Gleeman's Top 40 Twins Prospects Countdown

[Seth Stohs]

This morning, Aaron Gleeman began his countdown of his Top 40 Minnesota Twins Prospects. As we have done before, we can keep updating this thread as he continues down his list:

 

 

Prospects 36-40

Prospects 31-35

Prospects 26-30

Prospects 21-25

Prospects 16-20

Prospects 11-15

Prospects 6-10

Prospects 1-5

 

Feel free to discuss as he updates throughout the next few weeks. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

How could we sign Lachlan Wells, but not his twin brother for the same amount?  Talk about a cool story!

[clutterheart]

I didn't even know he still had his blog

[Seth Stohs]

 

  On 2/5/2016 at 4:39 PM, spycake said:

How could we sign Lachlan Wells, but not his twin brother for the same amount?  Talk about a cool story!

 

His brother signed about a year later... probably not the same level of prospect... though when they're 16 and 17, there's a long way for both of them to go.

 

There are, however, a lot of similarities between Lachlan Wells and Lewis Thorpe, at least in terms of background, international competition, success in the GCL, leaving early to go play in a World Cup, growing quite a bit between signing and that GCL season. Difference, Thorpe jumped to 'touching 95" whereas Wells jumped to "touching 91." 

[mikelink45]

Gleeman had Alex Meyer ranked 4 and Tyler Duffery #31 in 2015.  These rankings are fun because they create conversation, but for accuracy they might not be your first reference.  The top three were a given and the rest is a crap shoot, but enjoyable.  I love the analysis because it does add to our knowledge and recognition of the names as they pass through the system. 

[bird]

I have high regard for Gleeman's analysis. One thing I appreciate is his consistent inclusion of content about a prospect's shortcomings, at least statistically speaking. He tends to avoid the temptation to be "first to market" by ranking obscure prospects who are still down in the DR or GCL. He doesn't pretend to have a scout's eye. He understands how little can be gleaned from a handful of stats from the short-season leagues. This adds to his credibility.  TD's prospect handbook and Gleeman's rankings are the go-to lists for me.

 

IIRC, Gleeman tends to plug a few what he calls "quasi-prospects" into the very back end of his list. Last year it was Pryor, Oliveros, and Darnell. This year it's Dean, O'Rourke, and Palki. Always interesting to see how many of these bottom-dwellers actually find a way to at least get a cup of coffee with the big club.

 

 

 

 

[whosafraidofluigirussolo]

 

  On 2/5/2016 at 5:43 PM, mikelink45 said:

Gleeman had Alex Meyer ranked 4 and Tyler Duffery #31 in 2015.  These rankings are fun because they create conversation, but for accuracy they might not be your first reference.  The top three were a given and the rest is a crap shoot, but enjoyable.  I love the analysis because it does add to our knowledge and recognition of the names as they pass through the system. 

 

How differently would someone else have done it? It's hard to call it a question of accuracy when performances from year to year cause a lot of volatility in any ranking. Meyer ranked way higher across the board before his rough 2015 season. Duffey, I don't remember as much about, but he upped his stock a bunch last year.

[Seth Stohs]

 

  On 2/5/2016 at 5:43 PM, mikelink45 said:

Gleeman had Alex Meyer ranked 4 and Tyler Duffery #31 in 2015.  These rankings are fun because they create conversation, but for accuracy they might not be your first reference.  The top three were a given and the rest is a crap shoot, but enjoyable.  I love the analysis because it does add to our knowledge and recognition of the names as they pass through the system. 

 

What would be your first reference, because we all had Meyer ranked in the top 4-6 a year ago coming into the season. Jeremy and I had Duffey in the 13-16 range, but most didn't have him in their top 30s. Jeremy and I also had our fair share of misses.

 

As you point out, these lists are always fun, but they should be taken for what they are... Guesses, and we all like to think Educated guesses with our own twists and biases. 

 

As you point out, knowledge and recognition of names is the best part about them.

[Mike Sixel]

They aren't "guesses", they are hypotheses, based on data. They also aren't invalid because they are wrong sometimes. Such bad logic......

[mikelink45]

 

  On 2/5/2016 at 7:20 PM, whosafraidofluigirussolo said:

How differently would someone else have done it? It's hard to call it a question of accuracy when performances from year to year cause a lot of volatility in any ranking. Meyer ranked way higher across the board before his rough 2015 season. Duffey, I don't remember as much about, but he upped his stock a bunch last year.

