First, I figured a new thread b/c the old one is getting a bit long.

 

Jonathan Mayo at mlbpipeline has a nice rundown of the 7 players he thinks the Twins are considering for the 1/1 pick.

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/227234290/breakdown-of-no-1-candidates-in-mlb-draft/?topicid=151437456

 

I'm not sure how accurate this is but Baz and Gore seem less likely, to me, than a college arm not considered like Faedo.  

I also saw that he did not have Austin Beck or J.B. Bukauskas on his list, but the Twins are considering both.

Pavin Smith? No chance. If you are taking a LH 1B, you take McKay in case he can pitch.

 

Pavin Smith? No chance. If you are taking a LH 1B, you take McKay in case he can pitch.

I'm not saying no but ... what if Smith, who should get drafted around 8-10 and expect 4.5m is willing to sign for 5m.  That saves the Twins 2.7m.  Then the Twins talk to Faedo or Carlson or Burger's advisor and tell him they'll give him top 10 money - 4.5m - if they drop to 35.  All three of those guys are in the 11-16 range.  Would Faedo and Smith be a better draft than Greene and slot at 35?  I'm not sure.  

 

 

 

I'm not saying no but ... what if Smith, who should get drafted around 8-10 and expect 4.5m is willing to sign for 5m.  That saves the Twins 2.7m.  Then the Twins talk to Faedo or Carlson or Burger's advisor and tell him they'll give him top 10 money - 4.5m - if they drop to 35.  All three of those guys are in the 11-16 range.  Would Faedo and Smith be a better draft than Greene and slot at 35?  I'm not sure.  

 

hard to say, really. If there was any guarantee you could get a guy like that to drop, any guarantee, maybe.

 

Would I trade Greene for a LH 1B (TF is death to those, and Sano is your 1B in 3ish years) and a pitcher that might or might not be as good a prospect (although only Hrbowski and Nice think/imply that of anyone I can find online)? Maybe. Would I take that chance, knowing that is it possible or likely none of them fall and they are taken before 35? less likely.

 

edit: It would be cool if I could type coherent sentences...

Edited May 1, 20179 yr by Mike Sixel

I'm not saying no but ... what if Smith, who should get drafted around 8-10 and expect 4.5m is willing to sign for 5m.  That saves the Twins 2.7m.  Then the Twins talk to Faedo or Carlson or Burger's advisor and tell him they'll give him top 10 money - 4.5m - if they drop to 35.  All three of those guys are in the 11-16 range.  Would Faedo and Smith be a better draft than Greene and slot at 35?  I'm not sure.

 

Very possibly, but it also sounds a lot like outsmarting yourself.

 

Very possibly, but it also sounds a lot like outsmarting yourself.

Yeah, that's the big problem.  My guess is that the Twins will probably get a tier of players - probably Greene, McKay and Wright - who they think are the best and then take the one who will sign for the least. Even though the #1 pick isn't worth as much, it's also important to remember that the largest bonuses since the slotting system was put into place is somewhere around 6.5m, I believe.  Even in this draft, 6.5 is top 3 money and would save the Twins 1.2m.  If you took that savings to the the #35 pick, you could offer him top 20 money (and potentially more if you save at other picks).  

How was Wright's last outing? I haven't kept up on game logs...

 

How was Wright's last outing? I haven't kept up on game logs...

7.1ip, 4er, 3h, 2bb, 6k.  Had a no-no going through six innings.  Struggled when they sent him out in the 8th and the bullpen let all his runners score. 

 

Yeah, that's the big problem.  My guess is that the Twins will probably get a tier of players - probably Greene, McKay and Wright - who they think are the best and then take the one who will sign for the least. Even though the #1 pick isn't worth as much, it's also important to remember that the largest bonuses since the slotting system was put into place is somewhere around 6.5m, I believe.  Even in this draft, 6.5 is top 3 money and would save the Twins 1.2m.  If you took that savings to the the #35 pick, you could offer him top 20 money (and potentially more if you save at other picks).  

 

that's where I'd go with it too... I'd note that while a guy like Smith likely won't fall, there are definitely some mid-1st HS type guys that could be had at 35 and/or 37 in that scenario.  The real issue is that you need to have a few of them lined up.... 

 

7.1ip, 4er, 3h, 2bb, 6k.  Had a no-no going through six innings.  Struggled when they sent him out in the 8th and the bullpen let all his runners score. 

 

Still my guy for now.

 

Callis said again today he has Twins going McKay, but doesn't know the position.

