PDA

View Full Version : Article: Twins MLB Draft Profile: Braden Shipley, RHP



Cody Christie
05-28-2013, 08:50 PM
You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?r=1791-Twins-MLB-Draft-Profile-Brandon-Shipley-RHP

mike wants wins
05-28-2013, 09:27 PM
Only the Twins would take that many years for a college arm to make the majors from the 4th overall pick. KLAW and others who have worked in real baseball have ripped them for putting college pitchers at such low levels, it isn't just me. BTW, how's that working? How many good pitchers have they developed in the last 10 years?

I'd be ok with this pick, but start him in A ball this year, not rookie ball. Why take him over Stewart?

Brad Swanson
05-28-2013, 09:32 PM
Great profile! I'm not opposed to Shipley for the Twins, but the fact that he needs more development than the average college pitcher does take some of the shine off of him. I'd prefer Stewart and possibly even Ball, but Shipley looks promising too. This "weak" draft might end up being stronger than everyone thinks.

nicksaviking
05-28-2013, 09:46 PM
Agree with Mike. A collegiate pitcher picked number four overall has no business in Rookie League. Probably not even low A. To me it seems guys who have yet to develop a change up have the most development time, that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Still, if the Twins agree with the above time table and development issues, there really is no reason not to draft Stewart instead.

birdwatcher
05-28-2013, 10:14 PM
mike, you DO realize that this is Cody's estimated timetable, don't you? It's amazing that you automatically go into your standard nitpicking mode. So predictable.

birdwatcher
05-28-2013, 10:18 PM
mike, remind us about where Gibson started his time in the minors. He was the 22nd pick, right? I'm sure you believe that only the Twins would have started him in high A ball, whereas every other organization, because they're well-run and know what they're doing, would have placed Gibson in AA ball.

Seth Stohs
05-28-2013, 11:44 PM
Yeah, if there's any chance that he takes that long to get to the big leagues, just take Stewart and give him that time table. I think he would report to Ft. Myers after signing. They would likely have him work 2-3 games out of the bullpen in E-Town before pushing him to Cedar Rapids. I'd have no problem with him spending the rest of the summer with the Kernels since he is more raw. The fact that he's only pitched for a couple of years would cause me to be a little more conservative this year. But no matter what, I think he starts 2014 in Ft. Myers and spends a half year there before moving up to New Britain. Like other top pitchers taken, he would then get a spring training invite in 2015 and be up sometime during the middle of that season.

This is, of course, assuming he stays healthy. I have a concern about guys that play a lot of an offensive position in college. I just think that they have a higher injury risk. I think I'd prefer Stanek to this guy. Velocity isn't everything.

Seth Stohs
05-28-2013, 11:47 PM
The Twins have highly-drafted college pitchers fly through the lower levels.

Matt Garza went to ETown for a little bit to keep his innings down after signing, but he went from Ft. Myers to New Britain to Rochester to the Twins in his first full season.

Kevin Slowey went two levels. Duensing moved quickly. Logan Darnell got to AA in a hurry. Alex Wimmers was about to move quickly. Kyle Gibson went from Ft. Myers to Rochester. It's a myth that the Twins don't promote top pitching prospects up pretty quickly.

Shipley sounds more raw than even Alex Meyer. The Nationals started Meyer in Low A and only got him 9 starts in High A. The Twins pushed him to New Britain this spring.

gunnarthor
05-29-2013, 12:02 AM
How many good pitchers have they developed in the last 10 years?
12? 13? Liriano, Boof, Baker, Garza, Slowey, Blackburn, Duensing, Crain, Neshek, Perkins, Diamond, Mijares, Guerrier. All those guys had at least one 2 WAR year.

Wanklenuts
05-29-2013, 06:28 AM
Seth, why are you concerned about college position players being more injury prone? I kind of like the fact that his arm should have less wear on it than someone who has been pitching through high school and college. I'm really intrigued by Shipley especially since he hasn't been pitching for very long. Since he has only pitched 1 year, there should be a lot of room for improvement. And with his fastball-change up combination, his absolute floor should be solid reliever. I know that isn't what you want from the number 4 pick, but I like that better than the floor of Stewart, which is probably AA. Not that I don't like Stewart, but Shipley seems like he has a higher floor with a probably slightly lower ceiling.

birdwatcher
05-29-2013, 08:07 AM
12? 13? Liriano, Boof, Baker, Garza, Slowey, Blackburn, Duensing, Crain, Neshek, Perkins, Diamond, Mijares, Guerrier. All those guys had at least one 2 WAR year.

mike wants wins presents the same rhetorical question all the time. He never refutes this answer. He either ignores it or rejects it.