That's my point - these are fun, but the variables of personality, health, and opportunity are beyond prediction.  I wanted Meyer to be on the roster last year - that was a mistake.  But my want was based on all the ratings since I really  know nothing about the individual.  

 

My comment was not a criticism, but hopefully a perspective for when we are demanding action on rookies.  Which I still do - I want Buxton to start - for example. 

[mikelink45]

 

  On 2/5/2016 at 7:44 PM, Seth Stohs said:

What would be your first reference, because we all had Meyer ranked in the top 4-6 a year ago coming into the season. Jeremy and I had Duffey in the 13-16 range, but most didn't have him in their top 30s. Jeremy and I also had our fair share of misses.

 

As you point out, these lists are always fun, but they should be taken for what they are... Guesses, and we all like to think Educated guesses with our own twists and biases. 

 

As you point out, knowledge and recognition of names is the best part about them.

Thanks for the note = you get my point, it is not criticism, but rather a perspective on the fun of making predictions about one of the most difficult aspects of baseball.  If we were able to look at the player and know how they would develop the drafts would be a lot more accurate and productive.  A lot of players who seem to lack some talent surpass those who seem to have everything.

Then factor in age, distraction, maturity, injury, opportunity, and coaching and we have an amazing complexity that can not be solved with analytics.  Ask the Browns how they feel about using their scouting to draft Manziel in round one!   

Keep predicting, ranking, and writing.  I love it.

[Thrylos]

 

  On 2/7/2016 at 8:14 PM, mikelink45 said:

 

 

 Ask the Browns how they feel about using their scouting to draft Manziel in round one!   

 

 

At least the Padres drafted him in the 28th round; not impossible to see him in AZ for ST with them one of these years

 

There were more red flags about Manziel pre-draft, than there are around the Kremlin... 

 

 

[Thrylos]

Always fun to see these lists.  One of the things that Gleeman does differently than most of the others who make prospect lists is that the risk factor is pretty important to him when constructing those, thus you will see some low risk but low ceiling picks ranked higher than in other lists.   That's why you see Lachlan Wells being that low and O'Rourke even appearing in a list...

 

 

Great to look at all points of view.  I think that they are all valuable in examining the Twins' system.

[Bob Sacamento]

I've become somewhat of a baseball podcast connoisseur due to my hour ride back and forth each way/each day and I heard Gleeman on either Fangraphs or Effectively Wild (BP) and really loved his banter and insight, all while finding myself agreeing with him often.  Since then I've listened to a few of a recent of his Gleeman and the Geek podcasts, and am quite entertained even with Bonnes' homerish views.  

[Han Joelo]

I have always enjoyed Gleeman, if you can call it that.  Maybe appreciate or respect is better.  He's a sharp mind and a good writer.  Don't always agree with him, but I try to keep my horizons broad.  My days started with Seth Stohs and Aaron Gleeman for quite a while there.

 

He's barely even trying to hold back his disdain for this group of prospects.  And he probably isn't wrong, unfortunately.  

[DaveW]

 

  On 2/7/2016 at 8:14 PM, mikelink45 said:

Ask the Browns how they feel about using their scouting to draft Manziel in round one!   

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24555689/jimmy-haslam-says-homeless-man-convinced-him-to-draft-manziel

 

Sometimes you pick the wrong hobo to take advice from. Happens all the time to me!

 

  Quote

 

"Here in Cleveland, every where I go people know me," Paolantonio reported Haslam said. "And I was out to dinner recently and a homeless person was out on the street, looked up at me and said 'Draft Manziel.'"

 

[DaveW]

 

 

  On 2/8/2016 at 5:16 AM, Han Joelo said:

I have always enjoyed Gleeman, if you can call it that.  Maybe appreciate or respect is better.  He's a sharp mind and a good writer.  Don't always agree with him, but I try to keep my horizons broad.  My days started with Seth Stohs and Aaron Gleeman for quite a while there.

 

He's barely even trying to hold back his disdain for this group of prospects.  And he probably isn't wrong, unfortunately.  

