I hope for your sake that we can one day discuss the O's/Ravens over a Mai Tai at Duke's.

Online acces to the Sun - Free

Home delivery - .50 cents

Narcissistic ramblings by one of their writers who thinks he may be posting his every move on Twitter by mistake - Priceless

Do any of us really care? I wonder how his head will fit through the bulkhead as he makes his way to his seat in first class....errr, it's SW, they don't have first class.

re: Gabino

"I wouldn't say I was missing it Bob."

you should come visit during spring training in phoenix and you'll see why i hoped the O's would come out...the new dodger and cinn facilities are fabulous and we in las vegas could use yor money..haha

Pete, I agree with you about the Raven's secondary, but only to a point. All day the defensive line couldn't get to Carson Palmer and if he has time to throw....

Really, I think the defense is getting unduly jumped on. They yielded only 17 points to a high-powered Bengal offense that scored 45 two weeks before against the Bears. Seventeen points is usually going to be enough to win a ballgame, provided the offense is doing its job. True, the Ravens' don't have the lock-down defense of years past, but it's plenty respectable.

The Ravens' window of opportunity for a playoff spot is rapidly closing, but they still have a shot if everything falls right. They really only have what look on paper to be three tough games left:home and away against the Steelers and at home versus Indy.

They could probably absorb a loss to the Colts, but not one to Pittsburgh because they've already lost two to the Bengals. They also need the Steelers to beat Cincy next week to even that series at a game a piece.

BTW, did your bags fly for free?

To Ken Francis...while we need to focus on our own games, I think it would be better for Cincy to beat the Steelers. We've already lost 2 to Cincy, so best for them to win the division (their schedule seems too easy, other than Steelers, for them to choke) and take our chances for wild card. We still have a chance to beat Steelers once or twice for that, while Cincy would win tie-break with us.

Having said that, I don't think it will matter since we just don't seem capable of winning consistently from here out.

all 3 phases of the game Ravens stunk up the stadium this past Sunday. Special teams Carr and our PK. Defense no 3 and outs and offense no points and no production outside of Rice.I hate admiting it but Ochosucko was right to send some "speed stick" we stunk!!

Jeff, The Bengals' schedule easy? After the Steelers they have potential challenges in at least three of the seven remaining games: the Vikings, Chargers and Jets. So I think it's a bit premature to write the Ravens off just yet.

That said, I agree that the Ravens have been maddeningly inconsistent. Particularly disappointing to me has been the offense, which is only good on occasion--you never know what you're going to get with that unit.

Oh, and Stover is missed...badly. I think Hauschka can still be good, but so far twice he's killed the team with critical misses. There's another case of inconsistency.

Pete, what is Mike Flanagans status with the Orioles?

.............................................................................................
Pete's reply: I believe he's caught in Oriole management's eternal merry-go-round of indecision.

WOOO! The Orioles picked up.....Gabino....? Somehow I am sure he will make the team better.

Can't wait to see your next comments on the Ravens, so I can dispute your findings. :)

I believe the Ravens are what they are supposed to be. An average team with average talent. They 'overachieved' last year...and I think they are on par for what they are this year (or maybe slightly underachieving). We all got our hopes up because of the breakout season last year. All hopes are not gone, but it does not look good anymore.

Peter, um, those aren't "home fires," that are still burning--they're wildfires, and the whole state's full of 'em.

Pretty hard to see the Ravens as a playoff team after the horrible performance on both sides of the ball this past weekend. If they do by some miracle get in, they're looking to be a "one and done" team anyway.
As for the O's, I guess I can now rest easy that they've claimed Gabino. To think that I was worried McPhail might not get a real impact player this off-season!

"WOOO! The Orioles picked up.....Gabino....? Somehow I am sure he will make the team better."

"As for the O's, I guess I can now rest easy that they've claimed Gabino. To think that I was worried McPhail might not get a real impact player this off-season!"

Seriously guys?

