Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

The Store

Recent Blogs

Photo

2013 Draft: The Mocks

  • Please log in to reply
170 replies to this topic

#1 cmb0252

cmb0252

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,758 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 11:24 AM

Let's get one thing straight, mocks are for the fans. No matter how much analysis there is there is no way anyone is going to get things 100% right. Heck, if you get things 20% right you have done a pretty good job.

Look at the Astros last year. They had the #1 pick and had months to figure out who they wanted but didn't decide till the last day who they were taking. Not only did most mocks have them taking Appel but even on draft day there were reports, obviously false ones, that said Appel and the Astros had reached agreement.

Why do we care about them then? Obviously because we are fans and they are fun! OK, other than just being fun they gives at least a little in site into what might happen. While specific picks might be different usually the area where the player is chosen is pretty close and this is especially true in high picks. Which by now you should know the Twins have. Oh and did I mention they are fun?

With a month to go there are going to be a ton of mocks coming out and I figured its better to keep them in one place than flood the forums. I will keep the latest mocks and links up to date. Also, I will only be posting mocks that have been posted in May seeing anything else is already out of date.

Without further a do the mocks:

Christopher Crawford:
May 29th mock: Pick Stewart
http://mlbdraftinsid...ck-volume-vi-2/

Bleacher Report
May 26th mock: Rosebaum Pick Stewart. Wells Pick Stewart
http://bleacherrepor...ojection-battle

Another one from Bleacher Report:
May 28th: Pick Stewart
http://bleacherrepor...-in-first-round

Crawfish Boxes:
May 27th mock: Pick Stewart
http://www.crawfishb...mock-draft-v2-0

Scout.com:
May 27th: pick Stewart
http://sbb.scout.com/2/1294726.html

Baseball America:
May 24th: Pick Stewart
http://www.baseballa...mock-draft-2-0/

Sports illustrated:
May 30th: Pick Frazier
http://sportsillustr...el-dave-perkin/

John Sickels:
May 16th: Stewart
http://www.minorleag...-sickels-may-16

Law:
May 30th: Stewart
http://insider.espn....-2013-mlb-draft

Mayo:
May 30th: Stewart
http://mlb.mlb.com/n...ws_mlb&c_id=mlb

(Also, if you find a credible one I haven't post please post it and I will add it)

Edited by cmb0252, 30 May 2013 - 11:22 PM.


#2 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Moderators
  • 9 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 11:53 AM

My take: if the Twins do choose an outfielder at #4, the trade winds will immediately start blowing. Can't trade the pick within the first year, but someone else big could go for pitching help. It's possible the Twins have such a trade already lined up, and are waiting until after the draft just because you never know who might drop from the top 3. Of course, making such a trade will be a risk until the draft pick proves himself a little; but then taking a pitcher with that pick is also a risk. No getting around that #4 is big-risk big-reward.

#3 cmb0252

cmb0252

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,758 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 12:14 PM

Added the Bleacher Report mock. It has two picks so that's why there are two names!

#4 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,898 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 07 May 2013 - 12:19 PM

My take: if the Twins do choose an outfielder at #4, the trade winds will immediately start blowing. Can't trade the pick within the first year, but someone else big could go for pitching help. It's possible the Twins have such a trade already lined up, and are waiting until after the draft just because you never know who might drop from the top 3. Of course, making such a trade will be a risk until the draft pick proves himself a little; but then taking a pitcher with that pick is also a risk. No getting around that #4 is big-risk big-reward.


It just doesn't work this way. They will pick the player they want - almost certainly the top prospect on their board.

#5 cmb0252

cmb0252

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,758 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 12:34 PM

Added Crawfish Boxes (Astros equivalent to TwinkieTown) first mock. While this was not done by experts but fans its validity could be in question. The reason I added it was because as stated above these are for fun, they actually did a really good job, but mostly because of the user comments. It was interesting to read how Astro fan view the draft. While most want Appel/Gray there are plenty that prefer other players.

#6 Joe A. Preusser

Joe A. Preusser

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 723 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 12:35 PM

It just doesn't work this way. They will pick the player they want - almost certainly the top prospect on their board.


It should work this way. I much prefer the NFL in this regard; treat the pick like the commodity it is and let it be traded if preferred.
That being said, you're right, the Twins will absolutely take the best prospect available with their pick. Any subsequent trades will develop organically.

