Jump to content

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

The Mocks: 2014 MLB Draft (Twins Pick #5)

  • Please log in to reply
227 replies to this topic

#41 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,654 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 03:24 PM

Agree with Beede. Hopefully, next year's top prospects stay on target and a few more come up as surprises. I'd much rather have a deep draft than a top 3 like we did last year (although Stewart was a nice consolation prize).

#42 Kwak

Kwak

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,939 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 03:41 PM

It is exciting to hear that the 2014 draft is suppose to be deep. It will be fun to follow the elite talents during the next 8 months.

Quick question for everyone: should the Twins pick the best player available, or best pitcher available? I'm torn. On one hand, today's need (starting pitching) will not necessarily be the case in 2+ years, so it makes sense to just take the best player. On the other hand, good young starting pitching is the most valuable currency in baseball, so it makes sense to hoard as much of that as possible. If two players grade out equivalently or the position player is only slightly better than the pitcher, I can see the argument for going with the pitcher. Anyway, I'm curious how others feel about this.

On a side note, it is interesting to project ahead with the Twins farm system. If they promote aggressively to the majors this year (graduate Buxton, Sano, E. Rosario and Pinto), the teenage cohort does well (Stewart, Berrios, Gosalves, Thorpe, Jorge, R. Rosario, Sulbaran), and they draft another pitcher with the #5 pick, there is a very real possibility that the top of the Twins farm system will be dominated by pitching at this time next year (10 of the top 15 prospects are pitchers).


How do you know "The best player available"? Does he have initials tatooed on his forehead?
My real point--"BPA" as you call it is defined differently by team and by evaluator. Consider what team are you trying to build--and who would make the most impact? If your goal is to win playoffs games and maximize the likelihood of winning a World Series--then pitcher. But if your goal is to consistently beat non-playoff opponents--then hitter, assuming of course there is a position you can assign this man without detracting from his offense.

Answers like best player or best pitcher are glib and basically useless, and show the bias of the responder. The nature of baseball is that hitters play the "good-guy" role, and pitchers play the "bad-guy" role. Hitters sell more merchandise, but pitchers will determine how far your team advance in the playoffs. Which team do you prefer? Then choose accordingly.

#43 YourHouseIsMyHouse

YourHouseIsMyHouse

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 03:51 PM

What Chance said... Last year's record is the tie breaker.


Unfortunately true, even though our run differential was exactly twice as bad as Chicago's... (and 29th in the MLB)

#44 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 11,754 posts
  • LocationThe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 08 October 2013 - 04:46 PM

I'm not quite sure why people seem to think that the best player available and best pitcher available are mutually exclusive. Given the impact pitching has on games, the BPA is going to be a pitcher more often than not.

#45 CharacterGroove

CharacterGroove

    Member

  • Members
  • 96 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 09:09 AM

How do you know "The best player available"? Does he have initials tatooed on his forehead?
My real point--"BPA" as you call it is defined differently by team and by evaluator. Consider what team are you trying to build--and who would make the most impact? If your goal is to win playoffs games and maximize the likelihood of winning a World Series--then pitcher. But if your goal is to consistently beat non-playoff opponents--then hitter, assuming of course there is a position you can assign this man without detracting from his offense.

Answers like best player or best pitcher are glib and basically useless, and show the bias of the responder. The nature of baseball is that hitters play the "good-guy" role, and pitchers play the "bad-guy" role. Hitters sell more merchandise, but pitchers will determine how far your team advance in the playoffs. Which team do you prefer? Then choose accordingly.


You infer that markos "BPA" rationale sounds simplistic and then offer the most shallow strategy imaginable.

I don't think anybody is debating that BPA is anything but subjective. I hope you're not suggesting that (a) elite hitting and fielding talent does not substantially improve a team's chances of winning in October, or (B) that the best pitcher available is automatically elite and without substantial risk.

Or, for that matter, that there's a strong correlation between drafting pitchers in the 1st round and winning the World Series. (In my 5 minutes of research, the Giants (2 of last 3 titles) have drafted 4 pitchers and 4 hitters in their last 8 drafts. It looks like they didn't even have a 1st round pick the previous 2.)

#46 cmb0252

cmb0252

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,900 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 12:41 PM

Looking back at the top 10 players selected in the past 5 years, 27 pitchers were taken to 23 position players. BPA is not exclusive to position players. All teams spend a ton of money and time researching who they should take, especially with high picks.

#47 markos

markos

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,212 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 01:28 PM

I'm not quite sure why people seem to think that the best player available and best pitcher available are mutually exclusive.


I wasn't trying to say they are mutually exclusive. I'm sorry I gave that impression. I understand there are definitely situations where the best pitcher is the best player.

