PDA

View Full Version : Guillen Fires Shot At Shaffer


DrCrawdad
06-07-2006, 09:18 AM
"What's the draft?'' Guillen responded when asked about his assessment. "I said, 'Please do a better job.' We haven't done too good lately.''

Guillen went on to say that managers get fired because of the type of drafts put together by Shaffer over the years, but he also joked, "Not me, I'm [Jerry Reinsdorf's] baby.''

Since being put in charge of the draft in 1990, Shaffer has produced Eddie Pearson, Scott Christman, Bobby Seay, Jason Dellaero, Jason Stumm, Kris Honel and Royce Ring in the first round. - Sun-Times, June 7, 2006 (http://www.suntimes.com/output/sox/cst-spt-sdraft07.html)

Not a very complimentary article, but the facts is the facts.

Britt Burns
06-07-2006, 11:49 AM
I know our 1st rounders haven't worked out very well (hoping that BA-Fields-Broadway breaks that streak), but I have to disagree here, I think Shaffer has done a good job in the draft, especially considering we haven't drafted higher than 12th since 1990! Look at all the talent we've been able to turn into major leaguers-Young, Gio, Haigwood, Webster, Rupe, Reed, Majewski, ARow, Wells, Fogg just off the top of my head.

The fact is, most teams are lucky to get a major leaguer or two every draft. I don't think the Sox have done any better or worse or other clubs. You want a crappy track record, for Billy Beane's 6 first and sandwich picks every freaking year for the last decade they have produced what, Crosby, Bonderman, Swisher, and a few others.

Randar68
06-07-2006, 12:07 PM
The Scouting Directors for the Sox since 1989:

1989 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showyearteam.php?fran=CHW&year=1989) Al Goldis (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showperson.php?idx=GoldiAl01&fname=Al&lname=Goldis)
1990 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showyearteam.php?fran=CHW&year=1990) Al Goldis (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showperson.php?idx=GoldiAl01&fname=Al&lname=Goldis)
1991 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showyearteam.php?fran=CHW&year=1991) Duane Shaffer (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showperson.php?idx=ShaffDu01&fname=Duane&lname=Shaffer)
1992 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showyearteam.php?fran=CHW&year=1992) Duane Shaffer (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showperson.php?idx=ShaffDu01&fname=Duane&lname=Shaffer)
1993 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showyearteam.php?fran=CHW&year=1993) Duane Shaffer (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showperson.php?idx=ShaffDu01&fname=Duane&lname=Shaffer)
1994 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showyearteam.php?fran=CHW&year=1994) Duane Shaffer (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showperson.php?idx=ShaffDu01&fname=Duane&lname=Shaffer)
1995 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showyearteam.php?fran=CHW&year=1995) Duane Shaffer (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showperson.php?idx=ShaffDu01&fname=Duane&lname=Shaffer)
1996 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showyearteam.php?fran=CHW&year=1996) Duane Shaffer (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showperson.php?idx=ShaffDu01&fname=Duane&lname=Shaffer)
1997 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showyearteam.php?fran=CHW&year=1997) Duane Shaffer (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showperson.php?idx=ShaffDu01&fname=Duane&lname=Shaffer)
1998 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showyearteam.php?fran=CHW&year=1998) Duane Shaffer (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showperson.php?idx=ShaffDu01&fname=Duane&lname=Shaffer)
1999 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showyearteam.php?fran=CHW&year=1999) Duane Shaffer (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showperson.php?idx=ShaffDu01&fname=Duane&lname=Shaffer)
2000 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showyearteam.php?fran=CHW&year=2000) Duane Shaffer (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showperson.php?idx=ShaffDu01&fname=Duane&lname=Shaffer)
2001 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showyearteam.php?fran=CHW&year=2001) Doug Laumann (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showperson.php?idx=LaumaDo01&fname=Doug&lname=Laumann)
2002 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showyearteam.php?fran=CHW&year=2002) Doug Laumann (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showperson.php?idx=LaumaDo01&fname=Doug&lname=Laumann)
2003 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showyearteam.php?fran=CHW&year=2003) Doug Laumann (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showperson.php?idx=LaumaDo01&fname=Doug&lname=Laumann)
2004 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showyearteam.php?fran=CHW&year=2004) Duane Shaffer (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showperson.php?idx=ShaffDu01&fname=Duane&lname=Shaffer)
2005 (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showyearteam.php?fran=CHW&year=2005) Duane Shaffer (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showperson.php?idx=ShaffDu01&fname=Duane&lname=Shaffer)

