PDA

View Full Version : KW asks for more from scouting dept. (publicly)


caulfield12
01-28-2007, 05:07 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070127soxbits,1,6165294.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

We'll see if it was just a good applause line at SoxFest...and how serious he really is about this.

Grzegorz
01-28-2007, 05:12 AM
Caulfield12,

Why would you doubt his sincerity? Without a less than average scouting department this team is sunk. If KW finds this arm of the organization lacking he'd better address it today.

caulfield12
01-28-2007, 06:18 AM
I'm just saying, it's easy to get applause from talking about it....do something.

Where are the results in Asia (besides Takatsu and Iguchi, who was scouted by KW through videotape), Australia, Venezuela, Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico.

Not only is our US scouting poor (the drafts), our international work has been almost non-existent until recently, after producing Maggs and El Caballo.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/deluca/233045,CST-SPT-deluca28.article

cws05champ
01-28-2007, 09:55 AM
To me, it doesn't inspire confidence that we traded these pitchers in the offseason for young guys he insists his scouts have studied and recommended...only to now say he needs more out of them to be able to compete long term. It seemed like he was talking more about the draft but an indictment of the scouting department publically to me does not make me happy when all we have been hearing this offseason is that our scouting is first and foremost over #'s with the young guys we have acquired.

soxtalker
01-28-2007, 10:09 AM
To me, it doesn't inspire confidence that we traded these pitchers in the offseason for young guys he insists his scouts have studied and recommended...only to now say he needs more out of them to be able to compete long term. It seemed like he was talking more about the draft but an indictment of the scouting department publically to me does not make me happy when all we have been hearing this offseason is that our scouting is first and foremost over #'s with the young guys we have acquired.

There may be a distinction here between late-stage prospects and very-early-stage prospects (i.e., draft). KW has done pretty well with the former. Think of Thornton as one of the most recent examples. But the draft picks haven't panned out very well. Of course, the risk increases the farther the player is from the major leagues, but it does seem that the scouting has provided much better judgments for later-stage prospects. I wonder if these scouts are different and if the evaluation process is different.

Vernam
01-28-2007, 04:13 PM
There may be a distinction here between late-stage prospects and very-early-stage prospects (i.e., draft). KW has done pretty well with the former. Think of Thornton as one of the most recent examples. But the draft picks haven't panned out very well. Of course, the risk increases the farther the player is from the major leagues, but it does seem that the scouting has provided much better judgments for later-stage prospects. I wonder if these scouts are different and if the evaluation process is different.Yes, in the session, Kenny drew a distinction between their scouting of amateur talent (bad) and of pro talent (good). Nothing he said this weekend should come as any surprise since he served notice to Schaeffer last year.

Also, for anyone who thinks Ozzie gives much input on trades and outside talent, he mentioned repeatedly that he doesn't even know the names of the pitchers they recently acquired. He referred to Aardsma as "that guy from the Cubs." I'd hope Ozzie would have greater respect for the guy who knocked Hank Aaron off the all-time #1 MLB alphabetical perch. :wink:

Vernam

Save McCuddy's
01-30-2007, 07:58 PM
Am I wrong, or did Kenny rise to his current position from the role of Director of the Minor Leagues? Under his watch, we went through the parade of labrums that shelved the organization until Buehrle broke the string. Just curious how the scouting at the lower levels wouldn't be better if the GM's background is in running the club's minor league system.

Daver
01-30-2007, 08:01 PM
Am I wrong, or did Kenny rise to his current position from the role of Director of the Minor Leagues? Under his watch, we went through the parade of labrums that shelved the organization until Buehrle broke the string. Just curious how the scouting at the lower levels wouldn't be better if the GM's background is in running the club's minor league system.

Because they don't budget enough to scouting to have the manpower needed to cover it all. If Kenny wants more out of his scouting staff, he better pull the trigger on increasing his budget in that area.

caulfield12
01-30-2007, 08:05 PM
Because they don't budget enough to scouting to have the manpower needed to cover it all. If Kenny wants more out of his scouting staff, he better pull the trigger on increasing his budget in that area.


