Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Most Dangerous Division in Sports

Bird Food: Heyman on MacPhail's Departure. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

About five or six years ago, I used to defend Peter Angelos. Why? Because unlike David Glass or Jeffrey Loria, I appreciated that Angelos was willing to spend money on the team. In the late 1990s, the O's payroll was near the top. And in 2004, the O's went on a spending splurge to land Miguel Tejada, Javy Lopez, and Rafael Palmiero. After (correctly) nixing the David Wells trade in 1996, Angelos has felt justified in viewing his "baseball minds" with a degree of skepticism. As a result, he's been a famously meddlesome owner by overruling moves made by his GM. Whether it was signing Albert Belle or trading away Denny Bautista for Jason Grimsley, Angelos has been viewed as an unnamed assistant GM. His decision to remove several loyal employees is another source of derision. Whether it's Pat Gillick, Jon Miller, or Frank Wren, Angelos drove away good baseball people. I certainly didn't approve of any of this behavior by Angelos, but I thought his meddlesome ways were a bit overwrought. And l can at least understand the impulse to work with people you get along with even if I didn't agree with his personnel moves. After hiring Syd Thrift, concern emerged over whether Angelos could hire anyone of substance. He then hired Mike Flanagan/Jim Beattie/Jim Duquette to make player personnel decisions, and at the time, I wasn't sure if these fine men would make good baseball executives. Unfortunately, they didn't work out so Angelos turned over the reins to Andy MacPhail. Now Jon Heyman, along with a number of other sources, is reporting that Andy MacPhail will step down after the season after unsuccessfully rebuilding the team. Beyond this news, Heyman's column contains some interesting tidbits for conversation. The obvious conclusion regarding the O's GM situation is that Angelos is incapable of hiring and keeping someone of substance. He's hired people of substance in the past. Gillick and Wren were excellent hires. Unfortunately, they couldn't get along with Angelos. Now with another GM getting ready to take over the reins, Heyman's column serves as a good jumping point to discuss the O's current situation.  

Star-divide

 

But the real question now is the interesting one: Will anyone of stature take such a job?

"Who'd want it?'' wonders one high-ranking baseball person.

Despite Angelos, I just wanted to quickly say that the O's job is still a highly sought after job. There are only 30 GM jobs. Besides the top of the top blue chippers like Theo Epstein, Andrew Friedman, and Brian Cashman, let's the dispel the notion that a lot of executives with stature in the industry wouldn't jump at the chance to run the O's. 

MacPhail, a true pro, is a loss. But he really never had a chance from the start.

Now that I'm off the first page, I can say give me a fucking break. MacPhail has had as much as a fair shot as anyone else. That doesn't mean the economic structure under which he works under is egalitarian. It isn't. But he's had as much as a fair chance as Andrew Friedman and Alex Anthopoulos who have coaxed more wins out of their teams despite about equal or less resources. 

Showalter is entrenched, at least for the time being. So the new GM would presumably be caught in the same spot as MacPhail, between the overbearing owner and his current favored son (not to mention Angelos' real two sons, who are sometimes involved, as well).

So it's no surprise that the latest buzz going around Baltimore is that perhaps Angelos, understanding his options may be limited and knowing he trusts Buck, may simply expand Showalter's powers to include the GM duties.

It's amazing the power Showalter has acquired despite accumulating a 66-96 record. In most industries, results play a strong role in dictating promotions and given influence. Showalter's results have been quite poor, but, despite that fact, he's managed to acquire quite a bit of power in the organization through his political skills. His power is so great that, according to Heyman, Angelos may curtail the pool of potential GM candidates to simply accommodate a manager who's been quite poor. This is simply.... FUCKING STUPID. That said, Heyman thankfully says the odds of Buck becoming GM is slim. 

But Angelos' respect for his manager is immense, and it has been said by multiple insiders that Showalter was actually the managerial choice of Angelos when MacPhail was said to be leaning toward Eric Wedge, who was also sought by the Pirates and eventually hired by the Mariners.

I haven't heard this before, and this is quite interesting news. Heyman is essentially implying that Angelos overruled Andy in hiring Buck over Eric Wedge. We've heard that MacPhail has had complete authority over baseball decisions, and I think this is mostly true. But it appears Petey is still up to his shitty ass ways.  

