44 replies to this topic

[The Wise One]

 

I was referring to the front office having undergone a pretty complete turnover by now. Tyler Jay has zero relevance to the current administration, unless you believe Jim Pohlad was instructing Terry Ryan, "no, no, forget that Benintendi chump, Tyler Jay is the guy you want," and is still offering his drafting acumen to FalVine.

 

Sometimes a small sample is the only sample one has for study.
 

The drafting of Jay shootsdown the "draft corner outfielder" theory 

[birdwatcher]

 

Sorely lacking in top end pitching.......but if you keep drafting corner OF in round 1, that's going to happen....

 

While I see how we might conclude that they're sorely lacking in the pitching category right now, I'm not sold that this is true. As a very flawed reality check on this, I compared the prospect lists FG has for CWS, CLE, and MIN.

 

CWS has two 50FV pitching prospects, Kopech (trade acquisition) and Crochet (#11 overall). Looking a bit deeper, I really doubt the Twins would trade places when it comes to pitching talent, or ANY position, frankly. Top heavy is an undertatement.

 

CLE has an enviable system. Its strength is MI, especially IFA guys. Pitching? Two 50FV guys. McKenzie got a taste of MLB last year. A frail-looking guy with electric stuff. Some worry about his durability. Same goes for Espino, the other guy, who so far is not maintaining his increible velo, his calling card, into the middle innings. Got compared to MadBum in that regard.

 

MIN has three 50 FV guys. Balazovic, Duran ("a trade and development success story", says the author), and Canterino, whose question mark is his unorthodox delivery that makes one question if he ends up as a RP.

 

The Twins, aren't loaded with pitching prospects, but their strength is clearly position players, a diverse mix, mind you, not all corner guys.

 

I've been in this community long enough to have heard criticism about the team's ability to eevaluate and develop players at virtually every position. We were incapable of drafting and developing catchers not that long ago. I recall we couldn't find and develop middle infielders.I've pushed back on these things, but in the past I have seen merit in arguments that our pitching development was suspect. But, like many, I think I'm seeing some signs that this is no longer a weakness, and may be close to becoming a strength.

 

Interestingly, of the seven pitchers in these three systems who earned a 50FV, not one of them was a top 10 draft pick (Crochet was #11, none of the others were even top 20 guys).

[The Wise One]

The current AL Cy Young winner was a FV 45 in 2018 according to fangraphs. 3 of the 1245 or greater FV are pitchers, ergo 3 potential Cy Young winners. In 2017, Bieber did not even make the list as having an FV. Fangraphs ratings are something but not really. Nick Gordon had a 55 FV. 50 FV have included Romero, Tyler Jay and Gonsalves. Where are they now

[birdwatcher]

 

The current AL Cy Young winner was a FV 45 in 2018 according to fangraphs. 3 of the 1245 or greater FV are pitchers, ergo 3 potential Cy Young winners. In 2017, Bieber did not even make the list as having an FV. Fangraphs ratings are something but not really. Nick Gordon had a 55 FV. 50 FV have included Romero, Tyler Jay and Gonsalves. Where are they now

 

 

I'm unclear about what point you're making. I think it's common consensus here that FanGraphs and others are often right on their rankings and grades, and they're wrong pretty often too.  

[dbminn]

I'm enjoying the conversation about draft strategies. There also some debate about how the new FO has drafted. In the first round (including supplementals), Baseball Reference has:

 

4 1B/Corner OF - Larnach, Rooker, Wallner and Sabato

2 SS - Lewis and Kavaco

 

They already had Kirilloff from the draft of the previous year. The 4 OF/1B types were college players, the 2 SS from high school. 

 

IMO that's a lot of corner players at the top of the draft.

[The Wise One]

 

I'm unclear about what point you're making. I think it's common consensus here that FanGraphs and others are often right on their rankings and grades, and they're wrong pretty often too.  

Someone was lamenting that there were not many pitchers on the list. On one hand a 45 FV can lead to a Cy Young, which could be encouraging. Then there all the ones who failed. Worry about a ranking versus worrying about the actual talent is an odd thing

[BK432]

Plenty of representation on the Top 133 released on FG today - they do 133 to include everyone who is a 50 FV or better. Canterino has a 50 as was previously mentioned here but falls outside the top 100. Everyone else (Kirilloff, Lewis, Larnach, Jeffers, Balazovic, Duran) is in the top 82.

