Good grief. When people talk about BPA they aren't talking about a player that is a tiny bit better. Yes, if two players are in a virtual tie then pick the one based on need. 

Your Vikings analogy breaks down in the different developmental systems for each sport. It takes 3+ years for an MLB draft pick to reach the majors. The needs of today might not be the needs of tomorrow. There are also more ways to acquire and develop prospects than in the NFL.

 

Yes, the Twins need MLB pitching right now. Yes, I hope they get a pitcher in both the draft at 1-1 (and at least one with the 1s and 2nd rd picks). But I don't want them to lock in on SP so much that they ignore players that are currently better choices.

 

The Twins need pitching now, in 2 years, in 3 years, in 5 years.....they have almost no one below AA that looks legit.....so, ya, they need to draft some pitching.

 

It's called an analogy, it clearly isn't identical, but the fact is, the Vikings ignored the OL for years, even though you need 5 of them every game.....and the Twins haven't developed a legit SP in how long? Even though you need 7 of them......

 

As for BPA, there is no AWESOME hitter out there, there isn't one legit site stating that....so how could, right now, anyone say anything other than pitcher?

Edited December 23, 20169 yr by Mike Sixel

 

Completely agree. Plus, by the time the 2017 draft rolls around, the Twins may have traded for DeLeon (and possibly another high-upside pitching prospect), Berrios may be doing well in the majors, May may have re-established himself as a competent mid-rotation starter, and who knows how well Gonsalves, Jay and Stewart will be doing in AA or AAA. If even two of those four things come to pass, the Twins desperate need for pitching may not look so desperate. For instance, I'd consider Kendell very carefully. If it were not for the K%, I'd already be 100% on board the Kendell train. Watch how he does this year. If he reduces the K% or ups the BB% a bit more, he'd be a hard guy to pass up on at 1-1. The speed, defense, athleticism and power are clearly all legit. Imagine an OF of Buxton, Kepler and Kendell in 2019? We're talking a huge plus outfield on both sides of the ball. Think about that with flyball pitchers like Berrios, May, and maybe DeLeon.

 

It will beyond that, that's the point.....you need 7 SP every year. Who do they have in A ball right now, or below that?

 

Kendall can't hit the ball, that's kind of important....

 

As for BPA, there is no AWESOME hitter out there, there isn't one legit site stating that....so how could, right now, anyone say anything other than pitcher?

Then you are arguing 2 different points. I have not advocated taking a hitter or pitcher in this specific draft because of BPA. I have hoped that the BPA (one of the players in a virtual tie) is a starting pitcher because of this need. But if their scouting department truly believes that one of the hitters is a fair amount better than the best pitcher then I can live with that. 

 

Your analogy still sucks. Yes, you need 5-7 SP'ers but you also need 9-11 hitters. You can't ignore hitting forever because you need 5-7 SP'ers. I am not suggesting that you suggested that but your analogy did.

 

Then you are arguing 2 different points. I have not advocated taking a hitter or pitcher in this specific draft because of BPA. I have hoped that the BPA (one of the players in a virtual tie) is a starting pitcher because of this need. But if their scouting department truly believes that one of the hitters is a fair amount better than the best pitcher then I can live with that. 

 

Your analogy still sucks. Yes, you need 5-7 SP'ers but you also need 9-11 hitters. You can't ignore hitting forever because you need 5-7 SP'ers. I am not suggesting that you suggested that but your analogy did.

 

Not really, my analogy stated that you can't always take hitters, if they are always the bpa, because then you never have any pitchers. that's what I said, I never said, "don't ever take hitters". I said, you can't ignore one side of the equation, and end up with a good TEAM. The Vikings have largely ignored the OL in the draft, hence, they have a terrible OL (that and injuries, clearly). 

 

People said "take the BPA, regardless of position". I said, if the BPA is always a hitter, and you never take a pitcher, you are in trouble.....

 

Not really, my analogy stated that you can't always take hitters, if they are always the bpa, because then you never have any pitchers. that's what I said, I never said, "don't ever take hitters". I said, you can't ignore one side of the equation, and end up with a good TEAM. The Vikings have largely ignored the OL in the draft, hence, they have a terrible OL (that and injuries, clearly). 

 

People said "take the BPA, regardless of position". I said, if the BPA is always a hitter, and you never take a pitcher, you are in trouble.....

So this isn't an issue for the Twins because they have taken 2 pitchers in the top 10 overall in the last 4 drafts?

So this isn't an issue for the Twins because they have taken 2 pitchers in the top 10 overall in the last 4 drafts?

And both were a mistake because better hitters were available right after.

