yankees fans think that was inevitable and only took place because of Buck's foundation. Joe Torre just happened to be there at the right place/right time.

[eddie83]

5 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

I attribute the change to what I said was the second part of the events that occurred in that winter.  Dan was making good choices, AND probably doing pretty good in his relationship with Angelos until the issues with Toronto in that winter.  I propose that the reason for the seeming change in mindset is that Angelos started listening more and more to Brady and Buck or his own sons or whomever and much less to Dan. 

So, for example, I attribute O’day to Buck and some Brady, and Davis to Angelos and Brady and Trumbo to Brady and Buck, Tillman to Buck and a bit Brady....but I still think Ubaldo and Gallardo are mostly Dan choices and the trades of Davies for Parra and the cutting of Miggy are all Dan choices as these were seemingly smaller areas that I think remained as Dan’s allowable zone of dumpster moves...all of which turned out terrible. 

So my reason for the change in decision philosophy was not that Dan changed, but that when he went afoul of Angelos, Angelos stopped listening to him very much about the really big decisions...like trading Manny being the biggest debacle. 

That is reasonable. 

My point is it is on the owner. It is how the organization runs is the issue. Any GM makes mistakes. Dan is not going to the HOF.  That said put your organization in a position to succeed. Don’t change your philosophy year to year. They have none due to the owner. 

The owner has historically never been willing to bail on a season. You really have no choice in a market this size. Angelos does not know this after 25 years? 

[MMussina35]

Imagine if the press covering this team was actually good? Maybe then we wouldn't have to debate innuendo.

[eddie83]

Once again when you win you do not have top 5 picks. That is how Manny, Bundy and Gausman got here. Wieters was drafted 5th. The only high pick Dan had was Gausman.

When you win you aren’t trading the Bedard’s of the world. In 2011 Koji was dealt for Davis and Hunter. Last year a trade of Britton was blocked. Why? 

Dan added to it, losing 1st round picks with Ubaldo and Gallardo. I get that. That said you are trying to maintain a winner by resigning aging players in a day and age when all teams are shying away from long term deals to veterans? 

The fact that we sit here and debate who is responsible for what is the issue. All teams have voices but at the end of the day someone has to be in charge. You think the Cubs, Astros and Indians operate like this?  

[tntoriole]

9 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

That is reasonable. 

My point is it is on the owner. It is how the organization runs is the issue. Any GM makes mistakes. Dan is not going to the HOF.  That said put your organization in a position to succeed. Don’t change your philosophy year to year. They have none due to the owner. 

The owner has historically never been willing to bail on a season. You really have no choice in a market this size. Angelos does not know this after 25 years? 

At the same time,  even if Angelos was not Angelos but was the best owner you could imagine, that owner would still be firing Dan Duquette for all the reasons I stated.    Because no matter what any other issues might be...the team is in last place and the roster is a disaster.   Owners don’t fire themselves, even the most enlightened ones. 

[tntoriole]

3 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

Once again when you win you do not have top 5 picks. That is how Manny, Bundy and Gausman got here. Wieters was drafted 5th. The only high pick Dan had was Gausman.

When you win you aren’t trading the Bedard’s of the world. In 2011 Koji was dealt for Davis and Hunter. Last year a trade of Britton was blocked. Why? 

Dan added to it, losing 1st round picks with Ubaldo and Gallardo. I get that. That said you are trying to maintain a winner by resigning aging players in a day and age when all teams are shying away from long term deals to veterans? 

The fact that we sit here and debate who is responsible for what is the issue. All teams have voices but at the end of the day someone has to be in charge. You think the Cubs, Astros and Indians operate like this?  

And trading for Parra and losing Davies...and cutting Miggy for no reason. 

And someone is in charge...he is called the owner of the franchise for a reason...as Dan will find out when his contract is not renewed.   But I am sure he expects more from Dan than what he has gotten.  Reasonable, no, irrational, perhaps, but that is the way it is in many businesses owned by cranky billionaires.   Dan is a mediocre value assesor and poor organizational leader compared to the other GMs on those teams you mentioned, which is why he got canned twice before .    

We all want a change in ownership, but owners do basically what they want to do and GMs do what the owner tells them to do...no matter if you are Cubs, Indians, Astros....the owners there trust their GMs more and meddle less than Angelos for sure but make no mistake..if you don’t win, those same owners will can them in a heartbeat. 

[tntoriole]

33 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

That is reasonable. 

My point is it is on the owner. It is how the organization runs is the issue. Any GM makes mistakes. Dan is not going to the HOF.  That said put your organization in a position to succeed. Don’t change your philosophy year to year. They have none due to the owner. 

The owner has historically never been willing to bail on a season. You really have no choice in a market this size. Angelos does not know this after 25 years? 

But Dan’s real chief mistake was going ahead and dallying with Toronto and not foreseeing what that would do to his working relationship with Angelos.  Either not foresseing or not really understanding what it would do.  That choice, to pursue that opportunity,  was totally on Dan. 

[AnythingO's]

6 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

But Dan’s real chief mistake was going ahead and dallying with Toronto and not foreseeing what that would do to his working relationship with Angelos.  Either not foresseing or not really understanding what it would do.  That choice, to pursue that opportunity,  was totally on Dan. 