 

https://blogs.fangra...-100-prospects/

[Mike Sixel]

 

I might agree with you but you are using a recent trend that may or may not indicate an organizational philosophy. The sample size you are using is too small to be meaningful. The last 20 1st round (incl supplemental) picks have been 10 pitchers and 10 position players.

 

I'm doing the sample size of this FO....the old FO had a different philosophy....why would I talk about the old FO?

[Mike Sixel]

 

While I see how we might conclude that they're sorely lacking in the pitching category right now, I'm not sold that this is true. As a very flawed reality check on this, I compared the prospect lists FG has for CWS, CLE, and MIN.

 

CWS has two 50FV pitching prospects, Kopech (trade acquisition) and Crochet (#11 overall). Looking a bit deeper, I really doubt the Twins would trade places when it comes to pitching talent, or ANY position, frankly. Top heavy is an undertatement.

 

CLE has an enviable system. Its strength is MI, especially IFA guys. Pitching? Two 50FV guys. McKenzie got a taste of MLB last year. A frail-looking guy with electric stuff. Some worry about his durability. Same goes for Espino, the other guy, who so far is not maintaining his increible velo, his calling card, into the middle innings. Got compared to MadBum in that regard.

 

MIN has three 50 FV guys. Balazovic, Duran ("a trade and development success story", says the author), and Canterino, whose question mark is his unorthodox delivery that makes one question if he ends up as a RP.

 

The Twins, aren't loaded with pitching prospects, but their strength is clearly position players, a diverse mix, mind you, not all corner guys.

 

I've been in this community long enough to have heard criticism about the team's ability to eevaluate and develop players at virtually every position. We were incapable of drafting and developing catchers not that long ago. I recall we couldn't find and develop middle infielders.I've pushed back on these things, but in the past I have seen merit in arguments that our pitching development was suspect. But, like many, I think I'm seeing some signs that this is no longer a weakness, and may be close to becoming a strength.

 

Interestingly, of the seven pitchers in these three systems who earned a 50FV, not one of them was a top 10 draft pick (Crochet was #11, none of the others were even top 20 guys).

 

The FO is totally different than those earlier statements about, say, catchers. I'm not sure why we are talking about the old FO still?

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'm enjoying the conversation about draft strategies. There also some debate about how the new FO has drafted. In the first round (including supplementals), Baseball Reference has:

 

4 1B/Corner OF - Larnach, Rooker, Wallner and Sabato

2 SS - Lewis and Kavaco

 

They already had Kirilloff from the draft of the previous year. The 4 OF/1B types were college players, the 2 SS from high school. 

 

IMO that's a lot of corner players at the top of the draft.

 

thanks for the data.....about this FO. 

[birdwatcher]

 

The FO is totally different than those earlier statements about, say, catchers. I'm not sure why we are talking about the old FO still?

 

Because there are several holdovers among the dozens of people who weigh in on all of this. As you know, I think it's simplistic to think that the FO is essentially the only consideration.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Because there are several holdovers among the dozens of people who weigh in on all of this. As you know, I think it's simplistic to think that the FO is essentially the only consideration.

 

Well, the FO makes the picks....and 4 of the 6 first rounders have been corner types, after the last one before they took over was a corner guy. That was my point.....that if you make those types of picks, you'll have a harder time having great pitching. Unless you trade for it or sign free agents. Harder, not impossible. 

 

I don't get how this is controversial. If they only picked pitchers, I'd say it is hard to have great position players......

[Dman]

 

Well, the FO makes the picks....and 4 of the 6 first rounders have been corner types, after the last one before they took over was a corner guy. That was my point.....that if you make those types of picks, you'll have a harder time having great pitching. Unless you trade for it or sign free agents. Harder, not impossible. 

 

I don't get how this is controversial. If they only picked pitchers, I'd say it is hard to have great position players......

 

It seems to me the FO is mainly interested in hard hit rate Offense in the early rounds with the exception of the two high school SS who both had questionable hit tools but were 5 tool players.Those SS picks seem pretty risky to take where they were picked but I guess they felt good about them or they wouldn't have done it.Keep in mind Lewis gave them a 1M discount which they used on Enlow who was supposed to be 1st round material essentially allowing them to have three first round picks if you choose to look at it that way.We have a ways to go to find out if it was the right move or not.

