Jump to content

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

Don't Fret About Twins Prospect Rankings

  • Please log in to reply
177 replies to this topic

#41 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 6,661 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 10:33 AM

 

 

 

Are you saying there was NEVER an opportunity, in all the years Ryan was GM, to spend more money (either in his first tenure, or his second)?

You certainly seem to think so


#42 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 18,573 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 10:38 AM

 

And  yet you constantly post like you expect it. Kohl Stewart was a risky pick - a HS pitching arm is the most dangerous pick in the draft.  Fans demanded that we do so. And now those same fans are blaming the Twins because Stewart - despite being 21 at AA and logging a crapton of innings - isn't highly ranked on prospect lists.  That seems to suggest an unrealistic expectation.  

 

i'm not blaming them for any one specific pick. I'm judging their system compared to other systems (whose draft picks don't always work out either, right?).....system to system comparison. They are a bottom 5 team for the last 5 years, and don't have a top 10 system according to most ranking systems. That doesn't bode well for the future.

 

I'm not judging each pick, I'm judging the system (based on what experts tell me).

  • TheLeviathan and Taildragger8791 like this

I don't know, it is a site to discuss sports, not airline safety.....maybe we should take it less seriously?


#43 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 18,573 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 10:38 AM

 

You certainly seem to think so

 

Odds are in 20 some years, yes, there was an opportunity. Do you think there was never a time?

I don't know, it is a site to discuss sports, not airline safety.....maybe we should take it less seriously?


#44 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 6,661 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 10:50 AM

 

i'm not blaming them for any one specific pick. I'm judging their system compared to other systems (whose draft picks don't always work out either, right?).....system to system comparison. They are a bottom 5 team for the last 5 years, and don't have a top 10 system according to most ranking systems. That doesn't bode well for the future.

 

I'm not judging each pick, I'm judging the system (based on what experts tell me).

And yet the five year period you're using to judge isn't relevant to the current state of the system. Last year's record hasn't affected the system because we haven't had that draft yet (and as soon as the draft happens, it's very likely that the Twins will vault back into the top 10). The 2011 and 12 records don't impact it either because they've graduated.  So, again, what you're really complaining about is that Stewart and Jay aren't universally declared top prospects. 

  • WLFINN likes this

#45 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,691 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 11:01 AM

 

Here is a list of people expecting every pick to hit:

 

 

To write this really serves only to obscure gunarthor's point. There are comments in this thread lamenting the fact that the Twins could possibly have a top 10 overall selection that isn't included in a top 100 list. Meaning, in the commenter's view, the prospect didn't "hit", right? Now, take a look at a list of all the pitchers selected as top 10 overall over the past five years, and you'll see that it's not exactly uncommon for those prospects to miss the top 100 lists. That's the point.


#46 USAFChief

USAFChief

    ɹǝɯoפ

  • Twins Mods
  • 15,660 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 07 March 2017 - 11:02 AM

 

And yet the five year period you're using to judge isn't relevant to the current state of the system. Last year's record hasn't affected the system because we haven't had that draft yet (and as soon as the draft happens, it's very likely that the Twins will vault back into the top 10). The 2011 and 12 records don't impact it either because they've graduated.  So, again, what you're really complaining about is that Stewart and Jay aren't universally declared top prospects. 

They've been at or near the top of the draft order for most of the last half decade, yet they don't have a top rated farm system, and little to nothing in the way of readily identifiable potential star power.  They've failed to augment the draft by aggressively spending on the international market.  

 

It isn't hard to understand the mild criticism, if you just look at things objectively.

  • Oldgoat_MN, markos, TheLeviathan and 3 others like this

I am not the paranoid you're looking for.


#47 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 18,573 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 11:10 AM

 

And yet the five year period you're using to judge isn't relevant to the current state of the system. Last year's record hasn't affected the system because we haven't had that draft yet (and as soon as the draft happens, it's very likely that the Twins will vault back into the top 10). The 2011 and 12 records don't impact it either because they've graduated.  So, again, what you're really complaining about is that Stewart and Jay aren't universally declared top prospects. 

 

Actually, if I was going to criticize (and I did then) picks, it would be all the RPs taken in rounds after round 1. Since there are lots of players in the majors picked after round 1, those picks have effected the system. 

