International FAILURES Continue...

[Mackus]

The DR isn't the only place with baseball.

But its the only place we're talking about in this thread for the most part.

[El Gordo]

It would be great to hear from people who have actally spent time in the DR. I have a friend that did and his report was one of an incredidble disparity between wealth and squalor with rampant corruption. It would seem to me that what you are dealing with is a black market situation for ballplayers. It would not be easy to build up a stucture that accurately amd efficiently evaluates and targets prospects in a socially responsible(and legal) way. Particularly when your own organaization has been dysfunctional for years and your international scouting department there is clogged by some kind of old boy favoritism.

[Stotle]

I agree with this completely. You're imposing a burden on the FO because of years of futility. I'm not imposing that same burden because I've seen signs of development - some of which involve a great deal of investment.

I'm curious about your take on the scandal, because I can't see a rebuttal to Baltimore's response anywhere in there. And I like to be surprised.

The "sickened" comment was clearly a joke. The part where you claimed to see no incentive to distort was not. It was the more material evidence of your position.

It's an interesting sort of burden you're placing, btw. Essentially, you've accused Baltimore of something and then placed the burden of them - not of creating doubt - but of wholly, convincingly, rebutting that accusation.

Further, how can you disregard Aragure's own comment that we shouldn't read too much into it? You're own witness is saying that it's not definitive - he's casting doubt. So, the O's give an explanation, Arangure mitigates the probative value of the evidence, and the O's still haven't met their burden of showing...what, exactly?

I see no incentive to distort = the guy has an interest in being in contact with MLB organizations and get them interested in his players. I took the information in, chewed on it, and came to the conclusion that there wasn't anything I could see that he would gain in distorting the facts. Further, isn't in BAL's interest to have the reps introduce themselves and at least make contact with the agents representing a lot of the players they are scouting? I just don't see motive. I'm not saying I'm right, just that there was an actual process to my thinking and arriving at a conclusion.

Re: Arangure's Response - I've stated a bunch on here that in the long run it isn't a big deal from an acquisition standpoint. It's unlikely (by the percentages) that BAL is going to find the next Jose Reyes here. That's why I haven't argued that BAL should be signing kids from the league. That's not from where my disappointment was springing. My issue is with the decision not to be an active member in an appearingly (certainly could be wrong) easy-to-scout league containing your target low- to mid-tier prospects.

Re: Burden of Proof - I'm no litigator, but I seem to recall from my BAR prep that it's quite common to apply different degrees of burden of proof, depending on the situation. For example, isn't it a much greater burden placed on a public figure to show defamation of character through libel/slander than ther is for Joe Public? It's fine that the positive results are enough for you to lower your burden, by I don't think it's unreasonable for me to have mine still at an elevated level, particularly when we see possible evidence in the original article of BAL not being active in an inexpensive international endeavor that other organizations are benefitting from.

Re: Corruption - Jorge's article stated that the league was working to set up a program to drug test every participating player, as well as to run age verification checks on every participating player, but thus far has run into some issues with cost. MLB hasn't gotten on board funding the league (not surprising, considering it's still young and teams already entrenched have little to gain by helping to level the playing field). BAL's response in Roch's blog was that they did get reports from the league (no indication of there actual presence, which was the whole point) and then Roch mentioned that there were as private workouts held all over the island every day. If you are concerned with corruption, not having a comfortable relationship with the buscons and being taken advantage of, why would you think that the best use of your resources is to go to private buscon workouts? Why wouldn't you be leading the charge to get a league like the DPL up and running? A league where they work to check on drugs/age, and you aren't reliant on a buscon's word and your own digging as to age or a player, or if you're even being shown the best kids he trains? The League may fizzle if it doesn't attract enough top talent, but at least the talent is there, in front of you, in a game, in one place, on one pay, playing against comparable talent. If your concerned about building your foundation, getting trusted people, and not being taken advantage of, THIS SEEMS LIKE the exact investment your looking for while build your presence. Nothing but a day at the field for a scout and mingling some with the League reps to show support and try and help get the league off the ground.

