Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • First Round Busts?


    Parker Hageman

    For the Minnesota Twins, two events in this past week bookend a disappointing era for first-round draft picks.

    On Friday it was announced that the team’s 55th pick overall in 2011, pitcher Hudson Boyd, was suspended for 50 games for a second violation of a drug of abuse. Two days later, Chris Parmelee, who was drafted 20th overall in 2006, signed a minor league contract with the Baltimore Orioles after he was released by the Twins earlier in the offseason.

    Without much to show from their first-round picks from 2006 through 2011, how bad has it been for the Twins compared to other teams?

    Twins Video

    When you consider the production provided from 11 first-round picks in those six years, the Twins are near the bottom of the league. The 6.5 wins above replacement (WAR) is the sixth-lowest return on investment among all the major league teams in that span. Only the Indians, Rockies, Padres, Red Sox and Phillies managed to get less value out of their first round picks.

    http://i.imgur.com/YARiOQO.png

    To make matters worse, it is not just the fact that first-round picks have failed to perform for the Twins, it is that they have had troubles even reaching the game’s highest level. Just four of the 11 picks have made it through the system. Only the Atlanta Braves, San Diego Padres and Tampa Bay Rays have churned out a lower percentage of major league players than Minnesota.

    Draft position factors in quite a lot as to what level of talent is available, but having a high pick does not guarantee success either. For instance, in those six years the Kansas City Royals found themselves selecting at a median spot of fourth but wound up with 15.7 runs above replacement for seven players in what were highly coveted draft positions. On the other hand, the Cincinnati Reds drafted at a median spot of 15 and had a return of 44.5 wins above replacement (the fourth best in that time) on their nine players.

    “You cannot go into the draft saying, ‘we’re going to take position players this year,” said Roy Clark, a former Atlanta Braves scouting director and recent national cross-checker for the Los Angeles Dodgers, in the book ‘Scouts Honor’. “And then all of a sudden, we’re picking seventy-first, and all of the position players are gone or all of the good pitchers are gone. You never know who is going to be there. I like picking thirtieth every year. I want to pick thirtieth every year.”

    Based on that, Clark surely must have been envious of the Reds’ recent draft positions which were huddled in his sweet spot of the first rounds. Those selections turned into major league contributors in Drew Stubbs, Devin Mesoraco and Yasmani Grandal and resulted in the fourth most wins above replacement in that time frame. Meanwhile, in the same period, the Twins were drafting slightly lower than Clark’s ideal spot - and certainly further down the list than the Reds.

    ****

    It didn’t always used to be this way for the Twins. While sitting in Terry Ryan’s office earlier this winter, the topic of the 1989 amatuer draft came up.

    When reviewing the first four picks by the Twins at Baseball-Reference.com, one cannot help but be impressed by the fruit that that draft bore. It was a work of art in the scouting world -- probably something veteran scouts talk about over bourbon and cigars.

    That year’s draft provided the Twins with two vital components to their eventual World Series title in 1991: a top of the lineup catalyst and an excellent defender at a key up-the-middle position in Chuck Knoblauch (1st round, 25th overall) and a 20-game winner in Scott Erickson (4th, 112th overall). In between was left-handed pitcher Denny Neagle (3rd, 85th) from the University of Minnesota, who would later be flipped to Pittsburgh in 1992 so the Twins could acquire 20-game winner John Smiley, and go on to have a solid career of his own.

    Of course, in addition to noticing the noteworthy careers of Knoblauch, Neagle and Erickson, one cannot also help but be drawn to the one name on the Baseball-Reference.com list that does not include a hyperlink to a major league career: John Gumpf.

    “Gumpf,” Ryan said to himself in his office while reminiscing about the draft that helped lay a foundation for the organization’s second World Series title. He shook his head and seemed to be kicking himself all over again. He and his staff had gone three-for-four but swung and missed badly on that second pitch.

    As the team’s scouting director, Ryan was at the helm of his third amateur draft in 1989. They were looking to supplement the farm system with power and Gumpf’s name surfaced in the war room while the team was on the clock. Reports on the high school kid from Riverside, CA said he had plenty of pop in his bat. With the fifty-fifth overall pick -- the same spot in which the Twins would take high school pitcher Hudson Boyd twenty-two years later -- they added their slugger.

