Jump to content

Andy MacPhail - Disappointing GM


JTrea81

Recommended Posts

Not going crazy, but adding parts. We did it in 1996, 1997 and the Red Sox have been adding FAs and have been in the playoffs consistantly over the past decade.

That model works. We don't know if this one will work in the AL East. Just look at the Rays who won't make the playoffs despite their young talent.

The Red Sox traded for Pedro Martinez and signed Manny Ramirez and that started their revival. They took some percieved big risks to put their franchise back on the map, and it paid off.

In the three years before trading for Pedro they were a 78-86 win team.

In the three years before signing Manny they were a 92, 94, and 85 win team.

That's not taking a risk. That's trying to get someone to put you over the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 307
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Doubtful, I certainly never made the argument to sign Lowe, and you picked one case out of many. Lowe is but one guy who we didn't sign, rightfully so, but there were many other examples of guys we could have signed, but didn't, if we only had stepped up our efforts.

MSK

For instance? Who should we have signed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are the questions that the kool aid drinkers never will give a real answer to.

MSK

1) I don't find it amazing at all that they didn't go all in for Teixiera when he would have cost close to $200M, required a contract of 7+ years, and the Orioles were still a year or two from plausibly contending. Basically the O's would be signing one of the largest contracts in history for a window of 2-3 years where Teixiera would still be an impact player and the O's were in contention.

2) MacPhail should be more aggressive with future free agents because the investment is much more likely to be worthwhile. 2010-11 and 2011-12 free agents will hopefully be the ones that push a 85-win team to playoff revenue streams. Mark Teixiera would have pushed the 2009 Orioles to 68-73 wins, and about $3.75 in new revenues. And in 2010 he might have put them in fringy contention, but not 90+ wins. Then he'll be 31+ when the O's are (hopefully) contending.

3) We have to hope he'll sign or otherwise acquire talent because that's what it takes to win. There aren't any guarantees, but I don't know how you can look at his track record in Baltimore and come to the conclusion that he's going to draw a line in the sand and say "I'll do this much to make the team better, but not any more!"

Was that a real answer, or don't I count as a kool aid drinker? I thought anyone who wasn't harshly critical of the organization drinks the kool aid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not going crazy, but adding parts. We did it in 1996, 1997 and the Red Sox have been adding FAs and have been in the playoffs consistantly over the past decade.

That model works. We don't know if this one will work in the AL East. Just look at the Rays who won't make the playoffs despite their young talent.

The Red Sox traded for Pedro Martinez and signed Manny Ramirez and that started their revival. They took some percieved big risks to put their franchise back on the map, and it paid off.

You do realize the Sox were an up and coming team in 1998-2000 (finished 2nd 3-straight years), which enticed Manny to sign there. And they got Pedro when he was approaching free agency by giving up top pitching prospects in Carl Pavano and Tony Armas.

Right now the O's aren't in a position to entice FA's to sign here. And why should we overpay??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now where is the guarantee that if we go with all homegrown players at various points of their development, that we will win 80-85 games in the AL East? Don't say Tampa because we don't have an "Orioles" to beat up on like they did.

We need to sign premium FAs to get us to 80-85 wins IMO because there is no guarantee that we will reach that mark with all homegrown, young cheap talent.

And I make this crtique because never in the history of MacPhail's tenure overseeing a team was he aggressive in pursuing premium FA talent even when the Cubs needed pieces to put them over the top for the playoffs. He never added that premium bat or arm, choosing to go with lesser pieces.

The track record isn't there.

You keep bringing up his Cubs track record - and its just way off base. He might not of signed any HUGE free agents, but he traded for similar players, see Derek Lee. And he also, btw signed him to a long term deal. So you are saying if we get Adrian Gonzalez, it doesn't count because we traded for him and didn't sign him as a FA?

The upcoming FA market just isn't that spectacular this year, and there are other places to get talent than the FA market, so if we need to get the players through a trade and not the FA market, I'm fine with that.

I just think your criticsm is premature. If he hasn't done anything by March 1st, I say open the flood gates. Until then you have to give the guy a chance. You are right on one account: Doing all those things you mentioned would've gotten us to 80-85 wins. However we would've plateaued right there; sitting on our thumbs in october, again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) I don't find it amazing at all that they didn't go all in for Teixiera when he would have cost close to $200M, required a contract of 7+ years, and the Orioles were still a year or two from plausibly contending. Basically the O's would be signing one of the largest contracts in history for a window of 2-3 years where Teixiera would still be an impact player and the O's were in contention.

2) MacPhail should be more aggressive with future free agents because the investment is much more likely to be worthwhile. 2010-11 and 2011-12 free agents will hopefully be the ones that push a 85-win team to playoff revenue streams. Mark Teixiera would have pushed the 2009 Orioles to 68-73 wins, and about $3.75 in new revenues. And in 2010 he might have put them in fringy contention, but not 90+ wins. Then he'll be 31+ when the O's are (hopefully) contending.

