With the offseason essentially over...

[Sports Guy]

Odd, it's so unlike you to criticize without proposing anything remotely realistic.

I didn't propose anything but way to read through things thoroughly.

I put out examples of players that i would look to package to obtain a long term option or 2...Guys that have value due to age and service time to teams that are in financial trouble.

I never said who I would trade for. So please, spare me this garbage.

its not like I said trade Berken, Erbe and Snyder for Votto...So please, move on or at least address me with some substance.

[VTmook213]

I think what AM did was play this off-season safe. He didn't make any mistakes (in terms of bad, long-term deals), but he didn't really improve the Orioles long-term either.

I think how you grade him comes down to how you feel about that. Do you think the fact that he was capable of staying away from bad contracts, that he was able to not make any mistakes means he had a successful off-season?

Or do you think because he was unable to find moves that had more upside and more potential long-term benefits for the team that he was unsuccessful?

I personally am along the lines of C+/B-. I would have liked to see a trade for a good young player that will fill a hole for the long term - but part of that is just because I love reading about prospects and imagining a team of budding young all-stars. On the other hand, maybe he did try and was unable to find anything suitable - I have no way of knowing. I think he got Millwood for a wink and a song, and I am happy to have Miggy back - Atkins, I'm meh about. I hope it turns out well, but if not ... *shrug*

Altogether, I don't think it was an unsuccesful off-season. It may have not been the most exciting, or most succesful, but it also wasn't a disaster. Is that expecting too less? Maybe. Either way - B-/C+.

[El Gordo]

I didn't propose anything but way to read through things thoroughly.

I put out examples of players that i would look to package to obtain a long term option or 2...Guys that have value due to age and service time to teams that are in financial trouble.

I never said who I would trade for. So please, spare me this garbage.

its not like I said trade Berken, Erbe and Snyder for Votto...So please, move on or at least address me with some substance.

That's exactly the point. As long as you continue to make meaningless generalities, like we could have traded Scott Guthrie, Berkin etc. "for something better that we need", your criticism's are invalid. You can criticize the Atkins signing because there was one clear alternative in La Roche, that he chose not to persue. But to criticize him for moves he coulda, shoulda, woulda, maybe, have made in SG fantasyland is silly. If you can't suggest meaningful alternativess than maybe you should move on, or address things with some substance, for a change.

[Sports Guy]

That's exactly the point. As long as you continue to make meaningless generalities, like we could have traded Scott Guthrie, Berkin etc. "for something better that we need", your criticism's are invalid. You can criticize the Atkins signing because there was one clear alternative in La Roche, that he chose not to persue. But to criticize him for moves he coulda, shoulda, woulda, maybe, have made in SG fantasyland is silly. If you can't suggest meaningful alternativess than maybe you should move on, or address things with some substance, for a change.

I have a long list of things as to why I don't think this was a good offseason...Leave it to you and others to pick on one thing that I threw in there after responding to Stotle.

Oh well, guess I will just have to live with the fact that you guys don't agree with me...Which makes me feel so much better about my opinions.

[Stotle]

What's hilarious to me is that people are legitimately upset that there are some who are simply saying that making more impactful moves are required for a grade higher that "C".

That's where this whole discussion started. Not that AM was a bad GM because he didn't make big moves. Not that AM had an awful off-season. Just that in order to be excited and give a higher grade, some would have liked to have seen a little more innovation and creativity.

I used to laugh at posters who threw out the "blindly following MacPhail" lines, but wow is it nuts that calling MacPhail's off-season as simply solid/conservative/average is considered irrational because I can't come up with a list of specific moves that are both desirable and realistic -- not according to general ideas of team improvement, but according to what other posters claim are good and bad moves.

Is it honestly not okay to say "I would like to have seen more in order to give a higher grade"? Or is it just that some on here have twisted that simple statement to mean "AM stinks because he didn't make blockbuster trades"?

[Sports Guy]

What's hilarious to me is that people are legitimately upset that there are some who are simply saying that making more impactful moves are required for a grade higher that "C".