But among the most qualified GM candidates, it's questionable whether anyone would take the O's job. According to one talent evaluator, "They are fifth in talent in their division in the majors, and fifth in the minors, too.'' The bigger issue, though, may be Angelos, whose reputation for over-involvement seems to be discouraging the most obvious name candidates.

Unfortunately, there are two types of candidates who will take the O's GM job - (1) someone who already has an established relationship with Angelos (e.g., an internal hire, Flanagan, and MacPhail) or (2) a young up and comer who is blocked at his or her organization and who is quite frankly a little desperate, crazy, and/or naive (Frank Wren circa 1998).  

So Ripken appears to be out.

Heyman also discounts John Hart and Cashman. Frankly, I'm fine with discounting them except maybe Cashman. 

One option could be well-regarded young Rangers assistant GM Thad Levine, a Baltimore product. Showalter is expected to have big input in the GM hire, at the very least, and it isn't known how he would react to the appointment of someone from the regime that ousted Showalter in Texas (one person said that Showalter isn't known to have any issues with Levine, though).

If Levine is anything like Jon Daniels, I think he will be a great hire. And perhaps Levine is just hungry and crazy enough to work with Angelos like Wren before him. I don't see this as a likelihood outcome at all. Recently, Robothal wrote the following.

That is Angelos' pattern - he knew MacPhail from their work together in the 2002 and '06 labor negotiations. And, according to one source, Angelos is not especially well-versed with the current crop of GM candidates. When asked about former Diamondbacks GM Josh Byrnes and Rangers assistant GM Thad Levine, Angelos essentially replied, "Who?" the source said.

Angelos is essentially unaware of the players in an industry in which he owns a team. That's sad. I predict the O's will promote someone internally for the GM job. Recently, Camden Depot mentioned Matt Klentak as a GM candidate. That's where my money is at right now. As John wrote in that post, who the hell is Klentak is a good question. But he appears a likely fit given the situation. And really, it's the situation that I wanted to write about. Regardless of who Matt Klentak is, it's the process that we used arrive at him that's disturbing as hell and why the Orioles will never field a contender while Peter Angelos is the owner. Petey simply needs to go and go fast. But by playing armchair psychologist, I'm guessing his pride is on the line. If the O's were coming off a playoff appearance, I think Angelos could entertain retirement knowing that he left the team in good shape. Instead, he's well aware that his legacy will read as the person who ruined baseball in Baltimore. He's never going to retire with that tagline. I don't know what to say other than that we're fucked. And it's really frustrating to write that. We're tired of losing. We're tired of watching other teams hire young and smart GM and go on to achieve success like the Rays and Rangers. Needless to say, I'm frustrated. Matt Klentak is hopefully a diamond in the rough. At this point, he's our only hope. 

FanPosts are user-created content and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of Camden Chat or SB Nation. They might, though.

Comment 42 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Well

Obviously Reynolds, Pie, and Reimold can be placed as guys Showalter wanted and wants, maybe Hunter and Davis are his calls too. Guerrero is Angelos’ call. Everyone else is pretty much MacPhail’s guy, he brought them in and wants them to play. Though of course who plays is Buck’s call. Has MacPhail done poorly as GM? Sure. Buck as manager? Sure, he’s the one who left Reynolds at 3B, the LF situation, never tried to fix the pitching disaster, made Gregg closer.

by dsciswe on Sep 10, 2011 9:11 PM EDT reply actions  

that said, i’m all about bringing in a ‘young up-and-comer,’ like thad levine — a 40-year-old ‘diehard o’s fan.’ in my opinion, the rangers have the best club in mlb. in april, they signed levine to an extension into 2015, which shows how highly they regard him. considered an asset in his current role, levine isn’t desperate, crazy, or naive, to my knowledge. this might be where he wants to be.

to paraphrase Andrew G, ‘if macphail is the wrong guy, anyone else will be better.’

Notions of chance and fate are the preoccupations of men engaged in rash undertakings.

by Keith R on Sep 10, 2011 9:36 PM EDT reply actions  

We have to play the waiting game

unless Angelos is some kind of Al Davis vampire there is some slim hope

by Milk Steak on Sep 11, 2011 12:02 AM EDT reply actions  

I hate to be that guy and say the Orioles won't succeed until the team is owned by someone with a different last name than Angelos owns the team,

but I think it’s true.

