Alex Meyer called up to LAA

[bird]

 

  On 9/4/2016 at 9:52 PM, gunnarthor said:

I'm not sure that's the list to condemn the Twins.  You have three guys - Gutierrez, Hunt and Boyd - who flat out didn't make it (injuries affected Gutierrez).  Gibson has made a bunch of starts at the ML level although he hasn't been as good as hoped.  Berrios is a stud.  Wimmers moved to the bullpen and it's still too early to make a ruling on Stewart (or Jay).  Frankly, that seems about right considering the actual draft range these guys were taken in.

 

I mentioned this on TT but it's somewhat surprising how little pitching the Twins took in 06 and 07 and I'm not sure if Johnson's reliever strategy is helping.  My personal opinion is that Steil has done a very good job as farm director since he took over (2012) and that the drafts after Ryan gave Radcliff an advisory role have been better.  If the new GM makes changes, fine, he knows more than me but I think Steil has done enough to keep his job and Johnson has improved enough to stay as well.

 

 

Also of note when it comes to this same old argument:

 

Gibson was the 15th pitcher selected in his draft class. He's been better than 10 of those selected ahead of him. The exceptions are Strasburg, Wheeler, Leake, and arguably Storen. No pitcher taken after Gibson, in either the 1st or 2nd round, has come even close to Gibson.

 

Wimmers was the 13th selection in 2010. Half the pitchers selected ahead of him have flamed out, and no one drafted after Wimmers in the 1st round has contributed to a MLB team.

 

Too bad the Hunt, Guttierrez, and Boyd supplemental selections weren't part of the excellent 2010 draft class, when evry team passed once on Aaron Sanchez and Syndergaard before anybody had the sense to nab them a second time around.

 

I think the argument that any of the notable failures invariably mentioned are proof of a development deficiency is utter nonsense. This opinion is based on a review of comparative information. 

 

We don't know the full story regarding Meyers. His ineptitude with us may be due to coaching, to mismanagement, to injury, to bad advice from an agent, to Meyers' own issues. In all likelihood, it was a combination of things. Stuff happens.

[nicksaviking]

  On 9/8/2016 at 11:16 PM, birdwatcher said:

Wimmers was the 13th selection in 2010. Half the pitchers selected ahead of him have flamed out, and no one drafted after Wimmers in the 1st round has contributed to a MLB team.

 

Too bad the Hunt, Guttierrez, and Boyd supplemental selections weren't part of the excellent 2010 draft class, when evry team passed once on Aaron Sanchez and Syndergaard before anybody had the sense to nab them a second time around.

I'm not hammering the Twins for this anymore because the team seemed to make a clear change after the 2010 draft indicating the also agree their approach was probably not the correct one, but it was actually 2010 when the Twins picked the low ceiling Wimmers over a slew of high upside HS arms which included Syndergaard, Sanchez, Tijuan Walker, Zack Lee, Jesse Biddle and Cam Bedrosian. Those were the next six HS arms taken in fact.

 

Full disclosure to show I'm not playing Captian Hindsight: My first choice was Zack Lee, one of only two busts of the bunch. There were plenty of folks even back then that were saying the Twins had to start targeting guys who had a shot at becoming top of the rotation arms, but again, I think they realized that by 2011, they just weren't able to for reasons we can only speculate about.

[Kwak]

 

  On 9/8/2016 at 12:03 PM, mikelink45 said:

Watching the parade of pitchers stumble through the Twins seasons I find myself questioning pitching coaches.   If pitching coaches can make a difference then why has this team not fired the entire MILB and MLB staff?  

Reduced your quote to only the part I want to respond. The reason(s): an organization that boasts about longevity, a Front Office that chose to turn on one of their own (Smith) as the sole reason for failure, Terry Ryan and the Pohlad's. We will find out how much change the Pohlad's really want in a few months. It could be a shuffle of place cards around the table or there could be a massacre. We will see.

[bird]

 

  On 9/9/2016 at 12:10 AM, nicksaviking said:

I'm not hammering the Twins for this anymore because the team seemed to make a clear change after the 2010 draft indicating the also agree their approach was probably not the correct one, but it was actually 2010 when the Twins picked the low ceiling Wimmers over a slew of high upside HS arms which included Syndergaard, Sanchez, Tijuan Walker, Zack Lee, Jesse Biddle and Cam Bedrosian. Those were the next six HS arms taken in fact.

