The worm has turned...

[camdenyardblues]

I hear what you are saying and agree to a point. However, I've got a few counterpoints.

It isn't insincere or lacking integrity to defend decisions that you didn't agree with behind closed doors. Adults in leadership roles understand that you can say what you want (within reason) behind closed doors when discussing what to do. However, when the team decides on a course of action and begins to broadcast the decisions that are made, mature leaders back those decisions arduously without caveat regardless of what side they fought on behind closed doors. Statements like "we decided to do X but I was a dissenting opinion" simply will not work.

I agree. Living in a democracy means losing sometimes. Just because your boss goes in a different direction and if you don't back your boss doesn't make you a yes man. It could make you a team player.

[boogidownoriole]

Hey did this thread break some record? It is frozen now at 5000 views

[RShack]

I question anyone who would work for Peter Angelos and not be given the authority to carry out one's responsibilities.

If I had a boss like PA, I'd meet with him privately and demand to be given the authority to do my job. If I didn't get it, I'd quit. Simple as that.

I would not publicly defend my boss's actions if I did not agree with them. That would be insincere and lacking integrity. That said, I wouldn't publicly slam my boss either. I'd just go find a new boss that would let me do my job.

Hope that clears things up. By the way, I have always been the kind of leader/boss that my people like to work with but sometimes I make life difficult for my superiors if they're just looking for a yes-man they can micromanage.

Sapper, you've relapsed back into black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking. Authority is rarely absolute unless you are the owner. Authority is not black-and-white. Every GM deals with shades of gray. They all have authority up to a given point and a requirement to check with the big boss for things beyond that point. This is true of virtually any subordinate in virtually any situation, including the military and engineering cultures which are the ones you seem to be familiar with. You know this already.

It's also a bit disingenuous to imply that Flanagan is somehow lacking in integrity because he doesn't fall on his sword whenever he doesn't get his own way. Committing hari-kari because you have failed to convince the boss to agree with you is not a sign of integrity, it's a sign of stupidity... unless there is some ethical or moral issue involved. Disagreeing about a ballplayer now and then is not an ethical or moral issue.

[Sapper]

Sapper, you've relapsed back into black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking. Authority is rarely absolute unless you are the owner. Authority is not black-and-white. Every GM deals with shades of gray. They all have authority up to a given point and a requirement to check with the big boss for things beyond that point. This is true of virtually any subordinate in virtually any situation, including the military and engineering cultures which are the ones you seem to be familiar with. You know this already.

It's also a bit disingenuous to imply that Flanagan is somehow lacking in integrity because he doesn't fall on his sword whenever he doesn't get his own way. Committing hari-kari because you have failed to convince the boss to agree with you is not a sign of integrity, it's a sign of stupidity... unless there is some ethical or moral issue involved. Disagreeing about a ballplayer now and then is not an ethical or moral issue.

Let me boil this down. Do the Orioles' GMs during the PA era have the authority to run the team or do we collectively, as the fanbase, think he micromanages too much?

If you think he steps on his GM's toes when it comes to baseball decisions then somebody who works under those conditions is a lapdog. Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

Now if PA made business decisions unrelated to the roster that the GM may disagree with, would I expect him to defend those decisions publicly? Probably because those are decisions that are appropriate for the owner to make and he's the boss.

But if I were the GM and the owner had a habit of butting into decisions that I thought were part of MY responsibilities as GM and I didn't agree with those decisions but yet were still being held accountable for the results, I wouldn't be working under those conditions too long.

So should you undercut your boss publicly? No. That's not what I said. Should you support his decisions as it relates to HIS responsibilities? Within reason, yes, of course. Should you support decisions he's making for you that YOU are responsible for? Not necessarily.

I'll give you an example from my military career: When I was a platoon leader should my squad leaders support my decisions when it came to my responsibilities of planning and leading the platoon? Yes, as long as I was reasonable. Should they support me if I'm telling their individual squad members that they're directly responsible for how to tie their bootlaces and I'm not right? No. I'd expect them to have words with me and if they didn't get satisfaction to take it up with the Company leadership because at that time I wouldn't be allowing them to do their jobs.