#7 pioneers3

pioneers3

    Member

  • Members
  • 52 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 12:40 PM

For work last year, we had 30 people do a true Mock Draft of the first 10 rounds...I had the twins. I did select 2 guys the twins took last year in Bard and Chargois. I took Gausman with the #2 pick as I felt the twins were going to go that way. Buxton went #7 to Padres.
Love my God Daughter, Love Baseball, Love Twitter , I Love Golfing.

-I use to think Drinking was bad for me, so I stopped thinking.

#8 Joe A. Preusser

Joe A. Preusser

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 723 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 12:59 PM

Buxton fell to #7? No offense, but that casts a shade of doubt on the quality of your draft right there. Pretty sure Buxton was considered the concenses #1 by all/most in the know.

#9 cmb0252

cmb0252

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,758 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 01:10 PM

Buxton fell to #7? No offense, but that casts a shade of doubt on the quality of your draft right there. Pretty sure Buxton was considered the concenses #1 by all/most in the know.


Appel was considered a lock to go number 1 or 2 last years and he fell. The draft can be a funny thing.

Minorleagueball did a community mock last year and plan to do one again this year. Kind of neat getting a ton of fans of different teams together and see what happens.

#10 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,898 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 07 May 2013 - 01:50 PM

It should work this way. I much prefer the NFL in this regard; treat the pick like the commodity it is and let it be traded if preferred.
That being said, you're right, the Twins will absolutely take the best prospect available with their pick. Any subsequent trades will develop organically.


No argument here.

#11 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Moderators
  • 9 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 02:25 PM

It just doesn't work this way. They will pick the player they want - almost certainly the top prospect on their board.


I fail to see why it "doesn't work" or how what you said is much different than what I said. Pick the player they want, assess the system as a whole after that, then trade if there is significant overweighting in one area.

#12 pioneers3

pioneers3

    Member

  • Members
  • 52 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 02:28 PM

Buxton fell to #7? No offense, but that casts a shade of doubt on the quality of your draft right there. Pretty sure Buxton was considered the concenses #1 by all/most in the know.


Allen Simpson puts out the draft board, he had Buxton #1 overall, he knows what he is doing, some of the guys I work with, fall in love to easily with 1 guy and stick with him, I went with Gausman because I was trying to think like Terry Ryan and a little birdie told me that College Arms were a priority for him...Of the 10 picks, I took 5 college arms, got 2 right!
Love my God Daughter, Love Baseball, Love Twitter , I Love Golfing.

-I use to think Drinking was bad for me, so I stopped thinking.

#13 Willihammer

Willihammer

    ice cream correspondent

  • Members
  • 2,796 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 07 May 2013 - 03:08 PM

Just to be argumentative, I'd argue that drafting the best player isn't necessarily the best move. For a number of reasons, primarily, that MLB players aren't barrels of oil. The market where these "commodities" get traded isn't perfect. Value isn't always clear, and in many cases trade prove to be incredibly lopsided. It might be that a team is better off drafting for need, particularly when you are talking about college players or guys believed to be closer to the majors than younger, riskier high-ceiling talents who play positions where you are already well stocked with young, risky high-ceiling talents.

#14 Joe A. Preusser

Joe A. Preusser

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 723 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 03:45 PM

Just to be argumentative, I'd argue that drafting the best player isn't necessarily the best move. For a number of reasons, primarily, that MLB players aren't barrels of oil. The market where these "commodities" get traded isn't perfect. Value isn't always clear, and in many cases trade prove to be incredibly lopsided. It might be that a team is better off drafting for need, particularly when you are talking about college players or guys believed to be closer to the majors than younger, riskier high-ceiling talents who play positions where you are already well stocked with young, risky high-ceiling talents.


I've always thought that the strategy for drafting should be very similar to going after big name free agents.

About 95% of the time in the draft you should pick the best available in the draft, and only if you are very stocked overall and have a glaring need should you steer the pick into that "need" area and sacrifice some overall talent. Similarly with free agents, I think it makes more sense to build from within 95% of the time, and only when you are a piece or two away from a championship do you take a leap and invest heavy dollars.

#15 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Moderators
  • 9 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 03:56 PM

It might be that a team is better off drafting for need, particularly when you are talking about college players or guys believed to be closer to the majors than younger, riskier high-ceiling talents who play positions where you are already well stocked with young, risky high-ceiling talents.


I didn't see your view as argumentative, in the negative sense; hopefully my response isn't either.

I'm not sure that drafting for need addresses the issue of risk any better than attempting to determine the BPA. Instead, after the first sure-thing picks are gone, you can try to reduce risk by going for a high-floor guy with a lower ceiling. Of course, no science is available to completely remove the risk of a complete bust, as has been seen many times in recent years.

