Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store


Photo

2012 Draft Class: You be the GM

  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 LimestoneBaggy

LimestoneBaggy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 203 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
  • 2,753 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
  • 591 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

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,693 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
  • 2,753 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
  • 8,732 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
  • 828 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
  • 525 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
  • 4,625 posts

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
  • 549 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
  • 2,753 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
  • 908 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
  • 913 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
  • 2,393 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 SpiritofVodkaDave

SpiritofVodkaDave

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,126 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
  • 549 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)


#21 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 6,030 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 09:57 AM

I would have preferred any high ceiling HS pitcher to Bard, frankly. As stated above, my issues with the draft (really development and draft) go back several years. As for relievers being quick to the show, that's not how the Twins usually do it. They try to make these guys starters for a few years before converting them back to relievers. Also, I think I would have taken Gausman in round 1. While Buxton may be a great player some day, this system is devoid of SP prospects. Since they have little history of trading veterans for great pitching prospects, or of signing high priced pitching FAs, the only way they seem to get them is through the draft. Hence, my preference for taking a guy like Gausman over a guy like Buxton. If they had a history of trading minor league prospects for legit MLB starters, then taking Buxton makes more sense. But, between Arcia, Hicks, Benson, Sano, they have a great core of OFers with high upside already.

that said, the Buxton pick didn't depress me, or seem wrong to me, it was just a different philosophy than I'd have chosen. Also, it is possible that they will change their approach to trades and FA, in which case I'm more ok with the pick.
Lighten up Francis....

#22 SpiritofVodkaDave

SpiritofVodkaDave

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 10:09 AM

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?


Gibson, Berrios.

#23 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,732 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 10:15 AM

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?


Gibson, Berrios.


Dunno. Berrios needs another pitch and Gibson needs to get back to where he was before the injury before I'd project them as #2s.

Both have good upside, though. Berrios' upside could be huge while Gibson is more of a sure thing without as high a ceiling.

#24 DPJ

DPJ

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 636 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 10:16 AM

Also, I think I would have taken Gausman in round 1. While Buxton may be a great player some day, this system is devoid of SP prospects.



Jesus, you make it seem like the Twins passed on Strasburg to draft Buxton. In a normal draft class, Gausman, Zimmer, Appel would have been mid firstround icks at best. It was weak class and the Twins took the best player on the board, hell IMO they took the best player in the draft. His ceiling his sky high and it's not like the Twins are gonna have any shortage of picks early in the first round for the forseeable future.

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.


First off just cause you throw 95 outta the pen, doesn't mean you'll mantain that velocity once you're a starter. Hell look what the pen did for Perkins, it took 89-92 and turned it into 95. NTM there's a reason these guys are in the pen, either lack of a 3rd pitch, durability and who knows. It's not like a college coach is still a kid who can start in the pen for ****s and giggles.

It's a nice idea, but it rarely works out.

#25 Vervehound

Vervehound

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 227 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 10:20 AM

[quote name='Brock Beauchamp'][quote name='SpiritofVodkaDave'][quote name='Steve Lein'] 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?[/QUOTE]

Gibson, Berrios.[/QUOTE]

Dunno. Berrios needs another pitch and Gibson needs to get back to where he was before the injury before I'd project them as #2s.

Both have good upside, though. Berrios' upside could be huge while Gibson is more of a sure thing without as high a ceiling.[/QUOTE]

a number two, according to the standard scouting definition espoused by b.a., is a guy with two plus pitches, an average third pitch and average to plus command. berrios' fastball is right now a borderline 70 (plus plus) and his slider is a 60 (plus) and he's shown a knack for pounding the strikezone and changing speeds. he's at least a no.2 ceiling guy, imo. the only thing he doesn't have going for him is his build.

#26 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,732 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 10:23 AM

Jesus, you make it seem like the Twins passed on Strasburg to draft Buxton. In a normal draft class, Gausman, Zimmer, Appel would have been mid firstround icks at best. It was weak class and the Twins took the best player on the board, hell IMO they took the best player in the draft. His ceiling his sky high and it's not like the Twins are gonna have any shortage of picks early in the first round for the forseeable future.


Agreed 100%. The pitching prospects weren't great this year (though I wouldn't have cried if the Twins took Appel and signed him).

Buxton was probably the most talented guy in the draft.

And it's going to be at least three years before we see him. A lot can change in three years. That's why you take what you feel to be the BPA. Filling needs on the ML roster with guys who won't be ready for a half decade is a good way to continually draft the wrong guys with lower upside.

#27 Miles

Miles

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 11:08 AM

On draft day, I was hoping for Gausman/Zimmer at #2, and would have picked Piscotty in a heartbeat at #32. Given the lack of high-quality arms, I thought the strategy was fine, but wasn't excited about Bard, Melotakis, or Duffey. Liked the picks of Powell, Mazilli, and Baxendale. Fast forward to now, and I am pumped about Buxton's rebound from a horrible start, as well as the dominating performances we're seeing from Berrios, Baxendale, and some of the other pitchers. Overall, I feel pretty good about this draft/

#28 Jeremy Nygaard

Jeremy Nygaard

    Twins Database Manager

  • Twins Database Managers
  • 2,129 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 11:22 AM

The Twins made the right call on Buxton and Berrios (even though I thought they'd take Mitch Brown). I thought Berrios had done enough to sneak into the first round, so I was glad to see the Twins take him.

Bard didn't excite me at the time and doesn't excite me now. Truth be told, though, when the Twins were on the clock at #42, there wasn't a lot in terms of college pitchers that did excite me. Pierce Johnson, who went right after Bard, would have pleased more fans, because he projected as a starter, but Bard's ceiling is higher.

Melotakis signed for below slot, though at the time he was drafted I was hoping for Mitch Brown. As for the run on college relievers, I wasn't for it, though they did pick up a half-dozen guys with minimal wear on their arms. If a couple pan out plus Buxton and Berrios, we'll say it was an extremely productive draft.

#29 jtrinaldi

jtrinaldi

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 266 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 11:33 AM

I still think the Twins should have taken Appel. Because they took Buxton they may be pressured into taking the best Pitcher available this year in the draft. The pitching crop this year is extremely week. They are having the opposite problem that the mariners did when they took Hultzen and everyone wanted them to take Rendon. This year if they would have gone with the BPA they would have taken Appel, but because they have taken the BPA the last few years, who were pitchers they had to take the BPA who was a hitter. The Twins have no future aces other than Berrios who is around 5 years away. This years prep hitters are decent Trey Ball, Clint Frazier, Austin Meadows,Zack Collins all are better than the top HS pitcher, but because of the lack of pitching depth in the System the Twins may be forced to take a flyer on the Best Pitcher available.
Follow my photography, group page can be found here.
http://www.facebook....256164664420932

#30 Jeremy Nygaard

Jeremy Nygaard

    Twins Database Manager

  • Twins Database Managers
  • 2,129 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 11:47 AM

BA just released a top 50 for 2013. The top 3 guys are pitchers. The next 3 are hitters. Three of the next five are pitchers. Later on is Karsten Whitson, who will be a top 5 pick if he has a healthy season.

The Twins would pick fourth if the season ended today and are closer to picking third, than fifth. No matter how you shake it, it's going to be tough to call them taking a pitcher a "flyer".

I don't think it's that the pitchers, specifically, are weak. I think it's, similar to last year, that the overall draft isn't great.