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

[drivlikejehu]

The Twins had Leach high on their boards. They would never have drafted him otherwise - plenty of slot options were available.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

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.

I agree. It's a dangerous tactic to employ as a mid-market franchise. I mentioned that in another post, but not the post you quoted.

[mlhouse]

 

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?

 

 Seriously.  Of course it matters who gets what because if you cannot offer some guys enough money they will not sign.  Enlow has a pretty solid commit to LSU and that is one reason he was available at 3.1.  This means you need at least $2 million to sign him away from that commitment.  

 

 

 

While I am sure the Twins had Leach higher on their draft list, I think the better strategy would have been to draft Enlow at #37, use the higher slot value there to get more money to sign him and then risk that Leach is available at 3.1 were you can sign him for closer to slot.

 

 

[howieramone2]

 

I'm going to wait to see what the Twins do from here on to complain. The hope is that savings from the Lewis pick will help them get a better player later on. Personally, I would not have done that because I don't think the current rules make that a good option any longer, but I'll go ahead and trust the process.

 

But the Twins' recent draft history is nothing short of awful - Tyler Jay over Andrew Benintendi anyone? -- and warrants a healthy dose of skepticism, especially since most of the same people are still there.

 

If they get the Lewis pick wrong, or if they missed on a potential HOF player in Greene or Wright or Gore to save a few bucks to pick someone with less upside later in the draft, then that will be a major blunder. 

Actually, we have drafted well since 2012. 

[mazeville]

 

Actually, we have drafted well since 2012. 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA! What? 

 

In 2013 the Twins drafted Kohl Stewart. They could have had Clint Frazier or Austin Meadows.

 

In 2014 they drafted Nick Gordon. Fine. He's OK. But they could have had Trea Turner or Kyle Freeland. But at least Gordon is a good prospect.

 

In 2015 they picked Tyler Jay. They could have had Andrew Benintendi or Ian Happ. 

 

Their 2016 pick, Alex Kiriloff, had TJ surgery.

 

No, they have not 'drafted well." At best, they've drafted mediocre. But they struck out badly in both 2013 and 2014. Their supposed uber prospect, Byron Buxton, is struggling to get past his alleged floor in his second year in the majors. They haven't made up for the poor showing at the top with better draft picks in later rounds, and they've generally avoided saving money on top picks to spend more on later picks like other teams.

 

So no, they didn't "draft well."

[Steve Lein]

 

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?

 

Almost. Buy taking Leach early and Enlow in the third, if they don't sign Enlow, they lose a lot less money from their pool.

 

It was a dollar mitigation move, that's it.

[theBOMisthebomb]

When they build a team that isn't in first place?

I don't like being negative guy, however the first place standing as of today seems more of a function of previous work done by TR and company along with TR's players performing. I guess you are right and we must continue to be patient and let the new front office guys work any magic they might have. Count me a fan of Falvey/Levine -it's just that looking at the free agency (lack of moves), spring training, and now the draft I am not seeing much difference between them and the TR regime. Maybe I entered the Falvey/Levine era expecting shock and awe from and need to be patient as they slowly build. I guess I will enjoy the first place ride so far this season and trust the process on the rest.

[jgfellows]

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

Do you think an analytics department costs a lot? That's really the only increase in costs that you've listed.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I don't like being negative guy, however the first place standing as of today seems more of a function of previous work done by TR and company along with TR's players performing. I guess you are right and we must continue to be patient and let the new front office guys work any magic they might have. Count me a fan of Falvey/Levine -it's just that looking at the free agency (lack of moves), spring training, and now the draft I am not seeing much difference between them and the TR regime. Maybe I entered the Falvey/Levine era expecting shock and awe from and need to be patient as they slowly build. I guess I will enjoy the first place ride so far this season and trust the process on the rest.

Yeah, I get the fan frustration over the short-term but this is a loooooong game we're playing here. I won't praise or judge the new front office much until we get to the next Spring Training. At that point, they'll have one full season of evaluation, one full offseason to fix mistakes, and will be entering the first year of play with "their team" beginning to develop.

