Because the plan, as he painted it himself, was to load up with as many young arms and raw talent as possible and when the time is right, put those assets to good use and compete. By declaring that "we're not ready yet" in the past, he ducked a lot of the pressures that come with the job and now that it's time to deliver, he's showing to be a complete flop. I don't even know why I have to explain this... we've just wrapped up the second year of a three year imaginary window to compete and after years of patiently waiting for him to implement his plan, he's still showing no sense of urgency and still wasting roster stops on minor league scrubs.
The FO of those franchises are head and shoulders above the incompetent retards that run this team and their track record proves that.
I obviously didn't think much of them before and still don't think much of them now. However, unlike the Jays, they've been able to take advantage of a weak division and they've done so by combining their good fortunes with some decent FA signings and trades. But I still don't consider them a championship caliber team and fail to see what point you're getting at.
As I've mentioned before, I'm not here to defend the ownership... But as a corporation whose main goal is to make a profit and satisfy the stakeholders, they're essentially doing what is expected of them. I might not like it as a fan, but it comes with the territory and you have to somewhat expect it. AA's job on the other hand, was to take his sweet ass time and finally put a competitive product together when the time was right and he was given the opportunity to do just that. But instead, he decided to hand out starting jobs to guys like JPA and Goins and put the team behind the eight ball before the season even got underway. Yes, ultimately AA is hired by Rogers, but the fact that he's had a major role in this f***-up shouldn't be ignored or dismissed.
I originally stated that it's foolish to ignore AA's mistakes just because his trades were supposedly well liked (as Ken suggested) and you responded by saying that because they're not firing him, "it points to bigger issues than the GM" which is pretty irrelevant to the point i was making. Now you're pointing out the ownership's inability to hire someone more competent. Even if that was the case, so what? Are we not allowed to criticize the GM because the ownership is perceived to be incapable of rectifying the problem??