Article: Draft Board v.2.0 (3/13)

[John Bonnes]

how do you get great pitching if you would literally always pass on it if there is a better hitter available? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I really want to know....how would you get great pitching if you would pass on it for a hitter every time, if you felt there was a slightly better hitter available?

 

 

International draft. Find a guy in a later round that is still going to be a great pitcher. Trade for a premier player.

 

I'm a little surprised how many posts I'm seeing here that suggest people will be really dissappointed if the Twins don't come out of this draft with a college arm.

 

Based on nothing more than Jeremy's writeups, it looks like there are four pretty good options in this draft: 3 college pitchers (Appel, Manea, Gray) and one high school outfielder (Frazier). If Frazier is the one of those guys that is left by pick #4, and my only other choice is a second tier college pitcher, I'd rather they take Frazier, in theory.

[cmb0252]

Draft a good pitcher in later rounds and develop them? Obviously this has been a weakness for our system but hopefully that will change with JO. Its not every 1/2 pitcher is from top 5 picks.

 

From what I can tell there are currently only 4 elite guys right now (Appel, Manaea, fraizer, and Bryant), which currently works out for us. There is still a long way to go but if the draft was held today and both Appel/Manaea were gone give my Bryant. Dude is going to be a beast

[gunnarthor]

how do you get great pitching if you would literally always pass on it if there is a better hitter available? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I really want to know....how would you get great pitching if you would pass on it for a hitter every time, if you felt there was a slightly better hitter available?

 

I don't think anyone is really arguing the theory with you - we all hope the Twins grab a pitcher. But last year, Buxton was the nearly consensus top guy. BA has him as a top 10 prospect in baseball right now. Neither Gausman, Zimmer or Appel were on his level. And keep in mind, all had questions - Appel wanted a lot of money, Zimmer's arm had some issues as the draft approached (and he got some offseason surgery), Gausman might have been the safest of the three but there were/are questions if he could develop a third pitch. The Twins did load up on pitchers in the supplemental draft and later so I think they are aiming for pitchers but Buxton was too good to pass on. I don't think they thought he was "slightly" better, I think they thought he was a lot better. I doubt that, on their draft board, there was any real difference between Berrios and Gallo but they took the arm instead of the bat.

[Mike Sixel]

Gausman and Zimmer are right next to Buxton in many of the prospect ranking lists, literally on one list right after him I believe. Buxtion also has questions, though. It's not like we are looking at a guy people thought of as harper or longoria.....he would not have even been a top 5-10 pick the previous year, from what I've read.

 

that's may question, though....how much better does the hitter have to be, if you already are "loaded" at the OF spot, and have no number 1 (or probably 2) pitchers in your entire system.

 

And if it doesn't matter if you take a guy in the top five, because you can find pitchers later in the draft or internationally, isn't that true of hitters too? I mean, is it realy peoples' argument that draft position does not matter? Aren't most great players (not all, most) higher draft picks?

 

I probably sound mad, or something. I'm not, I'm genuinely curious if people really think they can find 1 or 2 type pitchers outside of round 1, and if so, shouldn't the Twins be embarrassed by their pitching if it is so easy to find? And, what happened to "their minor suck because they had late picks" argument? If you can find pitchers later, why haven't they?

 

Oh, and Gausman will be starting, successfully, in the majors while Mauer is still really good. Buxton might not even get here before Mauer declines.

[ThePuck]

yeah, I was pretty miffed when they took Buxton over Gausman or Zimmer, to be honest...especially Gausman

[Brad Swanson]

Ultimately, the only draft board that matters is the Twins'. If they have Buxton over Gausman or Frazier over Appel, that's how the draft will go.

 

My point would be, do you take the guaranteed 3rd starter at #4 or a potential superstar outfielder? I don't think it is safe to assume that any of the possible starters are certain to be better than that. Your own choice probably comes down to the level of risk you prefer.

[TRex]

I know it seems like a foreign concept to most of us Twins fans, but these prospects can be turned into 'great' starting pitchers, and it can be even faster than drafting them.

 

Buxton is already a top-10 prospect and if he has a fairly good year in low-A, don't you think he would be a great centerpiece for next years crop of 'soon to be too expensive' arbitration eligible pitchers (e.g. David Price/Gio Gonzalez/Zack Greinke/Matt Latos/CC Sabathia/?Matt Garza?).

 

Last offseason, Terry Ryan was said to be making a run at Johnny Cueto of the Reds, so we know he is capable of that type of thinking. And I think we have plenty of payroll room to accommodate these Arbitration Eligible guys, and can even afford to buy out their first year of FA eligibility.

