KLAW top by position

[Mr. Brooks]

This is unrealistic. There are 8 positions listed lumping all the OF as one and having Pitchers in SP or RP roles. 8x10 is 80. 80/30 is 2 and 2/3. One is disappointing but 2-3 is the expected range.

 

Top 100 list would be 3-4...

But when you are the worst team in baseball you need to have better than average coming up the pipeline.

[Mike Sixel]

 

This is unrealistic. There are 8 positions listed lumping all the OF as one and having Pitchers in SP or RP roles. 8x10 is 80. 80/30 is 2 and 2/3. One is disappointing but 2-3 is the expected range.

 

Top 100 list would be 3-4...

 

shouldn't a team drafting near the top have more than average? I was told the reason they didn't have great picks before was that they were always drafting late......recently they've been drafting pretty early.

[jimmer]

 

shouldn't a team drafting near the top have more than average? I was told the reason they didn't have great picks before was that they were always drafting late......recently they've been drafting pretty early.

You aren't the only one who has been told that and yes, they should have more than average based on where we've been drafting.

 

But here's the funny part.  Not only couldn't blame them for bad drafts results when we drafted lower, but then we also can't blame them when they miss the guy who ends up being the best player on the planet when we don't draft him either (because other teams missed him too).

 

This is like how there's always a reason to not fault the team for not going after truly top notch FAs. Always a legitimate reason not to, regardless of the team situation.

 

 Also, if looking at MLB's list for example having three on the list is nice when it's said that way.  Then you find out one is 50th and the rest are in the 90s.

[Mike Sixel]

It's especially a problem that you are average or worse, when you won't/can't sign FAs, and apparently have no veterans to trade. If your new strategy is to build from within, you have to be one of the five or so best at drafting and developing, or you may as well just give up. That is the new strategy, to be home grown?

[jimmer]

 

It's especially a problem that you are average or worse, when you won't/can't sign FAs, and apparently have no veterans to trade. If your new strategy is to build from within, you have to be one of the five or so best at drafting and developing, or you may as well just give up. That is the new strategy, to be home grown?

I wrote the same thing on another thread:

 

'Btw, we have to do better than most teams in the draft because we wont spend, we wont trade quality vets at peak value and we wont trade prospects for quality proven players. We have to hit in the draft better than many cause our window for getting talent is smaller than other teams. We should be held to a higher standard in drafts.'

[drivlikejehu]

The Twins really screwed up when they didn't hire a CBO and GM with access to a time machine.

[bird]

 

 

 

But here's the funny part.  Not only couldn't blame them for bad drafts results when we drafted lower, but then we also can't blame them when they miss the guy who ends up being the best player on the planet when we don't draft him either (because other teams missed him too).

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're absolutely right, jimmer. What were we thinking?

 

Of course the Twins are idiots for passing on Trout. Why wouldn't we parse out blame for that mistake? The fact that almost every other team also passed on Trout has no bearing. Well, maybe because the Angels passed on him twice...double idiots?

 

Or geez, I suppose we could blame ALL the teams for passing on Trout. Yeah. All the teams are idiots.

 

That's the funny part. 

 

They've had bad drafts when they drafted higher and bad drafts when they drafted lower. Almost everybody acknowledges this. Really good ones too, like pretty much all teams do. Almost everybody acknowledges this too. So perhaps some of the excuse-making you think you're witnessing isn't that at all. There have been a ton of facts laid out in this thread that call your opinions into question about the quality of the Gibson decision. These comments aren't excuse-making. They're opposing opinions supported by facts and proper analysis. Mentioning that the Twins missed on Trout contributes nothing to any credible analysis. And in fact, mentioning it without putting it into proper context is a bit disingenuous, is it not?

[jimmer]

Angels didn't pass on him twice.  They had back to back picks, so I'm not sure that REALLY counts as passing on him at all considering no other team had a shot at Trout after the Angels made there 1st pick.

 

But whatever.

[The Wise One]

When you look at fangraphs top 24 Twin prospects, 13 of them are 21 and under. By their system of evaluations, the FV value is low because they are so far from the majors.  Are they going to be "top 10" minor league players.? No. The system also shows a bias towards near ready prospects. Are the Twin's prospects  going to be worse major league players than those on the current top 10 list. IDK and neither does anyone else at this point. MLB pipeline's list is different than Laws.   Unbunch the undies.  After the first few, it is a guess.