 

I think Falvey is going to follow the Cleveland model and look for arms with traits they like in rounds 5-10 and reliever arms in rounds 11-20.At least that seems like the way things are going.If Sands and Windor work out it helps with the strategy of taking offense early.

 

I still think it wouldn't hurt to use a year every now and then to take pitching early especially when they have a comp pick.Use the first pick on Offense then the second on a pitcher or vise versa depending on the players available.There is no reason not to take some shots earlier in the draft IMO.

 

I know that since they pick late in the draft they want to go with the greatest offensive upside when they pick put the law of diminished returns has to kick in at some point and they need to look at positions outside of left field, first base and DH.  

 

Who knows maybe their strategy is the most prudent we will have to wait and see for a few more years but I think they should do what they can to have a surplus of pitching.It is easily tradable for other assets you might need and needs to be refreshed due to injury and the likelihood of not being able to pay top dollar for it.Yes you need offense too there is a balance but mixing it up makes the most sense to me.

[birdwatcher]

 

Well, the FO makes the picks....and 4 of the 6 first rounders have been corner types, after the last one before they took over was a corner guy. That was my point.....that if you make those types of picks, you'll have a harder time having great pitching. Unless you trade for it or sign free agents. Harder, not impossible. 

 

I don't get how this is controversial. If they only picked pitchers, I'd say it is hard to have great position players......

 

You initially had two opinions. Both are controversial.

 

I question whether it's an apt description to say the Twins are sorely lacking in top end pitching. Change my mind. It appears experts like FanGraphs and Gleeman think otherwise.

 

I also question whether top end pitching is as dependent as you seem to suggest on early draft choices. We can cite examples of top end starting rotations that are NOT loaded with that team's early choices, or that perhaps include early choices acquired later via trade, like Odorizzi was. So while I agree with you that it's great to pluck stud pitching prospects in the draft, I'm not yet ready, unlike you, to find fault with the selections our amateur scouting department has evaluated and recommended to the FO. (Again, the FO does not operate in a vacuum).

 

I think others are right in concluding that there's some FO strategy involved with the abundance of position players they've picked. That's reasonable conjecture. Three things I'm going to look for: 

 

1. Are they successful in turning lower round pitching prospects like Balazovic and Enlow into #1-3 starters.

 

2. Are they regularly successful at trading surplus assets for front line pitching help like they did in the Palacios/Odorizzi trade. Duran will be an early indicator.

 

3. Are they right more often than wrong when they forego pitching in favor of position players in the draft. You criticized the Lewis selection IIRC, and I said at the time that the FOis probably thinking that, of the four pitching prospects of equal status (Greene, McKay, Gore, and Wright), I'd bet two end up worse than Lewis and two better. We just don't know which two, and that's why Lewis isn't a misguided pick, especially given the Enlow bonus. But on this last point, I'm going to watch with interest what happens with all the pitchers selected within about five slots after these guys. Especially Cavaco, because there were a few highly touted pitchers still on the board when he was selected.

[Wercor]

Twins have plenty of shortstop draft picks, best part about drafting shortstops is they can play anywhere in the infield. When it comes to pitching on the other hand.....ouch, not good at drafting pitchers. Cleveland has magic formula of drafting pitching. Maybe its coaching, idk but twins need help in this area bad

[Dman]

 

You initially had two opinions. Both are controversial.

 

I question whether it's an apt description to say the Twins are sorely lacking in top end pitching. Change my mind. It appears experts like FanGraphs and Gleeman think otherwise.

 

I also question whether top end pitching is as dependent as you seem to suggest on early draft choices. We can cite examples of top end starting rotations that are NOT loaded with that team's early choices, or that perhaps include early choices acquired later via trade, like Odorizzi was. So while I agree with you that it's great to pluck stud pitching prospects in the draft, I'm not yet ready, unlike you, to find fault with the selections our amateur scouting department has evaluated and recommended to the FO. (Again, the FO does not operate in a vacuum).

 

I think others are right in concluding that there's some FO strategy involved with the abundance of position players they've picked. That's reasonable conjecture. Three things I'm going to look for: 

 

1. Are they successful in turning lower round pitching prospects like Balazovic and Enlow into #1-3 starters.

 

2. Are they regularly successful at trading surplus assets for front line pitching help like they did in the Palacios/Odorizzi trade. Duran will be an early indicator.

