MacPhail: Savior or not?

[33rdst]

Because it's inflammatory and insulting. And it flies in the face of all sorts of historical and empirical evidence.

And it's based on a source bad mouthing a member of our FO based on their own subjective opinion and not on any facts.

Insider info is great when it's a status update and/or contract info. When it's just one guy bashing another, it's pretty useless.

I mean, look at the deals Krivsky has made as GM versus the deals AM has made. Now, which are better?

If you don't know, maybe you should have looked them up before posting this.

Edited to note: I exaggerated this. Krivsky's moves weren't that bad, other than some silly small stuff. And he made some good ones. But the idea that "swift" decisions are the kind you want a GM to make is silly. AM could move more quickly, sure. And there are opportunity costs to his deliberateness. But hard decisions are rarely best-made quickly. Especially when there are hidden costs (and potentially hidden benefits.)

It's not "relevant." It's just one guy bad-mouthing another.

C'mon aren't you overreacting a little. We've both read posts here that have been far more critical of MacPhail. People will do with it what they chose. Frankly, after I read it. I dismissed it as a word from a disgruntled co-worker.

[BeerIsFood]

Honestly, I'd be surprised that someone who is "well respected in his field" would talk like this about a colleague to his wife or best friend, let alone to a 19 year old. His comments smack of having an agenda or personal dislike. Jim is right. It doesn't sound like the guy said one concrete thing during his whole conversation to you. He basically just hurled non-specific insults.

MacPhail could be any or all of these things, but I would hope that this guy could describe why in a much more enlightening, convincing fashion if he chose to do it. At the base of it all, why would he choose to do it? I learned not to discuss people like this (regardless of what I thought) when I was a teenager. This guy may be well respected in his field, but he isn't well respected by me based on this information.

You're not the only one who learned this lesson when I was a teenager, growing up in a small small town where everyone hears everything and knows everyone's business. On top of that I know how quickly untruths can be started. In that small town I've heard many about myself through the years. Sometimes, it's just best not to say anything...

[Delduck]

Thanks Lair I appreciate the info and like with everything else I take it with a gain of salt. It is interesting to see/hear about different opinions of our FO even if it is not what we want to think it is. Like you pointed out in your post it is hard to tell if there are bad feelings between the two or it is just an honest opinion of someone who has had dealings with him. If what he says is true, that would help explain why AM is slow, but I have to say he has made some trades that has worked out in our favor for a change.

[Sports Guy]

Lets remember that a guy on here said AM wanted Stockstill gone but PA said no...The poster who said had an inside contact that was verified by the mods...This backs up the potential issue of AM not having as much power as we all hope he would.

Also, I would be willing to bet that if this was a glowing report you all would be happy to hear it.

[Lucky Jim]

Why? Because it doesn't say what you want to hear?

Where do you get this stuff? Seriously. Have I ever tried to stifle conversation rather than engage it when I don't agree?

Is it really your opinion of me as a poster that all I want is information that reinforces my perspective?

If so, that's a shame. I figured my posting earned me a bit more respect than that. Or is it that you save your "respect" for people who just back up YOUR ideas?

[Sports Guy]

No. Because of the way it was phrased.

The way it was phrased?

You mean things like, take this with a grain of salt?

Things like him saying he still feels we are better off with AM but that he was just trying to share the info he heard?

Lier did nothing in this to treat this as a fact...He presented info he was told to the board for discussion.

Personally, I think it is absurd to jump on him for it. If you liked the info that he was providing about Tex and if you think that info carries any weight, then you should think this info could carry weight as well.

I agree that the guy could have an agenda against AM but you know what, maybe he doesn't? Maybe there is some truth in what he says here?

[TJ Wrangler]

Thanks Lair I appreciate the info and like with everything else I take it with a gain of salt. It is interesting to see/hear about different opinions of our FO even if it is not what we want to think it is. Like you pointed out in your post it is hard to tell if there are bad feelings between the two or it is just an honest opinion of someone who has had dealings with him. If what he says is true, that would help explain why AM is slow, but I have to say he has made some trades that has worked out in our favor for a change.