That's where this whole discussion started. Not that AM was a bad GM because he didn't make big moves. Not that AM had an awful off-season. Just that in order to be excited and give a higher grade, some would have liked to have seen a little more innovation and creativity.

I used to laugh at posters who threw out the "blindly following MacPhail" lines, but wow is it nuts that calling MacPhail's off-season as simply solid/conservative/average is considered irrational because I can't come up with a list of specific moves that are both desirable and realistic -- not according to general ideas of team improvement, but according to what other posters claim are good and bad moves.

Is it honestly not okay to say "I would like to have seen more in order to give a higher grade"? Or is it just that some on here have twisted that simple statement to mean "AM stinks because he didn't make blockbuster trades"?

It gets to the point of "why bother anymore"?

I used to have these same discussions on here for years about B and F, Duquette, Thrift, etc....Always the same people defending them and saying everything is great and always the same people being proved wrong.

Now, people applaud Am for things but question others...But god forbid you question the guy that has led us to 60 win seasons!

Truly amazing...You would think we come on here and disparage the family of individual posters..That we are kicking them when they are down, etc...

[mweb]

Right..let's face it, this offseason would have been a good one for 2 reasons:

1) He obtained better stop gaps....IE guys with more talent who could also fetch more in trades or have potential type A or B status.

2) He got something for the long term.

Other than doing nothing, AM did nothing this offseason to help our future teams out against Boston and NY and really, shouldn't he always be doing that?

I mean, I am glad he didn't do foolish things but I also think sensible things were out there that he didn't take advantage of either.

It's simple, we don't know if he could have made moves that would have made sense for the long-term. It's not like we missed trade opportunities that were reported or actually happened, at least in my opinion. What sensible things were out there in your opinion?

We have a team where in terms of trading, the only way we can really get a good long-term piece is by trading young talent ourselves. So that just depends on if we can make a match that makes sense and how one evaluates this young talent.

So if there's nothing that makes sense long-term, then no, he shouldn't always be doing that because he can't other spend more in the international market which I agree the O's should be more involved with.

[mweb]

Glad to hear it...You want to keep role players and not trade for everyday, long term solutions. Got it.

Britton is not a role player, and if an you and an other team looks at him that way, why would they trade a good long-term solution for role players? When you trade young players for young players, you aren't likely to receive much more in perceived talent level, it's just about how good of an evaluator the GM's and their staffs are.

[mweb]

I didn't propose anything but way to read through things thoroughly.

I put out examples of players that i would look to package to obtain a long term option or 2...Guys that have value due to age and service time to teams that are in financial trouble.

I never said who I would trade for. So please, spare me this garbage.

its not like I said trade Berken, Erbe and Snyder for Votto...So please, move on or at least address me with some substance.

You're confirming his point.

[mweb]

What's hilarious to me is that people are legitimately upset that there are some who are simply saying that making more impactful moves are required for a grade higher that "C".

That's where this whole discussion started. Not that AM was a bad GM because he didn't make big moves. Not that AM had an awful off-season. Just that in order to be excited and give a higher grade, some would have liked to have seen a little more innovation and creativity.

I used to laugh at posters who threw out the "blindly following MacPhail" lines, but wow is it nuts that calling MacPhail's off-season as simply solid/conservative/average is considered irrational because I can't come up with a list of specific moves that are both desirable and realistic -- not according to general ideas of team improvement, but according to what other posters claim are good and bad moves.

Is it honestly not okay to say "I would like to have seen more in order to give a higher grade"? Or is it just that some on here have twisted that simple statement to mean "AM stinks because he didn't make blockbuster trades"?

I hope you're not referring to me in this. I find it hilarious that you and SG exaggerate people's reactions to your posts. It's simple disagreement. Lots of people aren't acting like you're saying AM stinks or you guys are disparaging our families like SG said.

[Sports Guy]

Britton is not a role player, and if an you and an other team looks at him that way, why would they trade a good long-term solution for role players? When you trade young players for young players, you aren't likely to receive much more in perceived talent level, it's just about how good of an evaluator the GM's and their staffs are.