[diehardtwinsfan]

It was way too early to call Jay a failure. He pitched quite well in FTM.  Yes, he struggled in AA, but that isn't unusual and he had the added problem of getting used to a starters workload along with full season ball. 

 

Even with Stewart  I wouldn't be ready to call him a failure. No question his road ahead is looking less promising, but given his background, I'm not ready to write that off, especially with a FO overhauling the development side of things... but when KLAW is saying the Twins are doing fine here, I'm not too worried.

[gunnarthor]

 

shouldn't a team drafting near the top have more than average? I was told the reason they didn't have great picks before was that they were always drafting late......recently they've been drafting pretty early.

Have they been average though?  The four drafts that they've drafted high in have been 2012-2015.  The 2012 class gave us two very highly regarded prospects in Buxton and Berrios plus 3 other ML players already.  It's hard to say the 2012 draft was average.

 

The 2013 draft has one top 100 guy on most lists (Gonsalves) and another guy who gets on some lists (Stewart), both pitchers were among the youngest pitchers in AA last year.  And Mitch Garver probably makes the majors this year.  It's not a slamdunk - none of these guys are in the Berrios level of pitchers but I'm not sure I'd say it's a below average draft, esp when you play the risk assessment of HS pitchers.  I think you can say that the 2013 draft hasn't been as good as you hoped and still think it was better than average.  

 

The 2014 draft is probably the one you can argue the most with.  That was the relief pitcher draft + Gordon.  Obviously, Gordon was a fine pick and is around top 50 on most lists.  I suppose if Nick Burdi turns into a legit shutdown closer, this draft could be better.  And Reed could be useful. But, yeah, this draft wasn't great.

 

And 2015 they basically had one pick. They used that on Jay, who is pretty polarizing.  Their next pick didn't sign and then they drafted two guys who I really liked in Blankenhorn and Cabbage.  Considering they didn't have a second round pick and the next pick didn't sign, it's probably a decent return so far but that really depends on how you view Jay. If you think he's a B+ prospect like Sickels does, it's a good, above average draft.  If you're down on Jay, you are less optimistic.  

 

So, I dunno.  I think you can say the 2012-2015 drafts were better than average while still being disappointed that they weren't better, depending on what your expectations were.  I think they drafted three difference makers in Berrios, Buxton and Gordon.  I think they got a nice piece in Gonsalves.  I think the jury is still out on Stewart and Jay but guys like Burdi, Reed, Duffy, Garver can all be useful, cheap pieces.  That sorta upholds Klaws view of a deep system but lacking the MVP/ace types at the moment. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Have they been average though?  The four drafts that they've drafted high in have been 2012-2015.  The 2012 class gave us two very highly regarded prospects in Buxton and Berrios plus 3 other ML players already.  It's hard to say the 2012 draft was average.

 

The 2013 draft has one top 100 guy on most lists (Gonsalves) and another guy who gets on some lists (Stewart), both pitchers were among the youngest pitchers in AA last year.  And Mitch Garver probably makes the majors this year.  It's not a slamdunk - none of these guys are in the Berrios level of pitchers but I'm not sure I'd say it's a below average draft, esp when you play the risk assessment of HS pitchers.  I think you can say that the 2013 draft hasn't been as good as you hoped and still think it was better than average.  

 

The 2014 draft is probably the one you can argue the most with.  That was the relief pitcher draft + Gordon.  Obviously, Gordon was a fine pick and is around top 50 on most lists.  I suppose if Nick Burdi turns into a legit shutdown closer, this draft could be better.  And Reed could be useful. But, yeah, this draft wasn't great.

 

And 2015 they basically had one pick. They used that on Jay, who is pretty polarizing.  Their next pick didn't sign and then they drafted two guys who I really liked in Blankenhorn and Cabbage.  Considering they didn't have a second round pick and the next pick didn't sign, it's probably a decent return so far but that really depends on how you view Jay. If you think he's a B+ prospect like Sickels does, it's a good, above average draft.  If you're down on Jay, you are less optimistic.  

