Twins have best farm system

[gunnarthor]

http://m.twins.mlb.com/news/article/110224834/jonathan-mayo-twins-own-mlbs-top-farm-system

 

Pretty glowing article.  Mayo likes the Twins balance of pitchers and hitters, like Gordon to stick at short and sees both Buxton and Sano as elite players.  

 

"As much as their six best prospects make the Twins' system stand out, the fact that there are several players after that half-dozen who could be big league regulars is what truly gives the organization "best system" status. Impact players plus depth makes for a truly special system, and the Twins have that combination."

 

He then writes about May, Polanco and Rosario.  He finishes with:

 

"Keep in mind that the two biggest rookie impact players for the Twins in 2014, Danny Santana and Kennys Vargas, were never considered top-of-the-list type prospects. To me, the biggest indicator that an organization is doing things right is when you're expanding teams' top-prospects lists to 30 players -- as we are here -- and you still have interesting players who don't make the list. You'll have to wait and see the final draft of that in March, but rest assured, there is no shortage of replacement candidates to choose from, a good sign indeed."

[nytwinsfan]

For completeness sake, his colleague, Jim Callis, picked the Cubs.

 

Both agree the top three are the Twins, Cubs, and Red Sox.

[ashbury]

The sheer number of potential major leaguers is what jumped out at me a month or two ago when I went through looking for players to watch in 2015.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I think the Cubs are a bit better in the elite talent department, where the Twins have a good mix on all sides of the ball and are a bit deeper. Both systems suite the team's major league resources well as the Twins don't have the resources to get the top end pitching that the Cubs' system lacks.

[ashbury]

I remain more interested in a team's 25-and-under talent, than the arbitrary distinction involving rookie status.  The Cubs major league stats page had a lot more players than the Twins at age 24 or below last year (so 25 coming up); the WAR total bb-ref shows for those players is higher for the Twins, but their total was almost entirely attributed to Danny Santana, who "some" here feel is due for a regression to the mean.   Also many Cubs youngsters racked up negative WAR last year (learning curve or just lack of talent, I can't say), and I don't know if it's wiser to subtract or just treat them as zero, in which case the Cubs' WAR total would have been about the same as the Twins. 

 

All 5 of the Twins' young'un batters registered positive WAR, including Polanco who gets 0.3 WAR for his 8 plate appearances.   Prorated to a full season that would be, what, 20-25 WAR?    W00t!    I'm glad I take SSS at face value.

[Willihammer]

I remain more interested in a team's 25-and-under talent, than the arbitrary distinction involving rookie status.  The Cubs major league stats page had a lot more players than the Twins at age 24 or below last year (so 25 coming up); the WAR total bb-ref shows for those players is higher for the Twins, but their total was almost entirely attributed to Danny Santana, who "some" here feel is due for a regression to the mean.   Also many Cubs youngsters racked up negative WAR last year (learning curve or just lack of talent, I can't say), and I don't know if it's wiser to subtract or just treat them as zero, in which case the Cubs' WAR total would have been about the same as the Twins. 

 

All 5 of the Twins' young'un batters registered positive WAR, including Polanco who gets 0.3 WAR for his 8 plate appearances.   Prorated to a full season that would be, what, 20-25 WAR?    W00t!    I'm glad I take SSS at face value.

So what you're saying is the Twins replacement players were better than replacement players? WAR's broken!

[gunnarthor]

I remain more interested in a team's 25-and-under talent, than the arbitrary distinction involving rookie status.  

 

25 and younger is just as arbitrary as rookie status.  I suppose something like 28 and under would suggest players still in or before their prime.  

[ashbury]

25 and younger is just as arbitrary as rookie status.  I suppose something like 28 and under would suggest players still in or before their prime.  

If you believe players keep improving, then plateau, then decline, it's arbitrary to pick a year since players are individuals.   But the expiration of rookie status seems even more so.   IMO the spirit of ranking farm systems is to anticipate better days for a team, and a 22 year old becoming incrementally better at age 23 and 24 and 25 is just as good for a team's purposes whether he's already on the big squad or not.