AJ Pierzynski was a product of the farm system who was exchanged for Nathan and Santana, but of course, these guys don't count in the eyes of mike wants wins because it would render his argument completely mute.

mike wants wins
05-29-2013, 08:14 AM
Liriano, Boof - not drafted. Sorry, should have read "drafted and developed" and "starting pitchers".....that's the issue for this team, they have no starting pitching. Blackburn was good for 2 years, that's not enough. Slowey was an odd case to me. I still think he is better than what he showed here. Garza, no idea why they traded him. I count 2, Baker and Garza that were good for any period of time. That's not enough, not when you need 5, and you will not sign good free agents.

It just isn't.

Btw, looks like Seth mostly agrees with me on the timeline.....

As for Garza starting down low, that was a different time, with a totally different signing deadline. Also, note that Gibson was the 22nd pick, not 4th pick. Big difference. Also, they are holding Gibson back now, even though he is clearly ready, and clearly one of the 5 best pitchers in the organization. Pretty sure I did not say start Gibson in AA, did I? I said that it should not take that long for a college pitcher to come up tot he majors, moving one level at a time. IF that is his likely path, then he's at least as raw as Stewart, and Stewart is more advanced and younger, take Stewart.

And, as I pointed out KLAW and others who have actually worked in FOs have not been complimentary of the Twins approach to college pitchers.

But, you are right, this is someone's path that does not work for the Twins, so it is certainly possible they would draft Shipley and move him faster. Seth is right, when they have a good college pitcher, they do tend to move him faster than any other type of player they draft. So I stand corrected on that statement.

nicksaviking
05-29-2013, 08:26 AM
12? 13? Liriano, Boof, Baker, Garza, Slowey, Blackburn, Duensing, Crain, Neshek, Perkins, Diamond, Mijares, Guerrier. All those guys had at least one 2 WAR year.


mike wants wins presents the same rhetorical question all the time. He never refutes this answer. He either ignores it or rejects it.

AJ Pierzynski was a product of the farm system who was exchanged for Nathan and Santana, but of course, these guys don't count in the eyes of mike wants wins because it would render his argument completely mute.

Well not to get in the middle of anything, but none of the guys Gunnar listed had sustained success at the top of the Twins rotation. Perhaps you could argue Garza would have, though if he is actually a #1 or #2 may be debatable. Ryan nailed Santana as a great Rule V pick but he's the only ace caliber pitcher the Twins have had sustained success with since Frank Viola.

If you refuse to pay an ace in free agency, you need to need to find them in the draft or through trades. This club has not been doing that. Mike may be incorrect as there have been some good pitchers developed, however this team is lacking great pitchers and you need those to win championships.

mike wants wins
05-29-2013, 08:28 AM
mike wants wins presents the same rhetorical question all the time. He never refutes this answer. He either ignores it or rejects it.

AJ Pierzynski was a product of the farm system who was exchanged for Nathan and Santana, but of course, these guys don't count in the eyes of mike wants wins because it would render his argument completely mute.


Not true at all.......I usually say "drafted and developed" I left that off this time. Sorry. Look, if they are so good at it, name the starting pitcher on the roster this year they drafted? Name the good one on last year's roster they drafted. Explain why they have the worst ERA they've ever had the last two years. Explain why they felt the need to trade two starting OFers this year for pitchers.

Blackburn had a very limited run of effectiveness. To me, he's a failure of the system, but I guess if a guy is good for 2-3 year, that's good enough.

Liriano and Boof were traded for, not drafted.

Garza and Baker are successes to me, though they strangely traded one, and the other was hurt.

Duensing, Crain, Neshek, Perkins, Mijares, Guerrier are relievers, or ineffective starters.

Diamond was a trade also. And, I'd say the jury is still out on him.

So, in review, they have zero starting pitchers on the roster this year they drafted, or even traded for and developed. They had no good pitchers last year on the roster they drafted (though the Baker thing is the killer there). This year and last are two of the worst years in starting pitching history.