Keep in mind that until Kenny Williams, the previous Sox General Managers actually ran the draft and frequently overruled their scouts, but Doug Laumann is also responsible for some of the draftees referenced here.

He gone
06-07-2006, 02:10 PM
http://www.hunt101.com/img/386947.jpg :bandance: :D:

California Sox
06-07-2006, 07:05 PM
Doug Laumann is also responsible for some of the draftees referenced here.

Yeah, I believe that Laumann's drafts far outstripped Shafer's, but isn't that an indication that maybe they were stronger years? I mean isn't the draft really a team effort? Aren't they working with essentially the same scouts and therefore the same draft lists? Would this year's draft have been so different is Laumann (who is still in the orginization I believe) were scouting director?

ballclub3
06-07-2006, 11:49 PM
Shaffer seems to employ the philosophy of drafting players who are low risk/low reward type players. Hence the picks of Royce Ring, Lance Broadway, Kyle McCulloch, and Chris Getz. He doesn't seem real concerned about a player's tools instead opting for guys who are "baseball players" and guys who "know how to pitch." His disregard of the radar gun is very disturbing. If he had a chance to draft a Justin Verlander in the first round, he would probably shy away because he throws too hard. And then you end up with the soft-tossing righthanders like Lance Broadway who is a guy who doesn't project to be a star at the big-league level.

DumpJerry
06-08-2006, 12:27 AM
Shaffer seems to employ the philosophy of drafting players who are low risk/low reward type players. Hence the picks of Royce Ring, Lance Broadway, Kyle McCulloch, and Chris Getz. He doesn't seem real concerned about a player's tools instead opting for guys who are "baseball players" and guys who "know how to pitch." His disregard of the radar gun is very disturbing. If he had a chance to draft a Justin Verlander in the first round, he would probably shy away because he throws too hard. And then you end up with the soft-tossing righthanders like Lance Broadway who is a guy who doesn't project to be a star at the big-league level.
Teams' reliance on the radar gun is what is bad for baseball these days. In the old days, there was no talk of velocity or pitch counts. Rather, QUALITY was looked at. I'm sure there are plenty of stud pitchers from the 50's who were not velocity kings who pitched 120+ pitches each time out who would not be considered today because they don't crack 95 MPH on the gun (Sandy Koufax would do 120+ pitches with no cartilage left in his throwing elbow). This love for the gun gives us Billy Koch, etc. The gun makes the scout's job easier because he does not have to analyze the quality of the pitching. This is probably why Buehrle went so low in the draft.

FedEx227
06-08-2006, 12:48 AM
Shaffer seems to employ the philosophy of drafting players who are low risk/low reward type players. Hence the picks of Royce Ring, Lance Broadway, Kyle McCulloch, and Chris Getz. He doesn't seem real concerned about a player's tools instead opting for guys who are "baseball players" and guys who "know how to pitch." His disregard of the radar gun is very disturbing. If he had a chance to draft a Justin Verlander in the first round, he would probably shy away because he throws too hard. And then you end up with the soft-tossing righthanders like Lance Broadway who is a guy who doesn't project to be a star at the big-league level.

