Draft Whispers

operation mindcrime · May 19, 2016

Thanks for the info! \m/

gunnarthor · May 19, 2016

Nice write-up.

TRex · May 19, 2016

*While this is my sense as of today, I’ve had more than a couple people tell me that someone good is going to slide to the Twins. Not “the Twins are going to get someone good”, the word “slide” has been used. It could be a coincidence, sure. It could be an emphasis on how weird this draft is expected to be, yes. But it could be something else too… maybe?

Thanks Jeremy, great article!

When I think of first-round slides, I think of Kyle Gibson, a '60' ceiling-low floor college starter whose Junior season was affected by a 'non-pitching' injury. Is there a 'Kyle Gibson' this year, and who might be that be?

gunnarthor · May 19, 2016

Maybe this ties in with TRex's question but is there any sense of how the Twins view guys like Alec Hansen or Bobby Dalbec? Both were pre-season top 20 players but have fallen off b/c of rough seasons.

Mike Sixel · May 19, 2016

Thanks, who are the college RP they plan to take in rounds 2-4 this year?

sorry, that was mean spirited.......

I have not paid any attention this year to the draft, other than what you are all putting out here right now. Thanks for all the information.

I predict more pitching in round 1. There is a team just east of here that keeps taking the best college hitter (or nearly best)......they seem to be having luck. Maybe the Twins should try that, but I don't think there is a hitter like that a: in the draft; b: that will drop to 15.

NJTwin · May 19, 2016

Just go back and look at the Twins 2011 draft and you will see my point here. You can talk up these no-names all you want but rest assured you will look back at the Twins 2016 draft like the 2011 draft and surmise. Does it really matter?

nytwinsfan · May 19, 2016

While I greatly appreciate your analysis and work in putting this together Jeremy (really), I sometimes wonder how many of these mock drafts are just pure speculation. Very little of it is based on any discussion with scouts or front office types. I realize that is the nature of the beast, but I wouldn't put much if any stock in this, at least until we start hearing rumors about who the Twins are actually interested in.

I personanlly would like to see the Twins pick a high-upside prep arm or Josh Lowe. But that's just my amateur armchair opinion.

Edited May 19, 2016 by nytwinsfan

Mike Sixel · May 19, 2016

KLAW's mock is 100% based on conversations. It is not what he'd do, but based on his (and his team's) discussions with teams, scouts, etc.

gunnarthor · May 19, 2016

Thanks, who are the college RP they plan to take in rounds 2-4 this year?

sorry, that was mean spirited.......

I have not paid any attention this year to the draft, other than what you are all putting out here right now. Thanks for all the information.

I predict more pitching in round 1. There is a team just east of here that keeps taking the best college hitter (or nearly best)......they seem to be having luck. Maybe the Twins should try that, but I don't think there is a hitter like that a: in the draft; b: that will drop to 15.

Let's see, since 2012, the Cubs and Twins have drafted near each other and had the same amount of 1st round picks

2012 - (Twins picking before Cubs) - Buxton, Berrios, Bard. Cubs - Alomra, Blackburn, Johnson.

2013 - (Twins picking after Cubs) Twins - Stewart. Cubs - Bryant.

2014 - (Twins picking after Cubs) Twins - Gordon. Cubs - Schwaber.

2015 - (Twins picking before Cubs) Twins - Jay. Cubs - Happ.

Ranking these guys you'd place Buxton and Bryant at the top. After that, Bard and Blackburn are probably wash outs. Schwaber made the majors but suffered a really bad injury. The rest probably go (per mlb.com) Berrios, Jay, Happ, Alomra, Gordon, Stewart, Johnson.

Obviously, the big difference is that Bryant is playing well in the majors but I'm not sure that means college hitters would have been better picks. For instance, in 2012, the best college bat was Zunino. In 2013, when the Twins picked, it would have been Colin Moran. In 2014 it would have been Michael Conforto. And last year it would have been Andrew Benintendi. Even with hindsight, I'm not sure the Twins would have picked any of those guys over their picks although some would be in the majors faster.

Edited May 19, 2016 by gunnarthor

nytwinsfan · May 19, 2016

KLAW's mock is 100% based on conversations. It is not what he'd do, but based on his (and his team's) discussions with teams, scouts, etc.

Thanks. Unfortunately, that is one I can't read. Did Keith say what his source is on the Twins' interest in Manning? I'd be happy with Manning btw.

Edited May 19, 2016 by nytwinsfan

Mike Sixel · May 19, 2016

He never mentions sources, that would make it even harder for him to get any information. I think it likely he has better connections with some teams than others, and that some teams are more honest than others. But, he has previously stated that if he works with people that end up not being honest often, he stops working with them, even if that limits his access.

