mlbpipeline top 100

[drjim]

I don't think it should ever be 100% only hitters in 1st round, but especially early it should be a pretty much surefire college arm (and even that doesn't work all time, ahem, Mark Appel).

[FormerMinnasotan]

I am a little surprised Fernando Romero didn't crack the top 100. My guess is since he only pitched 90 innings between A and A+ ball that wasn't enough to grade him as a higher prospect. But honestly right now, Romero has the highest ceiling of any starting pitching prospect for the Twins IMO (unless Lewis Thorpe comes back looking as good if not better than before his TJ surgery).

[Mike Sixel]

KLAW has Romero at 63, and he agrees with you.

[Thrylos]

 

I am a little surprised Fernando Romero didn't crack the top 100. My guess is since he only pitched 90 innings between A and A+ ball that wasn't enough to grade him as a higher prospect. But honestly right now, Romero has the highest ceiling of any starting pitching prospect for the Twins IMO (unless Lewis Thorpe comes back looking as good if not better than before his TJ surgery).

 

Romero has the same issues with Jay.  Not everyone is convinced that he will be a starter.  This is the issue with most of the Twins pitching prospects other than Gonsalves and maybe Stewart, even though I heard some of that regarding Stewart as well...

So if someone thinks that Jay & Romero are future relievers, they are off their top 100.  If someone thinks that they are starters, they are in.  Thus the discrepancy 

[dish]

 

Even the Fighting Illini had a May vs. Pelfrey situation! And they chose Pelfrey.... 

 

I'm hoping this is true.  I think a lot of arm-chair baseball scouts assume a RP can easily become a SP because they just "need stretched out"...  That is not the case.  If it was Miller and Chapman would be starting pitchers and competing with Kershaw and other pitchers for Cy Youngs rather than Fireman of the Year awards.  

 

As for Jay, it depends whether he was in the bullpen because he was cutting his teeth and biding his time or if he struggled going more than 2 innings.  

 

Looking back before the draft a lot of scouts - IIRC - thought he could become a starter.  Hoping our Twins scout was right.

[bird]

 

Indeed that's an interesting complaint regarding that pick.

My complaint is it was too much of a gamble that high. There were safer college bats available.

 

That was my concern too. I liked the idea of a surer thing for a number of reasons. The injury risk with pitchers in general topping the list. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a good gamble to take. We'll soon see.

[bird]

 

Kind of like the Gibson pick.  Sometimes this team plays it too cute.  Like they are trying to prove they can find the diamonds in the rough no one else sees.

 

This is a poor analogy IMO. Gibson fell from consideration as a top 10 pick, all the way down to #22.  It can easily be argued that it was not only a fairly safe pick at that slot, but a great pick. And in retrospect, it has proven to be perhaps the best pick among all picks in the second half of that draft. Find me another starting pitcher from the 2009 draft not named Strasberg or Leake (neither available to the Twins at #22) that was a less cute choice.

[bird]

 

I'm glad you believe Gibson has been worth the pick.

 

Among the players selected in the 1st round after #22, who would you prefer they would have selected?

[bird]

 

Draft hitters, acquire pitchers through other means, either trades or through developing high school arms selected in later rounds. True free agent aces are pretty rare anyways.

 

 

While I agree with this strategy, we know the trade part wasn't likely to be executed well under Ryan, which may or may not have something to do with taking Jay instead of a college bat. Let's hope Falvey brings a little of that Cleveland magic with him.

[jimmer]

Among the players selected in the 1st round after #22, who would you prefer they would have selected?

um, Trout? Maybe Paxton,or Richards. Arenado? The guy we got in the 8th round was our best pick, btw.

[bird]

 

You think a rebuilding team trades one of those guys for a SP?

 

 

 

Probably not, but I think if you consistently executed a strategy of drafting and developing more sure-fire bats with your first pick instead of taking a long shot on a pitcher who has a much better chance of injury than ace designation (remember, there may not be three true future aces in any draft), then you eventually would theoretically have the luxury of trading from surplus, similarly to how Falvey has viewed Dozier and Polanco as "redundant".

[Thrylos]

 

um, Trout? Maybe Paxton,or Richards. Arenado? The guy we got in the 8th round was our best pick, btw.

 

Trout is a no-brainer there

Kipnis, Seager, Keuchel, Goldschmidt were in that draft also

[Steve Lein]

 

My first post!

 

Having played college baseball - admittedly not at the level of Jay... why was he a reliever when the best pitchers on most college teams are starters? You usually see the opposite - a college starter ending up as a reliever once he gets high enough in the system and hasn't shown the ability to go 6+ innings or develop quality secondary pitches that allows him to go through an mlb lineup multiple times.  See Glen Perkins.

 

I'm optimistic he can be a starter at the mlb level but if his own college coaches didn't trust him to start I question whether he can start at higher levels.  Sure pitchers mature at different rates but if he was as nasty as he is hyped up to be he should have been starting every game he could in college.  

 

It's either poor coaching that slotted him as a closer, an extreme abundance of qualified SP on the roster, or the college coaching staff didn't think he could hold up as a SP.

 

I applaud our scouts and staff for thinking outside the box for once and drafting a ton of high octane college RP to develop into SP but college coaches would have all those guys in their rotation if it was even remotely an option.

 

A closer on a college team is usually not the best pitcher on the club.  It's the guy who's got great stuff but can't harness it consistently over 6+ innings each weekend.   Those are the guys that are used in 1 or 2 inning bursts. Maybe Jay can harness that 1-2 inning dominance and stretch it to 7 innings but I have my doubts.

 

I hope I'm proven wrong but everything I've seen so far suggests he'll be a RP.

 

I wrote the preview for TD on Tyler Jay heading into the draft.

 

You have to look at the other pitchers the Illini had on the roster. They had a REALLY good staff as a whole. 

 

Jay was a Junior, 3 of the 4 other starters they used were seniors. Those 4 starters combined to go 33-7, with what would be around a 2.40 ERA as a group.

 

In interviews, the coaches made it pretty clear that it was because they didn't need Jay to start. They needed him to close out the games from their starters. 

 

Jay also pitched over 65 innings in that role, which is an extremely high number for a college reliever. Only 1 other reliever on that staff pitched over 30 innings.

 

It was quite common if you go through the game logs that the Illinois starter would throw 6-8 innings, and Jay would polish off the game. If I remember correctly over half of his appearances were 2 innings or more.

 

Also, welcome to Twins Daily!

[jimmer]

This is a poor analogy IMO. Gibson fell from consideration as a top 10 pick, all the way down to #22. It can easily be argued that it was not only a fairly safe pick at that slot, but a great pick. And in retrospect, it has proven to be perhaps the best pick among all picks in the second half of that draft. Find me another starting pitcher from the 2009 draft not named Strasberg or Leake (neither available to the Twins at #22) that was a less cute choice.

I think you meant the 2nd half of the first round, not the 2nd half of the draft. I also feel there is no way to say Gibson is even arguably the best pick of the 2nd half of round one when Mike Trout exists in the world.

[bird]

 

um, Trout? Maybe Paxton,or Richards. Arenado? The guy we got in the 8th round was our best pick, btw.

 

 

There should be a law against playing the Trout card.

 

 

 

[bird]

 

Trout is a no-brainer there

Kipnis, Seager, Keuchel, Goldschmidt were in that draft also

 

There should also be a law against mentioning later round picks, prospects every team passed on often many times over, as suggestive of anything at all.

[ashbury]

There should be a law against playing the Trout card.

http://www.orvis.com/orvis_assets/prodimg/233T5Worv.jpg

[jimmer]

There should be a law against playing the Trout card.

why ? Does he not count as someone taken in the 2nd half of the first round of that draft and after we took Gibson?

[bird]

 

I think you meant the 2nd half of the first round, not the 2nd half of the draft. I also feel there is no way to say Gibson is even arguably the best pick of the 2nd half of round one when Mike Trout exists in the world.

 

 

Your earlier point was the Gibson pick suggested the Twins were trying to be cute by finding a diamond in the rough. None of the subsequent exchange is doing anything to add credibility to that notion. The opposite is probably true.

 

Whether one thinks maybe Paxton or Richards would have been a better pick than Gibson doesn't do a lot for me, especially when half the teams had a shot at then between the Twin's selection of Gibson and their selection. How would having selected, say, Richards, been less cute than selecting Gibson. Gibson was a perfectly fine pick in 2009 at #22, and despite our disappointment in him, he's proven to have been a fine selection relative to who else was selected in that range of the 2009 draft.

 

If someone wants to argue that they goofed up by not taking Goldscmidt or someone, well, that's just nonsense. I mean, who didn't goof up by passing on Keuchel a bunch of times?

[jimmer]

Your earlier point was the Gibson pick suggested the Twins were trying to be cute by finding a diamond in the rough. None of the subsequent exchange is doing anything to add credibility to that notion. The opposite is probably true.

 

Whether one thinks maybe Paxton or Richards would have been a better pick than Gibson doesn't do a lot for me, especially when half the teams had a shot at then between the Twin's selection of Gibson and their selection. How would having selected, say, Richards, been less cute than selecting Gibson. Gibson was a perfectly fine pick in 2009 at #22, and despite our disappointment in him, he's proven to have been a fine selection relative to who else was selected in that range of the 2009 draft.

 

If someone wants to argue that they goofed up by not taking Goldscmidt or someone, well, that's just nonsense. I mean, who didn't goof up by passing on Keuchel a bunch of times?

yes, teams passed on Gibson because of injury concerns. We decided to take him anyway because he could be a real steal.

[ashbury]

why ? Does he not count as someone taken in the 2nd half of the first round of that draft and after we took Gibson?

He counts as part of the case one can build against every front office in baseball.

 

Which should make one stop and think before using him at all.

[bird]

 

why ? Does he not count as someone taken in the 2nf half of that draft and after we took Gibson

 

Come on, jimmer. When every team in baseball passes on the best player in baseball, what does it tell you?

 

What does that do to support your idea that the Twins got cute with Gibson, or your more general view about how lousy the Twins are at drafting prospects?

 

Again, Gibson was passed over until the injury risk was acceptable. About a dozen teams who drafted in front of the Twins that year wish, in retrospect, that they had been so cute. It turns out the risk was acceptable and the pick was solid. Very solid.

 

In fact, compared to almost every player taken 10 slots before or after Gibson, he was a real steal.

[jimmer]

He counts as part of the case one can build against every front office in baseball.

 

Which should make one stop and think before using him at all.

then statements like 'Gibson was the best pick in the 2nd half of the first round of that draft' shouldn't be used either.

 

Btw, we have to do better than most teams in the draft because we wont spend, we wont trade quality vets at peak value and we wont trade prospects for quality proven players. We have to hit in the draft better than many cause our window for getting talent is smaller than other teams. We should be held to a higher standard in drafts.

[jimmer]

I was disappointed with the pick when it happened. I have been disappointed with him as a Twin. If others think he has worked out, then fine.

[bird]

 

then statements like 'Gibson was the best pick in the 2nd half of the first round of that draft' shouldn't be used either.

Btw, we have to do better than most teams in the draft because we wont spend, we wont trade quality vets at peak value and we wont trade prospects for quality proven players. We have to hit in the draft better than many cause our window for getting talent is smaller than other teams. We should be held to a higher standard in drafts.

 

 

The reason I'm happy about the regime change is because I don't believe it's possible anymore to do a whole lot better than the competition at drafting these days. The playing field has been evened out by many things, such as the ubiquitous availability of information and video, spending limits, recognition of the value of drafting well which has resulted in a more intense focus on the draft by all teams, including the wealthiest, improvements in development and coaching at lower levels, etc. Ryan's old "we can outwork the competition" thing is obsolete.

 

I think we HAVE to manage and trade player assets better than we did under Ryan. It was his achilles heel IMO.

 

But back to the draft, of course it makes sense to compare results against other teams that enjoyed similar advantages in a given draft, or had similar challenges. Otherwise, saying you're disappointed that they drafted someone rings kind of hollow, really. 

 

BTW, Gibson is one of the best results from the 2009 first round, period. Of the 21 players selected before Gibson and the 8 selected after Gibson in the first round, when only three or four of those selections are turning out to be superior and those were players unavailable to your team, I think it's okay to not like Gibson, but it's not very credible to call it anything but a good selection.

 

Again, if someone from the 2009 draft is providing first-round production and yet was passed over in the first round by every team many times over in some cases, those draft decisions just don't serve as an indication of much. Looking at who was selected around the same slot as Gibson tells you a lot about the quality of that decision.

 

People forget that if a team places 3 prospects in a top 100, that's about average. So, if the Twins are still placing about 4-5 on these lists despite having recently graduated more than a half-dozen top 100 prospects, I find it difficult to be terribly critical of scouting. I can quibble about draft strategy. I can question development. I find fault with managing and coaching. But when I look at and actually compare each draft thoroughly I don't see a deficiency. Missing on Benintendi (who I liked the idea of more than I liked the idea of Jay without having an opinion about which was a better choice), let alone Trout, doesn't serve as an example of poor scouting or poor judgment or of trying to be too cute.

[drjim]

I was disappointed with the pick when it happened. I have been disappointed with him as a Twin. If others think he has worked out, then fine.

Of course it "worked out". Gibson hasn't been a great pick or performer, but very much an acceptable outcome based on expected value of that slot. And he's not dead yet.

 

Alex Wimmers and Levi Michael haven't worked out.

[nicksaviking]

 

why ? Does he not count as someone taken in the 2nd half of the first round of that draft and after we took Gibson?

 

Well the Twins used their first pick in the 2008 draft on a toolsy HS centerfielder, I'd guess few teams have gone back to back years doing that.

 

Who knows, perhaps if the Twins hadn't drafted Aaron Hicks the year before, the team would have seen an organizational opening for Trout in 2009, but it's hard to fault them for not having a crystal ball.

[bird]

 

Of course it "worked out". Gibson hasn't been a great pick or performer, but very much an acceptable outcome based on expected value of that slot. And he's not dead yet.

Alex Wimmers and Levi Michael haven't worked out.

 

 

 

Right, and maybe people would soften their criticism (then again, probably not lol) if they acknowledged that 10 pitchers taken in the 1st round of Wimmer's 2010 draft did not work out. Only four are working out, all unavailable to the Twins when Wimmers was selected. So no missed aces there. And only one of the next 10 players selected after Levi Michael in 2011 have drawn a MLB paycheck.

[beckmt]

Bottom line is that only a few draft picks work out.  Twins due to structure have to have more work out than the opposition.  Since this is no longer possible, maybe it is time to change philosophy and sign some FA's.  We are a midmarket team not a small market.

[GM64]

Average CAREER WAR by draft pick number (table dated 2009).  http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/06/draft_picks_and.php

 

Average of of all players in the first two rounds is about 5 WAR over a career.  

 

For reference:  Kyle Gibson now has 5.8 WAR.