About that farm system..

[Mike Sixel]

 

Wasn't fangraphs the high man on Romero?

 

Basically it came down to wanting to see him healthy and produce. For that timeframe, the risk was still too high for them to rank him highly.

 

an excerpt:

On the other hand, this is a 21-year-old who essentially missed two full seasons due to injury, and he hasn’t had much chance to develop that change. Independent of the concerns about the health and delivery, I think Romero has a mid-rotation starter’s repertoire. The concerns about the body, athleticism and delivery add to the pool of risk. If he can get another healthy season under his belt, Romero could be near the top of this list next year.

 

edit: "this list" being the Twins' list, not the top 100 list!

[Brock Beauchamp]

The Twins have arms, which is why I don't believe they're bottom five.

 

But their lack of high upside arms keeps them out of the top half of baseball, for sure.

 

Without scanning the rest of baseball and going from expectations based on past experience, I'd struggle to put the Twins higher than #20. They have several (as in 5+) "interesting" arms, which is pretty solid depth but without one or two high profile arms to go along with those mid-rotation ceiling guys, the pitching in the org is going to look moderately weak.

[gunnarthor]

 

Frankly, the Twins have finished last 5 out of 6 years, there is zero reason why they shouldn't have one of the BEST systems in re: to SP with all of those intl dollars, high draft picks etc
.

Because the time period covered in that statement doesn't equate to the time period covering the current farm system.  The Twins have drafted two pitchers high in that time period - Jay and Stewart. They lacked a second round pick and failed to sign another second round pick. They drafted several relief pitchers.  In fact,  in the time frame you are covering the Twins drafted four pitchers in the top 100 picks of any draft - Jay, Stewart, Eades and Jax. On the international side, the Twins aimed at hitters. I think (I could be wrong) that the only 'big' dollars they've given to pitchers were Jorge (about 350 IIRC) and Ynoa (800k).  

[DaveW]

Well they struck out so far on Jay and Stewart. Stewart I don't mind, that's what happens with HS arms and he still could be ok.

 

Jay though? To draft a college RP in the first round and make him a starter? Bad idea.

 

They should have speant more intl dollars on arms as well.

[gunnarthor]

 

They should have speant more intl dollars on arms as well.

I have no idea of who/what they should spend international money on. I suspect teams might have connections with certain agents and take those players. It does seem like most int. lists are players, not pitchers, but I could be wrong.  

[TheLeviathan]

I guess I'm confused why "no better than 20" and "Bottom 5" are all that different.  It all seems we agree they aren't very good on that front, 5th worst vs. 9th worst seems like a weird hill to die on.

[drjim]

 

The Twins have arms, which is why I don't believe they're bottom five.

 

But their lack of high upside arms keeps them out of the top half of baseball, for sure.

 

Without scanning the rest of baseball and going from expectations based on past experience, I'd struggle to put the Twins higher than #20. They have several (as in 5+) "interesting" arms, which is pretty solid depth but without one or two high profile arms to go along with those mid-rotation ceiling guys, the pitching in the org is going to look moderately weak.

 

20 seems about right. I think it is easy to look at the Twins and be critical (and rightfully so), but there are several really bad farm systems.

[gunnarthor]

 

I guess I'm confused why "no better than 20" and "Bottom 5" are all that different.  It all seems we agree they aren't very good on that front, 5th worst vs. 9th worst seems like a weird hill to die on.

Well, sure. Dave just seemed to present as fact that we were bottom five and I was trying to figure out if this was based on something or just a number he pulled out of his behind.  We all agree that the system is low on top of the rotation types.  I currently believe only two pitchers have the potential to make it that far and they are far from realizing it (Romero and Thorpe).  The rest are 4/5 types but I think that's somewhat common among all teams.  If Romero steps up his game, do we move from 22 to 13, for example, and does that matter?  

