83 replies to this topic

[DJ MC]

https://pursuitofpen...seball-history/

 

In the end this is meant to be fun.  Each general manager’s challenge is unique to the time, place, environment, and ownership he reports to.  We hope our career summations help illustrate aspects of how baseball’s top general managers met these challenges and provide context for their tenure.

 

Sounds like the book they are promoting is awfully promising, too.

 

I wonder how many former Orioles GMs will make the list? The first name is certainly familiar.

 

#25: Andy McPhail

 

He lived up to his surname, and his surprisingly quick success cemented a wave of extremely young GMs, a couple with similar front office bloodlines.

[bnickle]

I've concluded that JTrea isn't the author without even clicking the link.

[RShack]

"He lived up to his surname" tells us about 1 O's GM who's above him...

 

Harry Dalton will be too....

[BSLChrisStoner]

"He lived up to his surname" tells us about 1 O's GM who's above him...

 

Harry Dalton will be too....

 

So will Gillick.

[JeffLong]

https://pursuitofpen...-andy-macphail/

 

Unfortunately, many of the young hurlers never progressed as hoped, and the Orioles lost over 90 games every season through 2011, after which MacPhail resigned.  The next year Baltimore was baseball’s surprise team; they won 93 games and made the playoffs, mostly with a team built by MacPhail.  Although he wasn’t around to enjoy it, MacPhail’s farm system and savvy trades for the likes of Adam Jones, Mark Reynolds, J.J. Hardy, and Chris Davis left the Orioles with a solid talent base.

 

[DJ MC]

http://www.baltimore...in-mlb-history/

[PatrickDougherty]

https://pursuitofpen...-andy-macphail/

Awesome trades. Young pitchers didn't work out perfectly, as they rarely do. Those that did took maybe a little extra time. MacPhail was just fine, but he promised, or gave the impression of, a 4-year plan for winning. 4-year turnarounds are pretty rare, particularly sustainable ones. I feel comfortable saying that what he set out to do was accomplished in 5 with help from DD, which is still pretty amazing.

[DJ MC]

#24: John Quinn

 

Theo Epstein recently said that “everybody thinks they can be a GM or president of baseball operations. It comes with the territory.”  But it was not that long ago that most baseball fans did not know who their team’s general manager was.

[JeffLong]

http://www.baltimore...in-mlb-history/

 

That's what I get for not checking the MLB page

[dude]

I try to stay out of this, really I do, and if Jeff hadn't posted it on the Orioles page I would have continued to live my life having not read it. (I don't check over here much)

 

....but the MYTH of Andy MacPhail continues.

 

25th best of All-Time??  ....that has to be a joke.  That feels like a spot based on a friendship, because it wasn't earned.

 

25th in Orioles history?....maybe.

 

I'm comfortable defending my position.  I'll skip it for now.....but something to think about.....

 

I grade any GM (if we had one by title) on 3 categories and a bonus category.

 

1) Win NOW

2) Win LATER

3) Use of resources

Bonus) Creativity

 

There's also a LEADERSHIP component across all the categories and (because I think LEADERSHIP is essential to [any] organizational success) I think it's fair to call that out separately too...more nebulous in terms of a grade.

 

for me, INTENT is important.  If you do things intentionally, then there is a repeatable component to your ability to do something.  You don't get a lot of credit for the things that are largely accidents.  They still count for you, but accidents aren't a repeatable skill.

 

When you talk about "All-Time" lists (or success at any level, in anything), we should be talking about repeatable skills and intentional results.

[bnickle]

I try to stay out of this, really I do, and if Jeff hadn't posted it on the Orioles page I would have continued to live my life having not read it. (I don't check over here much)

 

....but the MYTH of Andy MacPhail continues.

 

25th best of All-Time??  ....that has to be a joke.  That feels like a spot based on a friendship, because it wasn't earned.

 

25th in Orioles history?....maybe.

 

I'm comfortable defending my position.  I'll skip it for now.....but something to think about.....

 

I grade any GM (if we had one by title) on 3 categories and a bonus category.

 

1) Win NOW

2) Win LATER

3) Use of resources

Bonus) Creativity

 

There's also a LEADERSHIP component across all the categories and (because I think LEADERSHIP is essential to [any] organizational success) I think it's fair to call that out separately too...more nebulous in terms of a grade.

 

for me, INTENT is important.  If you do things intentionally, then there is a repeatable component to your ability to do something.  You don't get a lot of credit for the things that are largely accidents.  They still count for you, but accidents aren't a repeatable skill.

 

When you talk about "All-Time" lists (or success at any level, in anything), we should be talking about repeatable skills and intentional results.

ROFL. 

[PatrickDougherty]

ROFL. 

This is scarcely relevant, but I hosted a pumpkin pie contest around Thanksgiving and had people make their own versions of pumpkin pie (maple? pecan? special crust? bourbon whipped cream? You name it!), and then come together and eat and rank each one on a variety of factors. My girlfriend DEMANDED a "creativity" factor with equal weighting to "taste and texture of crust" and "taste and texture of filling," then went and made a chocolate pumpkin pie. OF COURSE THAT ONE GETS THE CREATIVITY VOTE! IT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT FLAUNTS TRADITIONAL PUMPKIN PIE STANDARDS. And of course she won on the strength of the creativity criteria.

 

EDIT because Jeff tweeted a link to this comment: her pumpkin pie was still delicious, so it's not like creativity was the only reason she won.

 

If only MacPhail had mixed chocolate into his plan to develop young starting pitchers, he would have gotten dude's creativity vote.