 

3. Are they right more often than wrong when they forego pitching in favor of position players in the draft. You criticized the Lewis selection IIRC, and I said at the time that the FOis probably thinking that, of the four pitching prospects of equal status (Greene, McKay, Gore, and Wright), I'd bet two end up worse than Lewis and two better. We just don't know which two, and that's why Lewis isn't a misguided pick, especially given the Enlow bonus. But on this last point, I'm going to watch with interest what happens with all the pitchers selected within about five slots after these guys. Especially Cavaco, because there were a few highly touted pitchers still on the board when he was selected.

 

Since there will be many more good senior signs and essentially a surplus of players to choose from I wonder if that will change draft strategies for 2021.This is a good year to have an many picks as possible IMO.

[Mike Sixel]

You initially had two opinions. Both are controversial.

I question whether it's an apt description to say the Twins are sorely lacking in top end pitching. Change my mind. It appears experts like FanGraphs and Gleeman think otherwise.

I also question whether top end pitching is as dependent as you seem to suggest on early draft choices. We can cite examples of top end starting rotations that are NOT loaded with that team's early choices, or that perhaps include early choices acquired later via trade, like Odorizzi was. So while I agree with you that it's great to pluck stud pitching prospects in the draft, I'm not yet ready, unlike you, to find fault with the selections our amateur scouting department has evaluated and recommended to the FO. (Again, the FO does not operate in a vacuum).

I think others are right in concluding that there's some FO strategy involved with the abundance of position players they've picked. That's reasonable conjecture. Three things I'm going to look for:

1. Are they successful in turning lower round pitching prospects like Balazovic and Enlow into #1-3 starters.

2. Are they regularly successful at trading surplus assets for front line pitching help like they did in the Palacios/Odorizzi trade. Duran will be an early indicator.

3. Are they right more often than wrong when they forego pitching in favor of position players in the draft. You criticized the Lewis selection IIRC, and I said at the time that the FO is probably thinking that, of the four pitching prospects of equal status (Greene, McKay, Gore, and Wright), I'd bet two end up worse than Lewis and two better. We just don't know which two, and that's why Lewis isn't a misguided pick, especially given the Enlow bonus. But on this last point, I'm going to watch with interest what happens with all the pitchers selected within about five slots after these guys. Especially Cavaco, because there were a few highly touted pitchers still on the board when he was selected.

They could have signed enlow even with taking a more expensive first player..... they just didn't do that.

What great pitcher is on the roster that this front office developed? It's been plenty of time for at least one..... as for Lewis.... we'll see. He was the first overall pick, not the 20th..... so they better be right.

As for trading from surplus, pretty sure I've said that should be part of the strategy.

[Mike Sixel]

Did you read the fangraphs.com write ups? How many pitchers do they project as a number 2 or better?

[birdwatcher]

 

They could have signed enlow even with taking a more expensive first player..... they just didn't do that.

What great pitcher is on the roster that this front office developed? It's been plenty of time for at least one..... as for Lewis.... we'll see. He was the first overall pick, not the 20th..... so they better be right.

As for trading from surplus, pretty sure I've said that should be part of the strategy.

 

They paid overslot money to four others besides Enlow, and Enlow alone got a half mil above slot. But if your point is that Lewis wasn't much of a savings over Wright, McKay, or Gore, you're right. Greene cost a half mil more.

 

If you want to argue about the lack of top end pitchers drafted and developed over time? First, you seem to be violating a rule you chastise others for violation by bringing the former FO into a conversation about the decisions of the current FO. We all know what the roster looks like. It's not a disputed fact. Berrios is the lone frontline starter drafted and developed, and not under Falvey's watch. As for Lewis? Wright, Greene, McKay, and Gore were also in that same tier, right? I believe you were in favor of Greene? So you better be right. .

 

Again, we're looking at today's list and discussing today's FO. I think you're wrong in making a claim that the team is sorely lacking in top end pitching,ESPECIALLY when you look at it relative to other teams.

 

I'm pretty sure you were arguing that this team lacks #1-3 types, although you didn't bother to give comparisons. Maybe you're right. And you clearly argued that not drafting pitchers early is the reason. If they can't put together an elite rotation via another means, maybe your concern is merited.

[birdwatcher]

 

Did you read the fangraphs.com write ups? How many pitchers do they project as a number 2 or better?

 

 

This lacks context. How many such pitchers does the average team have that FanGraphs projects as a number 2 or better?