Draft Theories

Definitely believe they had Enlow higher on their boards than Carlson.

 

Falvey is known for identifying pitching, and I've heard him talk about things like spin rate multiple times when talking about pitchers. Enlow had the highest spin-rate on his curve in the draft, and was largely considered the best breaking ball available as well. Wonder if they see some Kluber-like traits in there.

 

My favorite pick of the day though? Rooker. I find it strange he wasn't more highly regarded and think that was based on past seasons, not this year and the work he's put in. Dude is going to hit.

I can't wait for Rooker to get started. The guy can mash

1.   I don't think that the Twins drafting of Lewis at 1.1 was a straight forward money saving pick.  Based on what I have heard in public media and their deliberation, they probably had at least McKay and Lewis ranked close, with the pitchers, and took the player in that group that was willing to take the Twins offer.  

2.   I think that the Twins management has turned to a new money-ball draft approach.  Since the original, college pitchers have become overdrafted and overpriced.  So, drafting a HS position player at or near the top of the draft gives you essentially the better bang for the buck now.

3.  I believe that the Twins made a mistake passing on Blayne Enlow at #37.  Draft wise it has worked out because Enlow was still available at #76, but drafting him at #37 meant it was easier to sign him above slot value and you did not have to risk losing him between picks #38 and 75.   If you draft him #37, and have to pay him $3 million to sign, you only have to come up with $1.2 million over slot.  But at #76 you have to come up with $2.25 million over that slot, meaning $1 million more needs to be skimped from other picks.  

4.  So, you work out the deal for Enlow at #37 and then draft a guy at slot value at 76.  Since we overdrafted Leach, there is a good chance he is still available at 76.  

5.  Once the draft reached the 6th round, teams suddenly turned to college seniors to save on the lower round slotted value.  In the 10th round, 24 college seniors were selected, 6 juniors, and zero HS players.

6.  I think that this creates a new moneyball opportunity and shows why I would have selected ENlow at #37.  Lets say you do that, and pay Enlow all of the slot savings you made from Lewis, and you still have a bit more from that and a lower slot signing of Rooker.  Now, from rounds 3-10 instead of selecting players below slot value, you draft signable players in those rounds at the slot value.  I think that this would have given the Twins somewhat better value, particularly in the later part of the 2nd day.

I think you might underrate their view of Leach. I suspect they really wanted him and don't think he would have made it to the 3rd round.

I prefer Enlow to Leach by a long shot.  The bonus money is assumed to be significanly higher for Enlow vs. Leach.  SO, I guess I would rather risk losing Leach than Enlow.  

Even if I believe it was a mistake, it might work out in the end if they can sign both.  I hope that is the case.

Derek & Thad had a plan:

-- maximize talent by squeezing the top draft pick

-- see if McKay would accept a under slot #4 pick deal to save even more

-- favor position over pitcher at 1:1 to lower risk

-- obviously really wanted Rooker at 35

-- do an over slot deal in the 3rd instead of the 2nd to lower risk (could negotiate overnight)

Their draft seems to have had good reviews. We'll know a lot more in 4 years.

When the numbers come out, they will provide further insight. In the mean time, my guess is they valued getting Leach at under slot and thought there would be a few overslot guys remaining after the first day.

General analytics would assume price dropping overnight. Maybe the overslot guys price dropped overnight from 2.6 (slot #24) to 2.2M (slot #30). If so, another 400k saved to add more talent.

My theory is a little more big-picture: FalVine are all about gearing up for the cohort that marks the next five-year window of contention. Only Rooker looks like he might contribute significantly in a year or two. The extreme emphasis on high-schoolers for the high-end-talent portion of the draft won't start to bear fruit until 2021 at the soonest.

 

The major league team needs pitching now. They no doubt have some kind of plan for addressing it, while the current cohort still is together and productive. A major free-agent signing, a major trade involving the current pipeline of prospects... some combination. But not this draft. (Bluebirds among the new college draftees of course may always fall into one's lap.) That's my draft theory. The tactics of this draft are an interesting but secondary matter. The strategy is much easier to execute when the constraint of worrying about the current 40-man roster is removed. That's how I read the 1:1 pick, and most of what followed.

I agree with you.  I really thought the new regime would go for fast moving pitching to try and help this current wave out.  Instead they seemed to pick players with high end tools and projection.  So while they did a nice job there is no real immediate help on the horizon with this draft.  

So with the results of this draft the only way to help the current window would be trades and there is no guarantee they get a deal that works for them or that they have the players to get what they need.

I guess if all else fails then they wait for wave two to arrive.  Then we should have some valuable players to trade like Kepler, Sano, Polcanco, Buxton maybe others. With younger options to fill in like Gordon, Palacios, Whitefield,etc.  We should have money to keep some core talent while younger talent rises.  Will be interesting to see how things play out, but I am starting to doubt they can turn things around soon enough to help the current team.

Jeremy, This is one of the best, well thought out articles I have read on TD. Thanks.

I agree the Twins need pitching now, but you can't solve today's problem areas in a draft. In a draft, you try to prevent future problem areas, 4-8 years down the road.

So Rooker won't be here for 4 years?

 

Wright and McKay won't be in the majors for 4 years?

That isn't what he said. He said 'prevent future problem areas 4-8 years down the road'. Obviously this is supposed to be interpreted as a general timeframe, a.k.a. not this year or next but for the long haul. Since we can't predict needs that far in advance we shouldn't try to draft specifically for them.

Even if players make it in 2 years, a pretty aggressive timeline, they aren't typically a full-time or impact player right away. 3-4 years to become fully established in the majors would be as fast of a development as you should expect for any player that isn't a generational talent or has an unusually advanced development coming out of college. Sometimes guys move faster, but planning for it is a pretty risky and bound to fail. Just look at our bullpen approach this year to see how much can go wrong when you depend on prospects to advance, and most of those guys were in AA-AAA already.

Of course this doesn't necessarily apply to relievers due to their niche role.

So Rooker won't be here for 4 years?

 

Wright and McKay won't be in the majors for 4 years?

When were Buxton, Sano, Kepler, Berrios, Polanco, Gonsalves, Jay, Thorpe,Gordon, Garver, Stewart, Burdi, Reed, Granite, Shaggy and Duffy drafted? Where is each of them in their progress to becoming a productive Twin player? Add Hicks also. How long is it taking these guys?