Twins are ranked #11.

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/keith-law/insider/post?id=6115

 

Summary is that the Twins have some depth of talent in the minors but lack star power (the potential stars are currently in the bigs). "A half dozen or so mid rotation starters, a slew of hard-throwing relievers and a few high-probability position players."

 

Seems fair, but also not a disaster. A Dozier trade to the Dodgers doesn't seem like it would solve the underlying issue, but having the #1 pick and a few other hight picks with money saved will help reload the system.

 

Twins are ranked #11.

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/keith-law/insider/post?id=6115

 

Summary is that the Twins have some depth of talent in the minors but lack star power (the potential stars are currently in the bigs). "A half dozen or so mid rotation starters, a slew of hard-throwing relievers and a few high-probability position players."

 

Seems fair, but also not a disaster. A Dozier trade to the Dodgers doesn't seem like it would solve the underlying issue, but having the #1 pick and a few other hight picks with money saved will help reload the system.

Seems like a fairly similar conclusion that Fangraphs had:

 

'The system is more interesting than it is good or deep and whomever the Twins draft No. 1 overall next year will instantly become their top prospect. Teams like Toronto and Los Angeles, who have multiple picks between No. 1 and 39 (Minnesota’s second pick due to comp picks for free agents) will probably discourage the Twins from trying to get creative next June.'

He ranks us #11 overall with some nice things to say "What they don’t have, at least anywhere at a full-season level, is a future star -- a No. 1 or No. 2 starter, a middle of the order bat, a potential MVP candidate, nothing quite like that. ....  Their potential stars are still in short-season ball and probably four to six years away from the majors, which means their probability is low and so is their potential value to other clubs."  I assume he's talking about guys like Kiriloff and Javier here.

 

 

He ranks us #11 overall with some nice things to say "What they don’t have, at least anywhere at a full-season level, is a future star -- a No. 1 or No. 2 starter, a middle of the order bat, a potential MVP candidate, nothing quite like that. .... Their potential stars are still in short-season ball and probably four to six years away from the majors, which means their probability is low and so is their potential value to other clubs." I assume he's talking about guys like Kiriloff and Javier here.

I'm sure he is too. I think most systems have a few guys like Kiriloff and Javier, potential stars that are a long ways away.

 

I generally will accept pedigree early, but I can't get all that excited until a prospect handles full season ball.

I was going to remark about this when I saw it earlier today.    Considerably different than a recent post about the Baseball America ratings.    After listening to that podcast, I was read to see the Twins in the 21-30 range of KLaw's ratings.

Edited January 20, 20179 yr by Physics Guy

Yeah, I would have thought the Twins would be in the 17-24 range, not 11, so good to see this.

Keith Law, who hates the Twins, will probably be the high man on the system, and by a few slots too.

That's a pretty fair assessment, though fangraphs was much more brutal, calling it a bottom 10 system.  Law likes ceiling more, and there's plenty of high ceiling guys in the system, it's just that most of those guys come with plenty of question marks. 

 

This system is one of those where it could be suddenly very good again if a few of those guys take that big step forward.  That's not a bad thing given they just graduated their star power guys, but not a good thing if you don't see that progression. 

A bit higher than I expected but overall, pretty fair. Lots of talent in this system, very little can't-miss talent.

Was surprised by this ranking, but probably not all that unfair.  Twins have a number of decent prospects  in AAA or AA, but no stars.  Outside of Gordon most of the upper level players are bullpen types and those are very hit and miss.  Romero is the only other player that I feel could be an impact player and he is at least a year away. 

Better  prospects much more miss than hit with higher upsides are at the lower levels. 

The attests to the failure to sign a lot of Latin players over the past 2-3 years by blowing by the cap.  That would have restocked the system a lot faster. 

 

Was surprised by this ranking, but probably not all that unfair.  Twins have a number of decent prospects  in AAA or AA, but no stars.  Outside of Gordon most of the upper level players are bullpen types and those are very hit and miss.  Romero is the only other player that I feel could be an impact player and he is at least a year away. 

Better  prospects much more miss than hit with higher upsides are at the lower levels. 

The attests to the failure to sign a lot of Latin players over the past 2-3 years by blowing by the cap.  That would have restocked the system a lot faster. 

Probably generous.

 

Keith Law, who hates the Twins, will probably be the high man on the system, and by a few slots too.

I would imagine Sickels will be the high man on our system.  

 

I generally will accept pedigree early, but I can't get all that excited until a prospect handles full season ball.

I think that's fair.  The two biggest jumps (as I understand it) are from rookie ball to A and then from A+ to AA.  So a 18 year old kid kicking ass against other 18 year old kid in 3 months of ball probably doesn't mean as much.  

 

Was surprised by this ranking, but probably not all that unfair.  Twins have a number of decent prospects  in AAA or AA, but no stars.  Outside of Gordon most of the upper level players are bullpen types and those are very hit and miss.  Romero is the only other player that I feel could be an impact player and he is at least a year away. 

Better  prospects much more miss than hit with higher upsides are at the lower levels. 

The attests to the failure to sign a lot of Latin players over the past 2-3 years by blowing by the cap.  That would have restocked the system a lot faster. 

