Twins Daily 2019 Top Prospects: 11-15

  On 2/1/2019 at 8:56 PM, h2oface said:

You're on. I don't know that I am under-hyping him to say I believe, according to his current status, that he has been universally over-hyped. I am just noticing his over-hype. I haven't even weighed in on my expectations, or predicted whether he will make it or not. That is because I have no opinion on that. I hope he becomes a star. I hope they all do. I would love to lose a pocket portrait of Lincoln. But to fall from 3rd on the team (wasn't he even higher at one point?) to 12th, and out of the national top 100's as well, is not a convincing counterpoint to the over-hype claim. At some point, his family pedigree and tools have to convert to a player that can't be kept out of the show. It is nothing, however, that "The Man" can't turn around with a season and performance that makes it impossible not to play him in the show, and that would be very welcome. I don't know what the criteria of success would be for a Number 1 draft pick (number 5 overall) for him to have reached and achieved a career that matches his "hype". Seems it would be more than just making it to the show. It would be to become a very good everyday MLB position player (not just a utility guy), too, wouldn't it?

I believe I mis-read your earlier comment as one that included your own opinion on Gordon. Guess we'll have to scrounge up a different way for me to take five bucks off of you.

When it comes down to it, I always go back to the day of the decision. Right now, it looks like they should possibly be glad Kolek and Aitkin didn't fall to them and that they picked Gordon instead of Alex Jackson, a catcher many were disappointed they didn't grab. So, out of the top 6 guys selected, only one of whom was actually available, the decision doesn't look so bad. Too bad Rodon and possibly Schwarber didn't fall to them, we'll see.

OTOH, they can join a half dozen teams in hitting themselves upside the head for passing on a couple of pitchers that went a couple of picks later. And some think they proved their ineptitude by passing on Trea Turner who went eight players later. The truth is that its wasted thought to ponder that stuff. Nothing gets "proven" in those specific comparisons. No one back then was saying Freeland should unquestionably go that early or that a team passing on Nola was incompetent. That type of criticism is the food of convenient retrospect. Overhype or not, Gordon looks to have been a quality decision IMO. Like with all early picks in the first round, you hope you're not part of the unlucky 30% who picked a flamer. Comparatively speaking, the Twins have a pretty solid 10-year record, believe it or not.

  On 2/1/2019 at 9:45 PM, Tomj14 said:

What would they have gotten for Buxton, Romero, Rosario, Sano, Stewart, Meyer, Jay and Gordon?

We can play that game all day.

There is no arguing trading from excess, but there really is no such thing of excess prospects. Remember when Lewis, Gordon and Javier were excessive.

You said the Twins could have traded just about every prospect other than Berrios and not missed out on anything. I'm just saying it's preposterous to think that the returns would have consistently favored the Twins, regardless of which of those prospects you throw a dart at and move.

Of course there's such a thing as a surplus of prospects at a given position. And I'd not argue to avoid trading from that surplus opportunistically. In fact I very much encourage it.

I was thrilled when they moved their 6th best SS prospect, Palacios, for Odorizzi. Perfect trade.

I don't think of Lewis or Javier as surplus to one another. Their ETA's are two years apart for starters, and both can move to another position. Gordon? Yes, he is expendable to me, with Schoop and Polanco ahead of him and Arraez nipping at his heels.

  On 2/1/2019 at 10:53 PM, Mike Sixel said:

Clearly front offices disagree. It's almost impossible to get good prospects in trade right now. If anything, as a group, they are currently over valued, and smart teams should be trading therm for proven players.

My belief is that smart teams are amassing prospect capital as a "sustainability" strategy. Houston, for example, isn't lifting its foot off the gas, probably because strategically, they see a day when one or more of Altuve at $29M and then Bregman, Correa, Springer (already at $12M) need to be moved to make room for a new but cheaper star.  So yes, smart teams are hoarding prospects to some extent. Boston is an exception, right?

