Zrebiec: MacPhail won't ask for extension

[El Gordo]

Better to take a risk than wallow in last place treading water for something that might never happen.

We were already in last place. There was nowhere to go but up.

Not using resources may have not crippled our payroll, but it didn't inspire confidence in the players, nor the fanbase nor got the team out of the cellar.

We'll see those risks taken this offseason now that Buck's here. MacPhail simply won't have an alternative IMO. Buck wants to win now and will want the pieces to do so.

I think you are in for a big disappointment as far as Buck is concerned. The rumor was that he likes VMart, not exactly Fielder. He was talking about Crede at 3B, not exactly Beltre, and a big indication that he isn't ready to give up on Bell. And of course the signs are pointing to Izturis' return. I'm afraid there is no WOW in the offing with Buck. :mwahaha:

[El Gordo]

Gold, Jerry. Gold!

Yes. that made my day. Heck, my week. Kudos to Drungo.:rofl::laughlol::smile11::2yay-thumb::boogie::beerchug1:

[VTmook213]

Premium position player = combo of offense and defense. I've said that all along, as premium bat seems to imply hitting only. Beltre can be a 4.0+ WAR player. Scott likely will not be as he was only at 3.2 for a career year. 2.5-3.0 seems to be the norm for him.

I'd sign Beltre to be the #3 hitter and then move him down eventually when either Wieters or Jones proved they were ready to take that spot.

And he's one of the premium position players we need. We need one for the #4 spot as well...

Beltre has been a 4.0+ WAR player 3 times in his 12 year career. So can he be a 4.0+ WAR player? Yes. Will he? I don't know.

At any rate, the point of the matter is that if you consider Scott's 2010 season to be a fluke and unlikely to be repeated, I'm not sure how you can consider Beltre's to be a lock to be repeated. In fact, Beltre's 2010 was more of a fluke, compared to their career averages, than Scott's.

[ShaneDawg85]

I think you are in for a big disappointment as far as Buck is concerned. The rumor was that he likes VMart, not exactly Fielder. He was talking about Crede at 3B, not exactly Beltre, and a big indication that he isn't ready to give up on Bell. And of course the signs are pointing to Izturis' return. I'm afraid there is no WOW in the offing with Buck. :mwahaha:

Clearly this means that MacPhail is overriding Buck, or simply not listening to him. Buck would never allow for something like this to happen!::plugs fingers in ears and sings lalala::

[ShaneDawg85]

Beltre has been a 4.0+ WAR player 3 times in his 12 year career. So can he be a 4.0+ WAR player? Yes. Will he? I don't know.

At any rate, the point of the matter is that if you consider Scott's 2010 season to be a fluke and unlikely to be repeated, I'm not sure how you can consider Beltre's to be a lock to be repeated. In fact, Beltre's 2010 was more of a fluke, compared to their career averages, than Scott's.

Because he does this all the time. He's done it with Beltre, Figgins, Wolf, and plenty others I'm sure. He falls in love with one stat in one season, and somehow that's representative of everything that will happen in the future. Let alone the track record that indicates they're not as good as they appear.

[JTrea81]

I can't believe you don't see the obvious point that a manager like Buck wasn't coming to the 2009 Orioles. The team Buck inherits at the end of 2010 has:

1. young arms that have begun to be broken in, with a few already developing into dependable contributors going into 2011

2. Wieters and Jones with ML time under their belt

3. Lots of payroll room to make some calculated moves, and with little dead weight to be maneuvered around

4. a better idea of which players best fit together to form a core to compete and which might be redundant and available as trade chips for the pieces that need to come from outside the org.

Do you honestly think anyone but a new manager would sign on in Baltimore before this was in place? Trembley seems like a good guy, and has lots of supporters on this board, but he was ultimately filler. There to guide the ship while BAL got their pieces in place. Had he succeeded, or even shown an ability to motivate and lead the team, I'm sure he would have been given a chance to stick around when the larger moves were made.

But there was zero chance of an experienced, high demand manager coming on board for the promising-but-a-few-years-away Birds of 2009.

MacPhail didn't even try. Tony La Russa was available at the end of last offseason for a limited time. Buck was there as well.

No offers were even attempted to anybody else but Trembley.

You can't make the "they won't come here" excuse when you don't even try to get them.

2007 was the only time MacPhail tried to get a different manager and he only went after one candidate - Joe Girardi.

[Moose Milligan]

Round and round we go...

[JDubs]

What good moves has he made to help the organization long-term besides the Bedard and Tejada trades in acquiring Jones and Scott?

Off the top of my head? Pie--who also happens to be an example of a risky "MacPhail" move that actually did pan out.

The move that was likely most helpful to the organization's long-term progress is the absence of stupid all-in moves that would have hampered our ability to make the big move now. 'Now' being important because our pitching is finally in place.

[ShaneDawg85]

MacPhail didn't even try. Tony La Russa was available at the end of last offseason for a limited time. Buck was there as well.

No offers were even attempted to anybody else but Trembley.

You can't make the "they won't come here" excuse when you don't even try to get them.

2007 was the only time MacPhail tried to get a different manager and he only went after one candidate - Joe Girardi.

Buck was there, for a lot of teams, almost four years. Don't sit there and act like MacPhail was the only person to pass on Showalter.

[JTrea81]

Off the top of my head? Pie--who also happens to be an example of a risky "MacPhail" move that actually did pan out.

The move that was likely most helpful to the organization's long-term progress is the absence of stupid all-in moves that would have hampered our ability to make the big move now. 'Now' being important because our pitching is finally in place.

There was no risk with Pie. Olson wasn't exactly a top pitching prospect. It was a pretty much a wash. Now the Orioles got the better end of the deal as Pie has been useful and has shined in spots, but he's still injury prone and inconsistent.