    Or so they thought.

    Gumpf’s professional career never amount to much. Over four seasons in the minors, he knocked out 15 home runs in 291 games and retired with a .329 slugging percentage over his minor league career.

    How did that happen? How did the Twins who were on a roll miss so poorly with their second pick? Ryan shrugged. Couldn’t make an adjustment here or didn’t make an adjustment there or maybe the reports were overblown. Either way, Gumpf was out of professional baseball and that year’s draft was a resounding success.

    Sometimes you just miss.

    ****

    Did the Twins scouting department lose its innovative edge from the era in which they were winning drafts? Have they since been outmaneuvered by other teams who have found ways to exploit the draft? Did the development system fail the players? Is this simply a case of bad luck in what is after all a small sample size?

    Going back to 2006 through 2011, teams with picks in the top ten -- the Rays, the Giants, the Dodgers -- were able to lock in marquee picks like David Price, Madison Bumgarner and Clayton Kershaw. Naturally they wound up getting plenty of value from those players. Those outside of that area either had to spend additional money (like the Tigers in landing Rick Porcello) or just simply had to be better than everyone else at evaluating talent. The St. Louis Cardinals seemed to exemplify that.

    With their lowest pick at 13th, much like the Minnesota Twins, the majority of the Cardinals' first rounders came on the wrong side of 25. Nevertheless, they were able to generate 23.7 WAR while graduating 72% of their first rounders so they could help the parent company. Part of it helps to be lucky but, like Branch Rickey touted, luck is the residue of design.

    As a team that was selecting players in the latter portions of the draft, the Cardinals found success by ensuring the lines of communication were open among all departments.

    “[W]e had a great interaction between scouting and player development,” former Cardinals scouting director and now Astros’ GM Jeff Luhnow told FoxSports.com in regard to what made his 2009 draft class so special. “[Cardinals chairman and CEO] Bill DeWitt’s responsible for that; it’s his vision. My first charter was to coordinate between different silos – there was a scouting silo, a player-development silo; it happens – so I took everyone on an international trip. Eventually there was a process in place. Analytics, scouting, medical, mechanics: Ultimately everything has to come together in a ranking. It’s not absolute, but a guide. Partly art, partly science.”

    ****

    Despite losing Parmelee for nothing, the Twins still have several players who could provide value to rescue their numbers.

    Kyle Gibson (22nd overall, 2009) is coming off a year where he became a stabilizing force in the rotation and could make big steps forward in 2015. Meanwhile, from 2006 to 2011, the highest the Twins drafted was 14th in 2008 and that resulted in Aaron Hicks. At his age, Hicks still has every opportunity to provide positive value but has plenty of adjustments to make in order to do so. Same goes for Levi Michael, Travis Harrison, Alex Wimmers and Boyd. But picks like Matt Bashore, Carlos Gutierrez and Shooter Hunt are forever filed under missed opportunities.

    The cyclical nature of the draft seems to have paved the way for a brighter future for the team. After several years of underperforming because of poor returns in the first round, the Twins were able to make selections when premium talent was still on the board. Byron Buxton, Jose Berrios, Luke Bard, Kohl Stewart and Nick Gordon have the makings to provide a solid foundation.

    Of course, if and/or when the team begins to win again, learning from mistakes and ensuring that the draft continues to provide major league talent should be a top priority.

    MORE FROM TWINS DAILY
    — Latest Twins coverage from our writers
    — Recent Twins discussion in our forums
    — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email
    — Become a Twins Daily Caretaker

     Share


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    A point where people seem to disagree is that the Twins should expect to do poorly drafting so late.....vs some who say that is not an acceptable expectation.....

     

    It is hard to know if it is all drafting, all development, or what percent of each. It is hard to know how they really make decisions. All we can really know is the outcomes vs other teams......

    Looking at only a small frame of time can distort how we look at things.  Nearly all teams have cyclical results, esp if you are looking at 5 or 6 year periods and/or only a part of the draft process (which is only part of the development system).  The problem with saying the Twins first round draft picks were bad from 06-11 is 1) they weren't - both Revere and Gibson were good picks and Hicks still might be and 2) it ignores the entire drafts.  Looking at in a more reasonable light would suggest that the 07 and 09 drafts were good and that Johnson's drafts strategy might not be ideal.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I guess we have to ask ourselves what makes a 1st rounder a bust or not.  I imagine everyone has a different idea as to what bust means in the context of a first rounder, second rounder, etc.