Or soft-tossing lefthanders like Mark Buehrle.

lumpyspun
06-08-2006, 12:54 AM
I know our 1st rounders haven't worked out very well (hoping that BA-Fields-Broadway breaks that streak), but I have to disagree here, I think Shaffer has done a good job in the draft, especially considering we haven't drafted higher than 12th since 1990! Look at all the talent we've been able to turn into major leaguers-Young, Gio, Haigwood, Webster, Rupe, Reed, Majewski, ARow, Wells, Fogg just off the top of my head.



Oh great, another AROW lover....he's in Philly now dude!

rdivaldi
06-08-2006, 01:10 AM
He doesn't seem real concerned about a player's tools instead opting for guys who are "baseball players" and guys who "know how to pitch." His disregard of the radar gun is very disturbing.

I'm going to disagree with that statement as well. If anything, scouts are often guilty of relying too much on the radar gun. Don't think that the Sox discount radar gun readings, they just don't consider it to be the be all end all of tools. Honestly I wasn't all that impressed with Verlander coming out of college, he was often wild and his fastball, while hard, is straight as an arrow. I'll give him big time credit for harnessing his stuff and becoming a solid starter to date.

But honestly for every Verlander there are twenty Danny Wrights. Guys who throw hard but get lit up in the big leagues. Personally I look at a young players ability to pitch, then look at the radar gun. Doing it the other way around is IMO not a good way to last in the business.

ballclub3
06-08-2006, 01:15 AM
Teams' reliance on the radar gun is what is bad for baseball these days. In the old days, there was no talk of velocity or pitch counts. Rather, QUALITY was looked at. I'm sure there are plenty of stud pitchers from the 50's who were not velocity kings who pitched 120+ pitches each time out who would not be considered today because they don't crack 95 MPH on the gun (Sandy Koufax would do 120+ pitches with no cartilage left in his throwing elbow). This love for the gun gives us Billy Koch, etc. The gun makes the scout's job easier because he does not have to analyze the quality of the pitching. This is probably why Buehrle went so low in the draft.


Well, perhaps there is too much emphasis put on radar gun readings these days, but for better or for worse, teams will probably continue to rely on the radar gun for the forseeable future. And it does seem to be the case that clubs place a lot of emphasis on tools for both position players and pitchers.

Generally speaking teams place higher value on pitchers who have power arms over guys who have finesse arms. This may be unjust, but doesn't it seem to be the case? Maybe that is why Buehrle is so underrated in the baseball world. He has fairly mediocre stuff and has to locate well, change speeds well, and outthink hitters to be successful. However, he has had a very nice career.

Shaffer seems content to draft players who don't have outstanding tools but who he thinks are "baseball players." Hence, his apparent reluctance to stockpile power arms and his willingness to take position players like Jeremy Reed and Chris Getz fairly high in the draft who are guys who may have decent major league careers but who are unlikely to be impact players. And several of Shaffer's recent high draft choices have been called a "reach" by experts.

Raw talent is coveted by teams. That is probably why nobody is knocking down the White Sox's door to pry away the soft-hitting Chris Getz.

DumpJerry
06-08-2006, 01:33 AM
A friend of mine is a friend of a Yankees' scout. The scout tells my friend that all they look at these days when it comes to pitchers if the radar and nothing else.

This tells me that if they were both 18 year old high school studs, the Yanks would pick Billy Koch over Mark Buerhle. Which pitcher would you rather see for your team?

Think about that while you look at the Yankee's pitching staff for the last few years. The pitching staff is the main reason why there have not been World Series rings passed out in the Bronx.

dagame2005
06-08-2006, 02:49 AM
It's not just pro scouts. I went to Eastern Illinois University and all our coaches looked at for tryouts were the radar guns. It didn't even matter if you threw strikes or had a breaking pitch. I've seen plenty of guys who threw 95 mph who didn't amount to much. Danny Wright comes to mind.