[TheLeviathan]

 

Well, sure. Dave just seemed to present as fact that we were bottom five and I was trying to figure out if this was based on something or just a number he pulled out of his behind.  We all agree that the system is low on top of the rotation types.  I currently believe only two pitchers have the potential to make it that far and they are far from realizing it (Romero and Thorpe).  The rest are 4/5 types but I think that's somewhat common among all teams.  If Romero steps up his game, do we move from 22 to 13, for example, and does that matter?  

 

Romero taking a step forward would obviously help.  We're in the bottom third because we basically have no one close that projects to be a significant impact, so if one guy changes that it changes the equation for sure.

 

Prospect lists are volatile for that very reason.  And one reason why I, personally, don't really care that much about them.  I'll monitor our minor leaguers but I wait for them to start advancing and showing development before I really buy-in.

 

And right now, on our pitching side, there is very little to buy into.  I'm bought in on the upside Romero has, but beyond that I think things look fairly bleak.  But that could change by August.  Hell, it could change by June.

[gunnarthor]

 

Hell, it could change by June.

If it doesn't change by June, our draft went in a whole different direction ...

[TheLeviathan]

 

If it doesn't change by June, our draft went in a whole different direction ...

 

Ha!  Not what I meant, but yes, that will help too.

[caninatl04]

I've decided its not a Twins problem, but a problem with the Minneapolis Public Water System.  That is, there's something in the water.

 

I know this is a Twins website, but consider other Minneapolis-based teams and their apparent inability to develop high draft pick talent.

 

Chris Dunn and Laquan Treadwell come to mind.

 

(I meant this as a humorous interjection-- I am fully aware that Twins' prospects drink the water from other cities) 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I guess I'm confused why "no better than 20" and "Bottom 5" are all that different.  It all seems we agree they aren't very good on that front, 5th worst vs. 9th worst seems like a weird hill to die on.

Because there are some really bad farm systems out there, the kind that don't have several arms with ceilings high enough to expect a few of them to turn into competent MLB players.

 

Look at the Marlins. They have one arm with a B-/B rating.

 

The Angels don't have a single MiLB arm with a rating higher than C+ grade.

 

The Tigers have one arm with a B or higher grade (though a few B- arms).

 

Even the Red Sox have just one guy at a B grade or higher.

 

I could go on. There are several other teams that struggle with similar problems.

 

As for the Twins, they have three arms with a B or higher grade and three more with a B- grade.

 

Bottom five indicates incompetence on some level, that the situation is rather hopeless. "Kinda bad, maybe mediocre if you squint" is something rather different because there's talent there, it just hasn't matured (and maybe never will).

[bird]

 

I guess I'm confused why "no better than 20" and "Bottom 5" are all that different.  It all seems we agree they aren't very good on that front, 5th worst vs. 9th worst seems like a weird hill to die on.

 

 

But 19th worst or 14th worse are different descriptions. Don't miss the point some of us are making, which is that, with nothing whatsoever to back it up, some want to describe the situation in the worst of all possible terms. Like 5th worst. And people aren't dying on a hill about it, they're just calling bull.

[Mike Sixel]

Seems to me a lot of people skipped over markos' post where he actually analyzed the job in drafting compared to expected outcomes looking at long periods of data.....

 

Either way, it's not where most of us want it. And, here's hoping the new FO does a better job of using all manner of ways to add talent. So far, they've demonstrated a desire to add castoffs that were never all that good from other teams (see pitchers added this year) and identifying a gaping hole (catcher) and trying to fill it in FA. But, this team lives and breathes, imo, by how it drafts, signs IFAs, and develops those two.

[TheLeviathan]

 

But 19th worst or 14th worse are different descriptions. Don't miss the point some of us are making, which is that, with nothing whatsoever to back it up, some want to describe the situation in the worst of all possible terms. Like 5th worst. And people aren't dying on a hill about it, they're just calling bull.

 

Perhaps, but the pitching situation is pretty dire.  I think it's possible to say that it isn't "barren" while at the same time saying it's among the worst in baseball is not inaccurate.

 

After that the nitty gritty is really about personal preferences for how you value things IMO.

[gunnarthor]

So maybe someone can correct me but I think I'm about 95% right. Here are the GM/scouting directors over certain periods.