Teams who show up in the MLB power rankings (saw the Twins at #11 recently in one) AND who show up in the farm team rankings have a huge advantage if they manage the assets adroitly. Of course, it's good to be high on the revenue rankings too. Damn Yankees have a trifecta going.

  On 2/2/2019 at 12:30 AM, sweetmusicviola16 said:

Not me. For once in my lifetime I'd like my team, the Twins, to be buyers at the trade deadline because we are shooting for a higher goal than dumping vets to add prospects. This mid-July I'd like to see us trade for Arenado for instance, headlined by Graterol and Rooker and whoever else it takes. Then see us immediately sign Nolan to a 7/245 mil deal. And in late Oct be celebrating the WS due in large part to this deal. Isn't that a big reason for having a farm?

I'd just rather they make the buy moves and the trades in the off-season. Buyers lack leverage at the deadline and are more prone to make bad moves out of desperation. Find a sucker at the deadline and move, say, Kepler to make room for Kirilloff. For smart teams, this is what the farm system is for.

But for sure, I'd like them to make big moves. Moving Graterol creates a shortage. Rooker is redundant. That risk must be factored in.

  On 2/2/2019 at 5:58 AM, nater79a said:

Think you meant Gilberto Celestino and not Maciel.  

Celestino came over in the deal for Pressly.   

Maciel in the Eduardo Escobar trade with the D-Backs.

 

 

Your point still stands - just wanted to correct the return.

Good catch, thanks. Celestino is the better prospect they say, so the point does stand.

I miss Edwardo Escobar.

  On 2/2/2019 at 4:22 PM, ashburyjohn said:

Both of you send me five bucks in escrow now, and when you get this bet framed properly and a winner is determined, I'll send the proceeds real soon thereafter. Probably.

You sound like a sidestepping GM.

The TD Prospect Book is a favorite winter purchase for me, especially for player rankings below the top 10. These composite lists are the cherry on top. I'm also enjoying the comments in this strand - a lot of good talk.

I'll throw in one comment - I'd rank the three SP who were called up last year a little different. I think Stewart has a higher upside than Littell or Gonsalves. I'm probably too optimistic but I think the new coaching staff is going to help him reach his potential. 

My hot take is that one year from now, Stewart will be the clear choice between these three.

  On 2/2/2019 at 5:50 PM, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

I've got to side with poster Tomj14 on this one.

A year ago, there was a credible report that the Pirates were asking Gordon, Gonsalves and Zack Granite for Gerrit Cole. That's when those prospects still had some sparkle. That's what we are talking about. Moreover, regardless of Gordon's development or future here in Minnesota, there is a franchise cornerstone coming up the minors right behind him at the same position.

I would have very much endorsed that trade! I can see why it stalled, can't you?

This is precisely how I'd want them to execute on the strategy. Off-season trades, Trades that move surplus (Gordon, Granite). Trades that don't create holes (Cole instead of Gonsalves? Who'd pass on THAT?)

  On 2/2/2019 at 5:50 PM, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

I've got to side with poster Tomj14 on this one.

A year ago, there was a credible report that the Pirates were asking Gordon, Gonsalves and Zack Granite for Gerrit Cole. That's when those prospects still had some sparkle. That's what we are talking about. Moreover, regardless of Gordon's development or future here in Minnesota, there is a franchise cornerstone coming up the minors right behind him at the same position.

If the FO passed on that, regardless of how 2018 unfolded..... the front office was a real......... just wow. I can't really say here what I think. The TD popo will just delete my comment.

  On 2/2/2019 at 5:50 PM, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

I've got to side with poster Tomj14 on this one.

A year ago, there was a credible report that the Pirates were asking Gordon, Gonsalves and Zack Granite for Gerrit Cole. That's when those prospects still had some sparkle. That's what we are talking about. Moreover, regardless of Gordon's development or future here in Minnesota, there is a franchise cornerstone coming up the minors right behind him at the same position.