How can your reason for taking things slow be corruption and cost, while at the same time you point to your less-than-full participation in a league like the DPL and cite 1) you are doing "other things" and 2) it takes time to be able to get a presence. The DPL is trying to make it so that you don't have to do those things, yet you aren't actively involved, let alone leading the charge. It's the apparent decisions on investment that I have an issue with, and the idea of BAL sitting out on what appears to be a perfect fit for them troubles me.

I mean, I know Roch was angry he had to look into something on the DPL, but BAL couldn't have thrown a quote in along the lines of, "We're interested in the league and it looks like it could have potential"? THe whole response in the article seemed to play down the league itself and play up the fact that you need patience to get troops on the ground in the DR. I must just be stupid because those seem pretty contradictory to me.

[RShack]

Your response to him was appropriate. In general, I like the guy, but not only was it silly of him to complain that people had not checked with the Orioles when there is no way to do that, it was especially lame that he complained about that *instead* of checking himself. Maybe we can't check, but he can. He should've just done the checking and reported on what he found out. I wonder why he didn't. Now, I could say that it's probably because it was too much trouble, and complaining is easier. However, instead of jumping to conclusions like that, I'll say, "I'm just asking..."

Also, any discussions about Roch's knowledge superiority must be confined to passing witticisms. The guy was atrocious in left ;-)

Well, I don't know how much is spin vs. how much is real, but at least Roch got a Stockstill to comment, instead of just being snarky towards those who were bothered by the original story. So, props to Roch about that.

Now, if I understand the situation properly (which maybe I don't), the Stockstill he got to respond is not the one who has the D.R. as his fiefdom. But I guess a response from any Stockstill is better than none. In any case, Roch got a response from somebody. If you think it's just spin, then what do you think Roch should have asked (if anything) that he didn't?

[Lucky Jim]

Re: Corruption - Jorge's article stated that the league was working to set up a program to drug test every participating player, as well as to run age verification checks on every participating player, but thus far has run into some issues with cost. MLB hasn't gotten on board funding the league (not surprising, considering it's still young and teams already entrenched have little to gain by helping to level the playing field). BAL's response in Roch's blog was that they did get reports from the league (no indication of there actual presence, which was the whole point) and then Roch mentioned that there were as private workouts held all over the island every day. If you are concerned with corruption, not having a comfortable relationship with the buscons and being taken advantage of, why would you think that the best use of your resources is to go to private buscon workouts? Why wouldn't you be leading the charge to get a league like the DPL up and running? A league where they work to check on drugs/age, and you aren't reliant on a buscon's word and your own digging as to age or a player, or if you're even being shown the best kids he trains? The League may fizzle if it doesn't attract enough top talent, but at least the talent is there, in front of you, in a game, in one place, on one pay, playing against comparable talent. If your concerned about building your foundation, getting trusted people, and not being taken advantage of, THIS SEEMS LIKE the exact investment your looking for while build your presence. Nothing but a day at the field for a scout and mingling some with the League reps to show support and try and help get the league off the ground.

How can your reason for taking things slow be corruption and cost, while at the same time you point to your less-than-full participation in a league like the DPL and cite 1) you are doing "other things" and 2) it takes time to be able to get a presence. The DPL is trying to make it so that you don't have to do those things, yet you aren't actively involved, let alone leading the charge. It's the apparent decisions on investment that I have an issue with, and the idea of BAL sitting out on what appears to be a perfect fit for them troubles me.

I mean, I know Roch was angry he had to look into something on the DPL, but BAL couldn't have thrown a quote in along the lines of, "We're interested in the league and it looks like it could have potential"? THe whole response in the article seemed to play down the league itself and play up the fact that you need patience to get troops on the ground in the DR. I must just be stupid because those seem pretty contradictory to me.