It should still be taken with a ginormous amount of salt, though

Mike Sixel · May 19, 2016

Let's see, since 2012, the Cubs and Twins have drafted near each other and had the same amount of 1st round picks

2012 - (Twins picking before Cubs) - Buxton, Berrios, Bard. Cubs - Alomra, Blackburn, Johnson.
2013 - (Twins picking after Cubs) Twins - Stewart. Cubs - Bryant.
2014 - (Twins picking after Cubs) Twins - Gordon. Cubs - Schwaber.
2015 - (Twins picking before Cubs) Twins - Jay. Cubs - Happ.

Ranking these guys you'd place Buxton and Bryant at the top. After that, Bard and Blackburn are probably wash outs. Schwaber made the majors but suffered a really bad injury. The rest probably go (per mlb.com) Berrios, Jay, Happ, Alomra, Gordon, Stewart, Johnson.

Obviously, the big difference is that Bryant is playing well in the majors but I'm not sure that means college hitters would have been better picks. For instance, in 2012, the best college bat was Zunino. In 2013, when the Twins picked, it would have been Colin Moran. In 2014 it would have been Michael Conforto. And last year it would have been Andrew Benintendi. Even with hindsight, I'm not sure the Twins would have picked any of those guys over their picks although some would be in the majors faster.

I'm not sure either, hence the maybe.

But, something isn't working for this team. Consistently not working for this team. Until one of these guys comes up and is actually good, it is hard to say the Twins are doing it more right, right now for me.

You kind of under sell Bryant a bit there, imo. And, Schwarber could clearly hit....and I think you are underselling him also.

Benintendi is already in AA, right? He'll be in the majors this year probably.

diehardtwinsfan · May 19, 2016

I'm actually more interested in their second round picks. There are two catchers that look to have a decent ceiling that will likely be there at that point. I'm hoping they walk away with one of them.

gunnarthor · May 19, 2016

I'm not sure either, hence the maybe.

But, something isn't working for this team. Consistently not working for this team. Until one of these guys comes up and is actually good, it is hard to say the Twins are doing it more right, right now for me.

You kind of under sell Bryant a bit there, imo. And, Schwarber could clearly hit....and I think you are underselling him also.

Benintendi is already in AA, right? He'll be in the majors this year probably.

Yeah, Benintendi might be the Aaron Nola of his draft. I don't think he slips as far if it was a redo but the question, if I remember correctly, wasn't about his bat it was more about his physical frame. He's short and has a weak arm. So his success in the low minors might not tell us quite as much.

As for draft results, yeah, I wish Buxton and Berrios were tearing up the majors instead of AAA. But I don't think it means they won't. And the other guys are still a few years away - the problem when you draft HS players. I want the Twins to keep drafting the BPA and not worry about him being a college bat or a HS arm or whatnot.

Jeremy Nygaard · May 19, 2016

While I greatly appreciate your analysis and work in putting this together Jeremy (really), I sometimes wonder how many of these mock drafts are just pure speculation. Very little of it is based on any discussion with scouts or front office types. I realize that is the nature of the beast, but I wouldn't put much if any stock in this, at least until we start hearing rumors about who the Twins are actually interested in.

I personanlly would like to see the Twins pick a high-upside prep arm or Josh Lowe. But that's just my amateur armchair opinion.

Perfect Game is purely speculative. I asked a scout about the PG mock and he said something along the lines of, "I've never seen anyone from Perfect Game at a game I've scouted, nor has anyone from there ever contacted me."

I promise you that Law, Manuel and Callis are talking to everyone that they can. They obviously have people they talk to in all the organizations, and I have no desire to do that.

Manning pitches today again and the Twins will have multiple scouts in attendance.

Mike Sixel · May 19, 2016

I agree, draft the BPA. It's not clear they've done that, though. Then, when you do, actually develop him. It's not clear they've done that either.

I love Berrios and Buxton......no doubt about it.

gunnarthor · May 19, 2016

I'm actually more interested in their second round picks. There are two catchers that look to have a decent ceiling that will likely be there at that point. I'm hoping they walk away with one of them.

Yeah, the Twins have 3 picks in the second round. For a while, they really hit on second round picks but it's been awhile. We'll see if this is the year Johnson gets something.

The picks are #56, 73, 74. So there are certainly some interesting players who might be available - and the Twins might be able to save some money and get someone who has fallen at 56.

Zach Jackson from Arkansas might be the relief pitcher drafted and converted to starter this year. And Zach Burdi. I forgot about him.

Edited May 19, 2016 by gunnarthor

Mike Sixel · May 19, 2016

They should be able to get one gem in there......I hope.

markos · May 19, 2016

Perfect Game is purely speculative. I asked a scout about the PG mock and he said something along the lines of, "I've never seen anyone from Perfect Game at a game I've scouted, nor has anyone from there ever contacted me."