 

So, I dunno.  I think you can say the 2012-2015 drafts were better than average while still being disappointed that they weren't better, depending on what your expectations were.  I think they drafted three difference makers in Berrios, Buxton and Gordon.  I think they got a nice piece in Gonsalves.  I think the jury is still out on Stewart and Jay but guys like Burdi, Reed, Duffy, Garver can all be useful, cheap pieces.  That sorta upholds Klaws view of a deep system but lacking the MVP/ace types at the moment. 

 

They are not ranked all that high compared to other systems. Looking at their system compared to others....I would hope you'd be in the top 5 or so, after this much losing, not 11th or worse (fangraphs or BA has said they'll be in the bottom third, IIRC). None of what you typed compares them to other systems. We'll see where they sit in a few weeks or so.....for KLAW, MiLB, FG and BA, but I would hope it would be higher, given the losing. YMMV, of course.

[drivlikejehu]

I want WAR, not off-season system rankings, from draft picks.

[gunnarthor]

 

They are not ranked all that high compared to other systems. Looking at their system compared to others....I would hope you'd be in the top 5 or so, after this much losing, not 11th or worse (fangraphs or BA has said they'll be in the bottom third, IIRC). None of what you typed compares them to other systems. We'll see where they sit in a few weeks or so.....for KLAW, MiLB, FG and BA, but I would hope it would be higher, given the losing. YMMV, of course.

Well, I'd like them to be top 5 as well but Klaw had them #3 last year.  Graduating out the 2012 class which had the #2 pick and 4 more picks in the top 72 and comparing to the 2015 draft which had one pick total in the the top 75 would naturally result in a drop.  These rankings are snapshots in time.  BA rankings over the last few years (which is done before that years draft) since the 2012 draft has the Twins ranked 10, 3, 2, and 10.  Only one team (Boston) was ranked top 5 three years in a row.  BA hasn't released their org rankings yet but assuming the Twins fall another step they'd still likely jump back up with 3 picks in the top 37.  So, while I want it to be better, I'm not sure there's a lot of reason to expect that.  

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/organization-talent-rankings-list/#5ptpKmkWu1TjMo5L.97

[gunnarthor]

 

I want WAR, not off-season system rankings, from draft picks.

Sure, but we're a long way from using any ML experience to grade these drafts.  The real problem was the 08-11 drafts with only the 09 draft giving us anything.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Sure, but we're a long way from using any ML experience to grade these drafts.  The real problem was the 08-11 drafts with only the 09 draft giving us anything.

 

Well sure, but MLB performance is the only thing that actually matters. So while we can speculate about how a more recent draft will turn out, that's all it is, speculation. 

 

System and prospect rankings are themselves highly speculative. So using prospects to evaluate a draft is speculation on top of speculation . . . which is fine for the sake of discussion, but not for purposes of deriving conclusions.

[gunnarthor]

 

Well sure, but MLB performance is the only thing that actually matters. So while we can speculate about how a more recent draft will turn out, that's all it is, speculation. 

 

Yet, it's also apparent that system and prospect rankings are highly speculative. So using prospects to evaluate a draft is speculation on top of speculation . . . which is fine for the sake of discussion, but not for purposes of deriving conclusions.

That's probably why most of this is in the minor league forum.  

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Sure, but we're a long way from using any ML experience to grade these drafts.  The real problem was the 08-11 drafts with only the 09 draft giving us anything.

 

Exactly, and that's why the product on the field has been abysmal.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The "misses" of which you speak were high draft picks - Kohl Stewart and Tyler Jay -- that teams just should not miss.

The Twins missed on Jay?

 

The guy hasn't exactly lit up the world but he's held his own thus far. Not a terrible performance from a guy switching from reliever to starter with only 102 professional innings under his belt.

[mazeville]

 

The Twins missed on Jay?

 

The guy hasn't exactly lit up the world but he's held his own thus far. Not a terrible performance from a guy switching from reliever to starter with only 102 professional innings under his belt.

 

They did, considering they could have had Andrew Benintendi, Carson Fulmer or Ian Happ with that pick.

[GP830]

 

Sadly, this does not particularly surprise me. Our players who appear to have real potential are too far down the leagues to have made much of an impression yet (Javier, Diaz, etc.). 

 

Other than maybe Romero, I don't see any SP that looks like a potential ace.

