Jump to content

Roch clarifies AM's "O's will be judged more on wins and losses" comment


ChaosLex

Recommended Posts

He didn't set an over/under. MacPhail wants to see more progress, the kind that shows up in the standings, but he isn't offering any specific numbers. Staying around .500 after a 98-loss season counts as significant progress in my book. So does running out more ground balls and not letting pop ups fall untouched. And allowing fans to stand during ninth-inning rallies.

http://masnsports.com/2009/12/because-you-asked---the-quicke.html

It seemed like the meaning behind his words were butchered by some, so I figured I'd post this. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Whoa.

It's like Roch reads the board and responds to certain posters.

If you read his comments you'd see there was talk about it in there as well.

Supposedly MacPhail said the fans will let people know.

And I know next season if we aren't .500 or better barring a catastrophic injury to a key player or two, it will be unacceptable for me.

MacPhail could put together at least an 85 win team this offseason with what is available and the resources he has, and that's what I think they should be shooting for.

I hope as fans that we settle for nothing less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://masnsports.com/2009/12/because-you-asked---the-quicke.html

It seemed like the meaning behind his words were butchered by some, so I figured I'd post this. ;)

Goodness, is this a history edit I see approaching? Aaah, I love the smell of revisionism in the morning, it smells like.... oh, never mind what it smells like. Below is the link to the Baltimore Sun story containing AM's actual quotes from October 3, 2009 along with reporting of the events in in the context of the time in which they occurred.

"I told Dave earlier this afternoon, 'I think we're out of Phase One.' And that's the most destructive and the toughest phase, where you're essentially tearing down, and you've got the real construction in front of you," said MacPhail, who acknowledged the onus also falls on him to acquire better players. "You dealt off your more attractive players to other clubs - or at least some of them, anyway - and you've brought in a nucleus of young talent. Where we are now, in my estimation, is we're going to move back to the more traditional criteria of evaluating managers: wins and losses."
"Obviously, we didn't do much this year to support the wins when I traded the No. 4 hole hitter and I traded our closer," MacPhail said. "You can't go ahead and tell the manager, 'Hey, you didn't win enough games.' And then six guys have to get sent home in September because they're hurt."

While DT has been put on the hot seat, AM has also put the spotlight squarely on himself as well, and I think it's worth mentioning that he wasn't required to do so. In essence he (AM) has asked to also be held accountable for meeting a reasonable standard for improvement this off season, and I think it's only fair that he be granted his wish.

It's accurate to say that no specific number has been formally set as the threshold for success. Nor should it although a consensus seems to be forming around .500. Whatever ultimately happens, I sincerely hope that at least one member of the local Orioles media pool doesn't let DT twist in the wind alone if somehow, come opening day, he's left to face the season as ill-equipped as he was in 2009.

The entire story can be found here: http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/orioles/bal-te.sp.trembley03oct03,0,5557102.story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read his comments you'd see there was talk about it in there as well.

Supposedly MacPhail said the fans will let people know.

And I know next season if we aren't .500 or better barring a catastrophic injury to a key player or two, it will be unacceptable for me.

MacPhail could put together at least an 85 win team this offseason with what is available and the resources he has, and that's what I think they should be shooting for.

I hope as fans that we settle for nothing less.

I'd rather not be included in any version of fandom that gets defined by you, according to your whacked-out preferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read his comments you'd see there was talk about it in there as well.

Supposedly MacPhail said the fans will let people know.

And I know next season if we aren't .500 or better barring a catastrophic injury to a key player or two, it will be unacceptable for me.

MacPhail could put together at least an 85 win team this offseason with what is available and the resources he has, and that's what I think they should be shooting for.

I hope as fans that we settle for nothing less.

You are an outlier...likely to be disregarded.

I personally just want to enjoy watching the team a little more than last year...and I enjoyed it immensely. Maybe I'm easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally just want to enjoy watching the team a little more than last year...and I enjoyed it immensely. Maybe I'm easy.

