International FAILURES Continue...

[TiredofLosing20]

The point is that a slow growth process in terms of scouts in the DR is proper in the light of the deep-seated scandals and corruption that are endemic. See: Bowden/Rijo.

Going slow is a way of making sure you don't make big mistakes.

I definitely think this is a valid question. One which I hadn't thought of when criticizing my perceived pace of progress in DR.

What I can't say is whether or not it is valid excuse, though it could be.

[Lucky Jim]

Ok, I'm fine with that. But if you're gonna take your time developing scouts who you hope can find the less expensive gems that others can't find, why not throw some money around at the bigger guys who everybody knows in the interim?

If eventually you're gonna be spending $3M a year in the DR, but ultimately your goal is to have good scouts who can find promising but under-known players and sign maybe 5-20 of them for that $3M, while you are training those guys, why not sign 1-3 of the $1M+ guys that are better known and more visible. You can bring your US scouts down for a week or two to look at the big money, higher visibility guys, and spend that money there. Then, once you trust your scouts to be able to find bargains, then revert back to that plan.

My point isn't about spending, really - though I think the O's have rejected the big-ticket guys, for the most part, as not worth the squeeze. It's really about our presence. The FO took a lot of hits when the number of scouts were compared to other organizations, but few people looked at the reasons why the scouting staff might need to grow slowly.

[NCRaven]

I could agree with most of your post except for the bolded part.

This is a very important issue, the Dominican scouting, and the Orioles have sucked at it for years. I think the tendency to believe anything bad that is reported about their efforts there is justified. The burden of proof is on the Orioles to show us that they are doing better down there. Them just saying "things are getting better" is absolutely meaningless.

Actually, if we win a World Series without a significant Dominican player on the team, I'll be just as happy. We've improved our Dominican effort, reopened our academy in Venezuela, entered the Japanese market, and signed our first Australian in several years. I'm not sugar coating our difficiencies. I'm merely pointing out that we're getting better, even if it's not as fast as many here want. I'm also realistic enough to understand that you can't be perfect at everything and you have to pick and choose.

Finally, this comment that our level of commitment to the DR is only 3 full-time scouts is patently ridiculous. Look at the minor league staff assignments posted today by Roch and in the Sun:

Dominican Summer I:

Miguel Jabalero (manager)

Robert Perez (pitching coach)

Benny Adames (field coach)

Ramon Lubo (catching coach)

Dominican Summer II:

Elvis Morrel (manager)

Dionis Pascual (pitching coach)

Ruben Francisco (field coach)

Player Development Department:

Coordinator, Infield/Dominican Field Coord.: Bobby Dickerson

Coordinator, Dominican Academy: Felipe Alou, Jr.

Dominican Field Supervisor: Ramon Caraballo

Many of the developmental staff are also involved in scouting, just not on a full-time, year-round basis.

Just think that much of this angst is excessive.

[Mackus]

My point isn't about spending, really - though I think the O's have rejected the big-ticket guys, for the most part, as not worth the squeeze. It's really about our presence. The FO took a lot of hits when the number of scouts were compared to other organizations, but few people looked at the reasons why the scouting staff might need to grow slowly.

Like I have said, I'm willing to accept sound reasoning, and if true your reasons would be acceptable. I just need to hear those reasons for why it goes so slow. Them just saying "We're working on it but it takes time" isn't enough for me. They don't deserve that level of trust and "take my word for it" when it comes to DR scouting. They have to do better than that.

[Stotle]

My point isn't about spending, really - though I think the O's have rejected the big-ticket guys, for the most part, as not worth the squeeze. It's really about our presence. The FO took a lot of hits when the number of scouts were compared to other organizations, but few people looked at the reasons why the scouting staff might need to grow slowly.

It's really an interesting topic that deserves a big spotlight (not just for BAL, but baseball in general). On one hand, I completely agree with you that it makes intuitive sense for an organization to tread softly when there are vipers in the grass. At the same time, at what point does the TIME spent start to weigh against the money your trying to save by building up your foundation on your own.

Put another way, if I'm worried about wasting the $1.5million I'd like to invest in the DR, why not go to an organization like BOS or ATL or NYA or MIL or STL, target a guy who's been around a bit, and offer to double his salary and make him the Assistant to the Director of Dominican Operations? I don't mean to imply that this specifically will work, but something along these lines seems to make perfect sense. Rather than sorting through the guys that might have connections and might be corrupt, why not try and take the initial financial hit by throwing money at the evaluators, rather than the players?

Maybe this is being considered. Tony's thoughts expressed in the thread lead me to believe that ultimately the guys calling the shots in the DR are going to be the same, even if their staff is greatly improved in size/quality. If true, time will tell whether the approach will work.

As with many of our other discussions on here, I think it's fair to say at the same time 1) the FO deserves to let results speak for their actions, and 2) the FO is fair game as fair as questioning whether the path they are taking is ultimately the best path (compared to other options available).

[NCRaven]

As with many of our other discussions on here, I think it's fair to say at the same time 1) the FO deserves to let results speak for their actions, and 2) the FO is fair game as fair as questioning whether the path they are taking is ultimately the best path (compared to other options available).