Just tossing this out there, have to wonder if they not didn't like Cole as much as some...possible...or just really liked/like the future still of Gonsalves and Gordon both?

  On 2/2/2019 at 5:50 PM, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

I've got to side with poster Tomj14 on this one.

A year ago, there was a credible report that the Pirates were asking Gordon, Gonsalves and Zack Granite for Gerrit Cole. That's when those prospects still had some sparkle. That's what we are talking about. Moreover, regardless of Gordon's development or future here in Minnesota, there is a franchise cornerstone coming up the minors right behind him at the same position.

I heard those same reports/rumors also. Based on what Pittsburgh got from Houston I tend to believe that the reports were pretty credible.

I'd like to just make a couple comments on both Gonsalves and Gordon, admitting I am no expert:

Gonsalves: He was considered a 2nd round pick who slid due to some controversy for covering for his teammates. He has pitched very well at every level he has been at, sometimes struggling initially as many/most prospects do when promoted, and has always made adjustments and proven himself with production. He has risen steadily up the milb system and evaluation lists. But he doesn't not posses that single plus-plus pitch to allow him to overcome or compensate. Even young pitchers who have that ability tend to usually struggle initially unless they are just special, or figure it all out very quickly. Our own Berrios is not the same pitcher he was when first promoted, as an example.

While Gonsalves has been known for good control, generally speaking, he fought said control in 2018 with a rise in BB totals. Even that being a fact, his increase in negative numbers were "sandwiched" in a series of starts while being lights out in stretches. How good he can be remains an open debate. But given a little more time to harness his breaking stuff, and gain experience, I think he has a very good chance to fill one of the spots in the rotation for years to come. I do think, however, that Thorpe may have even better stuff and even more potential.

Gordon: I wasn't a fan of his original drafting. Over time I've come around on his potential. I think he has received undue criticism for things like his music interest. When you spend your off season working out with potential HOFers and refer to them as Mr. Soandso, I see a work ethic and respect. He has shown flashes of what he can do, followed by fades. Ugly fades at times. Let us consider what he has flashed, and those fades, and just examine his 2018 season as a microcosm of his career thus far. His first half of 2018 at Chatanooga was excellent and very worthy of his Rochester promotion. We know ugly the second half was. If he had struggled but still managed to hit .240-.250 in his first taste of AAA would we be judging him so harshly?

Why the second half fades? Does he just take longer to make adjustments than some, and longer than we'd all like? Does his body break down because he's still developing physically and needs more physical maturity? I don't have the answer. I wish I did. We'd all like a top draft choice to be ready NOW! But it doesn't always work that way. Still only 22, athletic, still growing physically, and at the AAA level, I think it's way too early to judge him too harshly.

Let's just assume he needs most of 2019 at Rochester to further develop, in all areas. Maybe he gets a cup of coffee. SS, 2B, really solid utility, let's say he doesn't stick until 2020 at age 24, still gaining experience as a young ML player. His future is still very fluid. I just wouldn't give up on him too quickly until I see what 2019 brings.

  On 2/3/2019 at 1:00 AM, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

It's possible. It's also possible that they are just very conservative with prospects, like the previous FO, and aren't pursuing trade talks like these. Hard to know. I doubt they "ran the numbers" and thought the offer wasn't any good. It's frustrating to me that they aren't playing in this particular trade market. It's my feeling (without any data) that it's ultimately going to be to their detriment to forego opportunities like those.

Great point!

Just my opinion, of course, but my opinion is based on observations of moves the FO HAS made, as well as comments they have made over their time in charge. My opinion is this, broke down in a different points:

1] Possitively "giddy"...and yes, I used the word "giddy"...to be placed in charge of an organization that had SO MUCH TALENT sitting at the ML level, with so much potential to unlock, and some decent milb talent available, it also recognized development and changes needed to be made from the top down, or bottom up, depending on how you look at it. Hence changes in the back office, scouting, milb staff, and now the ML staff.