3) We have to hope he'll sign or otherwise acquire talent because that's what it takes to win. There aren't any guarantees, but I don't know how you can look at his track record in Baltimore and come to the conclusion that he's going to draw a line in the sand and say "I'll do this much to make the team better, but not any more!"

Was that a real answer, or don't I count as a kool aid drinker? I thought anyone who wasn't harshly critical of the organization drinks the kool aid.

I just read on ESPN.com that Texeira told the press that if Andy MacPhail and Dave Trembley had took him and his wife to a nice place for dinner that he would have come here in a heartbeat. But only if they included a bottle of wine that perfectly complimented a medium-rare Filet Mignon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) The Orioles fanbase had been deprived of a quality GM for so long, that the slightest appearance of competence gets met with resounding applause and an overestimation of quality. AM is a very smart baseball guy, and so far, I trust his decision-making abilities when it comes to rebuilding a franchise infrastructure. However, he does not seem as willing to go after FA talent on the level that Cashman or Epstein (who control our two strongest rivals) does. Once again, I believe that the problem that some have with AM is his laid-back approach in pursuing elite-level FAs.

2) We are giving AM way too much credit for doing what a GM is supposed to do. For example, let's say on a scale of 1 to 10 we measured the overall competence of a baseball FO.

Before AM, our FO ranked around 4, and after AM, its around 7. Meanwhile, the Yanks and Red Sox are at 10 consistently and show no signs of slowing down. Granted, AM had a lot to fix, but that is not an excuse to not explore all possible options to get our team to a 9/10 level. We can't be satisfied with being just above mediocre in the AL East. Our infrastructure should have NEVER fallen to pieces in the way it did and now that AM has gotten us to the level that a typically-run baseball franchise normally operates, the fanbase should not be dancing in the streets.

I am appreciate of his efforts as are most of us here, but I will not launch fireworks for the man until we at least finish over .500.

MSK

I agree with this 100%. MacPhail is performing like an average GM and while he's improved us immensely, we were far in a hole.

And to get back to the playoffs in 2011, we realistically need to look at what MacPhail isn't doing that he needs to do to get us there.

J.P. Riccardi said it best:

This is not a division you can be good in, you have to be great in it to make the playoffs.

And right now even with the young talent pool that we have, there is no guarantee that we will be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just look at the Rays who won't make the playoffs despite their young talent.

The Rays are on pace for 88 wins. If you think there's any model that would guarantee any non-Yanks, non-Sox team more than 88 wins a year in the AL East I don't know what to tell you.

The best we can hope for is an organization that generates enough talent to win 85-90 games a year, and every few years a team like that will overachieve and make the playoffs. Anything more than that would require the importation of about 5 million rich people to Baltimore City.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I make this crtique because never in the history of MacPhail's tenure overseeing a team was he aggressive in pursuing premium FA talent even when the Cubs needed pieces to put them over the top for the playoffs. He never added that premium bat or arm, choosing to go with lesser pieces.

The track record isn't there.

This guy says hello...

<img src="http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/img/soriano_leg.jpg">

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this 100%. MacPhail is performing like an average GM and while he's improved us immensely, we were far in a hole.

And to get back to the playoffs in 2011, we realistically need to look at what MacPhail isn't doing that he needs to do to get us there.

J.P. Riccardi said it best:

So you're saying that an average MLB GM would have taken one of the worst organizations in the league and in 2-3 years infused tons of young talent and put them on the verge of a winning team in the AL East?

What, a good GM would have actually had us in the playoffs this year and built a #1 farm system at the same time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These criticisms are such nonsense.

First of all, you're foolishly assuming that the strategies he's used in FA while the Orioles were in a clear rebuilding phase are the exact same as the ones he'll use once we are trying to add premium FA talent to push us over the top. That's a logical fallacy, although you're a walking logical fallacy so I suppose it should be expected.

His emphasis on pitching is a great thing. He's not ignoring hitting, he's just opting for pitching prospects if all other things are equal. That isn't a mistake. We can't spend dollar for dollar with the teams ahead of us, so we have to get undervalued production. By far the best way to do that is to get it from cheap, pre-arb and arb pitching. FA hitting produces much more consistently than FA pitching. I know you don't think that's true, but just because you refuse to believe obvious facts doesn't make it any less factual.