     

    For me, if a college pitcher is drafted in the first round, and doesn't really establish himself in the majors for 5 years, and then is maybe a #3 or #4 pitcher at best when he finally gets here, I might call that a bust. 

     

    I might say if a first rounder only makes the major league roster because he ran out of options and the team just didn't want to give up quite yet on him, that might be a bust.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The problem with saying the Twins first round draft picks were bad from 06-11 is 1) they weren't - both Revere and Gibson were good picks and Hicks still might be and 2) it ignores the entire drafts.

     

     

    1) Yes it was...

    http://i.imgur.com/YARiOQO.png

     

    2) That was the point. It was just a look at the first round picks. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1) Yes it was...

    http://i.imgur.com/YARiOQO.png

     

    2) That was the point. It was just a look at the first round picks. 

    Again, that makes a statement that isn't true (insert Mark Twain quote here).  The 07 draft (Revere) and 09 (Gibson) were good picks.  You are over weighing the failures of the 08 and 10 draft to paint too broad a brush.  And it overvalues the earlier drafts as players from your arbitrary end point are still developing or amassing value.  There are some issues with the drafts but this isn't really telling us much compared to the misinformation it shows.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The Twins drafts during that timeframe were definitely on the low par.  That's why there was so little from the farm to come up and help when it all hit the fan.  I think though if you did a WAR study of the entire class, the numbers wouldn't look a lot better.  There are a lot of reasons for this, and I think it's a bit unfair to simply pin it to one reason.  I see a few (in no particular order):

     

    1)  Conservative drafting (metrodome days for the most part, but definitely played a role here)

    2)  Lack of draft slotting that exists today

    3)  Injury (though truthfully, I expect all teams to have this problem, I'd be curios what the percentages looked like in relationships to other teams)

    4)  Just plain old bad picks.

    5)  Development (I do believe that guys who can succeed in one system can fail in another, having the right coaches for the right personality along with situational differences does make an impact).

     

    I think the Twins have done a real good job addressing lots of these.  The 2012-2014 drafts (so far at least) are looking to be real good. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Again, that makes a statement that isn't true (insert Mark Twain quote here).

     

     

    No, the statement is the Twins have not had success drafting in the first round from 2006 through 2011. By the measurement of WAR, they have had the lowest returns. It is a factual statement.

     

    Everything you are pointing to are reasons why the WAR has been low. You are trying to explain why in the years between 2006 and 2011 they have been bad. Those points are valid but do not necessarily change the fact that the Twins have had one of the lowest producing first round selections in those years. 

     

    Revere has been the bright spot (gaining 4.2 WAR in a spot in the latter round is good) but I will add that Gibson's track record is not long enough to be considered a "success" as of yet (particularly in comparison to the rest of his draft class). Injures account for his delayed production but it doesn't change the fact that he has not produced well *yet*. There is still time for players from 2011 to also rebound as well as Hicks or maybe even Parmelee in Baltimore. All of this is acknowledged in the post. 

     

    As it stands right here and now -- based on WAR and to a lesser extent the ability to get their players major league ready --  the Twins have performed poorly with their first round picks. That is what it is telling you.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    As it stands right here and now -- based on WAR and to a lesser extent the ability to get their players major league ready -- the Twins have performed poorly with their first round picks. That is what it is telling you.

    That's the fact as of today. As your post there and others have pointed out, it's the why that is hard to separate out from all the variables. The icky feeling I get from the original article is that folks coming to TD to just read articles are probably pretty likely to leave with the conclusion that the Twins just suck at drafting. I think the why is a bit more complex than that.

     

    I personally think draft position is a big part of those years and I'll commit to a blog post examining that.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think far too many times the Twins fell into the mindset of drafting for need versus drafting the best player available. Of course

     

    I'm pretty sure that isn't the case. Not in the first several rounds. Of course "Best Player Available" means different things to different organizations when you're talking about a bunch of high school and college players. 