Our pitching was in place at the beginning of the season.

The offense however wasn't there to support it, so they likely lost confidence and with that their effectiveness.

Now should have been last offseason. 2011 will likely be what 2010 should have been, because Buck will not let MacPhail have another dud offseason. He'll go to PGA I'm sure if AM wants to do something he's against or vice versa. Angelos has been patient, but now Buck has his ear and he's likely not going to tell him the same things MacPhail is...

[Stotle]

MacPhail didn't even try. Tony La Russa was available at the end of last offseason for a limited time. Buck was there as well.

No offers were even attempted to anybody else but Trembley.

You can't make the "they won't come here" excuse when you don't even try to get them.

2007 was the only time MacPhail tried to get a different manager and he only went after one candidate - Joe Girardi.

Two points:

1. You have no idea who was called or felt out

2. The bottom line is that you don't waste a candidate's time by trying to sell him on something that isn't a fit.

There was nothing to sell a manager with a reputation to protect -- a legacy -- in 2009. "Come on board and take your lumps for a year and we might be able to make a run in the 2010 off-season." Why would LaRussa or any other manager with a history put his reputation on the line when he knows that 100% guaranteed the first year he's there his record is going to be bad?

This isn't a debatable point. There is a reason you do not see rebuilding teams able to bring in top tier established managerial candidates. In an industry where your reputation is your currency, no one is going to sign on to get their teeth kicked in for a year in the hopes that by year two or three of their contract they will have one of the top teams in baseball (which we've established is what you need to compete with TAM, BOS, NYA).

Love the passion -- I always have. But you simply don't grasp some basic realities that make a number of your trumpeting calls unreasonable and illogical.

[CSB Jack]

Our pitching was in place at the beginning of the season.

The offense however wasn't there to support it, so they likely lost confidence and with that their effectiveness.

Seriously? If you are saying that the guys that at this point are expected to be most or all of the rotation in 2011 were in the organization in 2010, that would be correct. But it would be a stretch to say that there was a high degree of confidence that all those guys were ready to be counted on at the beginning of 2010.

Guthrie - coming off a season where he led the league in losses, ERA over 5.00

Matusz - 8 games of MLB experience totalling less than 45 IP, WHIP of 1.478

Bergesen - promising rookie season cut short by freak leg injury, then injures shoulder during commercial shoot

Arrieta - zero MLB experience, 17 starts at AAA to a 1.418 WHIP

Tillman - 12 games of MLB experience totalling 65 IP, WHIP of 1.554

This is the pitching that was in place at the beginning of the season? Or should I be including Millwood in that list because he was part of the 2010 rotation?

You are correct that there was not enough offense, that MacPhail could and should have done more. Atkins? That should be your response to anyone who points out a positive move MacPhail made, but really, you do need to use more than just one incredibly bad signing. Besides, at least Atkins went away soon enough and didn't cost a lot over the long term.

But look at that rotation. It shows that 2010 was about giving the youngsters a chance to develop so that for 2011 the team would know what they had. And that worked out. Not smoothly, but they were rookies and second year players. Now, we can be pretty confident about what we have with Guthrie, Matusz, and Bergesen, and to a lesser extent Arrieta and Tillman. Give me one more solid vet (and I don't mean Mark Hendrickson) to slot in there, even between Bergey and Jake, and I'd be happy with that rotation in 2011.

I'll even agree with you that this offseason there can't be any excuses for not going hard after serious power upgrades, and there are obvious places for it - 1B, 3B, SS, LF. If we go to Spring Training with Miguel Tejada as the big bat signed for 3B and Casey Kotchman for 1B, I'll be signing your petition. Till then, I am willing to let the man finish the job he was hired to do.

[byrdz]

Buck wants to win now and will want the pieces to do so.

One could argue that he already has the pieces to win now, 34-23. I'll agree that we need more firepower and that we're not going to find it internally. I just don't really think the idea needs much of a sell.

[JTrea81]

Two points:

1. You have no idea who was called or felt out

2. The bottom line is that you don't waste a candidate's time by trying to sell him on something that isn't a fit.

There was nothing to sell a manager with a reputation to protect -- a legacy -- in 2009. "Come on board and take your lumps for a year and we might be able to make a run in the 2010 off-season." Why would LaRussa or any other manager with a history put his reputation on the line when he knows that 100% guaranteed the first year he's there his record is going to be bad?

This isn't a debatable point. There is a reason you do not see rebuilding teams able to bring in top tier established managerial candidates. In an industry where your reputation is your currency, no one is going to sign on to get their teeth kicked in for a year in the hopes that by year two or three of their contract they will have one of the top teams in baseball (which we've established is what you need to compete with TAM, BOS, NYA).

Love the passion -- I always have. But you simply don't grasp some basic realities that make a number of your trumpeting calls unreasonable and illogical.

Buck signed on to the Diamondbacks and the Rangers. The Diamondbacks were an expansion team and the Rangers hadn't seen the playoffs for 3 straight years.

When Bobby V signed on with the Mets, they hadn't made the playoffs in 8 years.

Managers will sign on to teams if you show them the money and give them the commitment that you are going to do everything you can to win.

Winning no matter what was not a priority for Andy MacPhail. Instead he wanted to build a winning team his way and only his way. There could be no deviation from the plan.

IMO MacPhail had to have a puppet manager to carry out his plan like he had a puppet GM in Chicago with Lynch. That's why you didn't see a managerial change. AM didn't want anybody to question him, and Trembley didn't. He was a good solider or puppet. Showalter won't be a puppet. That's why he was hired.

[byrdz]

Cue the shifting definition of "premium" to include defense.

Premium position player = combo of offense and defense.

Classic stuff right there..:clap3: