Neal: Home-Groan: Twins Trouble Drafting, Developing Starters

[Seth Stohs]

http://www.startribune.com/home-groan-twins-have-trouble-drafting-and-developing-starting-pitchers/386722261/

 

LaVelle Neal wrote an article on the Twins struggled drafting starting pitchers (or signing international free agents). He reminds us of many names that have come through the system. 

 

It was interesting to see that the Twins have drafted and signed the same number of Starters who have 10 WAR as the Royals and the Tigers. 

 

There is some optimism as it relates to some recent signings and draft picks. 

[HitInAPinch]

The tough part to swallow with the Twins developing pitchers in the minors is the fact that they can not hire veterans better than MLB "hand me downs" to fill in those spots.  It's one thing to have someone "serving a purpose" and to have someone is actually "serviceable". 

 

On the other hand, it's slowly working.  Painfully slow. 

[Blackjack]

Good article. Explains a lot about how the Twins have lost so many games in recent years. Yet there is some optimism with all the young pitchers coming - Berrios, Jay, Gonsalves, Stewart, Jorge. Realistically they're 3-4 years away from making a major contribution, thats why its important to get the young catchers and Polanco up and playing, see what you have, get rid of some of the vets that aren't going to be help you 3 years from now.

[Blake]

I don't think the problem is drafting. I think the problem is how players are managed in the minors.

 

Dmac laid out the case for roster/promotion mismanagement pretty well in a post a few weeks ago.

[wsnydes]

There certainly are things to be optimistic about.  The top position players are already hitting the bigs, I worry about this FO's ability to fill in the rotation holes with quality pitchers in that gap between when the position players take off and when the pitching prospects start trickling into the majors.  If the team is able to keep a core group of position players together long enough and the pitching prospects pan out, we could see an extended run of good baseball here.  The Rays were able to do that with elite pitching and average, star-barren lineups.  It would be great to see this team have a similar approach, but with more star power in the lineup.

[wsnydes]

 

I don't think the problem is drafting. I think the problem is how players are managed in the minors.

 

Dmac laid out the case for roster/promotion mismanagement pretty well in a post a few weeks ago.

It think it's two-fold.  Development is definitely an issue, but I think drafting is an issue as well.  True talent will still emerge at some point, whether it be with this franchise or with another.  There haven't been a lot of Twins drafted pitching prospects that leave this franchise and have decent careers afterwards with other teams.

[tobi0040]

From 2001 to 2012 we had 15 picks in the top 30 overall. 9 of them were position players (Mauer, Span, Hicks, Buxton, Revere, Plouffe, Moses, Parmelee, and Michael). One of the six was a reliever, Gutierrez. I would argue a few of the remaining guys, specifically Wimmers and Perkins were likely not going to ever be a number 1 or 2 pitcher.

 

So I think the first problem has been pick allocation. We did not allocate enough resources to the positions of scarcity, like SP, C, and SS. And too many resources in the OF, where we can typically participate in free agency. This has been compounded by the last 4-5 years of using a ton of picks in rounds 2-5 on relievers.

[Mike Sixel]

Good stuff.....this part cracked me up, given the BP the last few years:

 

“It’s easier,’’ Ryan noted, “to find relievers.”

[jimmer]

 

Good stuff.....this part cracked me up, given the BP the last few years:

 

“It’s easier,’’ Ryan noted, “to find relievers.”

Well, yeah, they are easier to find.  Teams have more of them than any position, so FINDING them is quite easy. 

 

Past finding them, say, to the point of actually signing good ones to make a good BP, therein lies the problem :-) 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

 

It was interesting to see that the Twins have drafted and signed the same number of Starters who have 10 WAR as the Royals and the Tigers. 

Interesting how?  You realize the Royals and Tigers (and White Sox) each had at least one drafted SP in that time period who blew way past that 10 WAR threshold?  While the Twins dealt one of their 10 WAR SP (Garza) before he even reached 1 WAR for us (for marginal or negative return)?

 

You also realize that over the time period in question, the Royals were mostly terrible?  And the Tigers have spent and traded a lot?  And the Indians and White Sox had successful holdover SP who stuck around longer than Radke?  Even if our SP drafting was equal to them (it's not), it wouldn't exactly be a mark of success.

[wsnydes]

 

Interesting how?  You realize the Royals and Tigers (and White Sox) each had at least one drafted SP in that time period who blew way past that 10 WAR threshold?  While the Twins dealt one of their 10 WAR SP (Garza) before he even reached 1 WAR for us (for marginal or negative return)?

 

You also realize that over the time period in question, the Royals were mostly terrible?  And the Tigers have spent and traded a lot?  And the Indians and White Sox had successful holdover SP who stuck around longer than Radke?  Even if our SP drafting was equal to them (it's not), it wouldn't exactly be a mark of success.

Being interesting doesn't have to be about success.  For me, it's interesting in that they've been so ridiculously inept at it for so long.  Then it gets more interesting when compared to other teams in the division because it gets even worse.

[Vanimal46]

It's not just a drafting and development issue for the Twins when it comes to starting pitching. It's also a FA signing and trading issue for them. This is an incredible run of years where every aspect of starting pitching has not worked out as they hoped. 

[Thrylos]

 

 

 

It was interesting to see that the Twins have drafted and signed the same number of Starters who have 10 WAR as the Royals and the Tigers. 

 

 

2.  

 

Baker and Garza.  

 

But Garza really was a Tampa product since he started only 26 games with the Twins with 0.8 WAR ,4.47 ERA, 1.602 WHIP and constant fighting with Andy about how he should be pitching... 

And he made the majors the year after he was drafted so really he did not have much time to "develop" in the Twins' system.  He so should not count.

 

The Royals drafted and developed Greinke and the Tigers Verlander.  I'd take either for both Baker and Garza  

[bird]

 

From 2001 to 2012 we had 15 picks in the top 30 overall. 9 of them were position players (Mauer, Span, Hicks, Buxton, Revere, Plouffe, Moses, Parmelee, and Michael). One of the six was a reliever, Gutierrez. I would argue a few of the remaining guys, specifically Wimmers and Perkins were likely not going to ever be a number 1 or 2 pitcher.

So I think the first problem has been pick allocation. We did not allocate enough resources to the positions of scarcity, like SP, C, and SS. And too many resources in the OF, where we can typically participate in free agency. This has been compounded by the last 4-5 years of using a ton of picks in rounds 2-5 on relievers.

 

Let's look at this history more closely:

 

In 2001, forgive them for taking Mauer instead of Mark Prior or Dewon Brazelton. There are no #1 or #2 in the first round of that draft.

 

In 2002, we took Span #20, and were one of 4 teams who passed on Matt Cain at #25. No other missed front line starters here.

 

2003, Matt Moses #21, zero aces or #2's selected this year.

 

2004: Plouffsie at #20, Perksie at #22. Coulda had Hughes one pick later than Glen. 13 teams passed on Gio Gonzales before he was a late round pick. That's it.

 

2005. Garza at #25. 17 teams passed on Buchholz thereafter. Coulda had Pelfrey if we selected #9.

 

2006. Parmelee at #20, Ian Kennedy at #21, no other front line guy thereafter.

 

2007. Revere at #28. Not one front line starter selected after him.

 

2008.  Hicks at #14, then the infamous duo of Gutty and Shooter. Best pitcher in the next 25 picks that year was Lance Lynn at #39. Lots of teams "missed", right?

 

2009. Gibson at #22. Find me a decent pitcher later in that round.

 

2010.  Wimmers at #21. Okay, 17 teams had a shot after that at Noah Syndergaard, and 20 missed on Tijuan Walker.

 

2011. Michael at #30. Henry Owens 5 picks later, Michael Fulmer 17 picks after that.

 

I submit that the first problem has been draft slot, not position allocation. I submit that it's ALWAYS hard to draft a front-line starter, but especially when you had no shot at Sale, Verlander, Strasberg, Greinke, Kershaw, Hamels, Harvey, Cole, Fernandez, Scherzer, Foltynewicz, Kazmir, Pomeranz....let alone Danks, Weaver, Porcello, and another dozen or so slightly lesser guys. I submit that luck has more to do with it than we tend to think. So do injuries. It's not formulaic. Hell, Brian Matusz was the #3 selection, and I think Gonsalves just out-dueled him at AA.

 

 

I mean, please, go out and review these drafts (not you specifically tobi) and tell me what I'm missing here. But for God's sake, don't come back with that silly argument about all the front-line starters you can list, all ten of them, who were available to the Twins and all the other teams, some times for many rounds, and contend that the Twins just can't draft and develop good pitching. People were saying that about middle infielders when we had a dearth of them too. I predict we'll see opinions expressed here that they just don't know what they're doing when it comes to catchers...or maybe we have already,

[nicksaviking]

I'd like to see a comprehensive study on the Twins pitcher development compared to other organizations. I'd like to see a comparison of how many pitchers get drafted each year, how many are HS and how many are college, what round they are drafted and where they were drafted from. I'd like to see what level the draft picks start at, their promotion rate and how many guys increase velocity and how many decrease velocity upon being drafted and throughout their minor league apprenticeship. I'd like to see how many innings these guys pitch comparative to both their age and when they were drafted. I wonder if any clubs are doing a peer study like that?

 

While it would probably be difficult to quantify, I'd also like to see a comparison of mechanical adjustments the Twins request of their new pitchers compared to other clubs. Do the Twins draft more, fewer or the same number of guys who they ask to change. Are the adjustments major, moderate or minor and would other clubs request the same adjustments from a similar pitcher?

 

I would suspect the Twins are probably in the normal range for most or all of these, but it'd be nice to get a baseline and see if the Twins have any outlier development practices that may be tipping the scales against them.

[DocBauer]

To further the negative, those of us who are "more tenured" fans remember a wave of prospects in the 80's that included names some of you won't know: Sontag, Newman, Banks, Pittman, Nivens, Baumgartner and Gasser. None turned out and all were considered top prospects. Not that there weren't some success stories as well, but some tremendous disappointment as well.

 

On the plus side, as the article mentions, and as we all are well aware, there is a new wave of some fine talent getting close. This marks a change a few years back in drafting and signing philosophy of not going for the smooth, control and more ready-made arm, but more of a power arm "stuff" prospect and then molding them. This new approach has appears to be working. This is backed up by milb team pitching statistics the past few years that have sent the majority of Twins affiliates amongst the tops in their leagues with quality starts, strikeouts and other rankings.

 

Hope is around the corner to be sure. But I do weary of arguements that arms have left the Twins only to find success elsewhere. Most of the names listed here on TD have turned out to be OK, or have one good year, as RP, but only after bouncing around from team to teame before finding a niche somewhere. The Twins themselves have had success in this capacity, as do most teams at some point, so I don't feel that is a valid complaint. The only exception may be Liriano, and his success came Inn the NL, and only after the White Sox gave up on him.

[Mike Sixel]

It's somehow never the Twins' fault they haven't been good at drafting and developing SP. Looking at the last 16 years.....the Twins rank 26th in ERA from starters. That's not average, that's not median, that's not as good as other teams. If you think I'm cherry picking, going back 10 more years, to 1990.....they are 25th in ERA in the last 26 years. I don't know how to characterize that other than "not good enough". It's hard to believe that in 26 years, they never had a chance to draft and develop more than 2 or 3 good pitchers.

[Willihammer]

Four hypotheses. No idea if the data backs either up, but this is where I would start:

 

1. Have the Twins overvalued LHP? How often have the Twins taken a less talented LHP instead of a more talented RHP?

2. In the 00s and early 10s, when the size of the strike zone was growing, were the Twins scouts and minor league coaches still emphasizing control over missing bats?

3. What is the internal review of personnel - scouts and coaches? What are their track records of success and failure? Does that review process need to be updated or improved (or abandoned)?

4. How have injuries hampered their efforts? Have the Twins been more/less hurt by injuries? Can we discern any patterns related to "profiles" they target, or coaching/mechanical techniques they teach?

[Hrbek70]

This is why I don't want TR to trade Santana. He isn't an ace, but he is a professional pitcher and gives you more good games than bad. IMO we have had maybe 5 years of having an ace on the staff in my 30 years of following the Twins. I would be happy to just get 5 #3 pitchers to fill out the rotation at some point.

[tobi0040]

Let's look at this history more closely:

 

In 2001, forgive them for taking Mauer instead of Mark Prior or Dewon Brazelton. There are no #1 or #2 in the first round of that draft.

 

In 2002, we took Span #20, and were one of 4 teams who passed on Matt Cain at #25. No other missed front line starters here.

 

2003, Matt Moses #21, zero aces or #2's selected this year.

 

2004: Plouffsie at #20, Perksie at #22. Coulda had Hughes one pick later than Glen. 13 teams passed on Gio Gonzales before he was a late round pick. That's it.

 

2005. Garza at #25. 17 teams passed on Buchholz thereafter. Coulda had Pelfrey if we selected #9.

 

2006. Parmelee at #20, Ian Kennedy at #21, no other front line guy thereafter.

 

2007. Revere at #28. Not one front line starter selected after him.

 

2008.  Hicks at #14, then the infamous duo of Gutty and Shooter. Best pitcher in the next 25 picks that year was Lance Lynn at #39. Lots of teams "missed", right?

 

2009. Gibson at #22. Find me a decent pitcher later in that round.

 

2010.  Wimmers at #21. Okay, 17 teams had a shot after that at Noah Syndergaard, and 20 missed on Tijuan Walker.

 

2011. Michael at #30. Henry Owens 5 picks later, Michael Fulmer 17 picks after that.

 

I submit that the first problem has been draft slot, not position allocation. I submit that it's ALWAYS hard to draft a front-line starter, but especially when you had no shot at Sale, Verlander, Strasberg, Greinke, Kershaw, Hamels, Harvey, Cole, Fernandez, Scherzer, Foltynewicz, Kazmir, Pomeranz....let alone Danks, Weaver, Porcello, and another dozen or so slightly lesser guys. I submit that luck has more to do with it than we tend to think. So do injuries. It's not formulaic. Hell, Brian Matusz was the #3 selection, and I think Gonsalves just out-dueled him at AA.

 

 

I mean, please, go out and review these drafts (not you specifically tobi) and tell me what I'm missing here. But for God's sake, don't come back with that silly argument about all the front-line starters you can list, all ten of them, who were available to the Twins and all the other teams, some times for many rounds, and contend that the Twins just can't draft and develop good pitching. People were saying that about middle infielders when we had a dearth of them too. I predict we'll see opinions expressed here that they just don't know what they're doing when it comes to catchers...or maybe we have already,

Draft slot is an issue. No doubt. I wasn’t suggesting that we needed to get an ace every year. My point is that the draft is the only real way we can consistently acquire good pitching. So if we are only using 33% of our top picks on starting pitchers, with a few of those picks being lower ceiling guys, aren’t we all but ensuring we are going to have a fairly large shortfall? Even one more Gibson and one more Garza would have made the Twins staff borderline respectable. We also shot ourselves in the foot by taking good SP assets in Johan and Garza and trading them for packages built around outfielders.

 

It isn’t necessarily the Monday morning QB of each pick. Rather the thought process. What was the upside of Ben Revere, Alex Wimmers, or Gutierrez? Is that the type of guy you can afford in free agency? If so, maybe you take a guy with a higher ceiling that you can’t afford in free agency. I had no issues with the Garza and Gibson picks. Gibson was a borderline top five guy until he had red flags about injuries. I loved the pick at the time. But when I read the draft profile of Alex Wimmers, topping out at 90 mph and I heard about good "command and control" I had the opposite reaction. We can afford a #4 or #5 starter. Why aim for one 21st overall?

[jimmer]

 

I would be happy to just get 5 #3 pitchers to fill out the rotation at some point.

See how much we've let expectations drop.  We've seen so much bad for so long we lower our expectations to be happy.  This is no shot on you, it's just that this is what we've had to do as a fan base.  I remember in the offseason before 2010 being over the moon happy with getting aging Hudson for 2B, a castaway in Hardy, and an old Thome.  Felt like hitting the lottery.  Offseasons like that, really, aren't anything big but for us, WOW!

 

Now, we're to the point of accepting the fact that this team will never sign a true ace, and can't seem to develop any,  so we say let's be happy for a bunch of threes because it'd actually be an improvement.

[nicksaviking]

 

Let's look at this history more closely:

 

 

2010.  Wimmers at #21. Okay, 17 teams had a shot after that at Noah Syndergaard, and 20 missed on Tijuan Walker.

 

2011. Michael at #30. Henry Owens 5 picks later, Michael Fulmer 17 picks after that.

 

 

I liked the Twins drafts during the first decade this century, they usually went after HS bats and went with some pretty good upside with some college arms. Quite a few guys didn't pan out, but quite a few did.

 

The Wimmers and Michael picks really bothered me, and if I had to guess, the Twins liked Wimmers because they thought he might be fast to the majors and they knew they needed all the help they could get as their pitching pipeline had dried up. There were so many high upside HS arms picked after Wimmers, I was really disappointed they played it "safe" and didn't have the patience (or were unwilling to pay) for the younger guys with better stuff.

 

However it's hard to complain too much about two isolated picks, and the team clearly changed courses after the Wimmers bust going with HS pitchers much more frequently. There is plenty to complain about, but I'm not going to hammer them for drafting "safe" picks since they appear to have made a concerted effort to change that.

 

 

 

 

[FargoFanMan]

They consistently fail in both drafting/ developing and trading/developing. Not only are they failing at drafting them but they do not even trade for them until recently with Meyer and May. This goes back to a point I made yesterday in that TR&CO consistently find themselves without a chair at the end of musical chairs. They hold on to these prospects that never really if hardly ever amount to anything more than a Trevor Plouffe or a Chris Parmelee type of player when they should be able to see and unload these guys way past them turning sour 6 years later. About the only time this ever worked was with Denard Span who after years of being a below average 1st rounder he blossomed at like 25. More often than not we hold on to these guys and they wash out or become barely replacement level players. When you are winning(2000's) you trade these guys for vets to get you over the peak. When you are losing you trade the vets and bring these guys up to see what they are. For some reason the Twins have never gotten this concept in my lifetime and that seems to correlate with who is still in charge now. Funny how that works. Am I completely off base here?

[FargoFanMan]

Let's look at this history more closely:

 

In 2001, forgive them for taking Mauer instead of Mark Prior or Dewon Brazelton. There are no #1 or #2 in the first round of that draft.

 

In 2002, we took Span #20, and were one of 4 teams who passed on Matt Cain at #25. No other missed front line starters here.

 

2003, Matt Moses #21, zero aces or #2's selected this year.

 

2004: Plouffsie at #20, Perksie at #22. Coulda had Hughes one pick later than Glen. 13 teams passed on Gio Gonzales before he was a late round pick. That's it.

 

2005. Garza at #25. 17 teams passed on Buchholz thereafter. Coulda had Pelfrey if we selected #9.

 

2006. Parmelee at #20, Ian Kennedy at #21, no other front line guy thereafter.

 

2007. Revere at #28. Not one front line starter selected after him.

 

2008.  Hicks at #14, then the infamous duo of Gutty and Shooter. Best pitcher in the next 25 picks that year was Lance Lynn at #39. Lots of teams "missed", right?

 

2009. Gibson at #22. Find me a decent pitcher later in that round.

 

2010.  Wimmers at #21. Okay, 17 teams had a shot after that at Noah Syndergaard, and 20 missed on Tijuan Walker.

 

2011. Michael at #30. Henry Owens 5 picks later, Michael Fulmer 17 picks after that.

 

I submit that the first problem has been draft slot, not position allocation. I submit that it's ALWAYS hard to draft a front-line starter, but especially when you had no shot at Sale, Verlander, Strasberg, Greinke, Kershaw, Hamels, Harvey, Cole, Fernandez, Scherzer, Foltynewicz, Kazmir, Pomeranz....let alone Danks, Weaver, Porcello, and another dozen or so slightly lesser guys. I submit that luck has more to do with it than we tend to think. So do injuries. It's not formulaic. Hell, Brian Matusz was the #3 selection, and I think Gonsalves just out-dueled him at AA.

 

 

I mean, please, go out and review these drafts (not you specifically tobi) and tell me what I'm missing here. But for God's sake, don't come back with that silly argument about all the front-line starters you can list, all ten of them, who were available to the Twins and all the other teams, some times for many rounds, and contend that the Twins just can't draft and develop good pitching. People were saying that about middle infielders when we had a dearth of them too. I predict we'll see opinions expressed here that they just don't know what they're doing when it comes to catchers...or maybe we have already,

Yes, the twins and other teams missed some guys but has this ever been taken into account that maybe some of the picks that flopped over this time maybe were developable? For instance we missed out on Mike Trout over Kyle Gibson but if we would have gotten Trout would he have developed to be the same player for the Twins as he has with the Angels? Maybe with the Twins Trout Flops and Gibson is the star we missed out on. Kind of a physics/ multiverse question but I guess what it comes down to is that are these guys getting the coaching they need to reach their potential? The answer seems to be a glaring no. Just my opinion though. Any thoughts on this?

[70charger]

 

Yes, the twins and other teams missed some guys but has this ever been taken into account that maybe some of the picks that flopped over this time maybe were developable? For instance we missed out on Mike Trout over Kyle Gibson but if we would have gotten Trout would he have developed to be the same player for the Twins as he has with the Angels? Maybe with the Twins Trout Flops and Gibson is the star we missed out on. Kind of a physics/ multiverse question but I guess what it comes down to is that are these guys getting the coaching they need to reach their potential? The answer seems to be a glaring no. Just my opinion though. Any thoughts on this?

 

The answer can't be a glaring no if it's all speculative. You can't say "no" to something that isn't falsifiable. It's your opinion, and nothing more.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Let's look at this history more closely:

Well, it seems like the Twins admit there was an issue.  From the article:

 

 

Within the past five years, the Twins changed their approach. Because of losing records, they received higher draft picks and a better chance to land top-end arms.

They focused on power potential — as well as more inventory.

“We did our research,” Radcliff said. “We didn’t select enough [pitchers]. We didn’t even give ourselves a chance in the ’90s and 2000s.

“The attrition rate, how they fall off either by not being very good or getting injured, You never have enough pitching.”

 

[laloesch]

 

They consistently fail in both drafting/ developing and trading/developing. Not only are they failing at drafting them but they do not even trade for them until recently with Meyer and May. This goes back to a point I made yesterday in that TR&CO consistently find themselves without a chair at the end of musical chairs. They hold on to these prospects that never really if hardly ever amount to anything more than a Trevor Plouffe or a Chris Parmelee type of player when they should be able to see and unload these guys way past them turning sour 6 years later. About the only time this ever worked was with Denard Span who after years of being a below average 1st rounder he blossomed at like 25. More often than not we hold on to these guys and they wash out or become barely replacement level players. When you are winning(2000's) you trade these guys for vets to get you over the peak. When you are losing you trade the vets and bring these guys up to see what they are. For some reason the Twins have never gotten this concept in my lifetime and that seems to correlate with who is still in charge now. Funny how that works. Am I completely off base here?

 

Which makes it even more baffling that the Twins aren't grooming May and Meyer to be starters now.

[FargoFanMan]

The answer can't be a glaring no if it's all speculative. You can't say "no" to something that isn't falsifiable. It's your opinion, and nothing more.

Yes it is just my opinion but there seems to be a developmental problem in the system. I'm just saying that of these supposed guys that we missed may not have developed into the guys we know with other teams. Maybe with different coaching an Adam Johnson or a Shooter Hunt develops into an all star caliber pitcher. Just my opinion.

[tobi0040]

Well, it seems like the Twins admit there was an issue.  From the article:

Good find.

 

It is a tad troubling that it took them into the 2010 range or later to "do their research" and realize this. If anything it should have been more apparent in the 1995 to 2010 range that they were never going to compete for starting pitchers on the free agent market.

 

It does kind of confirm that the Twins tend to look at each decision, signing, or draft pick in a vacuum. Versus an all encompassing strategy.

[Guest]

Let's look at this history more closely:

 

In 2001, forgive them for taking Mauer instead of Mark Prior or Dewon Brazelton. There are no #1 or #2 in the first round of that draft.

 

In 2002, we took Span #20, and were one of 4 teams who passed on Matt Cain at #25. No other missed front line starters here.

 

2003, Matt Moses #21, zero aces or #2's selected this year.

 

2004: Plouffsie at #20, Perksie at #22. Coulda had Hughes one pick later than Glen. 13 teams passed on Gio Gonzales before he was a late round pick. That's it.

 

2005. Garza at #25. 17 teams passed on Buchholz thereafter. Coulda had Pelfrey if we selected #9.

 

2006. Parmelee at #20, Ian Kennedy at #21, no other front line guy thereafter.

 

2007. Revere at #28. Not one front line starter selected after him.

 

2008.  Hicks at #14, then the infamous duo of Gutty and Shooter. Best pitcher in the next 25 picks that year was Lance Lynn at #39. Lots of teams "missed", right?

 

2009. Gibson at #22. Find me a decent pitcher later in that round.

 

2010.  Wimmers at #21. Okay, 17 teams had a shot after that at Noah Syndergaard, and 20 missed on Tijuan Walker.

 

2011. Michael at #30. Henry Owens 5 picks later, Michael Fulmer 17 picks after that.

 

I submit that the first problem has been draft slot, not position allocation. I submit that it's ALWAYS hard to draft a front-line starter, but especially when you had no shot at Sale, Verlander, Strasberg, Greinke, Kershaw, Hamels, Harvey, Cole, Fernandez, Scherzer, Foltynewicz, Kazmir, Pomeranz....let alone Danks, Weaver, Porcello, and another dozen or so slightly lesser guys. I submit that luck has more to do with it than we tend to think. So do injuries. It's not formulaic. Hell, Brian Matusz was the #3 selection, and I think Gonsalves just out-dueled him at AA.

 

 

I mean, please, go out and review these drafts (not you specifically tobi) and tell me what I'm missing here. But for God's sake, don't come back with that silly argument about all the front-line starters you can list, all ten of them, who were available to the Twins and all the other teams, some times for many rounds, and contend that the Twins just can't draft and develop good pitching. People were saying that about middle infielders when we had a dearth of them too. I predict we'll see opinions expressed here that they just don't know what they're doing when it comes to catchers...or maybe we have already,

I don't understand. You're saying there weren't any front line guys available after these picks, but then also saying not to have a silly response like listing all the front line guys that were available. What other response would be appropriate?

 

By the way, there were front line starters and others available, e.g., in 2007, picks after Revere include Jordan Zimmerman, Corey Kluber and Jake Arrieta (and Giancarlo Stanton, Todd Frazier, Freddie Freeman, Josh Donaldson and Jonathan Lucroy, among other good players). At the time, Revere was considered a third round talent, drafted for his affordability.