Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

MinnCentric Forums


The Store

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

Buxton vs Correa

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,929 posts

Posted 03 July 2014 - 12:25 PM

http://www.baseballp...articleid=24070

Who is the best prospect? BP debates it.

#2 SD Buhr

SD Buhr

    Majoring in minors, minoring in Majors

  • Members
  • 827 posts

Posted 03 July 2014 - 12:38 PM

I read the article earlier, as well.

All I can say with certainty is that I saw both guys play a year ago in the MWL and there is absolutely no way I would trade Buxton for Correa today.

I really don't get the "make up" edge that supposedly goes to Correa. I know nothing about that aspect of his game/character, but I'd put Buxton's make up against any young player's.

Covering the Cedar Rapids Kernels for MetroSportsReport.com while my alter-ego, Jim Crikket, opines about the Twins and Kernels at Knuckleballsblog.com.

~You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant~


#3 twinsfanstreif

twinsfanstreif

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 153 posts

Posted 03 July 2014 - 12:42 PM

The thing that is blatantly ignored in this debate is the fact that Correa was picked over Buxton for money saving reasons. We can debate who is the better prospect now or who is going to be better in the future, that's fine but it's hard to argue with the Astros strategy in that draft. I would think that they knew that Correa was an inferior prospect (by how much I don't know) and by selecting Correa they were able to get Ruiz and McCullers. So really we should debate if the net of Correa, McCullers, and Ruiz is better than Buxton plus inferior prospects. I'm not really sure, all of that depends on if Ruiz and McCullers pan out and how good Buxton and Correa are. I think Buxton will be the better player long term but by how much?

#4 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,929 posts

Posted 03 July 2014 - 01:10 PM

The thing that is blatantly ignored in this debate is the fact that Correa was picked over Buxton for money saving reasons. We can debate who is the better prospect now or who is going to be better in the future, that's fine but it's hard to argue with the Astros strategy in that draft. I would think that they knew that Correa was an inferior prospect (by how much I don't know) and by selecting Correa they were able to get Ruiz and McCullers. So really we should debate if the net of Correa, McCullers, and Ruiz is better than Buxton plus inferior prospects. I'm not really sure, all of that depends on if Ruiz and McCullers pan out and how good Buxton and Correa are. I think Buxton will be the better player long term but by how much?

Jim Callis has posted several times that the Astros could have gotten Buxton and McCullers but not Ruiz. And one could argue that Berrios and Walker were better gets than McCullers and Ruiz on their own.

#5 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,896 posts

Posted 03 July 2014 - 02:22 PM

I doubt the Stros had Correa ranked too much lower than Buxton. They don't do this otherwise, and I think so far, from that end, their strategy wasn't bad... On the flip side, Berrios and Walker are turning into much better prospects than what people thought too, so the Twins probably got the better end of this deal (and this comes from a guy who wasn't happy with this pick).

#6 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,347 posts

Posted 03 July 2014 - 02:38 PM

I really don't get the "make up" edge that supposedly goes to Correa. I know nothing about that aspect of his game/character, but I'd put Buxton's make up against any young player's.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but Buxton's personality is a hard-worker, very quiet, very humble? From what I've read on Correa, he's the take charge type. The guy you just know gets the C on his sweater the moment he walks in the room.

So it seems to me it isn't a make-up thing as much as a leadership thing.

#7 twinsfanstreif

twinsfanstreif

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 153 posts

Posted 03 July 2014 - 02:44 PM

The Astros would never have had a shot at Berrios, he was picked before McCullers so yes he was a good one but invalid to the debate. The Twins definitely came out on top as it looks now but if the Astros took Buxton they would have had at least 1.2 million less to work with so they may have not took the risk with McCullers and definitely not Ruiz so who knows who they would have ended up with, maybe they would have spared us from Bard! The other thought is that we could have played the draft cautiously after Buxton and Berrios because we were unsure of how much $ we would have after those two, maybe that's why we ended up with all of those relievers to save money.........or we just have some weird fixation on college relievers

#8 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,430 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 03 July 2014 - 04:27 PM

The Correa vs Buxton debate is of the type that is better settled after 15-20 years from now, just like the Mauer vs Prior. We know who is better of the latter pair. Give it some time.
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#9 Twins Twerp

Twins Twerp

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 795 posts

Posted 03 July 2014 - 05:19 PM

The Correa vs Buxton debate is of the type that is better settled after 15-20 years from now, just like the Mauer vs Prior. We know who is better of the latter pair. Give it some time.

O i got this one...Prior?

#10 Ncgo4

Ncgo4

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 229 posts

Posted 04 July 2014 - 05:08 AM

The Buxton-Sano pair is what has me so excited. Both are described a driven hard working and willing to learn. Buxton is the quiet lead by example 5 tool superstar. Sano is the vocal team leader larger than life superstar. Equally importantly, the injuries seem to have given them a chance to bond. This has the potential (for now it's only potential) for one amazing dynamic duo. The two have the potential to be starters in the All-Star game together for a decade or more.