95-07 - Ryan/Radcliff. I think we all more or less agree that this duo did good in this era. They did have some misses on pitchers but got some good seasons out of some important picks.

08-11 - Smith/Johnson. Rough period with limited successes.  Gibson is the only pitcher that made the majors from those drafts.

12* - Ryan/Johnson/Radcliff*. Good draft. Duffey made it as a starter before going to the pen and Berrios looks promising.

13-16 - Ryan/Johnson - jury is still out but looks underwhelming but the classes are still in the system.  Only 4 starting pitchers taken in the first 100 picks of any draft.

17- Lavine/S. Johnson - big draft coming up. Probably takes a few pitchers.

 

* I put this asterisk here because I'm positive I read a lot of articles in 2012 about how Radcliff was a big advisor but didn't read those stories in subsequent years. I think Radcliff had a lot of input on that draft and was the de facto draft decider that day. Jeremy or Seth could correct me.

 

I think it's fair to analyze why Deron Johnson's drafts looked different from Radcliff's drafts, since they both probably had similar scouts (I know that's not completely true). I've mentioned before that Johnson had some strategies that I didn't love but at least understood - taking velocity over control and relief pitchers as a potential spot for finding ML starters. Those two decisions probably impacted how our system is currently sitting. Johnson also seemed to go for HS pitchers more and some have looked good - Berrios and Gonsalves.

 

** I don't know who was in charge of international signings in these periods.

[whydidnt]

Since almost all of this discussion is opinion, it's somewhat frustrating to see guys trying to claim their facts are better than others. <Rant Done>. I'm going to stand by my original question, because even those that seem to think there isn't a problem, also seem to think at best we have been average. From my perspective when your organization does not compete for top Free Agents, does not compete for top International signings (non pool-protected) and seems to avoid top tier pool-protected talent, electing to "spread the money around", then you darn well be better at the draft than most other teams. From where I sit they have not been, and they have actually been worse than many. We all agree that the baseball draft is as much art as science, but if all we care about is making sure our draft is average, then we might as well save a few million in scouting and grab the latest Baseball America and take the consensus pick in each round, right? I mean I keep hearing that we did almost as good as everyone else, so it must not really matter. Teams that score top talent in the mid to lower part of the 1st round just got lucky. Teams that draft guys at the beginning of the draft that fail, just had bad luck. Seems like if it's all luck, every team wastes a lot of money on scouting.

[ShouldaCouldaWoulda]

 

Since almost all of this discussion is opinion, it's somewhat frustrating to see guys trying to claim their facts are better than others. <Rant Done>. I'm going to stand by my original question, because even those that seem to think there isn't a problem, also seem to think at best we have been average. From my perspective when your organization does not compete for top Free Agents, does not compete for top International signings (non pool-protected) and seems to avoid top tier pool-protected talent, electing to "spread the money around", then you darn well be better at the draft than most other teams. From where I sit they have not been, and they have actually been worse than many. We all agree that the baseball draft is as much art as science, but if all we care about is making sure our draft is average, then we might as well save a few million in scouting and grab the latest Baseball America and take the consensus pick in each round, right? I mean I keep hearing that we did almost as good as everyone else, so it must not really matter. Teams that score top talent in the mid to lower part of the 1st round just got lucky. Teams that draft guys at the beginning of the draft that fail, just had bad luck. Seems like if it's all luck, every team wastes a lot of money on scouting.

And no incentive to play to tank/rebuild, if there is no consensus top talents. 

[gunnarthor]

 

Since almost all of this discussion is opinion, it's somewhat frustrating to see guys trying to claim their facts are better than others. <Rant Done>. I'm going to stand by my original question, because even those that seem to think there isn't a problem, also seem to think at best we have been average. From my perspective when your organization does not compete for top Free Agents, does not compete for top International signings (non pool-protected) and seems to avoid top tier pool-protected talent, electing to "spread the money around", then you darn well be better at the draft than most other teams. From where I sit they have not been, and they have actually been worse than many. We all agree that the baseball draft is as much art as science, but if all we care about is making sure our draft is average, then we might as well save a few million in scouting and grab the latest Baseball America and take the consensus pick in each round, right? I mean I keep hearing that we did almost as good as everyone else, so it must not really matter. Teams that score top talent in the mid to lower part of the 1st round just got lucky. Teams that draft guys at the beginning of the draft that fail, just had bad luck. Seems like if it's all luck, every team wastes a lot of money on scouting.