I'm not sure why this is necessary. No one's said or even implied that your criticisms were stupid. I think the O's were merely trying to address the specific criticism and the general. Which is fair.

I have no idea what the Orioles' presence at the league is or is not. Your response was almost exactly what I predicted, however: "why haven't they introduced themselves?"

And maybe you're right.

On the other hand, there are all sorts of things that we're buying straight from the mouth of the founder of the league, who you admit has an interest in bolstering the league: How many players signed were targeted before the league and signed with the team that already targeted them? What was the distribution of signing bonuses? In other words, seven players got signed from the league for a range of bonuses and we have little-to-no information about what kind of talent it was or how it was valued. If it was substantial, you'd think specifics would be given, but what we get are league-flattering generalities.

Other questions exist: how much of this year's international signing money is left over to sign folks from the league? In other words, is the league anything more than an after-Christmas sale for those who didn't blow their holiday wad?

In other words, we've assumed the value of the league and everyone's happiness regarding it from an agent who founded and invested in the league. These we accept w/o any doubt. The Orioles' explanation, which was thorough, if not completely satisfactory, gets treated with not just doubt but a bit of snarkiness. (We all get a little snarky now and then.)

As for the legal component: of course burdens differ - I'm asking exactly what kind of burden you're placing on the Orioles? If they'd said "it's an interesting program and we look forward to utilizing it," would your response have been "good" or "why haven't you utilized it more, now?"

You're right - to prosecute a claim of libel there exist differing burdens. But that's to prosecute a claim of libel. The O's aren't doing that here. They're merely trying to explain why they're doing what they're doing, and why they shouldn't be convicted in the court of public opinion.

In the end, the point is that the onus is always on the prosecuting party to prove its case. That's where the fundamental burden lies. You're the accusing party here. No one that I know ever has to prove their innocence of accusations.

As for corruption, that point was specifically addressed to Mackus's point about having more scouts on the ground in the DR. In addressing the DR component of our foreign scouting, do you think that the corruption problems are a good reason for slowly ramping up our scouting presence rather than investing in a surge?

[Satyr3206]

You could look at this from a different perspective. The Orioles have assembled a lot of talent without a significant contribution from the DR. If they can change that the Minor Leagues System could become pretty formidable. And I know that's a big if.

[Stotle]

Well, I don't know how much is spin vs. how much is real, but at least Roch got a Stockstill to comment, instead of just being snarky towards those who were bothered by the original story. So, props to Roch about that.

Now, if I understand the situation properly (which maybe I don't), the Stockstill he got to respond is not the one who has the D.R. as his fiefdom. But I guess a response from any Stockstill is better than none. In any case, Roch got a response from somebody. If you think it's just spin, then what do you think Roch should have asked (if anything) that he didn't?

I don't think it's JUST spin, but it doesn't allay my worries. What I would have liked Roch to ask:

1. What was your presence, and why do you think the league founders (who are agents -- that's for you, LJ singled you out as a "non-regular" participant?

2. What are the big barriers still in place that make it difficult to devote a regular presence to the league (if it is in fact a once-a-week league)?

3. Is it reasonable to expect that your involvement in the League is likely to dramatically increase, or does BAL simply not have the resources to be a significant presence in any one international arena?

4. Do you think there is value in establishing a League like this that, on its face at least, endeavors to provide teams with an easy opportunity to see a large collection of players?

I don't know what kind of answers those would get, and Iwouldn't expect Roch to turn an ESPN blurb into an expose, but I think one or two of those questions (or something to elicit responses at that level of detail) would have been enourmously helpful. It isn't owed to anyone, and I'm very appreciative that Roch checked on it at all. But I don't think it gets to the heart of the decision making process in that area of talent acquisition -- maybe I'm being unfair.

[hoosiers]

You could look at this from a different perspective. The Orioles have assembled a lot of talent without a significant contribution from the DR. If they can change that the Minor Leagues System could become pretty formidable. And I know that's a big if.

I was going to post this about 10 different times in this thread. We are a top 10 farm system and have invested a FRACTION of what others do internationally.

What does this say about the return most teams are enjoying on their international investments? Not much.

Or their US draft performance? Not much.

[Lucky Jim]

I don't think it's JUST spin, but it doesn't allay my worries. What I would have liked Roch to ask:

1. What was your presence, and why do you think the league founders (who are agents -- that's for you, LJ singled you out as a "non-regular" participant?

2. What are the big barriers still in place that make it difficult to devote a regular presence to the league (if it is in fact a once-a-week league)?

3. Is it reasonable to expect that your involvement in the League is likely to dramatically increase, or does BAL simply not have the resources to be a significant presence in any one international arena?

4. Do you think there is value in establishing a League like this that, on its face at least, endeavors to provide teams with an easy opportunity to see a large collection of players?

I don't know what kind of answers those would get, and Iwouldn't expect Roch to turn an ESPN blurb into an expose, but I think one or two of those questions (or something to elicit responses at that level of detail) would have been enourmously helpful. It isn't owed to anyone, and I'm very appreciative that Roch checked on it at all. But I don't think it gets to the heart of the decision making process in that area of talent acquisition -- maybe I'm being unfair.

This would all have been really nice to read. Of course, I don't think answer to that would have allayed your worries, either.

This is your issue. Run with it.

[csgordos]

Draft, Dominican, Mexico, Japan, EVEN RAID CRICKET TEAMS IF THAT IS WHAT IT TAKES! The Orioles should hire some consultants from a team that's on the edge of this, like the Twins or even...gasp...Boston!

I am sure my brother would be happy to take a role for the Orioles by scouting cricket players in Australia. I doubt you would even need to pay him. Just fly him back to Baltimore a couple times a year. That would be right up his "wicket"!

[Stotle]

I'm not sure why this is necessary. No one's said or even implied that your criticisms were stupid. I think the O's were merely trying to address the specific criticism and the general. Which is fair.

I have no idea what the Orioles' presence at the league is or is not. Your response was almost exactly what I predicted, however: "why haven't they introduced themselves?"

And maybe you're right.

**1**On the other hand, there are all sorts of things that we're buying straight from the mouth of the founder of the league, who you admit has an interest in bolstering the league: How many players signed were targeted before the league and signed with the team that already targeted them? What was the distribution of signing bonuses? In other words, seven players got signed from the league for a range of bonuses and we have little-to-no information about what kind of talent it was or how it was valued. If it was substantial, you'd think specifics would be given, but what we get are league-flattering generalities.

**2**Other questions exist: how much of this year's international signing money is left over to sign folks from the league? In other words, is the league anything more than an after-Christmas sale for those who didn't blow their holiday wad?

In other words, we've assumed the value of the league and everyone's happiness regarding it from an agent who founded and invested in the league. These we accept w/o any doubt. The Orioles' explanation, which was thorough, if not completely satisfactory, get treated with not just doubt but a bit of snarkiness.

As for the legal component: of course burdens differ - I'm asking exactly what kind of burden you're placing on the Orioles? **3**If they'd said "it's an interesting program and we look forward to utilizing it," would your response have been "good" or "why haven't you utilized it more, now?"

You're right - to prosecute a claim of libel there exist differing burdens. But that's to prosecute a claim of libel. The O's aren't doing that here. They're merely trying to explain why they're doing what they're doing, and why they shouldn't be convicted in the court of public opinion.

In the end, the point is that the onus is always on the prosecuting party to prove its case. That's where the fundamental burden lies. You're the accusing party here. No one that I know ever has to prove their innocence of accusations.

**4**As for corruption, that point was specifically addressed to Mackus's point about having more scouts on the ground in the DR. In addressing the DR component of our foreign scouting, do you think that the corruption problems are a good reason for slowly ramping up our scouting presence rather than investing in a surge?