Every team makes low-impact moves like these all the time.

At least wait until free agency opens up before you spout off.

...............................................................................................
Pete's reply: Agreed. This is the waiver-clearing period, so that's when teams try to steal a player or two ahead of the Rule V draft. It doesn't mean anything one way or the other, from an overall offseason standpoint, but I'm pretty sure there are going to be some modest moves in November and December while everybody waits to see if Andy MacPhail can pull off a big deal for an impact hitter. I think there'll be a lot of angst here over the next couple of months and it might be warranted.

Pete, Forgive me for getting on you about this, but Larry asks you a simple, straightforward question about Mike Flanagan's status with the Orioles and you respond with what essentially is a non-answer. What gives?

It's not like this is even a remotely new question; on the contrary, it's one fans have been asking since Andy MacPhail assumed the reins back in 2007 and it's one that you (and to be fair, also everyone else covering the Orioles) have been unwilling or unable to answer.

Yet any reporter worth his salt could do due diligence and come up with an answer if he wanted to, getting the information from either the team or from Flanagan. That is, of course, unless for some strange reason the O's have ordered you to stay away from that subject.

Strange, yes, but it certainly seems to fit the situation. Literally for years fans have been getting the runaround on this question by you and others. First, we're told that Flanagan's status was yet to be determined. Then, it was not clear whether he was still with the team. Then it was that he was presumed to be with the team, but it wasn't clear what capacity. Then it was that he apparently was no longer with the team (but don't quote us). Then it was that he is still with the team and could have any one of a number of assignments, from front office to bench coach to scout to broadcaster or whatever,

And now we have your "I believe he's caught in Oriole management's eternal merry-go-round of indecision." You might have been able to talk about the front office's "indecision" in years past, but it doesn't apply to MacPhail; yes, he likes to be deliberate in his actions, sometimes taking his time to reach a decision, but he's not indecisive and wouldn't take 2+ years to figure out what to do with Flanagan.

Personally, to me it looks like you and other reporters are being handcuffed by the team on what you can or can't report on about Flanagan. It's as though a cone have silence has been dropped down over that subject and no one permitted to approach it.

There is one easy way to prove me wrong on this, Pete: Scoop all the other writers and interview Flanagan and/or the team about the subject.

I think I speak for Larry and other O's fans when I say, please, give us something more definitive than "I believe..." because any of us can conjecture just as well about the topic and come away with just as little information.

Let's finally have a little resolution to this. First things first, is Mike Flanagan still employed with the Orioles? Yes or no. If he is, but his job with the team still in limbo, okay, but what is being considered.

Again, I think I speak for the majority of readers when I say I'd be very interested in seeing an interview with Mike Flanagan. The question is: Do you have such an interview in you? I hope so.

..............................................................................................
Pete's reply: Ken, I don't know if I'm "worth my salt," but I have talked to Mike several times, including the night of the Brooks event at the Meyerhoff. Absolutely nothing is happening. My answer to Larry was exactly correct. I believe Mike is caught in a merry-go-round of indecision on the part of the ownership. They either don't know what to do with him or don't want to do anything and are hoping the situation eventually fades away. Mike will not agree to an interview on the subject (we have made dozens of requests, though I guess that doesn't meet your standard of due diligence) and Peter Angelos hasn't taken my calls for several years -- apparently because he agrees with you that I'm too much of a club lackey and am too willing to present his side of the story and do whatever he tells me to do. If you want to pass along any more criticism of my reporting skills, feel free, though I do find the reference to getting permission from the club before writing something very offensive as usual.

Ken -

500 words wondering about the status of one of the worst Yes Men/General Managers in the history of baseball.

Honestly, who cares what Flanagan's role is with the Orioles?

As long as he isn't involved in making personnel decisions, I couldn't care less.

Maybe that sounds a bit harsh, but this guy took a job that he wasn't at all qualified for and spent two years continuing to drive the Orioles further and further into obscurity.