 

Most front offices look and feel the same when evaluated over short periods of time (outside of obvious steals/blunders). They all play the same game and have similar tools. It's the teams that win deals, pick free agents, and do the little stuff 5-10% better over the long haul that emerge as the best in the business.

 

Will Falvey and Levine be those people? I don't know and don't have enough information to say one way or the other. If they bomb this offseason, that will be a huge black mark against them.

[alarp33]

 

Do you think an analytics department costs a lot? That's really the only increase in costs that you've listed.

 

Yes, I think hiring multiple employees, which they have done, including a President, costs significant money. 

 

Do you really think using their full draft allotment on Lewis, Rooker, Leach, Enlow, etc. in someway makes you more profitable than if you used the same full draft allotment on Greene or McKay, and others?

[alarp33]

 

 Seriously.  Of course it matters who gets what because if you cannot offer some guys enough money they will not sign.  Enlow has a pretty solid commit to LSU and that is one reason he was available at 3.1.  This means you need at least $2 million to sign him away from that commitment.  

 

 

 

While I am sure the Twins had Leach higher on their draft list, I think the better strategy would have been to draft Enlow at #37, use the higher slot value there to get more money to sign him and then risk that Leach is available at 3.1 were you can sign him for closer to slot.

 

I'm not following your logic in the least.  This is a pretty simple concept.  Lets see if you can follow this when I spell it out more specifically. 

 

Pick Number 37 allotment  $1.8 million

Pick Number 76 allotment  $755k

Total  $2.55 million

 

Example:  Enlow is going to need $3 million to sign on the dotted line.  

 

Pick 37: Leach  Signs for $1 million (hypothetical, no idea what he is getting)

Pick 76: Enlow: Signs for $3 million (savings from Lewis, Rooker and Leach.  

Total spent on 2: $4 million

 

or

 

Pick 37: Enlow: Signs for $3 million (savings from Lewis, Rooker)

Pick 76: Leach: Signs for $1 million (savings from Lewis, roooker)

Total spent: $4 million.  

 

Again, tell me why it would make a difference whether Enlow was picked 76 or 37, or Leach was pick 37 or 76

[drjim]

 

Yeah, I get the fan frustration over the short-term but this is a loooooong game we're playing here. I won't praise or judge the new front office much until we get to the next Spring Training. At that point, they'll have one full season of evaluation, one full offseason to fix mistakes, and will be entering the first year of play with "their team" beginning to develop.

 

Most front offices look and feel the same when evaluated over short periods of time (outside of obvious steals/blunders). They all play the same game and have similar tools. It's the teams that win deals, pick free agents, and do the little stuff 5-10% better over the long haul that emerge as the best in the business.

 

Will Falvey and Levine be those people? I don't know and don't have enough information to say one way or the other. If they bomb this offseason, that will be a huge black mark against them.

 

I for one expected them to nail every multiple agent signings, fleece multiple teams in trades, and draft 3 of the 5 best talents. Or at least sign a better reliever or two.

 

There is a lot of truth that over short periods of time, almost all front offices look the same.

[drjim]

 

I'm not following your logic in the least.  This is a pretty simple concept.  Lets see if you can follow this when I spell it out more specifically. 

 

Pick Number 37 allotment  $1.8 million

Pick Number 76 allotment  $755k

Total  $2.55 million

 

Example:  Enlow is going to need $3 million to sign on the dotted line.  

 

Pick 37: Leach  Signs for $1 million (hypothetical, no idea what he is getting)

Pick 76: Enlow: Signs for $3 million (savings from Lewis, Rooker and Leach.  

Total spent on 2: $4 million

 

or

 

Pick 37: Enlow: Signs for $3 million (savings from Lewis, Rooker)

Pick 76: Leach: Signs for $1 million (savings from Lewis, roooker)

Total spent: $4 million.  

 

Again, tell me why it would make a difference whether Enlow was picked 76 or 37, or Leach was pick 37 or 76

 

Enlow is the riskier sign. If the deal falls apart they lose less money for the unsigned pick. Always an advantage to pick as late as possible, but of course there is risk that the player gets popped.

 

Of course, since Enlow was the first pick of the day, it would be quite surprising if they didn't know exactly what he was signing for.

[alarp33]

 

Enlow is the riskier sign. If the deal falls apart they lose less money for the unsigned pick. Always an advantage to pick as late as possible, but of course there is risk that the player gets popped.

 

Of course, since Enlow was the first pick of the day, it would be quite surprising if they didn't know exactly what he was signing for.

 

Good point, another reason you may draft Enlow lower than Leach, even if you ranked him higher.  

 

Of course the other would be Leach for $1 million may be a lot more attractive to other teams than Enlow at $3 million, even if teams ranked Enlow slightly higher

[jgfellows]

Yes, I think hiring multiple employees, which they have done, including a President, costs significant money. 

 

Do you really think using their full draft allotment on Lewis, Rooker, Leach, Enlow, etc. in someway makes you more profitable than if you used the same full draft allotment on Greene or McKay, and others?

Well first I would disagree with you that the hiring of multiple employees is that expensive. I might be completely offbase but if a new analytics department increased overhead by a million dollars, I'd be shocked. So no I don't think these things are expensive in baseball standards. The Twins are well below average in staffing and in player salaries. (They might be up closer to par now as far as office staff)

 

And yes I think that if I'm directed by my boss (and again this is a theory) that profits were of utmost importance over World Championships, then not dropping the maximum on the number one pick might be more profitable in the long run.

[Mike Sixel]

The MLB draft, for teams way up at the top especially, is one of game theory. I think trying to control this many moving pieces would be kind of fun, frankly.

[alarp33]

 

And yes I think that if I'm directed by my boss (and again this is a theory) that profits were of utmost importance over World Championships, then not dropping the maximum on the number one pick might be more profitable in the long run.

 

Honestly what is it you do not understand about how the MLB draft works? The Twins have $14 million to spend on their picks in rounds 1-10.  They will spend $14 million, whether the 1st pick receives $20 or $10 million, they will spend a total of $14 million

[Oxtung]

I don't like being negative guy, however the first place standing as of today seems more of a function of previous work done by TR and company along with TR's players performing. I guess you are right and we must continue to be patient and let the new front office guys work any magic they might have. Count me a fan of Falvey/Levine -it's just that looking at the free agency (lack of moves), spring training, and now the draft I am not seeing much difference between them and the TR regime. Maybe I entered the Falvey/Levine era expecting shock and awe from and need to be patient as they slowly build. I guess I will enjoy the first place ride so far this season and trust the process on the rest.

In addition the Twins place atop the central stems more from the other teams weakness rather than from the Twins strengths. If you swap the Twins to any non-central division they are probably a sub-.500 team.

[jgfellows]

Honestly what is it you do not understand about how the MLB draft works? The Twins have $14 million to spend on their picks in rounds 1-10.  They will spend $14 million, whether the 1st pick receives $20 or $10 million, they will spend a total of $14 million

No I understand how the draft works but I appreciate the recap. I will take the lack of response to the front office expenditures that you probably agree with me that the front office moves aren't that expensive.

[alarp33]

 

No I understand how the draft works but I appreciate the recap. I will take the lack of response to the front office expenditures that you probably agree with me that the front office moves aren't that expensive.

 

You very clearly do not understand, or you would not possibly think spending $14 million makes you more profitable than spending $14 million.  

 

As for the front office, I believe you said the only goal is to make profits.  They would have continued to have a barebones front office, not turn Terry Ryan's GM salary into a President salary and a GM salary, and dozens of other new hires if the sole goal was to turn a profit

Edited June 13, 2017 by alarp33

[jgfellows]

You very clearly do not understand, or you would not possibly think spending $14 million makes you more profitable than spending $14 million.  

 

As for the front office, I believe you said the only goal is to make profits.  They would have continued to have a barebones front office, not turn Terry Ryan's GM salary into a President salary and a GM salary, and dozens of other new hires.

 

I'm saying there is fiscal conservatism in not spending over 50% on one player, regardless if you spend the full amount.

 

Yes I think their primary goal is profits over a championship. And i would think that it would be more profitable to invest in a new GM and an analytics department to appease the public than it would be to invest $15-$20 million more in players. I think if you look at the moves ever since the Pohlad sons have taken over, they all make sense from a profits standpoint not from the point of working past a "building season".

