Warehouse Excuses - Nothing Ever Changes!

[RShack]

I've already stated on the board that I find sustained success boring. I'm not interested in that.

Quote of the day.

It takes all kinds, I guess...

[Boy Howdy]

MacPhail's job may have been easier if he'd been able to start from scratch.

I don't mean to demean the young men wearing the Orioles uniform when he arrived, but the saying about making chicken salad out of chickensh--...well, you know-- seems to be somewhat applicable here.

Drungo's post way back in the beginning sums it up for me. Head over to the minors forum and see what they're saying about the Orioles system now. Then recall how barren it was not too long ago. Unless you're Eeyore, it's hard not to be encouraged.

Fans have a right to be anxious. Hell, that's part of being a fanatic, but if you don't think this organization is worlds better off than the day Andy MacPhail was hired then you've got bigger problems than the baseball team you root for.

[scOtt]

If you look at the MacPhail era as the Renaissance, and the pre-MacPhail era as the dark ages, you'll be a lot happier. The situation looks a lot like a by-the-book multi-year organizational rebuild that's going well.

If you just look at the last several years as a continuation of a decade of bumbling failure you'll have a somewhat skewed perspective, and end up a lot more angry and pessimistic. Or maybe it's that the already angry and pessimistic folks choose to look at the last several years as just the latest installment of a futile process.

I am continually amazed that people think the way the organization has been run the last dozen years means AM is more of the same. Like he's exactly of the same mindset.

[DrungoHazewood]

Gee, I thought ADL stood for the Andy Defamation League ;-)

Tell you what... let's deal with the time question first. Let's see if we can agree about what baseball tells us about how long it has taken to rebuild a crappy franchise the right way and produce sustained long-term success after starting with a weak organization. Then, we can put that answer up on the shelf and see how the O's are doing as that timeline comes to pass. How about that?

This all depends on how you define sustained long-term success. How do you define that?

And how do you define your starting point? When a new GM is hired? What if they didn't hire a new one?

And what if the team is like the vast majority of MLB teams and they don't have a nice, even curve, or sustained anything? What if they were a 60-70 win team for eight years, then they won for two years, won 73 games the next, then 96 the year after and were over .500 a few years after that? Do the Tigers count? They went from embalmed last place to 95 wins in three years. How do you approach the Phillies, who were bad for years, then had a 21-game improvement in one year and have won ever since?

I think one reason you and your opponents will both claim success in this is that it's almost impossible to define the terms.

[amateurfan]

Quote of the day.

It takes all kinds, I guess...

Be a lotus eater if you want.

[mweb]

Now, this doesn't mean we aren't on the right path because obviously we are. But just as we are on the verge of something, people want to say we still shouldn't spend money because we are a year away...We should wait to see who flops and who succeeds and then go from there..The problem is, what happens if next year the economy is better and teams are spending like crazy again? or if the FA class isn't good enough? Or if your potential trade chips failed to develop or got hurt?

Then what's the level of excuses?

What is said at that point?

It will just be another round of excuses justifying us waiting and waiting and waiting.

Once again, timing is important, to say it's not is just being ignorant. We may be more than a year away, we may actually not be on the verge at all, we don't know. It does help to see how guys develop further to see what big time players we should target. Now if there were big time players out there that make sense and even better are somewhat rare opportunities, ok, make a big push. Those guys were not on the market this year.

However, I would have liked and would still like AM to take some risks on guys like Harden, Sheets, Bedard, Escobar, Nick Johnson, Delgado, etc.

As to the future, if the young players develop well, I'd definitely want AM to land some guys to push us over the top, if he doesn't, I will be quite disappointed and upset.

I'm not sure why you mention what if potential trade chips don't pan out? That's just another way of saying what if the young talent doesn't pan out the way we'd like? To that, both of us have said we won't contend regardless of adding a couple premium players.

[El Gordo]

With the SP, it's somple, IMO. We don't have enough to trade from it now and maintain the necessary depth. If by the end of this season, they all have made some progress, then we would be in a position to move one or two. If as is more likely only some progress then we will still have some depth. The same goes for the OF. Which of Pie, Markakis, Jones, and Reimold will advance next season, and which will struggle. If they all take strides forward, we can move one of them as well.