Britt Burns
06-08-2006, 12:37 PM
It's not just pro scouts. I went to Eastern Illinois University and all our coaches looked at for tryouts were the radar guns. It didn't even matter if you threw strikes or had a breaking pitch. I've seen plenty of guys who threw 95 mph who didn't amount to much. Danny Wright comes to mind.

Of course the thinking behind this is that you can teach a guy how to throw a breaking pitch or how to spot pitches, but you can't teach a guy a 95mph fastball. I agree that there is too much emphasis placed on the gun readings, but there is a reason that speed is the first thing that is looked at in evaluating a pitcher.

BTW, Buehrle was a 38th round pick, but he was a draft and follow who got 3-5th round money to sign before the next draft. Even though he wasn't a blazer teams had caught on that he was a good pitcher and he would have been drafted around that time had he not signed.

rdivaldi
06-08-2006, 01:06 PM
Raw talent is coveted by teams. That is probably why nobody is knocking down the White Sox's door to pry away the soft-hitting Chris Getz.

But yet Reed was the centerpiece of the Freddy Garcia trade. Talent is of course important, but other teams look for guys that can play the game as well.

Don't think for a second that the White Sox don't draft raw talent. Anderson, Borchard, and Fields come to mind quickly as college players who were top notch in terms of "raw talent".

Britt Burns
06-08-2006, 01:32 PM
Don't think for a second that the White Sox don't draft raw talent. Anderson, Borchard, and Fields come to mind quickly as college players who were top notch in terms of "raw talent".

Right on. Jon Rauch, Danny Wright, Corwin Malone Wes Whisler and Sean Tracey were a few of the pitchers who had mixed success as an amateur but were drafted high by the Sox because of their raw talent. I think the Sox do a god job of mixing it up--some high risk/high-reward players, some 'safe' picks.

I also love how they go after left handed pitching...they know teams covet it and lefty prospects generally bring back higher values in trades, especially considering low level hitters haven't been exposed to many lefties, allowing guys like Haigwood, etc. to rack up gaudy stat lines. Also, if you are a lefty with decent stuff or one out pitch but no complimentary stuff and can't cut it as a starter, there is always the need for the LOOGYs.

ballclub3
06-09-2006, 12:10 AM
But yet Reed was the centerpiece of the Freddy Garcia trade. Talent is of course important, but other teams look for guys that can play the game as well.

Don't think for a second that the White Sox don't draft raw talent. Anderson, Borchard, and Fields come to mind quickly as college players who were top notch in terms of "raw talent".


Yes, Reed was the centerpiece of that trade but now that we've had time to evaluate that trade, it does look like Seattle was fleeced. Reed has not performed well offensively in the majors. He has little power and isn't a stolen base threat.

When Reed was drafted by the White Sox in the 2nd round, the pick was called a reach by many experts and the concensus was that Reed projected as a 4th outfielder at the big league level. It looks like those scouts may be right.

The White Sox do mix it up a bit with their picks in the risk/reward department. I'm just saying I'd like them to draft more players who grade out as having above average tools.

Fungo
06-09-2006, 10:33 AM
I'm going to disagree with that statement as well. If anything, scouts are often guilty of relying too much on the radar gun. Don't think that the Sox discount radar gun readings, they just don't consider it to be the be all end all of tools. Honestly I wasn't all that impressed with Verlander coming out of college, he was often wild and his fastball, while hard, is straight as an arrow. I'll give him big time credit for harnessing his stuff and becoming a solid starter to date.

But honestly for every Verlander there are twenty Danny Wrights. Guys who throw hard but get lit up in the big leagues. Personally I look at a young players ability to pitch, then look at the radar gun. Doing it the other way around is IMO not a good way to last in the business.

It's not just pro scouts. I went to Eastern Illinois University and all our coaches looked at for tryouts were the radar guns. It didn't even matter if you threw strikes or had a breaking pitch. I've seen plenty of guys who threw 95 mph who didn't amount to much. Danny Wright comes to mind.Why all the shots at Danny Wright? The kid was brought up too soon and arm injuries took their toll on the guy. The guy had the heart of a lion and battled his ass off while he was here. Probably one of my favorite White Sox on heart alone.