There's probably real value in having ML-quality depth, even if there isn't another Buxton or Berrios right now.  That's one of the things we fans tend to under appreciate.  The fangraphs guy who ranked De Leon a future #3/4 has said in his chats that this is a good thing.  There aren't that many aces floating around and just having serviceable depth so you don't have to give Albers 30 starts is good for a system.  Considering the recent graduations the Twins have had, they are probably in a pretty good place.

I think that's fair. The two biggest jumps (as I understand it) are from rookie ball to A and then from A+ to AA. So a 18 year old kid kicking ass against other 18 year old kid in 3 months of ball probably doesn't mean as much.

Without question those are the two jumps that are the toughest.

 

The longer I look at prospects, the more it seems like a 4 step process (college guys usually combine the first two).

 

Get in the system and be a professional (Rookie ball)

Handle a full season (A ball)

Fine tune and master the apprenticeship (AA and AAA)

Big leagues

Higher than I predicted.

 

Seems like a fairly similar conclusion that Fangraphs had:

 

'The system is more interesting than it is good or deep and whomever the Twins draft No. 1 overall next year will instantly become their top prospect. Teams like Toronto and Los Angeles, who have multiple picks between No. 1 and 39 (Minnesota’s second pick due to comp picks for free agents) will probably discourage the Twins from trying to get creative next June.'

 

FWIW, the Twins second pick is up to #35 overall now:

 

http://m.mlb.com/draft/2017/order

 

Neither LA team has two picks above us.  Toronto, Texas, and the Cubs all have two picks each, but they are all in the 22-30 range so probably won't have a lot of bonus pool cash to play with either.

 

The Reds would probably be the tough one, since they pick 2nd and 32nd, and perhaps the Rays at 4th and 31st.  (Also Oakland and Milwaukee pick at 6 and 9, and again at 33 and 34, respectively.)

I would say that this is optimistic unless there are really that many teams with a worse set up than  ours.  No #1 or 2 now or in the future.  All the players on the roster have to produce up to their potential or we are stuck with expectations of a long run in the middle of the pack.  Lets hope there can be some offsetting actions that can spin this forward with the kind of expectations that can get us into some playoffs. 

 

I would say that this is optimistic unless there are really that many teams with a worse set up than  ours.  No #1 or 2 now or in the future.  All the players on the roster have to produce up to their potential or we are stuck with expectations of a long run in the middle of the pack.  Lets hope there can be some offsetting actions that can spin this forward with the kind of expectations that can get us into some playoffs. 

You might be over rating how many future #1 type pitchers are above short season ball.

I found it interesting that the White Sox, for all their sound and fury this offseason, is still only rated at #10 right now.

I don't think system rankings have much in the way of predictive value. 

The Sox went from terrible to to ten, using zero drafts... By making trades. How is that not impressive?

The Sox went from terrible to to ten, using zero drafts... By making trades. How is that not impressive?

Who said it wasn't impressive?

 

I actually thought it would be higher. They traded one of the top handful of starters in all of baseball.

I haven't seen Fangraphs article ranking the farm systems yet.  I've seen their prospect guys' individual reports on some clubs, including ours, but no 1-30 rankings of systems.

 

I haven't seen Fangraphs article ranking the farm systems yet.  I've seen their prospect guys' individual reports on some clubs, including ours, but no 1-30 rankings of systems.

 

This is the first system rankings I've seen. I'll post as I come across them. Fangraphs is traditionally the slowest, and I imagine that won't change this year.

Anonymous: Of all your farm system rankings, name a couple of systems that have the best group of reliever prospects.

 

Klaw: Twins come to mind immediately. Chargois, Reed, Melotakis, Burdi if healthy, etc.

 

This is the first system rankings I've seen. I'll post as I come across them. Fangraphs is traditionally the slowest, and I imagine that won't change this year.

Yeah, system rankings are really slow which is a pain since there isn't much else to talk about right now.

 

This is the first system rankings I've seen. I'll post as I come across them. Fangraphs is traditionally the slowest, and I imagine that won't change this year.

I believe I read somewhere, maybe on this thread, that Fangraphs had rated the Twins farm system in the bottom 10.  I haven't seen that.

 

I believe I read somewhere, maybe on this thread, that Fangraphs had rated the Twins farm system in the bottom 10.  I haven't seen that.

No, in a BA chat, one of their writers suggested that.  That's not the official BA view (they have multiple guys to get a group consensus first) but it does suggest that BA might be low on the Twins.

 

My guess (and it's just a guess) is that Jay is the dividing line - if you think he can start, the system jumps up a few notches, if he's a reliever, it stays down.

Yeah, I'd say it's accurate and fair. I will say, in regards to SP, I've always felt having a number of the solid, mid rotation types, is not a bad thing. I've seen very few guys come up who seem to be pegged as "certain" #1 or #2 types. It seems predicting ultimate success for any young pitcher is a bit of a crap shoot. You just don't know in a couple of seasons which "mid range" starter takes another step or two forward.

 

One thing I noticed when reading the BA top 10 list for the Twins was frequent comments about the various Twins pitchers being a bit thin and having room to physically grow for potential speed and endurance, etc. I wonder if the new FO will improve/change workout routines for milb pitchers. If you examine the majority of Twins pitching prospects, a number of them seem to be anywhere from 175-185lbs. I'm not saying they need to bulk up to be sculpted body builders, but I find myself wondering about additional weight training and what it could mean for added velocity and endurance as they progress and reach the ML level.