I understand that MacPhail has done good for the organization, which is why I specified that I was shocked to hear this. I still think we are better off, and I did point out that I wasn't sure if they were just on bad terms, or if this stuff is, in fact, at least partially true.

[Sports Guy]

Where do you get this stuff? Seriously. Have I ever tried to stifle conversation rather than engage it when I don't agree?

Is it really your opinion of me as a poster that all I want is information that reinforces my perspective?

If so, that's a shame. I figured my posting earned me a bit more respect than that. Or is it that you save your "respect" for people who just back up YOUR ideas?

I would be willing to bet that if this was good news, you would be happy to hear it.

[Satyr3206]

The bottom line, regardless of how you feel about MacPhail, is whether he's getting the job done. Compared to the GM's since Gillick he's doing an outstanding job but that's not a very high bar to clear.

So far I think he's done a great job but if his intention is to build primarily through the draft it will take a few more years to judge him fairly. As for insulting his intelligence or his personality traits, that has nothing to do with his ability to do his job.

[Lucky Jim]

C'mon aren't you overreacting a little. We've both read posts here that have been far more critical of MacPhail. People will do with it what they chose. Frankly, after I read it. I dismissed it as a word from a disgruntled co-worker.

Lets remember that a guy on here said AM wanted Stockstill gone but PA said no...The poster who said had an inside contact that was verified by the mods...This backs up the potential issue of AM not having as much power as we all hope he would.

Also, I would be willing to bet that if this was a glowing report you all would be happy to hear it.

Yes. I would be happy to hear a glowing report. Wouldn't you? And if not, why not?

The point wasn't the PA/AM dynamic. It was the statement that AM was a "#$%&" who didn't possess baseball intelligence.

That's not the language of someone I want to listen to, and I didn't think it had a place - as 3rd hand knowledge - on the board.

The substance is fine. It would be disappointing if true, but it's fine.

We've debated AM's deliberateness to tears. I don't disagree with you that. If it's because he's too stupid to make a move quickly, I think that would come as a surprise to both of us - you think he's flawed by wanting to "win" every trade, I think he's risk-averse. Neither are low-IQ reasons.

[Moose Milligan]

Where do you get this stuff? Seriously. Have I ever tried to stifle conversation rather than engage it when I don't agree?

Is it really your opinion of me as a poster that all I want is information that reinforces my perspective?

If so, that's a shame. I figured my posting earned me a bit more respect than that. Or is it that you save your "respect" for people who just back up YOUR ideas?

No, SG isn't a particularly huge fan of MacPhail, so the OP pretty much jives with what he'd like to hear.

As far as the OP and why we should pay it some attention it gives us some insight to the man.

As far as the kid being 19, doesn't matter. His source could be a family member or something, you never know.

[BeerIsFood]

I would be willing to bet that if this was good news, you would be happy to hear it.

I feel like you are correct here, it's kind of the psychology behind this. No one wants to hear negative comments about someone they think is a good person, all they want to hear is the positive. I'm not against or for this thread, I am indifferent. All I will say is that it's situations such as this that taught me some hard lessons when I was a teenager, eventually I learned to keep my mouth shut. What an awful kid I was.

[TJ Wrangler]

The point wasn't the PA/AM dynamic. It was the statement that AM was a "#$%&" who didn't possess baseball intelligence.

That's not the language of someone I want to listen to, and I didn't think it had a place - as 3rd hand knowledge - on the board.

I agree that I should have phrased it better, and I tuned it down dramatically.

[Lucky Jim]

You should know that the OP has been toned down considerably from the original version. I wouldn't have much of an issue with it now.

Seriously. Read the original post as quoted in my first response. That was my reason for responding as I did. I don't have a problem with the thread as it now stands.

Crap. This is ridiculous.

And - I'm going to say this again - arguing that I'd be happy with a glowing report is remarkable. I mean, who wouldn't?

[Aberdeener]

You don't need to couch any of this by saying that it comes from a source, because it's all opinion. And though I don't have any inside knowledge, this all sounds like a bunch of junk.