Unhappy Scouts??

[baltfan]

Okay, but that sure is an underhanded way to go about it, no? Don't think scouts from other orgs aren't taking notice.

I don't understand your take at all. Why is this an odd way of conducting business? As someone who hopes to break into this world fullt0ime at some point, I hope you realize that when a new guy takes over, they bring their guys with them and usher others out. It doesn't always mean the guys getting ushered out are not good scouts, it just means the new guy in charge has his guys or his way of doing things and if you don't fit or one of his guys are available, you are probably going to be let go.

All of the scouts in the organization have contracts that through next year, so it's not cost efficient to just fire everyone. Both Duquette and Rajsich will most likely want a year to evaluate their staffs, but in some cases changes will be made immediately. The guys he reassigned have contracts so he's probably trying to find a way to use them since they are paying them. I don't see the problem. Maybe he reassigned them to something they don't want to do in hopes they will resign? Honestly, if you don't want a guy and the guy is under contract, it makes some sense to put them in a position in which they may quit.

Here's what we know. The Orioles have sucked for 14 years. We've gone through GM after GM but no real change was ever done with a our scouting and development. Duquette is invoking some true shakeup and although sometimes that means good people get moved or fired, it's something that probably was long overdue. I don't see anythig underhanded or add about any of this. I see this as a guy invoking change and that might be painful for the legacy guys.

Couldn't agree more with you on this one. In this economy I have a hard time feeling sorry for these guys having to do something they might not like as much. If they don't like it, they are free to quit. The Orioles have no obligation to cut them free and still pay them. That would be silly.

Moreover, I constantly read how the Orioles need to think different. When they do, like they appear to be doing here, we should applaud them not look for the nearest tree to string DD up.

[Hank Scorpio]

Change is hard.

[Stotle]

Still, if you want to dissolve advance scouting, you might as well just do it as soon as possible. Why wait or do it gradually? Maybe the only reason he waited as long as he did was to get input from Rajsich and Fred? Maybe he was waiting for approval from Angelos? Who knows.

1) It isn't just advance scouting being moved, they are losing eyes on MiLB players, too, supposedly.

2) You do it gradually, or with input from the guys you are moving, if you value them as a part of your organization. If you don't value them, and are hoping to leave, the right thing to do would be to fire them.

[baltfan]

First, if I wanted to do scout full time, I would be doing it. The uncertainty of employment, as well as the microscopic pay, is a big reason I am electing to do it as a side gig.

Second, Baltimore is vacating pro scouting positions BEFORE they have any replacements. How does that benefit the team in the short term or the long term?

As for the bolded, as Lucky Jim said, "it's legal, but poor form."

No its not poor form. An employee is there to serve the company. If his contract doesn't say he is guaranteed to have a job as a Major League Scout, then he has no right to complain. He can either take the reassignment or quit. For him to complain and moan is what is poor form.

Also re: what scouts are paid, they are make what they make because there are tons of people out there willing to do their job for very little money. The way they can make more money is to prove themselves. If they aren't making more money, the market just says that they aren't responsible.

PS. As a liberal I can't believe I wrote the above which seems like Republican talking points.

[Stotle]

I think you are great Stotle, but you have to be kidding me. Are you telling me that an employer that has people under contract but wants to bring in others to do their job has to eat the contract vs. reassign them to provide some service to the organization? I am sorry, times are tough for everyone. Most people I know that have jobs are doing the work of what used to be two people at their jobs now. I have a heard time feeling sorry for these demoted scouts. If they think the pay isn't worth the job, then just quit. It is very simple.

Not at all. If Baltimore brought in a bunch of scouts and moved these guys elsewhere, that's fine. Instead, Baltimore moved them preemptively (again, supposedly), and will instead have fewer eyes at the pro ranks and (now) unhappy eyes "helping out" with the amateur side. If Baltimore is filling the created void with other scouts, that's fine. If they are truly just moving forward with a streamlined pro department, then 1) I think they should probably have a few more eyes on the pro ranks, and 2) the guys they moved would likely have more value in their previous role than they will jumping into the draft convo at this point.

[phyde]

It is hard to gauge intent from press reports and third-hand information.

Did they do the scouts a kindness by not canning them a week before Christmas? If they waited another 2 weeks and then fired them, who would be better off? Can these guys just work on their resumes for a few months and then leave on their own terms? Or stay as long as they like, doing less valuable work for the same money?

Or did they reassign them for PR reasons, so not to seem like Scrooges?

What we don't know seems to be a bit larger than what we do.

[Stotle]

It's not underhanded at all for a new regime (call it what you will) to insist on having it's own people in positions it considers critical for success. No one's contract is being voided, there's time to continue receiving a check while exploring other options on their own time and finally there's opportunity to prove they fit in with the new order of things if they're so inclined.

Of the many things scouts from other organizations could take notice of, I hope one of them is that the scouting/development arm of the Oriole's shouldn't be equated with the Civil Service. If Duquette's here to actually get stuff done, then this is a healthy step IMO.

This would be a nice post if the move were actually a result of the new regime bringing in its own people. It's not -- at least not as of the time of the demotions.

[Lucky Jim]

No its not poor form. An employee is there to serve the company. If his contract doesn't say he is guaranteed to have a job as a Major League Scout, then he has no right to complain. He can either take the reassignment or quit. For him to complain and moan is what is poor form.

Also re: what scouts are paid, they are make what they make because there are tons of people out there willing to do their job for very little money. The way they can make more money is to prove themselves. If they aren't making more money, the market just says that they aren't responsible.

