jimmer

I think a lot of those times an interviewer comes up and asks a young player about a veteran player's contribution for a story or some part of a story they are doing about the veteran and what are the young players going to say? We've seen Hunter get in fights with players in the dugout, is that leadership? Some seem to think so. I don't think it is and when a guy like Hunter takes on a guy like Pujols, I definitely question it. I think Hunter TALKS a good game. He definitely loves the spotlight. He likes to do things old timers view as leadership. Whether it is actual leadership or not is debatable. As far as what those young guys really think about the veteran is anyone's guess. I doubt the young guy is going to say, 'Nah, I don't really get much from Hunter, except how to NOT do a press conference.'

FYI, that info you can't find at B-Ref is available at Fangraphs.

I don't think that's fair to Parker. He doesn't strike me as the kind of writer who says this is what I think/want to say and now I'm going to go cherry pick info to fit my narrative. He doesn't strike me as a person whose goal is to paint this team in a bad light. I think he decided to look at the draft years that he felt should have the most affect on our current roster and see how our first round picks, the ones believed to be the most impactful draft picks, faired production-wise against those of other teams. What I have seen in here is that some posters have an idea that the picture painted by the results is unfairly dire, that there's a bunch of reasons/excuses for why it's so dire, and are planning to do their own study in order to prove that. Seems those would fit more along the lines of what you're saying Parker did, which was come to conclusion and then do a study for the sole purpose of proving that conclusion.

For me, it'd be preferable to keep IFs in the IF and OFs in the OF.

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.

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.

How close are you talking? Within 10 OPS points? Or are you going by wRC+ or what?

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 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.

Exactly, we don't know how much development played a part in underwhelming results. Or, for that matter, we don't know how much drafting players based on a team philosophical way of doing things and/or grooming them to meet a certain philosophical way, specifically in regards to pitching, played a part in the underwhelming results. Some may not even feel that was an issue at all.

Today, Dave Cameron of Fangraphs was asked which team out there will take the longest to make the playoffs going forward and his answer was 'maybe the Twins.' In a followup he explained why he said the Twins : 'Prospects fail at a very high rate. Without a front office that can succeed at building a roster around the few that don’t fail, or a really high payroll to allow them to just spend their way back into contention, it’s going to be a while for the Twins.' But then he went on to say that In-N-Out is the most overrated food in the country. So, really, grains of salt here :-)

probably, though had we already developed a big history of doing that by the time the Trout draft came along? We might be getting a look at him right about now at the major league level too :-)

Who knows what would have happened if we had passed on Gibson all together and got the OF from Millville HS :-)

A miracle :-)

They have to bring Cuddy and Morny back in 2017.:-)

I must have misunderstood the criteria. Morny, Cuddy and Mr Hunter are all still playing, one of them with the team. Good to know Mauer might make the Twins HOF cut :-)

Radke is. I noticed no Mauer in your list.

oh yeah, I get that. I miss Span a lot. I was just saying I don't really miss Revere, though we must be fair and say he's provided okay value over the last three years . We're still waiting for the value we traded for both.

yeah, I don't like or use B-Ref WAR. IMO, Fangraphs is better. I also don't think it was a bad trade for us.

I'm not a big fan of Revere, nor do I bemoan the loss of him, but to be fair, he's averaged 2 WAR over the last 3 years.

BTW, and sorry not to say this earlier, but I overall loved the article. I liked the tidbit about Dozier coming over and chatting with you, and just the overall firsthand info you gave on the awards banquet in general. Thanks for that.

'Listening to that speech, it’s clear that Hunter will be a very good leader for this organization. I know many, especially those who solely look at the numbers (and sometimes I’m guilty of that too), but the other things do matter.' How many people solely look at numbers? I don't think that people have to just look at numbers to be down on him. They could just watch how far his defense has fallen the last two years with their own eyes and then say, 'he's about to be 40, so he isn't likely to be any better. ' One might see that with the really bad OF defense we've had lately, getting him was a bad move. In fact, IMO, one SHOULD see that I'm also not sure if being loud and getting in people's faces means he's a good leader. When things get bad, it will be interesting to see how he is, because he has a rep for picking some of the most talented players on his team, ones getting more press than him, and getting in their faces when things go bad. Also, let's make sure the rest of the team doesn't follow his lead on how to do press conferences. I think it was a very bad signing from a competitive standpoint, a move to put behinds in the seats for a team still. at best, a couple years away from being in contention.

I like that umpires go to the HOF. They are part of the on-field action and the top notch ones should be recognized as such. I believe there are like 10 or so in, so it's not a big group. If anything, not enough get in. I find it hard to believe that only two or three umpires who umped during my lifetime are worthy of being in.

no, I get that, but you don't think he'll wonder how many of those guys in front of him are actually better than he believes he is? He could be naive enough to believe it's all about who is better. And I doubt anyone sees it happening to start the season.

question is, how many of those guys in the line in front of him will actually be better than it looks like he will be? He's not ever 21 yet, yet he dabble in AAA already. Probably be another 2-3 seasons before he actually competes for a regular spot in the rotation.