Thread: BA mock draft

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today...2/2613371.html

Callis has Twins taking toolsy OFer Buxton. I think I still prefer Gausman but I understand why we'd take him if the Astros didn't. Another interesting thing, to me, was that catching prospect Stryker Trahan lasting to pick 30 and Giolito (sp) not being drafted. It would be pretty interesting if either of them were still around at #32.

I guess the wisdom behind Giolito is that teams in the top 10 may not want to take the risk, and teams below that know they would have to pay him well above slot to get him to sign. So if he IS still around at 32 the Twins would be stupid not to take him. With all that spending flexiblility they could just use much of the remaining top 10 round picks on college seniors that would sign for peanuts. In all honesty I don't think he gets out of the top 10. Klaw said in a chat yesterday that the latest medicals on him arm making teams a little more comfortable. I would not mind the Twins taking the Rochester kid at 32 or 42 if he's still around.

Given the state of health for Baker, Gibson, Wimmers, Salcedo, Soliman, etc., and the fact that Pavano, Liriano, Marquis, and Blackburn all either will be gone or suck, it is laughable to think of taking Buxton.

Originally Posted by shanewahl

Given the state of health for Baker, Gibson, Wimmers, Salcedo, Soliman, etc., and the fact that Pavano, Liriano, Marquis, and Blackburn all either will be gone or suck, it is laughable to think of taking Buxton.

Is the pitcher we're going to take at #2 stepping right into the rotation? Is he going to be our staff ace in 2013 and fill a huge hole? if the answer to both questions is no (it is) then you take the best player available, no matter the position. You don't draft for need. This isn't the NFL or NBA.

What if the BPA is a hitter at every pick? What if the hitter is .1% better, but you know you have no pitching depth in the minors or majors? IF Buxton is way better than the next guy on their board, take him, but be willing to trade prospects for pitchers, or to sign pitchers, or you may never have pitchers. That's all I'm saying. And, from what I read, there are plenty of doubters on line about Buxton. But pure BPA seems like a bad strategy to me, as you might have no pitchers in your system then, theoretically.

Originally Posted by mike wants wins

What if the BPA is a hitter at every pick? What if the hitter is .1% better, but you know you have no pitching depth in the minors or majors? IF Buxton is way better than the next guy on their board, take him, but be willing to trade prospects for pitchers, or to sign pitchers, or you may never have pitchers. That's all I'm saying. And, from what I read, there are plenty of doubters on line about Buxton. But pure BPA seems like a bad strategy to me, as you might have no pitchers in your system then, theoretically.

I think teams don't look at players as much as this guys #1, this guys #2. I think they tend to group guys in tiers. Tier 1 might be two guys (say Buxton and Gausman) that the team thinks is better than anyone in lower tiers. Tier 2 might be slightly larger and etc. The team would then pick a guy from the highest tier but might still have options. In this case, if the Astros took Gausman, the Twins would take Buxton b/c he's the only player in Tier 1. But if they had Zunino and Zimmer in tier 1 as well, then they could alter the pick and consider other things, including roster construction, $ demands, fan base appeal, in making that pick.

In this specific case, I think the Twins would consider Buxton. According to Klaw, Buxton is generally considered as the guy with the most talent in this draft. At #32, the Twins should have a wide enough pool of possible selections to take a pitcher in whatever tier they have left. Now, if somehow they're sitting at 32 and 3B prospect Schiffer falls to them (he's expected to go in the top 15) well, fine, you grab him. But that's not likely to happen.

Good point on the tiers. The other major ESPN scout has Buxton as the 2nd best OF prospect (insider article), so the love for him as number 1 is not universal. That said, I think he had him around 7th, I'd have to double check on that.

From the latest KLAW chat on ESPN:

J.P. (Baton Rouge)

If the Astros don't take Buxton they will be punching themselves for the next 20 years.
Klaw (1:58 PM)


This is my feeling.

Originally Posted by tpb8

Is the pitcher we're going to take at #2 stepping right into the rotation? Is he going to be our staff ace in 2013 and fill a huge hole? if the answer to both questions is no (it is) then you take the best player available, no matter the position. You don't draft for need. This isn't the NFL or NBA.

"Best player available"--as though that is at all clear, especially when comparing high school and college players. Come on.

