I'm curious as to your suggested or preferred alternative. How the reporter came upon this information is immaterial, unless you find public records requests distasteful or unethical. He had it and shared it with his superiors. Should they in turn have done nothing? Not inquired of the player, his coach or the school for comment? Simply decided that because it was a juvenile court matter, it was their ethical duty to keep it secret? For how long? 
The same publishing company took more than a few ethical lumps for not reporting on secrets involving two of this state's prominent favorite sons. This is different, of course, or is it? How do you determine what matters and what doesn't? Also, if the story had come to light another way -- several MLB teams were reported to have found out about it in advance of the draft -- weeks or months of years down the road, could The Oregonian then share what it knew and when it knew it?
Seriously, what do you think? Thanks.