Chicago Tribune: O's Have Improved

[Sports Guy]

Considering those two deals and the perception that we clearly got back far and beyond what we gave up and considering that we got three players for Hernandez in this offseason. I think it buys him at a minimum 12 months.

Well, we are pretty much at 12 months.

[Sunner]

The whole problem is perception, for the fan it has been 11 years but For AM it has been 18 months. If you just look at it from 18 months he has done and is laying the foundation for good things. He has given the one thing to this organization that everyone has been screaming for - direction. I hope he stays the course.

[mweb]

How long does AM get to hang his hat on the Bedard and Tejada trades before you start looking at other things?

Nothing wrong with starting to look at other things, but that's not the issue here, the issue is reaching conclusions at this arbitrary point. End of the off-season would be a more sensible date. After that, July 31 would be another important date, along with whenever the time the top international amatuers are signed.

[RShack]

Would you have been happy if we had traded Baez or Walker for nothing in August of 2007? The Bradford deal is the same thing.

I think the Bradford trade is instructive.

Lots of folks were hell-bent on AM moving vets at or near the deadline.

The unsupported claim was that trading guys who wouldn't be useful in a couple years was a no-brainer.

Well, just look at Bradford.

Either you believe AM traded him for less than he could have gotten elsewhere, or else the assumption about the positive value of in-season trades is way overblown.

[TinCup]

One thing that is indisputable (and more than obvious but merits repeating nonetheless)...more time is still needed! Yes, this has been spoken for many years already, yet we have continued to have losing seasons. Well, it goes on still. Patience is indeed a virtue with this team as you'll need much more of it. Everyone will have to just wait and buy into this methodical approach as the "big splash" improvements are seemingly very unlikely. It may not be an approach that sells well to some, but get used to it, its clearly the path this team is on at present.

[SrMeowMeow]

But we have seen results and it has been almost a full calendar year since AM did anything to improve our depth and talent for the long term.

You are telling me that this idea doesn't matter to you?

I'm not interested in arguing with you about this, I thought I made that clear. I don't think it's pleasant for other people to observe and I doubt I'm going to change your mind.

Let me say that I fully understand what you're saying. I'm not an idiot. I respectfully disagree and if you can't see the coherent position I've maintained in my posts then I really don't want to re-hash it yet again for your benefit. In the interests of clarity, here's my position on the question in one paragraph:

One, I judge AM relative to other GMs because I think the best way to evaluate anyone or anything is in the context of its peers. I would love for AM to add more talent than he has but since no known opportunity has presented itself and been missed since the last off-season, I conclude that there simply isn't that much talent out there that can be added without paying a prohibitive price. Two, I would rather judge on hard facts and past events than on unreliable sources or on supposition. To do that, I have to give people the benefit of the doubt for longer than you may be comfortable with, but I'd rather be sure of my facts.

[33rdst]

For as many Billy Beane devotees as we have on this site I find it surprising that people are reluctant to give MacPhail credit for his success in adding depth to the organization through the draft. As GM, Beane has been intimately involved in the draft for years. All GM's are closely involved in the draft especially the first round. To suggest MacPjail had no involvement in the draft is simply inaccurate.