[Jeremy Nygaard]

Stanek not only dropped on my board, but has also dropped to the #3 spot in Arkansas's rotation. It is early, but still not what you'd want.

[IdahoPilgrim]

Ultimately, the only draft board that matters is the Twins'. If they have Buxton over Gausman or Frazier over Appel, that's how the draft will go.

 

My point would be, do you take the guaranteed 3rd starter at #4 or a potential superstar outfielder? I don't think it is safe to assume that any of the possible starters are certain to be better than that. Your own choice probably comes down to the level of risk you prefer.

 

Add in the fact that there is no "guaranteed" 3rd starter there - even with a college arm a pick could still go bust, or be lost to injury.

[gunnarthor]

Gausman and Zimmer are right next to Buxton in many of the prospect ranking lists, literally on one list right after him I believe. Buxtion also has questions, though. It's not like we are looking at a guy people thought of as harper or longoria.....he would not have even been a top 5-10 pick the previous year, from what I've read.

 

that's may question, though....how much better does the hitter have to be, if you already are "loaded" at the OF spot, and have no number 1 (or probably 2) pitchers in your entire system.

 

I think people have tried to answer that question. I didn't look at all lists again but I don't remember any list that had Gausman/Zimmer close to Buxton. So I guess, specifically, Buxton's upside was that of an all-star type (think Sizemore or Upton) center fielder. Gausman/Zimmer's upside was that of a #2 type pitcher. So that's how much better the hitter had to be.

 

I think the Twins have done a decent job of getting amateur talent in both the draft an international market in recent years. Finding a Verlander type pitcher is easier if you pick in the top 5 but there isn't a Verlander in this years group - or last years. Taking the best player - a guy BA thinks is the 10th best prospect in the game - is a good thing. Drafting for need is a horrible strategy for a baseball team.

[Jeremy Nygaard]

This doesn't prove or disprove anything (and I compile this for a Fantasy Baseball league, not just because...) but here's an idea of what the "experts" think.

 

BA Top 100 - Buxton (10), Zimmer (24), Gausman (26)

Callis Top 50 - Buxton (8), Gausman (23), Zimmer (24)

Cooper Top 50 - Zimmer (14), Gausman (15), Buxton (21)

Lingo Top 50 - Buxton (9), Gausman (30), Zimmer (31)

Manuel Top 50 - Buxton (10), Zimmer (27), Gausman (28)

Baseball Prospectus - Buxton (8), Gausman (13), Zimmer (41)

Keith Law - Buxton (22), Gausman (26), Zimmer (27)

MLB.com - Buxton (19), Zimmer (34), Gausman (37)

[Mike Sixel]

Thanks Jeremy....two have them pretty much in the same spot, but most have Buxton higher. That's awesome. They still have no pitcher in their system as good as Appel or gausmann. We all just disagree, that is cool with me.

[cmb0252]

Everyone, especially front office people, know the twins need top of the rotation pitchers sooner rather then later. Their jobs are on the line, not ours. Knowing this they still take Buxton. What does that tell you about how they valued Buxton and/or viewed the college arms last year? This isn't rocket science people. Do people really think Terry Ryan and the rest of the scouts don't understand we need pitching?

 

Right now I have Appel, Manaea, Bryant, Fraizer, and then everyone else well behind. Obviously there is plenty of time but I'm not jumping on the helium college arm bandwagon. I rather have a star than an average player.

[Jeremy Nygaard]

Manaea, who if you've read anything about him, appears to be a goofball, just tweeted a picture of himself jumping on a hotel bed. I told him to get comfy in Minneapolis and his response was that it is 'actually pretty sweet here'. Not that it changes the fact I think he'll go before #4, but still neat that he'll interact with baseball fans on Twitter.

[drjim]

What is BPA, though? How big a difference does there need to be to take another toolsy OFer, that is 5 years away, between that OFer and the best pitcher? How do you propose getting a pitcher, if you don't ever draft them at the top of the draft? And yes, there are now two people in the thread saying they'd pass on college arms for HS hitters.

 

Trade for them?

 

I still think it is a mistake to pass on a better prospect to take a position of need for players that will take a couple of years to make their debut. In two years the Twins system could look quite different and the needs could easily change. There is no reason to leave value on the table and reach for a specific position, especially this high in the draft. Always take the best player available.

[Mike Sixel]

Like predicting BPA is so easy....if it is not obvious, should need not play at all?