 

Also, there is IFA, and trades, and other ways than just round 1 picks to acquire players. 

 

when the team didn't have a good farm system after the good years, I was told it wasn't their fault, since they were picking late and no one could expect a good team to have a good system (which I don't believe). now I'm told that even though they are terrible, it's still cool they don't have a top system because 2 drafted players graduated to the majors.

 

If we are only going to judge the draft (and that guys have graduated so the system isn't that bad), who from the draft (since they got bad) is on the roster that's projected to be really good or better? Buxton. And, um, that's it, right? Maybe Rosario, but I think he was picked some time ago.

  • TheLeviathan and Vanimal46 like this

I don't know, it is a site to discuss sports, not airline safety.....maybe we should take it less seriously?


#48 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 18,573 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 11:18 AM

Tim
12:14 Who is the best relief prospect at the moment? Jimenez? Glover? Burdi? Other?

 

Eric A Longenhagen
12:14 Burdi has the highest grade I've given to a reliever during the offseason.

 

Not sure which Burdi he means....but I can guess.

I don't know, it is a site to discuss sports, not airline safety.....maybe we should take it less seriously?


#49 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,691 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 11:25 AM

 

We don't know that.

 

we know that they were aggressive one year under Smith, and spent a lot of money. We know they never spent that much money before Smith (when Ryan was GM), nor did they spend more than budget later.

 

Are you saying there was NEVER an opportunity, in all the years Ryan was GM, to spend more money (either in his first tenure, or his second)?

 

 

We DON'T know that they were more aggressive one year under Smith. It's like people think the sole determinant was Smith, taking a risk in his mind, agreeing to an amount, hanging up the phone, and faxing out a contract. It's ridiculous IMO to conclude what you conclude. It completely ignores all that we actually DO know about the IFA process leading up to the contract. The years of scouting and following prospects, establishing relationships with handlers and families, the importance of the area scout's opinion about the prospect, the importance of that scout in agreeing to a general contract range. All of this stuff does in fact take place. Smith in fact never had a damn thing to do with any of it.

 

And yes, I absolutely believe that, if those same handful of opportunities arose during Ryan's tenure, the results would have been exactly the same, and I mean exactly. No contract decision has ever been made like the one Kepler signed, or Javier signed, or Ynoa signed, or Sano signed, without a lot of people weighing in. And I'm absolutely sure that, in the case of Sano's contract and others, that Smith's opinion was by far the LEAST credible to Pohlad. Smith probably didn't even offer an opinion as to whether Sano or Kepler were worth the financial risk. And let's not act like no contract risk was ever taken before or after Smith's tenure.

 

There's a difference between what we actually know about the IFA process and what people THINK they know about what the GM's role is in the process.

Edited by birdwatcher, 07 March 2017 - 11:29 AM.

  • gunnarthor likes this

#50 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 6,661 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 11:29 AM

 

Actually, if I was going to criticize (and I did then) picks, it would be all the RPs taken in rounds after round 1. Since there are lots of players in the majors picked after round 1, those picks have effected the system. 

 

Also, there is IFA, and trades, and other ways than just round 1 picks to acquire players. 

 

when the team didn't have a good farm system after the good years, I was told it wasn't their fault, since they were picking late and no one could expect a good team to have a good system (which I don't believe). now I'm told that even though they are terrible, it's still cool they don't have a top system because 2 drafted players graduated to the majors.

 

If we are only going to judge the draft (and that guys have graduated so the system isn't that bad), who from the draft (since they got bad) is on the roster that's projected to be really good or better? Buxton. And, um, that's it, right? Maybe Rosario, but I think he was picked some time ago.

The Twins had a great farm system for many years -  http://www.baseballa...ouhlRTS70kVV.97  They graduated out a lot of that talent. Not just two guys.

 

So again you're just judging a three year window/snapshot and making far too large conclusions of that. 

 

And you're comments again seem to indicate that you expect the Twins to hit on every pick. You disparage the 2012 draft because only "two" guys were big time prospects while it gave us three other players - Duffey, Chargois and Rogers - who can play important roles for the team going forward. 


#51 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 6,661 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 11:32 AM

 

They've been at or near the top of the draft order for most of the last half decade, yet they don't have a top rated farm system, and little to nothing in the way of readily identifiable potential star power.  They've failed to augment the draft by aggressively spending on the international market.  

