At what point do you plan on winning?

[The Rick]

Yet again, another thing where you leave off the most important part.

Based on some things we heard, the Bedard deal held us up in doing other things and those things didn't get done.

If that is the case, then holding out for one extra player was wrong IMO...it was more important to get other things done.

But if he wasn't handcuffed by that and it didn't prevent him from getting things done, then I have no issue with him holding out for more.

Ultimately, I believe it did handcuff AM and he probably could have done more had the Bedard thing been resolved weeks before it was, so therefore I think he did the wrong thing...especially since I don't see Butler becoming much of anything.

Yes, but as fans we're not supposed to speculate. We're just supposed to sit and enjoy the team we root for.

We shall only deal with absolutes and guaranteed facts, otherwise there's simply no way in knowing.

[TJ Wrangler]

Ultimately, I believe it did handcuff AM and he probably could have done more had the Bedard thing been resolved weeks before it was, so therefore I think he did the wrong thing...especially since I don't see Butler becoming much of anything.

Which is inexcusable in my opinion. MacPhail has shown that he is too deliberate to get things done and he is unable to multi-task effectively. At some point, he needs to speed things up and get things done. He hasn't shown anything since those two trades.

[TJ Wrangler]

Yes, but as fans we're not supposed to speculate. We're just supposed to sit and enjoy the team we root for.

We shall only deal with absolutes and guaranteed facts, otherwise there's simply no way in knowing.

Just asking for clarification...

So you think that as fans, we shouldn't speculate upon what didn't happen? Should we just pass up the what didn't happen and not demand for things to be done to improve the team? As fans, I believe we have every right to criticize things that haven't happened and demand that we see a better product on the field, or in this case, more action from the front office.

[The Rick]

Just asking for clarification...

So you think that as fans, we shouldn't speculate upon what didn't happen? Should we just pass up the what didn't happen and not demand for things to be done to improve the team? As fans, I believe we have every right to criticize things that haven't happened and demand that we see a better product on the field, or in this case, more action from the front office.

No, this is what RShack thinks. I was just being sarcastic.

He's right in a lot of ways, but is never willing to acknowledge the possibility that AM or the O's made a mistake, not without substantial black & white evidence. In large part it's good for him to balance out some of the arguments on this board at times. But OTOH it gets old real quick when it's the same old same old 24/7 with regards to defending the O's no matter what.

He always says things like "there's zero reason to think that, based on the facts", etc. He didn't get the memo, we're no longer living in the medievel times. We are, in fact, entitled to read between the lines and form opinions, however irrational they may be at times.

[TJ Wrangler]

No, this is what RShack thinks. I was just being sarcastic.

He's right in a lot of ways, but is never willing to acknowledge the possibility that AM or the O's made a mistake, not without substantial black & white evidence. In large part it's good for him to balance out some of the arguments on this board at times. But OTOH it gets old real quick when it's the same old same old 24/7 with regards to defending the O's no matter what.

He always says things like "there's zero reason to think that, based on the facts", etc. He didn't get the memo, we're no longer living in the medievel times. We are, in fact, entitled to read between the lines and form opinions, however irrational they may be at times.

Alright, sorry for the mix up.

It is time for all fans to stop defending the Orioles and start demanding that things get done. I personally won't pay a dime to see the Orioles this year.

[Lucky Jim]

Yet again, another thing where you leave off the most important part.

Based on some things we heard, the Bedard deal held us up in doing other things and those things didn't get done.

If that is the case, then holding out for one extra player was wrong IMO...it was more important to get other things done.

But if he wasn't handcuffed by that and it didn't prevent him from getting things done, then I have no issue with him holding out for more.

Ultimately, I believe it did handcuff AM and he probably could have done more had the Bedard thing been resolved weeks before it was, so therefore I think he did the wrong thing...especially since I don't see Butler becoming much of anything.

Well, we know the tangible benefit of the delay. What do you think the delay stopped AM from getting done?

In the end, you have to measure one against the other.

[Lucky Jim]

No, this is what RShack thinks. I was just being sarcastic.

He's right in a lot of ways, but is never willing to acknowledge the possibility that AM or the O's made a mistake, not without substantial black & white evidence. In large part it's good for him to balance out some of the arguments on this board at times. But OTOH it gets old real quick when it's the same old same old 24/7 with regards to defending the O's no matter what.

He always says things like "there's zero reason to think that, based on the facts", etc. He didn't get the memo, we're no longer living in the medievel times. We are, in fact, entitled to read between the lines and form opinions, however irrational they may be at times.

You know, a lot of us seem like defense attorneys because of the relentless prosecution. At one point this week there were five or six distinct threads that were calling the O's FO frauds, imbeciles, liars and "#$%^heads.

As Stotle noted yesterday, the less we know what the FO is doing, the better the job the FO is doing (provided it's doing something). And yet this board clamors that the absence of noise is the absence of activity.

Trees may be falling in the forest left and right even if we're not there to hear them.

But you're right - it's possible to be too one sided. I think there's an argument that AM is too methodical. And there's a real risk of not-insignificant (though perhaps not substantial) opportunity costs in his methodology. But those concerns would seem to be somewhat allayed by the fact that AM has been working on multiple things at one time this offseason.

Frankly, if things were slower in the past, it's not unlikely that it's because he didn't have the people around him he was willing to delegate too. (Just a guess - more speculation, of course).

The other legitimate criticism is that AM wants too much in return (that he wants to "win" trades). There's evidence that he works for extra, to be sure (Butler, for instance). I'm not sure he's trying to win the trades, so much as diversify his risk in a manner that makes internal sense.

Again, though, it's easy to say he wants too much: asking for evidence of SOME cost isn't beyond the pale, I don't think.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between, as always.

[RShack]

No, this is what RShack thinks. I was just being sarcastic.

He's right in a lot of ways, but is never willing to acknowledge the possibility that AM or the O's made a mistake, not without substantial black & white evidence.

It doesn't have to be firm black-and-white evidence.

But for people to make these crazy claims, I think there should be *some* evidence.

So, what mistakes do we have *any* reason to think he made last off-season?

In the matter at hand, AM accomplished a great deal last season.

He made more important trades than most do, and he improved both the team and the farm system in multiple ways.

Yet we're somehow supposed to believe he goofed up by doing what he did?

We're supposed to believe that he had concrete opportunities to accomplish more, and he somehow blew it?

Now, pray tell, what evidence of *any* kind is there to support that? Any?

Or is it just a case of some folks deciding that whatever he did wasn't enough?

You tell me.

Without any plausible argument to the contrary, here's what the facts tell me:

AM did *better* than the specific recommendations that SG made.

Yet, he nonetheless blew it anyway, by failing to make Mystery Deals that nobody knows anything about.

Now, do you think that really makes sense?

Or is it just sour grapes in the face of success, coming from somebody who can't admit it when an O's GM succeeds?

Even in the face of important successes, AM somehow failed.

Don't you think that's kinda funny? Sounds like Imaginary Failure to me...

[The Rick]

It doesn't have to be firm black-and-white evidence.

But for people to make these crazy claims, I think there should be *some* evidence.

So, what mistakes do we have *any* reason to think he made last off-season?

In the matter at hand, AM accomplished a great deal last season.

He made more important trades than most do, and he improved both the team and the farm system in multiple ways.

Yet we're somehow supposed to believe he goofed up by doing what he did?

We're supposed to believe that he had concrete opportunities to accomplish more, and he somehow blew it?

Now, pray tell, what evidence of *any* kind is there to support that? Any?

Or is it just a case of some folks deciding that whatever he did wasn't enough?

You tell me.

Without any plausible argument to the contrary, here's what the facts tell me:

AM did *better* than the specific recommendations that SG made.

Yet, he nonetheless blew it anyway, by failing to make Mystery Deals that nobody knows anything about.

Now, do you think that really makes sense?

Or is it just sour grapes in the face of success, coming from somebody who can't admit it when an O's GM succeeds?

Even in the face of important successes, AM somehow failed.

Don't you think that's kinda funny? Sounds like Imaginary Failure to me...

Remember my "eat crow" thread from last off-season? I'm a supporter of AM, I think he's far better than anyone we've had in a while and has us headed in the right direction.

With that being said, I think people are entitled to their opinions and don't always have to have hard evidence to support it. You can't live with that idea, when the reality is if someone wants to put themselves out there and make unsubstantiated claims, with solid reason behind them, they're putting their selves out there for scrutiny when/if they prove to be way off-base.

BTW, I think the argument that because AM took so much time to squeeze Butler it cost AM other moves is a poor one. But there is some logic there. However, no one knows.

Lucky Jim - great post!

[RShack]

BTW, I think the argument that because AM took so much time to squeeze Butler it cost AM other moves is a poor one. But there is some logic there.

I suppose it comes down to what you mean by "some logic".

To me, there's a big diff between "theoretically possible" vs. "plausible".

When it comes to plausible, here's what I would like to know...

Over the last, oh, 50 years, who are the GM's who made 3 important trades in a single offseason?

Not talking about moving around marginal people, but about trades that actually made a difference that actually mattered.

The Top 5 examples would be:

1. ???

2. ???

3. ???

4. ???

5. ???

Personally, I don't remember it happening. (But that doesn't mean much, since I don't study these things.)

However, to consider it to be plausible, I think we'd need to have a list of examples to indicate that such things can and do actually happen.

[Lucky Jim]

I suppose it comes down to what you mean by "some logic".

To me, there's a big diff between "theoretically possible" vs. "plausible".

When it comes to plausible, here's what I would like to know...

Over the last, oh, 50 years, who are the GM's who made 3 important trades in a single offseason?

Not talking about moving around marginal people, but about trades that actually made a difference that actually mattered.

The Top 5 examples would be:

1. ???

2. ???

3. ???

4. ???

5. ???

Personally, I don't remember it happening. (But that doesn't mean much, since I don't study these things.)

However, to consider it to be plausible, I think we'd need to have a list of examples to indicate that such things can and do actually happen.

You'd also need to determine whether the gain from that hypothetical third trade would be greater than adding Butler (a projectable 6'7 lefty). Doubtful that's the case.

[The Rick]

I suppose it comes down to what you mean by "some logic".

To me, there's a big diff between "theoretically possible" vs. "plausible".

When it comes to plausible, here's what I would like to know...

Over the last, oh, 50 years, who are the GM's who made 3 important trades in a single offseason?

Not talking about moving around marginal people, but about trades that actually made a difference that actually mattered.

The Top 5 examples would be:

1. ???

2. ???

3. ???

4. ???

5. ???

Personally, I don't remember it happening. (But that doesn't mean much, since I don't study these things.)

However, to consider it to be plausible, I think we'd need to have a list of examples to indicate that such things can and do actually happen.

I'm arguing mostly in principal with you, so I'm speaking more theoretically possible. But you choose to ignore most of what I say to continue to make the same point you've been trying to make ever since you've been posting on OH. We get it!