IMO I think Gleeman does a great job on the prospect lists, a lot of us to a fault (myself included) like to views prospects in the best case scenario/ceiling etc, Gleeman is able to provide an accurate analysis that also factors in a players warts as well. I think "disdain" is the wrong word, realistic is the more accurate word IMO. The hard truth is, the majority of the top 40 prospects in this system, or any system will never make any real "mark" on a major league team. (i.e never post more than 1.0 WAR in a season or 3.0 WAR in a career) so it's nice to read some realistic projections for some guys (i.e. Dean, who while he may make a major league roster someday, probably won't contribute at anything more than a replacement level type for more than a year or two)

 

I think Seth does a great job as well overall, his lists/projections tend to be a bit more "rosy" then Gleemans, but I think that comes from him:

1. Knowing a lot of the players personally

2. Just the nature of his writing/optimist about the players in general.

 

Neither method is "right or wrong", and when you combine a combination of both, I think you get a very good overall picture of the Twins top prospects and what we can/can't expect out of them. Other than them two, I really don't care how other "lists" are ranked other than KLaw and BA.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

  On 2/8/2016 at 8:42 PM, DaveW said:

IMO I think Gleeman does a great job on the prospect lists, a lot of us to a fault (myself included) like to views prospects in the best case scenario/ceiling etc, Gleeman is able to provide an accurate analysis that also factors in a players warts as well. I think "disdain" is the wrong word, realistic is the more accurate word IMO. The hard truth is, the majority of the top 40 prospects in this system, or any system will never make any real "mark" on a major league team. (i.e never post more than 1.0 WAR in a season or 3.0 WAR in a career) so it's nice to read some realistic projections for some guys (i.e. Dean, who while he may make a major league roster someday, probably won't contribute at anything more than a replacement level type for more than a year or two)

 

I think Seth does a great job as well overall, his lists/projections tend to be a bit more "rosy" then Gleemans, but I think that comes from him:

1. Knowing a lot of the players personally

2. Just the nature of his writing/optimist about the players in general.

 

Neither method is "right or wrong", and when you combine a combination of both, I think you get a very good overall picture of the Twins top prospects and what we can/can't expect out of them. Other than them two, I really don't care how other "lists" are ranked other than KLaw and BA.

 

Well said Dave.

[Seth Stohs]

Updated to include Part 2, Prospects 31-35.

[DaveW]

 

  On 2/10/2016 at 2:26 PM, Seth Stohs said:

Updated to include Part 2, Prospects 31-35.

Harrison's slide has been disappointing, at one point he looked like a nice potential future 3rd baseman for this org, now he is barely hanging on (but as pointed out, he still is young) but needs 20+ HR power to develop sooner rather than later IMO.

 

I worry that they are eventually going to give Turner a backup catcher role in the majors no matter what his offensive (lack of) output is. I mean we aren't talking Drew Butera bad, but they need to aim higher for a guy who will get 150  at bats or so in a season (at a sub .600 OPS as things are shaping up) Garver at least has shone some pop.

[DocBauer]

Garver seems the better of the two catching prospects, IMO. But to give Turner some leeway, he was asked to skip an entire level a couple seasons ago. And each of the last two seasons, he has performed better in the second halves, indicating growth. Further, is SO numbers aren't horrible and his BB numbers not bad. Does this scream offensive juggernaut? No. But it does speak of potential.

[Seth Stohs]

 

  On 2/11/2016 at 3:06 AM, DocBauer said:

Garver seems the better of the two catching prospects, IMO. But to give Turner some leeway, he was asked to skip an entire level a couple seasons ago. And each of the last two seasons, he has performed better in the second halves, indicating growth. Further, is SO numbers aren't horrible and his BB numbers not bad. Does this scream offensive juggernaut? No. But it does speak of potential.

 

Turner completely skipped the Midwest League and he is a year younger than Garver. 

 

I really would like to see them both start in Chattanooga and play every other game working with all the pitchers. They can each DH from time to time to get more at bats, but at this point I'd like to see them playing at the same level. I also think that it would be good for Turner to get to repeat for a half season. He played a bit better in the second half again in 2015. Maybe he can take some strides.

[Thrylos]

 

  On 2/11/2016 at 2:38 AM, DaveW said:

I worry that they are eventually going to give Turner a backup catcher role in the majors no matter what his offensive (lack of) output is. I mean we aren't talking Drew Butera bad, but they need to aim higher for a guy who will get 150  at bats or so in a season (at a sub .600 OPS as things are shaping up) Garver at least has shone some pop.