I just want to have it so that the best game of the summer isn't the debut of Bell or Arrieta. A meaningful game after the ASB wouldn't be a lot to ask, right? Even 6 games out of the wild card?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These quotes are pretty much as I remembered them. We've entered a phase where significant improvement is to be expected. That's about as specific as I can read these quotes. I'm not going to put a number on it. It's also clear MacPhail wasn't only talking about 2010. The idea here is improvement that can be built upon, not a one-time leap in the standings that won't be sustained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to have it so that the best game of the summer isn't the debut of Bell or Arrieta.[/quote

Well said.

MacPhail has rightly put both Trembley and himself on the spot for the coming year. The team played poorly under Trembley, and he has to be far, far tougher than he has to date. MacPhail has to bring in some talent-significantly more than he has.

There is no way the Front Office should sit around, do nothing and wait for Snyder, Arrieta, Britton, Bell etc., to come up here, join with our existing players and carry us to the lofty .500 mark.That's not remotely good enough as a goal.This organization has to make trades and FA signings.

The assertion that getting rid of Huff and Sherrill is even a minor reason why the team folded late, is totally incorrect. In 72 games after the Break last year, Huff batted .214 with 4 home runs. I hardly think "getting rid of our cleanup hitter" hurt us much.In fact, it probably helped. And after the Break, Sherrill got only 3 save opportunities.In other words, this was a 98-loss team, or very close to it, regardless of MacPhail's actions with those two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I told Dave today, I think we're out of phase one. That's the most destructive and the toughest phase, where you are essentially tearing down and have dealt off some of your more attractive players to other clubs. You brought in a nucleus of young talent. We're out of phase one now.

"Where we are now in my estimation is we're going to move back to the more traditional criteria of evaluating managers. Wins and losses. It may not always be fair, things happen. But I'd like to think we're out of that first phase of what we hoped to do and did accomplish.

"To give him every chance going forward and show meaningful improvement in the standings in 2010, it's our job in the front office to augment and give him as much help as we possibly can going toward that goal.

The last thing we want to do, is have someone interpret this as losing the amount of games we will this year is something that is palatable to us, it really isn't.
"Now, things shift a little. We've gone through the toughest part. Now it's important we show our fans some meaningful improvement in the standings."

MacPhail was asked about his personal timetable for the team. Can the team win next year ? - "I said meaningful improvement in the standings. What that means we'll see in the context of the time. But something comparable to what we've endured for two years is not what I'm thinking. But I'm not going to give you a number."

You have said 'grow the arms and buy the bats, is it time to buy the bats ? "We will be in the bat business, we'll be bat shoppers."
Is it tougher to do what you want with the team in the AL East ? - "I have gone through 15 minutes of this without intentionally mentioning the American League East. We can't use that as an excuse. Tampa did fine, Toronto has had some good years. Now we need to make what our fans can see is meaningful improvement in the standings."
Can the team compete for post-season next year ? "I don't know if we are there yet. We'd have to have a lot of things break good for us. We still have a lot of young players, to use Dave's analogy, that are now sophomores. But we need to show meaningful improvement in the standings. How that transmits itself, we are just going to have to see over time."
source - Steve Melewski, Oct 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what you are showing Tony, it seems like they are very similar comments. If they went up 15 games next year, that is pretty significant, right? Why set a hard number? It doesn't make too much sense, IMO
It's pretty straightforward. I'm showing there is not a W/L number. Five times in the interview the phrase "meaningful improvement in the standings" was the standard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty straightforward. I'm showing there is not a W/L number. Five times in the interview the phrase "meaningful improvement in the standings" was the standard.

I know you have been very weary of the double talk from our FO over the past couple years. Making strong statements in the paper and either backing away from them later or not following through.

What to you feel when you read comments like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sherrill wasn't the closer for the Dodgers, so only getting three save opportunities is meaningless as far as what he would have meant to the O's.

If Huff had stayed and had his expected hot second half of the season, he and Sherrill would have made a difference in the O's final record. But if Huff had stayed and hit like he did for the Tigers, Sherrill would not have made a difference.

But if they both had stayed, we wouldn't have Bell, who I hope will be the long-term solution at third base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...