PGA is just going to hire John Hart or some other retread, but won’t give him authority to fire to Showalter or the brothers Stockstill, and the team will be searching for another new GM in 2015.

The sad reality is that MacPhail did do some good that his predecessors didn’t…the spring training facility being one example. I mean the fact that the Orioles had a substandard spring training facility for so long speaks volumes to the incompetency of PGA. He has always valued loyalty over accountability, and I see no reason to think otherwise.

If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever

by dfa on Sep 11, 2011 4:19 AM EDT reply actions  

I hate to be that guy and say the Orioles won’t succeed until the team is owned by someone with a different last name than Angelos owns the team, but I think it’s true.

It’s completely true.

Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"

by birdman on Sep 11, 2011 7:11 AM EDT up reply actions  

How has the economy treated ambulance chasers like Angelos?

I suppose those leeches always do well, but if he has suffered a drop in income he might be willing to sell. Particularly considering all the losing and declining attendance.

I wish that guy who owns the Dallas basketball team would pay Angelos a visit. What’s his name? Mark something …

"The key to winning baseball games is pitching, fundamentals, and three-run homers."

by ThreeRunHomer on Sep 11, 2011 7:41 AM EDT reply actions  

Just won another huge settlement in the last 2 years...

Forgot what it was for.

"Complacency is your demise." - Kerry King

by duck on Sep 11, 2011 8:05 AM EDT up reply actions  

my grandmother told me that angelos started out working from a phone booth outside bethlehem steel. when it got really cold, they’d let him inside to warm up.

Notions of chance and fate are the preoccupations of men engaged in rash undertakings.

by Keith R on Sep 11, 2011 9:09 AM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not fan of Angelos

but I’m not sure ambulance chaser is really fair. Look at his career – he’s won some cases that were pretty decent for society.

I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8

by O'sFan21 on Sep 11, 2011 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

I really don't feel like responding to comments like that anymore.

Some people let sports cloud their views about a person outside of sports. Or they really think the stuff that Angelos’s firm has done is bad, and I wouldn’t like them anyway.

by ahoque24 on Sep 11, 2011 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

I almost responded with this same thing

then decided, like ahoque, that it probably wouldn’t really matter. People think what they think.

Giraffes have absurdly strong necks.

by Stacey on Sep 11, 2011 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

You're certainly right about the original comment

But you never know if there might be some people out there reading this that don’t really know and just assume it’s actually accurate if nobody says anything.

I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8

by O'sFan21 on Sep 11, 2011 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Here is one example of why some might use the term ambulance chaser:

Since 2002, the plaintiffs’ bar has turned to suing (1) manufacturers of machinery that allegedly required asbestos-containing parts to function properly; (2) owners of premises at which asbestos-containing products were installed (which includes virtually anyone who owned a building prior to 1980); (3) banks that financed ships or buildings where asbestos was installed (on the grounds that no rational lender would take a security interest in an asset without studying the risks involved); (4) retailers of asbestos-containing products (mostly hardware, home improvement and automotive parts stores); and (5) corporations that allegedly conspired with asbestos manufacturers to deliberately conceal the dangers of asbestos

When the lawyers start looking for ever expanding pools of money to go after, it can start to become reasonable to view them as motivated to keeping the gravy train going.

As I am not a trial lawyer, I’m withholding an opinion either way, other than to say that I suspect some people are over litigeous. Not sure that is something you can blame trial lawyers for.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests".
- Patrick Henry –

by timg56 on Sep 12, 2011 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

This is interesting

but what does it have to do with angelos being or not being an ambulance chaser?

I don’t really think you’re withholding an opinion, so I won’t either. I think that going after the larger pools of money is the only way to prevent the damaging behavior to begin with and that’s why these types of lawsuits are actually incredibly beneficial to our society.

I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8

by O'sFan21 on Sep 13, 2011 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

One reason I do not favor tort reform is exactly because it could place a damper ...

… on individuals resorting to legal redress when a company engages in damaging behavior.

But what you are talking about is considerably more than “preventing damaging behavior”. You advocate going after secondary and tertiary parties, regardless of whether they knowingly behaved in such action or could resonably expect to know they were doing so, for the primary reason that they represent those additional pools of money. It is the “deep pockets” theorum at work. As for it being incredibly beneficial to our society, that is open for debate. It certainly is beneficial to a small segment of society – the law firms handling the cases. It can also be shown to be incrediably harmful to those companies the lawyers target – companies that pay salaries and taxes.