I promise you that Law, Manuel and Callis are talking to everyone that they can. They obviously have people they talk to in all the organizations, and I have no desire to do that.

Manning pitches today again and the Twins will have multiple scouts in attendance.

In addition to talking to teams, the BA and MLB.com guys (and Law, too) actually go out and scout a lot of the top players. They can see what teams are also there, and the seniority of the scouts that get sent. It matters if a team's area scout is there, or if it is the scouting director or GM that shows up. That is one of the reasons that there is a lot of talk about Manning to the Twins - I guess Deron Johnson (Twins scouting director) has watched him several times.

Yes, there is probably misinformation on both sides (in Moneyball, Billy Beane liked Nick Swisher so much he never saw him live and the A's barely sent any scouts there because they were afraid other teams might notice and pick him before their chance), but I do think many of the mocks are strong attempts to get things right based on legitimate sources of information.

Winston Smith · May 19, 2016

Thanks Jeremy, great article!

When I think of first-round slides, I think of Kyle Gibson, a '60' ceiling-low floor college starter whose Junior season was affected by a 'non-pitching' injury. Is there a 'Kyle Gibson' this year, and who might be that be?

I'd prefer that a Mike Trout slide to us and this time we pick him, hindsight I know.

diehardtwinsfan · May 19, 2016

The reason why Trout slid was that he had question marks. The same could be said for Berrios to be fair. This is my problem with BPA. It's much easier to tell in hindsight, but not so obvious with high school or college players. When you look at the tiers that develop every year, there will be players in said tier that fail, and some that succeed.

gunnarthor · May 19, 2016

One thing that I'd like to see the Twins look into is if they could trade for another teams supp first or second round pick. Obviously, most of the teams that have those picks are trying to stockpile minor league depth so are unlikely to move them but a few - Diamondbacks, Orioles, Pirates or Cleveland might be willing to make a win-now trade. And I'm also not sure if the Twins can swing a trade but last year the Diamondbacks basically sold Touki Toussant so maybe there would be a way to buy such a pick?

nytwinsfan · May 19, 2016

The reason why Trout slid was that he had question marks. The same could be said for Berrios to be fair. This is my problem with BPA. It's much easier to tell in hindsight, but not so obvious with high school or college players. When you look at the tiers that develop every year, there will be players in said tier that fail, and some that succeed.

Not sure I follow your logic. There is always going to be upside poitential and downside risk for every player, whether the best player available, the second best player available, the third best, and so on. Obviously if you think there is a lot of upside, then that weighs heavily towards them being considered by you to be the BPA. Another way of saying this is that implicit in the concept of BPA is both (1) that the BPA at the time you daft is the player you think is the best, even though in hindsight (e.g. Trout) you may have been wrong, and (2) it includes a weighed value based on the expected distribution of outcomes. In other words, you would never say, player A is who I think is the BPA, but player B has a lot of upside, so I'm going to go with him even though he is not. That just means you think player B is the BPA. The time you wouldn't take the BPA is if you are drafting for position.

diehardtwinsfan · May 19, 2016

Not sure I follow your logic. There is always going to be upside poitential and downside risk for every player, whether the best player available, the second best player available, the third best, and so on. Obviously if you think there is a lot of upside, then that weighs heavily towards them being considered by you to be the BPA. Another way of saying this is that implicit in the concept of BPA is both (1) that the BPA at the time you daft is the player you think is the best, even though in hindsight (e.g. Trout) you may have been wrong, and (2) it includes a weighed value based on the expected distribution of outcomes. In other words, you would never say, player A is who I think is the BPA, but player B has a lot of upside, so I'm going to go with him even though he is not. That just means you think player B is the BPA. The time you wouldn't take the BPA is if you are drafting for position.

This goes back to why I say BPA is ridiculously subjective. Trout slid into the 20s. Pujols got passed on by every team multiple times. BPA is easier to tell in hindsight, but the reality is that with foresight, there's really no such thing. Drafts fall into tiers. As Jeremy noted, there's a clear top tier ahead of the Twins. None of those guys will be available when we draft, yet some will mostly likely fail. Their failure rates will be lower than those in the tier below them, but some guys who go lower will be better than some of the guys drafted above them...

and then there's the whole debate as to what constitutes a BPA. I doubt you could get TD to agree, much less a half dozen scouts in a war room. You have factors such as position (up the middle vs. corner, pitcher vs. hitter), ceiling, floor, the likeliness of hitting either, not to mention the much harder to quantify intangibles such as mental makeup, attitude, work ethic, and how exactly an 18-22 year old kid is going to handle life as a professional athlete or how they will handle the signing bonus if drafted high enough.