Oh, and after a quick search, I found this on Flanny's wikipedia page:

"According to Dave Johnson on the August 15, 2009 episode of the Tom Davis Show, his contract with the Orioles ended in 2008 and [he] is no longer officially with the club, though there may be some talks occurring to bring him back into the organization."

Edit: Add in the Beattie Years, and Flanagan spent five years continuing to destroy the Orioles.

not brooks, Thanks for the heads-up from Wikipedia. You missed the thrust of my comments, however. Yes, I have some interest in Mike Flanagan and believe your critique is way too severe, but there's more too it than that.

Flanagan was far from the worst executive the O's have ever had and I don't even think a particularly bad one. While he made some poor or so-so moves, so has Andy MacPhail, he also had a deal lined up and close to fruition with the Marlins in 2005 that would have brought AJ Burnett and Mike Lowell from for Hayden Penn, Larry Bigbie and Jorge Julio, but Peter Angelos snuffed it out because of concerns about Lowell's health.

Since then all Burnett and Lowell have done is go on to play for winning World Series teams, while Penn, Bigbie and Julio have gone on to practically nothing. If the deal had gotten done, it's likely that Flanagan would still be running things and who knows how the Orioles fortunes might have gone if Angelos hadn't nixed the deal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071901945.html

My point in the comments, though, was more just trying to get some sort of closure about him and his status. What Dave Johnson said (assuming his info is accurate) is what Peter Schmuck or any number of others could have said, right?

not brooks wrote, Edit: Add in the Beattie Years, and Flanagan spent five years continuing to destroy the Orioles.
..........................................................
All I can say is I hope you're kidding, because this is so out of touch with reality. See my previous post on the solid trade that Beattie and Flanagan attempted to make that would have brought to All-Stars to the Orioles for next to nothing.

Whoever scored the most runs (with the exception of Milwaukee) won their division. And whoever gave up the least runs (with the exception of St Louis) did not win their division. And if you take the runs scored and subtract runs given up, whoever had the highest differential won their division. No exceptions. Bats are important. We have the arms coming. If we don't get a big bat or two, fagetaboutit.

Pete, I apologize for not making myself clearer (something is always lost when you're not talking to someone face to face). I never said you were a "club lackey" (or even a club Lackey, for that matter). I don't even think I suggested that. So you're reading way too much between the lines.

To be perfectly honest, I've never viewed you that way. I know there are limits to what you (or any writer) can know. You're limited by what the club wants you to know and when it wants to know. I understand the drill.

My point in writing was that everything about Mike Flanagan (and not just from you, as I think I made clear) has been so vague for so long that it's frustrating to see a cone of silence has been thrown over the subject by the team. Very strange when you consider all that Mike's meant to the Orioles since the late 1970s.

I wasn't trying to blame you. It was more along the lines: Pete, can't you find anything out? How much are you trying? So there was a bit of frustration coming out, basically due to variations of the same response we've been hearing for so long with no clarification. You and other reporters have supplied so little information on this subject that it goes against what journalism is all about.

In this non-story the five Ws and the H have been rendered the five ?s and the ? I guess I shouldn't have come off sounding like you weren't doing due diligence and didn't mean it the way it sounded.

As for being a "club lackey," here's what I wrote: "[I]t looks like you and other reporters are being handcuffed by the team on what you can or can't report on about Flanagan." And it turns out that your response more or less confirms this. They don't want to talk about it.

But being handcuffed, doesn't mean you're willingly doing the club's bidding, does it? That's what I consider being a lackey.

No, of course it doesn't. How did you manage to read that into what I wrote?

There are many times where your role as a reporter is frustrated. Despite your best attempts to glean information, the source--whether it be a sports franchise, a government department, a multinational corporation or whatever--is going to throw up a stonewall. And you might make every good effort to get the story and come up with nothing for your time. Again, I understand that and you shouldn't be criticized when that happens.