     

    Scout A - who saw Alex Wimmers throughout high school and college in Ohio said that he may top out at 91, but he's polished, has good control, has great work ethic and has a changeup that is nearly big league ready. 

     

    Scout B - who saw him just once in person and once on TV saw two average performances.

     

    Evaluator C - sees that he only hits 91 and says no thank you.

     

    Evaluator D - sees the stats and thinks he's worth the risk.

     

    And that can all be inside of one organization. It's not a science, that's for sure.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    No, the statement is the Twins have not had success drafting in the first round from 2006 through 2011. By the measurement of WAR, they have had the lowest returns. It is a factual statement.

     

    These are also true factual statements that also mislead the reader

     

    Since the Pohlads took over the Twins, only the large market Yankees and Red Sox have won more World Series.

    Over the last 17 years, Astros first round picks have amassed a total of 8 WAR.

    The Arizona Diamondbacks have the fewest losses in MLB history. 

     

    At this point, I think we're just talking past each other.  I do think that the Twins drafts should be examined but picking arbitrary endpoints - after Garza, before Buxton - confirms the results you are looking for rather than a fair look at draft history.  And, as I already pointed out, it lets you whitewash the good 07 and 09 drafts.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think far too many times the Twins fell into the mindset of drafting for need versus drafting the best player available. Of course

    I think you can criticize the Twins for a lot of things but this doesn't seem like one of them.  If they were drafting for need, they would have taken Gausman, Appel or Zimmer over Buxton.  Draft cheap?  Sure.  Stay away from certain agents? Sure.  Refuse to go over slot? You bet.  But not draft for need.  It just doesn't work in baseball.  By the time a guy is ready, the need for the ML club is probably different.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I suspect that that 6.5 is decreased as far as Twins' WAR contribution goes, since it includes Revere and his Phillies seasons.

     

    a couple of comments:

     

    a.  Want to see drafting suckiness?  Look at the WAR in a Twins' uniform for the Twins first round draft picks from 1961 till Knoblauch (1989).  Much less that the aforementioned 6 and change.

     

    b. I think that it takes a full 10+ years to judge a draft, so, yeah we can say that Parm sounds like a bust, but Michael?  Who knows?

     

    c. going back to the data from a. above.  Look at the second round.  Much better than the first.  Frank Viola, Butch Wynegar and Tim Teufel (even Alan Anderson) help.  Look at third round:   There is a guy named Blyleven, a guy named Castino and a guy named Garvey (who did not sign.).   There are more than one rounds in a draft and (despite the dogma) the first round is as important as the rest...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     The icky feeling I get from the original article is that folks coming to TD to just read articles are probably pretty likely to leave with the conclusion that the Twins just suck at drafting. 

    Or they'll think, 'Hey here's a site that doesn't ignore the bad and is willing to discuss the bad along with the good.'.  

     

    This is a team that has lost 92 or more game for four straight years. I don't think it's news to any Twins fan that there are real problems with this team right now, nor should it be news that our drafts didn't go so well for awhile in the most important round.

     

    It wouldn't be constructive at all to just talk about the positive and ignore the negative, but it would sure cut down on the amount of threads/posts to read.

    Edited by jimmer
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'm not sure why we keep calling this sample "arbitrary".  I would imagine these years were chosen because they are the most relevant to our recent struggles.

     

    Either way, we shouldn't be attacking this as some kind of negative propaganda.  Any six year stretch of draft failures, no matter when they happen, is going to be problematic for your organization.  It's useful to examine why you hit a drought like that, especially when the farm system is so vital to your success.

    Edited by TheLeviathan
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Or they'll think, 'Hey here's a site that doesn't ignore the bad and is willing to discuss the bad along with the good.'.

     

    This is a team that has lost 92 or more game for four straight years. I don't think it's news to any Twins fan that there are real problems with this team right now, nor should it be news that our drafts didn't go so well for awhile in the most important round.

     

    It wouldn't be constructive at all to just talk about the positive and ignore the negative, but it would sure cut down on the amount of threads/posts to read.

    I'm absolutely not saying we should ignore the bad or the negative, so please don't insinuate that from my post. What I'm saying is that I think it's far more valuable to understand "why" and we don't have any of that in the article.