Full disclosure to show I'm not playing Captian Hindsight: My first choice was Zack Lee, one of only two busts of the bunch. There were plenty of folks even back then that were saying the Twins had to start targeting guys who had a shot at becoming top of the rotation arms, but again, I think they realized that by 2011, they just weren't able to for reasons we can only speculate about.

 

Yeah, I totally buy into the argument you've made about this. I remember being disappointed in the Wimmers pick. And I'm happy we started seeing indications of a concerted effort to seize opportunities to acquire higher-risk and higher-ceiling prospects such as Berrios and Stewart. I often wonder if there wasn't some desperation involved in the selection of a few of the early-round fireballers who had either injury or control red flags, guys like Bard and Cedaroth.

 

Hammering them for avoiding greater risk in favor of a lower-risk lower ceiling prospect like Wimmers (who like all pitching prospects still carries massive risk) is one thing. The experts , IIRC, characterized it as a safe pick, not a bad pick, right? This is not a defense, but criticism should be tempered by the fact that all 30 teams passed on the 6 HS prospects you mentioned at least once during the draft. But still, I agree with you that you have to shoot for the highest possible upside with that first pick and take your chances.

 

Lots of commenters, however, confuse the issue and inaccurately and simplistically portray the Twins as being exceptionally bad at evaluating and acquiring talent and at developing talent, without an ounce of objective, low-noise comparative data to support their argument.  Nor do they offer examples of the successes for consideration.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

  On 9/9/2016 at 7:23 PM, birdwatcher said:

Lots of commenters, however, confuse the issue and inaccurately and simplistically portray the Twins as being exceptionally bad at evaluating and acquiring talent and at developing talent, without an ounce of objective, low-noise comparative data to support their argument.  Nor do they offer examples of the successes for consideration.

On the other hand, lots of commenters do provide data about that and offer the successes. 

[jimmer]

  On 9/9/2016 at 8:23 PM, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

On the other hand, lots of commenters do provide data about that and offer the successes.

well, we do have a plethora of Twins quality starting pitchers to point to over these past ten years to show all the success stories in Twins drafting and acquiring talent along with development.

[Rosterman]

 

  On 9/9/2016 at 7:23 PM, birdwatcher said:

Yeah, I totally buy into the argument you've made about this. I remember being disappointed in the Wimmers pick. And I'm happy we started seeing indications of a concerted effort to seize opportunities to acquire higher-risk and higher-ceiling prospects such as Berrios and Stewart. I often wonder if there wasn't some desperation involved in the selection of a few of the early-round fireballers who had either injury or control red flags, guys like Bard and Cedaroth.

 

Hammering them for avoiding greater risk in favor of a lower-risk lower ceiling prospect like Wimmers (who like all pitching prospects still carries massive risk) is one thing. The experts , IIRC, characterized it as a safe pick, not a bad pick, right? This is not a defense, but criticism should be tempered by the fact that all 30 teams passed on the 6 HS prospects you mentioned at least once during the draft. But still, I agree with you that you have to shoot for the highest possible upside with that first pick and take your chances.

 

Lots of commenters, however, confuse the issue and inaccurately and simplistically portray the Twins as being exceptionally bad at evaluating and acquiring talent and at developing talent, without an ounce of objective, low-noise comparative data to support their argument.  Nor do they offer examples of the successes for consideration.