 

It isn't hard to understand the mild criticism, if you just look at things objectively.

They've spent just fine on the international market. You're complaining because they didn't go over the pool amount to compete with the Dodgers et al.  

 

As I posted above, they complaints right now are about the 2013-2015 drafts. 


#52 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 18,573 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 11:32 AM

 

The Twins had a great farm system for many years -  http://www.baseballa...ouhlRTS70kVV.97  They graduated out a lot of that talent. Not just two guys.

 

So again you're just judging a three year window/snapshot and making far too large conclusions of that. 

 

And you're comments again seem to indicate that you expect the Twins to hit on every pick. You disparage the 2012 draft because only "two" guys were big time prospects while it gave us three other players - Duffey, Chargois and Rogers - who can play important roles for the team going forward. 

 

You are completely putting words in my mouth I did not type. It's tiresome, frankly.

I don't know, it is a site to discuss sports, not airline safety.....maybe we should take it less seriously?


#53 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 18,573 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 11:34 AM

Other teams also have guys like those guys....I'm suggesting, I think fairly, that being bad for 5-6 years should lead a team to have one of the top minor league systems. You disagree. I'm ok with that. But please stop putting words in my mouth.

  • ChiTownTwinsFan likes this

I don't know, it is a site to discuss sports, not airline safety.....maybe we should take it less seriously?


#54 Tom Froemming

Tom Froemming

    Ft Myers

  • Members
  • 252 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 11:34 AM

 

The Twins have Kirilloff, Diaz, Blankenhorn, Javier, Ynoa, Thorpe and Rortvedt all under 20. High or medium ceilings but a long ways off. These players do not show up on the hot 100 being so far from the majors.There is talent in the pipeline, just not close.The Twins prospect ranking for those who worry about such things, would be much worse if they had drafted Trea Turner instead of Gordon.

Diaz and Blankenhorn are 20 and Thorpe is 21 ... but your point is definitely still valid. The guys in the lower levels are going to be ranked much more conservatively.

 

Also, even a lot of the high profile guys don't have much of a track record. If Romero has another great year, or Jay breaks out, or Stewart starts getting Ks you're going to see those guys skyrocket up those national prospect lists.

 

I'd imagine most (if not all) the top guys will retain their prospect statuses heading into next season. With that being the case, it wouldn't surprise me if the Twins have 5-6 consensus top-100 prospects and are ranked a top-10 system heading into next season. 

  • birdwatcher and Mike Sixel like this

#55 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 6,661 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 11:40 AM

 

Other teams also have guys like those guys....I'm suggesting, I think fairly, that being bad for 5-6 years should lead a team to have one of the top minor league systems. You disagree. I'm ok with that. But please stop putting words in my mouth.

The Twins had a great farm system for many years.  You keep saying Twins have been bad for 5-6 years so farm system should be better - arguably because the Twins would be drafting high. The problem - again - with your statements is that you ignore the graduated years and the years we didn't draft for and the year we drafted middle and make some grand conclusion that doesn't really fit.  

 

The reason the Twins system is ranked low by BA (and 11th by Klaw) is because of how people view Jay and Stewart, full stop. 

  • Tom Froemming likes this

#56 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 18,573 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 11:43 AM

 

The Twins had a great farm system for many years.  You keep saying Twins have been bad for 5-6 years so farm system should be better - arguably because the Twins would be drafting high. The problem - again - with your statements is that you ignore the graduated years and the years we didn't draft for and the year we drafted middle and make some grand conclusion that doesn't really fit.  

 

The reason the Twins system is ranked low by BA (and 11th by Klaw) is because of how people view Jay and Stewart, full stop. 

 

And the reason Jay and Stewart are so important in the Twins' ranking is their IFAs aren't rated highly, they haven't traded for great prospects, and they haven't gotten lucky in later rounds. A system is built many ways, just look at the Yankees. They are largely IFA and traded for guys......on top of their draft picks.

 

I think we are pretty much talking past each other now.

  • Taildragger8791, mazeville and snap4birds like this

I don't know, it is a site to discuss sports, not airline safety.....maybe we should take it less seriously?