[PatrickDougherty]

I try to stay out of this, really I do, and if Jeff hadn't posted it on the Orioles page I would have continued to live my life having not read it. (I don't check over here much)

 

....but the MYTH of Andy MacPhail continues.

 

25th best of All-Time??  ....that has to be a joke.  That feels like a spot based on a friendship, because it wasn't earned.

 

25th in Orioles history?....maybe.

 

I'm comfortable defending my position.  I'll skip it for now.....but something to think about.....

 

I grade any GM (if we had one by title) on 3 categories and a bonus category.

 

1) Win NOW

2) Win LATER

3) Use of resources

Bonus) Creativity

 

There's also a LEADERSHIP component across all the categories and (because I think LEADERSHIP is essential to [any] organizational success) I think it's fair to call that out separately too...more nebulous in terms of a grade.

 

for me, INTENT is important.  If you do things intentionally, then there is a repeatable component to your ability to do something.  You don't get a lot of credit for the things that are largely accidents.  They still count for you, but accidents aren't a repeatable skill.

 

When you talk about "All-Time" lists (or success at any level, in anything), we should be talking about repeatable skills and intentional results.

So we're just ignoring his tenure with the Cubbies and the Twins? The guy won two World Series in Minnesota.

[dude]

ROFL. 

 

OK, let's start at the top.

 

Grade MacPhail on his ability to Win NOW.  2008-2011.

 

gets an F....right?  

 

Worst 4 year period in Orioles history (W%: fact) and if you look at 3-year windows, he's 1st and 2nd worst (worse than Thrift) in Orioles history.

[PatrickDougherty]

OK, let's start at the top.

 

Grade MacPhail on his ability to Win NOW.  2008-2011.

 

gets an F....right?  

 

Worst 4 year period in Orioles history (W%: fact) and if you look at 3-year windows, he's 1st and 2nd worst (worse than Thrift) in Orioles history.

Still not sure why we're grading him on his ability to completely disassemble a terrible team built on players and contracts that he inherited in four years as if no other team has ever gone through a rebuilding phase. Also, still not sure why, in a conversation about best GMs ever and not best Orioles GMs, we're grading him on his tenure with only one team.

[dude]

So we're just ignoring his tenure with the Cubbies and the Twins? The guy won two World Series in Minnesota.

 

He did nothing with the Cubs....did he?

 

He should certainly get some credit for the WSs, but the core for the 1987 team wasn't his.  More credit to him for the 1991 group....but I think you also have to consider that after he left, the place was a mess right?  Maybe he did everything right nad the guy behind him failed, ....

 

.....but his 'big thing' was supposedly the ability to rebuild (or build, whatever) a system and I don't think there's any evidence he was any good at that.

 

If he was good at everything, we should see those results across all three teams, if he was good at one thing (rebuilding, winning, whatever) we should see those results across his opportunities.

 

His Cubs and Orioles days MAY indicate that some of his success in MIN wasn't some intentional act on his part.

 

I guess if you make the list because you have 2 WS on your resume, then he's in.

 

What's the W% of all of the teams he's GMed?  Is that good enough to get you on the list? 

[dude]

Still not sure why we're grading him on his ability to completely disassemble a terrible team built on players and contracts that he inherited in four years as if no other team has ever gone through a rebuilding phase. Also, still not sure why, in a conversation about best GMs ever and not best Orioles GMs, we're grading him on his tenure with only one team.

 

'Win NOW' is just one criteria.....you still get a grade, again, what's his career W% as a GM?

 

What he did in 4+ years in terms of rebuilding (Win LATER) was a joke.  We can grade that next (Orioles and other)

 

for the Orioles....It wasn't about rebuilding, it was about making losing OK to reduce the pressure on the Orioles organization.  They didn't rebuild, unless the only criteria for rebuilding is trading Bedard and Tejada.

[PatrickDougherty]

He did nothing with the Cubs....did he?

 

He should certainly get some credit for the WSs, but the core for the 1987 team wasn't his.  More credit to him for the 1991 group....but I think you also have to consider that after he left, the place was a mess right?  Maybe he did everything right nad the guy behind him failed, ....

 

.....but his 'big thing' was supposedly the ability to rebuild (or build, whatever) a system and I don't think there's any evidence he was any good at that.

 

If he was good at everything, we should see those results across all three teams, if he was good at one thing (rebuilding, winning, whatever) we should see those results across his opportunities.

 

His Cubs and Orioles days MAY indicate that some of his success in MIN wasn't some intentional act on his part.

 

I guess if you make the list because you have 2 WS on your resume, then he's in.

 

What's the W% of all of the teams he's GMed?  Is that good enough to get you on the list? 

TBH, I'm not well-versed enough in his Cubs and Twins days to say what he did and didn't do there, but if his thing is being a rebuilder, why are you grading him on immediate returns? If he walks into a 50-win team, he's not going to make them a 90-win team in a year. He has to handle guaranteed contracts to bad players; even if he just cuts them, they're still taking budget space. If his job is to lay the foundation for a winner, that means his W% is going to be in the tank already because he's working with bad teams.

 

Drafting and/or bringing in and/or developing Jones, Koji, Davis, Hardy, Tillman, Britton, Matusz, Wieters, etc. really doesn't do anything for you? How was that a joke? Because he couldn't make Tillman an ace in a year? Because Wieters wasn't Mike Trout? He could draft as well as anyone has in the history of the game and it would STILL take a few years for that to show up because players have to prove themselves with SOME MiLB time. MacPhail put the core of a winning team together, and I'm not sure how you can say otherwise.

[RShack]

AM wars....

[SammyBirdland]

"Alright, Andy, go build us a winning team."