A lot further down the page was last week's rankings An interesting name to watch, if he is available at 35 or 37 is Will Crowe. Drafted twice by Cleveland

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2017?list=draft

Edited May 1, 20179 yr by old nurse

 

A lot further down the page was last week's rankings An interesting name to watch, if he is available at 35 or 37 is Will Crowe. Drafted twice by Cleveland

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2017?list=draft

 

That's got to be an old list. No one has Kendall that highly ranked anymore, do they?

 

That's got to be an old list. No one has Kendall that highly ranked anymore, do they?

He's probably top 10. He's hitting .296/.379/.581 13hr, 22bb 52k in a pretty good conference. The swing and miss is still a concern but there's a lot to like. He's certainly not in the running for 1/1 but #6 overall doesn't seem too off. (To me, non-professional).

He's probably top 10. He's hitting .296/.379/.581 13hr, 22bb 52k in a pretty good conference. The swing and miss is still a concern but there's a lot to like. He's certainly not in the running for 1/1 but #6 overall doesn't seem too off. (To me, non-professional).

Plus he still brings speed and good d. Probably won't be an elite hitter with the swing and miss, but likely a very solid all around player with some good pop.

Huh, well, that's too much swing and miss for this completely non-baseball professional. I wouldn't take him top 10.

Not much to add, except that drafting Faedo would bring back unpleasant memories of Lenny Faedo from the early '80s. Think Danny Santana but without the glove work, gap power, or speed on the base paths. 

From what I have read about Gore, he seems like the guy I would take.  Mid 90's fastball.  Solid secondary pitches?  Yes, please.  Plus, he is left-handed.  I don't think the Twins have too many top three in the rotation projected left-handed pitchers they have in the system.  

 

I feel like they are going to select Wright.  It just seems like a Twins thing to do.

How was Wright's last outing? I haven't kept up on game logs...

You should start an Adopt-A-Draft-Prospect project and keep us all up to date.

I think the Twins will go with McKay.  If something bad happens to his arm they still would have an elite hitter.  He seems the safest choice and appears to have a high ceiling as a pitcher and hitter.

 

 l love Green but if something bad happens along the way that is going to be tough to live down.  There is just more risk as he is further away and less developed.  If he does live up to the hype he is likely to be one of the best players in MLB for a long time.

 

It is a tough choice but I think the Twins will play it safe with McKay.

 

I think the Twins will go with McKay.  If something bad happens to his arm they still would have an elite hitter.  He seems the safest choice and appears to have a high ceiling as a pitcher and hitter.

 

 l love Green but if something bad happens along the way that is going to be tough to live down.  There is just more risk as he is further away and less developed.  If he does live up to the hype he is likely to be one of the best players in MLB for a long time.

 

It is a tough choice but I think the Twins will play it safe with McKay.

This sounds easy but it really isn't. You are looking at a minimum of 2-3 seasons in the minors as pitcher if this don't work out. And then he switches to hitting at 25+ and then needs to spend 2+ seasons in the minors developing as a hitter. This really isn't an interesting fall back imo for a 1-1. Go all in on the best player.

Note - I use the 2-3 seasons minimum in the example of McKay not working out. In reality if they only give him 2 seasons to figure things out as a pitcher then the Twins failed in the draft by picking someone that isn't very good. Or he needed TJ and missed a season (as a hitter or pitcher) due to injury.

 

You should start an Adopt-A-Draft-Prospect project and keep us all up to date.

 

I bet someone gets that opportunity here in July.

 

This sounds easy but it really isn't. You are looking at a minimum of 2-3 seasons in the minors as pitcher if this don't work out. And then he switches to hitting at 25+ and then needs to spend 2+ seasons in the minors developing as a hitter. This really isn't an interesting fall back imo for a 1-1. Go all in on the best player.

Note - I use the 2-3 seasons minimum in the example of McKay not working out. In reality if they only give him 2 seasons to figure things out as a pitcher then the Twins failed in the draft by picking someone that isn't very good. Or he needed TJ and missed a season (as a hitter or pitcher) due to injury.

 

That is true and a good point.  It would be hard to switch back and they would likely give him at least four years as a pitcher and he likely will be good just maybe not reach the full vision of his potential as a pitcher.  Whereas he might have been elite with the bat.