 

It seems generally that drafting hitters high and trying to hit on pitchers through other means is the best strategy. Obviously they shouldn't force it if no good bats are available.

 

One reason I'm still predicting Kendall right now, especially if he improves his k rate.

 

So this isn't an issue for the Twins because they have taken 2 pitchers in the top 10 overall in the last 4 drafts?

 

Hard to say for sure, not sure how I feel about either Stewart or Jay at this point. To me, the twins:

 

lack a clear ace type prospect (whether he turns out as an ace or not)

lack much in A+ or below for SP that I love (though I may be forgetting someone)

might want to trade a AA SP prospect for a hitter type, as they have 5 at AA that all need to arrive at about the same time

lack a long term option at 3B

Desperately need some OF options in low levels (though kiriloff clearly helps there)

 

so, I'd lean SP if it is close. It is REALLY hard to get an ace type, and this is their best chance in some time. 

 

And both were a mistake because better hitters were available right after.

It seems generally that drafting hitters high and trying to hit on pitchers through other means is the best strategy. Obviously they shouldn't force it if no good bats are available.

One reason I'm still predicting Kendall right now, especially if he improves his k rate.

 

Except, under the old regime:

 

1. they never traded prospects for veterans, so that line was closed

2. wouldn't sign high priced FAs, so they could at best get a three type, so that line was closed

3. did a really bad job of trading for prospects that last two times they tried

 

We don't know what the future holds, but I'd guess line 2 is still closed.....

Except, under the old regime:

 

1. they never traded prospects for veterans, so that line was closed

2. wouldn't sign high priced FAs, so they could at best get a three type, so that line was closed

3. did a really bad job of trading for prospects that last two times they tried

 

We don't know what the future holds, but I'd guess line 2 is still closed.....

2 is still closed, correct. It's up to the new regime to improve 1 and 3. That's the model for mid market teams.

 

They aren't exactly positioned to sign elite fa bats either.

 

Hard to say for sure, not sure how I feel about either Stewart or Jay at this point. To me, the twins:

 

lack a clear ace type prospect (whether he turns out as an ace or not)

lack much in A+ or below for SP that I love (though I may be forgetting someone)

might want to trade a AA SP prospect for a hitter type, as they have 5 at AA that all need to arrive at about the same time

lack a long term option at 3B

Desperately need some OF options in low levels (though kiriloff clearly helps there)

 

so, I'd lean SP if it is close. It is REALLY hard to get an ace type, and this is their best chance in some time. 

I don't think we disagree then. All I have said is that if a hitter is a fair amount better then you take him even if he is a bat first1B/RF/LF which are the deepest positions currently. If two prospects are really close then I am all for taking a pitcher even if the hitter is considered marginally better. 

 

I just don't like the mischaracterization of the BPA argument.

This thread is cool. On the other baseball forum I post at there isn't any MLB Draft talk at this time (heats up closer to June) so looking forward to discussing the draft with yall throughout the next 6 months! I love following the draft.

Edited December 27, 20169 yr by King

This thread will get a lot cooler if someone goes Harper/Strassburg on their classes this spring... just sayin...

 

This thread will get a lot cooler if someone goes Harper/Strassburg on their classes this spring... just sayin...

Yeah, doesn't seem like there is that level of talent at the top at this time. Would be nice to get a prospect of that level in the system.

Santa can give belated presents, right?

 

Yeah, doesn't seem like there is that level of talent at the top at this time. Would be nice to get a prospect of that level in the system.

well, if not this coming draft, maybe the following draft.

 

well, if not this coming draft, maybe the following draft.

 

Cruel...

 

This thread will get a lot cooler if someone goes Harper/Strassburg on their classes this spring... just sayin...

Interestingly enough, if those years were redone, it's doubtful either Harper or Strasburg would go #1.

 

In 2010 you could make an argument for both Sale and Machado over Harper.  And Trout went #25 in 09 and he'd be the obvious #1 in a redraft.

If Harper is ever fully healthy....he still might be #1, but I think I go Machado right now.

 

It would be fine to have those guys, but realistically there isn't an arm taken in the first round after Stewart that will really burn the Twins. Kohl Stewart still has a shot to be the best pitcher from the first round. Exception might be Manaea, but that was an understandable pass. Position players on the other hand...

 

And I'd argue the Kohl Stewart pick felt forced by the perception of "need".  Do your scouting, pick your favorite kid, and if you like him best - take him.  Position be damned.  

 

There are other avenues for acquiring needs, the draft should be about trying to hit homeruns (figuratively), not patch holes.

