Jump to content

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

Article: Draft Theories

mlb draft draft royce lewis brent rooker blayne enlow
  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#41 markos

markos

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,358 posts

Posted 15 June 2017 - 12:12 PM

 

Not sure which thread to post it in.....but KLAW has his writeup up.....

 

"Early reviews around the game on the Twins' draft have been ... less than glowing."

 

He likes the Enlow pick for sure. It's kind of hard to really get a handle on his thoughts, really....

 

http://www.espn.com/...ost?id=7244#MIN

The way I read it, he seems to think (based on his own opinion and maybe that of others in the industry?) that the Twins will end up leaving bonus pool money unspent. Personally, I don't think that is surprising, as it kind of mirrored my own initial thoughts. At first glance, the combination of players that they drafted could lead people (myself included) to overestimate the amount of savings they will have to work with. For example, I am surprised to see reports that Lewis is going to sign for $6.7M - more than any other high school player has signed for and $600K more than what Moniak signed for last year as the 1-1. As someone who certainly was NOT the consensus #1 player and frequently not even in consideration as the #1 player by many analysts, that price point does seem a little strange. But it is what it is. Moving on, Rooker and Leach both fit a profile of an underslot signing as well (older college hitter; 3rd-4th round HS pitcher overdrafted). Aware of Enlow's $2M deal but not knowing anything else, it certainly seems like the Twins are potentially leaving $1M+ on the table (especially if you include the $700K extra they could spend without forfeiting a future draft pick). Anyway, I think the Twins draft seems like it is missing one more $2M+/top-30 player, but we will see once they have everyone signed.

  • wagwan, Mike Sixel and Willihammer like this

#42 maxisagod

maxisagod

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 480 posts
  • LocationThe Moon

Posted 15 June 2017 - 01:00 PM

http://m.twins.mlb.c...est-2017-draft/

 

Jim Callis seems to thinks the Twins had the best draft! 

  • Mike Sixel, 70charger and markos like this

#43 Steve Lein

Steve Lein

    Senior Member - MiLB Report Contributor

  • Administrators
  • 1,820 posts

Posted 15 June 2017 - 01:20 PM

 

The way I read it, he seems to think (based on his own opinion and maybe that of others in the industry?) that the Twins will end up leaving bonus pool money unspent. Personally, I don't think that is surprising, as it kind of mirrored my own initial thoughts. At first glance, the combination of players that they drafted could lead people (myself included) to overestimate the amount of savings they will have to work with. For example, I am surprised to see reports that Lewis is going to sign for $6.7M - more than any other high school player has signed for and $600K more than what Moniak signed for last year as the 1-1. As someone who certainly was NOT the consensus #1 player and frequently not even in consideration as the #1 player by many analysts, that price point does seem a little strange. But it is what it is. Moving on, Rooker and Leach both fit a profile of an underslot signing as well (older college hitter; 3rd-4th round HS pitcher overdrafted). Aware of Enlow's $2M deal but not knowing anything else, it certainly seems like the Twins are potentially leaving $1M+ on the table (especially if you include the $700K extra they could spend without forfeiting a future draft pick). Anyway, I think the Twins draft seems like it is missing one more $2M+/top-30 player, but we will see once they have everyone signed.

 

I think guys like Bechtold and De La Torre will eat up any of what you're thinking is left.

 

And even though they can go $700K over their pool (I would let them if I was running the team) without losing a pick if they wanted, not everybody does that and I think the Twins are in that group.

 

Only about half of all pools in the draft pool era have been exceeded.

Scouting Report: Power: 30, Hitting: 50, Arm: 60, Defense: 45, Speed: 45. "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 will sneak up on you. ACL surgery sapped much of his athleticism." (Probably)

#44 wagwan

wagwan

    Member

  • Members
  • 138 posts

Posted 15 June 2017 - 03:03 PM

 

How do you factor in the inherent uncertainty when scouting young players?

 

Literally no franchise consistently picks future major-leaguers in the second round and beyond. They're all trying to pick the "best player". The misses outnumber the hits, and yet gold is found in the later rounds.

 

How does "pick the best player" provide any guidance? I don't mean to be belligerent, I'm just trying to understand what you're offering.

Pick the best player means don't do maneuvers like signing for under slot. I think that The Twins picked under slot at picks 35 and 37. Or even at 1 for that matter. Picks 8, 9 and 10 were also under slot picks since they were seniors with no leverage.  This matters because Picks 1 - 10 are where the most emphasis is. The goal is to get all of those guys signed, and then sign as many of the rest as you can. So why take under slot guys?

 

Since this is such a crap shoot don't mess around. Take the top guy on your board  when your pick comes up. 


