Gleeman's Top 40 Twins Prospects Lists

[Seth Stohs]

Aaron Gleeman started his Top 40 Twins prospects series last week and continued this week. I'll continue to update this as he adds updates:

 

 

Part 1: 36-40

Part 2: 31-35

Part 3: 26-30

Part 4: 21-25

Part 5: 16-20

Part 6: 11-15

Part 7: 6-10

Part 8: 1-5

[Seth Stohs]

Added link to prospects 21-25.

[gunnarthor]

I don't really like Gleeman but it's a prospect list, so I'll read it.

[nytwinsfan]

Interesting that he has Garver (24) ahead of Turner (28). Also, no Diaz or Minier yet, although I thought he has said in the past that he doesn't like ranking players that haven't made it a full season at Elizabethton in his top 40, unless they are really great. So will he have Minier or Diaz in his top 20?

[nicksaviking]

Interesting that he has Garver (24) ahead of Turner (28). Also, no Diaz or Minier yet, although I thought he has said in the past that he doesn't like ranking players that haven't made it a full season at Elizabethton in his top 40, unless they are really great. So will he have Minier or Diaz in his top 20?

 

With Harrison, Reed and Turner out of the top 20, I'd guess he made room for them.  Those three are often higher on other lists so they had to get bumped by someone.

[TRex]

Interesting that he has Garver (24) ahead of Turner (28). Also, no Diaz or Minier yet, although I thought he has said in the past that he doesn't like ranking players that haven't made it a full season at Elizabethton in his top 40, unless they are really great.

To me, these two are really linked... Gleeman's lists are very 'Missourian', and are less projection and more historical reporting.

Since catcher defense is almost impossible to quantify for MiLBers (outside of throw-out rate), it is of secondary importance in Gleeman's rankings.

I am not a big fan of his 'damning with faint praise' style but (no offense intended), you can really tell he is a great writer.

[Seth Stohs]

Garver is a great guy, very good hitter and solid behind the plate. He made a very good impression in 2014. Turner is a year younger, played at a higher level and if you take away the season's first six weeks, he hit very well the rest of the year. I think both can play in the big leagues, but I think Turner is a better "prospect." Of course at this point next year, we may feel differently.

[Seth Stohs]

Added link to prospects 16-20... earlier people were asking who could be in the top twenty that weren't on other lists. Aaron included Michael Tonkin (who we hadn't included because he is no longer rookie eligible). 

[Tibs]

I'm really interested in what Ryan Eades does this season. He looked like he had some pretty good stuff when I saw him last season in Cedar Rapids, but it looked like his problem was locating pitches.

[Seth Stohs]

I'm really interested in what Ryan Eades does this season. He looked like he had some pretty good stuff when I saw him last season in Cedar Rapids, but it looked like his problem was locating pitches.

 

He's interesting. I think he's got 3 pretty decent pitches, but he just isn't consistent with them. Seemed to have a bad inning almost every start. I definitely wouldn't give up on him at all, but this will be an interesting year for him. 

[Seth Stohs]

Posted link to prospects 11-15. 

[AlwaysinModeration]

You know, a thought occurred to me. If the Twins are notoriously slow to promote their players, which is the perception that I have of them...then how come so many of their prospects are considerably younger than the average age for their league?

[gunnarthor]

You know, a thought occurred to me. If the Twins are notoriously slow to promote their players, which is the perception that I have of them...then how come so many of their prospects are considerably younger than the average age for their league?

First, the Twins aren't really notoriously slow. That perception came b/c of a flawed understanding of  a study of prospects who were called up.  Since the Twins were such a small market team, they'd use older prospects rather than get a FA to plug in.  So they had some old rookies - Ford was 26, Koskie 25, Tommy Watkins gets included, Luiz Rodriguez etc.  But they had a bunch of guys debut at 22 or younger - Mauer, Morneau, Rivas, Kubel, Durbin, Liriano, Casilla, Garza, Gomez, Revere, Young, Ramos etc.

 

But even if you don't want to believe that, when Ryan came back he put Brad Steil in charge of the minor league development and you can say that Steil has been pretty strong with pushing prospects as a lot of the biggest names have done multiple levels each year.

[Shane Wahl]

You know, a thought occurred to me. If the Twins are notoriously slow to promote their players, which is the perception that I have of them...then how come so many of their prospects are considerably younger than the average age for their league?

 

Baseball Prospectus did a study about this and I think it was through the 2010 season (or maybe 2009). The Twins minor league position players had the most plate appearances of any organization and I think they were third in innings pitched. I haven't seen an updated study, but my impression is that they have sped things up, mainly because they have simply had better talent (starting with Revere).