I also wonder about the "best player available" syndrome. Sure, the Twins seem to make the news about probably high draft picks not excited about coming to the team (why wouldn't you, you might get to the majors faster) and does that even matter in the end...moreso now when the price is pretty set in gold (and who knows, they might always trade you). But with the amount of money spent on draftees, you have to invest a lot of time and energy to see if it will pay off. When a team pays $2 million up front for a pitcher like Alex Meyer, they do need to get something abck in return, which Denard Span was. The Twins basically got their return on Span and was able to avoid paying him more money down the line (good or bad) for a highly regarded pitcher that they now just had to pay whatever the minor league and then 40-man minimums were. Yes, he was a valuable arm BECAUSE they gave up a valuable player for him, but they didn't have to make that investment in the first run. He is worth even more, now, to the Angels, who basically picked up a high round draft choice as a throw-in in which they have to absorb a high player salary, but they might get a portion of that salary back next year if Nolasco produces (not on the bill for any of the salary this year, good turn by them...so the Twins are paying Nolasco numbers for a part year for Santiago). But back to Meyer. Something seems amiss when he sat around for a month after the demotion, and it looked like he wasn't even going to throw anything above GCL for the Twins, at best, this year...but here he is in the bullpen of the Angels. In hindsight, we are going to say we could've used him throwing just the same in Minnesota considering what we are getting from the bullpen of late. Sadly, we thought Meyer and May were top-priority projects of the Minnesota Twins since their acquisitions, as it was the direction the team was going. They seemed a lot more talented and lot more closer than they seemed this summer, but both not considered starting prospects at all for the team. What went wrong?

 

[gunnarthor]

I think a combination of Radcliff/Johnson approaches might work better.  Nab that high upside HS flamethrower early but in the second or third rounds, take the safer college arm with lower ceilings.  Guys like Baker, Slowey, Swarzak, Duensing, Dean.  They add depth to the system and don't have the same failure rate.  Alternate a bit.  (Frankly, the 2013 draft seems to be pretty close to that - Stewart, Eades, Gonsalves, Slegers).

[puckstopper1]

Alex is one of several Twins rejects on the Angels staff right now, joining Achter, Nolasco and Deolis Guerra who, by the way is having a very good season.  Maybe his is the next "one that got away" now that Ortiz is retiring...

[nicksaviking]

  On 9/9/2016 at 7:23 PM, birdwatcher said:

Yeah, I totally buy into the argument you've made about this. I remember being disappointed in the Wimmers pick. And I'm happy we started seeing indications of a concerted effort to seize opportunities to acquire higher-risk and higher-ceiling prospects such as Berrios and Stewart. I often wonder if there wasn't some desperation involved in the selection of a few of the early-round fireballers who had either injury or control red flags, guys like Bard and Cedaroth.

 

Hammering them for avoiding greater risk in favor of a lower-risk lower ceiling prospect like Wimmers (who like all pitching prospects still carries massive risk) is one thing. The experts , IIRC, characterized it as a safe pick, not a bad pick, right? This is not a defense, but criticism should be tempered by the fact that all 30 teams passed on the 6 HS prospects you mentioned at least once during the draft. But still, I agree with you that you have to shoot for the highest possible upside with that first pick and take your chances.

 

Lots of commenters, however, confuse the issue and inaccurately and simplistically portray the Twins as being exceptionally bad at evaluating and acquiring talent and at developing talent, without an ounce of objective, low-noise comparative data to support their argument.  Nor do they offer examples of the successes for consideration.

I would guess the Twins thinking at the time was that the team was good so they were more concerned with getting "MLB ready" guys to keep the immediate winning. It took them falling off the map in 2011 to realize that they had to start restocking with high upside but long term projects. They should have realized that Camelot would soon fall, but it was probably hard to accept until it was too late to save it.

[bird]

 

  On 9/9/2016 at 8:23 PM, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

On the other hand, lots of commenters do provide data about that and offer the successes. 

 

This must happen on my days off.

[bird]

 

  On 9/9/2016 at 9:17 PM, jimmer said:

well, we do have a plethora of Twins quality starting pitchers to point to over these past ten years to show all the success stories in Twins drafting and acquiring talent along with development.

 

 

There is a general consensus here as to what constitutes a quality starting pitcher. There is consensus as well that the Twins have failed to draft or develop them. 

 

If you chose to dispute the comparative facts included in my comment #91 above, then maybe we could have an interesting conversation. Maybe I'm not comparing the Twin's record at talent evaluation credibly and you can provide some comparative evidence of your own? Otherwise, your comment here is a perfect example of how easy it is to offer an opinion or comment void of real context. 

 

I can think of ten reasons the Twins don't have an ace, so like you, I find fault with the organization, particularly with the FO. None of the reasons I suggest have to do with them  being incapable of identifying pitching talent or developing aces. That particular criticism is the most commonly offered as the reason we lack elite starting pitchers.  I've attempted to shoot holes in it based on comparing their failure with that of the rest of the league. I think there are other reasons behind why we don't have an ace. 