Fangraph WAR rankings for starting pitching for the Twins:
2013: 3rd worst in the AL (thanks for swiching leagues, Hous), 25th overall
2012: last in all of MLB
2011: 5th worst in AL, 19th overall, with 1/4th of the WAR coming from Pavano, not drafted or developed by MN

So, how am I wrong, that they are bad at developing pitchers, given the results the last three years? And, they have 1 guy in the minors that looks ready for next year right now for sure. Meyer and May might be, might. But neither is tearing up AA right now, and both came over with question marks (most online experts stating that May is a future reliever). So, what is the likelihood they are much better next year, from internally drafted and developed players?

mike wants wins
05-29-2013, 08:31 AM
It's not empty rhetoric to me, maybe you all draw a different conclusion from the last three years, and the likely internally driven results next year for starting pitching. But to me, this is bad, very, very bad.

gunnarthor
05-29-2013, 09:28 AM
Liriano, Boof - not drafted. Sorry, should have read "drafted and developed" and "starting pitchers".....that's the issue for this team, they have no starting pitching. Blackburn was good for 2 years, that's not enough. Slowey was an odd case to me. I still think he is better than what he showed here. Garza, no idea why they traded him. I count 2, Baker and Garza that were good for any period of time. That's not enough, not when you need 5, and you will not sign good free agents.



Why does it have to be either drafted or signed by free agency? Their are many ways to acquire good starting pitching, as the Twins have shown. Ignoring trades, waiver claims and rule V pick ups to then make the claim that the Twins can't create a good rotation ignores the reality of how baseball teams are made and ignores the reality that, during most of 2000s, the Twins strength was pitching behind a strong rotation and great bullpen. How those arms were acquired showed that Ryan knew how to create a rotation. He is doing those same things now.

And why are we now expecting that the rotation has to be 5 guys who are sustainable for at least 3 years or longer? Starting pitchers break down all the time. A few years ago it looked like Atlanta was going to have a rotation built around Tommy Hanson and Jair Jurrjens. The two combined for 2 200ip seasons.

Ryan was able to build a good rotation behind Santana (rule v) and Radke (drafted) by plugging in guys like Milton (Knoblauch trade), Mays (Roberto Kelly trade), Lohse (part of the Aguilera trade), Silva (Milton trade), Liriano (AJ trade), Boof (AJ trade), Baker (drafted), Slowey (drafted), Perkins (drafted), Garza (drafted), Blackburn (drafted), Duensing (drafted) etc. That's what he's trying to do now.

mike wants wins
05-29-2013, 09:32 AM
How's it worked the last three years, or looking next year? I provided a ton of data about the outcomes the last three years, of his approach.

It is cool with me to disagree, but claiming I use rhetoric w/o data is not fair at all.

gunnarthor
05-29-2013, 09:44 AM
Ryan nailed Santana as a great Rule V pick but he's the only ace caliber pitcher the Twins have had sustained success with since Frank Viola.

Radke was a better pitcher than Viola.

nicksaviking
05-29-2013, 09:50 AM
Radke was a better pitcher than Viola.

Well then I can change my stance to Santana was the only ace caliber pitcher the Twins had sustained success with since Bert Blyleven in the 1970's because while I loved Brad Radke, he was no ace.

fairweather
05-29-2013, 10:01 AM
Couple other things 1) Even when Blackburn was "good" he allowed more hits than any other pitcher in the league. So should he be counted? 2) What's wrong with a little rhetoric and banter? The pitchers have to be acquired via FA or draft because the Twins have shown a irrational and continued reluctance to pay for strike outs on any level. They don't draft the power arms because they demand to be paid above slot. They don't sign strike out pitchers because they demand long contracts. Ultimately they're saying that they want the used Honda Civics of the pitching world but they want us fans to pay new Cadillac prices for their product. Sure it's nice that the Twins seem to be one of the better teams in the league at finding the hidden gems through the rule 5 and waiver wire but the only reason they concentrate so hard on that stuff is because it's cheap. Maybe if they put that much time and effort into figuring out which power arm that is going to want to be paid over slot is actually worth gambling on the team would be going in a better direction, but NO that would be spending time figuring out a way to spend money rather than throwing another few million in old Pohlads money bin.

diehardtwinsfan
05-29-2013, 10:27 AM
Ignoring trades when looking at the Twins success with pitching is like Terry Ryan ignoring free agency when filling holes... It matters. The Twins have shown quite a bit of success of finding good pitching prospects in other systems.

What they haven't done of late is develop an ace, and they are hardly alone in that. Of course picking late in the first round for most of the decade is part of the reason, as is the fact that they've spent most of their high picks in recent memory on position players.

mike wants wins
05-29-2013, 10:33 AM
St. Louis has had no problem sustaining their success.....heck Wacha is up from last year's draft.