 

If pitcher is your greatest need  and you go solely on potential for the pick it would have to be Green.  The tough part is how much of that potential will be realized?  From what I read McKay may be a better MLB hitter than pitcher although he does have high ceilings for both.  Green has two way ability as well but not as sure how the hit tool would translate right now and he can throw around 100 apparently pretty easy.  McKay appears to have four decent pitches and is a lefty.  Green has two and possibly a third but is only 17.  The ceiling is higher for Green but the floor much lower.  It is a tough decision no matter how you look at it and their jobs depend on getting this one right.

 

That is true and a good point.  It would be hard to switch back and they would likely give him at least four years as a pitcher and he likely will be good just maybe not reach the full vision of his potential as a pitcher.  Whereas he might have been elite with the bat.

 

If pitcher is your greatest need  and you go solely on potential for the pick it would have to be Green.  The tough part is how much of that potential will be realized?  From what I read McKay may be a better MLB hitter than pitcher although he does have high ceilings for both.  Green has two way ability as well but not as sure how the hit tool would translate right now and he can throw around 100 apparently pretty easy.  McKay appears to have four decent pitches and is a lefty.  Green has two and possibly a third but is only 17.  The ceiling is higher for Green but the floor much lower.  It is a tough decision no matter how you look at it and their jobs depend on getting this one right.

Yes, but I am not making an argument for Greene necessarily. It is just that I don't really like the 'fall back' option of McKay. If McKay is the better pick as a pitcher then I am okay with that. Give up a little ceiling for more certainty and sooner to the majors is valid. It is also something we have heard about college pitchers before and the closer to the majors part was frequently false and many didn't even make the majors.

A good front office wouldn't let McKay struggle with pitching or hitting for several years before making a change. 

 

A good front office wouldn't let McKay struggle with pitching or hitting for several years before making a change. 

Are you kidding? You would take a pitcher 1-1 and move him after 1-2 years of struggles?

 

A good front office wouldn't let McKay struggle with pitching or hitting for several years before making a change. 

I think the concern is that he pulls a Kevin Gausman and flies through the minors, is added to the 40 man, struggles in the Show, then poses the quandary of do you spend his option years hoping he figures out how to pitch in MLB or do you hit the reset button and hope he's ready as a batter in 3 years? Its a fair concern and incidentally, another reason to develop him as a two-way player before rostering him. Takes a little longer to cook but then the backup plan is a little more legit.

 

I think the concern is that he pulls a Kevin Gausman and flies through the minors, is added to the 40 man, struggles in the Show, then poses the quandary of do you spend his option years hoping he figures out how to pitch in MLB or do you hit the reset button and hope he's ready as a batter in 3 years? Its a fair concern and incidentally, another reason to develop him as a two-way player before rostering him. Takes a little longer to cook but then the backup plan is a little more legit.

 

Well I was responding to the situation in which he did much worse than that, but yes, it would take some proactive work from day 1 to make sure a switch could be timely. 

 

Despite the challenges, the 'Plan B' potential of McKay is very valuable. As an elite college player, his odds of success with 'Plan A'  (whatever that is) are already pretty good, by amateur standards. Taking away yet more downside risk has to yield a high expected value number. 

 

My only concern with McKay is that scouts are so wowed by his two-way ability that they moderately overrate him with each individual skill set. I have no actual basis for this concern but it seems like the kind of thing that could happen, given how unusual it is. But as opposed to pure athleticism, I'm not sure that McKay's skill versatility really portends anything beyond face value.

 

I think the concern is that he pulls a Kevin Gausman and flies through the minors, is added to the 40 man, struggles in the Show, then poses the quandary of do you spend his option years hoping he figures out how to pitch in MLB or do you hit the reset button and hope he's ready as a batter in 3 years? Its a fair concern and incidentally, another reason to develop him as a two-way player before rostering him. Takes a little longer to cook but then the backup plan is a little more legit.

 

I think this is the right answer personally.  Plus, you suddenly have a very real possibility of a 10 WAR player if both sides click.  McKay is pretty much my choice at the moment, in large part because he should be a quick riser, has pretty decent upside, and could potentially reinvent current thinking on two way players.

I think the concern is that he pulls a Kevin Gausman and flies through the minors, is added to the 40 man, struggles in the Show, then poses the quandary of do you spend his option years hoping he figures out how to pitch in MLB or do you hit the reset button and hope he's ready as a batter in 3 years? Its a fair concern and incidentally, another reason to develop him as a two-way player before rostering him. Takes a little longer to cook but then the backup plan is a little more legit.

I have to respectfully disagree. I don't think you draft a guy 1-1 and construct your plan around his eventual failure. They'd need to decide if he's a pitcher or a hitter and go with it. Any change down the road should be a worst case scenario where he is trying to salvage his career.