Sox-o-matic
06-09-2006, 11:23 AM
Why all the shots at Danny Wright? The kid was brought up too soon and arm injuries took their toll on the guy. The guy had the heart of a lion and battled his ass off while he was here. Probably one of my favorite White Sox on heart alone.

I don't think stating the obvious is taking a shot at the guy. He had a lot of potential but didn't amount to much in the end.

rdivaldi
06-09-2006, 11:27 AM
When Reed was drafted by the White Sox in the 2nd round, the pick was called a reach by many experts and the concensus was that Reed projected as a 4th outfielder at the big league level. It looks like those scouts may be right.

??? Those scouts must have become deaf/mute after the draft. Reed was considered the top prospect in our system and was consistently rated as a top 20 prospect in baseball. Many had him tabbed as AL Rookie of the Year in 2005.

rdivaldi
06-09-2006, 11:33 AM
Why all the shots at Danny Wright? The kid was brought up too soon and arm injuries took their toll on the guy. The guy had the heart of a lion and battled his ass off while he was here. Probably one of my favorite White Sox on heart alone.

I'm not "taking shots" at Danny, I'm just using him as an example. He was drafted out of Arkansas because he threw in the mid/high 90's, not because he knew how to pitch. How about I use Wyatt Allen instead?

Fungo
06-09-2006, 11:52 AM
I'm not "taking shots" at Danny, I'm just using him as an example. He was drafted out of Arkansas because he threw in the mid/high 90's, not because he knew how to pitch. How about I use Wyatt Allen instead?I understand. IMO, Danny was rushed to the majors back when the Sox idea of a fifth starter was a revolving door. Much to his credit, he battled to a 14 win season and is commonly used on this site as a high water mark when compared to another rhp from the Northside.

I like the Allen example better.:redneck

Randar68
06-09-2006, 11:55 AM
I'm going to disagree with that statement as well. If anything, scouts are often guilty of relying too much on the radar gun. Don't think that the Sox discount radar gun readings, they just don't consider it to be the be all end all of tools. Honestly I wasn't all that impressed with Verlander coming out of college, he was often wild and his fastball, while hard, is straight as an arrow. I'll give him big time credit for harnessing his stuff and becoming a solid starter to date.

But honestly for every Verlander there are twenty Danny Wrights. Guys who throw hard but get lit up in the big leagues. Personally I look at a young players ability to pitch, then look at the radar gun. Doing it the other way around is IMO not a good way to last in the business.

And for Every Danny Wright, there are 50 Jason Stumms or Wyatt Allens...

Randar68
06-09-2006, 12:01 PM
Don't think for a second that the White Sox don't draft raw talent. Anderson, Borchard, and Fields come to mind quickly as college players who were top notch in terms of "raw talent".

Brandon Allen, Wes Whisler, Clayton Richard, Aaron Cunningham, Cortes, Gio Gonzalez, Tyler Lumsden, and Josh Fields...

All top-notch talents that are raw and need refining.. hard-throwers, projectible HS pitchers... part-time college hitters at 3B, Raw HS hitters, the entire gamut.

It's a mix, and ballclub is just making grossly inaccurate generalizations that he simply cannot defend.

rdivaldi
06-10-2006, 01:30 AM
And for Every Danny Wright, there are 50 Jason Stumms or Wyatt Allens...

I wouldn't throw Jason in there, only because I was thinking of college pitchers. Any word on him though? I wasn't sure if he was going to finally give it up or not.

Tragg
06-11-2006, 04:43 PM
Well Oz, our farm system has brought you, at least in part, each of Garcia, Vasquez, MB, Crede, Thome, Konerko, Uribe (scouting anyway, as Miles was a rule 5er), McCarthy; and on the WS team, Rowand and Everett and Thomas.