A few years ago there was a push by gun control advocates to go after the manufactures of firearms. The theory being that if they bankrupted these companies through legal fees and penalties they would achieve the desired result of eliminating or greatly limiting private ownership of guns. Want to know what happened? The trial lawyers took a look at how much money was involved – i.e. how much companies like Smith & Wesson, Colt, Rugar and Remington made – and determined it wasn’t enough to be worthy of their time. The whole “sue the manufacturers” movement died a quiet death.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests".
- Patrick Henry –

by timg56 on Sep 13, 2011 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

I advocate going after anybody and everybody that profited from the damaging behavior.

Secondary, tertiary, fourthiary (lol), etc. I quibble with the “regardless of whether they knowingly behaved in such action or could reasonably expect to know they were doing so” part.

And it certainly benefits the people already injured and those potentially injured in the future more than the law firms, and anyway law firms pay salaries and taxes (lots of them) too, so why is it better to have the company that was injuring people keep that money instead of those people that were hurt and law firms?

Eh I don’t think we’ve heard the end of the “sue the gun manufacturers” movement, but I guess we’ll see.

I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8

by O'sFan21 on Sep 13, 2011 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't think that's what happened

The procedural hurdles for bringing about a class action suit are pretty high and the requirements for holding a company knowingly or negligently caused damage (which is the standard that must be satisfied) liable are pretty daunting. GE deliberately killed half of the living things in New York state and the last time I checked they’re doing pretty well.

The only thing the “trial lawyers” (who are these people and do they have meetings?) probably decided is that any victory is impossible rather thinking the gun manufacturers aren’t big enough fish.

by yurizanow on Sep 13, 2011 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Why would victory be impossible on the firearm manufacturer issue?

There were a lot of cities and national gun control organizations who were advocating a class action approach when court rulings started overturning some of their gun control laws. It didn’t get very far because there wasn’t anything in it for the legal firms.

And since when has having a difficult legal case to present or defend meant that you can’t get legal representation? Are you saying law firms only take on cases they are sure to win?

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests".
- Patrick Henry –

by timg56 on Sep 14, 2011 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests".
- Patrick Henry –

by timg56 on Sep 15, 2011 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

haha that's funny.

I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8

by O'sFan21 on Sep 16, 2011 1:59 AM EDT up reply actions  

I'm here 3 nights a week.

At least until my tv deal comes in.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests".
- Patrick Henry –

by timg56 on Sep 16, 2011 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

Class-action attorneys work on a contingency basis

So they have a big disincentive to take on cases they aren’t likely recover on. Since the likelihood of procedurally moving forward, much less winning is pretty low and gun manufacturers have deep pockets to pay their own legal fees, no attorney is going to want to take the case and why should they?

The alternative is paying for legal representation the way everyone else does – by the hour. However, no single plaintiff can afford to do that and there are insurmountable logistical hurdles in getting large groups of plaintiffs to foot the bill.

I realize everyone thinks that you can sue anyone for anything, but it’s not really the case

by yurizanow on Sep 14, 2011 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

Here is where I think your argument breaks down:

You say that gun manufacturers have deep pockets to pay their own legal fees and therefore law firms are likely to shy away. So how then do you explain lawsuits against automobile manufacturers, drug companies, tobacco companies, chemical companies, etc ? They don’t have deep pockets?

Compared to the latter group, gun makers have very shallow pockets. So shallow that the firms which specialize in these types of lawsuits determined it wasn’t worth their effort to try and pick them.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests".
- Patrick Henry –

by timg56 on Sep 15, 2011 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm picking up that your basing your story on what you assume, rather than what you know

The reason lawyers will take on auto manufacturers and the like is because there is a chance of success that doesn’t really exist with gun manufacturers.

It’s hard to imagine what theory of liability a plaintiff could bring against the gun manufacturers. A gun is supposed to be lethal, so if someone is killed by it that person’s survivors can’t claim that the death was caused by a product malfunction or a design defect, as you could with an automobile. Nor could someone claim the gun manufacturer knowingly, recklessly, or negligently acted in a manner that caused the injury since they are manufacturing a legal product that they do not directly retail and the responsibility for controlling guns distribution lies with the state, rather than the manufacturer.

