Worse case scenario for a failed "blow up"?

[davearm]

I do believe that what matters is having talented guys running the FO. I do think THAT is the determinant of future success, not some silly slogan like "blow it up" or any other half-baked ideology. I'm sorry if you don't like that answer, but it is the one that I honestly believe is true.

There are many people who post specific suggestions about trades the FO might wish to pursue. I don't criticize any of those suggestions. I'd be happy to make specific recommendations if I felt I was informed enough to make them. My personal opinion is that trades are a 2-way street, and that it's pointless to say "trade this guy or that guy" because I think it comes down to what you can get in return, and that's stuff we don't know unless we have the phones bugged in the Warehouse. For example, I don't believe that Andy's daddy decided late in the '65 season that his goal was to trade Milt Pappas. I believe that nothing of the kind every occurred. Instead, I think they went shopping for what they wanted, considered the asking prices of various options, and decided that moving Pappas was worth it. However, I never criticize or disagree with people when they suggest specific moves. (I think you will agree that this last sentence is true if you stop and think about it for a sec.)

What I do criticize is the bandwagon idea that the cure for the O's is empty sloganeering about unrealistic "trade-everybody this winter" schemes. I think it's silly, indicates a failure to learn from history, and entirely misses the point of what is required to fix the organization. If that makes you skeptical, I'm sorry about that, but it's what I think is true.

Most people are taking that as a given, and have moved on to discussing what moves would/should be made, assuming there were talented guys running the FO.

[RShack]

First of all, for you to keep saying the idea of blowing it up is a bandwagon idea shows you to be more foolish than many of us ever thought you were...This has been a thought on here for years.

IMO, that just proves that silly bandwagon ideas can hang on for years.

Secondly, who do you think should be hired in the FO??

When Flanagan was elevated to top dog, I said that whether he would prove successful would be determined by 2 things: whether he had the baseball brains to successfully pursue a good direction, and whether he could persuade PA to let him do what he wanted. I think he did manage to make the FO somewhat better but that he failed overall to make the team significantly better. I don't know how much of his failure to do that was due to less-than-excellent baseball brains vs. failure to get PA to give him free reign. By now, that's a moot point.

I think it is significant that this summer's shakeup involved PA replacing Flanagan with MacPhail. That's way more far-reaching than changing the manager. To me, there are 2 key things about this. AM has a much better track record of baseball brains, and (perhaps most importantly) PA and AM had worked as *peers* on baseball matters. The latter gives me hope that PA will give the car keys to AM in a way that he never did with his adopted son Flanagan.

As best I can tell, the FO now has multiple very good people on board, and I want to believe that PA will give AM more control than anyone before him has had. What makes sense to me is to see if AM and his crew can do a good job. Until they have some time to show us something, I don't see why changes in the FO are warranted beyond (1) whatever post-Flanny/Duq clean-up remains to be done, and (2) whoever else AM might want to get on board to help him do his thing. I strongly believe that letting AM do his thing is what's important, not whether or not he conforms to some over-hyped message-board strategy.

[davearm]

IMO, that just proves that silly bandwagon ideas can hang on for years.

When Flanagan was elevated to top dog, I said that whether he would prove successful would be determined by 2 things: whether he had the baseball brains to successfully pursue a good direction, and whether he could persuade PA to let him do what he wanted. I think he did manage to make the FO somewhat better but that he failed overall to make the team significantly better. I don't know how much of his failure to do that was due to less-than-excellent baseball brains vs. failure to get PA to give him free reign. By now, that's a moot point.

I think it is significant that this summer's shakeup involved PA replacing Flanagan with MacPhail. That's way more far-reaching than changing the manager. To me, there are 2 key things about this. AM has a much better track record of baseball brains, and (perhaps most importantly) PA and AM had worked as *peers* on baseball matters. The latter gives me hope that PA will give the car keys to AM in a way that he never did with his adopted son Flanagan.

As best I can tell, the FO now has multiple very good people on board, and I want to believe that PA will give AM more control than anyone before him has had. What makes sense to me is to see if AM and his crew can do a good job. Until they have some time to show us something, I don't see why changes in the FO are warranted beyond (1) whatever post-Flanny/Duq clean-up remains to be done, and (2) whoever else AM might want to get on board to help him do his thing. I strongly believe that letting AM do his thing is what's important, not whether or not he conforms to some over-hyped message-board strategy.

Fair enough.

What folks are discussing here is what "his thing" should be.

[NewMarketSean]

Fair enough.

What folks are discussing here is what "his thing" should be.

But it's not as black and white as people think!!! Wah!!!!!!

[Sports Guy]

IMO, that just proves that silly bandwagon ideas can hang on for years.

Yea...It is real silly to want to get younger, cheaper and better in all aspects of the game...It is real silly to want to stop adding mediocre talent for millions.

Unreal how clueless you really are.

I strongly believe that letting AM do his thing is what's important, not whether or not he conforms to some over-hyped message-board strategy.

And what if AM wants to blow it up?

[RShack]

Most people are taking that as a given, and have moved on to discussing what moves would/should be made, assuming there were talented guys running the FO.

That might be true of you, and it might be true of some others. But that is not what the general tenor of this board has shown. Less than a month ago, many people were saying that AM's failure to make trades at the first deadline was "strike one", and that his failure to sign Wieters 48-hours before the deadline was "strike two". Various people said outright that they were unwilling to see AM as being any different from the last 10 years of FO until the team got better. You can look it up.

However, I do see a subtle change in position since the Wieters signing and after the Trax trade. This change does not involve giving up on the tired "blow it up" sloganeering, but it does involve a significant modification to what people now claim "blow it up" means. As we all should know, "blow it up" originally meant trading everydamnbody for prospects, completely writing off the next 2 or 3 seasons, and betting the store on what those prospects would do in the years to come. Lately, more-than-a-few folks appear to be redefining what "blow it up" means into something that is less ridiculous, e.g., trading some, but not all, of our good players, and trading them not just for prospects, but instead for a combination of ML-ready replacement talent and prospects. The number of "lost seasons" that the "blow it up" seems to now call for has also been reduced by a year or more. My conclusion is that AM's behavior so far has indeed caused many to change their opinion in significant ways, but that people don't want to admit that. Instead, they're backpeddling like mad, trying to rewrite history about what "blow it up" has meant around here.

[DrungoHazewood]

I do believe that what matters is having talented guys running the FO. I do think THAT is the determinant of future success, not some silly slogan like "blow it up" or any other half-baked ideology. I'm sorry if you don't like that answer, but it is the one that I honestly believe is true.

There are many people who post specific suggestions about trades the FO might wish to pursue. I don't criticize any of those suggestions. I'd be happy to make specific recommendations if I felt I was informed enough to make them. My personal opinion is that trades are a 2-way street, and that it's pointless to say "trade this guy or that guy" because I think it comes down to what you can get in return, and that's stuff we don't know unless we have the phones bugged in the Warehouse. For example, I don't believe that Andy's daddy decided late in the '65 season that his goal was to trade Milt Pappas. I believe that nothing of the kind every occurred. Instead, I think they went shopping for what they wanted, considered the asking prices of various options, and decided that moving Pappas was worth it. However, I never criticize or disagree with people when they suggest specific moves. (I think you will agree that this last sentence is true if you stop and think about it for a sec.)

What I do criticize is the bandwagon idea that the cure for the O's is empty sloganeering about unrealistic "trade-everybody this winter" schemes. I think it's silly, indicates a failure to learn from history, and entirely misses the point of what is required to fix the organization. If that makes you skeptical, I'm sorry about that, but it's what I think is true.

I always thought it was easier to just say "blow it up" than to keep repeating the same long-winded story about finding a smart management team who's willing to objectively gauge the state of the franchise, trade away any and all valuable pieces in return for the right package that'll help to move forward, while putting emphasis on undervalued players and market inefficiencies, refusing to sign stopgap players, religiously staying away from signing players because they just happen to be available that offseason and we have a hole there, steadfastly avoiding signing free agents that will sap the team of draft picks, and constantly looking to invigorate the whole organization's future by acquiring talented youth.

But if you'd rather me wear out my keyboard, maybe I'll reconsider.

[Wingman]

I do believe that what matters is having talented guys running the FO. I do think THAT is the determinant of future success, not some silly slogan like "blow it up" or any other half-baked ideology. I'm sorry if you don't like that answer, but it is the one that I honestly believe is true.

There are many people who post specific suggestions about trades the FO might wish to pursue. I don't criticize any of those suggestions. I'd be happy to make specific recommendations if I felt I was informed enough to make them. My personal opinion is that trades are a 2-way street, and that it's pointless to say "trade this guy or that guy" because I think it comes down to what you can get in return, and that's stuff we don't know unless we have the phones bugged in the Warehouse. For example, I don't believe that Andy's daddy decided late in the '65 season that his goal was to trade Milt Pappas. I believe that nothing of the kind every occurred. Instead, I think they went shopping for what they wanted, considered the asking prices of various options, and decided that moving Pappas was worth it. However, I never criticize or disagree with people when they suggest specific moves. (I think you will agree that this last sentence is true if you stop and think about it for a sec.)

What I do criticize is the bandwagon idea that the cure for the O's is empty sloganeering about unrealistic "trade-everybody this winter" schemes. I think it's silly, indicates a failure to learn from history, and entirely misses the point of what is required to fix the organization. If that makes you skeptical, I'm sorry about that, but it's what I think is true.

Of course having talented guys running the FO is the answer... But that's like saying, In order to win a beauty contest you need to be pretty...

When the "keystone" of your solution to the O's is so incredibly obvious, why would you expect to have your opinions given serious consideration and not be seen as nothing but a provacateur and an annoyance (like DH called you)?

Just because someone isn't willing to provide specifics around exactly what they mean by "blowing it up" doesn't make it a bad idea on it's face... I for one don't know the abilities of the the rest of MLB franchises and the players in their farm systems so I won't make specific suggestions. However, it's not intrinsically illogical to state in general teams the philosophy you want to see the front office adopt.

Finally, until you provide more information on what you think the FO should do besides be "smart" you should have no credibility around here...

[Sports Guy]

I always thought it was easier to just say "blow it up" than to keep repeating the same long-winded story about finding a smart management team who's willing to objectively gauge the state of the franchise, trade away any and all valuable pieces in return for the right package that'll help to move forward, while putting emphasis on undervalued players and market inefficiencies, refusing to sign stopgap players, religiously staying away from signing players because they just happen to be available that offseason and we have a hole there, steadfastly avoiding signing free agents that will sap the team of draft picks, and constantly looking to invigorate the whole organization's future by acquiring talented youth.

But if you'd rather me wear out my keyboard, maybe I'll reconsider.

Right...For rshack to not be able to figure that out is ridiculous.

Whatever, just ignore what he wants since everyone else can figure it out on their own.

[RShack]

Yea...It is real silly to want to get younger, cheaper and better in all aspects of the game...It is real silly to want to stop adding mediocre talent for millions... Unreal how clueless you really are.

Will you please stop putting absurd all-or-nothing comments into my mouth. I never thought what you are attributing to me. Nobody is against getting younger and better. Nobody thinks we should spend truckloads of money on lousy guys. Where do you get this stuff? Don't you know how to have a decent argument?

What I and some others are against is your implausible overall scheme that ignores the need to strike some reasonable balance between near-term and long-term priorities. Every single franchise in history that has been a consistent contender balances near-term and long-term needs. Only in the scary world of SG's brain does this not hold true.

And what if AM wants to blow it up?