"Buy the bats, grow the arms" is obviously a smart move. Now if a good arm comes along we certainly should be involved in going after them, and MacPhail has already said he would love to sign an arm if the right guy is there. Again this is a result of the fact that FA hitters are much more reliable and more likely to be worth their contracts than FA pitching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's only disappointing if you built him up to a ridiculous extent as our savior and then didn't have the patience to go along with all the adulation that was heaped on him when he came here. The way I see it, he's about an average GM, which is a lot better than we've had since Gillick left. I've never been a MacPhail McPhan, but he has stabilized a lot of things about the organization that were previously a huge mess and he's plodding along trying to make the right moves to continue the long and painful rebuilding process. I kind of get the sense though that all that really matters is that he didn't sign one other individual desperate O's fans looked to as an instant savior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • Posts

    • It's fine, but I would personally prefer having Cowser and Adley taking tons of pitches back-to-back before Gunnar further punishes the opposing starting pitcher with high exit velo barrels. 
    • I was going to say pretty much the same thing about Cowser in my post, but left out my thoughts to keep the post more Gunnar-centric. But I totally agree that Cowser fits the best as this team's leadoff hitter, especially since Holliday doesn't look like he's going to make an impact offensively as early as most of us thought heading into the season.  Going back to last season, I've said Cowser has the best mix of patience, hit tool, power, and speed to be a great leadoff hitter. The strikeouts are most likely always going to be high with him, but he has .380-.400+ OBP makeup, and having someone like that hitting leadoff with Adley and Gunnar hitting directly behind Cowser is going to set things up for an elite offense which is much more dynamic and less one-dimensional than the what we've seen up until this point. Cowser Adley Gunnar Westburg O'Hearn Santander Mountcastle Is an ideal top 7 against RHP for right now, with Kjerstad (replacing Hays) and Mayo (essentially replacing Mateo and bumping Westburg to 2B) making the lineup legitimately scary within the next couple months. Mullins and Hays need to be phased out, with Santander and Mountcastle not far behind if those two continue struggling and not reaching base enough to justify hitting in the middle of the order.
    • A lot of teams (likely driven by analytics) are putting their best overall hitter at 2 (like the Yankees batting Soto 2, and the Dodgers batting Shohei 2) to maximize ABs while guaranteeing that a high-OBP guy is batting in front of him to give him opportunities with men on base.  That's probably what we want.  It seems logical considering how thoroughly debunked small-ball in the first inning has been.  Rutschman at 3 is fine.
    • Realistically I think Adley as the leadoff guy is the best lineup for us but if he has trouble batting leadoff in half the games because he can't get his catcher's gear off fast enough then I get it.   Cowser has continued to be incredibly patient, and if Adley can't be our leadoff guy then Cowser is probably our next best option.  Of course Cowser also hits a lot of bombs, so it'd be interesting if he goes on another heater.   If Cowser gets off the schneid then Cowser leadoff and Gunnar at 2 could be incredibly potent.  I don't think Cowser is actually playing that badly, he's just been running into some bad luck.  And he's starting to wake up a little bit anyway.
    • Agreed, appreciate the stats. Gunnar isn't a leadoff hitter - he's a prototypical #3 hitter or cleanup hitter. Hyde writes poor lineups, and Gunnar hitting leadoff has been one of the consistent problems with the offense this season. Gunnar hitting mostly solo shots is both a consequence and reflection of this offense's flaws - the O's have too many low-OBP hitters in the lineup (hitting in less-than-optimal spots for the most part) and are too reliant on solo homers to generate runs. At least Hyde has started hitting Westburg leadoff against LHP, which is progress, but Hyde is way too stubborn and too slow to make the correct adjustments. He's very similar to Buck Showalter in that respect.  Anyway, I look forward to Hyde waking up and moving Gunnar down to #3/#4 against RHP.  
    • While the return on the Tettleton trade wasn't ideal, 1: I don't think you can really expect a 30 year old catcher to put up a career year and then follow it up with another one, and 2: we had Chris Hoiles who played quite well for us following Tettleton's departure.  If we had forward thinking GMs we probably would split them at C and give them DH/1B/OF games on their non catching days, which is what Detroit did with Tettleton to prolong his career after 1992.  (He was basically the same hitter from 1993-1995 but he stopped catching with regularity so his WAR was much lower.)   The Davis trade was so completely undefensible on every level, not the least of which because we already had a player who was at least as good as Davis was on the team, but he didn't fit the stereotypical batting profile of a 1B.  At least today teams wouldn't be so quick to dismiss a 10 HR first baseman if he's got an OBP of .400.
    • The Glenn Davis trade was so bad it overshadowed another really bad trade in team history. The Orioles traded Mickey Tettleton that same offseason for Jeff Robinson in part because Tettleton had an off year in 1990 with a .223 batting average and a .381 slugging percentage. Except Tettleton drew 116 walks making his OBP .376 and his OPS+ was 116. Jeff Robinson was coming off a 5.96 ERA in 145 innings pitched. I have no idea what the team was thinking with this trade. Robinson did manage to lower his ERA in 1991 to 5.18 his only Orioles season. There's no way this trade is made today in the age of analytics. Tettleton meanwhile put up 171 home runs and an .859 OPS for the remainder of his career. 😬 Just a bad trade that doesn't get talked about enough thanks to Glenn Davis.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...