As topper, the big manufacturers went along with government regulation in exchange for exemption from lawsuits, which you can read about here: http://web.archive.org/web/20021116003736/http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/ls474.htm

As a result, not a lot of people are clamoring to take kind of cases on.

I’m a bit confused why you think guns are this little mom and pop industry. Smith and Wesson is publicly-traded, Remington Arms is owned by Cerberus Captial Management, and small-arms manufacture and sale is a pretty lucrative business.

by yurizanow on Sep 15, 2011 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not what i assume, what I remember reading at the time.

It has been a few years since the issue of class action against gun makers was in the news. And as I recall, the argument was not that they make a product that was deadly, but in how they sold and distributed – that it was irresponsible and they knowingly produced more guns than the “sporting” market could reasonably be expected to support, therefore they knew that a large percentage of their product would end up in straw purchases, to be used illegally.

I thought at the time it was a rather weak argument and therefore it very well could have been that attorneys were not interested based on the merits of the case – i.e. their probability of winning. But I also remember the point being raised that the potential targets of such action were ultimately seen as too little fish to go after.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests".
- Patrick Henry –

by timg56 on Sep 16, 2011 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

BTW

If in fact what you say is true regarding why or how a law firm decides to take on a case, then it is not unreasonable to infer that firms which specialize in these suits do in fact deserve the label of ambulance chaser. Were it truely for the good of the public, they would be willing to take their chances. Afterall, don’t firms perform work pro bono all the time?

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests".
- Patrick Henry –

by timg56 on Sep 15, 2011 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

I have no feelings about the term ambulance chaser one way or the other

However, a class-action tort case is extremely expensive. For example, Peter Angelos went bankrupt when we was doing the asbestos case. This cost is more than even a big-time firm like Jones Day or Pillsbury could take on pro-bono, which is why they don’t. The only way these cases make economic sense for the people involved is if there is a chance for recovery.

by yurizanow on Sep 15, 2011 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

So you see an old lady getting mugged ...

… and you only get involved if you are sure you won’t get your own ass beat?

You become a defense attorney and only take on clients when you know they prosecution has a weak case or is inexperienced?

The way I learned it, good is not about winning, it is about doing what is right and not whether there is a cost or benefit to ones self.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests".
- Patrick Henry –

by timg56 on Sep 16, 2011 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Civil law firms are businesses

They have to pay taxes and salaries and rent and benefits, and on and on. Why would they take cases where they aren’t likely to recoup their expenses let alone make any profit?

I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8

by O'sFan21 on Sep 16, 2011 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

The law isn't about good or bad

A lot of people make that mistake or hear that and snort “see, I told you they were a bunch of vampires.” The law is the way legislatures create incentives for behavior viewed as socially desirable and disincentives for behavior viewed as socially undesirable.

You want to talk about morality, talk to you priest, not your lawyer. Generally speaking job of a lawyer is not to do good, but to zealously advocate on his or her client’s behalf. However, that does not mean the lawyer must do so for everyone who seeks representation. That is the choice for the lawyer to make himself or herself.

Just like any profession, people become lawyers for lots of reasons, some good and noble and some bad and venial. The lawyers who defend large corporations in tort cases certainly don’t do it on a pro bono basis and I see no reason why the plaintiff’s attorney would behave otherwise. Lawyers live in the same reality as economic everyone else. They need to pay their rents, employees, and other expenses and can’t do so unless they turn a profit. You can’t go to your landlord or the bank that has your mortgage and say “I do really good things” and expect that’ll do the job. Neither can they.

by yurizanow on Sep 16, 2011 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Edward Bennett Williams was a lawyer

He represented John Hinkley, Jimmy Hoffa, Frank Costello, Joseph McCarthy, Michael Milken, and the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, but the O’s went to two World Series under his ownership.

If the Orioles were good I wouldn’t care what he does for a living.

by yurizanow on Sep 13, 2011 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

McPhail

AM was not given a chance to rebuild. He took over a team that was among the 3 worst in baseball at the major and minor league levels. He traded Tejada and Bedard. He should have traded Roberts, but that move apparently was blocked by PA. Nevertheless, AM was off to a good start.

