Article: Twins Daily’s Instant Draft Reaction: WTF?

[gunnarthor]

I think we have to remember a few things. First, Falvey and co reviewed our scouts write ups on many players over the last decade of drafting before this draft and apparently they trusted them enough to go with Lewis - the scouts guy - over the analytics guy - McKay. So this idea that the Twins scouts suck doesn't really hold up. Klaw has been pretty positive about them for years as well. I do think changing the draft guru from Deron Johnson to Scott Johnson can be pretty effective b/c it'll change the scope of what we're trying to do (less focus on fastballs), I suspect our scouting reports on players has always been pretty good.

[Steve Lein]

 

BA hinted at it in his scouting report:

 

 

Well, they don't go so far as to say he's unsignable, which I have seen plenty times before on other guys (some who ended up signing, too), but that does temper that a bit. 

 

$3MIL (my projected number) is still top 20 money... I hope they could get him. If not, I think they took a risk that failed at the top end of this draft - but that doesn't mean it won't work out. 

 

Initial reactions to an MLB draft often end up getting turned on their head. I hope that's the case.

[Mike Sixel]

I think we have to remember a few things. First, Falvey and co reviewed our scouts write ups on many players over the last decade of drafting before this draft and apparently they trusted them enough to go with Lewis - the scouts guy - over the analytics guy - McKay. So this idea that the Twins scouts suck doesn't really hold up. Klaw has been pretty positive about them for years as well. I do think changing the draft guru from Deron Johnson to Scott Johnson can be pretty effective b/c it'll change the scope of what we're trying to do (less focus on fastballs), I suspect our scouting reports on players has always been pretty good.

No one used the word sucked, lots of people are saying skeptical. And, they did offer McKay, he declined the money, so I don't get that part of the post at all.

[gunnarthor]

 

No one used the word sucked, lots of people are saying skeptical. And, they did offer McKay, he declined the money, so I don't get that part of the post at all.

Yes Mike. I know people didn't say suck but most people got that context. I suppose I should have used dunces? Would that have made you feel better?  "Our scouts aren't dunces"?  Seriously, the way you try and hijack and deflect because people didn't use the exact wording that you wanted is pretty off putting especially since you weren't even in this conversation. How many times do you write "Where was X written" or "show me where X was stated."  Learn context man.

[Intramural Legend]

 

No one used the word sucked, lots of people are saying skeptical. And, they did offer McKay, he declined the money, so I don't get that part of the post at all.

 

We know he said he was offered.  What the extent was we don't know.  If he was asked would you take 6.5M does that constitute as an offer?  I could have been the Twins doing due diligence on the top X players to see what each would sign for.  The Twins are not going to come out and say what actually happened. 

[Steve Lein]

This sequence from MLB.com's article on top remaining talent gives me some hope:

 

"Whether any of this high school talent gets taken on Day 2 remains to be seen. A year ago, five of the top 10 players available after Day 1 were high schoolers. All five were drafted, with Cole Stobbe, Thomas Jones and Nonie Williams signing with the Phillies, Marlins and Angels, respectively. All three were taken in the third round, so pay close attention to the opening round today. The two other prepsters, Drew Mendoza and Jared Horn, went on Day 3, but went on to begin their college careers.

 

Overall, if any of the remaining players are selected today, look for them to start their pro careers. In 2016, all but two players taken in the top 10 rounds signed, a trend that should continue. Teams carefully plot out their Draft bonus pools, so it's become less likely for them to miss on a pick through the top 10 rounds. If a player taken at any point in the top 10 rounds doesn't sign, the team loses the value assigned to the pick from its total bonus pool, which could hamper the ability to sign other picks.

 

The top two players certainly should be of interest. Both right-hander Blayne Enlow and shortstop Nick Allen were players some thought could land in the back end of the first round, with Allen in particular showing up at the bottom of many late mock drafts. Enlow is committed to LSU and Allen has a Southern Cal commitment, and it should be an interesting storyline to see if that comes into play. If they don't go on today, there's a very good chance that pair will head on to school."

Edited June 13, 2017 by Steve Lein

[mlhouse]

 

Well, they don't go so far as to say he's unsignable, which I have seen plenty times before on other guys (some who ended up signing, too), but that does temper that a bit. 