[bird]

Baseball Prospectus did a study about this and I think it was through the 2010 season (or maybe 2009). The Twins minor league position players had the most plate appearances of any organization and I think they were third in innings pitched. I haven't seen an updated study, but my impression is that they have sped things up, mainly because they have simply had better talent (starting with Revere).

I believe that this study failed to factor in the reality that lower-ceiling prospects get moved at a slower rate. The reason the perception is just now begrudgingly changing is because of the recent influx of high-ceiling prospects that are moving up faster. I can't back it up with statistics, but I really believe that most organizations tend to move prospects at basically the same rate. I'd bet that most of the anecdotal "exceptions" to this will involve desperate organizations and highly-touted prospects. 

[gunnarthor]

I believe that this study failed to factor in the reality that lower-ceiling prospects get moved at a slower rate. The reason the perception is just now begrudgingly changing is because of the recent influx of high-ceiling prospects that are moving up faster. I can't back it up with statistics, but I really believe that most organizations tend to move prospects at basically the same rate. I'd bet that most of the anecdotal "exceptions" to this will involve desperate organizations and highly-touted prospects. 

Yep.  Mauer actually had fewer PA and games in the minors than Mike Trout but you'd read tons of statements like "if Trout were in the Twins system, he'd be in AA this year."

[Shane Wahl]

I believe that this study failed to factor in the reality that lower-ceiling prospects get moved at a slower rate. The reason the perception is just now begrudgingly changing is because of the recent influx of high-ceiling prospects that are moving up faster. I can't back it up with statistics, but I really believe that most organizations tend to move prospects at basically the same rate. I'd bet that most of the anecdotal "exceptions" to this will involve desperate organizations and highly-touted prospects. 

 

I don't know. The Twins often wait awhile before sending players off to A ball, and then they sometimes really wait on them later, even with some fringe-ish prospects. It shouldn't be too exaggerated though. Often times in this whole "debate" both sides really exaggerate ("so slowly" or "well, Joe Mauer . . . ). 

 

On the other hand, it is good the Twins don't act like the Mets (Gomez!) or Rangers (Profar and co.).

[gil4]

... my impression is that they have sped things up, mainly because they have simply had better talent (starting with Revere).

That's probably the case.  The Twins haven't had a bunch of guys that have been dominating levels but still being held back.  They have had guy spend more time at levels because they struggled.  Was Denard Span held back?  Heck, no.  I thought he was a wasted pick until he had that Lasik surgery and started hitting.

[gil4]

You know, a thought occurred to me. If the Twins are notoriously slow to promote their players, which is the perception that I have of them...then how come so many of their prospects are considerably younger than the average age for their league?

 

Any list of prospects will consist of mainly players who are young for the league.  If you play like you're a prospect, you move up.  If you don't, you stick around getting older until they need the roster spot for someone else.  There are some timeline differences between college and high school draftees, but the college guys really don't have much margin for error.  That clock is ticking right away.

[ashbury]

Any list of prospects will consist of mainly players who are young for the league.  If you play like you're a prospect, you move up.  If you don't, you stick around getting older until they need the roster spot for someone else.

In addition, every team has a few older guys signed just because they are available and are needed to fill out the roster.    High-A Fort Myers for instance had Mike Gonzalez playing first base at age 26, presumably because that position was a hole in their prospect hierarchy that they chose not to fill in some other way.    It brings the league average up without really meaning anything.    Since it's every team and every year, you just factor in that a prospect a little younger than league average is about normal.

[AlwaysinModeration]

You make good points. But then...is it redundant to say "this prospect is younger than league average?" What is the point of noting it at all?

 

It's an interesting phenomenon in baseball, the urge/desire/value placed on "playing up." It is completely the opposite elsewhere...for example, the highest percentage of soccer World Cup players are those born in months that would perennially make them the oldest kid in their division.

 

The question is whether there is more value playing against competition over your head, or dominating a lower level of competition. There are certainly many things to learn from both approaches...but current baseball thinking seems to much more strongly value the "play up" approach.

 

The "late bloomers" who are written off too soon and surprise are probably those players that do better with the "dominate lower levels at their own age" approach. Maybe this approach shouldn't be disregarded.

 

All that is to say....don't write off Hicks yet!

[Seth Stohs]

Added the link to Prospects 6-10. 

[TRex]

I really enjoy Gleeman's lists, and he is usually quite accurate in his reporting. However, two things he states in his 6-10 ranking do not fit with what I thought.

