Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

MinnCentric Forums


Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

2012 Draft Class: You be the GM

  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 LimestoneBaggy

LimestoneBaggy

    Self-Appointed Chief Executive Twins Daily Lurker

  • Members
  • 303 posts

Posted 22 August 2012 - 10:41 AM

In doing some research and reading through the forum posts, I've noticed a fairly deep divide in the TR (JR) camp, and the let's-rebuild-the-front-office-camp. I curious, for those who aren't in favor of the Twins drafting/scouting, which picks didn't you like (and as a bonus, who would you have drafted instead....more bonus points for suggesting someone who was available instead of the pick you didn't like). Although this was discussed a bit in and around the draft, some small sample size data isn't too much of a hinderance.

#2 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,668 posts

Posted 22 August 2012 - 11:05 AM

I liked the Twins draft - esp the Buxton, Berrios and Walker picks. I would have preferred Pierce Johnson over Luke Bard with the 2nd supp pick and Mitch Brown (MN HS pitcher) with our first pick of the second round. But in both cases, i admit to not knowing nearly as much as the Twins.

#3 DPJ

DPJ

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 636 posts

Posted 22 August 2012 - 11:08 AM

I loved the Buxton pick, hated the amount of flawed college relief pitchers they took.

#4 righty8383

righty8383

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 598 posts

Posted 22 August 2012 - 11:27 AM

I hated the Luke Bard pick at 42. I just can not justify taking him over Mitch Brown or several other starting pitchers that were avaliable. I had never heard of Berrios so I didn't know how to feel at the time he was picked. But for obvious reasons I am pretty happy with that pick at the moment. Adam Walker was a pretty good pick. I'm not sure if he'll be able to make enough contact to make it at the highest level but its nice to have another power hitter in the system. Zach Jones is another good one. The guy can get it up near triple digits.

#5 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Cooperstown

  • Twins Mods
  • 8,089 posts

Posted 22 August 2012 - 12:04 PM

The disappointment in the drafting/developing was not based on this year's draft class. It was based on the decisions made over the past decade or so. Actually to me, it looks like the drafting philosophy changed this year. The Twins focused on strikeout arms this year, so far it's looking like they have decent control as well, but in the past the priorities had obviously been in the opposite order.

Ryan had been quoted as saying they had always looked for hard throwers but he was just being stubborn about admitting to the change. Although he is in denial about adjusting pitching philosophies, it is at least a step in the right direction and I have hopes some top of the rotaion arms can finally come out of a Twins draft class. Perhaps the same stubborn change will also be reflected in the offseason free agent decisions. As there seems to be an obvious change in pitching attitudes, I'm for giving the front office another chance, but again, the frustration was not largely with this draft class but the long history of failures this decade.

#6 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,668 posts

Posted 22 August 2012 - 12:14 PM

The disappointment in the drafting/developing was not based on this year's draft class. It was based on the decisions made over the past decade or so. Actually to me, it looks like the drafting philosophy changed this year. The Twins focused on strikeout arms this year, so far it's looking like they have decent control as well, but in the past the priorities had obviously been in the opposite order.

Ryan had been quoted as saying they had always looked for hard throwers but he was just being stubborn about admitting to the change. Although he is in denial about adjusting pitching philosophies, it is at least a step in the right direction and I have hopes some top of the rotaion arms can finally come out of a Twins draft class. Perhaps the same stubborn change will also be reflected in the offseason free agent decisions. As there seems to be an obvious change in pitching attitudes, I'm for giving the front office another chance, but again, the frustration was not largely with this draft class but the long history of failures this decade.


I've said since Johnson took over the draft, he's been much more focused on taking hard throwers than Radcliff was - Hunt, Gutierrez, Bullock, Williams, Boer, Tootle, etc were all flame throwers. Prior to that the Twins were more likely to take control pitchers - Duensing, Baker, Slowey, Blackburn, etc. But even that's not quite a true sample. Radcliff took Garza (who fell to him), Johnson, Crain and Durbin and Johnson took Gibson (who fell to him), Wimmers and Bashore. I think fans tend to get a little too focused on presumed storylines and ignore what was actually done. Much of the reason the Twins took control arms from 02-07 was because they were drafting in the later half of the first round. Johnson has focused on harder throwers but has been required to pick a lot of relief arms.

#7 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 15,407 posts

Posted 22 August 2012 - 12:17 PM

I loved the Buxton pick, hated the amount of flawed college relief pitchers they took.


Have to add Berrios in with Buxton. Past that, I honestly don't have much of an opinion. I don't like the idea of drafting college relievers but I'll withhold judgment for now.