[Brad Swanson]

Like predicting BPA is so easy....if it is not obvious, should need not play at all?

 

Well yes, that is true. If all things are equal, I would have no issue with the Twins taking a pitcher over a position player. My point would be that I don't want the Twins taking a pitcher no matter what. If they like an outfielder more than the best available pitcher, I would want them to take the player they think will be the better player.

[FrodaddyG]

Like predicting BPA is so easy....if it is not obvious, should need not play at all?

When professional scouts have been watching and evaluating players for months before the draft, when the time comes, they absolutely know who they consider the best player available at the time they pick. It's kind of the whole point of their job.

[Oxtung]

You can't get an ace or even a number 2 w/o picking high in the draft, generally.

 

This was a very interesting statement for me so I looked up the top 10 pitchers in ERA each year for the last 5 years. This gave me a pretty good idea who the "Aces" were. I then looked at their draft position.

 

There have been 19 pitchers ranked in the top 10 of ERA in 2+ seasons. 6 of those pitchers were NOT drafted in the first round. Of those 2 were international signings (Santana and Hernandez) and 4 were "late round" picks. Of the first round picks only 2 were top 5 overall picks and 3 others were top 10 overall picks (not including the 2 top 5 picks). The average draft position of 1st round picks was 14th overall.

 

So recap:

"Ace pitchers" are most likely to come from the 1st round but are most often found outside of the top 10 draft picks.

 

Disclaimer and other thoughts

This certainly isn't a comprehensive finding. I only went back 5 years. Also I didn't look at how many pitchers were drafted in the 1st round and were busts. I also didn't look at the distribution of where pitchers were drafted in the 1st round (all pitchers not just "Aces".) It is possible hitters are taken more frequently than pitchers with the top picks. Finally it is unbelievable to me how dominant Halladay has been and comparably how little hype he has gotten.

[Mike Sixel]

Well, the law of numbers would say that most are taken out of the top 5 or 10....the key would be to look at percentages of those taken in the top part, vs those taken in the latter part of the first round....because there are a lot less players taken in the top 5 than the next 2000 picks, right?

 

But, it is great that you did the work. I'd have to look at it also to be more certain......but then, you are making a different point. It IS possible to get good players later in the draft, refuting the argument made here daily that the Twins minors were bad because they picked "too late" in round 1 to get good players......

[drjim]

I think what Keith Law said in the chat yesterday is correct. The strength of the draft is pitching and the top Twins need is also pitching. That is good when that lines up. However, imagine a scenario where there are three pitchers they really like and the rest of their top 5/6 are position players and then the top three picks are the three pitchers that they like. It would be a mistake to jump to their 6th/7th/8th rated player just to get a pitcher. The example he used was the Royals in 2011, who wanted a pitcher and picked 6th. They had 5 pitchers they liked and they all went so they took Bubba Starling instead of reaching for another pitcher that was further down their board.

 

Yes, all things being equal they should target a pitcher but they can't jump a bunch of spots in their draft order just to do so. If a position player falls they should take them and then load up on arms in the rest of the draft and hope that 1 or 2 emerge (kind of like last year).

[Mike Sixel]

Why would it be a mistake automatically? What if that 8th best player is a number 2 pitcher, or even a number 3 pitcher? That is a bad thing?

 

Because while you might think the hitter is going to be awesome, you don't really know that for sure. We don't know the future for sure at all.....

 

As for last year's arms, I think everyone is jumping to a lot of conclusions after zero innings in A ball for a starter so far.

[Brad Swanson]

However, the same could be said about the pitcher you want. Who is to say the number 2 starter would automatically be a number 2 starter?

[Mike Sixel]

That's my point, we don't know.....but if you never draft pitching early, you are unlikely to have good pitching. Otherwise, people are arguing that early picks are not more likely to be good than later picks, and I don't think anyone really means to argue that.

 

But I can promise you, if a SP is ranked number 8 ovearall, that people think they are a number 2/3 type pitcher in the future....right? If you literally have no number 1 or 2 in your entire system, and maybe have 3 number threes, in your entire system, what is more valuable, a future number 2/3, or a future really good OFer?

[FrodaddyG]

what is more valuable, a future number 2/3, or a future really good OFer?

What asset should bring you a greater return five years down the road: Justin Upton or Rick Porcello?

[gunnarthor]

That's my point, we don't know.....but if you never draft pitching early, you are unlikely to have good pitching. Otherwise, people are arguing that early picks are not more likely to be good than later picks, and I don't think anyone really means to argue that.

