Jump to content

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

The Store

Photo

Atlanta's draft/develoment from BA

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,709 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 09:47 AM

Ask BA: How Do The Braves Do It? - BaseballAmerica.com

Interesting point from the article. "The Braves scout junior colleges as extensively and better than anyone. Righthander Kris Medlen, as well as Kimbrel and Simmons, are all juco products, as was Venters (who missed this season due to injury) and Tommy Hanson, who was a productive starter and then traded for Jordan Walden."

#2 The Wise One

The Wise One

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 645 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 12:25 PM

From the article
On the bigger question of whether teams get “extra credit” for their development success, it does play at least a small factor in how we rank players. In our discussions, organizations that have demonstrated consistent success in developing pitchers (the Rays and Cardinals are two that come to mind) lead to some expectation that their next wave of pitchers are also more likely to fix some of their remaining flaws before they reach the big leagues. It’s not a significant factor in our rankings, but it gets mentioned whenever we’re lining up Top 100 Prospect lists and our other rankings.

To ashburyjohn. In regards to the Wacha thread comment. The question that the real smart minor league people here might know the answer to is this. Very few players come without flaws. Recently the Cards, Rays and Braves are all identified as teams that developed pitching. The question is then were the Twins drafting pitchers with less upside and fewer flaws or were they drafting similar to others and doing a poor job of coaching? They may have been drafting safer, hence there is no one with a Wacha fastball to develop.

#3 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,661 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 01:29 PM

I would tend to think the Twins go for the low risk, less flawed guys. At least toward the top of the draft. Gibson wasn't thought to have flaws other than injury concerns, same with Wimmers. Berrios was a mechanically sound prospect, his concern was his size.

In the middle rounds the Twins seem to get the guys with flaws, but really, don't all pitchers have them at that point? Sounds like they already helped Gonsalves work out some kinks from HS. On the other hand, what ever flaws they "fixed" with guys like Summers, Melotakis, Baxendale, Duffy, Boer and Boyd sapped a ton of strikeout potential despite having strong pitches and pre-draft beliefs that strikeouts would be their major attribute.

#4 The Wise One

The Wise One

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 645 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 03:10 PM

I would tend to think the Twins go for the low risk, less flawed guys. At least toward the top of the draft. Gibson wasn't thought to have flaws other than injury concerns, same with Wimmers. Berrios was a mechanically sound prospect, his concern was his size.

In the middle rounds the Twins seem to get the guys with flaws, but really, don't all pitchers have them at that point? Sounds like they already helped Gonsalves work out some kinks from HS. On the other hand, what ever flaws they "fixed" with guys like Summers, Melotakis, Baxendale, Duffy, Boer and Boyd sapped a ton of strikeout potential despite having strong pitches and pre-draft beliefs that strikeouts would be their major attribute.


Baxendale fit more the low ceiling c prospect mold with an average fb at best
Boer was coming off a hand injury
Melotakis, Boer and Duffey are converting to starters, that takes a few ticks off the FB and hence strikeouts as they build strength. It is a process. They can always go back to be being relievers. Boer probably should have been back in the pen by now

#5 Alex

Alex

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 978 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 06:31 AM

I would tend to think the Twins go for the low risk, less flawed guys. At least toward the top of the draft. Gibson wasn't thought to have flaws other than injury concerns, same with Wimmers. Berrios was a mechanically sound prospect, his concern was his size.

.

. This fits with a lot of other aspects of the organization in terms of risk: hiring from within, keeping Gardy, and their approach to free agency. It's only when they have low expectations and are taking some risk anyway (late picks, young international talent) that they are willing to assume a higher level of risk.

#6 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,709 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 09:47 AM

The Twins changed their pitching philosophy to the draft when Smith took over. Deron Johnson drafted flame throwers and high school pitchers a lot more than Radcliff ever did - Bullock, Tootle, Hunt, Gutierrez, Stewart, Boer, Bard, Williams, etc. He stopped drafting the control guys that Radcliff aimed for. And so far, Gibson is the only Johnson pitcher drafted to make the majors. We can argue whether or not it was a good change in philosophy but I don't think it's fair to say the Twins are still drafting low risk guys.

#7 old nurse

old nurse

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,686 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 03:56 PM

Wimmers was more old school lower risk.
If Pat Dean continues to pitch like he did for the 6 games in Rochester he stands a chance.
Most of the draftees are high risk.
Radcliff's ability to find starters outside of the first round were Baker, Slowey, and Blackburn. That is hardly a stellar record.

#8 Rosterman

Rosterman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 982 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 04:16 PM

Signability is job one.
Can they pitch is #2.
Number of pitches seem to be a development idea.
Hard or speed is no longer a consideration but a risk.
Even if the Twins were scouting junior colleges (where Puckett came from) or getting into the foreign marketplaces, they still seem to be lowguy on that totem pole.
Basically, if you do have the budget to spend AND take chances, you do so...since the funds do not seem to carry over from year to year. You also try to get the best that you possibly can at the time, not go for volume of players.
The Twins have also been god at looking at guys they didn't sign and going after them, at times, when they failed or became the odd man out in other organizations.
I still like the idea of not signing draftpicks ALL the time and trading for them after they have a notch or two under their belts. But the question still remains, if you got x-$ for foreign draftpicks, you spend it. If you have x-$ for draftpicks, you spend it. If you have x-$ for payroll, you spend it. Then you look and what you have spent the monies on and then do soemthing more, if you can, by trading, long-term signings, etc.
Joel Thingvall
www.thingvall.com
rosterman at www.twinscards.com