#8 DPJ

DPJ

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 636 posts

Posted 22 August 2012 - 12:20 PM

I loved the Buxton pick, hated the amount of flawed college relief pitchers they took.


Have to add Berrios in with Buxton. Past that, I honestly don't have much of an opinion. I don't like the idea of drafting college relievers but I'll withhold judgment for now.


Truthfully I didn't know much about JO past his little BA writeup, but so far so good.

I just don't understand how you plan on rebuilding starters in the minors by taking a bunch of relief arms. Who yes throw 95 outta the pen, but does that drop to 91-92 once they start. NTM they're in the bullpen for a reason, either cause of a durability issues or the lack of a 3rd pitch to get guys out 3-4 times on a given night.

#9 beckmt

beckmt

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,277 posts

Posted 22 August 2012 - 12:24 PM

Having power relief arms is never a bad thing. It will allow us to trade some relief assets after 2013 and fill holes we need. This draft whether is works out or not was a step in the right direction. Power relief arms can move up the system very quickly if they have command of two pitches, one being a 94+ MPH fastball. Other note, I see Berros is being converted to a starter with the belief he can add the third pitch. That would be a help if he can be here by 2015.

#10 drivlikejehu

drivlikejehu

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,207 posts

Posted 22 August 2012 - 12:45 PM

Relievers are the weakest asset in baseball, with the least upside, consistency, and trade value. The Twins should have taken projectable high school pitchers with at least 2 of the picks that went to Bard, Melotakis, and Chargois.

I'm not a scout, but other teams have them- apparently better than the Twins at selecting pitchers- and they valued a number of high-school pitchers in the early rounds (that signed for slot). Options instead of Bard included Matt Smoral, Collin Wiles, and Walker Weickel. Options instead of Melotakis and/or Chargois included Duane Underwood, Mitch Brown, and Chase DeJong.

The Twins should have taken whichever HS pitchers they liked best and worked to develop them. I do like some of the college pitchers they took later on, but that's the point- go for upside in the first few rounds, then pick up guys like Duffey and Baxendale later.

#11 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 8,710 posts
  • LocationThe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 22 August 2012 - 01:34 PM

the thing about those relievers is that they are also going to be quickest to the show. I don't know how many will pan out as starters, but if none do, you have a number of guys who have a good chance of making it as a reliever. If the starters in this class were bad, then I would no doubt be happy with the relief picks...

To honestly answer the question, I wasn't thrilled with teh Buxton pick personally. I keep hearing BPA, but that seems so subjective, and it isn't like we don't have a bazillion guys like him in the system. I'd have prefered getting a pitcher.

In all, you really cannot judge this draft for a while. If it produces 2 ML players, it was pretty good.

#12 Steve Lein

Steve Lein

    Senior Member - MiLB Report Contributor

  • Members
  • 1,060 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 08:18 AM

To honestly answer the question, I wasn't thrilled with teh Buxton pick personally. I keep hearing BPA, but that seems so subjective, and it isn't like we don't have a bazillion guys like him in the system. I'd have prefered getting a pitcher.

In all, you really cannot judge this draft for a while. If it produces 2 ML players, it was pretty good.


Pretty much my thoughts on this year's draft exactly. When the subjective "BPA" plays a position that is already overloaded with talent throughout the system, the shortcomings in the organizational talent pool should be taken into account much more than usual (pitching, pitching, pitching...).

Scouting Report: 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)


#13 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,668 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 08:31 AM

Pretty much my thoughts on this year's draft exactly. When the subjective "BPA" plays a position that is already overloaded with talent throughout the system, the shortcomings in the organizational talent pool should be taken into account much more than usual (pitching, pitching, pitching...).


I think if it was close, you'd have a point but Buxton seemed BPA over the three college pitchers by a fair margin to the Twins. (Giolito, if healthy, would be another story). For whatever it's worth, BA ranked the new draft picks and put Buxton at 22 (right before Sano), Gausman at 33, Zimmer at 38. Appel would've been around 32. All three pitchers had question marks (of the three, I preferred Zimmer) and none were locks to be a true ace. Buxton could bust, of course, but, if it goes right, he could also be another Grady Sizemore or Justin Upton type player. It's worth taking that risk, IMHO. (I also would've been ok with the Twins taking Correa if he was there at #2).

The Twins did add a good, quick to the majors type starter in Berrios and, while I wish they had taken a flyer on Johnson or Brown, they at least got some bodies in a weak draft that might actually help the ML team.

