Worse case scenario for a failed "blow up"?

[Dr. FLK]

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

Have you thought about replacing

"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." with one of those trendy acronyms?

Maybe something like:

OGTSOTF TAAA AVPIRFTRPTHTMF WPEOUPAMI RTSSP RSAFSP BTJHTBATOA WHHTSASFATWSTTODPACLTITWOFBATY.

I think it has a nice ring to it.

[Fan4Life]

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.

I think you had as good a defintion of "blow-it-up" as has been offered. And I can tell you, not all of the blow-it-up crowd comply with your definition. So it's easy to see why the aguement still exists if we can't first agree on what we're arguing about... We all want a changes made that will lead to success, and the sooner the better. What degree of change that is made seems to be the contention between what some call blow-it-up and others may consider something else.

[Sports Guy]

I think you had as good a defintion of "blow-it-up" as has been offered. And I can tell you, not all of the blow-it-up crowd comply with your definition. So it's easy to see why the aguement still exists if we can't first agree on what we're arguing about... We all want a changes made that will lead to success, and the sooner the better. What degree of change that is made seems to be the contention between what some call blow-it-up and others may consider something else.

No its not....Common sense and reading comprehension tells you it comes down to 2 things:

Bedard

BRob

That is it....But if you are truly blowing it up, you actually have to trade guys who have value and get you back a lot of talent, which is why one and maybe both of those guys must be dealt.

The idea is to get younger, cheaper and more talented.

This can not be accomplished with our farm system or via FA.

It MUST happen through trades.

[TGO]

OGTSOTF TAAA AVPIRFTRPTHTMF WPEOUPAMI RTSSP RSAFSP BTJHTBATOA WHHTSASFATWSTTODPaCLTITWOFBATY!!!

[RShack]

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

I see... you don't need to play GM, simply because you don't have detailed info about every organization... I take the same position about that very thing... but you insist that I do exactly what you aren't willing to do. That's nice.

As for what the FO should do, I think it's a 2-part thing. Part 1 is having a sound overall picture of what they are trying to do. Let's call that "strategy". Part 2 is having the ability to make a series of sound case-by-case judgments about what transactions to make (and not make) to implement their strategy. Let's call that "tactics".

I think the previous FO never had a coherent strategy for the ML club. I think they were doing too much reacting to circumstance and not enough being proactive to a coherent vision. I think they had a decent strategy for the MiL level. I expect that AM will formulate (or perhaps he already has) a much clearer and more coherent strategy for the org, including both the ML and MiL aspects of the org. Events may prove me wrong, but I am very confident about this.

I think the previous FO was lousy at the tactics part. I think they didn't know how to pick the right guys to get. This is one of a couple places where we can see what a genius Schuerholz has been: every year he gets a few guys, and they're usually the right guys. Our previous FO would also get a few guys each year, but they were usually the wrong guys. A big part of the current mess is that the previous FO was faced with the same exact tactical problems for multiple years (LH, 1B, DH) and failed to effectively solve them. I am confident that AM will be much better at the tactics part than the previous guys, but I don't know how good he will be.

For the O's to become consistent contenders, it's not enough that AM be decent at both strategy and tactics. The job requires that he be better-than-good at both parts. AFAIK, there is only one way to find out.

I'm sorry if my answer is not enough paint-by-numbers for you, but it's what I really think. I can't comment on specific trades unless you can bug AM's phones and show me the transcripts. Even then, I don't know why I should trust me more than him. Unlike some, I don't have delusions that I'd be a better GM than people who have proven things in their professional career.

[Dr. FLK]

OGTSOTF TAAA AVPIRFTRPTHTMF WPEOUPAMI RTSSP RSAFSP BTJHTBATOA WHHTSASFATWSTTODPaCLTITWOFBATY!!!

Oooh. Did I start a new slogan?

It's so much more descriptive than "blow it up!"

[RShack]

No its not....Common sense and reading comprehension tells you it comes down to 2 things:

Bedard

BRob

That is it....

Gee, reading comprehension tells me that you repeatedly called for immediately turning over the entire starting lineup except for Nick.