Need versus BPA seems to come out about the same: 1) if the player turns out to be a starter in MLB, you play him and figure out a way to trade away any excess, 2) if the player is a bust, it doesn't matter either way, and 3) if he's somewhere in the middle, you've addressed a "need" with a mediocrity, something that won't especially satisfy.

#16 Willihammer

Willihammer

    ice cream correspondent

  • Members
  • 2,796 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 07 May 2013 - 04:58 PM

About 95% of the time in the draft you should pick the best available in the draft, and only if you are very stocked overall and have a glaring need should you steer the pick into that "need" area and sacrifice some overall talent. Similarly with free agents, I think it makes more sense to build from within 95% of the time, and only when you are a piece or two away from a championship do you take a leap and invest heavy dollars.


To even get to the point where you are just a piece or two away from competing would suggest that your drafts work out such that the BPAs when your number is up are players that fill a deficiency in your farm at that moment. That would have to be some pretty incredible luck of the draw IMO, not to mention luck in hitting in all those positions at an even rate.

When Felix was extended, Dave Cameron wrote a piece about "frictional costs" involved with player transactions. That its sort of a pipe dream to think that teams can just take a talent to market and exchange him for equal value, much less equal value that fills a position of need. Might be that the frictional costs involved with swapping out prospects outweigh any discrepencies in talent between the BPA's and the BPATFAN's (Best Players Available That Fill A Need).

#17 Willihammer

Willihammer

    ice cream correspondent

  • Members
  • 2,796 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 07 May 2013 - 05:06 PM

I'm not sure that drafting for need addresses the issue of risk any better than attempting to determine the BPA. Instead, after the first sure-thing picks are gone, you can try to reduce risk by going for a high-floor guy with a lower ceiling. Of course, no science is available to completely remove the risk of a complete bust, as has been seen many times in recent years.

Need versus BPA seems to come out about the same: 1) if the player turns out to be a starter in MLB, you play him and figure out a way to trade away any excess, 2) if the player is a bust, it doesn't matter either way, and 3) if he's somewhere in the middle, you've addressed a "need" with a mediocrity, something that won't especially satisfy.

Yeah I conflated the two issues a bit. There is obviously a floor-ceiling talent scale against which risk is judged. Need vs. BPA is a different issue, to which I'd say again that there is probably a judgment you have to make that asks "is the BPA so much better than this other guy who could fill an expected need for us, that we're willing to risk whatever the market may or may not have available when the expected need arises? Plus, accounting for whatever transactional costs there are, is he still that good?"

Edited by Willihammer, 07 May 2013 - 05:08 PM.


#18 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,315 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 06:29 PM

Just to be argumentative, I'd argue that drafting the best player isn't necessarily the best move. For a number of reasons, primarily, that MLB players aren't barrels of oil. The market where these "commodities" get traded isn't perfect. Value isn't always clear, and in many cases trade prove to be incredibly lopsided. It might be that a team is better off drafting for need, particularly when you are talking about college players or guys believed to be closer to the majors than younger, riskier high-ceiling talents who play positions where you are already well stocked with young, risky high-ceiling talents.


I would rather have a stud that I didn't need than an average player that I did. Average players can be found in trades, FA and later in the draft. Elite players are impossible to find.

This draft is shaping up as a tier of 2 players at the top and a 2nd tier is only one player deep (Bryant). If he's there then you take him regardless of need. After that it's a toss up. 6-7 guys make a good case at #4 but nobody has really separated themselves from that tier.

Edited by kab21, 07 May 2013 - 06:37 PM.


#19 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,898 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 07 May 2013 - 07:23 PM

I would rather have a stud that I didn't need than an average player that I did. Average players can be found in trades, FA and later in the draft. Elite players are impossible to find.

This draft is shaping up as a tier of 2 players at the top and a 2nd tier is only one player deep (Bryant). If he's there then you take him regardless of need. After that it's a toss up. 6-7 guys make a good case at #4 but nobody has really separated themselves from that tier.


This is becoming my fear as well - it is becoming a three person draft.
Papers...business papers.

#20 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,315 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 07:29 PM

This is becoming my fear as well - it is becoming a three person draft.


My other fear is that BA (I think) put Bryant in the Almora tier of hitters in the last draft. The Twins might have a top pick but they got it in terrible draft.

#21 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,704 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 08:30 AM

Scout.com: MLB Mock Draft v1.0

Scout.com's first mock. Has Twins taking Frazier and Stanek and Manaea falling pretty far. I think Frazier is supposed to be the high power GA outfielder and Meadows is the all around player? I think.