It depends on which definition of "blow it up" we're using this week.

I am confident that there is zero chance that he will opt to conform to the radical definition that has been used by many until quite recently.

He may or may not act in a way that is consistent with the newer and much-more-moderate definition that has recently become fashionable, a newer definition that hardly fits the destructive label "blow it up". I wouldn't be at all surprised if he does the latter, but I don't really know.

If he does, I would kinda expect it to feature the old classical model of "D up the middle and O at the corners" but, again, I don't know what he will do. If he does do that, I expect it will make a lot of people mad, simply because I think some folks are more imprinted on Earl's comment about 3-run HR's than they are on the the P-and-D philosophy that was the cornerstone of what Andy watched his daddy do around here. That philosophy was the organizational mantra that helped in rapidly turning the forever-lousy Browns into the best organization in baseball.

[RShack]

I always thought it was easier to just say "blow it up" than to keep repeating the same long-winded story about finding a smart management team who's willing to objectively gauge the state of the franchise, trade away any and all valuable pieces in return for the right package that'll help to move forward, while putting emphasis on undervalued players and market inefficiencies, refusing to sign stopgap players, religiously staying away from signing players because they just happen to be available that offseason and we have a hole there, steadfastly avoiding signing free agents that will sap the team of draft picks, and constantly looking to invigorate the whole organization's future by acquiring talented youth.

But if you'd rather me wear out my keyboard, maybe I'll reconsider.

The problem is not that you wish to use some shorthand for a sound set of ideas. The problem is that the specific shorthand phrase you choose to use for that sound set of principles does not convey the ideas you intend it to stand for. Other people use the same shorthand phrase to mean something quite different. In effect, "blow it up" is used by so many people to mean so many different things that it has become equivalent to noise.

Rather than wear out your keyboard, maybe it would better to come up with a better shorthand phrase, one that represents what you mean to say, and one that is not tied to a one-dimensional slogan that ignores baseball history. Wouldn't that be better?

[Sports Guy]

Will you please stop putting absurd all-or-nothing comments into my mouth. I never thought what you are attributing to me. Nobody is against getting younger and better. Nobody thinks we should spend truckloads of money on lousy guys. Where do you get this stuff? Don't you know how to have a decent argument?

Well, you are crying that people want to trade a lot of older players, players who won't be here when we contend and players who just suck. So, obviously you like this plan that we are currently doing.

Of course, people keep calling you out and asking what you want to do and you cowardly don't answer them or give them some answer of we need someone smart to be in there.

Why don't you just ignore these threads?

[Sports Guy]

The problem is not that you wish to use some shorthand for a sound set of ideas. The problem is that the specific shorthand phrase you choose to use for that sound set of principles does not convey the ideas you intend it to stand for. Other people use the same shorthand phrase to mean something quite different. In effect, "blow it up" is used by so many people to mean so many different things that it has become equivalent to noise.

Rather than wear out your keyboard, maybe it would better to come up with a better shorthand phrase, one that represents what you mean to say, and one that is not tied to a one-dimensional slogan that ignores baseball history. Wouldn't that be better?

Why on earth should Drungo, or anyone else, change what they want to say because you can't figure out what they are saying?

Perhaps you should stop your crying, read what people are saying and attempt to talk about baseball(i know it may be hard for you to do but try it).

[DrungoHazewood]

The problem is not that you wish to use some shorthand for a sound set of ideas. The problem is that the specific shorthand phrase you choose to use for that sound set of principles does not convey the ideas you intend it to stand for. Other people use the same shorthand phrase to mean something quite different. In effect, "blow it up" is used by so many people to mean so many different things that it has become equivalent to noise.

Rather than wear out your keyboard, maybe it would better to come up with a better shorthand phrase, one that represents what you mean to say, and one that is not tied to a one-dimensional slogan that ignores baseball history. Wouldn't that be better?

I think I'll just stick with blow it up.

[NewMarketSean]

Blow it up!