Then, management (PA apparently) decided to abandon the rebuilding effort and try to become a .500 team, although with no plan ever to become a really good team. So, we didn’t trade Luke Scott or Jeremy Guthrie, and we went about the dreary business of overpaying for relievers and signing over-the-hill class C free agents. I attribute all of this to PA, who would not accept the brutal fact that the franchise needed to sell everyone who could command 2 prospects in order to rebuild.

I had hopes that PA would let AM make the hard decisions. But, he would not. So, the endless cycle continues. As Heyman noted, we are last in the AL East in terms of major league team and farm system. That will continue until we get new ownership.

by BaltoBen on Sep 11, 2011 9:20 AM EDT reply actions  

Then, management (PA apparently) decided to abandon the rebuilding effort and try to become a .500 team, although with no plan ever to become a really good team.

I think this was all AM.

Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"

by birdman on Sep 11, 2011 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

Gee, this articule looks familiar for some reason

MacPhail is no loss, not because he’s intrinsically a bad guy, but because he is the least able general manager in the American League East. The Orioles are the least professional team in the their division and basically set up to lose that division on an annual basis, so what’s the worst that can happen if MacPhail is not there?

by yurizanow on Sep 11, 2011 1:53 PM EDT reply actions  

i posted in bird dropping yesterday so i beat you!

macphail sucks. i don’t think you’ll find anyone here who disagrees.

Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"

by birdman on Sep 11, 2011 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't think MacPhail guy sucks

For example, he’s done just as much with his career as Theo Epstein has done with his, but I don’t think he’s really suited to run a Major League franchise in 2011.

by yurizanow on Sep 11, 2011 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

Orioles fans are probably screwed worse than they realize

Angelos has already stated his intention to turn over the club to his (good looking) sons. All accounts say the sons are equally meddlesome and clueless. Fans could be facing decades more of utter incompetence. I see little reason to pay anything more than cursory attention and occasionally check in to see if they’ve gotten their collective heads out of their asses. All indications are that this is not the case. I’ll check back in the off season.

by drj on Sep 11, 2011 10:54 PM EDT reply actions  

The Colts moved just 6 years after they won three straight division titles

I’ve wondered what will happen if the O’s get to 25 years of lousy baseball with low attendance.

Is it a guarantee they’ll even still be around?

by yurizanow on Sep 13, 2011 1:29 AM EDT up reply actions  

I do believe State Assembly put in some rather drastic eminent domain laws after Colts left

It would be a legal nightmare to move the team, I do believe.

And with the friendly OPaCY lease agreement and MASN money, as long as the team has respectable season tickets sales, they’ll make money. And if they don’t, revenue sharing would take care of it.

"Complacency is your demise." - Kerry King

by duck on Sep 13, 2011 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The SB Nation blog covering the Baltimore Orioles.

Please read our Community Guidelines

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Dscn6381_small
Oriole Birthday Mantra.
Small
On Being an Oriole Fan in Israel
Wieters_small
The O's and Early Bullpen Usage
Mlb_orioles_wieters_240_small
O-R-I-O-L-E-S! *NOT* Day-O!
Cc_small
Awesome Stuff

Recent FanPosts

Imagescalwmbnw_small
Brian Roberts story continues to unfold
Small
Okay, okay, I give! I'm sucked in!
4fgfgjfxe30x64uwibpb59rg9_small
Help with Baseball Statistics
Small
I have to ask...
091_small
Rooting for the Red Sox
4fgfgjfxe30x64uwibpb59rg9_small
Can we get a broadcasting coach or trainer for Mike Bordick?
Pbr_12_pack_small
Literary Lounge

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Official Sponsor of Camden Chat GameThreads

Tankeray_medium
Tankeray provided by dayzd toe


Bowser

Cc_small Stacey

Koopa Troopas

Baltimore_oriole_avatar_small zknower

P1030831_small 2632

Rainbowsmall_small duck

Esskay_small Eat More Esskay

Youppi-192_small Andrew_G

Goombas

Birdman_small birdman

Thumbnail_small j.q. higgins

Img_0927_small dfa

4840750964_54cdc24eef_small James F

091_small WestcoastO'sFan

2009_june22_philliekid3_small twistedlogic

Yoshi_small PaulFolk