Same S--t, Different Day Bob's Backstop for October 12, 2005

Questions, contradictions, whispers, accusations.

It's just another day at the Warehouse.

It doesn't look like things are starting off any better under the 'single head' regime of Mike Flanagan than it did under the two-headed monster.

What's the latest, you ask?

It appears that Jim Beattie is going to accept his 'consulting role' for the time being, because, as he put it, "I think the job will have minimal involvement," and, "I have flexibility. I'm in a situation where I can call clubs. It also gives me the option if I don't find anything else now to wait a year."

In other words, the Orioles are paying him to do nothing out of guilt or some sense of obligation. So his vision and leadership has been rejected, but the Orioles are willing to keep him around. Until he finds something else.

It's only symbolic, granted, but symbolism means something. Just pay him a nice settlement, and fire him, already. Having the ex-VP hanging around in some consulting position just doesn't seem like something a forward-thinking organization would do; it's akin to not letting a manager pick his coaches, or a VP of Baseball Operations (gag me...Peter, he's a GM, and put "BALTIMORE" back on the uniforms already) hire his own manager.

Then there's this Ritterpusch matter.

The more I hear about this, the less I like it.

I would agree with Flanagan's public stance that "You're not doing due diligence if you're not accumulating as much data as you can."

No problem there.

My issue with it comes in the application.

A memo signed by Beattie and Flanagan dated July 9, 2004, reads, "Consistent with the Orioles' policy...effective immediately no player is to be signed to a minor-league contract without an acceptable ISAM (Athletic Success Institute psychological test - ed.) on hand."

This doesn't seem to equate with Flanagan's statement that he "thinks it's a little unfair how much attention it's gotten." Mike, if you're basing all of your minor-league signings on the test, that would seem to be deserving of "attention," don't you think?

"No position player will be signed who scores less than a 3 (best score is a 5)...nor will any pitcher be signed who scores less than a 4..."

Beattie wouldn't comment on the memos. There's no indication that Flanagan was asked for comment, but I think he should make one. Which statement is accurate, that the ISAM is a tool used in conjunction with other factors, or is it, as laid out in the memo, a line in the proverbial sand on the beach of available talent?

Here's a list of players the Post revealed got raves in testing and in memos from Rutterpusch: Chris Ray, Adam Loewen, John Maine, Matthew Pulley, and John Parrish.

So what, you say?

Guess who wouldn't have been signed by the Orioles if he was an original team draftee and this process was in place.

Try B.J.Ryan.

That's right, one of the best left-handed setup men in baseball over the past couple of years, and a solid, if not spectacular, closer this past season, wouldn't have made the grade under Dave Rutterpusch. Pass. Big time. The guy only scored a 2, after all.

A memo from Rutterpusch dated June 30, 2003, reads: "Would love to see B.J. Ryan moved - and Parrish put in his spot. Parrish is not bright (I'm sure John's going to enjoy reading this in the paper - ed.) - which is why he can't cut it as a starter - but he has a heck of a profile."

There's one problem there, Dave. That 'heck of a profile' has a 'heck of a time' getting his pitches over the plate.

I recall that a lot of us, myself included, were very high on John Parrish a couple of years ago. It's too easy to just laugh at how this situation turned out and say, "Well, that's only one example. There are many cases where the thing has worked, I'm sure."

But here's the bottom line: according to the first memo, Ryan wouldn't have even been signed by the Orioles. And if he had, it looks as if he would have been lowly regarded. Dave Rutterpusch didn't think much of him, that's for sure.

The tone of the memo disturbs me, as well. It's clear to me that Rutterpusch was making his evaluation of the future of the two players strictly by the profile, doesn't it? And writing on a piece of paper that Parrish 'isn't bright'? Is this a smart thing to do? It ended up in the Washington Post somehow, so I'll let the reader make a determination of whether or not it was a good idea.

But wait, there's more. There's Rutterpusch's defense of his work. He says that many successful teams, including the Braves and Indians, have used psychological tests. Dave, they must be using better ones, or not putting so much stock in them, because there's no comparison in the results in the three systems. Zilch. Nada.

He goes on to say that the "profiling helped restock the Orioles' farm system." The paper then notes that 'This year's Oriole draft has already produced two top-rated prospects in their respective leagues.' I'll agree that it looks like this past year's draft was successful, but we're supposed to accept this based on one draft? We've been reading about this ISAM process for a couple of seasons. Was 'the line in the sand' drawn in the 2004 draft for the first time? Rutterpusch isn't clear on this.

But wait, there's more. "For anyone to say this was an inhibitor is ludicrous. There may be some people who are jealous of what we're doing."

Great. So, in other words, everyone's not on the same page, and there are people in the organization who are most interested in looking good than results. According to Dave.

Well, that would be bad enough, but then there is this to consider: according to the Post, a source with intimate knowledge of Baltimore's draft this year said Rutterpusch had no say in any picks.

"He had no input on this draft whatsoever. It didn't influence any pick that was made. It was all about what the scouting staff wanted."

WHAT IN THE HECK IS GOING ON HERE?

Who is running the show? What is the process in place? How exactly is the ISAM being used? Is Rutterpusch another Syd Thrift, latching onto Mike Flanagan and Peter Angelos, creating unrest and factions in the Warehouse? Why is anything being used so heavily that it is creating divisions in the management team, while the team presents a public image that it's only one tool of many?

Too many questions, not enough answers, too much self-serving, too many conflicting statements.

And no future B.J. Ryans.

Same S--t, Different Day.

Tell us it ain't so, Mike.

After the way this organization has been run even since the Gillick days, we were hoping for a breath of fresh air and a return to sanity and common sense under your regime...but it's starting off with the same divisions, uncertainties, and questionable tactics that have dogged the franchise for too long.

Talk to the fans, Mike, or the media. Get your message out. This is not looking like a solid beginning at all. You know this team has a couple of years to go before it can hope to be a winner, so you need to let the fans know what you're doing, how you're building, so we can decide if we buy into it or not.

Right now, all we're getting is Thriftspeak. And this time, it's not even funny.