Jump to content

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

The Store

Recent Blogs

Photo

Article: Minnesota Twins Top 50 Prospects: 41-45

  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 6,996 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 09:36 PM

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.co...Prospects-41-45

#2 righty8383

righty8383

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 591 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 09:52 PM

Larson is the only one from this group that intrigues me. Michael looks like a bust.

#3 clutterheart

clutterheart

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 646 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 11:12 PM

Larson is the only one from this group that intrigues me. Michael looks like a bust.


I would say "IS" a bust. He is the classic example that you should never draft for need - especially in the MLB draft.
Twins needed MI help and drafted him. A big miss.

Dean is Deadly against lefties & if things go upside down again next year, he could get a chance or two with the big league club

#4 mnfanforlife

mnfanforlife

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 492 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 06:46 AM

True about Levi Michael, he will not hit past AA. At least, that's what appears to be happening.

#5 mnfanforlife

mnfanforlife

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 492 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 06:47 AM

Pat Dean pitching in Minnesota at some point next year?

#6 Don't Feed the Greed Guy

Don't Feed the Greed Guy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 428 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 07:36 AM

Pat Dean pitching in Minnesota at some point next year?


He may be the Andrew Albers of 2014. Both lefthanders are very similar in their pitch-to-contact approach.

I only saw Dean pitch once. New Britain shut out Trenton, 2-0 on July 11. Dean pitched 7.1 innings, and gave up six hits and one walk while striking out four. What surprised me were the "loud outs." There was plenty of "Thunder" off the Trenton bats, but the ball kept landing in Rock Cats' gloves.

I left the ballpark thinking, "that's the luckiest pitcher I've seen in a long time..." One game is a small example--I know, small sample size--I get it. But it just goes to show that seeing--and hearing--a baseball game is different than reading the box score.

That said, I'd love to see Dean (or Albers) stick as that crafty lefty/5th starter, but I'm afraid he's a AAAA talent, at best. I suspect that's why he's ranked #43.

#7 DJL44

DJL44

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 268 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 08:11 AM

I would say "IS" a bust. He is the classic example that you should never draft for need - especially in the MLB draft.
Twins needed MI help and drafted him. A big miss.


Look at who was picked between Levi Michael and Travis Harrison in that draft. Only Jackie Bradley looks like a big leaguer. If it makes you feel better think of Harrison as the 1st rounder that season.

#8 DJL44

DJL44

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 268 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 08:17 AM

I like Stuart Turner better than these guys. Catchers who can defend make it to the big leagues even if they hit .200.

#9 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 6,996 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 09:58 AM

Look at who was picked between Levi Michael and Travis Harrison in that draft. Only Jackie Bradley looks like a big leaguer. If it makes you feel better think of Harrison as the 1st rounder that season.



I consider Supp-1st rounders as 1st rounders. Close enough. Michael was picked 30th, so there is never any 'sure-thing' attached to someone drafted that far down. That said, it is a good reminder that drafting for need is generally pretty wrong.

#10 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 6,996 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 09:59 AM

Pat Dean pitching in Minnesota at some point next year?


I'd say there's an outside chance.

#11 markos

markos

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 216 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 10:03 AM

I would say "IS" a bust. He is the classic example that you should never draft for need - especially in the MLB draft.
Twins needed MI help and drafted him. A big miss.


FWIW, Baseball America and Keith Law both had Michael ranked #22 in the class. The only player available that was ranked higher by both was Josh Bell, and he was drafted in the 2nd round for $5 million. Of all the players available for the Twins #30 pick, there is a good argument that Michael was the best available that would sign around slot value.

Now, that doesn't change the fact that he is officially a bust (which I agree) and a big miss. But I don't think it was a blatant "draft for need" mistake like you suggested.

#12 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 6,996 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 10:21 AM

FWIW, Baseball America and Keith Law both had Michael ranked #22 in the class. The only player available that was ranked higher by both was Josh Bell, and he was drafted in the 2nd round for $5 million. Of all the players available for the Twins #30 pick, there is a good argument that Michael was the best available that would sign around slot value.

Now, that doesn't change the fact that he is officially a bust (which I agree) and a big miss. But I don't think it was a blatant "draft for need" mistake like you suggested.


Great reminder... and going by the "experts", Michael was the best available and it was a position of need.

#13 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 878 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 12:02 PM

[quote name='clutterheart']I would say "IS" a bust. He is the classic example that you should never draft for need - especially in the MLB draft.
Twins needed MI help and drafted him. A big miss.

There is no substantiation whatsoever for a claim that Michael was selected on the basis of positional need. Perhaps you're just guessing about this?

#14 Rosterman

Rosterman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 981 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 12:51 PM

We always talk about the can't miss prospects, but always forget that people are needed to be that 4th outfielder or all-around utility guy, middle relief, or back-end starter.

#15 Steve Lein

Steve Lein

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 521 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 01:25 PM

I like Stuart Turner better than these guys. Catchers who can defend make it to the big leagues even if they hit .200.


Agree. Having Turner's name so low on this list surprised me, but have to believe it's just because he hasn't played enough in the Twins system yet. For what it's worth, Mayo on MLB.com has him at #19.
Scouting Report: Tools - Power: 30, Hitting: 50, Arm: 60, Defense: 40, Speed: 40. "Line drive swing and shows good contact and on-base abilities. Double's power at his peak. Strong arm from 2B or the OF, stiff hands. Not a fast runner, but above average instincts on the bases. Skinny body doesn't look the part, but can sneak up on you. ACL surgery sapped much of his athleticism." (Probably)
Spring Training Regular since 2011.

#16 clutterheart

clutterheart

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 646 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 07:33 PM

There is no substantiation whatsoever for a claim that Michael was selected on the basis of positional need. Perhaps you're just guessing about this?


Obviously its a "guess." I have no access to the Draft War Room, nor would any rational scouting director outright say "we drafted for need." But we can see that Michael was the first position player out of college the Twins drafted in the first round since 1996. And the state of the MI in the minors was a disaster at the time. It seems clear to me at least they used a first round pick on a position of desperate need in the organization.

In my opinion, his pick was very similar to the Adam Johnson pick. Twins got a guy that most scouts considered as "solid" but not great. - (ignoring the dif between #2 overall & #30 overall)

I often dislike hindsight when it comes to drafts, every team has different philosophies, but since it was brought up by others, here is a few other guys they could've got:

Trevor Story 45th
Henry Owens 36th
Jackie Bradley as was mentioned...

Looking at the red sox...they had a pretty good 2011 draft!

Edited by clutterheart, 22 October 2013 - 07:36 PM.


#17 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Moderators
  • 4,447 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 09:51 AM

I consider Supp-1st rounders as 1st rounders. Close enough. Michael was picked 30th, so there is never any 'sure-thing' attached to someone drafted that far down. That said, it is a good reminder that drafting for need is generally pretty wrong.


This assumes that the Twins passed up on guys they thought were better in order to draft for need. I dont' see that, especially given the lack of ML talent in players taking immediately after Michael. Call it a pet peeve of mine, but in the BPA vs. need debate, this is really good example of my frustrations with it. It's revisionist history. Since the Twins needed help at SS, it's automatically assumed that he wasn't their BPA, even though based on the results, no one really knows. That assumption is bolstered more because he's failed as a prospect. This pick wasn't universally deried as horrible either.


There were questions about his bat back then, and unfortunately, we've seen them play out. He's a bust. They happen, especially when picking that low.