#22 drivlikejehu

drivlikejehu

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 499 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 09:11 AM

Here are the #4 picks from the past 10 years:

Adam Loewen
Tim Stauffer
Jeff Niemann
Ryan Zimmerman
Brad Lincoln
Daniel Moskos
Brian Matusz
Tony Sanchez
Christian Colon
Dylan Bundy
Kevin Gausman

What this says to me is - if you can get a quality Major Leaguer at #4, be happy. Other than Zimmerman, the position players have underachieved, while the pitchers have mostly gotten hurt (too early to say on the ultimate results for the more recent picks).

This is of course not to say there's anything in particular about the #4 spot, but just that the draft is risky in general. I'd probably rather the Twins make an under-slot deal at #4 and build depth later, but if they really like Frazier there's nothing wrong with taking him.

#23 cmb0252

cmb0252

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,758 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 09:18 AM

Scout.com: MLB Mock Draft v1.0

Scout.com's first mock. Has Twins taking Frazier and Stanek and Manaea falling pretty far. I think Frazier is supposed to be the high power GA outfielder and Meadows is the all around player? I think.


Thanks for the link! Updated now.

#24 cmb0252

cmb0252

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,758 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 09:26 AM

Scout.com: MLB Mock Draft v1.0

Scout.com's first mock. Has Twins taking Frazier and Stanek and Manaea falling pretty far. I think Frazier is supposed to be the high power GA outfielder and Meadows is the all around player? I think.


Thanks for the link! Updated now.

And yeah, Meadows is the toolsy one while Frazier profiles as a power hitting COF. I would actually be OK with taking Frazier. Players with his kind of bat speed dont show up often.

Edited by cmb0252, 08 May 2013 - 11:12 AM.


#25 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,704 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 09:49 AM

Thanks for the link! Updated now.

And yeah, Meadows is the toolsy one while Frazier profiles as a power hitting COF. I would actually be OK with taking Frazier. Players with his kind of bat speed to show up often.


I honestly haven't been keeping up to date on the GA outfielders. I'd been so convinced the Twins wouldn't go there but now I'm starting to wonder. The area scout we have is really good and the Twins have shown that they want BPA over need so if they think Frazier (or someone else) is the guy, they'll grab him and worry about pitching later.

#26 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,624 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 09:56 AM

Thanks for the link! Updated now.

And yeah, Meadows is the toolsy one while Frazier profiles as a power hitting COF. I would actually be OK with taking Frazier. Players with his kind of bat speed to show up often.


Though Frazier does seem to be an all-or-nothing slugger. Aside from Jim Thome, he is not in the Twins preferred mold of hitting. I like him more than Meadows but if he ends up being a high K kind of guy, he may never even make it to the big leagues in this organization.

Braden Shipley is growing on me too. He's got to be the number 3 college arm at this time. Keith Law says he has a plus fastball but thinks his changeup will end up being his best pitch. I know that would interest the Twins.

#27 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Moderators
  • 9 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 10:31 AM

Braden Shipley is growing on me too. He's got to be the number 3 college arm at this time. Keith Law says he has a plus fastball but thinks his changeup will end up being his best pitch. I know that would interest the Twins.


Shoot. The one double-header I got down to Reno to see, and Shipley wasn't pitching. I had meant to get down there once more, with him in mind, but I'm heading out of town for a couple of weeks and it ain't gonna happen. TD is going to have to suffer without my in-person scouting report. :whacky028:

#28 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,315 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 11:39 AM

Though Frazier does seem to be an all-or-nothing slugger. Aside from Jim Thome, he is not in the Twins preferred mold of hitting. I like him more than Meadows but if he ends up being a high K kind of guy, he may never even make it to the big leagues in this organization.

Just because he will probably end up in a corner doesn't mean that he's an all or nothing slugger. I think Frazier is fairly athletic and could be part of a good OF defense.

#29 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,624 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 12:03 PM

Just because he will probably end up in a corner doesn't mean that he's an all or nothing slugger. I think Frazier is fairly athletic and could be part of a good OF defense.


I'm not sure where this is coming from, are you replying to a different post or did you assume that I assume all corner outfielders are all-or-nothing sluggers?

Either way, he's a grip it and rip it kind of guy, they tend to strike out a lot. Jonathan Mayo has the same concerns:

Who's No. 1? Six leading candidates for the first pick in 2013 First-Year Player Draft | astros.com: News

#30 cmb0252

cmb0252

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,758 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 01:11 PM

Added a second mock from bleacher report which has the Twins taking Meadows.