McPhail's bottom line

[BaltimoreTerp]

When he said this season was more about wins and losses, I interpreted...

Let's stop here, because this sounds like the issue. He didn't SAY anything like you are claiming. He SAID one thing, and you used those words to INTERPRET what you wanted to hear.

That's not on Andy MacPhail. That's on you.

[brianod]

Let's stop here, because this sounds like the issue. He didn't SAY anything like you are claiming. He SAID one thing, and you used those words to INTERPRET what you wanted to hear.

That's not on Andy MacPhail. That's on you.

Unlike the last two seasons, this season is about wins and losses. If so, MacPhail is failing his own test. I don't know how else you could possibly interpret what he said? Can you honestly say that you interpret what he said to mean we would be worse or endure more of the same?

[El Gordo]

I think it is very reasonable to assume that when AM said that this season was about wins, that we could look for a .500 team. I think he made a mistake in estimateing the value of Jones and Reimold's production, and to some lesser extent Wieters'. Not a huge gaff but a gaff none the less. We needed more offensive support and so the Atkins experiment was a mistake. He should have spent the money he needed to, for a bat. That's not to say he was an idiot. His moves made sense, based on his evealuation of the talent involved. I wasn't on board with Jones, but Reimold has been a big disappointment for me. So who knew?

[mcgraw238]

The scary thing for me is that MacPhail thought they were ready to win this year. He basically promised the fans that his two years of work were ready to pay off. The opposite has occurred. I think that shows a total lack of judgment on his part. If he misjudged that, what about his future judgments? Of course, the season isn't over and I really hope he was right. Injuries and underperformances have derailed the early season. Maybe, they turn it around. I doubt it very much with the current coaching staff but I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

I personally think that the statement made by AM was made in the context of Dave Trembley's evaluation as a manager, not some declaration that the club was ready to compete in 2010. AM said that in DT's first two years he was asked to steady the ship and help the young kids get acclimated to the bigs. When the decision was made to bring DT back, it was under the expecation that he be judged on wins and losses. Unfortunately, the statement by AM has taken on a life of its own. To date this season, the team has underperformed notwithstanding the injuries and the schedule, and I supsect that the underperformance will cost DT his job. That's how things roll in sports, managers get fired way before GM's. You want to hold AM accountable and that's fine. For me, I look at the young talent the organization has accumulated in the past few years and am willing to ride out some growing paints with AM another season or two as I think things will improve.

[fanfan1974]

Seems like AJ and Reimold are the only ones really stuck in a slump...the others have highs and lows. Heard the Reimold is not having mechanics issues but more mental issues for dumping his pregnant fiance. Saw her facebook and she's with child...not sure if rumors are true but that would surely affect someone's game. The rest seeming to be coming along.

[Hank Scorpio]

What do you mean, when you say ready to win? I'm not even sure if AM thought the Orioles were a .500 team.

It was abundantly clear from his interview yesterday with Garceau that was not the case.

This was the transition year, though. This was the year where the team benefitted from leaps and bounds from their prospects and went into the offseason looking to spend money (or prospects) on a big bat or two.

[Mackus]

When he said this season was more about wins and losses, I interpreted that as saying we will be significantly better this season then last. We are worse. I was hoping for .500. I was hoping for being a competitive team. I'm really shocked that we seem to have taken a step back. I don't mean to say he promised a playoff spot, he certainly didn't. But he did seem to think we would be better. We aren't.

Let's stop here, because this sounds like the issue. He didn't SAY anything like you are claiming. He SAID one thing, and you used those words to INTERPRET what you wanted to hear.

That's not on Andy MacPhail. That's on you.

Unlike the last two seasons, this season is about wins and losses. If so, MacPhail is failing his own test. I don't know how else you could possibly interpret what he said? Can you honestly say that you interpret what he said to mean we would be worse or endure more of the same?

I think you're both right. Terp, brian isn't saying that he expected 90 wins, or that MacPhail said we would be contending for a playoff spot. He's saying he expected us to have shot at .500. I think most people thought we'd have a shot at .500, with something in the upper 70s being the most likely outcome.