     

    I'd be happy to hear your theories on what should have been done differently... other than just pick the guys that actually ended up making it. :)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'm absolutely not saying we should ignore the bad or the negative, so please don't insinuate that from my post. What I'm saying is that I think it's far more valuable to understand "why" and we don't have any of that in the article.

     

    I'd be happy to hear your theories on what should have been done differently... other than just pick the guys that actually ended up making it. :)

    and that's fine, but what does that have to do with the part of your post I quoted, which was: 'The icky feeling I get from the original article is that folks coming to TD to just read articles are probably pretty likely to leave with the conclusion that the Twins just suck at drafting.'. The quote seems to be concerned with how people visiting this site will evaluate their desire to visit this site based on a negative evaluation of a Twins process, in this case drafting.

     

    I'm not trying to be combative, I must have missed what you meant by that specific statement, and I'm just trying to understand why that was said because this explanation doesn't seem to touch on that, but rather other parts of your post which I didn't respond to.  Again, just wondering, please don't take it as any kind of attack because it's not meant that way.

     

    As far as what I would have done different, not sure it's important what some guy in nowhere USA would have done, only what people considered to be a qualified GM and Director of Scouting would have done and how what they did compared to people in those positions for the other 29 teams.

     

    I look forward to the thread you will start that elaborates in this one. I'm sure it will be enjoyable.

    Edited by jimmer
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'm absolutely not saying we should ignore the bad or the negative, so please don't insinuate that from my post. What I'm saying is that I think it's far more valuable to understand "why" and we don't have any of that in the article.

     

    I'd be happy to hear your theories on what should have been done differently... other than just pick the guys that actually ended up making it. :)

     

    Sometimes you have to identify the problem before you can examine how it happened.  At this point we're still having trouble acknowledging something went wrong for that stretch.

     

    I wonder if a lot of it was just a new regime moving in to the scouting department and the difficulty with that transition. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    and that's fine, but what does that have to do with the part of your post I quoted, which was: 'The icky feeling I get from the original article is that folks coming to TD to just read articles are probably pretty likely to leave with the conclusion that the Twins just suck at drafting.'. The quote seems to be concerned with how people visiting this site will evaluate their desire to visit this site based on a negative evaluation.

    Didn't intend anything about causes for desire to visit the site. My intent from that specific line was that without more analysis on the "why", it's too easy to simplify the explanation.

     

    The Twins didn't get great results out of those top draft picks. That's clearly a problem and there's nothing wrong with pointing it out. When I see a problem, I look for justifiable explanations and/or solutions. I'm curious to see whether draft position provides a sufficient explanation on its' own or not.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I did a quick analysis using the simplistic WAR estimator devised here: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/06/the_draft_and_w.php

     

    The 11 picks discussed in the article have an expected total value of ~19 WAR over their first 6 years of service time. The Hicks pick (#14) has an expected value of 2.5 WAR, while the Boyd pick (#55) has an expected value of 1.2 WAR. 

     

    As of right now, these picks are ~13 WAR short. Considering that Gibson and Hicks each have 5 years left and Revere has 3 years left, it isn't completely out of the question that those 3 alone will do well enough for this group to hit their expected production. Throw in the fact that there are a handful of players that are still working their way through the system (Michael and Harrison in particular), it seems like this group of maligned draft picks are on track to meet their expectations.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I guess I'm one of those guys who sees that some things went wrong during the drafts from 2006 through 2011, but I'm still very skeptical that what went wrong for the Twins during that period is so very different from what went wrong for other organizations that faced the most similar set of circumstances in each of those very different drafts.

     

    My first suggestion would be to limit the evaluation of each of those years to the five teams that drafted in front of the Twins and the five that drafted immediately after them. Then, throw out the supplemental picks. Third, toss out injury casualties. Last, include as a surrogate first-rounder each team's highest-cost international signing from the year being reviewed.