[Loosey]

 

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?

I am not sure what to think of yesterday's picks.  However, let me play devil's advocate:

 

My counter to the Twins need pitching is the Twins need pitching NOW.  Any pitcher taken yesterday or today likely will not sniff MInnesota for at least 2 years for most college guys and high school guys likely 4+ years.  

 

By drafting from an area of decent depth a more advanced prospect (Gordon maybe) can be traded for immediate pitching help this year or next year.  

 

So the Twins could really get a pitcher sooner if things play out in a way like that.  

 

Edit: I clearly didn't read your entire post. . . . .

Edited June 13, 2017 by Loosey

[Rcrose29]

Question: if you don't sign the player you draft, don't you get an extra pick the following year that is one slot lower than the current year? I know you lose the slot money for the current year. If the FO didn't think this years draft had a transcendent talent at the top, but next years does, could they conceivably lowball Lewis and if he doesn't sign they get the #2 pick next year? My understanding of that process might be off, granted, but that could be a strategy if you don't think there is a true superstar at the top of the draft this year.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I am not sure what to think of yesterday's picks.  However, let me play devil's advocate:

 

My counter to the Twins need pitching is the Twins need pitching NOW.  Any pitcher taken yesterday or today likely will not sniff MInnesota for at least 2 years for most college guys and high school guys likely 4+ years.  

 

By drafting from an area of decent depth a more advanced prospect (Gordon maybe) can be traded for immediate pitching help this year or next year.  

 

So the Twins could really get a pitcher sooner if things play out in a way like that.  

 

they also need pitching in 4 years, and they'll need those hitters they traded away then also. Plus, they'll be trading 5-7 years of control (of 1-3 guys) for maybe 2-3 years of control, if lucky. 

 

And, both Wright and McKay were said to be fairly likely to pitch in the majors next year, not in 2+ years. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Question: if you don't sign the player you draft, don't you get an extra pick the following year that is one slot lower than the current year? I know you lose the slot money for the current year. If the FO didn't think this years draft had a transcendent talent at the top, but next years does, could they conceivably lowball Lewis and if he doesn't sign they get the #2 pick next year? My understanding of that process might be off, granted, but that could be a strategy if you don't think there is a true superstar at the top of the draft this year.

 

they could, but it's stupid according to every former FO person on the web. 

 

1. You don't know if next year is better

2. you lose a year of you having control

3. you lose someone you could trade earlier.......

 

lots of reasons punting on a high pick is a bad, bad, bad idea.

[mlhouse]

 

I'm not following your logic in the least.  This is a pretty simple concept.  Lets see if you can follow this when I spell it out more specifically. 

 

Pick Number 37 allotment  $1.8 million

Pick Number 76 allotment  $755k

Total  $2.55 million

 

Example:  Enlow is going to need $3 million to sign on the dotted line.  

 

Pick 37: Leach  Signs for $1 million (hypothetical, no idea what he is getting)

Pick 76: Enlow: Signs for $3 million (savings from Lewis, Rooker and Leach.  

Total spent on 2: $4 million

 

or

 

Pick 37: Enlow: Signs for $3 million (savings from Lewis, Rooker)

Pick 76: Leach: Signs for $1 million (savings from Lewis, roooker)

Total spent: $4 million.  

 

Again, tell me why it would make a difference whether Enlow was picked 76 or 37, or Leach was pick 37 or 76

 

Because you can't have it both ways.  In other words, you can't argue that it was a good pick to reach, at least based on draft analyst rankings on Leach, and then argue that he will take a way below slot value for being picked #37.

 

I will put it this way.

 

Lets say Enlow is the guy you really want to spend $3 million on and you have lets say $1.3 million slot savings from your pick at 1.1.  Why pass on him at #37?  If you wait until pick #76 there is a chance that he would be picked in the interim 40 selections.  Then you can take the $1.8 million draft slot for pick #37, add $1.2 million of the slot savings for picking Lewis, and sign him.  There, you manuevered you draft picks and slot values to get Lewis and a HS pitcher that should be a first rounder except for signing issues.  Then, you take the risk on Leach who you can sign for $1 million, using the slot value of #76, $100,000 left over from the Lewis signing, and a little bit of money picking a guy likeCharlie Barnes in the 4th.