 

Totally agree with Garver being (a much) better prospect than Turner at this point.  They are pretty close defensively as well.   Also, there is another thing to consider: The best defensive Catcher in the organization, closer to the majors, is John Hicks who is better defensively and with the stick than Turner.  Rainis Silva is the best receiver in the organization by far, but still is 19 and trying to figure that hitting thing out in the low minors.  If there is one who might get the node to the majors, in sprite of the light bat, it will be Silva and not Turner.   I see Turner as 5th or 6th in the current depth chart (readiness not prospect) for the Twins.

[clutterheart]

 

  On 2/11/2016 at 5:59 PM, Thrylos said:

  They are pretty close defensively as well.   

 

What?

 

Statements like this...All reports I have seen have raved about Turner's D and for Garver the comment is "He has work to do" and "he might have the bat to switch positions"

 

Turner's bat is a liability that might keep him out of the majors and  Garver might put in the work to become better defensively than Brian Harper.  But to say Turner and Garver are "close defensively" is like saying Andrelton Simmons and Brian Dozier’s SS defense is close.

[Seth Stohs]

Original Post updated to include Part 3: Prospects 26-30. 

[Seth Stohs]

 

  On 2/12/2016 at 2:09 PM, clutterheart said:

What?

 

Statements like this...All reports I have seen have raved about Turner's D and for Garver the comment is "He has work to do" and "he might have the bat to switch positions"

 

Turner's bat is a liability that might keep him out of the majors and  Garver might put in the work to become better defensively than Brian Harper.  But to say Turner and Garver are "close defensively" is like saying Andrelton Simmons and Brian Dozier’s SS defense is close.

 

Turner is the better defensively catcher, but Mitch Garver has improved a ton, works really well with pitches, throws out base stealers and is very smart. 

[gunnarthor]

I have to agree that Ryan Eades has been an incredibly disappointing pick for us - and he was a Boras client at that.  

 

I remember thinking at the time that if we drafting a Boras guy, we must be pretty certain that he'd be good. 

[Thrylos]

 

  On 2/12/2016 at 2:09 PM, clutterheart said:

What?

 

Statements like this...All reports I have seen have raved about Turner's D and for Garver the comment is "He has work to do" and "he might have the bat to switch positions"

 

Turner's bat is a liability that might keep him out of the majors and  Garver might put in the work to become better defensively than Brian Harper.  But to say Turner and Garver are "close defensively" is like saying Andrelton Simmons and Brian Dozier’s SS defense is close.

 

Data:

 

2015 @C

Garver: 671.3 Inn, .993 Fld%, 6 PB, 38% CS, 61 Assists
Turner: 824.4 Inn, .992 Fld%, 4 PB, 39% CS, 65 Assists

 

Pretty darn close, Turner slightly better in PBs, Garver in Assists (got to factor innings and chances for those 2), the rest identical practically.

 

That's what the facts say. 

 

I know that there are suburban legends, eyeballs, gut feelings, bias, promotions, favorites etc... suggesting otherwise, but I tend to pay more attention to facts.

 

 

[Seth Stohs]

I really like the inclusion of Luke Bard in Part 3 (#26)... He just missed my Top 30, but in the Prospect Handbook, I labeled him a Sleeper for 2016. He's missed so much time, but he's got such good stuff, and that velocity was definitely back late in the year. He could move quickly. 

[Thrylos]

 

  On 2/12/2016 at 3:01 PM, Seth Stohs said:

I really like the inclusion of Luke Bard in Part 3 (#26)... He just missed my Top 30, but in the Prospect Handbook, I labeled him a Sleeper for 2016. He's missed so much time, but he's got such good stuff, and that velocity was definitely back late in the year. He could move quickly. 

 

I thought about Bard and really have to see him pitch this Spring and see him do well in Fort Myers or Chattanooga to regard him as a prospect.  And not because of 2015 (which was a good season, albeit not great; still less than a K an inning and 2.99 FIP, facing much younger competition.)  His 2012 and 2013 scare me and he has to prove a bit more that he can still find the plate, before I consider him as a prospect.  Huge leap of faith from Gleeman on this one, which is kind of the opposite that he usually does, because Bard is very high risk...