I'll agree with this after someone shows me an objective comparative analysis. If we go back 10 years, examine the number of choices the Twins have had as top 60 selections perhaps. Then compare those to perhaps the 3 pitchers selected ahead of and behind those picks, and let's get a better sense for how competent the competition looks in comparison. As a second piece of this, I'd want to compare the list of pitchers currently on MLB rosters who were originally drafted by each team from, say, 2006-2010. Did the Twins produce a smaller number of MLB pitchers than most other teams?

 

I don't see why it matters where the player was drafted. If another org is getting MLB pitchers in the middle or late rounds, that doesn't count? And 2010 or even 2009 is too recent to allow for an evaluation for many HS draftees.

 

Nor does it matter if a guy makes a roster at some point... it's all about production. If a draftee gets a cup of coffee with the big club and produces no value, what difference does it make?

 

I don't see why it matters where the player was drafted. If another org is getting MLB pitchers in the middle or late rounds, that doesn't count? And 2010 or even 2009 is too recent to allow for an evaluation for many HS draftees.

 

Nor does it matter if a guy makes a roster at some point... it's all about production. If a draftee gets a cup of coffee with the big club and produces no value, what difference does it make?

 

 

I don't care what the exact criteria might be as long as the comparison is objective and sound. The statements I responded to first were about the failings of 1st and 2nd rounders, guys like Wimmers, Perkins, Shooter Hunt, and Garcia, Bullock, and Gibson.

 

I don't care what the exact criteria might be as long as the comparison is objective and sound. The statements I responded to first were about the failings of 1st and 2nd rounders, guys like Wimmers, Perkins, Shooter Hunt, and Garcia, Bullock, and Gibson.

 

I'm sure some people have looked at it. I'm reluctant to place too much weight on the 1st/2nd round failures, though if Eades and Burdi wash out I'll probably be a little less circumspect since I strongly doubted the wisdom of those picks at the time they were made.

 

If you think about the total value of pitching produced in baseball over the past 20 years, and then think about how much is from players signed out of the amateurs by the Twins, I don't see how you can get a good answer. I'm sure there are other teams without a great track record as well, but it's literally impossible for the Twins to even be close to average. That would leave the league far short of the number of quality pitchers that have actually played.

One other thing I'll say to those who are now claiming the Twins have some fundamental inability to draft and develop pitchers. Only three years ago, we were reading the exact same claims about their inability to draft and develop middle infielders.

 

I don't see why it matters where the player was drafted. If another org is getting MLB pitchers in the middle or late rounds, that doesn't count? And 2010 or even 2009 is too recent to allow for an evaluation for many HS draftees.

 

Nor does it matter if a guy makes a roster at some point... it's all about production. If a draftee gets a cup of coffee with the big club and produces no value, what difference does it make?

Of course it matters, as far as comparisons sake.............example , lets say Matt Harvey was drafted 60th overall and both the Mets passed on him at 30 and Twins at 31, but the Mets got him with the next pick, and there 30th pick didnt pan out ,why would that make the Mets better at evaluating if they also missed him with the first pick.........I could have come up with a better example, but i am working and have not draft info in front of me to look up someone who was actually drafted in that range that made a big impact..............Or better yet, I believe May was drafted in the 4th round, so all the teams made a mistake in evaluating???? I think not, some people just mature differently, and some people take to instruction differently..................But really the only evaluating that means much is if you miss badly on a early 1st round selection, if that happens consistently comparably then you have Director of Scouting problems.........I rambled, so hopefully i made sense, i will clarify if anyone has a problem with this LOL

 

 

Of course it matters, as far as comparisons sake.............example , lets say Matt Harvey was drafted 60th overall and both the Mets passed on him at 30 and Twins at 31, but the Mets got him with the next pick, and there 30th pick didnt pan out ,why would that make the Mets better at evaluating if they also missed him with the first pick........

 

Tremendous point! 

 

It's just way too early to evaluate any of the drafts after about 2010. Gibson now is just getting it going - due to Tommy John surgery. If not for that surgery, he would already have 4 years under his belt. I'd say that was a terrific 21st or 22nd overall pick. 

 

Guys like Burdi, Melotakis, Eades, Stewart... it's way too early to say they're busts or successes.