 

$3MIL (my projected number) is still top 20 money... I hope they could get him. If not, I think they took a risk that failed at the top end of this draft - but that doesn't mean it won't work out. 

 

Initial reactions to an MLB draft often end up getting turned on their head. I hope that's the case.

 

If you offered a kid $3 million to sign, and they want to have a baseball career,  that is impossible money to turn down.  If you go to LSU and have a standout career maybe you move up to the top part of the first.  But that is 3 years and only $3-4 million.  

 

But it isn't guaranteed, not one dollar. Injuries, bad season, just one bad game and you could slip to a lower draft slot.  It also pushes your career back a bit.  By the time a kid would be drafted as a junior they could take teh $3 million and have 3.5 years of minor league experience.  Even in the methodical Twins system they would be looking at AA, whcih can be a spring board to the majors.

 

The problem is that the Twins have moved into draft slot territory were they cannot offer a $3 million bonus anymore without killing the rest of their draft.

[Seth Stohs]

 

Based on what do you think the Twins will promote a guy to the majors in under 2 years? All the fast promotions this year?

 

Also, these are the SAME scouts, right? It isn't the "previous regime". It is the same scouts. Also, this FO chose this bullpen, right?

 

Brian Dozier... who was drafted after four years of college, in the 8th round... was called up less than two years after he was drafted... 

 

Rooker is a four year college guy who put up whacky numbers... I'd say there's a good chance he'll move up quickly... But he'll obviously have to hit his way up.

[Steve Lein]

 

The problem is that the Twins have moved into draft slot territory were they cannot offer a $3 million bonus anymore without killing the rest of their draft.

 

I'm not so sure. I'd venture they've banked at least $1.5MIL already and plenty of teams punt a pick or two (or more) in rounds 5-10 to put that money at the top.

 

Twins have $1.34MIL at those picks, of which I think they could easily pull another few hundred-K from. They can also go over their total pool by about 700K with only the tax penalty.

 

They'll have the money if they want it.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Steve Lein

[Mike Sixel]

Brian Dozier... who was drafted after four years of college, in the 8th round... was called up less than two years after he was drafted...

 

Rooker is a four year college guy who put up whacky numbers... I'd say there's a good chance he'll move up quickly... But he'll obviously have to hit his way up.

Good point!

[Otto von Ballpark]

Brian Dozier... who was drafted after four years of college, in the 8th round... was called up less than two years after he was drafted...

 

Rooker is a four year college guy who put up whacky numbers... I'd say there's a good chance he'll move up quickly... But he'll obviously have to hit his way up.

Dozier was called up almost 3 years after his draft (June 2009 to May 2012).

[Mike Sixel]

 

Dozier was called up almost 3 years after his draft (June 2009 to May 2012).

 

ok then, less good point. Bummer.

[Seth Stohs]

Either way... if Rooker gets to MLB when he's 25, the Twins will have him for his ages 25-31. That's a good thing, if he's that good, right?

[gunnarthor]

I think Rooker should be a fairly fast to the majors guy. I assume he'll start in A+ this year. That means, unless he fails, he'll be in AA next year and the Twins haven't been shy from bringing guys up from AA. 

 

He might have to hit a lot if he's only a DH but his hit tools seem pretty good. 

[AZTwin]

Love or hate this draft, it is going to be incredibly easy to criticize if it doesn't work out for them

[Steve Lein]

 

Either way... if Rooker gets to MLB when he's 25, the Twins will have him for his ages 25-31. That's a good thing, if he's that good, right?

 

I think he's a stud hitter. Hope he goes to Fort Myers, but he shouldn't be anywhere near the Rookie Leagues to start his pro career.

[AZTwin]

Brian Dozier... who was drafted after four years of college, in the 8th round... was called up less than two years after he was drafted...

 

Rooker is a four year college guy who put up whacky numbers... I'd say there's a good chance he'll move up quickly... But he'll obviously have to hit his way up.

After seeing Aaron judge I'm less concerned about older college hitters

[Mike Sixel]

 

Either way... if Rooker gets to MLB when he's 25, the Twins will have him for his ages 25-31. That's a good thing, if he's that good, right?

 

He'll be a lot closer to 26 than 25 in three years.

 

Let's hope he hits, I think he has a legit shot.

 

the difference, is that HOF type great players don't get their first taste at 25 or 26, as a general rule. Of course, expecting (even wanting) such a player that late in the draft is unrealistic. The real question is, how much projection does someone that age have, most of the time.

 

I think we'll know a lot about their plans by where he starts and ends this season.

[Loosey]

Or perhaps the Twins Scouts had more information than the fans and scouting websites and picked the 3 best players they found to be available.

[Blake]

 

I think we have to remember a few things. First, Falvey and co reviewed our scouts write ups on many players over the last decade of drafting before this draft and apparently they trusted them enough to go with Lewis - the scouts guy - over the analytics guy - McKay. So this idea that the Twins scouts suck doesn't really hold up. Klaw has been pretty positive about them for years as well. I do think changing the draft guru from Deron Johnson to Scott Johnson can be pretty effective b/c it'll change the scope of what we're trying to do (less focus on fastballs), I suspect our scouting reports on players has always been pretty good.

I don't think the Twins have ever had trouble identifying and drafting talent. I believe the problem has been how players are managed and developed in the minor leagues.

[Mike Sixel]

from today:

 

Scruffy-Looking Nerf Hurler
12:30 How does Royce Lewis compare to the other top SS picks (namely Correa, Seager, Manny and Lindor) at the time of their respective drafts? Assuming of course he stays at SS, which doesn't seem like the case.

 

Eric A Longenhagen
12:32 Agree with you that Lewis isn't a SS. Doesn't have Correa's power projection, nor Seager's, nor Machado's. Might have a similar offensive profile to Lindor, but not a SS for me, let alone an elite one. I think Lewis is a really good player, but not the franchise-altering talent that all these other names are.

 

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/eric-longenhagen-prospects-chat-mlb-draft-day-2/

 

[DocBauer]

Still not entirely sure I embrace the choices made last night, or the possible strategy involved. And we absolutely won't know a thing until the draft is done and each of these guys get a year or two under their belt. But a few thoughts after sleeping on it last night:

 

1] The Twins need pitching. The Twins didn't draft pitching with their first two picks, HS or college. Therefore, angst and frustration for the selections made. But any potential financial savings or not, Lewis is one of the top players in the draft, period. You can never add enough or have enough talent. Booker appears to have a potentially high quality bat at an OF corner, or perhaps 1B. Unto themselves, these are quality picks with excellent potential. I think Leach may end up defining this draft. We know virtually nothing about him. But obviously, the Twins have scouted him intensely and like what they see and his projectability.

 

2] I have read a few places that the best overall talent in this draft was in HS, not college, particularly on the mound. Isn't it entirely possible the new FO was drafting the BPA vs reaching for a college pitcher just because they need pitching? I dont know. But if that is the case, then I have to applaud them. Especially in the crapshoot that is the baseball draft, it's supposed to be about adding talent and potential vs drafting strictly for need isn't it? After all, there is always the future possibility of trades of veterans and prospects.

 

3] Perhaps the plan at 35 and 37 did get blown up. Not sure we will ever really know. But couldn't that banked savings from the first few picks be spent on a couple high upside HS guys in the 2nd-4th rounds to keep them away from college?

[Vanimal46]

 

Or perhaps the Twins Scouts had more information than the fans and scouting websites and picked the 3 best players they found to be available.

 

That's most certainly the case they have more information than us, and national publicists. KLAW for example admits he and other national writers don't see medical reports that teams gather. 

 

We'll never know what the Twins big board looks like. Nor will we ever truly know what their true strategy was... What we will hear is "We couldn't believe so-and-so fell into our laps in the x round." "Everything worked out as we hoped it would." "We believe we have the best draft class out of anyone."

[jgfellows]

I think the Pohlads have virtually zero input in the draft. Why would they? That's a Steinbrenner move and the Pohlads have never been those types of owners.

I'm not suggesting they're making draft choices. What I am suggesting is that if you are a GM who was told that their top priority is profits and not a championship, that's influence enough. It's just a theory, but all of the signings and moves made since the sons took over make a lot more sense from a profitability view than they do if you're looking to build a championship team

[alarp33]

 

I'm not suggesting they're making draft choices. What I am suggesting is that if you are a GM who was told that their top priority is profits and not a championship, that's influence enough. It's just a theory, but all of the signings and moves made since the sons took over make a lot more sense from a profitability view than they do if you're looking to build a championship team

 

All of the moves that have been made are for profitability not winning? Like replacing Terry Ryan with 2 people, and allowing those 2 to hire out an analytics department, new minor league staffs, scouts, etc.

 

To suggest that Falvey was told before the draft to draft for profit is laughable.  Give me a break

[Steve Lein]

Sweet. I feel better already today.

[mlhouse]

 

I'm not so sure. I'd venture they've banked at least $1.5MIL already and plenty of teams punt a pick or two (or more) in rounds 5-10 to put that money at the top.

 

Twins have $1.34MIL at those picks, of which I think they could easily pull another few hundred-K from. They can also go over their total pool by about 700K with only the tax penalty.

 

They'll have the money if they want it.

 

Well, we will put that to the test.   Since Blayne Enlow is our 3rd round pick.

 

I get your point, I even alluded to it in my own post.  But, now the issue is we have underslotted 1.1 and now will probably have to under-slot the rest of the rounds risking not signing players in rounds 4-10.   

 

I think the better strategy would have been to take Enlow at #37 instead of Leach for two reasons. First, you get to start with a $1.8 million draft slot instead of $755,000 and adding the savings you got by under-slotting Lewis you can get the $3 million to buy him out of his LSU committment.  Second, I would rather risk losing Leach than Enlow at #37.  I think there is a good chance that Leach, a guy rated between 85-100 in most analyst draft lists, is available at 3.1 and then you can sign him for that draft slot and maybe commit some extra money from rounds 4-10 to make sure that gets done. 

 

I think that logic is pretty solid, right?

[ShouldaCouldaWoulda]

 

There's a reason the Cubs deprioritized starting pitching prospects in recent years. I'm still not sold it's the right decision but there's merit to the idea. Since Epstein took over, the Cubs have drafted zero pitchers in the first round and a pitcher about half the time in the second round. Then they pile up arms further down the draft board.

Well, the Cubs have the luxury of being able to take this approach due to their having the money to buy and or trade for established pitching. I still agree that hitters are more likely to pan out at the top, but you then either have to buy good pitching or get really lucky later on in the draft or with IFA's.

[ShouldaCouldaWoulda]

LucasDad (MN): If you would put Greene in the 20's...where would you put Lewis...the kids drafted 1-1?!?!

 

Craig Goldstein: Well, the draft order is affected by things beyond pure talent (this is part of why the draft system as it currently stands sucks), but he'd probably be behind Greene. We don't have these guys slotted out because we emphasize what we can see/learn from their pro debuts.

 

LucasDad (Mn): What exactly is MN thinking with their 3 picks? It seems like they reached on all 3. It seemed like they were hoping to save money for picks 2, and or, 3...but they were both also reaches. I am very confused.

 

Craig Goldstein: I'm not exactly sure. There's nothing wrong with Royce Lewis -- I know some teams had him valued as a top 2 guy, but it doesn't seem like they used their extra slot value in the first couple rounds. Maybe they'll ink a slew of guys either throughout the top 10 rounds or after to bigger slot deals and take a quantity over quality approach. It wouldn't be the worst gamble in a draft that didn't have an obvious candidate to try and sneak through to a later pick.

[alarp33]

 

Well, we will put that to the test.   Since Blayne Enlow is our 3rd round pick.

 

I get your point, I even alluded to it in my own post.  But, now the issue is we have underslotted 1.1 and now will probably have to under-slot the rest of the rounds risking not signing players in rounds 4-10.   

 

I think the better strategy would have been to take Enlow at #37 instead of Leach for two reasons. First, you get to start with a $1.8 million draft slot instead of $755,000 and adding the savings you got by under-slotting Lewis you can get the $3 million to buy him out of his LSU committment.  Second, I would rather risk losing Leach than Enlow at #37.  I think there is a good chance that Leach, a guy rated between 85-100 in most analyst draft lists, is available at 3.1 and then you can sign him for that draft slot and maybe commit some extra money from rounds 4-10 to make sure that gets done. 

 

I think that logic is pretty solid, right?

 

Sorry, but no that logic is not solid.  It does not matter who went 37 and who went 76. They had a total to spend on those 2 picks of around $2.6 million.  It doesn't matter who gets what, where.  

 

Also, how do you know they rated Leach 85-100.  Have you considered its possible they had him in their top 30? Top 40?