[Sports Guy]

Once again, timing is important, to say it's not is just being ignorant. We may be more than a year away, we may actually not be on the verge at all, we don't know. It does help to see how guys develop further to see what big time players we should target. Now if there were big time players out there that make sense and even better are somewhat rare opportunities, ok, make a big push. Those guys were not on the market this year.

However, I would have liked and would still like AM to take some risks on guys like Harden, Sheets, Bedard, Escobar, Nick Johnson, Delgado, etc.

As to the future, if the young players develop well, I'd definitely want AM to land some guys to push us over the top, if he doesn't, I will be quite disappointed and upset.

I'm not sure why you mention what if potential trade chips don't pan out? That's just another way of saying what if the young talent doesn't pan out the way we'd like? To that, both of us have said we won't contend regardless of adding a couple premium players.

The idea that we should wait another year to acquire game changing talent is idiotic.

You get the players, as long as you can afford them and they fit the structure of your team, when you can...You don't wait until you have won 85 games and are on the verge...That is just dumb.

BTW, trade chips not panning out does not mean the young talent doesn't develop...IMO, trade chips do NOT include Jones, Wieters, Matusz, Tillman, Bell and Nick...Guys like Arrieta, Britton, Snyder, et al are who I am talking about in that statement...People want to sit around and wait to see what happens with those guys....Then, if they play well, those people won't want to see them dealt...And if they suck and lose value, they will wonder why we can't trade them for Joey Votto.

[Sports Guy]

This all depends on how you define sustained long-term success. How do you define that?

And how do you define your starting point? When a new GM is hired? What if they didn't hire a new one?

And what if the team is like the vast majority of MLB teams and they don't have a nice, even curve, or sustained anything? What if they were a 60-70 win team for eight years, then they won for two years, won 73 games the next, then 96 the year after and were over .500 a few years after that? Do the Tigers count? They went from embalmed last place to 95 wins in three years. How do you approach the Phillies, who were bad for years, then had a 21-game improvement in one year and have won ever since?

I think one reason you and your opponents will both claim success in this is that it's almost impossible to define the terms.

And thus the problem...Rshack will just continue to change his criteria as the argument goes on...which is why no one has shown him the answer...because the answer can't be done because he will constantly change what he means.

[RShack]

This all depends on how you define sustained long-term success. How do you define that?

For me, it means more than a decade where being good is the normal state of things. I'd say that means being seriously in the race until late in the season most years, with at least a few post-season appearances that go beyond just the 1st round, and having a crappy year only once in a while, so that a crappy year is clearly the exception to the general rule. Now, I probably could be persuaded to change those exact details in various ways, but that's pretty much the gist of it.

And how do you define your starting point? When a new GM is hired? What if they didn't hire a new one?

When ownership decides to do things differently. That will require a case-by-case judgment. In recent years, it often means having an owner butt-out and let baseball people do it, but in other examples it would mean changing the franchise's direction in some meaningful way, like when the O's got tired of Paul Richards and demoted him out of the GM job to get a different philosophy established. While there's no easy check-box answer, I bet reasonable people who want to have a reasonable discussion (instead of just having a strident win/lose argument) could usually agree about the particulars.

And what if the team is like the vast majority of MLB teams and they don't have a nice, even curve, or sustained anything?

Most teams have not shown successful transformations from sustained crappitude to sustained success. For those who don't have sustained success, well, they're not the ones we're talking about. We're talking about the special examples of sustained goodness which, by definition, means it's not very many. Which is exactly why they warrant being looked at...

What if they were a 60-70 win team for eight years, then they won for two years, won 73 games the next, then 96 the year after and were over .500 a few years after that? Do the Tigers count? They went from embalmed last place to 95 wins in three years. How do you approach the Phillies, who were bad for years, then had a 21-game improvement in one year and have won ever since?

I think one reason you and your opponents will both claim success in this is that it's almost impossible to define the terms.

Again, this requires that reasonable people make good faith judgments about these things, rather than just dig into arguments for the sake of arguing about it. I agree with you that there is no easy criterion that would fit on a bumper sticker, but that doesn't mean folks can't sort it out in such a way that they reach pretty much of a consensus about it... assuming of course that the goal is to learn something rather than just trading barbs about it... I'm not sure if that can happen on a message-board... maybe it can, not saying it cannot, just saying I don't know if it can...

[Sports Guy]

For me, it means more than a decade where being good is the normal state of things. I'd say that means being seriously in the race until late in the season most years, with at least a few post-season appearances that go beyond just the 1st round, and having a crappy year only once in a while, so that a crappy year is clearly the exception to the general rule. Now, I probably could be persuaded to change those exact details in various ways, but that's pretty much the gist of it.

Over the past 30 years, how many teams have actually done this?

And I don't mean that sucked before...I just mean who has had a decade of sustained success at this level?

Atlanta, Boston and NY....Who else?

[mweb]

The idea that we should wait another year to acquire game changing talent is idiotic.

You get the players, as long as you can afford them and they fit the structure of your team, when you can...You don't wait until you have won 85 games and are on the verge...That is just dumb.

BTW, trade chips not panning out does not mean the young talent doesn't develop...IMO, trade chips do NOT include Jones, Wieters, Matusz, Tillman, Bell and Nick...Guys like Arrieta, Britton, Snyder, et al are who I am talking about in that statement...People want to sit around and wait to see what happens with those guys....Then, if they play well, those people won't want to see them dealt...And if they suck and lose value, they will wonder why we can't trade them for Joey Votto.

Yes, that idea is idiotic, good thing that's not what I'm saying. But it's just as idiotic to not take timing into consideration when looking at guys like Holliday and Lackey or anyone else you want to make a long-term commitment to. Like I said, if there's a guy available that makes sense to get despite the timing not being ideal, go for him. The timing is part of the equation though, especially when we are talking about players whose talent is not rare when it comes to off-seasons and/or is at a position the team is already in good shape with.

Ideally, you do actually wait until the team is on the verge before making any big free agent deals to guys already in their 30's. Like I said though, there are exceptions to that and of course younger guys through free agency or trade can make sense as well.

Well the guys you're talking about are part of the young core that collectively needs to pan out. Of course you consider trading them along with anyone else for the right guy. I don't see why AM should be pushing for a deal involving the guys you mention as trade chips though. That is unless he feels their market value is higher than what he and the team scouts perceives their value to be.

[Sports Guy]

Yes, that idea is idiotic, good thing that's not what I'm saying. But it's just as idiotic to not take timing into consideration when looking at guys like Holliday and Lackey or anyone else you want to make a long-term commitment to. Like I said, if there's a guy available that makes sense to get despite the timing not being ideal, go for him. The timing is part of the equation though, especially when we are talking about players whose talent is not rare when it comes to off-seasons and/or is at a position the team is already in good shape with.

Ideally, you do actually wait until the team is on the verge before making any big free agent deals to guys already in their 30's. Like I said though, there are exceptions to that and of course younger guys through free agency or trade can make sense as well.

Well the guys you're talking about are part of the young core that collectively needs to pan out. Of course you consider trading them along with anyone else for the right guy. I don't see why AM should be pushing for a deal involving the guys you mention as trade chips though. That is unless he feels their market value is higher than what he and the team scouts perceives their value to be.

Good for you...Who said that you did say this?

There is a general overall feeling on this board that AM should wait...That's absurd.

You get the talent when you can get it.

[RShack]

However Andy needs to start showing the fans of the team that the Orioles are willing to do what it takes to get in the ring with the big boys.

No, he does not need to make moves to "start showing the fans" what the Orioles are "willing to do". Nor does he need to "send a message" either. What he needs to do is make the franchise successful over the next couple years. The role of bidding against the more wealthy teams is an implementation detail, one that might make a difference, but it's not what matters. What matters is putting a successful team on the field without mortgaging the future. If he does that, then it doesn't matter what he was "willing to do" vs. the rich teams, and if he fails to do that, then whatever he was "willing to do" won't matter either. All this talk about symbolism is beside the point. The only point is having a team that wins.

[scOtt]

While this would be nice, its not a must if AM and DT get smart and realize they should just move Scott to first.

Much more important to go get a long SS solution.

I'm not trying to be difficult... I just don't understand the urgency to get a LT SS option, and now Tony agrees with you. I mean, certainly we do need one, but we have Izzy, all year. Not much of a hitter but you can't find much better defensively. And, to me, it's not at all out of the question to sign him for another year or even more.

I see it that AM has a whole year plus to find JUST the right option. Why rush it?