Fine, I wont' ignore trades, let's look at the last three years and next year......how's that looking?

gunnarthor
05-29-2013, 10:36 AM
Well then I can change my stance to Santana was the only ace caliber pitcher the Twins had sustained success with since Bert Blyleven in the 1970's because while I loved Brad Radke, he was no ace.

How often does one get ace caliber if that's the comps? Santana and Blyleven were both HOF talents. I'm not sure how many teams develop guys at that level and none do so with any frequency. I don't think Radke is at their level but he certainly pitched better than many other pitchers commonly referred to as "aces."

Pitcher A 12 years 126-95, 3.94 era (117 ERA+), 1800+ip, 35.7 WAR (best season 6.2)
Pitcher B 12 years 148-139, 4.22 era (113 ERA+), 2400+ip, 45.6 WAR (best season 6.5)
Pitcher C 11 years 131-98, 4.07 era (108 ERA+), 1900+ip, 25.4 WAR (best season 6.3)
Pitcher D 13 years 132-100, 3.94 era (111 ERA+), 1900+ip, 33.6 WAR (best season 6.5)
Pitcher E 14 years 163-135, 3.94 era (108 ERA+), 2400+ip, 35.9 WAR (best season 7.2)
Pitcher F 16 years 176-1244, 4.04 era (112 ERA+) 2400+ip, 40.6 WAR (best season 5.1)

A, E and F all won a Cy Young award. 5 signed large contracts over 16m/season with large market teams. And Radke had a better career than all of them by WAR (although A is still pitching and could end up with higher career WAR).

cmb0252
05-29-2013, 11:33 AM
Keith Law's present and future grades for Zimmer and Shipley head to head

Zimmer:
Fastball- 60/60
Fastball movement-45/45
Command-40/50
Control-45/55
Curve ball-55/65
Change-40/50

Shipley:
Fastball-60/70
Fastball movement-45/45
Command-40/50
Control-45/55
Curve ball-50/60
Change up-65/65

Looking at those numbers it would look like Shipley is the better overall short stop converted to pitcher prospect. But wait! Let's look at Jonathan Mayo's present/future grades for Shipley.

Shipley:
Fastball-60/70
Control-40/60
Curve ball-40/50
Change up-40/50

Those numbers are pretty different and make Zimmer look like a better prospect. Now let's look at BA's future grades for Zimmer.

Zimmer:
Fastball-70
Command-65
Control-65
Curve ball-65
Change up-55

Once again we see very different numbers which can alter what you think of the two. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of either guy but I see the upside. They both profile as #2s if they reach their ceiling but unlike most college pitchers are both pretty raw. If Shipley gives the Twins a massive discount and they use the saved money on high end talent later I guess I would be fine with it even though I prefer Stewart.

mike wants wins
05-29-2013, 12:12 PM
I agree with that, but it's so risky......

nicksaviking
05-29-2013, 12:34 PM
How often does one get ace caliber if that's the comps? Santana and Blyleven were both HOF talents. I'm not sure how many teams develop guys at that level and none do so with any frequency. I don't think Radke is at their level but he certainly pitched better than many other pitchers commonly referred to as "aces."


Ok, ace is hard to define so lets make it simpler, how many times have the Twins had a pitcher who could be considered a top 15 starter in the league? With 30 teams, the Twins should have a guy like this every other year, yet they don't. It shouldn't be hard if the odds are 50/50. Santana certainly qualified, he was a top 15 pitcher multiple times. But why is this consistancy so terrible to expect of our GM? We could expand the peramiters to the top 20 pitchers, even top 30 and we would all too often be coming up empty.

Santana is the only Twins starter in 40 years to have made more than one All-Star game. That is not acceptable.

birdwatcher
05-29-2013, 01:04 PM
mike, you asked the same rhetorical question you have many times in the past: "how many [starting] pitchers have the Twins developed in the past ten years."

As usual, someone provided you with an answer. And then your standard "I never said" backtracking begins. And I doubt you will ever acknowledge that trading an asset they drafted and developed for a starter counts for anything.

But let's back up and see if you can accept a couple of very well-proven premises:

1. A team is lucky to get three eventual players out of any given draft. Do you disagree with this premise?

2. A team that is drafting in the lower third of the draft order is even luckier to get three eventual players out of a given draft. Isn't this logical?

3. There are generally no sure-fire aces available to teams picking after the first half-dozen picks. For example, there may only be three "sure-fire" aces in this draft, maybe two. So, when a team drafts an ace in the lower rounds, you pretty much have to chalk it up to serendipity, otherwise that ace would have been selected in the first few picks.