 

First, there was this about Lewis Thorpe:

 

Things came to a screeching halt in September when Thorpe was diagnosed with a partially torn ulnar collateral ligament in his elbow

 

And then this about Nick Gordon:

 

outside the organization opinions on his long-term ability to play shortstop seem mixed and as a second baseman Gordon's skill set is far less promising.

 

Can anyone here clarify one way or the other on these two statements?

[gunnarthor]

I really enjoy Gleeman's lists, and he is usually quite accurate in his reporting. However, two things he states in his 6-10 ranking do not fit with what I thought.

 

First, there was this about Lewis Thorpe:

 

And then this about Nick Gordon:

 

Can anyone here clarify one way or the other on these two statements?

On Gordon, most prospect guys - BP, mlb.com, Klaw - seem pretty confident about his ability to stick at short.  I'm sure there are some reports out there that question his ability to stick but I think it's a minority view and a pretty small one at that.  BA had a video scout on him - http://www.baseballamerica.com/videos/scouts-video-view-nick-gordon/ - and they think he can stick but if he moves to second, think "Orlando Hudson - type", which is just fine.

[Seth Stohs]

I really enjoy Gleeman's lists, and he is usually quite accurate in his reporting. However, two things he states in his 6-10 ranking do not fit with what I thought.

 

First, there was this about Lewis Thorpe:

 

And then this about Nick Gordon:

 

Can anyone here clarify one way or the other on these two statements?

 

both of those statements are true. From people I've talked to (in and out of org), you hear both. Most seem to think he can stick at short. Others don't. Reality is that most don't stick at short, so to say that a guy may not stay at short isn't a stretch.

 

And, the Thorpe comment is true and has been written about here many times. It's a concern, of course. Whether it was a screeching halt, I don't know. He made his last start, but then didn't pitch in the playoffs. I recall asking someone if Thorpe's not making starts was just that he was being shut down, but I was told that it wasn't just that. 

[maxisagod]

Ugh, It's so hard to read his rankings. I get he's trying to create a whole picture/ both sides argument but it comes off as extremely pessimistic and doesn't give a clear idea why HE likes them. For example: Rosario's write up was all negative: won't be a long term center fielder, gave up on second base, drug suspension, didn't far as well in AA 2nd time. And then his positive? Can't be drug tested for reefer now that he's on the 40 man. That's it.

 

Why do you have him in the top 10 then?!  What does he think Rosario has to offer over player 40-11? This is a top 3 minor league system, he makes it sound like 40-30 could make it to the majors, but then get bogged down on the cons or potential cons to the players. Hopefully he won't have anything to say negative about Meyer, Sano, Buxton... Maybe I should skip the top five....

[gunnarthor]

Ugh, It's so hard to read his rankings. I get he's trying to create a whole picture/ both sides argument but it comes off as extremely pessimistic and doesn't give a clear idea why HE likes them. For example: Rosario's write up was all negative: won't be a long term center fielder, gave up on second base, drug suspension, didn't far as well in AA 2nd time. And then his positive? Can't be drug tested for reefer now that he's on the 40 man. That's it.

 

Why do you have him in the top 10 then?!  What does he think Rosario has to offer over player 40-11? This is a top 3 minor league system, he makes it sound like 40-30 could make it to the majors, but then get bogged down on the cons or potential cons to the players. Hopefully he won't have anything to say negative about Meyer, Sano, Buxton... Maybe I should skip the top five....

Yeah, I agree.  He seems like an unhappy guy and it reflects in his writing - except, I guess, when he's writing about his latest celebrity crush.  He's sorta creepy, really.  Anyhow, it's a prospect list so it's worth reading.  

[ashbury]

Reality is that most don't stick at short, so to say that a guy may not stay at short isn't a stretch.

That was my reaction.   It could be considered cynical, or merely practical, but if someone wants to protect his reputation as a scout, I expect it's safer to err on this side of prediction; if somebody else challenges the report 5 years later because the player did stick, he can still knock the player's current performance in some way, unless we're talking about Ozzie Smith.

[Aaron Gleeman]

Cool comments!

[gunnarthor]

That was my reaction.   It could be considered cynical, or merely practical, but if someone wants to protect his reputation as a scout, I expect it's safer to err on this side of prediction; if somebody else challenges the report 5 years later because the player did stick, he can still knock the player's current performance in some way, unless we're talking about Ozzie Smith.

On Gordon, even if he can't stick at short, the BA scout compared him to Orlando Hudson, which would be a pretty nice player.  Obviously, he's years away so we don't have to worry about being blocked by X player for a long time.  I think, even if he is Hudson, that having a solid MIer at second base isn't the worst outcome.  Does anyone know how many more chances a shortstop gets over a secondbaseman on average?