Is that really his decision, or the Board of Directors?

Daver
01-30-2007, 08:35 PM
Is that really his decision, or the Board of Directors?

He's the vice president of baseball operations.

Beyond that, I don't know.

champagne030
01-30-2007, 09:57 PM
Is that really his decision, or the Board of Directors?

I don't know, but ticket increases this season, alone, increased revenue by $3 per ticket (or $7.5M-$9M/year). I know we're not out of pocket more than last season (the Garcia trade, buyouts of Frank, Dino, Hermanson, ect. offsets the salary increases for everyone we kept or signed to this point) without the ticket increase, so the price raise better go to locking up potential free agent(s) (MB, JD, Crede-'09, Garland-'08....) or scouting.

Frater Perdurabo
01-30-2007, 10:24 PM
Does anyone have an idea of what a typical scout working for an MLB team earns per year?

What do the very best scouts earn?

It seems to me that investing more in hiring more of, and the very best, scouts would cost pennies on the dollar compared to average MLB player salaries. Heck, I might just freeze player payroll and invest all new revenues into hiring away the best Twins scouts by offering to double their current salaries.

maurice
01-31-2007, 11:32 AM
I don't know what their salary is, but you have to remember that their job involves tons of business travel. Even if they ride Greyhound, stay at motels, and eat at McDonalds, it adds up over the course of a season.

Plus, even if you assume that $$$ spent on scouts is pennnies on the dollar compared to veteran MLB salaries, the veteran is ready to go from day 1 and very likely to produce at a MLB level. Any given prospect is likely to flame out and, even if he's successful, it will take several years to realize the benefits of your $$$ investment.

itsnotrequired
01-31-2007, 12:01 PM
I don't know, but ticket increases this season, alone, increased revenue by $3 per ticket (or $7.5M-$9M/year).

Single-game ticket prices increased $3 in the lower deck only. It is a $2 increase in the upper deck. Season ticket prices increased an average of $2.75/game for all seating sections except Premium Club ($3.75), Premium Lower Box ($3.75) and Premium Upper Box ($1.75).

I don't feel the Sox will draw like last year. Maybe 2.7 million in 2007. I would say a $7.5 million gross increase in revenue due to ticket sales only would be the absolute maximum.

Of course, the new premium area will bring increased revenue as well. At 200 seats and $250 a pop, that works out to an extra $4 million if it sells out every game.

Daver
01-31-2007, 12:07 PM
Does anyone have an idea of what a typical scout working for an MLB team earns per year?



It varies depending on experience, expertise, etc.

Some teams employ part time scouts, usually HS and college coaches.

chaerulez
02-01-2007, 04:27 AM
I would like to see the organization spend more time in getting young top Latin talent that aren't required to go through the draft (although they should be). Look at the Yankees, they've managed to find Melky, Cano, Soriano, and uber prospect Jose Tabata that way. And they found Wang through the Asian market. This is how they built up their farm system despite always trading away prospects. Like caufield said the last good players we got from international prospect signings were Maggilo and Carlos Lee. The only such players the Sox currently have on their 40 man roster is Paulino Reynoso who looks to be a AAAA player and Pedro Lopez who looks to be nothing more than an utility/backup infielder.

Grzegorz
02-01-2007, 04:46 AM
I would like to see the organization spend more time in getting young top Latin talent that aren't required to go through the draft (although they should be).

There is no excuse for a less than stellar scouting system.

I would like to see the organization spend more time in getting top young talent period.

caulfield12
02-01-2007, 05:13 AM
I would like to see the organization spend more time in getting young top Latin talent that aren't required to go through the draft (although they should be). Look at the Yankees, they've managed to find Melky, Cano, Soriano, and uber prospect Jose Tabata that way. And they found Wang through the Asian market. This is how they built up their farm system despite always trading away prospects. Like caufield said the last good players we got from international prospect signings were Maggilo and Carlos Lee. The only such players the Sox currently have on their 40 man roster is Paulino Reynoso who looks to be a AAAA player and Pedro Lopez who looks to be nothing more than an utility/backup infielder.