#45 Willihammer

Willihammer

    Nostrombolimus

  • Members
  • 7,252 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 15 June 2017 - 04:40 PM

 

1 - 10 are where the most emphasis is. The goal is to get all of those guys signed, and then sign as many of the rest as you can. So why take under slot guys?

So you can afford a player or two who falls like Enlow did. 

Overslot spending must be combined with downdraft / underslot picks, particularly in rounds 1-10 where slot values are subtracted when players don't sign.

Well, there's that.

-Dark Star, RIP


#46 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 6,747 posts

Posted 15 June 2017 - 05:39 PM

I think guys like Bechtold and De La Torre will eat up any of what you're thinking is left.

And even though they can go $700K over their pool (I would let them if I was running the team) without losing a pick if they wanted, not everybody does that and I think the Twins are in that group.

Only about half of all pools in the draft pool era have been exceeded.


To me, the Twins are cheap if they don't go over the 5% they are allowed to.
And so are any other teams that don't.

#47 ashbury

ashbury

    Haighters gonna Haight

  • Twins Mods
  • 21,205 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 15 June 2017 - 06:16 PM

Take the top guy on your board  when your pick comes up. 

The top guy on your board is going to be some over-slot guy every time. That's why (apart from the 1:1) pick) they are still available - nobody else felt they could afford them either, nor take a chance on drafting but not signing them. Nobody has the draft budget to do it that way, not because of cheapness by the individual team but because of the draft pool process.

  • 70charger and Dman like this

Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.


#48 tarheeltwinsfan

tarheeltwinsfan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 971 posts

Posted 15 June 2017 - 07:14 PM

"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood...who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly...." Theodore Roosevelt. Therefore I say "Thank you" to Derek Falvey and Thad Levine for being willing to suffer the slings and arrows of Twins Daily readers.


#49 dgwills

dgwills

    Member

  • Members
  • 574 posts

Posted 15 June 2017 - 08:04 PM

 

I think guys like Bechtold and De La Torre will eat up any of what you're thinking is left.

 

And even though they can go $700K over their pool (I would let them if I was running the team) without losing a pick if they wanted, not everybody does that and I think the Twins are in that group.

 

Only about half of all pools in the draft pool era have been exceeded.

That very well may take up the rest of their pool. It's just not a great use of the money. Assuming that you did not have Lewis in the top tier of this draft, it takes two guys like Enlow to make it worth passing on the better players. The Twins may of had Lewis in the top tier, but I really didn't hear anyone else having him there before the draft. 

Time will tell of course.


#50 Steve Lein

Steve Lein

    Senior Member - MiLB Report Contributor

  • Administrators
  • 1,820 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 07:28 AM

 

That very well may take up the rest of their pool. It's just not a great use of the money. Assuming that you did not have Lewis in the top tier of this draft, it takes two guys like Enlow to make it worth passing on the better players. The Twins may of had Lewis in the top tier, but I really didn't hear anyone else having him there before the draft. 

Time will tell of course.

 

I'm a really big fan of Rooker... I'd put him in the group you're thinking of along with Enlow. Twins may have had Leach there too. He had a lot of helium going into draft.

Scouting Report: Power: 30, Hitting: 50, Arm: 60, Defense: 45, Speed: 45. "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 will sneak up on you. ACL surgery sapped much of his athleticism." (Probably)

#51 Steve Lein

Steve Lein

    Senior Member - MiLB Report Contributor

  • Administrators
  • 1,820 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 07:30 AM

 

To me, the Twins are cheap if they don't go over the 5% they are allowed to.
And so are any other teams that don't.

 

I don't disagree. But paying over $1.2MIL to spend $700K extra is nothing to scoff at for a lot of teams.

Scouting Report: Power: 30, Hitting: 50, Arm: 60, Defense: 45, Speed: 45. "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 will sneak up on you. ACL surgery sapped much of his athleticism." (Probably)

#52 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    G.O.A.T.

  • Twins Mods
  • 13,068 posts
  • Locationthe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 16 June 2017 - 07:43 AM

 

Pick the best player means don't do maneuvers like signing for under slot. I think that The Twins picked under slot at picks 35 and 37. Or even at 1 for that matter. Picks 8, 9 and 10 were also under slot picks since they were seniors with no leverage.  This matters because Picks 1 - 10 are where the most emphasis is. The goal is to get all of those guys signed, and then sign as many of the rest as you can. So why take under slot guys?

 

Since this is such a crap shoot don't mess around. Take the top guy on your board  when your pick comes up. 