Maybe, maybe not...But that was one name I mentioned, so whatever.

[mweb]

Maybe, maybe not...But that was one name I mentioned, so whatever.

And the other names aren't likely getting you anything special. Like I said, you can trade guys like DH, Synder, Berken, etc for similar talents, then it just comes down to talent evaluation. Or maybe you can package a group of them for a very good young prospect/player, but I'm not sure how realistic that is since I don't think that happens much if ever. Those are the type of trades I like to make in video games that aren't realistic.

[El Gordo]

I have a long list of things as to why I don't think this was a good offseason...Leave it to you and others to pick on one thing that I threw in there after responding to Stotle.

Oh well, guess I will just have to live with the fact that you guys don't agree with me...Which makes me feel so much better about my opinions.

I would be happy to agree with you if you would present specific examples of how things could be better. E.g. I would have loved to see a trade for Blanks and I don't see why a package from the list you presented wouldn't be sufficient. But the Pads won't trade Blanks because he's their insurance at 1B, when they trade AGonz. So I can't criticize AM for not making that deal. The same goes for long term SS. How do you make a trade for one without moving one of your top SP prospects. I would be happy to hear your ideas on that. But to say I think AM gets a D because he didn't pull a rabbit out of a hat is empty. I don't care about silly grades I'd like to know more about what is possible to acahieve in this market. I'm interested in ideas not posturing. I my business, the Theatre, there are two kinds of critics, the John Simon kind, and the Harold Clurman kind. The Simon type is amusing, snide, caustic, and personal, in pointing out failings, but offers nothing constructive. The Clurman type not only points out what didn't work, but make usefull suggestions as to how the work could have been improved.

[Stotle]

I hope you're not referring to me in this. I find it hilarious that you and SG exaggerate people's reactions to your posts. It's simple disagreement. Lots of people aren't acting like you're saying AM stinks or you guys are disparaging our families like SG said.

It's not an overreaction. It's simply a reaction. The general response I'm referring to (not you in particular) is "We don't know what's out there so we can't say if a move should have been made." That's fine, but why is it incorrect for me to look at that statement and say "C" while someone else looks at it and says "B"?

No, I don't think you were being overly critical of any of my posts, but read through the thread again and tell me that for some reason it took a turn whereby people felt the need to defend AM's relative inaction. What for? Everyone basically agrees nothing significant was accomplished! The only dispute is that one group thinks that is "B"-range for grading purposes and others think it is "C"-range.

I'm not trying to convince the B's to change, and I pointed out I think it's a result of where you set your baseline (I think the B's are more likely to give B's in general for solid work, whereas I think C for solid work). So whether or not you agree with the way SG phrases it (or how I phrase it), the bottom line is that any improvement the ML team makes this year will be largely dependent on internal progress of players that were a part of the organization in October. Essentially, the 2010 team would not be drastically different if I ran the personnel side and simply decided to do nothing but sign a couple 1-year stop gaps.

To me (I understand others disagree), not giving out bad contracts shouldn't be a check in the positive column. That would be equivalent to me saying my paralegals get positive feedback for not making spelling errors in the documents they prepare for me. There has to be some sort of competence threshhold, no? Every non-moronic move can't simply be viewed as a good move can it? Doesn't some of it have to be expected?

[Sports Guy]

And the other names aren't likely getting you anything special. Like I said, you can trade guys like DH, Synder, Berken, etc for similar talents, then it just comes down to talent evaluation. Or maybe you can package a group of them for a very good young prospect/player, but I'm not sure how realistic that is since I don't think that happens much if ever. Those are the type of trades I like to make in video games that aren't realistic.

Flat out disagree.

Guthrie, Scott, Mickolio, Erbe, Snyder, JJ, DH, Berken, etc...Lots of other guys could be involved as well..Pie? Reimold?

In other words, where we have depth.

I have no doubt that a package of players like that could fetch us something very good. Perhaps not elite but I never said that, so whatever.

If you don't think that, then I guess you think our future sucks because none of those guys are any good.

But whatever..We don't know what was out there, blah blah blah.