Hope the 2017 draft goes much better than the 2008 draft went.

I just looked through that. Obviously draft results take years to truly evaluate-- but someone should have lost their job immediately once it became clear that Hicks wasn't a star, and there were literally no other fruits from the draft yield. Thanks for sharing. I'll send you the chiropractic bill from having my shaking-head neck muscles adjusted.

 

***EDIT***

Also, It's striking for me to see that there are two legitimate big leaguers on that list who didn't sign with the Twins, but have gone on the be impactful at the MLB level in other organizations (Wong, Springer). WHY COULDN'T WE SIGN THEM?!?!?!

[drjim]

 

They did, considering they could have had Andrew Benintendi, Carson Fulmer or Ian Happ with that pick.

 

Fulmer? And while I would prefer Happ, I'm not ready to say that's a certainty. Benintendi is what is going to kill them.

[drivlikejehu]

 

I just looked through that. Obviously draft results take years to truly evaluate-- but someone should have lost their job immediately once it became clear that Hicks wasn't a star, and there were literally no other fruits from the draft yield. Thanks for sharing. I'll send you the chiropractic bill from having my shaking-head neck muscles adjusted.

 

***EDIT***

Also, It's striking for me to see that there are two legitimate big leaguers on that list who didn't sign with the Twins, but have gone on the be impactful at the MLB level in other organizations (Wong, Springer). WHY COULDN'T WE SIGN THEM?!?!?!

 

MLB teams often draft high upside high school players, in late rounds, that are committed to going to college. It's basically on the off-chance that the player has a change of heart and decides to turn pro instead . . . the Twins are no different from other clubs in that regard, and none would have signed Springer in that draft.

 

Zero MLB organizations would fire scouts based off a single 1st round pick not becoming a star, or even a big leaguer. That's totally detached from the reality of scouting.

 

Results over time are different, and I don't think the Twins have done very well, but it's not about any one particular player.

[GP830]

 

MLB teams often draft high upside high school players, in late rounds, that are committed to going to college. It's basically on the off-chance that the player has a change of heart and decides to turn pro instead . . . the Twins are no different from other clubs in that regard, and none would have signed Springer in that draft.

 

Zero MLB organizations would fire scouts based off a single 1st round pick not becoming a star, or even a big leaguer. That's totally detached from the reality of scouting.

 

Results over time are different, and I don't think the Twins have done very well, but it's not about any one particular player.

No, I know that. But as soon as Hick was verifiably not a hit-- it was probably pretty apparent that none of the other picks would have broken through at that point either. Right?

[drivlikejehu]

 

No, I know that. But as soon as Hick was verifiably not a hit-- it was probably pretty apparent that none of the other picks would have broken through at that point either. Right?

 

No. Hicks' development was not related to any other player.

[David HK]

 

Sadly, this does not particularly surprise me. Our players who appear to have real potential are too far down the leagues to have made much of an impression yet (Javier, Diaz, etc.). 

 

Other than maybe Romero, I don't see any SP that looks like a potential ace.

Hope the 2017 draft goes much better than the 2008 draft went.

Wow- that was bleak.  Must have blocked it out of my memory.

 

But hey!  We got "Gulfa" Tonkin outta that draft-  so, not a total loss!

 

Oh, wait...

[gunnarthor]

 

I just looked through that. Obviously draft results take years to truly evaluate-- but someone should have lost their job immediately once it became clear that Hicks wasn't a star, and there were literally no other fruits from the draft yield. Thanks for sharing. I'll send you the chiropractic bill from having my shaking-head neck muscles adjusted.

 

***EDIT***

Also, It's striking for me to see that there are two legitimate big leaguers on that list who didn't sign with the Twins, but have gone on the be impactful at the MLB level in other organizations (Wong, Springer). WHY COULDN'T WE SIGN THEM?!?!?!

Keep in mind before the draft pool was put into effect in 2012 Twins ownership was a bit frugal with their money.  For example, both Revere and Span were considered reaches to be drafted where they were and the Twins often signed players who they knew would sign for a reasonable amount.  Which meant they didn't get a lot of lottery tickets in late rounds.  

 

Now, not spending money didn't kill the Twins but it did change how they could approach the draft. Soft tossing, control artist college SP were a pretty good deal for the Twins but had limited upside.