 

And I'd argue the Kohl Stewart pick felt forced by the perception of "need".  Do your scouting, pick your favorite kid, and if you like him best - take him.  Position be damned.  

 

There are other avenues for acquiring needs, the draft should be about trying to hit homeruns (figuratively), not patch holes.

 

I agree with the first part, seemed slightly forced based on need for pitching. But to be fair it seems to be a pretty mediocre draft class outside of Bryant.

 

That said, I would argue that Kohl Stewart fits your second point perfectly. A projectable HS arm is the definition of going for a home run.

 

I generally support taking bats early and loading up for arms later, unless there is a clear upside college arm. Just seems arms are more likely to pop unexpectedly than bats.

 

I agree with the first part, seemed slightly forced based on need for pitching. But to be fair it seems to be a pretty mediocre draft class outside of Bryant.

 

That said, I would argue that Kohl Stewart fits your second point perfectly. A projectable HS arm is the definition of going for a home run.

 

I generally support taking bats early and loading up for arms later, unless there is a clear upside college arm. Just seems arms are more likely to pop unexpectedly than bats.

 

I agree, I prefer to take bats early.  I won't fault the Twins for taking Stewart if they thought he was a potential homerun.  I just wonder about that given who was in charge.

 

I agree with the first part, seemed slightly forced based on need for pitching. But to be fair it seems to be a pretty mediocre draft class outside of Bryant.

 

That said, I would argue that Kohl Stewart fits your second point perfectly. A projectable HS arm is the definition of going for a home run.

 

I generally support taking bats early and loading up for arms later, unless there is a clear upside college arm. Just seems arms are more likely to pop unexpectedly than bats.

 

High upside bats early, then projectable high school pitchers later.

So if there is no clear cut #1 in this draft did they change it where if you can't sign your pick the Twins would get the #2 pick in the following years draft?

 

High upside bats early, then projectable high school pitchers later.

 

so, if you won't/can't sign high priced FAs....and you won't trade prospects for proven great SPs....how would you ever get a great pitcher other than sheer luck?

Edited December 29, 20169 yr by Mike Sixel

I don't think Stewart was a need pick.  He was pretty clearly a top 5 guy on pretty much every board. IIRC, the two Georgia HS bats were both in play but most here preferred Stewart.  I think the college bat most under consideration was Colin Moran.  

 

I don't think Stewart was a need pick.  He was pretty clearly a top 5 guy on pretty much every board. IIRC, the two Georgia HS bats were both in play but most here preferred Stewart.  I think the college bat most under consideration was Colin Moran.  

 

Moran, who would have been the pick under my general rule of thumb, would have been even worse, and the Georgia bats are nice prospects but not sure things.

 

I still have hopes for Stewart too.

 

So if there is no clear cut #1 in this draft did they change it where if you can't sign your pick the Twins would get the #2 pick in the following years draft?

 

That's a bad idea. Even if there isn't a clear cut #1, by all accounts there is plenty of higher end talent in the draft and no guarantees for 2018 either. Very likely a handful of people will rise up in the spring.

 

If there isn't a clear cut #1 and the Twins like a handful of guys, best strategy would probably be to find the best value out of that tier and cut a deal to save money for next couple of picks.

 

That's a bad idea. Even if there isn't a clear cut #1, by all accounts there is plenty of higher end talent in the draft and no guarantees for 2018 either. Very likely a handful of people will rise up in the spring.

 

If there isn't a clear cut #1 and the Twins like a handful of guys, best strategy would probably be to find the best value out of that tier and cut a deal to save money for next couple of picks.

Agreed.  After the 2011 draft, the draft gurus said that the 2012 class was weaker.  But it turns out the 2012 draft might have been even better, esp depth-wise.

 

There are enough intriguing guys in this draft that the Twins should get 3 pretty good prospects with their first three picks.  

 

so, if you won't/can't sign high priced FAs....and you won't trade prospects for proven great SPs....how would you ever get a great pitcher other than sheer luck?

 

I prefer extortion.

 

so, if you won't/can't sign high priced FAs....and you won't trade prospects for proven great SPs....how would you ever get a great pitcher other than sheer luck?

Is good player development luck? The Indians have a great rotation even though their recent high 1st round picks have skewed toward hitters. The Mets have churned out a bunch of great pitchers (when healthy), and they used one top pick on Harvey, but otherwise developed a couple of picks in the 30-70 range (Matz, Fulmer), converted a shortstop (deGrom), and targeted high-upside prospects in trades (Thor, Wheeler). 

 

I'm not remotely convinced that a top-5 pick has significantly better odds of turning into a great pitcher than the combined odds of 3 pitchers picked in the 30-100 range.