Originally Posted by righty8383

I guess the wisdom behind Giolito is that teams in the top 10 may not want to take the risk, and teams below that know they would have to pay him well above slot to get him to sign. .

Not from this year on based on the new CBA... Paying above slot will pretty much be an extinct practice. I think that Giolito will go in the top 10-15 picks.

Unfortunately, as it has been expressed many times this year, there isn't that "number one" candidate for a SP that the Twins should be taking. However, I think that no matter who is available at the #2 position, the Twins need to take a SP, even if their top choice for starter isn't the best player available. The Twins will continue their slide into horrificality if they don't spend a quality number of draft picks on plausible SP prospects.

The point, also, is not that whoever they sign is going to be in the rotation by 2013. But it would be nice if that were a possibility for 2014.

Anyway, something like Mark Appel (RHP), Rock Rucker (LHP), Kevin Plawecki (C), Kyle Hansen (RHP) . . . would be nice.

Originally Posted by shanewahl

The point, also, is not that whoever they sign is going to be in the rotation by 2013. But it would be nice if that were a possibility for 2014.

Anyway, something like Mark Appel (RHP), Rock Rucker (LHP), Kevin Plawecki (C), Kyle Hansen (RHP) . . . would be nice.

The reports I've been reading are starting to question Appel a bit. He has good velocity, but something in his delivery doesn't translate to strike outs. The more I read on college pitchers, the more I am like Gausman. But it's all speculation at this point anyway. Let's hope whoever they pick turns out to be a future Twins HOF member at their respective position.

Originally Posted by shanewahl

Anyway, something like Mark Appel (RHP), Rock Rucker (LHP), Kevin Plawecki (C), Kyle Hansen (RHP) . . . would be nice.

I suspect that you are talking about the later rounds with the names other than Appel, correct?
Pretty sure that Rucker will follow on Hicks' footsteps and end up being drafted as an OF.

I think an easier way to show people who are the lead options for the draft in certain positions would be to make a draft depth chart with data about the players along side of a mock draft. Then, people would be able to see the stats of the player as well as where pundits are expecting them to get picked.

Originally Posted by J-Dog Dungan

I think an easier way to show people who are the lead options for the draft in certain positions would be to make a draft depth chart with data about the players along side of a mock draft. Then, people would be able to see the stats of the player as well as where pundits are expecting them to get picked.

Unlike basketball and football, the baseball stats are pretty much meaningless for comparison purposes. Not only the level of competition between let's say a Pac-10 University and a High School in Montana are different, the players do not have to play right away. So a lot of the picks are "speculative" in nature looking at raw stuff and projections. Like a 6-6 170 lbs high school kid who throws 91-92 has only 2 pitches but has good control and command, could with work project to be a mid 90s top of rotation guy, if the other pieces, like the mechanics etc are there. So pre-draft stats are somewhat meaningless...

Originally Posted by thrylos98

I suspect that you are talking about the later rounds with the names other than Appel, correct?
Pretty sure that Rucker will follow on Hicks' footsteps and end up being drafted as an OF.

I thought I had read that Rucker was more likely to pitch? Anyway, I am talking about Twins picks, 2, 32, 42, and 63.

I think the tier system is pretty accurate to what goes on. Let's say that the Twins have needs: starting pitchers (including some lefties), third basemen, and catchers. . . is the "BPA" crowd really going to ignore this? I mean if the Twins had a history of trading prospect depth for major league players, that would be one thing. That doesn't really happen too much (though it is true that something's got to give with the OF situation), so all I am saying is that maybe some need-consideration is quite necessary.

This is why I choose not to worry too much about the draft. Like everyone else, I want the Twins to pick the "right" player too. Reports are all over the place on each of the players, and frankly, none of the 'experts' know who is going to pan out. To be honest, most of them probably won't.

That's why I'll primarily wait, read what I can, and hope that whoever the Best Player Available on the Twins board is the 'right' player...

But I would probably lean toward Zunino with the #2 pick.

I agree with Seth. I would go with Zunino, the catcher from Florida. You are getting the number 2 rated player in the draft---plus you can solidify the catcher position for years to come(the catcher thing is a real problem the Twins). Then Joe would be free to play 1st and catch on occasion. Pitchers(outside of a few exceptions) are usually a developmental thing. We can get some quality in the next few picks. The problem with the Twins in the past is there selections of pitchers. Hasen't worked out well.