Regarding MacPhail

[LookinUp]

Next offseason the pitching must be priority. It's a lost cause in 2009, but at elast the offense and defense looks very promising, especially in 2010, 2011, 2012

Assuming continued progression and no rash of injuries to our internal options, I disagree with this portion of your post. So, next offseason should hopefully not be about acquiring external pitching options. It should be about filling our other infield holes.

I think 2010 will be all about our young pitching. Indeed, I think 2009 will be as well, just with lower expectations.

[RShack]

I just think some of MacPhail's detractors have unrealistic expectations of what a GM can achieve in a relatively short amount of time.

Exactly. That's probably about 80% of it, right there.

They don't realize how hard it is to make deals agreeable to both sides.

They don't realize that the only way to make a bunch of them fast is to give away the store.

[LookinUp]

I just think some of MacPhail's detractors have unrealistic expectations of what a GM can achieve in a relatively short amount of time. 10 years of horrible management takes a little while to fix. 2 years just isn't enough time to judge him on, regardless of what he's done.

BTW, welcome to plus membership!

[Mackus]

2 years just isn't enough time to judge him on, regardless of what he's done.

It most certainly is.

2 years is a very long time. Additionally, he should be judged on every single move. Each move should get an individual grade or judgement made about it. And then we should figure out how that move fits in with what the overall plan is and should be.

MacPhail is doing a nice job of rebuilding the team. He's made some very good moves. He's also done some things or missed out on some things that I think we poor moves. The good outweighs the bad so far, IMO, and I really like the direction that he's seemingly taking the team.

[murrayfan420]

BTW, welcome to plus membership!

Thanks buddddddddddy.

[TiredofLosing20]

Exactly. That's probably about 80% of it, right there.

They don't realize how hard it is to make deals agreeable to both sides.

They don't realize that the only way to make a bunch of them fast is to give away the store.

I know right, I mean how many deals happen quickly. I mean honestly maybe if we knew everything we would think that MacPhail has done a horrible job. Maybe he turned down Sherril for Cole Hamels straight up. Maybe he was offered Longoria and Crawford for Reimold and turned it down. We do not know for sure what was on the table from the Cubs for BRob.

The point is we do not know what actual deals have been on the table. All we know is what he has done and what he has done has indeed improved us regardless of whatever time period someone arbitrarily puts on us.

Giving AM props for the deals he has made doesn't make us sheep, but judging performance based on fantasyland trades that one concocts in ones head with no knowledge of whether they are even remotely plausible is ridiculous and quite frankly dilusional.

I am guessing those who are basing their negative opinion based on imaginary trade scenarios would find it quite unfair to have their job performance based on their bosses imaginary perception of what they could have done differently without having ANY facts.

[jcroemer]

Assuming continued progression and no rash of injuries to our internal options, I disagree with this portion of your post. So, next offseason should hopefully not be about acquiring external pitching options. It should be about filling our other infield holes.

I think 2010 will be all about our young pitching. Indeed, I think 2009 will be as well, just with lower expectations.

Let me post-script that, because you are right. If our prospects aren't ready to go, we need solid one or two-year options. I couldn't imagine a taller task.

Here's hoping the middle infielders of the future present themselves by 1/20/10.

[jcroemer]

Exactly. That's probably about 80% of it, right there.

They don't realize how hard it is to make deals agreeable to both sides.

They don't realize that the only way to make a bunch of them fast is to give away the store.

Kind of like Syd Thrift did in 2000?

[glorydays]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMShvQa4SI0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMShvQa4SI0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Perhaps Sports Guy is a sheep too...

[LookinUp]

Let me post-script that, because you are right. If our prospects aren't ready to go, we need solid one or two-year options. I couldn't imagine a taller task.

Here's hoping the middle infielders of the future present themselves by 1/20/10.

