markos

More than you might think. I'm defining 'big fastball' as 'sits 95+, touches 98+', with a touch less for lefties. So I don't consider Wright as having a big fastball either. But over the past 10 years, it is a pretty easy way (at least with my fuzzy, potentially self-selecting memory of past scouting reports) to put Rodon, Hoffman, Appel, Gray, Gausman, Cole, Harvey, Strasburg and Price in one group, and Tate, Jay, Fulmer, Nola, Freeland, Zimmer, Heaney, Hultzen, Bauer, Pomeranz, Minor, Leake, and Matusz in another.

If you look at the past 15 years or so, the college guys drafted in the top 15 picks that actually became legit front-of-the-rotation starters all come out of college with big fastballs: Cole, Harvey, Sale, Strasburg, Price, Lincecum, Scherzer, Verlander, Prior. The only exception to this is possibly Jered Weaver. There is also a pretty long list of polished lefties with good-but-not-elite stuff that didn't amount to much in the majors: Sowers, Romero, Detwiler, Matusz, Minor, Bradley, Hultzen, Heaney. If you want to find exceptions to this, you really need to go all the way back to the 1990s when the A's selected Zito and Mulder. Maybe there is something about McKay that makes him unique in this regard, but I think there is a lot of historical evidence that pitchers like McKay will struggle.

If he keeps hitting like he has been so far this year, I tend to agree with you.

I get what you're saying, but the way Gordon has been hitting this year, he might be a top-25 prospect right now. In fact, if Gordon was a college junior and had a 1.200 OPS in the SEC (which is roughly what his current 153 wRC+ in AA would translate to), I think he would be the no doubt 1-1 pick ahead of McKay.

I remembered this very differently. From what I read about Stewart prior to his draft, I got the sense that he already had a very good slider. For example, from BA's profile: "Stewart has boosted his fastball from 88-93 mph last summer to 91-96 for much of the spring, though his velocity tails off at times in the later innings. His life and command with his heater make it even more dominating, but his best offering is a power mid-80s slider with tilt. He has improved his curveball and shows feel for his changeup, and he’ll display four above-average big league pitches at times." http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/2013-mlb-draft-first-round-analysis/#mGrdQtTsISop5ugp.97 And Keith Law's scouting report: "He hit 96 mph and sat 92-94 consistently, showing a plus slider at 85-88, a hard curveball at 79-82, and even a few changeups at 83-84 with decent arm speed. He drives the fastball down in the zone, with hard-boring life in on right-handers The slider is the knockout pitch right now, breaking very hard and late down and away from right-handed batters." http://www.espn.com/blog/mlb-draft/insider/post?id=31 If Kohl Stewart is a cautionary example for selecting Greene, I would argue that Stewart is a good example of how excellent natural athleticism doesn't always translate into command/control.

Seth, great summary! Thanks for putting this all together and adding all the links. Huge day for the franchise. I'm looking forward to all the discussion here.

How much does this matter for a 17-year-old? As a counterpoint, here is a writeup (paraphrased) from a Baseball America draft profile of another 17-year-old pitcher a few years back: "The knock on X is the lack of a true secondary pitch. He pitches off his best weapon, a 92-94 mph fastball that has been up to 97 this spring. It has late life and finish. He has tried multiple grips and shapes with his breaking ball, and at times it has flashed a fringe-average pitch that has tilt and late snap at 81 mph. He doesn't repeat his release point well. His changeup is a below-average pitch that should improve when and if he throws it more often. Because of his size, athleticism and velocity, X is a surefire first-rounder." That was the writeup for Madison Bumgarner. http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/draft/rankings/?rank=draft&year=2007 Bumgarner was in the big leagues two years after being drafted, and he has had an above-average slider and average curve. As another datapoint, Clayton Kershaw definitely had a curveball going into the draft, but it wasn't so good at draft time to compel Baseball America to include him when listing the top HS tools in the draft. He had Best Fastball, but wasn't even listed for Best Breaking Ball, Best Command, or Closest To Majors. http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/draft/best-tools/2006/261350.html So for me, I don't think it is necessary for a HS kid, particularly an uber-athletic 17-year-old, to have an above-average breaking ball already developed. You quoted Verducci as saying “[o]rganizations have learned that if someone does not show an aptitude to spin a baseball as an amateur, it’s foolish to expect him to acquire the skill.” My question: Does Greene show the aptitude and he is just missing consistency? My biggest concern about Greene isn't his breaking ball (or lack there of) but his lack of innings. While a player's stuff is probably the main component that will determine if a kid becomes an elite big league starter, durability should not be discounted. It is less so now than past eras, but you still need to make 30 starts and throw 180+ innings over 6 months. And we have next to zero information about how Greene's arm will hold up under that kind of work load. While still not a perfect demonstration, at least McKay and Wright have both shown the ability to manage a college schedule without much trouble.

