You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?r=2420-Minnesota-Twins-Top-50-Prospects-41-45

Larson is the only one from this group that intrigues me. Michael looks like a bust.

Larson is the only one from this group that intrigues me. Michael looks like a bust.

 

I would say "IS" a bust. He is the classic example that you should never draft for need - especially in the MLB draft.

Twins needed MI help and drafted him. A big miss.

 

Dean is Deadly against lefties & if things go upside down again next year, he could get a chance or two with the big league club

True about Levi Michael, he will not hit past AA. At least, that's what appears to be happening.

Pat Dean pitching in Minnesota at some point next year?

Pat Dean pitching in Minnesota at some point next year?

 

He may be the Andrew Albers of 2014. Both lefthanders are very similar in their pitch-to-contact approach.

 

I only saw Dean pitch once. New Britain shut out Trenton, 2-0 on July 11. Dean pitched 7.1 innings, and gave up six hits and one walk while striking out four. What surprised me were the "loud outs." There was plenty of "Thunder" off the Trenton bats, but the ball kept landing in Rock Cats' gloves.

 

I left the ballpark thinking, "that's the luckiest pitcher I've seen in a long time..." One game is a small example--I know, small sample size--I get it. But it just goes to show that seeing--and hearing--a baseball game is different than reading the box score.

 

That said, I'd love to see Dean (or Albers) stick as that crafty lefty/5th starter, but I'm afraid he's a AAAA talent, at best. I suspect that's why he's ranked #43.

I would say "IS" a bust. He is the classic example that you should never draft for need - especially in the MLB draft.

Twins needed MI help and drafted him. A big miss.

 

Look at who was picked between Levi Michael and Travis Harrison in that draft. Only Jackie Bradley looks like a big leaguer. If it makes you feel better think of Harrison as the 1st rounder that season.

I like Stuart Turner better than these guys. Catchers who can defend make it to the big leagues even if they hit .200.

Look at who was picked between Levi Michael and Travis Harrison in that draft. Only Jackie Bradley looks like a big leaguer. If it makes you feel better think of Harrison as the 1st rounder that season.

 

 

I consider Supp-1st rounders as 1st rounders. Close enough. Michael was picked 30th, so there is never any 'sure-thing' attached to someone drafted that far down. That said, it is a good reminder that drafting for need is generally pretty wrong.

Pat Dean pitching in Minnesota at some point next year?

 

I'd say there's an outside chance.

I would say "IS" a bust. He is the classic example that you should never draft for need - especially in the MLB draft.

Twins needed MI help and drafted him. A big miss.

 

FWIW, Baseball America and Keith Law both had Michael ranked #22 in the class. The only player available that was ranked higher by both was Josh Bell, and he was drafted in the 2nd round for $5 million. Of all the players available for the Twins #30 pick, there is a good argument that Michael was the best available that would sign around slot value.

 

Now, that doesn't change the fact that he is officially a bust (which I agree) and a big miss. But I don't think it was a blatant "draft for need" mistake like you suggested.

FWIW, Baseball America and Keith Law both had Michael ranked #22 in the class. The only player available that was ranked higher by both was Josh Bell, and he was drafted in the 2nd round for $5 million. Of all the players available for the Twins #30 pick, there is a good argument that Michael was the best available that would sign around slot value.

 

Now, that doesn't change the fact that he is officially a bust (which I agree) and a big miss. But I don't think it was a blatant "draft for need" mistake like you suggested.

 

Great reminder... and going by the "experts", Michael was the best available and it was a position of need.

I would say "IS" a bust. He is the classic example that you should never draft for need - especially in the MLB draft.

Twins needed MI help and drafted him. A big miss.

 

There is no substantiation whatsoever for a claim that Michael was selected on the basis of positional need. Perhaps you're just guessing about this?

We always talk about the can't miss prospects, but always forget that people are needed to be that 4th outfielder or all-around utility guy, middle relief, or back-end starter.

I like Stuart Turner better than these guys. Catchers who can defend make it to the big leagues even if they hit .200.

 

Agree. Having Turner's name so low on this list surprised me, but have to believe it's just because he hasn't played enough in the Twins system yet. For what it's worth, Mayo on MLB.com has him at #19.

There is no substantiation whatsoever for a claim that Michael was selected on the basis of positional need. Perhaps you're just guessing about this?

 

Obviously its a "guess." I have no access to the Draft War Room, nor would any rational scouting director outright say "we drafted for need." But we can see that Michael was the first position player out of college the Twins drafted in the first round since 1996. And the state of the MI in the minors was a disaster at the time. It seems clear to me at least they used a first round pick on a position of desperate need in the organization.

 

In my opinion, his pick was very similar to the Adam Johnson pick. Twins got a guy that most scouts considered as "solid" but not great. - (ignoring the dif between #2 overall & #30 overall)

 

I often dislike hindsight when it comes to drafts, every team has different philosophies, but since it was brought up by others, here is a few other guys they could've got:

 

Trevor Story 45th

Henry Owens 36th

Jackie Bradley as was mentioned...

 

Looking at the red sox...they had a pretty good 2011 draft!

Edited October 23, 201313 yr by clutterheart

I consider Supp-1st rounders as 1st rounders. Close enough. Michael was picked 30th, so there is never any 'sure-thing' attached to someone drafted that far down. That said, it is a good reminder that drafting for need is generally pretty wrong.

 

This assumes that the Twins passed up on guys they thought were better in order to draft for need. I dont' see that, especially given the lack of ML talent in players taking immediately after Michael. Call it a pet peeve of mine, but in the BPA vs. need debate, this is really good example of my frustrations with it. It's revisionist history. Since the Twins needed help at SS, it's automatically assumed that he wasn't their BPA, even though based on the results, no one really knows. That assumption is bolstered more because he's failed as a prospect. This pick wasn't universally deried as horrible either.

 

 

There were questions about his bat back then, and unfortunately, we've seen them play out. He's a bust. They happen, especially when picking that low.