Agreed. The Orioles have been such a fascinating franchise to watch over the last couple of years because there's sooooo much room for improvement. This season will be no different. We'll have Pie, Weiters, Jones and several young pitchers to watch in Baltimore. We'll have several more young pitchers, Rowell, Snyder, Hoes, Reimold, Miclat, Turner and others to watch in the minors. It's just awesome to be a somewhat knowledgable fan of this team right now.

BTW, the reason I gave AM an A in the other poll was because he's probably made about 50 moves since he's been GM and I am fully supportive of about 95% of them. He didn't get Roberts or Brady (high school draft pick) done, but I personally like just about every other move. I'm judging him on what he's done, and it's all good.

[TiredofLosing20]

Kind of like Syd Thrift did in 2000?

Exactly like Syd Thrift did in 2000. Looking back at the selloff at the 2000 deadline, I found one contributor (Melvin Mora) of the 14 players that the Os got back. Doing deals to do deals is part of how we got ourselves where we are today.

If 3 of those 14 (including Mora) had turned into something maybe we wouldn't have been talking about 11 straight losing seasons.

[Ooooooohhhh!!!!]

The point is we do not know what actual deals have been on the table. All we know is what he has done and what he has done has indeed improved us regardless of whatever time period someone arbitrarily puts on us.

While I agree that we can't judge AM on rumors and speculation, it is also part of his job to improve the team.

Taking this to an extreme, imagine if the only move AM made during his tenure was to extend Markakis. We'd still have Tejada, we'd still have Bedard, and we'd still have Ramon. Would you still grade AM the same way?

Perhaps AM has made good decisions in turning down certain trade offers. Conversely he may have turned down trade offers that in hindsight we wish we had accepted. It works both ways.

[TiredofLosing20]

While I agree that we can't judge AM on rumors and speculation, it is also part of his job to improve the team.

Taking this to an extreme, imagine if the only move AM made during his tenure was to extend Markakis. We'd still have Tejada, we'd still have Bedard, and we'd still have Ramon. Would you still grade AM the same way?

Perhaps AM has made good decisions in turning down certain trade offers. Conversely he may have turned down trade offers that in hindsight we wish we had accepted. It works both ways.

I agree but I think you illustrate my point. I think I even state that if we knew everything I may judge him differenty (i.e Sherrill for Hamels)

You can only judge him on whether he has improved the team or not. If you look at what he has done can you make a case that he has not improved the team? Now I will say that if all he had done is signed Markakis then I think you could argue that he hadn't improved the team and thus I would judge him differently.

To say that he hasn't done anything in 11 months and use that as your main argument against him to me is irrational (not even getting into what gains he made in scouting and internationally).

Would I have liked to move Huff or Sherrill or Scott, yes but only if what you are getting in return makes sense, not just to be able to say he did something in the last 11 months.

[Sports Guy]

I just think some of MacPhail's detractors have unrealistic expectations of what a GM can achieve in a relatively short amount of time. 10 years of horrible management takes a little while to fix. 2 years just isn't enough time to judge him on, regardless of what he's done.

Beane did it...Proves it can be done...And Beane doesn't have a pathetic organization that has had 11 years of losing...He is aggressive and gets deals done.

I think the difference is I expect more than many of you and am not happy just because he is better than the bad FO's before him.

You are satisfied with that and that's fine...I'm not.

[Mark Carver]

Beane did it...Proves it can be done...And Beane doesn't have a pathetic organization that has had 11 years of losing...He is aggressive and gets deals done.

I think the difference is I expect more than many of you and am not happy just because he is better than the bad FO's before him.

You are satisfied with that and that's fine...I'm not.

Your right Beane didn't inherit 11 years of sub .500 ball and a pathetic farm system like MacPhail has inherited.

In 1992 Oakland was 96-66 and that was followed up with 5 years of below .500 ball. Beane took over in October of 1997, and the A's went 74-88 in 1998. Beane's 2nd year in Oakland, the team went 87-75.

By my standard, this is MacPhail's 2nd full year with the Orioles...