#48 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,654 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 03:51 PM

Frankly, one could make a reasonable argument that the Twins took the best pitcher last year and not the best player. I think the Twins legitimately had Stewart ahead of Frazier and the other HS GA bat but some reputable sources - BA, Mayo - had at least Frazier ahead of Stewart.

#49 TRex

TRex

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 682 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 04:28 PM

With great personal intent on NOT derailing this fine thread, I think the fact that the Twins had at least 1 scout on hand for every pitch Stewart threw in his Junior and Senior years demonstrates the power of an 'organization' over someone with excellent sources. I have no doubt that the Twins rated Stewart as the BPA... especially since they pretty much knew the whole time who would be left after the big-3!

#50 Kwak

Kwak

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,939 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 05:13 PM

With great personal intent on NOT derailing this fine thread, I think the fact that the Twins had at least 1 scout on hand for every pitch Stewart threw in his Junior and Senior years demonstrates the power of an 'organization' over someone with excellent sources. I have no doubt that the Twins rated Stewart as the BPA... especially since they pretty much knew the whole time who would be left after the big-3!


That must be some kind of crystal ball they have--to know in 2012 that Kohl would be the guy available to draft when it's their turn!

#51 cmb0252

cmb0252

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,900 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 05:44 PM

With great personal intent on NOT derailing this fine thread, I think the fact that the Twins had at least 1 scout on hand for every pitch Stewart threw in his Junior and Senior years demonstrates the power of an 'organization' over someone with excellent sources. I have no doubt that the Twins rated Stewart as the BPA... especially since they pretty much knew the whole time who would be left after the big-3!


That's a lot of time and money scouting one kid. It just shows what front offices due to find their BPA when they draft. Talking about HS arms....I can definitely see this year turning out like last year. Several of the top college guys go before the Twins pick and us ending up with the best HS pitcher again. Currently it is another Texas boy by the name of Kolek. Big kid (6'4 230 lbs) who is already hitting 99 on the gun.

#52 maxisagod

maxisagod

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 480 posts
  • LocationThe Moon

Posted 09 October 2013 - 06:11 PM

You would think in year 3 of the 'Twins Daily' Best Player Available VS Best Pitcher Available debate would lose it's interest, but no, going strong. I'll echo my hope that Beede has a good year this year and makes the top level of talent stacked pass the five spot.

The Twins when drafting high the last couple years seemed to have a target they highly favor and have gotten their "guy" two years in a row. This year it will be interesting to see who they have targeted and if anyone else ahead of them shares their interest.

#53 Kwak

Kwak

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,939 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 07:32 PM

Has anyone noticed that number of low scoring games (so far) in this year's playoff games? Does this alter anyone's opinion of the importance of seeking dominant starting pitching in the draft?--and always selecting it when it's available? I cite the Dodgers of the 50's and 60's that enjoyed enormous success despite their difficulty in scoring runs.

#54 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 11,754 posts
  • LocationThe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 09 October 2013 - 07:47 PM

Has anyone noticed that number of low scoring games (so far) in this year's playoff games? Does this alter anyone's opinion of the importance of seeking dominant starting pitching in the draft?--and always selecting it when it's available? I cite the Dodgers of the 50's and 60's that enjoyed enormous success despite their difficulty in scoring runs.


My 2 cents... The pitcher is the most important guy on the field. He gets a bad rap b/c he plays once every 5 days, but he has more influence on that one game than any hitter does in 5 games. That's why pitchers who still look like aces beyond AA are impossible to get ahold of.

I get that there's a lot of risk drafting pitchers, but the reward is too sweet to pass up. Unless there's a massive gap between the hitter and the pitcher, for a pick that high, I'm taking the pitcher just about every time.

#55 cmb0252

cmb0252

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,900 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 10:02 PM

My 2 cents... The pitcher is the most important guy on the field. He gets a bad rap b/c he plays once every 5 days, but he has more influence on that one game than any hitter does in 5 games. That's why pitchers who still look like aces beyond AA are impossible to get ahold of.

I get that there's a lot of risk drafting pitchers, but the reward is too sweet to pass up. Unless there's a massive gap between the hitter and the pitcher, for a pick that high, I'm taking the pitcher just about every time.


When you are drafting at the back of the first round where a lot of the talent is interchangeable need can come into play. When you draft in the top 5 where you are potentially drafting a franchise player you have to listen to what your scouts say. You aren't paying them to ignore them when it comes to making the big board for draft day. Last year BPA was the same as our biggest need so we took Stewart. Two years ago they skipped on three top end college pitcher and took Buxton which looks great now.

In the end this most likely won't matter. Twins proved with Buxton they will take BPA no matter what. The great thing about this draft is its strength is pitching, specifically in the HS level, and SS. Two positions of need.

