Fukudome, Kuroda, Kobayashi

[ColumbiaOriole]

Huh? Of course I haven't. I'm not an MLB club. You don't need a detailed analysis to conclude that it's crazy to look everywhere. The last thing I want is for them to go from doing a lousy job in a few places to doing a lousy job everywhere.

What idea do you think I'm so against? I'm not saying they should look in the DR and no place else. But I am against the idea of them trying to scout everywhere. Some places matter more than others. What they should do is have AM be his methodical self, carefully pick a just a few places, and do those places right.

I think it would be idiotic not to look everywhere possible to try and find sources of talent. Just because you speculate that mining for talent everywhere is impossible doesn't make it true. No one is saying that some places aren't more important than others (that's fairly obvious) but to unilaterally dismiss new areas as potential options for no good reason makes little sense. As Drungo has pointed out, it would be smart to be the first or one of the first clubs in areas that are in the initial stages of developing baseball talent and gain an advantage there. What difference does it make to you if we increase our scouting budget? It'll still be a lot cheaper than overpaying for veteran free-agent mediocrity at the major league level as has been our M.O. for the last decade or so. Pouring lots of money into scouting both domestic and international is spending wisely despite your contention otherwise in an earlier post. You say that it's crazy to look everywhere; I'm no expert but I'd think it's crazy not to. Just because we haven't done a great job scouting/developing talent over the last decade doesn't mean it can't happen under new leadership.

[ColumbiaOriole]

Good metaphor.

So, let's say that you just got hired as the director of the O's scouting operation, and you can bring in some guys to work for you. Let's say you've inherited those 4 "major accounts" (places where they grow lotsa good young ballplayers) and another couple minor accounts that don't matter much now, but are maybe worth paying some attention to because they may (or may not) pay off someday. Let's say AM is your boss. (OK so far?)

Let's further say that your predecessor made a mess of things with the 4 major accounts, so the major part of the business is way way down, and the company is suffering because of that. In addition your predecessor also completely ignored the couple of minor accounts. What is AM gonna tell you to do?

• Is he gonna tell you to increase your focus on the minor accounts that maybe will or won't "emerge"?
• Is he gonna tell you to *add* a whole slew of new minor accounts that may or may not amount to much?
• Or is he gonna tell you buckle down and pay attention to those big accounts where all the business is now, fix those accounts pronto, keep you eye on that ball for about 80 hours per week, no screwing around and no lame excuses, just fix 'em; and then, once that's accomplished, then get back to him about the issue of adding new minor accounts?

What do you think he's gonna say?

In this hypothetical you've come up with, you're assuming no increase in funds allocated towards working these accounts. This is faulty reasoning. Obviously, more scouting would require greater resources allocated towards that goal. In your scenario here, I think he's gonna say we need more scouts. I'd assume the relatively low cost of paying scouts more than justifies the potential returns in terms of major league talent.