Twins Daily Top Prospects: #3 Nick Gordon

Big fan of Thrylos. Sometimes gives pretty good info and observations. Sometimes he's probably a bit too biased towards his own opinions but he clearly loves baseball and provides a heck of a lot more to this site than I do.

It is going to be a fun year for the Twins middle infield future. Dozier is in the last year of his contract. We'll see if Polanco can keep hitting and improve on his defense. Nick Gordon will be at AAA. A lot to figure out just with those three, then you add in Lewis and Javier down the line.

IMO so far the only two prospects in the top 10 that I would worry about trading and coming back to really haunt us is Javier and Graterol and possibly Enlow but that is probably 5 years away.

I think a few will be decent to good in the majors.

I

 

 

I'd love to hear baseball-based counter arguments about the value of Gordon or whether the above is accurate or not based on data.   Saying BA said so, or KL said so, are not baseball-based...

You DO realize, don't you, that most of us here rely on credentialed experts like BA, Sickles, KLAW, Fangraphs, Mayo, and others BECAUSE their opinions are based on data and and their opinions are ENTIRELY baseball-based and objective? The icing on the cake is that some of these very authentic experts also talk to other expert observers and even personally observe prospects.

The opinions offered by the true experts on Gordon are a bit more wide-ranging than with most prospects, but it appears that your own point of view is occupying a territory of its own.

A little thought experiment. Forget where Gordon was drafted and about his brother's career. Would he still be as highly regarded? 

I think he would be a little lower ranked but everybody would be higher on him. Meaning a fourth round pick that has moved this fast and played in AFL would have everybody excited and would be hoping that this is the year he really turns it on to be considered a real top prospect and if he didn't they/we would be saying we got a real good utility infielder or at least a real good prospect until Lewis gets here.

 

The opinions offered by the true experts on Gordon are a bit more wide-ranging than with most prospects, but it appears that your own point of view is occupying a territory of its own.

But so what?  In this case Thrylos could be right.  Gordon has some red-flags that get missed due to his past rankings and draft position.  From what we hear, his D is not a strength.  His bat has been consistently not great. His lack of power is a concern.  He doesn't steal bases very well.  He doesn't seem to have the best bat control.  And He has never had an over .800 OPS.  

It could be he improves - he made some interesting strides last year especially to start the year.  But Thrylos has a point here.  Nothing in Gordon's past performance indicates he will be anything but a spot starter with no pop.

But so what?  In this case Thrylos could be right.  Gordon has some red-flags that get missed due to his past rankings and draft position.  From what we hear, his D is not a strength.  His bat has been consistently not great. His lack of power is a concern.  He doesn't steal bases very well.  He doesn't seem to have the best bat control.  And He has never had an over .800 OPS.  

 

It could be he improves - he made some interesting strides last year especially to start the year.  But Thrylos has a point here.  Nothing in Gordon's past performance indicates he will be anything but a spot starter with no pop.

Exactly what red flags have the pros missed?

You, like thrylos, are entitled to your own opinions of course, and as always, they're welcome here. I will say that I completely disagree with your statement that "nothing in Gordon's past performance indicates he will be anything but a spot starter with no pop." A ton of evaluators are examining Gordon's past performance and concluding something different than this.

You did a good job in your comment of reciting all the areas of concern that have been commonly expressed. There's nothing new in either yours or thrylos's assessments in this regard. There's nothing at all wrong with holding a minority opinion, but my post had mostly to do with this odd notion that what the pros are saying isn't based on data and baseball-based, thereby calling what they say into question.

I think the response to your question is that the pros don't point to anything Gordon has done on the baseball diamond as the evidence for his relatively high rankings. Instead, they frequently project physical tools that don't actually exist yet. Almost every prospect write-up about Gordon involves saying something along the lines of "Gordon should fill out and gain strength, which will provide more pop at the plate and allow him to make it through a full season without wearing down."

 

While I don't doubt their expertise about the physiological development of players, it certainly is an inexact science at best to guess exactly how a 21-year-old will put on weight and strength, and how that will impact their overall athleticism and quickness. You can make some educated guesses based on their frame and maybe looking at their parents/siblings. But a big part of mental makeup, which is hard for scouts to really figure out. And another big part is his biological makeup, which is basically unknowable.

 

I think everyone would agree that in his current physical form, Nick Gordon will not be even an average major leaguer. He needs to add strength. He needs to add endurance. And he needs to add both without loosing the athleticism that allows him to play shortstop effectively. That is an added risk that I think frequently gets down played by the professional analysts.

Yes, when reading the write-ups, most pros articulate the red flag related to his physical state, and yes, pretty much all of them assume he gets his man muscles as he matures. I have yet to see a minority viewpoint, meaning a viewpoint that predicts a utility man outcome, where they cite this as the factor. They cite all of the other red flags that the pros also cite, and it's fine that they come to their own conclusions about Gordon. The pros express doubts and cite risks. I certainly don't see lots of conclusions that Gordon is on a certain path to be a utility guy, or that his comp id Pero Florimon and Lombo, do you?

Again, what I was trying to get to was expressing disdain for the opinions of the pros because they aren't data-driven or baseball-based, whatever that means, as if one's own lofty opinion is somehow more factual or something, especially when the opinion has been accompanied by more nebulous negatives.

Gordon has a good chance of failure, and I think the pro evaluators rank him highly because they think he has a chance to overcome his current deficiencies and not because of other things, klike draft position and pedigree.

Gordon, to me, is no higher than a 5. Maybe a 6. It honestly seems preposterous to put him higher than Gonsalves. 

1. Romero

2. Lewis

3. Gonsalves

4. Rooker

5. Kirilloff

6. Gordon 

7. Javier

Makes sense to me.

A guy who cannot hit left-handed pitching for the life of him is a no. 2 or 3 prospect? Yikes.

I think you are really underselling Royce Lewis then. He's got a really good chance of being an outright superstar, IMO.

Sorry I meant the top 10 that we have seen so far, I think Lewis is one of those prospects that have a really, really good chance of being a good major league regular.

Wasn't straight up.  Was D'Arnaud + Syndergaard.  I'd still do that trade.

 I'm technologically challenged, and therefore can't figure out how to post the screenshot, but on August 11, 2015, in a thread called "Offseason Mock Trades", you expressly said "I'd trade Buxton for D'Arnaud straight up though".