4. Last, please tell us the name of a team who has never had poor results in the draft.

So, mike, you can decide that, over the last ten years, that the Twins have had abysmal results and try to prove that by beckoning us to review this year's roster, but that's a specious argument, and I think you know it.

On balance, I'd say the Twins have had a slightly less than acceptable record when it comes to drafting and developing starting pitcher, or through trading assets they HAVE successfully drafted and developed for starting pitching. They've probably been no better than average at it. Part of that is could be due to their bias toward refinement versus velocity over the years, I don't know. But Bromberg won the SO title two years running before injury claimed him.

So, before passing such harsh judgment, it makes sense to be open to both the failures, whether through judgment or injury (see Rainville, Fox, Waldrop, et al), and the sucesses, such as (recent history) Baker, Garza, et al.

Remember, mike wants wins, it was less than two years ago that you were lamenting that the Twins had virtually nothing in the way of a farm system. Here comes the "I never said" refrain, but you did say they had nothing in their system to help the team in the next three years. You rejected the argument that we had some talent closer to being ready, guys like Hicks, Arcia, Parmelee, Dozier, Gibson, Hendriks. They may not be much, but they aren't the "nothing" you portrayed them to be.

And likewise, your portrayal of the Twins as crappy drafters and as failures at promoting talent is simply inaccurate.

mike wants wins
05-29-2013, 01:21 PM
Straw man to ask for a team that has never failed in a draft, I've never asked for them not to fail. I expect some, even a lot, of failure. You can call this what you want, but I've never, ever asked for that. heck, in 2004, they had 5 first round picks, 5!

It is true, the farm system is vastly improved in the last few years, and I've acknowledged that over and over on these boards. I've said repeatedly, over and over, that Smith did a great job in international free agency, for example.

How is it inaccurate? Look at the record the last three years. Look at the number of starters that were drafted that are effective players. Mauer and Morneau and some relief pitchers. Dozier is not effective, though he's a much better 2B than SS, I agree. Plouffe, jury still out. LF and RF are not draftees. SS is not a draftee. Not one starting pitcher is a draftee.

They are about to lose 90+ games for a third year in a row. I guess my standard of success at being good at drafting and developing players would not result in that kind of record.

I've also, again you don't like this, never asked for an ACE. I've asked for a series of number 2/3 types. I think Gibson fits that mould, which is why I think he should be up right now, and I complimented them for that pick at the time, and have since as well. Diamond might or might not fit that mould, he didn't the first year or this year so far, while looking like one last year.

I have also acknowledged, just today on the 2004 draft thread, that injuries have really hurt this team's pitching.

But, now we are just arguing past each other. I've laid out my thoughts on this thread several times.

1. The team is going to lose 90+ games for three years in a row.
2. Very few players have come up from the minors in the last few years and been good and consistently good for more than a year or two.
3. The starters are historically bad (for the Twins) and were last in the all of the majors last year.
4. I have offered an example (St. Louis) of a team that manages to keep drafting and having success, despite winning in the majors also. If that's not enough, I apologize.
5. They traded two starting OFers, with no certain replacements on hand, which I think is Ryan acknowledging they had not drafted well lately, and that they needed to give up valuable assets to get some. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think he and others from the Twins FO have said they've failed to draft and develop starters lately.
6. I'm done with the back and forth, people don't generally find this entertaining to read.

I'm sorry that it apparently upsets you so much, that I think they have not been successful in developing talent. But when I look at who has come up in the last five years, and I look at the results at the MLB level, I reach a conclusion that they have not been good at drafting and developing players. If you reach a different conclusion, that's your right.

TwinsFanInPhilly
05-29-2013, 01:48 PM
Hey Mike - KLAW and others really means only KLAW, right?

mike wants wins
05-29-2013, 01:52 PM
No, I've read one other person, I think on CBS but it might be the other guy on ESPN, state that they don't understand why the Twins start experienced college pitchers in rookie ball. But I could not name the other guy, but I know I've read it from more than one person.

birdwatcher
05-29-2013, 02:09 PM
Wow, mike. Whatever works. Ten years, last year, a few years, five years, three years. You got it covered.

1. You Could look at it THIS way: for the third year in a row, the record will improve. And the team IS improving slowly.