 

But I can promise you, if a SP is ranked number 8 ovearall, that people think they are a number 2/3 type pitcher in the future....right? If you literally have no number 1 or 2 in your entire system, and maybe have 3 number threes, in your entire system, what is more valuable, a future number 2/3, or a future really good OFer?

 

I'm really not sure what else people can say here. Many have said that the BPA is the best route to go and that the professional ranking guys seem to have supported the Buxton pick. I don't think anyone is saying that earlier picks don't (generally) lead to better players but it works for both pitchers and hitters. As good as Hicks is supposed to be, Buxton is better. I'd rather have Matt Kemp than Anibel Sanchez. While no one knows who the best player will become, teams devote lots of energy trying to figure that out. The Twins will probably heavily scout at least 12 guys for consideration for the #4 pick, maybe more. They'll send cross checkers and interview coaches, teachers and others to learn as much as they can. They'll obsess over mechanics and make up and make a list. Remember the Twins were the only team that mentioned concerns over Prior's mechanics before he got injured, although some said it was just BS to cover the Mauer pick. So far the consensus is that the Twins have drafted well. We'll see.

 

We were able to trade for guys like Liriano, Boof, Nathan, May, Worley and Meyer b/c we had depth at catcher and outfield. The Twins still have depth in the OF so they could flip a guy like Willingham for a prospect or, more daring, do a prospect trade and move Arcia for pitching. I think the Twins will draft a pitcher b/c that's the main depth of this class but what if SD's Kris Bryant pulls a Zunino this year and is a third baseman who could be in the majors by late 2014 while the top 3 pitching guys are gone? I certainly wouldn't be against that pick.

 

The future of this team's pitching staff looks like it will be some grouping of Gibson (late first rounder who fell due to injury), Meyer (late first rounder who fell b/c of salary concerns, traded for), May (4th round pick, traded for), Berrios (supp pick), Hendriks (international signing), Worley (MLer, traded for), Diamond (rule V pick, traded for) and most likely this years #4 pick.

 

The best two recent Twins teams - 06 and 10 - starting rotations were made up of Santana (rule v), Silva (traded for), Radke (8th rnd pick), Liriano (traded for), Boof (traded for), Baker (2nd rd pick), Pavano (traded for, resigned), Blackburn (29th rd), Slowey (2nd rd) and Duensing (3rd rd). Health and a strong bullpen help a lot. As does a little luck in later rounds which Johnson has not had in his drafts but it's still a bit early to condemn his drafts.

[Mike Sixel]

What asset should bring you a greater return five years down the road: Justin Upton or Rick Porcello?

 

You left off the whole part of context before that, where they system, imo, is barren of number 1/2 starters....in a vaccuum, the OFer is better....but they don't live in a vacuum.

[Mike Sixel]

gunn....how good would a hitter ahve to be to be up with the Twins in a year, but I do get your point....as for the best Twins teams, they were good teams, not great teams, imo. And what would have made them great was even very good starting pitching.

 

again, I'm not going to change your minds, and you aren't going to change mine....as long as we are all cool having a conversation, I'm cool continuing, I just don't want to push so hard people start getting mad....

[diehardtwinsfan]

I agree that drafting for need CAN be a bad strategy, but the problem with BPA is that is so incredibly subjective that unless you are looking at Strasburg/Harper type talent, there is no such thing as a clearcut BPA. The lists here prove that. People don't universally rank Buxton ahead of everyone else (just look at Sickle's list), and Gausman/Zimmer are flipped around too. All are very good prospects. All have very high ceilings. But this idea that Buxton was somehow clearly better is odd. He's not, and that is where need comes into things. Gausman and Zimmer will be collecting major leage pay checks in 2 years and Buxton will be lucky to sniff AA... Given his rookie league status, I wouldn't be expecting him to light things up in Cedar Rapids. Here's to hoping I'm wrong on that. But when the players are very close, need must be considered.

 

I'm not trying to denigrate Buxton as a prospect, but I am pointing out one of the huge flaws in this system. People get all googley eyed over the tools and then start brandishing completely subjective terms around such as BPA and ignore the results and the organizational needs, and for all the love of sabermetrics around here, I find that incredibly odd.

 

No one here knows if Buxton was the BPA of that draft. He had plenty of question marks going into it and those still remain today. You don't pass on a similarly good player at a position of need in that case.

[Mike Sixel]

great post, diehard.....much more clear than some of mine....