#56 cmb0252

cmb0252

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,900 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 10:07 PM

Has anyone noticed that number of low scoring games (so far) in this year's playoff games? Does this alter anyone's opinion of the importance of seeking dominant starting pitching in the draft?--and always selecting it when it's available? I cite the Dodgers of the 50's and 60's that enjoyed enormous success despite their difficulty in scoring runs.


Doesn't low scoring point to how important elite hitting is too? Once again, I'm all for the Twins taking a pitcher at 5 but I'm not for them reaching for a talent they have ranked lower on their board. With how impressive this draft class looks on the pitching side I'm not too worried they won't come out with an arm. If not in the first at least the second round.

#57 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,835 posts
  • LocationTaiwan

Posted 10 October 2013 - 06:13 AM

When you are drafting at the back of the first round where a lot of the talent is interchangeable need can come into play. When you draft in the top 5 where you are potentially drafting a franchise player you have to listen to what your scouts say. You aren't paying them to ignore them when it comes to making the big board for draft day. Last year BPA was the same as our biggest need so we took Stewart. Two years ago they skipped on three top end college pitcher and took Buxton which looks great now.

In the end this most likely won't matter. Twins proved with Buxton they will take BPA no matter what. The great thing about this draft is its strength is pitching, specifically in the HS level, and SS. Two positions of need.


And it's not always true later in rd 1. There was a groan amongst some when the Twins drafted another toolsy OF'er in the middle of the first rd 5 yrs ago (Hicks). Gibson was also the BPA that slipped due to injury concerns. If the Twins hadn't drafted him they were linked to Trout (loosely) and another toolsy OF'er was the last thing they needed at the time. Wimmers and Levi do fit your interchangeable pieces definition though.

#58 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Twins Mods
  • 11,591 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 08:26 AM

Doesn't low scoring point to how important elite hitting is too? Once again, I'm all for the Twins taking a pitcher at 5 but I'm not for them reaching for a talent they have ranked lower on their board. With how impressive this draft class looks on the pitching side I'm not too worried they won't come out with an arm. If not in the first at least the second round.


But the problem is, even if a deep class, the pitchers in the second round generally don't have the pedigree of a possible ace like a guy sitting at #5. At #5, even if the Twins still insist on a pitch-to-contact guy with impeccable control, the guy is still likely a hard throwing strikeout machine. In the second round that guy is still probably similar to Ryan Eades, one of only four collegiate arms drafted in the first three rounds last year who actually pitched but couldn't manage to make it to a full season league.

In other words, considering what the Twins most like to see in starters, I don't trust them to find front of the rotation arms unless they fall into their lap with a high pick. Hopefully Berrios and Gonsalves prove this idea wrong, but they have a long way to go.

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, they need to go BPA, though if it's anything other than a SP or SS I'll probably not be thrilled.

Edited by nicksaviking, 10 October 2013 - 03:20 PM.


#59 CharacterGroove

CharacterGroove

    Member

  • Members
  • 96 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:00 AM

Best player available vs. best pitcher available has never been a debate for me. I've always considered pitchers as "players" in BPA.

The issue I highly contest is that the BPA is - or is almost always - a pitcher. Of course great pitching is extremely valuable, and perhaps more so than great hitting/fielding (i.e., in crude terms, I'd rather have great pitching and good hitting/fielding than good pitching and great hitting/fielding).

But that's not the issue when drafting. The BPA is that talent who is most likely to be a great player at the MLB level - a very rare feat. Not necessarily the highest ceiling either, because teams have to consider risk. Elite prospects on the DL or in drug rehab aren't much value.

That may or may not be a pitcher. And if it's not, well, there's quite a few rounds left to go, not to mention other means of acquiring great pitching.

#60 CharacterGroove

CharacterGroove

    Member

  • Members
  • 96 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:10 AM

But the problem is, even if a deep class, the pitchers in the second round generally don't have the pedigree of a possible ace like a guy sitting at #5. At #5, even if the Twins still insist on a pitch-to-contact guy with impeccable control, the guy is still likely a hard throwing strikeout machine. In the second round that guy is still probably similar to Ryan Eades, one of only four collegiate arms drafted in the first three rounds last year who actually pitched but couldn't manage to make it to full season.

In other words, considering what the Twins most like to see in starters, I don't trust them to find front of the rotation arms unless they fall into their lap with a high pick. Hopefully Berrios and Gonsalves prove this idea wrong, but they have a long way to go.

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, they need to go BPA, though if it's anything other than a SP or SS I'll probably not be thrilled.


I agree that's it's far more likely to get a true "ace" in the 1st round. But it's still unlikely that any pitcher taken will turn into an ace at the MLB level.

So you can't force it. If 3-4 pitchers grade out with plus plus potential by next June, and they're all taken, you don't delve into the next tier (and forego a plus plus position player) just because "aces" are historically found in the 1st round.

Long story short, you have to trust your scouting.