PS. As a liberal I can't believe I wrote the above which seems like Republican talking points.

It's poor form because you've replaced people with no one - you've literally said no one can do your job (and not in the good way). It's also poor form because talent is finite and it's already hard enough to attract it when you're a crappy organization. If you think GMs thought twice about coming here, why would you come here as a scout - with lower pay and more instability?

Don't underestimate signaling effects. When I look at lateraling opportunities to go to other firms, I'm always checking out how they treated their employees in the downturn - did they lay off? Did they slash bonuses?

Any move might be fair and efficient, but I'm not taking my talent there.

[24fps]

First, if I wanted to do scout full time, I would be doing it. The uncertainty of employment, as well as the microscopic pay, is a big reason I am electing to do it as a side gig.

Second, Baltimore is vacating pro scouting positions BEFORE they have any replacements. How does that benefit the team in the short term or the long term?

As for the bolded, as Lucky Jim said, "it's legal, but poor form."

If you view this as a scouting problem then it doesn't make sense. If you view it as an organizational problem and the primary problem with the organization is entrenched methods and loyalties, then a good course of action would be to care of business before anybody tries to stop you. Most of us believe that the Orioles are not merely dysfunctional but massively dysfunctional. Would anyone be surprised if DD looked at things the same way and decided that's what he should address first?

[baltfan]

Not at all. If Baltimore brought in a bunch of scouts and moved these guys elsewhere, that's fine. Instead, Baltimore moved them preemptively (again, supposedly), and will instead have fewer eyes at the pro ranks and (now) unhappy eyes "helping out" with the amateur side. If Baltimore is filling the created void with other scouts, that's fine. If they are truly just moving forward with a streamlined pro department, then 1) I think they should probably have a few more eyes on the pro ranks, and 2) the guys they moved would likely have more value in their previous role than they will jumping into the draft convo at this point.

But, to be fair, the above is a little inconsistent with your prior post where you said this was "poor form". If you disagree with reassignments because you think there needs to be people doing that job, that's one thing. However, a lot of what you have been talking about is how unfair this is to the scouts that were reassigned. I think the latter is what I, and others, were focused on from your posts.

[Tony-OH]

It's not underhanded at all for a new regime (call it what you will) to insist on having it's own people in positions it considers critical for success. No one's contract is being voided, there's time to continue receiving a check while exploring other options on their own time and finally there's opportunity to prove they fit in with the new order of things if they're so inclined.

Of the many things scouts from other organizations could take notice of, I hope one of them is that the scouting/development arm of the Oriole's shouldn't be equated with the Civil Service. If Duquette's here to actually get stuff done, then this is a healthy step IMO.

I think this is a great point. I've long said that accountability has been missing in this organization. Year after year the same guys scout, coach or whatever, and the organization continues to lose. At some point, you have to go in a different direction. It sucks if you are asked to do something you haven't done in awhile, but at least you are getting a paycheck and you get another year to position yourself to either impress the new guys or find a new position in another organization.

[TGO]

Baltimore Orioles 2012 Scout of the Year!

He wouldn't even be the #9 scout in a good organization.

[Stotle]

No its not poor form. An employee is there to serve the company. If his contract doesn't say he is guaranteed to have a job as a Major League Scout, then he has no right to complain. He can either take the reassignment or quit. For him to complain and moan is what is poor form.

Also re: what scouts are paid, they are make what they make because there are tons of people out there willing to do their job for very little money. The way they can make more money is to prove themselves. If they aren't making more money, the market just says that they aren't responsible.

PS. As a liberal I can't believe I wrote the above which seems like Republican talking points.

Let's say your company gives a three month severance package when it fires employees. Your new boss decides your position isn't that useful, but he also doesn't want to pay you a severance. So now you are going to work in an office 90 minutes further away from your home and you are also going to work weekends. If you don't like it you can quit, but you won't get your severence package.

I'm sure that would sit well with you.

[Tony-OH]

It's poor form because you've replaced people with no one - you've literally said no one can do your job (and not in the good way). It's also poor form because talent is finite and it's already hard enough to attract it when you're a crappy organization. If you think GMs thought twice about coming here, why would you come here as a scout - with lower pay and more instability?

Don't underestimate signaling effects. When I look at lateraling opportunities to go to other firms, I'm always checking out how they treated their employees in the downturn - did they lay off? Did they slash bonuses?

Any move might be fair and efficient, but I'm not taking my talent there.

Um, maybe because Duquette is changing that opinion around baseball? Also, maybe because working in baseball is a lot of guys dreams and there are only so many jobs available? I've never heard of hard time hiring a scout. As Nick pointed out correctly, if not for the low pay, a lot more people would love to do the job, but it's amazing how many guys are still willing to do the job. Don't equate the Orioles struggles to hire a GM with a lack of abaility to hire talent. Rajsich, Haas and few others are proving that good talent is willing to work for Duquette here in Baltimore.

[Stotle]

But, to be fair, the above is a little inconsistent with your prior post where you said this was "poor form". If you disagree with reassignments because you think there needs to be people doing that job, that's one thing. However, a lot of what you have been talking about is how unfair this is to the scouts that were reassigned. I think the latter is what I, and others, were focused on from your posts.

Now, I said it was unfair to reassign someone as a means to get them to quit their job to avoid paying them. Being reassigned happens -- again, a reason why scouting isn't my fulltime job.

Heck, lots of time "reassignment" is a good thing for scouts, as essentially all promotions are going to mean some sort of reassignment.