And brian, while we certainly have had an abysmal start this year, I think if the team plays at that pace that you expected them to coming into the year, roughly .500, over the last 130 or so games of the season, then that would ultimately be just as about as exciting for 2011 as it would be if they played at that pace for all 162 games. It'd be disappointing to add one more notch to the streak of losing seasons, but we would have done that anyway if we had finished 80-82, but most of us would still all be feeling good about our chances of being a serious contender in 2011 with a few additions and more progression.

So say we play about .500 ball the rest of the way and finish 74-88. Are you really going to be considerably more pessimistic about 2011 in that case, where we start 8-22 and then finish 66-66, than you would have been had we started something like 13-17 and then finished 66-66 to get to a 79-83 record?

[Lucky Jim]

I think you're both right. Terp, brian isn't saying that he expected 90 wins, or that MacPhail said we would be contending for a playoff spot. He's saying he expected us to have shot at .500. I think most people thought we'd have a shot at .500, with something in the upper 70s being the most likely outcome.

And brian, while we certainly have had an abysmal start this year, I think if the team plays at that pace that you expected them to coming into the year, roughly .500, over the last 130 or so games of the season, then that would ultimately be just as about as exciting for 2011 as it would be if they played at that pace for all 162 games. It'd be disappointing to add one more notch to the streak of losing seasons, but we would have done that anyway if we had finished 80-82, but most of us would still all be feeling good about our chances of being a serious contender in 2011 with a few additions and more progression.

So say we play about .500 ball the rest of the way and finish 74-88. Are you really going to be considerably more pessimistic about 2011 in that case, where we start 8-22 and then finish 66-66, than you would have been had we started something like 13-17 and then finished 66-66 to get to a 79-83 record?

I care a lot more about how this team plays in July, August and September than I do about the bad start.

[brianod]

I think you're both right. Terp, brian isn't saying that he expected 90 wins, or that MacPhail said we would be contending for a playoff spot. He's saying he expected us to have shot at .500. I think most people thought we'd have a shot at .500, with something in the upper 70s being the most likely outcome.

And brian, while we certainly have had an abysmal start this year, I think if the team plays at that pace that you expected them to coming into the year, roughly .500, over the last 130 or so games of the season, then that would ultimately be just as about as exciting for 2011 as it would be if they played at that pace for all 162 games. It'd be disappointing to add one more notch to the streak of losing seasons, but we would have done that anyway if we had finished 80-82, but most of us would still all be feeling good about our chances of being a serious contender in 2011 with a few additions and more progression.

So say we play about .500 ball the rest of the way and finish 74-88. Are you really going to be considerably more pessimistic about 2011 in that case, where we start 8-22 and then finish 66-66, than you would have been had we started something like 13-17 and then finished 66-66 to get to a 79-83 record?

I think MacPhail has a lot riding on the rest of this season. If we finish .500 from here on out, I'd take it as a positive but optimism would depend on his moves next off season. I think one thing we can all agree on is that MacPhail has not made us competitive and has made a lot of mistakes. Another win total in the sixties would go a long way to convince me he's simply not up to the task.

[brianod]

I personally think that the statement made by AM was made in the context of Dave Trembley's evaluation as a manager, not some declaration that the club was ready to compete in 2010. AM said that in DT's first two years he was asked to steady the ship and help the young kids get acclimated to the bigs. When the decision was made to bring DT back, it was under the expecation that he be judged on wins and losses. Unfortunately, the statement by AM has taken on a life of its own. To date this season, the team has underperformed notwithstanding the injuries and the schedule, and I supsect that the underperformance will cost DT his job. That's how things roll in sports, managers get fired way before GM's. You want to hold AM accountable and that's fine. For me, I look at the young talent the organization has accumulated in the past few years and am willing to ride out some growing paints with AM another season or two as I think things will improve.

Yes, when Trembley was interviewed after he was rehired, he said that MacPhail told him he would be judged on wins and losses. A GM simply can't hold a manager accountable like that unless he feels that he has given the manager the talent to be better. This season isn't over and I'm rooting for a big improvement as all of us are. But, if it doesn't come, then we have two possible scenarios. One, Trembley is a bad manager who doesn't get the most out of his talent. Two, MacPhail over estimated the talent he provided the manager. Either scenario is the responsibility of MacPhail. He had two years to judge Trembley. It isn't possible to simply blame Trembley because it was MacPhail's decision to bring him back.