A lot depends on what you think of Santana going forward. If they keep him and his results start to match his peripherals, then the Twins are in an even worse hole. His K% is almost a career low, his BB% and HR/FB rates are at near career highs, and he is going to be 35 next year. I don't have a lot of confidence that his BABIP magic will continue. It certainly seems possible, perhaps even probable, that the Twins can take the (up to) $41M he is owed over the next three years and use that money on an equivalently good free agent pitcher. I don't think it is at all crazy to think that FA pitcher + prospect(s) > Santana for 2018-2019 for the equivalent amount of money.

There are prospects that are high upside and "major league ready" that still may not be much help to a team fighting for the playoffs. In the Twins system, think about a guy like Romero. He is obviously high-upside and pretty close to the majors. But at this point there are still real questions about his durabily and he is probably on an innings limit this year due to past injuries. Lots of teams have prospects in the upper minors that they are currently planning on shutting down at the end of the minor league season. Think about what the Twins did with Berrios in 2015. With the Astros as an example, I can see how they might be reluctant to count on either Paulino (just 100 innings last year) or Martes (just 125) to provide innings for them in September and October, and how they might entertain the idea of trading one of them for Santana.

I was thinking the exact same thing. The math still works out in the Twins favor regardless of who they pick at 1-1. No matter who the Twins select at 1-1, they will save SOME money from the first bonus pool. No player has yet signed for the full slot amount - in fact, no player has signed for more that $7M yet. The Twins have $7.7M, so I have to think they will save at least $700K, if not $1M. Further, if they are willing to pay the tax on going over by 5%, they can add another $700K of wiggle room. Pick #35 has a slot of $1.9M. So without playing ANY underslot games at 1-1, they can offer $3.5M at #35. Pick #37 has a slot of $1.8M, so if they have a cheap sign lined up there (say for $1M), then they can offer $4M+ at #35. So I think they can promise to every player in your second tier (roughly ranked #5-#15) $4M at #35. If one slides to #35, great! If not, then they can just start selecting highest upside available at every single pick. I don't know how closely anyone looked at the Padres last draft, but they spread their money around a lot, as they ended up giving out 7-figure bonuses to six picks last year despite only have 4 picks allocated that amount, In addition, they gave out two above-slot bonuses to players outside the first 10 rounds.

Worse than that. Technically 7 teams have 2 picks before the Twins pick again at #35. Reds: #2, #32 Rays: #4, #31 A's: #6, #33 Brewers: #9, #34 Blue Jays: #22, #28 Rangers: #26, #29 Cubs: #27, #30 Personally, I think the Rangers and Cubs should not be underrated in this scenario. They are both very aggressive, creative organizations. If a top HS pitcher (say Baz) is dropping, I could easily see one of them picking him despite the high bonus demands. And they can still put together $4M+ for a signing bonus if they are creative with later picks and are also willing to pay the tax.

It will be interesting to see how long he is able to maintain his .450 BABIP.

When comparing to Yelich or Piscotty, it's worth remembering that HRs and RBIs are way more valuable in arbitration, so it isn't crazy to think that Sano's arbitration baseline should be higher.

Yet MLB revenue and payroll has been skyrocketing during that time. I bet if you ranked that $7M increase over the past five years against the rest of the league, the Twins are probably in the bottom-5. Here are some payroll increases between 2011 and 2016 for mid-to-small market teams that should be comparable to the Twins: STL +$40M COL +$20M KC +$100M Bal +$60M Sea +$55M Pit +$50M Cle +$40M SD +$50M Oak +$15M TB +$20M

I think it is mostly true that the Twins are among the least creative. Sure, the Twins haven't signed every single draftee exactly at slot since 2012. But neither has any other team. So you need to judge the Twins based on the other teams. Yes, they signed Benninghoff to a big-ish deal, but half the teams in baseball have signed at least one post-10th-round pick for similar money since 2012. That isn't a difference maker. Looking just at last year, Benninghoff was the only guy they signed for more than the 100K limit after round 10. Many other teams selected and signed multiple such players. The Dodgers alone signed 4. Going back further, since the current bonus pool structure started in 2012, the Twins have only signed 3 players total for more than the $100K limit after the 10th round. The only teams with the same or fewer such signings are the Orioles, Mariners and Rockies. Every other team has more. The Cardinals, Mets and Pirates all have signed 10 or more. And the Orioles and Mariners at least have the excuse that they have been winning and signing FAs, so their overall bonus pools have been much, much lower. Twins need to be judged based on opportunity. Since 2012, they have benefited by having some of the largest bonus pools and multiple extra picks. Yet I can count on one hand the number of "creative" moves that they have done over the past five drafts. So I think it is completely fair to say they are among the least creative teams in baseball.

