Jump to content

MacPhail and Markakis

JTrea81

By JTrea81
in Orioles Talk

If Markakis isn't extended, is that the final straw?  

160 members have voted

  1. 1. If Markakis isn't extended, is that the final straw?

    • Yes, MacPhail needs to go if he can't extend Nick.
      84
    • No, Markakis probably wanted too much money and he can be traded for a ransom.
      58
    • I've already lost complete confidence in MacPhail.
      18

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Moose Milligan Hangout Grand Counsel

Moose Milligan

Posted
Posted
I want to see a plan for competing in 2010 if not sooner because we have the resources to do that. Right now I don't see that...

Matsuz, Arrieta, Tillman. IMO, it's pretty obvious we've got all our eggs in one basket and that everything hinges on them.

2009 will be the year of stopgaps and more frustration. Hopefully we won't have to endure another MDM or a 30-3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zff4 Major Leaguer

zff4

Posted
Posted

JTrea, why do I get the feeling you are asking us if we should tar and feather MacPhail right this minute or simply wait and keep the asphalt bubbling for a later date that you haven't yet determined?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BaltimoreTerp Hangout Grand Counsel

BaltimoreTerp

Posted
Posted
Matsuz, Arrieta, Tillman. IMO, it's pretty obvious we've got all our eggs in one basket and that everything hinges on them.

2009 will be the year of stopgaps and more frustration. Hopefully we won't have to endure another MDM or a 30-3.

We'll find something different to screw up like that. Bad moments happen in great years, too; just not as often nor as remembered :P

JTrea, why do I get the feeling you are asking us if we should tar and feather MacPhail right this minute or simply wait and keep the asphalt bubbling for a later date that you haven't yet determined?

Because he is doing that :laughlol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
McNulty Hangout Grand Counsel

McNulty

Posted
Posted
I want to see a plan for competing in 2011 if not sooner because we have the resources to do that. Right now I don't see that...

Asking for this is like asking a recently divorced man to lay out a detailed plan for hooking up with three new chicks within a week of his divorce being finalized. Its workable, but you'll end up with the Izturis, Hendrickson and Sexson of chicks; so to speak.

This team is like turning around an oil tanker in a puddle; you are going to have to be patient man.

Do you expect MacPhail to just come right out and lay out his plan because you will quit the team if he doesn't?

I'm so sick of this nonsense that MacPhail wants to continue having a horrible team. He wants to win, and he's proven he can do it before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lucky Jim Hangout Grand Counsel

Lucky Jim

Posted
Posted
Markakis, Jones, Tillman, Matusz, Arrieta, Wieters, Patton

These are players that are CENTRAL to MacPhail's long term goals for the team. If he fails to keep these guys around long-term then his plan fails.

He fails.

Patton? I'm not sure I see how he fits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lucky Jim Hangout Grand Counsel

Lucky Jim

Posted
Posted
Patton is a guy that he took a risk on. He will either be a real success or a complete liability. It speaks to his judgment.

I don't agree with how you're thinking about this. The risk was right to take, because it was value added to the Tejada deal. He didn't trade for Patton, he traded for the 40% chance that Patton would return to form.

You don't grade trades like that on whether the gamble pays off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...