     

    The questions I would love to have truthful answers to are: 1) why was their success limited in any given draft year; 2) are there patterns that we can confidently say were in place; 3) are there steps that could have and/or have been taken to remove the causes of any deficiency of judgment; 4) relative to other teams whose draft position most closely mirrored ours, how did we fare; and 5) what was different about the 2014 draft process from the 2011 draft process?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I did a quick analysis using the simplistic WAR estimator devised here: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/06/the_draft_and_w.php

     

    The 11 picks discussed in the article have an expected total value of ~19 WAR over their first 6 years of service time. The Hicks pick (#14) has an expected value of 2.5 WAR, while the Boyd pick (#55) has an expected value of 1.2 WAR. 

     

    As of right now, these picks are ~13 WAR short. Considering that Gibson and Hicks each have 5 years left and Revere has 3 years left, it isn't completely out of the question that those 3 alone will do well enough for this group to hit their expected production. Throw in the fact that there are a handful of players that are still working their way through the system (Michael and Harrison in particular), it seems like this group of maligned draft picks are on track to meet their expectations.

    and how much better will the players from the other team's drafts get over the same time frame, cause their WAR will continue to grow too. Right now, according to Parker, we are pretty much 10 WAR behind league median and 21 percent behind league median in actually getting our guys to the majors.

    Edited by jimmer
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I did a quick analysis using the simplistic WAR estimator devised here: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/06/the_draft_and_w.php

     

    The 11 picks discussed in the article have an expected total value of ~19 WAR over their first 6 years of service time. The Hicks pick (#14) has an expected value of 2.5 WAR, while the Boyd pick (#55) has an expected value of 1.2 WAR. 

     

    As of right now, these picks are ~13 WAR short. Considering that Gibson and Hicks each have 5 years left and Revere has 3 years left, it isn't completely out of the question that those 3 alone will do well enough for this group to hit their expected production. Throw in the fact that there are a handful of players that are still working their way through the system (Michael and Harrison in particular), it seems like this group of maligned draft picks are on track to meet their expectations.

     

    Lol... this is the blog post I'm drafting right now in far fewer words. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    and how much better will the players from the other team's drafts get over the same time frame, cause their WAR will continue to grow too. Right now, according to Parker, we are pretty much 10 WAR behind league median and 21 percent behind league median in actually getting our guys to the majors.

     

    Other teams wouldn't have the same number of expected WAR.  That figure is dependent on both the number of draft picks and the position of those draft picks.  The whole point is that it's not apples to apples and you can't use a median to accurately compare.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'm not sure how someone can even debate that the Twins 1st round drafts were anything but bad during this period.  Out of 11 picks it looks like there are 2 average players from the 1st rounds.  that is bad.  You could say that it conveniently excludes better drafts on each side of that but these years are the players that are supposed to be supplying the MLB team with young talent to fill holes and very few young players came up during the last 5 years (until the last season).  These drafts are a big reason that the Twins have been bad but on the bright side the more recent Twins drafts (and their int'l signings and later round picks) have been doing much better.

     

    I also disagree that the Twins were drafting for need.  I think they had a profile that they liked (safe college pitcher and toolsy HS athlete) that led to a lot of busts.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It seems that this thread has followed the same course as the others with a similar vein:  "there is a problem";  followed by a supporting premise, ... .  Some posters agree, and perhaps add some more data, then quickly followed by the defenders of the organization enter using the arguements of:  1) "not their fault"  2) "who could have done better?" 3) "the initial premise is wrong" and  4) "we need just a bit more time because this next group of minor-leaguers will set MLB on fire", thus demonstrating that the organization is just fine.

     

    One thing that is overlooked--the thread never pointed a finger at anyone thus no one needs defending.  One can disagree with the premises of 1st Round Busts, WAR, or that the time frame is invalid--but not who did the player selection or why someone was selected--because those weren't the premise  of the thread.  I believe that a slightly longer period is actually more relevant because those players would either still be with the team or have been replaced (via trade or draft compensation) to support that the Twins 1st Round draft selections have been poor.  But it's not my thread so I'll run with the time frame selected.  So, YES, I agree with the premise.  But I firmly believe that there are several more factors responsible for the poor seasons of the recent past.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Of course there are more factors responsible for the recent struggles but this has to be a big reason.  If you aren't bringing in FA's then you have to hit on your early picks.  The Twins didn't.  There are other ways to retool a team but depending on late round picks, waiver wire gems and rule V picks is a bigger crapshoot than 1st rd picks.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...