What adjustments do you think AM will make to contend in this division?

[RShack]

I said, "I have real doubts that he'll be able to build long-term, sustainable success, particularly in this division." Yeah, it's just me, right Shack?

Depends on how you define success. If you think it means winning 95 games all the time, well, that's crazy. If you think it means going to the WS all the time, that's crazy. Even when the Orioles were the best franchise in baseball, they didn't do that. During their span of WS appearances, they went 6 times in 18 years. Which means they didn't go two-thirds of the time. I was around then, and I don't remember anybody being unhappy about it. Nowdays, I figure some people here might, because it seems like getting to the post-season is all some folks care about. But I don't. I want them to have a winning record most seasons, and I think they can. I want them to be in the playoff race for most of the season in most seasons, and I think they can. That's way different than talking about 95 wins every year. Being good means having a chance to go to the post-season and making a run at it. It doesn't mean getting there all the time. And, yes, I want them to get to the WS and win it from time to time, and I think they can. That's way different than saying they can do it all the time. They didn't do that all the time even when they were the best franchise in all of baseball.

Had Pete Angelos let Pat Gillick run his job the way some say he lets Andy do his, we had a better chance for success. I'll take Pat's record over Andy's any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

If-if-if. So what? If the ownership had stayed in the hands of civic-minded people who viewed the Orioles as representing Baltimore, then the Oriole Way probably would not have been neglected and destroyed, and our farm system would have stayed good. But that's not what happened, is it. So, we've got what we've got. You can pine for Pat Gillick if you want to, just like I can wish that EBW never got his hands on the franchise. So what? It is what it is. If you think we should get rid of AM and replace him with somebody better, who is that guy? Personally, I'm happy with how AM is going about this and, unlike you, I think it's a good sign that we have a GM who had more postseason success with the Twins and the Cubs than anybody else did. I fully accept that you're gonna find a way to see his record as reason to believe the Orioles won't succeed, but it's not gonna contaminate how I look at things. Nothing I can do about your glum-a-thon.

[ejf1025]

I'm actually less concerned with FA then I am spending internally.

I think it is perfectly plausible for a well-run organization to hardly ever (even in the AL East) NEED to splurge in FA.

What I think will help seperate us from the Marlins/Rays of the world will be our ability to develop talent AND keep it.

That means healthy extensions for Jones (if he blossoms, I am worried...another topic)...Matusz, Tillman...that means throwing ungodly sums of money at Wieters when he becomes a FA. Even down to our "non-premium" but productive players...Bergesen/Reimold/Bell/Snyder...

If we produce them and they live up to it, I want to see us make a concerted effort of keeping them in the fold.

[Sports Guy]

Depends on how you define success. If you think it means winning 95 games all the time, well, that's crazy. If you think it means going to the WS all the time, that's crazy. Even when the Orioles were the best franchise in baseball, they didn't do that. During their span of WS appearances, they went 6 times in 18 years. Which means they didn't go two-thirds of the time. I was around then, and I don't remember anybody being unhappy about it. Nowdays, I figure some people here might, because it seems like getting to the post-season is all some folks care about. But I don't. I want them to have a winning record most seasons, and I think they can. I want them to be in the playoff race for most of the season in most seasons, and I think they can. That's way different than talking about 95 wins every year. Being good means having a chance to go to the post-season and making a run at it. It doesn't mean getting there all the time. And, yes, I want them to get to the WS and win it from time to time, and I think they can. That's way different than saying they can do it all the time. They didn't do that all the time even when they were the best franchise in all of baseball.

If-if-if. So what? If the ownership had stayed in the hands of civic-minded people who viewed the Orioles as representing Baltimore, then the Oriole Way probably would not have been neglected and destroyed, and our farm system would have stayed good. But that's not what happened, is it. So, we've got what we've got. You can pine for Pat Gillick if you want to, just like I can wish that EBW never got his hands on the franchise. So what? It is what it is. If you think we should get rid of AM and replace him with somebody better, who is that guy? Personally, I'm happy with how AM is going about this and, unlike you, I think it's a good sign that we have a GM who had more postseason success with the Twins and the Cubs than anybody else did. I fully accept that you're gonna find a way to see his record as reason to believe the Orioles won't succeed, but it's not gonna contaminate how I look at things. Nothing I can do about your glum-a-thon.

Do you think AM's record as a GM is a success?

[Sports Guy]

I'm actually less concerned with FA then I am spending internally.

I think it is perfectly plausible for a well-run organization to hardly ever (even in the AL East) NEED to splurge in FA.

What I think will help seperate us from the Marlins/Rays of the world will be our ability to develop talent AND keep it.

That means healthy extensions for Jones (if he blossoms, I am worried...another topic)...Matusz, Tillman...that means throwing ungodly sums of money at Wieters when he becomes a FA. Even down to our "non-premium" but productive players...Bergesen/Reimold/Bell/Snyder...

If we produce them and they live up to it, I want to see us make a concerted effort of keeping them in the fold.

Agreed...But guys aren't always going to develop....Some won't want to extend..Others you wouldn't want to extend....They are going to have health issues and you are going to need to augment the roster with FAs...and not Huff like FAs either.

[ejf1025]

Agreed...But guys aren't always going to develop....Some won't want to extend..Others you wouldn't want to extend....They are going to have health issues and you are going to need to augment the roster with FAs...and not Huff like FAs either.

And not necessarily 100M FAs either.

A team's goal should be to limit their dependency on FA almost completely...it's the single best way to maximize money.

You avoid horrendous contracts that are on their last legs

You keep your draft picks

You avoid paying above actual value (which is pretty much a given with any big name guy)

On the list of things I want to see McPhail do...proving to me that he is willing to give out a 100M contract is not very high up there.

[RichmondVA Orio]

In this division, they will work as well...but they will only work to get us to be a 85-88 type win team...which obviously isn't contending in this division.

I disagree. If we get to 85-88 wins that means the other teams in our division will be taking on some losses courtesy of the Orioles.

For instance, if we split games with Boston this year they would have had 7 more losses resulting in a final record of 88-74.

[Sports Guy]

I disagree. If we get to 85-88 wins that means the other teams in our division will be taking on some losses courtesy of the Orioles.

For instance, if we split games with Boston this year they would have had 7 more losses resulting in a final record of 88-74.

You are assuming they don't do better in interleague play and against other divisions.

We are going to have to win 90+ games, in most years, to get into the playoffs...Too many high market, big spending teams for that not to be the case.

[Bradysburns]

Again, I submit that going with the youth is the right thing to do. Markakis is the first indication that some talent must be retained. So far, so good.

To contend in this division, he needs to spend on hitting and pitching.

He says that we will "not get any meaningful starting pitching through free agency." If any of his "cavalry" does not live up to the hype, will he deviate from plan and buy pitching? I doubt it. He might as well have "grow the arms, buy the bats" tattooed on him. I suspect he'll keep going back to the farm for pitching, and be prepared to take his lumps accordingly, as 2009 was a prime example.

I think you bring up some very valid considerations here. I am a fan of AM. I like his approach, and his drafts, and the talent he's signed and traded for...

But what I don't like is when having a plan and sticking to it starts sounding too rigid and doctrinaire.

Being flexible and moving with the changing realities of the division will be critical. Specifically, I would rather he didn't say things like he's not going to get any meaningful starting pitching through FA.

Looking at the competition's rotations, that's scary. I mean, you don't think the Yankees and Sox are trying just as hard as we are to develop starters? Look at Joba, look at Bucholtz, Hughes, et al? They're doing what we're doing... AND they're signing top starting pitchers left and right, too. I just hope when the time comes, Andy steps up.

[RShack]

Do you think AM's record as a GM is a success?

Depends on how you define it, and it depends on what job he was hired to do. Given that he had most post-season success than others did with 2 different franchises, I don't see how you can say he wasn't successful, unless that's a case you're setting out to make. If that's what you're trying to do, you can make the case that most any GM wasn't successful. If you wanna go by overall record, then you can slam a guy was told to get rings on the cheap. If you wanna go by post-season success, then you can slam a guy who built a great organization but didn't get rings. I think we can agree that three things matter; building/maintaining a good organization that grows good players, having a good overall record spanning a bunch of years, and having some post-season success. How many GM's in history were good at all three? Just a very few, and most of them worked for the MFY's when they were going to the WS 4 years out of 5. But the MFY's had the deck stacked, and their sustained success was about more than just their GM's. Do you think the MFY's GM's were the best ever when most of them were handed a dynasty and a stacked deck? We could discount their success because of their situation. So, I think the first thing you have to be clear about is whether you wanna be fair about it, otherwise you can find a way to discount most anybody's success.

If you do want to be fair about it, then to judge whether he succeeded overall, you'd need to know what his bosses told him to do, and we don't know that. I know what I would have told him to do if I was his boss, but I wasn't his boss. What we do know is what his job here appears to be, and that's to fix the franchise so it's routinely competitive in the AL East. While we don't know what his job-spec was in MIN or CHI, we know for sure it wasn't that. So, what basis is the fair one to judge him on for those 2 jobs? Unless we know stuff we don't know, I don't see how we can really answer that. In the absence of that info, we can say he succeeded in some ways but not in all three ways. But how many guys have succeeded in all three ways on their own merits?

[RichmondVA Orio]

You are assuming they don't do better in interleague play and against other divisions.

We are going to have to win 90+ games, in most years, to get into the playoffs...Too many high market, big spending teams for that not to be the case.

Right, assuming they dont do better in interleague play and against other divisions we could be right there with 88 wins as 2009 proved.

I do agree that it typically takes 90 wins to contend for the playoffs.

Just sayin you have to realize if we are winning 85-88 then the other division members are not going to be winning as many as they have in the past.

[TonySoprano]

What we do know is what his job here appears to be, and that's to fix the franchise so it's routinely competitive in the AL East.

What his job appears to be, but we don't know what his job and its constraints actually are. Do we? Tell me specifically what Pete Angelos told him to do. For example, what payroll constraints, if any, does Andy have?

Using your own scale, (not mine) how can we really judge his performance in Baltimore, either? We can't since we don't know what his boss told him to do. We can only assume, just as you only assume what his prior two employers told him to do.

Success is having a winning record more than two years in a row. It doesn't have to mean winning 95 games a year, but it does mean being in the playoff hunt year after year after year. That's called consistency. It certainly doesn't mean a losing record two years out of three.

[Lucky Jim]

Do you think AM's record as a GM is a success?

I'm trying to figure out how to reconcile Shack's points from earlier in the year (re: Beane) and his apparently now-diminished expectations:

Today:

I want them to have a winning record most seasons, and I think they can. I want them to be in the playoff race for most of the season in most seasons, and I think they can. That's way different than talking about 95 wins every year. Being good means having a chance to go to the post-season and making a run at it. It doesn't mean getting there all the time.

July:

Well, then, we simply disagree about what "building Rome" really means. To me, it means building a franchise that is the best in baseball, or at least one of the best couple teams in baseball. To me, the lack of WS appearances, and lack of wins in the ALCS, means that Beane has not done that.

I think he probably can, but I'd like to hear what the difference is.

[RShack]

I'm trying to figure out how to reconcile Shack's points from earlier in the year (re: Beane) and his apparently now-diminished expectations:

Today:

I want them to have a winning record most seasons, and I think they can. I want them to be in the playoff race for most of the season in most seasons, and I think they can. That's way different than talking about 95 wins every year. Being good means having a chance to go to the post-season and making a run at it. It doesn't mean getting there all the time.

July:

Well, then, we simply disagree about what "building Rome" really means. To me, it means building a franchise that is the best in baseball, or at least one of the best couple teams in baseball. To me, the lack of WS appearances, and lack of wins in the ALCS, means that Beane has not done that.

I think he probably can, but I'd like to hear what the difference is.

There is no contradiction here. There is no difference. My idea of success has not changed. I don't see why you would think it has. There is a huge difference between saying that an absence of postseason success is falling short of real success and expecting them to go to the post season all the time. You're acting like I said it was all or nothing. You selectively quoted what I said in the post from today. Here's what you edited out of the paragraph you selectively quoted from:

Depends on how you define success. If you think it means winning 95 games all the time, well, that's crazy. If you think it means going to the WS all the time, that's crazy. Even when the Orioles were the best franchise in baseball, they didn't do that. During their span of WS appearances, they went 6 times in 18 years. Which means they didn't go two-thirds of the time. I was around then, and I don't remember anybody being unhappy about it...

...

And, yes, I want them to get to the WS and win it from time to time, and I think they can. That's way different than saying they can do it all the time. They didn't do that all the time even when they were the best franchise in all of baseball.

[Lucky Jim]

There is no contradiction here. There is no difference. My idea of success has not changed. I don't see why you would think it has. There is a huge difference between saying that an absence of postseason success is falling short of real success and expecting them to go to the post season all the time. You're acting like I said it was all or nothing. You selectively quoted what I said in the post from today. Here's what you edited out:

I'm not selectively quoting anything, unless focusing on the part that was interesting rather than quoting the entire rambling discourse is somehow strategic.

I wasn't being snarky, and there's no reason for you to be defensive. I was asking a simple question: is a team that is a winning team "most seasons" and "in the hunt" for the playoffs "most seasons" really the best team in baseball, or one of the couple of best teams in baseball?

Frankly, I agree w/ what you said today.

[Sports Guy]

Depends on how you define it, and it depends on what job he was hired to do. Given that he had most post-season success than others did with 2 different franchises, I don't see how you can say he wasn't successful, unless that's a case you're setting out to make. If that's what you're trying to do, you can make the case that most any GM wasn't successful. If you wanna go by overall record, then you can slam a guy was told to get rings on the cheap. If you wanna go by post-season success, then you can slam a guy who built a great organization but didn't get rings. I think we can agree that three things matter; building/maintaining a good organization that grows good players, having a good overall record spanning a bunch of years, and having some post-season success. How many GM's in history were good at all three? Just a very few, and most of them worked for the MFY's when they were going to the WS 4 years out of 5. But the MFY's had the deck stacked, and their sustained success was about more than just their GM's. Do you think the MFY's GM's were the best ever when most of them were handed a dynasty and a stacked deck? We could discount their success because of their situation. So, I think the first thing you have to be clear about is whether you wanna be fair about it, otherwise you can find a way to discount most anybody's success.

If you do want to be fair about it, then to judge whether he succeeded overall, you'd need to know what his bosses told him to do, and we don't know that. I know what I would have told him to do if I was his boss, but I wasn't his boss. What we do know is what his job here appears to be, and that's to fix the franchise so it's routinely competitive in the AL East. While we don't know what his job-spec was in MIN or CHI, we know for sure it wasn't that. So, what basis is the fair one to judge him on for those 2 jobs? Unless we know stuff we don't know, I don't see how we can really answer that. In the absence of that info, we can say he succeeded in some ways but not in all three ways. But how many guys have succeeded in all three ways on their own merits?

Isn't his job obvious? Put the best team on the field possible...Yes, perhaps he has had to do it with a certain budget but still, within the confines of that budget, you build a team the best you can while also focusing on the MiL system.