I'm commenting more on the idea that some posted saying the Twins didn't draft BPA except in 2012. It's easy to say in hindsight when without question they got the best of what was available at their pick (though even now I'd hardly call that a sure thing given that neither Buxton nor Berrios are stars at this point).

In foresight, however, there's no such thing. There's no magic formulas that are completely objective that you can use to quantify who the best players. You cannot objectively quantify a kid's mental makeup, attitude, leadership skills, etc. You can only guess on how they will physically develop (though at least this one can have some objective criteria). You can watch them hit a High School curve ball, but that means absolutely nothing about their ability to eventually hit a major league curve ball. You can only project, and there's no universally objective way of doing that.

My point, after all the rambling, is that I absolutely hate the way we use the term BPA around here as though it's a sure thing that's easily quantifiable. It's only obvious in hindsight, and the only thing you can really try and do is learn from the mistakes as to why Albert Pujols got drafted in the 13th round, or why Mike Trout slide to the late first round.

BPA pre-draft is like the replacement player we use to calculate WAR. It's a myth. They are easy to find once the dust has settled, but don't really exist until well after the fact.

nytwinsfan · May 19, 2016

My point, after all the rambling, is that I absolutely hate the way we use the term BPA around here as though it's a sure thing that's easily quantifiable. It's only obvious in hindsight, and the only thing you can really try and do is learn from the mistakes as to why Albert Pujols got drafted in the 13th round, or why Mike Trout slide to the late first round.

BPA pre-draft is like the replacement player we use to calculate WAR. It's a myth. They are easy to find once the dust has settled, but don't really exist until well after the fact.

Ok, that's totally fair. It is definitely not objective or easily quantifiable. The appropraite way to use the term is to contrast drafting the player you think is the BPA with drafting a player you don't think is the BPA but you draft anyway because they play at a position of need for your organization.

Edited May 19, 2016 by nytwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan · May 19, 2016

Ok, that's totally fair. It is definitely not objective or easily quantifiable. The appropraite way to use the term is to contrast drafting the player you think is the BPA with drafting a player you don't think is the BPA but you draft anyway because they play at a position of need for your organization.

Agreed, and if everyone thinks said guy is the BPA, then I suspect the Twins would draft him. When the disagreements happen, I'm guessing things like need suddenly factor in a whole heck of a lot more... and they should... If you have 6 players that everyone likes equally or close to equal, I'd draft the catcher or the pitcher in that group.

biggentleben · May 19, 2016

He never mentions sources, that would make it even harder for him to get any information. I think it likely he has better connections with some teams than others, and that some teams are more honest than others. But, he has previously stated that if he works with people that end up not being honest often, he stops working with them, even if that limits his access.

It should still be taken with a ginormous amount of salt, though

Yup. I have a lot of really good connections that I use that are team scouts and independent scouts throughout the country along with other team employees, and you've suddenly heard a ton of weird things in the last week...so it's "draft speak" season, where lots of crap will be tossed out, and you need to know your source to know what is real and what isn't. The issue is when someone blindly trusts all sources and prints the draft speak as fact.

biggentleben · May 19, 2016

One thing that I'd like to see the Twins look into is if they could trade for another teams supp first or second round pick. Obviously, most of the teams that have those picks are trying to stockpile minor league depth so are unlikely to move them but a few - Diamondbacks, Orioles, Pirates or Cleveland might be willing to make a win-now trade. And I'm also not sure if the Twins can swing a trade but last year the Diamondbacks basically sold Touki Toussant so maybe there would be a way to buy such a pick?

The Braves have been trying this for over two months to no avail. They made calls starting all the way back in spring training, and they're not getting anyone at all to take a bite.

Hrbowski · May 19, 2016

Yeah, the Twins have 3 picks in the second round. For a while, they really hit on second round picks but it's been awhile. We'll see if this is the year Johnson gets something.

The picks are #56, 73, 74. So there are certainly some interesting players who might be available - and the Twins might be able to save some money and get someone who has fallen at 56.

Zach Jackson from Arkansas might be the relief pitcher drafted and converted to starter this year. And Zach Burdi. I forgot about him.

Keep an eye on Ian Hamilton. Hamilton was a good reliever in college during his first two years, but was moved to the rotation this spring and hasn't faired too well.

Bob Sacamento · May 20, 2016

The Braves have been trying this for over two months to no avail. They made calls starting all the way back in spring training, and they're not getting anyone at all to take a bite.

Well your Braves are looking good for Groome at #3 with Philly going for a college guy at #1 as well as the Reds. As one scout I talked to said you, pretty hard to get fired for taking a 6'6 lefty who throws 97 ala Puk. Still I'd rather have Groome.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Bob Sacamento

Sign In

Draft Whispers

Twins Video

Community Blogs

Forum Topics

Twins Top Prospects

The Players Project

User Feedback

Recommended Comments

Featured Comments

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation