Jump to content

Is MacPhail the right GM to take this team to the next level?


JTrea81

Is MacPhail still the right GM to take this team to the next level and keep us there?  

170 members have voted

  1. 1. Is MacPhail still the right GM to take this team to the next level and keep us there?


This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

I voted yes, but that was just a knee-jerk reaction to Trea posting a poll.

In reality my vote would be "not sure, but pretty strongly leaning towards yes." I'm not worried or hardly worried about the criticisms in the original post. Over the last decade the Orioles' priorities #1-93285 should have been building a pipeline of good, young talent and getting out of the basement in marginal wins/dollar spent. MacPhail has done that pretty masterfully. In two years they've gone from last or near last in minor league talent to somewhere in the top 10. They've shed all of the ridiculous contracts hung on the organization by prior management. Every one of them, and not added a single new one. He's shown a willingness to make the big trade, and get a great return. And the hiccups, like Eaton and Traschel Part Deaux, were minor in the great scheme of things.

I consider not making a five-prospects-for-one-star trades a huge plus in MacPhail's column. It's suicidal to do that in this part of a rebuild. Definitely not a bug - it's a box-headlining feature.

It's been an almost by-the-book rebuild by a guy who's been in charge of World Champs before.

Will he chicken out and not sign the big star to put a 85-win team over the top? It's possible. But it doesn't make any sense, and 90% of everything MacPhail has done so far has made sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I am in agreement with Trea here. The argument for not going hard after free agents is that "we are not one player away." However, if youy never sign anyone, we will NEVER be one player away.

Case in point. Let's say we did in fact go all in on the JTrea WOW 8/233 offer he kept preaching last year. And lets say we matched Burnett's offer and he somehow took his wife's hometown Orioles over the Yanks. Those two players alone would not have done squat for us last year...perhaps a 3rd place finish. But...now its the offseason of this year, and we make all the same moves we did, plus convince Holliday to come here. Now we go out and get Bedard and resign Hendrickson. Hmmm...

2b: Roberts

RF: Markakis

LF: Holliday

1B: Teixeira

CF: Jones

C: Wieters

3B: Atkins

DH: Scott/Reimold

SS: Izzy

Bench: Scott/Reimold, Wiggy, Pie, Moeller

Rotation: Burnett, Millwood, Guts, Bergeson, Matusz (Bedard and Tillman laying in the weeds waiting)

Bullpen: Gonzalez, Johnson, Uehara, Mickolio, Hendrickson, Tillman, (pick your 7th guy)

That is a AL East contender! That is why we have have to make moves when the chance is there. I hate to continually rehash the Tex saga, but not signing Tex and going hard after Burnett set this rebuild back another 2-3 years.

Interesting.. But would that be adding about 80 million per year in payroll in those players acquired? (Tex,Holliday,Millwood,Burnett,Gonzalez,Atkins)

So we would have a payroll near $130MM and we will still be entering 2010 hoping that Wieters, Bergesen, Jones, Matusz, and Reimold (under your scenario above) are the real deal. If they aren't then we aren't contending and we will have much less financial flexibility to react.

I am certainly not adverse to signing FAs and $130MM payrolls but wow that is a lot money being spent and committed to only to still be largely dependent on the unknown quantities of the young guys we already have. If they aren't the real deal you have just doomed us to several more years of rebuilding and restrictive financial flexibility, and lord knows what that does to the psyche of Angelos the next time we want to sign some FAs.

I would have overpaid for Tex but really I think of the FAs over the past two years he is the only one I would be happy paying his current salary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why it's important to have talented scouts.

But it's definitely not a new practice. Sizemore himself was traded before Mr. Shapiro extended him.

Talented scouts aren't the answer.

You need to turn the clock back to 2003 and put those GMs that didn't understand the value of younger ML talent back into place. I think every GM has that understanding now, even Ed Wade.

And Sizemore was a prospect when he was traded. Lee and ARam were established good young MLers. That's the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talented scouts aren't the answer.

You need to turn the clock back to 2003 and put those GMs that didn't understand the value of younger ML talent back into place. I think every GM has that understanding now, even Ed Wade.

And Sizemore was a prospect when he was traded. Lee and ARam were established good young MLers. That's the difference.

So let me get this straight. You think that there has been some big shift in MLB where GM's now value prospects more than they did in say, 2001? Are you sure that it's just not YOUR PERSPECTIVE that's changed?

I think maybe it is.

Why was Sizemore identified as someone that Cleveland wanted? Who saw him play and said, "This kid is going to be good?"

They don't throw darts at minor league rosters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight. You think that there has been some big shift in MLB where GM's now value prospects more than they did in say, 2001? Are you sure that it's just not YOUR PERSPECTIVE that's changed?

I think maybe it is.

Why was Sizemore identified as someone that Cleveland wanted? Who saw him play and said, "This kid is going to be good?"

They don't throw darts at minor league rosters.

Not just prospects, but young, cheap ML players. GMs want more of a ransom to move their younger talented ML players.

I'm not saying scouting isn't important, but it doesn't have anything to do with that increased value GMs have put on their younger players that they have under control for cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not just prospects, but young, cheap ML players. GMs want more of a ransom to move their younger talented ML players.

I'm not saying scouting isn't important, but it doesn't have anything to do with that increased value GMs have put on their younger players that they have under control for cheap.

So bear with me, I'm trying to follow your logic here...

You're saying that you think GM's used to give their young, cheap, productive players away for less than they do today. As recently as 2003.

Gotcha.

As an aside, those cheap young players will likely give their initial organization the most productive years of their careers, especially if their initial organizations buy out some of their arbitration years & initial free agent years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Case in point. Let's say we did in fact go all in on the JTrea WOW 8/233 offer he kept preaching last year. And lets say we matched Burnett's offer and he somehow took his wife's hometown Orioles over the Yanks. Those two players alone would not have done squat for us last year...perhaps a 3rd place finish. But...now its the offseason of this year, and we make all the same moves we did, plus convince Holliday to come here. Now we go out and get Bedard and resign Hendrickson. Hmmm...

2b: Roberts

RF: Markakis

LF: Holliday

1B: Teixeira

CF: Jones

C: Wieters

3B: Atkins

DH: Scott/Reimold

SS: Izzy

Bench: Scott/Reimold, Wiggy, Pie, Moeller

Rotation: Burnett, Millwood, Guts, Bergeson, Matusz (Bedard and Tillman laying in the weeds waiting)

Bullpen: Gonzalez, Johnson, Uehara, Mickolio, Hendrickson, Tillman, (pick your 7th guy)

That is a AL East contender! That is why we have have to make moves when the chance is there. I hate to continually rehash the Tex saga, but not signing Tex and going hard after Burnett set this rebuild back another 2-3 years.

Personally, I doubt this team has more than a few "Big moves" (75+mil signings). If we signed Tex and Burnett, I doubt that all of the Millwood, Gonzales, Atkins, Holliday, Bedard deals get done. The money that we "have now" wouldn't be here if we had spent a ton last year. You can't combine last years' available money for this years'. Did we have room to increase payroll a decent amount last year (maybe 25mil)? Yes. Do we have room to increase payroll this year (maybe 40mil)? Yes. But that doesn't mean that we now have 65mil per year we can add to payroll. If we went huge last year, it's not likely that we would go huge again this year. I think this is a flawed argument (even though I wish it wasn't).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...