[camdenyardblues]

Let me boil this down. Do the Orioles' GMs during the PA era have the authority to run the team or do we collectively, as the fanbase, think he micromanages too much?

Unless somebody here works inside the FO, nobody can really settle this point. The only thing we can form are impressions from the media and I've heard that the Angelos generally lets Flanagan run the show. There are exceptions but these are exceptions, not the trend.

Now if PA made business decisions unrelated to the roster that the GM may disagree with, would I expect him to defend those decisions publicly? Probably because those are decisions that are appropriate for the owner to make and he's the boss.

But if I were the GM and the owner had a habit of butting into decisions that I thought were part of MY responsibilities as GM and I didn't agree with those decisions but yet were still being held accountable for the results, I wouldn't be working under those conditions too long.

So should you undercut your boss publicly? No. That's not what I said. Should you support his decisions as it relates to HIS responsibilities? Within reason, yes, of course. Should you support decisions he's making for you that YOU are responsible for? Not necessarily.

Like I said before, Angelos does occassionally butt into player acquisitions decisions but he doesn't make a habit of doing it. If you could list examples from the Flanagan era, please do. I can only think of two. He made the FO choose Wade Townsend when they wanted some high school shortstop. And if I remember correctly, this information was leaked and the FO was pissed. In other words, they didn't support decisions that Angelos was making that the FO was responsible. And second, the rumor has it that he ordered that Bautista be traded. He also nixed the Burnett trade but every owner has that right. I wouldn't be surprised other owners do all the time but the media doesn't report (or buries it in some notebook paragraph) unless it involves Angelos. As far as I can tell this doesn't constitute a "habit" but if I'm missing examples from the Flanagan era, please give them.

[Echoes]

Bump. :002_stongue:

[Sapper]

Our farm system is showing promise

Our front office is being aggresive

Our players are kicking ass in the WBC

Our staff is responding to Mazzone (just read the interviews)

The perception that guys dont want to come here is gone.

There is so much talent on this team that is not "crazy" to think this team can be exciting this year and even stay in the WC race.

Despite what some, actually very few, posters seem to feel, this team is headed in the right direction. What a difference 5 months can make.

10 months later, do you still think so?

[The Wedge]

Oh come on. Seriously? A bump for a 7 month old thread to get all "I told you so"?

That's kind of cheap.

Correction: 10 months orginally, 7 months since it last saw activity.

[srock]

10 months later, do you still think so?

Actually, I do.

I'm not thrilled with the speed at which the organization is progressing, but improvement is improvement none the less.

[glenn__davis]

Good lord, Sapper. Do you have post-its all around your desk telling you which people said what and when?

[Fairfax Bird]

10 months later, do you still think so?

Classic Sapper. I told you so, lets go back and bring back every thread for more I told you sos.

[Sapper]

Good lord, Sapper. Do you have post-its all around your desk telling you which people said what and when?

Yup, like when you whined about the last time I bumped an old thread:

http://www.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40857

[glenn__davis]

Yup, like when you whined about the last time I bumped an old thread:

http://www.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40857

Nah, I wasn't referring to one particular thread at that time, just a general theme. I referenced you because you do it the most often, and I was making a bit of a joke.

[Sapper]

Nah, I wasn't referring to one particular thread at that time, just a general theme. I referenced you because you do it the most often, and I was making a bit of a joke.

I'm just pulling your leg. Oftentimes people just don't realize that I just like to stir things up. I'm always laughing as I post. I'm not some grouchy old canker sitting in a corner waiting to be negative most of the time.

This particular time I just hit the "last" button on the threads list and this one caught my eye.

[glenn__davis]

I'm just pulling your leg. Oftentimes people just don't realize that I just like to stir things up.

You don't say!

I'm well aware of what you do, which is why I usually give a quick a chuckle and move on, but to bring up a 7 month old thread has to be some sort of record.