 

I'd love it if someone would even try to change my mind about this instead of simply offering another tired and empty comment about all the failures.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

  On 9/9/2016 at 9:17 PM, jimmer said:

well, we do have a plethora of Twins quality starting pitchers to point to over these past ten years to show all the success stories in Twins drafting and acquiring talent along with development.

"The Twins handled Meyer correctly" seems like a really odd position to take. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

  On 9/11/2016 at 10:20 PM, birdwatcher said:

There is a general consensus here as to what constitutes a quality starting pitcher. There is consensus as well that the Twins have failed to draft or develop them. 

 

If you chose to dispute the comparative facts included in my comment #91 above, then maybe we could have an interesting conversation. Maybe I'm not comparing the Twin's record at talent evaluation credibly and you can provide some comparative evidence of your own? Otherwise, your comment here is a perfect example of how easy it is to offer an opinion or comment void of real context. 

 

I can think of ten reasons the Twins don't have an ace, so like you, I find fault with the organization, particularly with the FO. None of the reasons I suggest have to do with them  being incapable of identifying pitching talent or developing aces. That particular criticism is the most commonly offered as the reason we lack elite starting pitchers.  I've attempted to shoot holes in it based on comparing their failure with that of the rest of the league. I think there are other reasons behind why we don't have an ace. 

 

I'd love it if someone would even try to change my mind about this instead of simply offering another tired and empty comment about all the failures.

Not sure if anyone is trying to change your mind. I would love to see that list, however.

[bird]

 

 

 

1. Historically, the Twins have opted to avoid FA opportunities to acquire top-end pitching because the GM regarded it as a bad idea.

2. Historically, ownership put a budget in place that pretty much put the elite guys beyond the budget as FA acquisitions.

3. Historically, the Twins have lacked a "sell discipline" regarding player assets. This has resulted in lost opportunities to sell high on individual players and build assets via trade.

4. Terry Ryan was far too risk-averse in general, closing avenues for acquiring elite pitching, especially via trade.

5. The team has blown a couple of opportunities to retain key pitchers, most notably Santana.

6. Poor trades have occasionally set them back by reducing available trading assets, notably resulting in the loss of valuable assets like Garza, Ramos, etc.

7. Ryan, due to his nature, refused to trade prospects for elite pitching.

8. In order to get something, you have to give up something, and the organization has not a surplus of talent to exchange for elite pitching.

9. Even IF Ryan and Pohlad had been willing to pay up, I'd guess that MOST elite FA pitchers would have chosen a team other than the Twins unless the offer was crazy good.

10. Because of the draft order over the years, where in many years an ace-type prospect was not available to them (2009, 2010, for instance), or where another obvious "better option" made selecting an elite pitcher unwise (Buxton, Mauer for example), they simply haven't had opportunities to draft a marquee name. Time will tell about Berrios, Stewart, and Jay. When doing so will reveal something, I'll review that particular draft similarly to how I've reviewed other drafts to see if they had a chance to draft anyone in the first round who eventually became a front-line starter. Which is what I did to see which teams in a similar order in the draft  in a given year have done.

 

BTW, I've reviewed the 40 prospects taken with one of the next five picks after whomever the Twins selected (for example, the next five selections after Gibson) for an eight-year period dating back to 2007. These prospects should be representative of the players the Twins SHOULD have selected were they as competent at talent evaluation and drafting as the teams who immediately drafted the RIGHT guys that the Twins missed, right?  There are only three prospects among those 40 that would actually have been better selections than who the Twins selected. So, for those who insist that the Twins are worse at drafting talent than the other teams, how do you reconcile this?

 

I could expand this list of reasons the Twins have failed to put a decent starting rotation together. But even if I doubled it, it would not cite a comparative deficiency at identifying talented pitching prospects, or developing them, as one of the causes. There is no credible evidence to support this argument in my opinion.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Pretty good list. Maybe some overlap betwee points and other quibbles, but generally I agree as they are listed.

