Do the Twins Already Have the Next Brian Dozier?

I get this reasoning. It is traditional, to be sure. But the job is to be the scouts, the FO that is not trapped in the box, have the same top 10, and to be able to see it in advance, and to be the ones that pick a Chapman and Turner, which turn out to be the correct pick, before others do, especially when you have that advance pick. That is the job. Just because 18 or 25 (Trout) other teams and staff fail, doesn't mean it is acceptable if you do (or maybe it is, eh?). But then, I don't mind dreaming, or disappointment. Their job is to see or project the future better than the other guys. Hard to do, for sure. But since that is their job, I think it is always fair to say they should do it better than the other guys, and hope and even expect them to. It sure beats the "oh well" attitude.

Sorry. I think the whole "they are professional scouts" thing is very parochial thinking. It's just not that simple when a hall of famer can be drafted in the 62nd round (Piazza) and Mark Appel and others like him never made it to the majors. The 2016 draft was a good example. Shane Bieber, Bo Bichette, and Pete Alonzo are the three best players from that draft. They were drafted 122 / 66 & 64 respectively. So, to say that professionals should not miss talent like these players is very simplistic thinking IMO.

I don't like revisionalist thinking when it comes to re-examing drafts, especially the baseball version, because nothing in life works that way. And every team gets it right and every team gets it wrong. You hope your team gets it right more often, that's how you build a quality team/system.

There was, to my knowledge, no way the Twins could have predicted the internal ailments that have plagued Gordon. Those have probably held him back more than anything. (Supposedly he has that under control, but probably assisted in his awful covid bout). I wasn't thrilled about his selection...and really wanted Turner who slid down some draft boards after a down year IIRC...because 50-55 grades across the board for Gordon didn't excite me or explain his high stock, even though I understand projectability. But some early glimpses here and there made me feel much better about his selection.

He almost certainly would have been called up before Arraez in 2019 but for an injury. Ankle? Bad timing for him and also unfortunate, from Gordon's situation, that Arraez was more than ready.

Regardless, Gordon can't be held at fault for his 2020. But at the same time, his 2019 performance can't be ignored. Just how good he can be is a mystery still being untangled at this point. But the FO hasn't been keeping him around just because he was a top selection from the previous administration. He's around because they still potential if he is "right". Now, we can discuss all day long as to whether his ceiling is a starting infielder or a utility piece, but they obviously believe he has the potential to at least be the latter. And "disappointing" selection or not, if he turns out to actually be a solid, versatile bench piece, there is still value in that.

I’d be surprised if Gordon ever spends more than one ‘experimental’ season on a MLB active roster...and with a rebuilding team. Any scenario that has the Twins  having to rely on him for a Major League role in 2021 is, basically, disaster. Anything more from Gordon would start with better health, and include, shall we say, better...”hunger” (which is probably the biggest difference between Dozier and Gordon).

I like the Blankenhorn comp...seems about a perfect parallel. Also Rooker in a scenario where he is able to cut down on the swing-and-miss and suddenly leave us with big doses of that super hard contact.

Sorry. I think the whole "they are professional scouts" thing is very parochial thinking. It's just not that simple when a hall of famer can be drafted in the 62nd round (Piazza) and Mark Appel and others like him never made it to the majors. The 2016 draft was a good example. Shane Bieber, Bo Bichette, and Pete Alonzo are the three best players from that draft. They were drafted 122 / 66 & 64 respectively. So, to say that professionals should not miss talent like these players is very simplistic thinking IMO.

 Yup. It's just not that simple. That's for sure. The tons more misses than scores prove that every year. A high failing percentage, like batting average, still keeps one their job in Baseball. Oh well.

 Yup. It's just not that simple. That's for sure. The tons more misses than scores prove that every year. A high failing percentage, like batting average, still keeps one their job in Baseball. Oh well.

I don't have a problem with evaluating scouts by "batting average" in concept. However, how do we know the problem is not the scouting practices put in place by the organization? The person responsible for the scouting organization and it's practices is the guy who's average should determine continued employment.

We should also note this is an area undergoing major changes. Scouts are being let go in favor of video analysts. It would appear that the industry is aware of low batting averages. 

A number of folks had Turner in their top 10, although generally not as high as Gordon. For example, here's a composite 2014 mock draft that placed Turner at #9:

 

https://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2014/5/29/5759878/updated-consensus-2014-mlb-mock-draft

My memory may be off but I recall him being ranked higher than dropping off. At the time I thought he made much more sense than Gordon. I saw Turner as the guy you hoped Gordon would turn into but Turner was obviously further along and was an elite athlete. I hated the Gordon pick and thought Turner had all-star potential so I am onboard that he made more sense than Gordon.