#57 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 6,661 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 11:48 AM

 

And the reason Jay and Stewart are so important in the Twins' ranking is their IFAs aren't rated highly, they haven't traded for great prospects, and they haven't gotten lucky in later rounds. A system is built many ways, just look at the Yankees. They are largely IFA and traded for guys......on top of their draft picks.

 

I think we are pretty much talking past each other now.

Yes, the Yankees did a great job of leveraging their money to impact their farm system.

  • WLFINN likes this

#58 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,691 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 12:10 PM

 

They've been at or near the top of the draft order for most of the last half decade, yet they don't have a top rated farm system, and little to nothing in the way of readily identifiable potential star power.  They've failed to augment the draft by aggressively spending on the international market.  

 

It isn't hard to understand the mild criticism, if you just look at things objectively.

 

 

To be fair, let's be more detailed with our facts.

 

They have had a pick in the top third of the draft order four out of the past five years. The consensus is that Buxton has star power, perhaps even super star power. The grade isn't in. Nor is it reasonable to conclude that none of Kiriloff, Gordon, or Jay will never be stars. Stewart, I'll fold my hand. BTW, they DID garner a top-rated farm system as a result in great part of the selection of Buxton, supplemented by Sano and other IFA sucess, etc. So you're right, the lack of current perceived star power, usually generated by two or three prospects, has caused the opinions of the system to plummet in the same way the star power of Buxton and Sano propelled opinions earlier. In both cases, I'd suggest the opinions are slightly exaggerated by this emphasis on star power.

 

They had a pick in the bottom third of the draft order four out of the five years previous. Gibson is the best of that lot. Not to defend them, but to add a fair context to these selections, I believe in four out of five cases, those selections have outperformed almost all the selections made five slots before and after they were selected.

 

I think you define "aggressively spending" in IFA markets as deciding to bust the pool. You opined that the Twins didn't cheat because they weren't as smart as other teams. Others speculate that it's because they're cheap. A minority, myself included, speculate that it is in large part an ethical decision, a view I hold because of some of my own personal experiences with the Pohlads.

 

I think it's accurate to say they're suffering a bit in the rankings because the cheaters gained ground at the expense of the non-cheaters. But I think we should be careful about criticizing them without knowing the circumstances here. 

 

 

  • DocBauer likes this

#59 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 18,573 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 12:13 PM

 

To be fair, let's be more detailed with our facts.

 

They have had a pick in the top third of the draft order four out of the past five years. The consensus is that Buxton has star power, perhaps even super star power. The grade isn't in. Nor is it reasonable to conclude that none of Kiriloff, Gordon, or Jay will never be stars. Stewart, I'll fold my hand. BTW, they DID garner a top-rated farm system as a result in great part of the selection of Buxton, supplemented by Sano and other IFA sucess, etc. So you're right, the lack of current perceived star power, usually generated by two or three prospects, has caused the opinions of the system to plummet in the same way the star power of Buxton and Sano propelled opinions earlier. In both cases, I'd suggest the opinions are slightly exaggerated by this emphasis on star power.

 

They had a pick in the bottom third of the draft order four out of the five years previous. Gibson is the best of that lot. Not to defend them, but to add a fair context to these selections, I believe in four out of five cases, those selections have outperformed almost all the selections made five slots before and after they were selected.

 

I think you define "aggressively spending" in IFA markets as deciding to bust the pool. You opined that the Twins didn't cheat because they weren't as smart as other teams. Others speculate that it's because they're cheap. A minority, myself included, speculate that it is in large part an ethical decision, a view I hold because of some of my own personal experiences with the Pohlads.

 

I think it's accurate to say they're suffering a bit in the rankings because the cheaters gained ground at the expense of the non-cheaters. But I think we should be careful about criticizing them without knowing the circumstances here. 

 

I don't like the use of the word cheaters.

 

Teams were allowed to sign players for more money, that then resulted in not being able to spend money in future years. Those were the rules. The rules did not say you couldn't spend more money. Those rules were followed, except 1 time by the BoSox, who were punished. 

  • diehardtwinsfan and Taildragger8791 like this

I don't know, it is a site to discuss sports, not airline safety.....maybe we should take it less seriously?


#60 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 18,573 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 12:17 PM

 

Yes, the Yankees did a great job of leveraging their money to impact their farm system.

 

And they made good trades. 

 

 

I don't know, it is a site to discuss sports, not airline safety.....maybe we should take it less seriously?