My problem with posts like yours is that they are very broadly stated. They fail to recognize the "moment in time" or take it seriously. Baseball America, for example, has rated teams systems for since at least 2011. Only three teams have had been top 10 for four or more years in a row -Twins, Astros, Red Sox. (Rangers were close, too, because of international signings and that's a good omen for Lavine). The Astros had more picks in that period and the Red Sox took great advantage of their financial assets. Jayson Parks mocked the Angels system by saying the Twins 11-20 guys were better than the Angels 1-10. And he was right! The Twins dropped this year but anyone who has been following minor league systems know that the Twins have had amazing talent in their system. To suggest that they aren't good at drafting or signing etc during a very defensible down year is pretty cynical. And the Twins will easily be a top 10 system next year.

 

Guys like Kepler, Polanco and even Berrios were not highly regarded guys. Berrios was a supp pick and neither Kepler nor Polanco were major signings in their international group (both were in the 18-20 range on bonuses). The team developed them. Rosario was a 4th rounder. So was Gonsalves. Thorpe and Romero were cheap signings. So was Wells.

[whydidnt]

My problem with posts like yours is that they are very broadly stated. They fail to recognize the "moment in time" or take it seriously. Baseball America, for example, has rated teams systems for since at least 2011. Only three teams have had been top 10 for four or more years in a row -Twins, Astros, Red Sox. (Rangers were close, too, because of international signings and that's a good omen for Lavine). The Astros had more picks in that period and the Red Sox took great advantage of their financial assets. Jayson Parks mocked the Angels system by saying the Twins 11-20 guys were better than the Angels 1-10. And he was right! The Twins dropped this year but anyone who has been following minor league systems know that the Twins have had amazing talent in their system. To suggest that they aren't good at drafting or signing etc during a very defensible down year is pretty cynical. And the Twins will easily be a top 10 system next year.

 

Guys like Kepler, Polanco and even Berrios were not highly regarded guys. Berrios was a supp pick and neither Kepler nor Polanco were major signings in their international group (both were in the 18-20 range on bonuses). The team developed them. Rosario was a 4th rounder. So was Gonsalves. Thorpe and Romero were cheap signings. So was Wells.

Or course they are broadly stated. We don't have any way to specifically judge the effectiveness of scouting, player development, etc. other than the end results. The Twins have the worst record in baseball over the last 5 years. Want to look out further? They have the 28th worst record in baseball over the last 10 years. Put bluntly they have been bad for a long time. Worse than almost every other team in the league. SOME of that has to be because they have been drafting players that are worse than other teams. I get that they don't have the resources of the Dodgers, Yankees, Cubs, etc., but they could certainly have done better over the last 10 years than 28th, couldn't they? I have a difficult time accepting that they are as good as every other team at drafting when they just haven't had the results to back that up. The results show they have been one of the worst teams in the league. How do you reconcile the fact that they have been bad for a long time, but still drafted well? I can't make it work.

[gunnarthor]

 

 I get that they don't have the resources of the Dodgers, Yankees, Cubs, etc., but they could certainly have done better over the last 10 years than 28th, couldn't they? I have a difficult time accepting that they are as good as every other team at drafting when they just haven't had the results to back that up. The results show they have been one of the worst teams in the league. How do you reconcile the fact that they have been bad for a long time, but still drafted well? I can't make it work.

See, this is why your posts are sorta nuts. You want to complain about the last 10 years, now. OK. But over the last 30 years the Twins are tied for 4th most World Series. See, anything taken out of context is kinda silly.

 

The professional evaluators - BA, Klaw, BP, etc - have been ranking the Twins system highly for several years. I believe this offseason, Klaw was the high man and had it ranked 11th and BA had the low end at 21. The results show that the farm systems have been among the best in baseball since 2012.