I disagree with the term "dallying", Dan was approached by Mike Rogers formerly head of Rogers Communication. The Director of baseball operations position in Toronto still was filled for at least 1 more year but the incumbent had announced his retirement after that. Mike Rogers had been recently deposed as head of Rogers Communication and was trying to secure his own man in the Toronto position.  It was a promotion in terms of both money and responsibility. Up to that time no MLB organization had stood in the way of a baseball exec moving on for a promotion. Dan reported the offer to PA and the rest is history. I have problems with the way PA handled this by neutering Dan. I also have problems with collusion, since the recommendation to look at Dan came from an executive in the New York Yankees organization, to me that is an attempt to weaken a rival. None of this is "dallying" to me.

[eddie83]

39 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

And trading for Parra and losing Davies...and cutting Miggy for no reason. 

And someone is in charge...he is called the owner of the franchise for a reason...as Dan will find out when his contract is not renewed.   But I am sure he expects more from Dan than what he has gotten.  Reasonable, no, irrational, perhaps, but that is the way it is in many businesses owned by cranky billionaires.   Dan is a mediocre value assesor and poor organizational leader compared to the other GMs on those teams you mentioned, which is why he got canned twice before .    

We all want a change in ownership, but owners do basically what they want to do and GMs do what the owner tells them to do...no matter if you are Cubs, Indians, Astros....the owners there trust their GMs more and meddle less than Angelos for sure but make no mistake..if you don’t win, those same owners will can them in a heartbeat. 

Losing Davies and Miggy are not fireable offenses. We could sit here and review every franchise and see mistakes. The Astros had JD Martinez and Hader. Theo signed Carl Crawford in Boston. Every team makes mistakes. 

Dan is the most successful GM under Angelos.  

[eddie83]

25 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

But Dan’s real chief mistake was going ahead and dallying with Toronto and not foreseeing what that would do to his working relationship with Angelos.  Either not foresseing or not really understanding what it would do.  That choice, to pursue that opportunity,  was totally on Dan. 

Toronto came to him. The Toronto job is unlike any other in the sport.

I don’t care if Angelos hated Dan for it. You don’t allow that to undermine your organization. Why should the team be punished over someone’s ego?  Either fire Dan or let him work.   

[eddie83]

4 minutes ago, AnythingO's said:

I disagree with the term "dallying", Dan was approached by Mike Rogers formerly head of Rogers Communication. The Director of baseball operations position in Toronto still was filled for at least 1 more year but the incumbent had announced his retirement after that. Mike Rogers had been recently deposed as head of Rogers Communication and was trying to secure his own man in the Toronto position.  It was a promotion in terms of both money and responsibility. Up to that time no MLB organization had stood in the way of a baseball exec moving on for a promotion. Dan reported the offer to PA and the rest is history. I have problems with the way PA handled this by neutering Dan. I also have problems with collusion, since the recommendation to look at Dan came from an executive in the New York Yankees organization, to me that is an attempt to weaken a rival. None of this is "dallying" to me.

Interesting. I did not know about the Yankees part.  

[LookitsPuck]

So let me get this straight, Eddie. It was a foregone conclusion that they wouldn’t resign Andrew Miller because he was going to be oh so expensive and that falls on Angelos. But when Duquette signs O’Day to nearly the same exact deal a year later...it’s Brady’s fault?

Where on Earth is the accountability here for Duquette?

Markakis was a Duquette snafu. Angelos is about as loyal as you get especially when it came to essentially his Greek son in a baseball uniform. So Duquette must have really been against resigning him for 4 years. Sound familiar a la Cruz?

If we are going to give Duquette an out re: the doctors in regards to Nick, shouldn’t have Duquette listened to the doctors about Gallardo, too? :shrug:

At some point Duquette has to wear all of these signings and non-signings. He’s the GM. The buck stops with him.

[LookitsPuck]

15 minutes ago, AnythingO's said:

I disagree with the term "dallying", Dan was approached by Mike Rogers formerly head of Rogers Communication. The Director of baseball operations position in Toronto still was filled for at least 1 more year but the incumbent had announced his retirement after that. Mike Rogers had been recently deposed as head of Rogers Communication and was trying to secure his own man in the Toronto position.  It was a promotion in terms of both money and responsibility. Up to that time no MLB organization had stood in the way of a baseball exec moving on for a promotion. Dan reported the offer to PA and the rest is history. I have problems with the way PA handled this by neutering Dan. I also have problems with collusion, since the recommendation to look at Dan came from an executive in the New York Yankees organization, to me that is an attempt to weaken a rival. None of this is "dallying" to me.

You must have forgotten that offseason. I recall a long period of inactivity and Duquette essentially being out of commission until early January. 

Truth be told, Duquette still had *4* years on his contract. It takes two to tango and Duquette clearly wanted that position. But much like the O’s control players under contract, same as they do with executives. So Angelos was 100% in the right for holding Duquette to his signed contract especially if the Blue Jays didn’t want to pony up the players to trade Duquette.

Id have traded Duquette in a heartbeat for the right player. But letting him walk because of some asinine unwritten executive “rule” and not receiving just compensation from a division rival? Screw that nonsense.