Frankly, I don't think there is enough evidence to say that he is any different from the guy from last year. Maybe he should be put into a higher-leverage role. But he is succeeding right now because he hasn't given up a home run yet and has a .208 BABIP against. Both of those things are going to change. He has only faced 33 batters. His K% and BB% are "better", but we are only talking about a difference of 1 SO and 1 BB from what his rates from last year would predict. He isn't getting significantly more swinging strikes than last year, and his swinging strike rate of 10% would barely put him in the top-100 relievers from last year. His velocity is only up a little bit, and he has never been a high velocity guy. Even in college he was 88-92 out of the bullpen. There aren't many elite relievers that average <93 MPH. I think it is just too early to conclude anything about Duffey right now. Let's see how he is doing around Memorial Day.

Maybe the odds are so small that it doesn't matter, but Greene's odds of succeeding as a hitter are meaningful - they are certainly not zero unlike other top HS pitchers (think Tyler Kolek). And his odds of providing at least some value are significantly increased since he plays an up-the-middle position. Allie is a good example. If Allie was a plus SS (which supposedly is Greene's potential at SS) instead of a corner outfield/1B guy, his career .741 OPS in AA is probably enough to get him a look in the big leagues.

I see your point, but I think the "commitment" to defense is primarily seen with the fact that Grossman hasn't played an inning in the outfield yet. It is obviously a small sample so far (and we will probably never know for sure) but I would argue that a "bat-first" lineup against lefties would have Grossman in left, Escobar at 3rd, and Sano DHing. A lineup decision like that would be defensible against lefties, and better offensively. Instead, both Kepler and Rosario have started all 3 games against lefties, which at some level is prioritizing defense over offense. I think that is meaningful (and the right decision).

Assuming everyone adheres to a strict 5-man rotation over the course of the month, the Twins will end up missing Verlander, Carrasco and Hamels. They will face Quintana twice, and Darvish, Duffy, Salazar each once. Rodon is currently on the DL. Overall, probably an average slate considering the teams, but definitely could be worse. Royals (Twins rotation number on bottom) 1,2,3,2,3,4 // Duffy only once 1,2,3,3,4,5 White Sox 4,5,1,5,1,2 // Rodon on DL. Get Quintana twice 4,5,1,5,1,2, Tigers 3,4,5,2,3,4 // miss verlander 2,3,4,2,3,4 Rangers 5,1,2 // miss Hamels (currently #3) in rotation 5,1,2 Indians 3,4,5,1 // miss Carrasco 3,4,5,1

Both PECOTA and KATOH have found that using height improves the accuracy of their projections.

Steamer .224 .303 .374 ZiPS .221 .299 .374 PECOTA .239 .313 .405 I'm a little worried overall about Castro. There are enough warning signs with his profile (particular the increasing amount of Ks) that it wouldn't be shocking to see his offensive output crater. Therefore, I'm tentatively going to take the under on a .675 OPS.

I'm not sure his strategy of "give up a lot of flyballs in a ballpark that suppresses right-handed power" is going to play in Minnesota.

I'm very skeptical. The only thing that Santiago has going for him is his ERA, and that is clearly helped out by pitching in Anaheim (one of the top-5 pitcher parks, particularly against RHHs) in front of one of the best defenses (3rd in UZR from 2014-2016). And despite ballpark advantage, he STILL had a home run problem - one of the 5-10 worst pichers at HR/9 from 2014-2016. I think home runs will be a real problem for him this year.

Santiago will have positive regression if he is allowed pitch in Anaheim's ballpark and in front of their defense. I mean, he had home run issues in Anaheim. I think a sub-5.00 ERA from him is unlikely.

I don't think it is appealing to "luck" to use to fWAR in this case. Santiago has benefitted in the last three seasons from pitching in one of the best pitching parks in all of baseball (definitely top-5) and in front of one of the best defenses in all of baseball (4th by UZR from 2014-2016). Gibson has not had those same benefits, particularly in the case of defense where the Twins have been terrible (2nd worst by UZR in the same timeframe). There is an ERA gap between Santiago and Gibson, but it isn't huge. KG HS 2014 4.47 3.75 2015 3.84 3.59 2016 5.07 4.70 It works out to only 5-10 runs a season. Personally, I think the defensive and stadium differences are more than enough to explain Santiago's ERA advantage. Even bWAR has Gibson ahead over the past 3 seasons, 5.8 bWAR to 3.2 bWAR, because it recognizes that Gibson has faced harder opponents, in worse ballparks, and with worse defenses behind him.