#11 pierre75275

pierre75275

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 305 posts

Posted 04 July 2014 - 07:00 AM

I would rather have our three first picks then their three. i dont know how the experts rank them but i would stack Buxton Berrios and Walker against any first three picks of 2012

#12 twinsfanstreif

twinsfanstreif

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 153 posts

Posted 05 July 2014 - 04:15 PM

I would rather have our three first picks then their three. i dont know how the experts rank them but i would stack Buxton Berrios and Walker against any first three picks of 2012


Actually Walker was our 6th pick that year, our first 3 was Buxton, Berrios, and Bard

#13 pierre75275

pierre75275

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 305 posts

Posted 06 July 2014 - 06:42 AM

I guess i was misinformed. i coulda swore Walker was a 3rd pick.
I checked according to his adopt a prospect page he was picked 97th overall...in the third round.

Edited by pierre75275, 06 July 2014 - 06:45 AM.


#14 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,788 posts

Posted 06 July 2014 - 07:23 AM

I guess i was misinformed. i coulda swore Walker was a 3rd pick.
I checked according to his adopt a prospect page he was picked 97th overall...in the third round.


The Twins had compensation picks in the first and second round. The extra first round picks were Berios and Bard to go along with Buxton. Melotakis and Chargois were the second round picks. So Walker was the third round selection, 6th of the Twins picks.
Chargois and Bard have spent time being injured so they can be out of sight, out of mind. Melotakis has not been over the top good to draw attention to his performance so far this year.

#15 Pitz

Pitz

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 161 posts

Posted 06 July 2014 - 07:34 AM

I guess i was misinformed. i coulda swore Walker was a 3rd pick.
I checked according to his adopt a prospect page he was picked 97th overall...in the third round.


Berrios and Bard were both compensation round picks after the first round. Walker was the Twins 6th pick, but he was selected in the third round.

Twins Picks Astros Picks
Buxton (2; 1st round; $6 mill) Correa (1;1) $4.8 mill
Berrios (32; Comp A; $1.55m) McCullers (41; A; $2.5m)
Bard (42; Comp A $1.23m) Fontana (61; 2; $875k)
Melotakis (63; 2; $750k) Rodgers (96; 3; $495k)
Chargois (72; 2; $713k) Ruiz (129; 4; $1.85m)
Walker (97; 3; $490k)
Z. Jones (130; 4; $357k)

sorry the formatting may be off; left side is twins pick, right side is astros. (pick; round; bonus)

IIRC, the Twins had the largest bonus pool due to the compensation picks.

Edited by Pitz, 06 July 2014 - 07:36 AM.


#16 lightfoot789

lightfoot789

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 649 posts

Posted 06 July 2014 - 08:07 AM

Would you have been upset if Walker was 3rd pick (compensation pick) instead of Bard or should we have aimed in different direction? In hindsight. The Astros 3rd pick took less money so they could afford Ruiz with 5th pick. Not predicting injuries, I think Twins made great selections 1-10.

#17 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,929 posts

Posted 06 July 2014 - 08:40 AM

Would you have been upset if Walker was 3rd pick (compensation pick) instead of Bard or should we have aimed in different direction? In hindsight. The Astros 3rd pick took less money so they could afford Ruiz with 5th pick. Not predicting injuries, I think Twins made great selections 1-10.


The ideal draft would have been Buxton at #2, Joey Gallo at #32 and hope that Berrios fell 10 spots to #42. The Bard pick probably isn't going to pan out.

#18 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,929 posts

Posted 06 July 2014 - 08:46 AM

Just a side note here but remember how the 2012 draft was supposed to be a down draft? In part that was b/c the 2011 draft was insanely top heavy. But the 2012 draft was downright awesome. Buxton, Correa, Zunino, Gausman, Almora, Fried, Wacha, Russell, Giolito, Sims, Stroman, Gallo, Berrios, Palweki. That was a much better draft in retrospect than before hand.

#19 twinsfanstreif

twinsfanstreif

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 153 posts

Posted 06 July 2014 - 02:03 PM

What if we had gone Buxton, Berrios, and Ruiz instead of Bard? Ruiz Signed for 1.85 million and Bard's slot was 1.23 million, we could have gone over slot for Ruiz with the $ we saved from Buxton's signing and still gotten Walker in the 3rd. I hated the Bard pick at the time and still do, we should've gone high upside at that point. Although the guy I wanted was Mitch Brown who has largely been terrible for the Indians who picked him up so there's that...

#20 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,929 posts

Posted 06 July 2014 - 02:53 PM

What if we had gone Buxton, Berrios, and Ruiz instead of Bard? Ruiz Signed for 1.85 million and Bard's slot was 1.23 million, we could have gone over slot for Ruiz with the $ we saved from Buxton's signing and still gotten Walker in the 3rd. I hated the Bard pick at the time and still do, we should've gone high upside at that point. Although the guy I wanted was Mitch Brown who has largely been terrible for the Indians who picked him up so there's that...


I don't think the Twins had Ruiz rated that highly. MLB.com had him rated something like #86 going into the draft. Obviously that was a snapshot at the time and things changed all the time but he didn't seem a guy the Twins were ever on. I do remember the Twins were linked to a variety of pitchers (although never heard Bard until draft day so ...)

#21 twinsfanstreif

twinsfanstreif

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 153 posts

Posted 06 July 2014 - 04:13 PM

I don't think the Twins had Ruiz rated that highly. MLB.com had him rated something like #86 going into the draft. Obviously that was a snapshot at the time and things changed all the time but he didn't seem a guy the Twins were ever on. I do remember the Twins were linked to a variety of pitchers (although never heard Bard until draft day so ...)


I was under the impression that his ranking was due to the injury. He was mocked in the first round until the medicals came out and I believe he had a strong commitment to USC which made him a hard and risky sign, he's looked pretty good so far