I agree with this completely. I'd point out that our effort in the DR has to be seen in context of our total player acquisition and development effort. If we continue to improve our minor league system, to the point that it is regularly developing high quality players, it will be a success no matter where those players were born. A Dominican player has no more inherent value than a US high school prospect or Venezuelan. The answer is to fill our system with higher quality prospects, no matter the source.

[alexei606]

It's really an interesting topic that deserves a big spotlight (not just for BAL, but baseball in general). On one hand, I completely agree with you that it makes intuitive sense for an organization to tread softly when there are vipers in the grass. At the same time, at what point does the TIME spent start to weigh against the money your trying to save by building up your foundation on your own.

Put another way, if I'm worried about wasting the $1.5million I'd like to invest in the DR, why not go to an organization like BOS or ATL or NYA or MIL or STL, target a guy who's been around a bit, and offer to double his salary and make him the Assistant to the Director of Dominican Operations? I don't mean to imply that this specifically will work, but something along these lines seems to make perfect sense. Rather than sorting through the guys that might have connections and might be corrupt, why not try and take the initial financial hit by throwing money at the evaluators, rather than the players?

Maybe this is being considered. Tony's thoughts expressed in the thread lead me to believe that ultimately the guys calling the shots in the DR are going to be the same, even if their staff is greatly improved in size/quality. If true, time will tell whether the approach will work.

As with many of our other discussions on here, I think it's fair to say at the same time 1) the FO deserves to let results speak for their actions, and 2) the FO is fair game as fair as questioning whether the path they are taking is ultimately the best path (compared to other options available).[/QUOTE]

Exactly, and as for the corruption problems - that didn't faze the Twins, plus, there is increased scrutiny to age and identity issues - see Sano example. I still believe that the Orioles should follow the Twins methodology, good results in a short time frame.

[Stotle]

I agree with this completely. I'd point out that our effort in the DR has to be seen in context of our total player acquisition and development effort. If we continue to improve our minor league system, to the point that it is regularly developing high quality players, it will be a success no matter where those players were born. A Dominican player has no more inherent value than a US high school prospect or Venezuelan. The answer is to fill our system with higher quality prospects, no matter the source.

Certainly agree with this. For all the huffing I do about how impressed I am with BOS, BAL circumvented some of the need to "catch-up" by drafting well with Wieters/Matusz/perhaps Britton/perhaps Arrieta and making use of Bedard (and then Sherrill) to bring in young talent. BAL doesn't NEED to be even with BOS right away, and it's reasonable to assume that changes won't happen overnight.

That doesn't mean that it isn't valid to look at that progress as it occurs and attempt to find out if it's occurring as quickly as it should.

Alexi pointed out a realtively quick turnaround from MIN. I believe OAK is another example of an organization that didn't have a strong presence but has made some aggressive moves in the short term. Of course, the jury is out as to whether players like Inoa or Sano will blossom into anything -- it will just be more info in hind sight when we all look back and say: Was BAL right to be shy away from splashing in the big pool, or was it possible for good scouting and aggressive moves to pay off much quicker?

To be clear, I'm not saying the success of Inoa/Sano is the be-all and end-all -- just that it will be more information to throw in the discussion.

[hoosiers]

Here's a question you should ask. Who are the scouts who have been in the DR and where are they now? Are they in the same positions? If we are adding DR scouts, who are they and are they an extension of the guys who have brought in so little talent over the years or are they guys who have a track record with other organizations or brand new guys?

I've worked in many organizations (as you have) and, it has been my experience, that the LEADERSHIP is a key part of that organization. I've seen one CFO walk out of a company and bash the entire accounting department under him while another CFO walked in and turned those same resources into one of the most efficient parts of the company.

Perhaps it's really not important whether or not we have the same scouts in the same positions if those scouts are provided better direction and increased funding and held to higher standards. Just asking.

I agree new scouts added need to be quality hires, but I assume that's part of the reason of why it's a slow process.

[charles_goos]

...The Royals signed another international prospect...

Meanwhile The O's added zero talent.

http://kansascity.royals.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100107&content_id=7888106&vkey=news_kc&fext=.jsp&c_id=kc

[LookinUp]

From the fan's perspective

I think it's completely reasonable to be unsatisfied and disappointed, both with reports like the one on ESPN and actual results in the international arena in general. Anything less than consistently asking questions and doing our best to demand answers is a let down.

From the O's perspective

I'd want to be responsive so I'd grant someone like Roch or Zriebec or Schmuck an interview, either live on the radio or for an article, explaining our efforts. Of course, they'll only do this if there's something to be optimistic about.

[Lucky Jim]

...The Royals signed another international prospect...

Meanwhile The O's added zero talent.

http://kansascity.royals.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100107&content_id=7888106&vkey=news_kc&fext=.jsp&c_id=kc

In the last two days? That's not much of a criticism.

[Birds of B'more]

In the last two days? That's not much of a criticism.

Particularly since the most recent KC signing was actually agreed to a month ago.

[charles_goos]

Particularly since the most recent KC signing was actually agreed to a month ago.

I think you are missing the point.

The fact is they keep adding talent based on their international efforts, that shows some consistency with their small market team reality.

Do you think The O's are adding that kind of talent via free agency?

[Stotle]

The O's signed 36 players from Latin America, 1 from Guatamala, and another from Australia. Those were just reported since the end of the season. Would it make it seem better if they announced one signing every 3 days?

It'd be like a really extended Hanukkah (or so my Jewish friends tell me).