 

But keep in mind, as it relates to Meyer, all the hype and all the things Ryan and the national press said about Meyer when the Twins acquired him. He was going to move quickly and hopefully be that ace. The gravest mistakes in my opinion were passing him over for a promotion in 2014 in favor of the Kris Johnson types, and the refusal to even consider pitching him out of the bullpen until he had already flopped as a starter. Same mistake they are perhaps making with Berrios. Absolutely no consideration using Berrios from the bullpen in the stretch run last season, for example. And then Molitor's non-use of Meyer this season.

[Mike Sixel]

At this point, I'd be happy had they developed some number 3 types.....they have 1 possibly legit guy they've drafted and developed the last few years on the roster, Gibson (and, Berrios for part of this year).

 

It's not just a lack of ACE, it's a lack of any quality starting pitching lately. Regardless of why it turned out this way, it did. And, for that, the FO will rightly (imo) be turned over.

[bird]

 

  On 9/12/2016 at 12:36 AM, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

Pretty good list. Maybe some overlap betwee points and other quibbles, but generally I agree as they are listed.

But keep in mind, as it relates to Meyer, all the hype and all the things Ryan and the national press said about Meyer when the Twins acquired him. He was going to move quickly and hopefully be that ace. The gravest mistakes in my opinion were passing him over for a promotion in 2014 in favor of the Kris Johnson types, and the refusal to even consider pitching him out of the bullpen until he had already flopped as a starter. Same mistake they are perhaps making with Berrios. Absolutely no consideration using Berrios from the bullpen in the stretch run last season, for example. And then Molitor's non-use of Meyer this season.

 

No strong pushback from me about Meyer. My guess is his failure to establish himself with the Twins is probably due to a combination of factors: injuries, misuse by the manager and pitching coach, Meyer's own skill limitations, poor advice, Meyer's own head. I just don't know how anyone could be certain enough about what caused the problems to pin it on one thing. Same thing with concluding that Berrios would have adjusted had he pitched from the MLB bullpen last fall. Not a bad thought at all however.

[jimmer]

 

  On 9/12/2016 at 1:52 PM, Mike Sixel said:

At this point, I'd be happy had they developed some number 3 types.....they have 1 possibly legit guy they've drafted and developed the last few years on the roster, Gibson (and, Berrios for part of this year).

 

It's not just a lack of ACE, it's a lack of any quality starting pitching lately. Regardless of why it turned out this way, it did. And, for that, the FO will rightly (imo) be turned over.

Sad that we could point to Gibson as a success story :-)

[Mike Sixel]

 

  On 9/12/2016 at 2:36 PM, jimmer said:

Sad that we could point to Gibson as a success story :-)

 

I did say possibly....

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

  On 9/12/2016 at 2:22 PM, birdwatcher said:

No strong pushback from me about Meyer. My guess is his failure to establish himself with the Twins is probably due to a combination of factors: injuries, misuse by the manager and pitching coach, Meyer's own skill limitations, poor advice, Meyer's own head. I just don't know how anyone could be certain enough about what caused the problems to pin it on one thing. Same thing with concluding that Berrios would have adjusted had he pitched from the MLB bullpen last fall. Not a bad thought at all however.

I agree. It's speculation why Meyer failed here, but he did.

[markos]

 

  On 9/12/2016 at 1:52 PM, Mike Sixel said:

At this point, I'd be happy had they developed some number 3 types.....they have 1 possibly legit guy they've drafted and developed the last few years on the roster, Gibson (and, Berrios for part of this year).

 

It's not just a lack of ACE, it's a lack of any quality starting pitching lately. Regardless of why it turned out this way, it did. And, for that, the FO will rightly (imo) be turned over.

I agree so much with this. The real problem is their incredible inability to develop or acquire even average pitchers. It is really staggering.

 

From 2011 - 2016, the AL average ERA for starters was 4.21. The Twins have given 30 pitchers at least 5 starts during that timeframe. Here is the list of those who managed to be above average:

Scott Baker: 3.21 (21 starts)

Ervin Santana: 3.75 (43 starts)

Phil Hughes: 4.19 (68 starts)

 

That's it. 950 total starts over that time span, and only 13% were average or better.