**1** I guess I don't understand what we are "buying" from the founder. I don't understand what you are getting at. The article was pretty clear about the shortcomings and potential pitfalls the league faces. There is a good chance, I'm sure, that the league folds. If buscons decide they don't want their best players playing, and MLB won't help the league out because too many teams don't WANT to level the playing field, the league is definitely sunk. But what does that have to do with him noting BAL wasn't a regular? That's the only issue. What stands out about BAL such that it was a team that came to mind to mention? If the founders want to be on everyone's good side, he wouldn't want to piss anyone off. If he was going to try and make a point about MLB not being supportive, why would he alienate the exact type of organization he should be courting. Maybe he has attempted to get BAL involved and they simply weren't interested. I don't know. But it goes back to my point about making decisions as to how to invest.

**2** It is absolutely an after Christmas sale, but it's more of an attempt to give players anothr chance to be seen more regularly. It's all in the Arangure article. There are quotes from FO or scouts (don't remember) stating they have had an opportunity to see more of players that they weren't really in on, or didn't get to scout much. It's just another opportunity to see players at what seems to be little organizational expense. Who cares how much money is left over in BAL's coffers? It's irrelevant. You look for talent year round.

**3** If they'd said that I would have posted, "It's great to hear that they are interested in the League. Seems like a good fit." As I posted in my response to RShack, I just wanted a little more info into the why, and less about the "It's tough and takes time." Seemed like a platitude, but I've probably shifted over into irrational at this point. As Tony posted above, if BAL says they have people reporting regularly, that's fine. I just don't understand how this works, based on the little I've observed of scouting events, that you can have a regular presence that goes unnoticed by the people running the regular event (that spans several months).

**4** Corruption is an excellent reason to slowly ramp up a position in the DR, primarily because I would assume you wanted trusted people that are dependable evaluators and dependable people in general (not going to sandbag players, push you to the wrong investements, etc.). It's no different than hiring someone to help you find a house, or to manage your portfolio. If your shopping in an area known for having scumbags, you're going to be very careful of who you hook up with. That said, it seems to me this is all a reason that you'd work to support Leagues liek the DPL. But maybe it's run by scumbags too. If I see a bunch of other organizations, including organizations with a solid DR presence, active in the league, then that probably goes a long way towards making me feel that it isn't a waste of my time.

When I went to Jupiter, I was standing next to Pro Scouts at almost every field. I was confident that I was being treated to legit talent. When I attended a not-to-be-named showcase this summer, there were mostly regional schools and 3-4 big time D-I programs (who all watched the same three kids). I'm not a true scout by any means, but by looking at the participants I was able to draw some conclusions about the talent I was observing.

And the "stupid" comment was frustration with myself, not you. I really want to see what I am missing, or why BAL's statements match well with the little we know about the DPL. For whatever reason it still doesn't sync up for me...

[Lucky Jim]

**1** I guess I don't understand what we are "buying" from the founder. I don't understand what you are getting at. The article was pretty clear about the shortcomings and potential pitfalls the league faces. There is a good chance, I'm sure, that the league folds. If buscons decide they don't want their best players playing, and MLB won't help the league out because too many teams don't WANT to level the playing field, the league is definitely sunk. But what does that have to do with him noting BAL wasn't a regular? That's the only issue. What stands out about BAL such that it was a team that came to mind to mention? If the founders want to be on everyone's good side, he wouldn't want to piss anyone off. If he was going to try and make a point about MLB not being supportive, why would he alienate the exact type of organization he should be courting. Maybe he has attempted to get BAL involved and they simply weren't interested. I don't know. But it goes back to my point about making decisions as to how to invest.

**2** It is absolutely an after Christmas sale, but it's more of an attempt to give players anothr chance to be seen more regularly. It's all in the Arangure article. There are quotes from FO or scouts (don't remember) stating they have had an opportunity to see more of players that they weren't really in on, or didn't get to scout much. It's just another opportunity to see players at what seems to be little organizational expense. Who cares how much money is left over in BAL's coffers? It's irrelevant. You look for talent year round.

