Quote:
Originally Posted by
jokin
Trevor Plouffe's WAR is 0.9 according to BR. That is the worst value- for either BR or Fangraphs- among 3B with more than 400 PAs (save one, Jordan Pachecho who played 3B part-time). So no, he is not a "WAY ABOVE" replacement level player. If you want to get excited about a RH-batting Kelly Johnson-potential level player, he might reach that level, still nothing to get too excited about if that's the best the Twins could do from 04-08. The jury is still out on Parmelee. Perhaps "replacement level" on the part of the poster was too harsh, but try not to exaggerate in the other direction when your premise for their chances is based more on hope than facts. Regarding your draft history summation, Baker, Span and Mauer is ancient history and Hicks and Gibson are still, to this point, also based more on hope than facts. I too have high hopes for both of them, but it IS more hope than it is confidence that it will pan out. You mentioned BA and your feeling that the Twins farm system was strong. BA has NO Twins org pitchers that are listed in their individual league rankings and of the 7 players mentioned by BA, Parmelee is the only one who is a certifiable infielder and that's at 1B (if and when Morneau is traded), which means the Twins only position of strength in their farm system is 6 OFs. Unacceptable for a team that wants to be competitive when this next round of potential stars reaches the big league starting lineup in 2014-15.
A fair analysis. I'm not defending the Twins' drafts in saying they were good. I'd even concede that they weren't even mediocre. My only problem stems from the word "horrific".
"Horrific" drafts don't return viable major leaguers to the roster. The Twins have done that over the past 6-8 years, even if those players aren't superstars.
Teams like the Astros and Cubs spent large portions of those years picking in the top 15 of baseball (and often the top 10) yet they haven't shown any ability to produce decent players from the draft. The Twins spent most years picking in the bottom 15 (and several times, the bottom 10) and are still producing viable major leaguers. That's why I take issue with the word "horrific". If you're winning your division every other year and rarely placing lower than third (in the AL, which bumps your draft position down one or two more notches most years), it's not surprising that they haven't lit the world on fire in the draft. Could they have done better? Absolutely, especially in the pitching market, which has churned out virtually no pitchers with any kind of longevity.
But to call their drafts horrific is an overstatement of the situation. They've done a decent job with position players and a really bad job with starters. All in all, once you consider their draft position, they've underperformed in the draft but I wouldn't call it horrific. That's my only point, really.