It's fine with me if people change their opinions. That's just normal adaptive behavior. That's way different than flip-flopping like crazy, denying that your doing it, and putting phony words in the mouth of people who disagree with some of your wackier flip-floppy positions.

[Dr. FLK]

Gee, reading comprehension tells me that you repeatedly called for immediately turning over the entire starting lineup except for Nick.

It's fine with me if people change their opinions. That's just normal adaptive behavior. That's way different than flip-flopping like crazy, denying that your doing it, and putting phony words in the mouth of people who disagree with some of your wackier flip-floppy positions.

There aren't many people who deserve to be in the starting lineup other than Nick. Are there? I mean, I'm sure they are swell guys, but they stink at baseball.

[Sports Guy]

Gee, reading comprehension tells me that you repeatedly called for immediately turning over the entire starting lineup except for Nick.

It's fine with me if people change their opinions. That's just normal adaptive behavior. That's way different than flip-flopping like crazy, denying that your doing it, and putting phony words in the mouth of people who disagree with some of your wackier flip-floppy positions.

Actually, i have never said that so reading comprehension has failed you again.

[El Gordo]

No its not....Common sense and reading comprehension tells you it comes down to 2 things:

Bedard

BRob

That is it....But if you are truly blowing it up, you actually have to trade guys who have value and get you back a lot of talent, which is why one and maybe both of those guys must be dealt.

The idea is to get younger, cheaper and more talented.

This can not be accomplished with our farm system or via FA.

It MUST happen through trades.

Common sense and reading comprehension tells me that trading two players does not constitute "blowing up" the team.

[Sports Guy]

Common sense and reading comprehension tells me that trading two players does not constitute "blowing up" the team.

Many people agree on trading Tejada, Mora, Payton, Bradford, Walker and some of the others.

The difference lies with Bedard and BRob(for the most part).

This shouldn't have to be explained every time.

[DrungoHazewood]

Have you thought about replacing Maybe something like:

OGTSOTF TAAA AVPIRFTRPTHTMF WPEOUPAMI RTSSP RSAFSP BTJHTBATOA WHHTSASFATWSTTODPACLTITWOFBATY.

I think it has a nice ring to it.

Very nice. I think that'll satisfy the antiblowitupamentarians. I'll keep OGTSOTF TAAA AVPIRFTRPTHTMF WPEOUPAMI RTSSP RSAFSP BTJHTBATOA WHHTSASFATWSTTODPACLTITWOFBATY in my Windows clipboard all the time, so I just have to hit CTRL-V when necessary.

[DrungoHazewood]

Common sense and reading comprehension tells me that trading two players does not constitute "blowing up" the team.

Well, when you only have two or three real players...

[CEB]

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.

Dude, that's the most intelligent paragraph in this whole thread. For God's sake, don't stop!

The problem is that "blow-it-up" really does mean different things to different people and whether or not the O's lost by 30-3 the previous evening.

As residents of Southern Maryland and Northern Virginia now know, the buzzword for carefully-planned urban growth which minimized "sprawl" is "smart growth." Perhaps a similar label could be helpful here, such as "smart rebuilding," or "smart blowing-it-up." ;-)

Even then, there will be no shortage of controversy or topics to debate, since few will agree on which trades, reclamation projects or signings are in fact "smart" and which are "misguided."

Regardless, based on Andy MacPhail's comments at at the forum with season ticket holders and his interview yesterday, it sounds as if there has already been a serious change in "the plan" for the organization, much more akin to your approach Drungo.

Given his comments and recent experience, it's hard to imagine MacPhail trading young pitching for a "big bat" during the offseason. And given his experience in Minnesota and Chicago, its hard to imagine McPhail chasing overpriced free agents in a thin class.

I think you're about to get you wish Drungo....

[RShack]

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.

Sticking with a noisy phrase that means different things to different people will simply guarantee that there will be more tired, circular arguments in which people don't even agree about what they're agreeing or disagreeing about. Maybe you like that sort of thing, I don't know.

It seems odd to me that a more-meaningful label for your recommendations is a long string of jibberish initials. I guess the acceptable choices are limited to either "blow it up" or gibberish. Silly me for suggesting that your ideas deserve more than either one of those lame choices. Never mind.