2. Everyone concedes the systen went through a drought, but it takes players about 1500 MLB AB's to scratch the ceiling, so not acknowledging the new guys "in the last few years" is bogus. How are Arcia, Hicks, Parmelee and others supposed to meet your challenge of being "consistently good for more than a year or two" when they're in their first or second year. You're being unreasonable, maybe a bit obtuse.

3. Yes. The pitchers sucked last year. Every one of them: Liriano, Baker, Marquis, Pavano, and Blackburn all sucked last year. This has nothing to do with your point.

4. St. Louis. That's your evidence? No others? You SHOULD apologize, my friend.

5. Ryan has acknowledged the poor results. This is different than acknowledging the kind of ineptitude you suggest constantly. To his credit, he also has admitted that they've made mistakes and need to get better. I don't know what more we could ask of him.

So you're right, mike, we'll keep arguing past each other, because you refuse to consider the evidence others point to, which is perhaps the third best farm system in baseball. And you will insist that the facts and data you supplied above is some kind of proof that they are really bad at drafting and developing starting pitching. You used to always include a list of every position of weakness on the current roster as evidence of their ineptitude. I applaud you for being fairer than you used to be.

gunnarthor
05-29-2013, 08:30 PM
Ok, ace is hard to define so lets make it simpler, how many times have the Twins had a pitcher who could be considered a top 15 starter in the league? With 30 teams, the Twins should have a guy like this every other year, yet they don't. It shouldn't be hard if the odds are 50/50. Santana certainly qualified, he was a top 15 pitcher multiple times. But why is this consistancy so terrible to expect of our GM? We could expand the peramiters to the top 20 pitchers, even top 30 and we would all too often be coming up empty.

Santana is the only Twins starter in 40 years to have made more than one All-Star game. That is not acceptable.

Yeah, I think you make a good point here. I'm not sure if all-star games are really that important since it's not always the best pitchers. But the Twins have had a few pretty good pitchers but I agree they haven't really had one with sustained success since Santana and Radke left. (Radke was in the top of WAR 6x. I honestly think he qualifies). Hopefully Meyer and Gibson can both turn into solid front end types soon.

diehardtwinsfan
05-29-2013, 08:43 PM
I'd be careful with the definition of surefire ace. There are maybe 15 of them in MLB right now. We won't adding 3 to 5 more to that list through this draft. If history is an indication, it will be 1... the question is which of the pitchers in this draft is gold, and which are fools gold.

Badsmerf
05-29-2013, 09:07 PM
We've had the Ace pitcher discussion already. The Twins love affair with toolsy HS OF has put them out of the potential to draft an Ace. Garza was the last draftee that had that potential. He has yet to grow up and overcome the mental part of the game, but the talent is still there. You don't always have to be at the top of the draft to get an Ace, it certainly helps, but you pretty much HAVE to draft them in the 1st round, especially in the last 10 years. This is why I am against the Twins drafting a position player so much this season. To get top of the rotation talent, you have to draft them in the 1st.

cmb0252
05-29-2013, 10:32 PM
We've had the Ace pitcher discussion already. The Twins love affair with toolsy HS OF has put them out of the potential to draft an Ace. Garza was the last draftee that had that potential. He has yet to grow up and overcome the mental part of the game, but the talent is still there. You don't always have to be at the top of the draft to get an Ace, it certainly helps, but you pretty much HAVE to draft them in the 1st round, especially in the last 10 years. This is why I am against the Twins drafting a position player so much this season. To get top of the rotation talent, you have to draft them in the 1st.

Getting any top level talent typically results from taking someone in the first round. Ace or position player. Just because we want an ace at 4 doesn't mean there is one there. I wanted to win the lottery when it was close to 600 million but that didn't happen. Scouts make a board and then the front office picks who is the best player. Does it always work? Heck no. That's why you have to hold your scouts responsible.

Badsmerf
05-30-2013, 12:31 PM
Getting any top level talent typically results from taking someone in the first round. Ace or position player. Just because we want an ace at 4 doesn't mean there is one there. I wanted to win the lottery when it was close to 600 million but that didn't happen. Scouts make a board and then the front office picks who is the best player. Does it always work? Heck no. That's why you have to hold your scouts responsible.
Maybe not the true definition of an Ace, but every draft has pitchers that become top of the rotation guys. To think only Appel and Gray will become these types of guys is naive. The key is being able to identify it. An argument can be made making that distinction is tricky. However, you can't win if you don't play. To draft an Ace, it has to be done in the 1st round. I'd rather have a chance at getting "that" guy than refuse to be in the mix by drafting a position player.