 

As to your last question, here's the answer. Assuming you want to only look at drafts that are still part of the system (i.e. ignoring the 2012 draft), this is what you have:

2013 - Stewart, Gonsalves and Garver. Gonsalves and Stewart both made a few pre-season top 100 lists. Garver is a potential back-up catcher. Both pitchers were among the youngest arms in AA last year.

2014 - Gordon, Burdi and every relief pitcher ever. Gordon was a consensus top 100 guy, Burdi made some lists before his injury. Both are playing well this year and Burdi should be in MN fairly soon.

2015 - Jay. That's it. The Twins didn't have a second round pick because they signed Santana and their other second round pick didn't sign. (The draft also gave them LaMonte Wade who might be something). Jay made several top 100 lists pre-season but is now injured and moving to the bullpen.

2016 - Kiriloff and a bunch of very young players. Kiriloff was ranked top 100 in several rankings as well. This was an exciting draft but it's much too early to get a read on it. Several players were 17 on draft day. Kiriloff is out for the season.

 

So, that doesn't seem like we drafted badly. Some bad luck with injuries but several top 100 types. No Buxton/Berrios in there but Gordon is probably in that second Kepler-like tier. Basically, the argument is that Jay and Stewart aren't what we want them to be today so the Twins must be horrible at drafting/developing.

[jimmer]

So we have been drafting well and spending money in the international draft, but we have one full season with a winning record this decade (which is the only year we didn't lose at least 92)

We have been drafting high for years. For years the excuses we weren't getting much from drafts is cause drafted so low. So now that we are drafting high consistently, the players should be better. They should be higher ranked. We have one guy in the top 100, and none in the top 40, right?  

 

We shouldn't be okay with doing average in drafts because, due to many others excuses used for not having top players on our MLB teams, we have to nail our drafts. Especially when we consistently draft high.  I seriously can't understand how people can defend our drafts, especially when a lot of our talented position players weren't drafted.

[gunnarthor]

 

So we have been drafting well and spending money in the international draft, but we have one full season with a winning record this decade (which is the only year we didn't lose at least 92)

We have been drafting high for years. For years the excuses we weren't getting much from drafts is cause drafted so low. So now that we are drafting high consistently, the players should be better. They should be higher ranked. We have one guy in the top 100, and none in the top 40, right?  

 

We shouldn't be okay with doing average in drafts because, due to many others excuses used for not having top players on our MLB teams, we have to nail our drafts. Especially when we consistently draft high.  I seriously can't understand how people can defend our drafts, especially when a lot of our talented position players weren't drafted.

Again, the time periods you are using aren't the same so your comparison automatically fails. The period you are complaining about, the Twins had three top 6 picks and lost out on two second round picks. They managed to find a couple top 100 guys outside of the first round in Burdi and Gonsalves. (Who is a top 100 depends on whose list, pipeline has three Twins, Sickels four, fangraphs one). Gordon is a top 10 shortstop. Wade might be a sleeper.  And they made two high risk picks in Jay and Stewart. We know that not every top pick is going to pan out and HS arms are the riskiest. The three picks they have in this years draft will be the highest pick and the 5th and 6th highest picks they will have in the entire period (and we'll see a massive jump in our system).

 

There are problems with the drafts as I pointed out above. But it's more nuanced than many are suggesting and the results aren't as bad as people seem to think, as well.

[yarnivek1972]

Think Lachlan Wells' complete game tonight will alter the rankings?

 

Full update on Lachlan Wells, here.

[gunnarthor]

 

Think Lachlan Wells' complete game tonight will alter the rankings?

 

Full update on Lachlan Wells, here.

Wells is a fun prospect. Apparently he put on some weight in the offseason. Pipeline said of him: "Wells isn't going to blow anyone away with his stuff, but there are plenty of lefties in the big leagues who fit a similar profile. Just 20 for all of 2017, his feel for pitching could let him move a little more quickly, with the end result being a back-end starter at the highest level."