#14 jay

jay

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 08:39 AM

Seems to be against the grain here, but I don't mind the college RPs. I was confused by the picks at first, but I'm hoping the Twins might be on to something. They always say you can't teach velocity and it's clear that the system needed an infusion of it. If even one of those guys can successfully convert to SP, not many orgs can say they found a high-velo SP beyond the first round or two. Worst case, college RPs do seem to have a higher likelihood of making it to the bigs in a relief role and I'll take MLB talent where ever we can find it at this point.

#15 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,548 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 08:51 AM

Once again, I find myself a little miffed by how little we have heard from the Twins regarding the question of why this pattern of high-velocity relief pitchers played out in the early rounds. Has the print media asked? What have you heard by way of explanation?

The media ought to be forced to read this thread daily and then seek answers to these types of qestions, don't you think?

#16 DPJ

DPJ

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 636 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 08:52 AM

Pretty much my thoughts on this year's draft exactly. When the subjective "BPA" plays a position that is already overloaded with talent throughout the system, the shortcomings in the organizational talent pool should be taken into account much more than usual (pitching, pitching, pitching...).


None of the pitchers in this years draft class were anything special to write home about (sans Giolito who wasn't healthy) Taking a pitcher just for the sake of taking a pitcher or whatever position isn't a position the Twins or any team should take. It's not like there's a ton of longterm building blocks at the major league level and the kids in the minors are nothing but prospects (a couple of them will fail) Buxton offered the most upside outta anyone in this draft, IMO Buxton are the type of boom or bust picks the Twins needs to get.

#17 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,733 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 09:10 AM

I 100% agree with taking Buxton and I liked Berrios at the time. This wasn't really unanimous though at the time. The complaints were that his secondary stuff wasn't developed enough IIRC. I think some have too many expectation for the supplemental round or the 2nd/3rd in a weak draft. I would have preferred taking a flyer on a couple of HS arms instead of the RP's. They might not have a great chance to stick as starters (it is greater than 0%) but it's not that likely that a HS pitcher drafted in the 1s/2/3 rds will make it either. What I find strange is that the complaints about Berrios would have almost certainly have been true of any of the HS arms. Walker was a nice upside pick even with the contact concerns.

#18 J-Dog Dungan

J-Dog Dungan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 660 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 09:25 AM

Well, I would have to say that this year, people went a little safer with their draft picks, not wanting to fall afoul of one of the new Draft rules put into place by the CBA. By safe I mean they usually went with picks that they knew would sign close to, at, or below slot so they didn't have to lose a pick in an upcoming draft pick to get it.

#19 DaveW

DaveW

    <3 Mark Derosa <3

  • Members
  • 10,434 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 09:34 AM

The thing about the hard throwing college relievers is you need only 1 to successfully convert to a starter to view this draft class as a success from that standpoint. I sorta like the idea of taking a run at multiple guys like that and seeing which one sticks. It's not like the SP still around had #1/#2 type upside, everyone complains that we don't have enough hard throwers, the Twins address it, and people are upset. One other nice thing about college RP is they haven't been over extended like many college starters who are asked to throw 130+ pitches a game.

Best case scenario for the first few rounds:
Buxton and Berrios both are above average major leaguers. One of the RP turns into a mid rotation starter, and some of the other RP turn into solid major league relievers.

#20 Steve Lein

Steve Lein

    Senior Member - MiLB Report Contributor

  • Members
  • 1,060 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 09:57 AM

I think if it was close, you'd have a point but Buxton seemed BPA over the three college pitchers by a fair margin to the Twins. (Giolito, if healthy, would be another story). For whatever it's worth, BA ranked the new draft picks and put Buxton at 22 (right before Sano), Gausman at 33, Zimmer at 38. Appel would've been around 32. All three pitchers had question marks (of the three, I preferred Zimmer) and none were locks to be a true ace. Buxton could bust, of course, but, if it goes right, he could also be another Grady Sizemore or Justin Upton type player. It's worth taking that risk, IMHO. (I also would've been ok with the Twins taking Correa if he was there at #2).


Well to me, #22 to #38 isn't really that big of a difference as far as rating who's the BPA. As far as none of the pitchers being locks to be a true ace, I get that, but show me a SP in the Twins system who projects as even a #2 right now? They need pitching talent in the system in the form of top-end-of-the-rotation projection much more than they need another toolsy outfielder.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the Buxton pick, but they're never going to solve the SP problem if they don't address it, which they could have (and should have IMO) this year with that pick.

Scouting Report: 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)