MacPhail to release web video for fans tomorrow

[Hank Scorpio]

Just watched it.

I'll give him credit for sticking his head out of his office and offering some words and perspective. As has been mentioned in this thread, we never saw this previously, and it's appreciated.

I am also pleased that he singled out the positions where we need to improve offensively (not that that's hard to decipher.)

[TCAlumni9700]

I think his intentions were good, but just something about him twiddling with that pen in the sweater vest made it so, I don't know, magooish.

I would have like to seen Mark Cuban do the same video, same script and everything, and then compare the two.

I guess all in all, it was just very deliberate and calculated, which is exactly what AM is.

[TonySoprano]

HE NEVER SAID THIS!

He said he will buy the bats...We have no idea what that means. That could man signing 2 Aubrey Huff-esque players.

Sorry, you're wrong also.

His famous quote was "We will be in the bat business, we'll be bat shoppers."

The last word is key. Ever go shopping and not come home with anything? The word "shopper" gives him a subtle out. It lets him say there wasn't anything worth the price charged.

Andy calls out four positions as needing improvement. I submit it should have been five because I do not accept sub-par hitting at shortstop. Be that as it may, four or five bats, out of nine, is a real problem. There aren't internal resources to address them all. So we're left with hoping that the young guys turn it around or Andy to go "shopping." By conveniently talking about the sophomores, he sidesteps the mess that is Atkins and Scott.

[Lucky Jim]

Sorry, you're wrong also.

His famous quote was "We will be in the bat business, we'll be bat shoppers."

The last word is key. Ever go shopping and not come home with anything? The word "shopper" gives him a subtle out. It lets him say there wasn't anything worth the price charged.

Andy calls out four positions as needing improvement. I submit it should have been five because I do not accept sub-par hitting at shortstop. Be that as it may, four or five bats, out of nine, is a real problem. There aren't internal resources to address them all. So we're left with hoping that the young guys turn it around or Andy to go "shopping." By conveniently talking about the sophomores, he sidesteps the mess that is Atkins and Scott.

He sidestepped the mess by specifying 1B, DH and LF? Interesting. I guess it depends on how you interpret it. And how you interpret it speaks volumes.

[SteveA]

He sidestepped the mess by specifying 1B, DH and LF? Interesting. I guess it depends on how you interpret it. And how you interpret it speaks volumes.

Also CF... and it was added at the end so you might even interpret it as being emphasized.

[Lucky Jim]

Also CF... and it was added at the end so you might even interpret it as being emphasized.

Yeah. I was just referring to Scott and Atkins. I mean, it seemed pretty clear that he didn't "side-step" either.

I really don't understand the furor. But that's probably just my own limitations. Clearly I just need to care more.

[Sports Guy]

He sidestepped the mess by specifying 1B, DH and LF? Interesting. I guess it depends on how you interpret it. And how you interpret it speaks volumes.

I think it tells you that he doesn't care much about offense out of SS.

[Lucky Jim]

I think it tells you that he doesn't care much about offense out of SS.

That may be the case. It wasn't the point that we were talking about, however.

If it is the case, I disagree with him- in the long term. Though I'm not sure what pointing Izturis out would accomplish.

[Sports Guy]

That may be the case. It wasn't the point that we were talking about, however.

If it is the case, I disagree with him- in the long term. Though I'm not sure what pointing Izturis out would accomplish.

What does pointing out any of it accomplish? Why would it accomplish something with Atkins but not Izzy?

[Lucky Jim]

What does pointing out any of it accomplish? Why would it accomplish something with Atkins but not Izzy?

The difference, whether you buy it or not, is that Izzy was brought here for defense and his low OPS was a given. Buy choosing that combination, we put pressure on offense from other positions, including 1B, LF and DH. That's just the construction of the team.

Izzy hasn't been good, but he's doing something close to what we signed him to do. The others aren't.

Whether or not you agree with it, I think that's the logic.

[TonySoprano]

Also CF... and it was added at the end so you might even interpret it as being emphasized.

"We need to give some of these young players who are going their sophomore seasons an opportunity to get out of that sophomore slump." Perhaps sidesteps was not the right word, but he puts particular emphasis on the young hitters as being part of the problem.

[JTrea81]

"We need to give some of these young players who are going their sophomore seasons an opportunity to get out of that sophomore slump." Perhaps sidesteps was not the right word, but he puts particular emphasis on the young hitters as being part of the problem.

And his problem is he failed to realize that these sophmores might not quite be ready to carry an offense yet and he still thinks they can despite the performance to date.

Corey Patterson isn't going to ignite the offense. We need a serious run producer or two from the outside, yet MacPhail continues to fail to acknowledge this, continuing to want to stick with the internal options.

Guess what Andy? You don't have any!

[Sports Guy]

The difference, whether you buy it or not, is that Izzy was brought here for defense and his low OPS was a given. Buy choosing that combination, we put pressure on offense from other positions, including 1B, LF and DH. That's just the construction of the team.

Izzy hasn't been good, but he's doing something close to what we signed him to do. The others aren't.

Whether or not you agree with it, I think that's the logic.

I agree that is the logic...But when talking about how poor the offense is, I think it is right to point out any regular who has a sub 600 OPS.

[Roll Tide]

And his problem is he failed to realize that these sophmores might not quite be ready to carry an offense yet...

The failure is that he had correctly pointed out two of the biggest holes after last season. A legitimate #4 hitter & a closer. He failed in filling either hole. He failed to accept any blame for that failure. Again I'm happy he made a effort to address the fans. I dont think he supplied us with anything we didnt already know. To say you have faith in our minor leaguers & scouts to fix this problem cant possibly be true. The Orioles arent good at producing solid positional talent. They have nothing at SS even close. They have Bell (picked up in a trade) for for either 3B or 1B depending on his defense. Nothing but a big hole at the other.

The only way to fix this is a Sportsguy suggest... A minor deal or 2 now while he works on some bigger deals later. That will costs some of our young -pitching. Again I think they should go after A-Gonz or Fielder at 1st sniff that they are available.

[Lucky Jim]

"We need to give some of these young players who are going their sophomore seasons an opportunity to get out of that sophomore slump." Perhaps sidesteps was not the right word, but he puts particular emphasis on the young hitters as being part of the problem.

Actually, he pointed the sophomores out as in special need of support to help them pull out of their slumps. My guess is because he considers them long-term O's, and it's in the best interest of the franchise to foster a supportive relationship between those young guys and the fans.

How do you take that as focusing on the youngsters in a negative way?

*Note: I know this won't get answered because I'm on ignore. The point stands: your interpretation is hopelessly biased.