**3** If they'd said that I would have posted, "It's great to hear that they are interested in the League. Seems like a good fit." As I posted in my response to RShack, I just wanted a little more info into the why, and less about the "It's tough and takes time." Seemed like a platitude, but I've probably shifted over into irrational at this point. As Tony posted above, if BAL says they have people reporting regularly, that's fine. I just don't understand how this works, based on the little I've observed of scouting events, that you can have a regular presence that goes unnoticed by the people running the regular event (that spans several months).

**4** Corruption is an excellent reason to slowly ramp up a position in the DR, primarily because I would assume you wanted trusted people that are dependable evaluators and dependable people in general (not going to sandbag players, push you to the wrong investements, etc.). It's no different than hiring someone to help you find a house, or to manage your portfolio. If your shopping in an area known for having scumbags, you're going to be very careful of who you hook up with. That said, it seems to me this is all a reason that you'd work to support Leagues liek the DPL. But maybe it's run by scumbags too. If I see a bunch of other organizations, including organizations with a solid DR presence, active in the league, then that probably goes a long way towards making me feel that it isn't a waste of my time.

When I went to Jupiter, I was standing next to Pro Scouts at almost every field. I was confident that I was being treated to legit talent. When I attended a not-to-be-named showcase this summer, there were mostly regional schools and 3-4 big time D-I programs (who all watched the same three kids). I'm not a true scout by any means, but by looking at the participants I was able to draw some conclusions about the talent I was observing.

And the "stupid" comment was frustration with myself, not you. I really want to see what I am missing, or why BAL's statements match well with the little we know about the DPL. For whatever reason it still doesn't sync up for me...

Eh. As with most cases, I think folks probably agree more than disagree (and more than this conversation lets on). We should be there. That's a fact.

I'm optimistic that our increased investment in the DR is a sign of future investment. If it's not, it's worthless and should be disregarded. I'm just giving them a bit more slack than others, I guess.

I read the article. My point was that things seem fuzzy. That's all. What's regular? What's irregular? What's the true talent level? What's the difference between attending regularly and irregularly if the true talent level is good? Mediocre? Ragged? That's what I was getting at. Our opinions seem vested on fixed readings of "regular/irregular" and the fact that there must have been some talent there.

Like I said, I don't disagree w/ you about our historical performance in the DR. I'm just (ever-so-)cautiously optimistic.

I think the problem is that folks - not you in particular - grab onto often-fuzzy or undetermined bits of information which appear far more solid than they are when fit within preconceptions.

And remember, I'm always on the defense as a lawyer. Which fits my temperment. I never met an argument that convinced me of anything, clearly.

[Mackus]

I was going to post this about 10 different times in this thread. We are a top 10 farm system and have invested a FRACTION of what others do internationally.

What does this say about the return most teams are enjoying on their international investments? Not much.

Or their US draft performance? Not much.

Or that their total investment in dollars (either internationally or draft) doesn't match our spending.

I think everyone will agree that we've made great strides, especially in the draft, in recent years. I also think everyone will agree that we should absolutely be doing more, as much as possible, to continue to expand and commit more money as best we can.

Where the disagreement comes in is how do we balance the praise of the steps that have been made with the criticisms of the steps that still need to be made?

[Mackus]

And remember, I'm always on the defense as a lawyer.

I would kick a human baby to be able to find a google image of Tracy Morgan as Star Jones right now. Alas, google is letting me down.

[Lucky Jim]

I would kick a human baby to be able to find a google image of Tracy Morgan as Star Jones right now. Alas, google is letting me down.

Well, I mean literally. (And in the context of his legal analogy.) I always represent defendants, so that my life is built around being unconvinced and unconvincing people. That wasn't some metaphysical stance. Just trying to explain the way I think about things.