If you (and BP apparently, not sure when in 2012 this was written) can't see an improvement in his approach I don't know what to tell you. The poster xisxisxis has a track record of posts that show he believes Melvin's a crappy GM no matter what rational facts are presented to the contrary, so it's not illogical to conclude that you can tell him anything that will change his mind. David, do you sincerely feel that Melvin truly has no long-term plan? Or do you just disagree with what you presume his approach to be? I think he doesn't have a job if your assumption is actually the case. But Melvin hasn't become one of the most respected GMs in the business because he's inept or has no well-reasoned long-term plan. He has a delicate balance to maintain in this market with rather limited margin for error, which for the most part he's done increasingly well as time's gone on and the team's become more successful. I wonder if some folks hold GMs & managers to "Eckersley-level" standards for success under the flawed premise that those outliers on the most-incredibly-successful end of the spectrum -- which are just about impossible to attain -- are actually the norms and should be used as the basis for judging all others. Rollie Fingers was one of the best closers of his time, but some would want to look at him now and contend that he wasn't so great because, well, look at how much better Eckersley was during his years as a closer. The Eckersleys & Mariano Riveras are the flukes, not the norm. For everyone who thinks Melvin's a lousy GM (or Roenicke's a lousy manager -- pick your typical brewerfan.net gripe!), I'd sure like to know who they think would come into the position with better credentials/track record and a greater certainty of better achievement. Failure to suggest legit alternatives often tends to point to closed-minded judgements. I didn't realize that. Thanks for the heads-up.