 

By picking Enlow at #37 you remove the risk you don't get to pick him and create a draft were you do not have to cut into your lower level signing bonuses by much.

 

Now, lets look at teh problems with your idea.  I addressed the first big issue and someone picks Enlow between #38 and #76.  That was a huge risk.  I would rather risk Leach than Enlow.  Next, now that you have Leach drafted at the top of the 2nd round, #37 overall, you have inflated what his demands are going to be.  Maybe he takes a discount, but it aint gonna be an $800,000 discount.  If you sign him for $1.5 million instead of $1.8 million you are ahead of the game.  But now, you are short signing Enlow by $700,000 and that is going to have to come out of picks in rounds 4-10.

 

My approach risks losing Leach but GUARNTEES picking Enlow.  WHile the Twins pulled it off draft wise they now need to sign him. 

[alarp33]

 

 

 

My approach risks losing Leach but GUARNTEES picking Enlow.  WHile the Twins pulled it off draft wise they now need to sign him. 

 

I'm not going to quote your whole post, but your flaw is in assuming the Twins had Enlow ranked much higher than Leach.  It is possible they ranked them simlar - also if all teams knew Leach would sign for $1 million, and all teams knew Enlow would only sign for $3 million, there are a lot more teams ABLE to draft and pay Leach $1 million between 37 and 76 than there are teams able to draft and pay Enlow $3 million between 37 + 76

[mlhouse]

 

I'm not going to quote your whole post, but your flaw is in assuming the Twins had Enlow ranked much higher than Leach.  It is possible they ranked them simlar - also if all teams knew Leach would sign for $1 million, and all teams knew Enlow would only sign for $3 million, there are a lot more teams ABLE to draft and pay Leach $1 million between 37 and 76 than there are teams able to draft and pay Enlow $3 million between 37 + 76

 

 

Then when Enlow wants $3 million to sign, the Twins would say BS, right?    If I am playing the scenario to maximize my draft pool,  I think it was a mistake to pick Leach at #37, take the risk I can draft Enlow at #76, and then put then really be forced to stretch the slot savings to get them to sign.  

 

The only way your scenario works is if you can sign Leach for so much under his assigned slot at #37 but that means that the Twins probably reached for Leach to begin with.  Again, you can't have it both ways and if Leach signs for closer to $1.8 million than $1 million there is a problem with making all the numbers add up.

[alarp33]

 

Then when Enlow wants $3 million to sign, the Twins would say BS, right?    If I am playing the scenario to maximize my draft pool,  I think it was a mistake to pick Leach at #37, take the risk I can draft Enlow at #76, and then put then really be forced to stretch the slot savings to get them to sign.  

 

The only way your scenario works is if you can sign Leach for so much under his assigned slot at #37 but that means that the Twins probably reached for Leach to begin with.  Again, you can't have it both ways and if Leach signs for closer to $1.8 million than $1 million there is a problem with making all the numbers add up.

 

Huh? I think you're talking in circles so much I don't even know what your original point was.  Why would the Twins say BS? They've already agreed to a deal with Enlow, guaranteed

[mlhouse]

 

Huh? I think you're talking in circles so much I don't even know what your original point was.  Why would the Twins say BS? They've already agreed to a deal with Enlow, guaranteed

  Dude, I'm not the one talking in circles.   You are.  I have said the same thing and just trying to dumb it down so you can understand.  

 

Here is another way of looking at it:

 

You draft Enlow at #37.  It takes $3 million to sign him.  THe slot is $1.8 so he requires $1.2 million from slot savings elsewhere.  You draft him at #76.  The slot is $755,000.  If it takes $3 million to sign him you now need to ahve $2,245,000 in slot savings in other draft positions.  Plus, you took the risk of losing Enlow between picks #38 and #76.

 

I then just hope Leach falls to #76 and now I am more hopeful of signing him around that number, and even if it take a bit more I still have some savings.  

 

If Leach is picked between #38 and 76, oh well there are still a lot of good prospects available.