2] You mention trade opportunities, as have others, and I agree. And while we can lament the trades of both Escobar and Pressly, there was a deliberate attempt to build the milb funnel with talent. Talent for depth and competition, but also maybe for future trades? The FO has made various veiled comments about augmenting the "core" in the future. We can debate at length about FA opportunity, available payroll to do so, sustainability for competition,etc. But are they looking for the ability to trade now, or soon, from positions of depth and strength? I sure hope So!

Despite opinions of ownership being cheap, this new FO has done some things we've never seen before, or rarely seen before. No matter how it turned out, while still trying to build a new system/structure, they made aggressive moves for 2018 to build off of the 2017 season. They also ate contract money to gain prospects. They even traded away some "free money" in the form of international dollars to add prospects.

Again, the debate about ownership being cheap. We can debate, and I will argue WITH most anyone they could have, and should have, done even more than they did! But instead of just "pocketing" all the Mauer and Santana and 1yr contract money, they HAVE forked out some payroll on some interesting options.

But back to the original idea:

Top down or down up, the organization is being re-built. I don't believe, like TR, this new FO is being conservative with moves or with prospects. In fact, I think they are being aggressive with their moves, even though I don't like all the moves they are making. (Perez makes me shudder still). I think they are being very deliberate in building the system, from management to coaching to the talent depth. I don't like the whole "Sano and Buxton or else" philosophy. But I kind of get it. I think they are trying to build the entire system. And I feel the trade aspect will come around mid season if the guys on hand just perform anything close to expected.

So many people in this thread I want to quote.  DocBauer, I view you as a solid sage on each thread that emits from TD.  I'm glad someone brought up the Gerritt Cole proposition.  I remember it as, Gordon, Tyler Jay, and Gonsalves.  Should've, could've, and stop regretting.  Geez he was good this year though...

Gonsalves haters, Stephen Gonsalves has eventually owned every level he's been at.  I stress eventually.  He doesn't ever come up and "wow" everyone.  He is a product of his work ethic.  He has figured out every level w/below stunning "stuff".  I, for one, am excited for what Gonsalves has yet to show.  He'll figure it out.

Gordon is 22.  I'm over his "prospectusness".  As is many of people w/any AAA player, unless they tear it up right away.  Now it's just wait and see.  Let's give this kid a chance.  Dozier was the most recent guy to move from SS to 2B.  That didn't happen overnight, but it worked out pretty well.

Jeffers comes off as more self-confident guy than Rortvedt.  Rightfully so, if you like that type.  I really like Rortvedt, after much criticism of his bat, but I like him as I like Drew Butera.  Jeffers has the potential to be an A.J. Pierzynski, not as likeable, but likeable because he produces.

The Pirates got an MLB starting pitcher, MLB starting 3rd baseman, MLB reliever, and decent prospect for Cole. The alleged Twins price didn't compare to that at all, which really makes it hard to believe. 

In general, most posters dramatically, comically overrate the trade value of Twins prospects. The whole 'why don't the Twins trade away X, Y, Z for awesome MLB players' is an exercise totally divorced from reality. The players that fans want are not available in exchange for B-level prospects. Other MLB teams are not interested in giving away MLB assets for the likes of Brent Rooker. 

It is very rare to have a "surplus" of high-level prospects . . . certainly a trade would make sense in that scenario, but I can't think of a single time it applied to the Twins, and it doesn't now either. 

  On 2/3/2019 at 4:50 PM, Mike Sixel said:

Not one time in history it was appropriate to trade prospects for MLB players? Or did I not read that right?

That is not what I meant at all. Trading prospects for MLB players frequently makes sense. But a lot of posters here articulate highly unrealistic strategies and scenarios; the main conceit being that, if the Twins were just smarter, they could convert low-value minor leaguers into quality major leaguers.