[bird]

 

  On 9/12/2016 at 2:36 PM, jimmer said:

Sad that we could point to Gibson as a success story :-)

 

 

Funny thing is, when the Cardinal fans review the team's last, oh, 40 first-round picks or so, someone will inevitably say that it's sad that they can point to Wacha as the only first round selection in two decades that would be regarded as a #1-2 starter.

[jimmer]

 

  On 9/12/2016 at 4:32 PM, birdwatcher said:

Funny thing is, when the Cardinal fans review the team's last, oh, 40 first-round picks or so, someone will inevitably say that it's sad that they can point to Wacha as the only first round selection in two decades that would be regarded as a #1-2 starter.

I care zippity do dah about the Cardinals.

 

But they've had one losing record this century (and haven't lost 90 or more since 1990) so they do some things right,  I suppose.

[bird]

 

  On 9/12/2016 at 3:59 PM, markos said:

I agree so much with this. The real problem is their incredible inability to develop or acquire even average pitchers. It is really staggering.

 

From 2011 - 2016, the AL average ERA for starters was 4.21. The Twins have given 30 pitchers at least 5 starts during that timeframe. Here is the list of those who managed to be above average:

Scott Baker: 3.21 (21 starts)

Ervin Santana: 3.75 (43 starts)

Phil Hughes: 4.19 (68 starts)

 

That's it. 950 total starts over that time span, and only 13% were average or better.

 

 

This is all very frustrating and true, markos. There is something amiss. However, the conclusion people come to is alarmingly simplistic and actually inaccurate. We can't identify pitching talent. We're clueless when it comes to developing pitching talent. I'm thinking you're right in illustrating the lack of MLB success, because to me, there's more evident to support MLB managing and coaching as a problem area as opposed to scouting and minor league field staffs.

 

Supposedly, if a team has 3-4 prospects from any given draft that even smell the popcorn in MLB, they're doing average work. I haven't heard anyone claim that the Twins are better than average at identifying and drafting pitching talent. 

 

Baker, Garza, Slowey, Perkins, Duffey, Duensing, Berrios, Chargois, Dean, Wimmers, O'Rourke, Rogers, Tonkin, Darnell...names I can come up with off the top of my head, and ignoring the position players altogether, which is clearly the more impressive list of prospects drafted, developed, and eventually successful at making it to MLB.

 

And several current prospects who are possibly BA Top 100 candidates in Gonsalves, Jay, Rosario, Stewart, Jorge. Is this maybe an indication that, IF drafting and/or development were in fact a problem, that it's a past problem rather than a present one?

[bird]

 

  On 9/12/2016 at 4:36 PM, jimmer said:

I care zippity do dah about the Cardinals.

 

But they've had one losing record this century (and haven't lost 90 or more since 1990) so they do some things right,  I suppose.

 

If I'm running the Twins, I care a lot about the Cardinals, because my organization will study best practices in the industry and emulate them. One of the things the Cardinals will probably NOT be able to shed light on is how to draft elite starters with my first-round selection because they've stunk at it like most teams have. And if we don't have a formula for drafting an elite pitcher in the first round on occasion other than by the luck of the draft order, then we have to figure out another way to skin the cat. That's my point, jimmer. Got any good ideas about what the Cardinals or any other team are doing to develop rotations? I mean, besides having the good fortune of a great order in the draft when the Verlanders and Kershaws are available?

[Kwak]

 

  On 9/12/2016 at 3:54 PM, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

I agree. It's speculation why Meyer failed here, but he did.

Well..., there is the evidence that Philadelphia was willing to trade him (he was already at AA and there were no reports of Meyer having a significant injury at that time) for Denard Span. The Phillies valued quality starting pitchers as much (more?) than other teams, yet were willing to trade youth for proven "average, with little hope for anything better".

[jimmer]

 

  On 9/12/2016 at 5:17 PM, Kwak said:

Well..., there is the evidence that Philadelphia  Washington was willing to trade him (he was already at AA   A+ ball and there were no reports of Meyer having a significant injury at that time) for Denard Span. The Phillies Nationals valued quality starting pitchers as much (more?) than other teams, yet were willing to trade youth for proven "average, with little hope for anything better".

FTFY :-)

[markos]

 

  On 9/12/2016 at 4:53 PM, birdwatcher said:

This is all very frustrating and true, markos. There is something amiss. However, the conclusion people come to is alarmingly simplistic and actually inaccurate. We can't identify pitching talent. We're clueless when it comes to developing pitching talent. I'm thinking you're right in illustrating the lack of MLB success, because to me, there's more evident to support MLB managing and coaching as a problem area as opposed to scouting and minor league field staffs.

 

Supposedly, if a team has 3-4 prospects from any given draft that even smell the popcorn in MLB, they're doing average work. I haven't heard anyone claim that the Twins are better than average at identifying and drafting pitching talent. 

 

Baker, Garza, Slowey, Perkins, Duffey, Duensing, Berrios, Chargois, Dean, Wimmers, O'Rourke, Rogers, Tonkin, Darnell...names I can come up with off the top of my head, and ignoring the position players altogether, which is clearly the more impressive list of prospects drafted, developed, and eventually successful at making it to MLB.

 

And several current prospects who are possibly BA Top 100 candidates in Gonsalves, Jay, Rosario, Stewart, Jorge. Is this maybe an indication that, IF drafting and/or development were in fact a problem, that it's a past problem rather than a present one?

I think the identification, drafting/signing and development of pitching talent has been a problem. If it wasn't, I would expect there to be a sizeable amount of pitching talent acquired/developed by the Twins that found success elsewhere - think someone like Arrieta or Kluber.

 

This is a very quick and dirty analysis (please correct me if I'm missing anyone), but consider the following:

 

296 pitchers have started at least 1 game so far this year. On average, each of the 30 teams should produce 9-10 of the starters. By my quick peruse through the list, the Twins have just 6:

Kyle Lohse

Matt Garza

Kyle Gibson

Pat Dean

Jose Berrios

Tyler Duffey

 

If you break it down by total starts, there have been 4,272, or 142 per team. The above-listed starters have contributed only 81. By innings, it is ~24,000, or 800 per team. The Twins starters have ~400. And if you expand it to pitcher that the Twins acquired in the minors and developed, that only adds Liriano, right?

 

(Quick aside... Do the Twins have ANY international free agents that have found success as a starter?)

 

Unless I'm missing some players, the gap between the Twins' pitcher and average is large enough that it can't be explained away by draft position differences alone. 

[bird]

 

  On 9/12/2016 at 7:02 PM, markos said:

I think the identification, drafting/signing and development of pitching talent has been a problem.

 

(Quick aside... Do the Twins have ANY international free agents that have found success as a starter?)

 

Unless I'm missing some players, the gap between the Twins' pitcher and average is large enough that it can't be explained away by draft position differences alone. 

 

A couple of things:

 

I believe signing international pitching talent was very much a problem for a long time, and maybe a half-dozen years ago, this problem began to slowly shrink because the Twins BEGAN to develop a presence and an infrastructure in Latin America. The reason I believe this is because of a long conversation I once had about it with Andy MacPhail, in which he described in painstaking detail the effort he and others, including very notably Billy Smith and Jim Pohlad, expended to convince Carl to make the budgetary comittment. He described it as a 10-year process just to get to the level of being competitive because of the need to build relationships and credibility with the influencers. We still haven't seen any fruits from that initiative, but Randy Rosario, Huascar Ynoa, Felix Jorge, and a number of others might change that. We got unlucky with Lewis Thorpe too. To be nuanced, we should recognize that identification is only part of the formula internationally, and the more critical barrirs have been money and infrastucture. The new Dominican facility should step their game up another few notches. 

 

I don't think draft order alone explains away the problem. But looking at draft history and comparing the selections to others, draft by draft, illuminates a stark truth about how limited the opportunities are in reality. You just don't decide to draft an ace and bingo. Every team struggles, because there are usually only 3-4 future aces that all teams identify as such. As for success in later rounds? Maybe someone has a formula, but I doubt it. I mean, if you identified a guy as a future ace, why on earth would you subject yourself to the risk of banking on you being the only one to have identified it? No team would wait until a later round, right So, my thinking is there's a lot of luck involved, but maybe some orgs have a successful later-round strategy that I'm not aware of and that can be emulated.

 

I agree, the facts you throw out there are hugely incriminating, and yet I still have my doubts, particularly regarding whether there is a problem in existence today, as opposed to an old problem for which we continue to see the effects.