 

The problem is that there was no BPA.I don't think I can emphasize enough.I grow rather tired of people saying 'pick the BPA' when there's no consensus there. Go read the draft thread, and for that matter, all of the experts.They had different opinions.The one thing that was obvious is that no one agreed as to who said BPA was, which tells you just how subjective it is.I have no doubt the Twins had Lewis on the top of their board with McKay.They took the one that would net them better talent further down the draft.They effectively walked away with (on their board) a top 2 overall talent, a top 15-20 overall talent, and two guys in their top 30. 

 

That's 3-4 first round picks (the latter of whom have a much better chance of making the majors then their draft position indicates) because they played those games. 

 

Overall, the added more talent at the expense of a clear need, which ultimately means more BPAs with this strategy than going the other way.I'm not liking the expense of a clear need issue, but if they took McKay at 1, there's no way they end up with Enlow at 4 (who I might add also fits the same need, just on a longer term trajectory) as well as one of those HS guys they took later on day 2.

  • 70charger likes this

#53 ashbury

ashbury

    Haighters gonna Haight

  • Twins Mods
  • 21,205 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 16 June 2017 - 08:01 AM

I don't disagree. But paying over $1.2MIL to spend $700K extra is nothing to scoff at for a lot of teams.

True. But any smart team will have various benchmarks as to what a million dollars is worth. For instance I've seen a guideline that buying free agent costs about $6M per win. Free agency is kind of steep, but even if it's more like $3M per win when running a team ($250M total revenue, 81 wins is about par), then the FO has to ask themselves if spending an extra mil gets them a 1-in-3 chance at an additional win sometime down the road. If they believe a draftee has that potential, i.e. a decent chance to have more than a cup of coffee as a career, they ought to pony up the dough.

Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.


#54 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 15,085 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 08:51 AM

After hearing the Wright buzz for the last few weeks, and seeing his over-slot deal with the Braves, plus McKay's rumored bonus with Tampa, I was wondering if part of the Twins strategy was kicking the tires on as many guys as possible at #1, to hopefully inflate their values and give other teams less financial flexibility.

 

Obviously there are limits to this, but I think draft bonuses are often more art than science, so it's something to do at the margins when there is no consensus top pick.


#55 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 28,789 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 08:55 AM

 

After hearing the Wright buzz for the last few weeks, and seeing his over-slot deal with the Braves, plus McKay's rumored bonus with Tampa, I was wondering if part of the Twins strategy was kicking the tires on as many guys as possible at #1, to hopefully inflate their values and give other teams less financial flexibility.

 

Obviously there are limits to this, but I think draft bonuses are often more art than science, so it's something to do at the margins when there is no consensus top pick.

 

I'm fascinated that both of them got over slot deals, frankly. Fascinated. 

  • Dman likes this

It's IL now, btw, not DL.....


#56 Willihammer

Willihammer

    Nostrombolimus

  • Members
  • 7,252 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 16 June 2017 - 04:05 PM

Wright's deal is the most surprising to me. $7m for #5? That's $2.3m overslot and ~71% of the Braves pool.

 

McKay is a little easier to grasp IMO, the Rays had a lot of money and I could see them trying to max his value as a two-way guy.

Well, there's that.

-Dark Star, RIP


#57 dgwills

dgwills

    Member

  • Members
  • 574 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 04:20 PM

 

I'm a really big fan of Rooker... I'd put him in the group you're thinking of along with Enlow. Twins may have had Leach there too. He had a lot of helium going into draft.

Rooker seems like a good pick. We will need a replacement for Mauer and although we have some options, none of them are a sure thing. We just did not need extra cap space to sign him. He went a little over slot I hear, but that was likely not necessary.

It really comes down to Leach as some other posters have mentioned. So let's say the consensus view is that the tier one players in this draft are Greene, Mckay, and Wright. Tier 2 is Gore and Lewis (I believe this to be the case although there are people who would put Gore or Lewis in tier 1). You're already getting Rooker and likely Enlow without saving money on the first pick. Maybe you have to save a little in the later rounds to make this happen. Who do you have to add to that equation to make it worth taking a tier 2 player over a tier 1 player with the first pick? I'd say it would have to be someone like Baz or Carlson. Or anyone in-between.

The Twins were able to get some good players in the later rounds that would not be possible with this strategy, but the odds of any of them becoming mlb average players is really low.

Maybe the Twins out scouted the other teams and saw a lot of value that others did not see. This is something that will have to be proven since there is not any track record of the Twin's doing this.

 

Edited by dgwills, 16 June 2017 - 04:27 PM.


#58 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 15,085 posts

Posted 16 June 2017 - 05:07 PM

Wright's deal is the most surprising to me. $7m for #5? That's $2.3m overslot and ~71% of the Braves pool.


Only $1.3 mil over slot. Still pretty high, though.
  • Willihammer likes this



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: mlb draft, draft, royce lewis, brent rooker, blayne enlow