And Reynoso wasn't even ours, he came from CO in one of the ubiquitous Alomar deals.

Well, there was always Jesus Pena.

maurice
02-01-2007, 12:14 PM
And Reynoso wasn't even ours, he came from CO in one of the ubiquitous Alomar deals.

That's not true.

rdivaldi
02-01-2007, 12:39 PM
That's not true.

Reynoso played for Arizona, but it was for the Arizona White Sox when we had a Rookie Ball team there.

caulfield12
02-01-2007, 02:32 PM
That's not true.

You're right, I confused him with Emenencio Pacheco.

I guess they both end in "o" at least, actually, each of their names.

KyWhiSoxFan
02-02-2007, 04:31 PM
I think one reason people are (were) so enthralled with McCarthy is that he was a product of the Sox minor league system. This occurrence is so rare that it greatly magnifies the accomplishments of--and puts the spotlight on--anyone who rises above the mediocrity of the Sox farm system. Everyone wants to root for a home-grown product, but Sox fans have little opportunity to do so.

rdivaldi
02-02-2007, 10:21 PM
I think one reason people are (were) so enthralled with McCarthy is that he was a product of the Sox minor league system. This occurrence is so rare that it greatly magnifies the accomplishments of--and puts the spotlight on--anyone who rises above the mediocrity of the Sox farm system. Everyone wants to root for a home-grown product, but Sox fans have little opportunity to do so.

But the thing is, Fingernails on a blackboard was not an everyday prospect. He dominated at every level in the minors and skyrocketed up to the majors at a very young age. He might not throw 95, but the kid knows how to pitch, throws strikes, has a nice repetoire of pitches and is a bulldog on the mound. KW has had a non-sexual crush on the Danks brothers for awhile, so I'm not surprised by the move; however, I am not sure that it was the right thing to do.

DMarte708
02-03-2007, 02:44 PM
But the thing is, Fingernails on a blackboard was not an everyday prospect. He dominated at every level in the minors and skyrocketed up to the majors at a very young age. He might not throw 95, but the kid knows how to pitch, throws strikes, has a nice repetoire of pitches and is a bulldog on the mound. KW has had a non-sexual crush on the Danks brothers for awhile, so I'm not surprised by the move; however, I am not sure that it was the right thing to do.
Neither do I. Unlike the Garcia deal, trading McCarthy wasn't necessary. Infact, I'm under the opinion anything we receive from Garcia's departure is a plus. Whether Gonzalez/Floyd never reach the majors or both turn into superstars, opening a roster position for McCarthy was necessary. Someone needed to go. Garcia was likely gone after 2007; and Gonzalez/Floyd are more appealing to me than two draft picks.

Time may prove Williams correct; perhaps dealing McCarthy for Danks/Masset/Rasner was the right move. However, this is one instance I'm not getting him the benefit of doubt. Several factors will ultimately decide this deal. Among them -- how McCarthy fares in Texas, if Danks/Masset contribute, and if Rasner develops into anything of value.

If I were Williams, the job security of several scouts would be on the line here. You have to show faith in your employees to approve such a deal, and if it doesn't work out, why should they remain?

caulfield12
02-03-2007, 03:58 PM
Neither do I. Unlike the Garcia deal, trading McCarthy wasn't necessary. Infact, I'm under the opinion anything we receive from Garcia's departure is a plus. Whether Gonzalez/Floyd never reach the majors or both turn into superstars, opening a roster position for McCarthy was necessary. Someone needed to go. Garcia was likely gone after 2007; and Gonzalez/Floyd are more appealing to me than two draft picks.

Time may prove Williams correct; perhaps dealing McCarthy for Danks/Masset/Rasner was the right move. However, this is one instance I'm not getting him the benefit of doubt. Several factors will ultimately decide this deal. Among them -- how McCarthy fares in Texas, if Danks/Masset contribute, and if Rasner develops into anything of value.

If I were Williams, the job security of several scouts would be on the line here. You have to show faith in your employees to approve such a deal, and if it doesn't work out, why should they remain?


KW doesn't make this move without personally looking at both Danks and Masset (at the very least, tapes) a minimum of 3-5 times personally. Any GM making a franchise-altering move like this solely on the words of a couple of scouts deserves to be fired. Due diligence, caveat emptor.

Especially with our weaknesses in advance scouting and the draft in recent years.

rdivaldi
02-04-2007, 03:18 AM
If I were Williams, the job security of several scouts would be on the line here. You have to show faith in your employees to approve such a deal, and if it doesn't work out, why should they remain?

No, this one is squarely on Kenny. He's been following the Danks brothers around for years scouting them personally on occaision.

soxtalker
02-04-2007, 12:04 PM
...
Time may prove Williams correct; perhaps dealing McCarthy for Danks/Masset/Rasner was the right move. However, this is one instance I'm not getting him the benefit of doubt. Several factors will ultimately decide this deal. Among them -- how McCarthy fares in Texas, if Danks/Masset contribute, and if Rasner develops into anything of value.

If I were Williams, the job security of several scouts would be on the line here. You have to show faith in your employees to approve such a deal, and if it doesn't work out, why should they remain?

I agree with the comments of caulfield and rdivaldi that KW probably has a big hand in this.

But I don't quite understand why this particular trade should be viewed more critically than a number of KW's trades. There's probably more at risk than in a number of the lesser trades (e.g., Thornton for Borchard), but there are other trades in recent memory that put more at risk (e.g., the Thome trade). Sure, if McCarthy turns into a superstar while Danks and Masset bomb, there will be great regret. But that risk holds for any fairly major trade. At least this won't turn into a Todd Ritchie situation, where they almost had to stick with him for a long time. If Masset and Danks bomb, they'll be sitting in the minors.

caulfield12
02-04-2007, 12:10 PM
I think it's just that quite a few had been excited about Brandon getting to start every day for a full season and see what he could do...the fact that he was our best pitching prospect since Buehrle...that KW wouldn't (supposedly) trade him for Soriano....that he was "cost controlled" and every hypothetical Sox rotation in 2010 had him as our #2 or #1 starter by that time.

I think there was more of an emotional attachment to him, and the way we suffered through the entire season with him in the bullpen after seeing how he pitched against Texas, Boston, Minnesota coming down the stretch in 2005 when Brandon and Contreras saved the team from going Titanic on us.

soxtalker
02-04-2007, 01:51 PM
I think it's just that quite a few had been excited about Brandon getting to start every day for a full season and see what he could do...the fact that he was our best pitching prospect since Buehrle...that KW wouldn't (supposedly) trade him for Soriano....that he was "cost controlled" and every hypothetical Sox rotation in 2010 had him as our #2 or #1 starter by that time.

I think there was more of an emotional attachment to him, and the way we suffered through the entire season with him in the bullpen after seeing how he pitched against Texas, Boston, Minnesota coming down the stretch in 2005 when Brandon and Contreras saved the team from going Titanic on us.

I buy those arguments. It just strikes me that there is such a contrast with a few years ago. One consistent theme with KW is that he likes to make trades. That's been true since the very beginning of his tenure as GM. I remember that I used to dread his major trades -- Todd Ritchie being the primary example. (It was partly what we gave up, but, mostly, the amount of time we needed to stick with him.) But at that time, it seemed like the majority of people on the board really liked the trades. Now, the situation seems reversed. I'm far more willing to accept the trades, as the track record hasn't been too bad of late. But the general feeling on WSI seems to be one of much more concern. Of course, the trades are now for prospects that we fans have a tougher time evaluating. I'd make the argument, though, that even trades for experienced major leaguers entail significant risk.