It's also understood that if you want be on decent terms with a team you're covering most of the year, you have to know when to back off. It the club thinks something's too sensitive to broach, then you don't broach it.

Finally, you ended your reply by writing that: "[You] do find the reference to getting permission from the club before writing something very offensive as usual." I hope you mean that in the broad sense of all your readers, because I can't think of having insinuated anything like that in the past.

Again, apologies if I touched a raw nerve.

.............................................................................................
Pete's reply: Ken, I admit to being overly sensitive about that, but this time it was hard to glean any other meaning from your comment. Here are your exact words:

"Yet any reporter worth his salt could do due diligence and come up with an answer if he wanted to, getting the information from either the team or from Flanagan. That is, of course, unless for some strange reason the O's have ordered you to stay away from that subject. Strange, yes, but it certainly seems to fit the situation."

I don't know how else I could have taken that. The fact is, Jeff Zrebiec has probably made a call on Flanagan to the O's more than 100 times. I have made inquiries. We also have talked to Flanagan dozens of times. He doesn't want to comment on it, for obvious possible future employment reasons. I can't force people to say anything, but I know what's going on and have said so several times. Peter and John Angelos are the ones who would decide whether Flanagan has a role, and they either haven't decided or are stonewalling until the subject fades from ouir consciousness. My guess is that it's typical Orioles indecision and Flanny will only resurface as a member of the club in the near future if he is offered and accepts a broadcast role with MASN. Don't have any idea when that might happen.

Ken -

All I can say is I hope you're joking, because you seem to be out of touch with reality yourself.

You expect me (or any O's fan for that matter) to let Beattie and Flanagan off the hook because they had one solid deal in the works?

One decent move in five years? Come on...

not brooks, Look, I'm not going to get into this. You said Flanagan was the worst VP and he wasn't, not by a long shot.

The "one decent move in five years" was on par with the Bedard trade and it was far from the only good thing that Mike did while he was here, including signing Tejada, Lopez and Palmeiro before the 2004 season. (Yes, Lopez got injuried and Palmeiro was suspended, but on paper these were perfectly sound moves.)

You seem to forget that besides going for those big names Flanagan was typically hamstrung by Angelos in what he could spend, which is why there were so many mediocre signings of free agents. And it was Flanagan who had some very good drafts, including his final one which was topped off by the first round pick of Wieters.

I'm telling you, he wasn't that bad.

Pete, I agree that what you quoted was largely me spouting off without full knowledge of your end of things and that's wrong. Mea culpa.

Note, though, that even there I offered the possibility that you were not at fault when I wrote: "That is, of course, unless for some strange reason the O's have ordered you to stay away from that subject." Looking back at what I wrote, even there I see where you could have made the inference that I thought you were a lackey with the phrase "the O's have ordered you...."

Now, as I hope I clarified in my previous post, using ordered only in the sense that there are some subjects that companies don't want to discuss with the public; "ordered" as in "don't go there."

I wasn't trying to insulate that this is a Watergate-type situation, where the topic is so important that you can run the risk of souring your professional relationship with the Orioles in an effort to get a scoop. As the song goes, you have to "know when to hold them, know when to fold them."

We fans sometimes lose sight of how difficult your job can be. Yeah, you get to rub elbows with some of the world's elite athletes, but that also involves dealing with a wide mix of personalities, some of which can be no fun to cover (such as, say, Albert Belle). And then there's the whole other world of the front office that presents it's own unique problems.

I think I lost sight of this when I posted through my frustration. In reality, you probably have a higher level of frustration given that you have done due diligence repeatedly and have nothing yet to show for it.

Next time I post something on this or something related I give due diligence as far as reflecting on your potential job obstacles before I comment. I do enjoy your writing, Pete, and think you do a good job of reporting on the Orioles. In the future I want to being more thoughtful in my comments both to fair to you and be welcome on this blog.

Excuse some grammatical errors in the last post. I really need to proofread before sending, but never seem to do it.