 

Fangraphs said "Wells’ eccentric left-handed delivery is deceptive, which allows his 88-93 mph fastball to play up a bit. His curveball will garner swings and misses down beneath the strike zone but it doesn’t have the depth to compete within it. It’s a fringe-average offering in aggregate and could be average at maturity. Wells has intriguing changeup projection because of his arm speed and short arm action. His delivery is a bit violent and he’s definitely going to be more of a control than command guy, but he can get his breaking ball over early in counts and at least lives in the zone with his fastball. He has a chance to be a back-end starter or a deceptive three-pitch reliever."

[whydidnt]

See, this is why your posts are sorta nuts. You want to complain about the last 10 years, now. OK. But over the last 30 years the Twins are tied for 4th most World Series. See, anything taken out of context is kinda silly.

So what your implying is the results we have from 30 years ago are as relevant as the past 10 years. Because that's what it seems like to me. Of course I want to complain about the last 10 years. Those are the years that are relevant to the conversation about whether the Twins are doing a good job selecting talent. What they did 20+ years ago has nothing to do with the conversation and seems to be a way of deflecting.

 

So, once again, please explain how all of these fantastic drafts we've had have helped us to the 28th worse record in the last 10 years. And, you may also notice I didn't call your post nuts. I thought you were above name calling, but I guess not.

 

It seems to me that many in this thread that have gone to great lengths to defend the Twins drafts were the same group of people that were defending Terry Ryan the last couple of years.. he was dealt a bad hand, he has a plan, he knows more about what he's doing that us idiot's sitting at a keyboard. I sometimes wonder HOW bad will the team have to be and for what period of time, before some are willing to admit that how we have been doing things isn't working. I mean the worst record in the league over an extended period does it for me, but, I guess not for everyone. Or are many of you personal friends of someone in the scouting department, so any question of their ability is met with great skepticism. I mean seriously how bad would this team have to be and for how long before you would actually question the level of talent that's been brought in? I think it's a legitimate question. You can say you are a fan and you'll never question it, but then I wonder why you waste your time posting in reply to a thread such as this, then.

 

[Rhino and Compass]

So much of baseball, and the analysis therein emphasizes the process over the results, because there are so many spurious outcomes beyond our control. Look at batting average on balls in play rather than average, because maybe your lasers are hit towards Byron Buxton and not Danny Santana. If you hit it hard, thiings will eventually turn it around. The same principle can be used when evaluating organizations. The Twins have drafted a lot of talented players, but so many of them have been beset by injury. Dr. James Andrews has a beach house paid for entirely by the Twins. If I had a quibble with the Twins, it's that the development of their players has been frustratingly mismanaged, and this is one area that so many with more knowledge than I possess have said the Twins improved with Falvey's hiring. Maybe with a stronger systemic infrastructure, more of those good drafts will turn to good results in the Majors. 

 

[Han Joelo]

Note:  The Twins currently have the 10th best record in the league.  Two days ago, they were 7th.  Just saying.  Baseball is fluid.

 

Great article on MLBTR about drafting:  https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/05/inside-the-draft-room-the-2009-diamondbacks.html

 

Inside look at Arizona's draft, and all the different little decisions and happenstances that go into these things.  Paraphrase:  "We had one of our top scouts who happened to live nearby, so he saw more of player X, so we felt good going that way."  The D-backs and the 15th and 16th picks; took a washout and A.J. Pollock with them.  They had Trout highly regarded, but hesitated because he was a northern kid...(Kiriloff actually has a few things in common with Trout...)

 

Anyway, drafting is like hitting.  The Twins' BABIP will normalize almost in spite of anything the front office does or doesn't do.

[bird]

 

Perhaps, but the pitching situation is pretty dire.  I think it's possible to say that it isn't "barren" while at the same time saying it's among the worst in baseball is not inaccurate.

 

After that the nitty gritty is really about personal preferences for how you value things IMO.

 

I can agree to use the same word to describe the starting pitching situation. Like you, I think the rotation problem is somewhat dire, but that's because we need so many of the pitching prospects to come through due to the terrible rotation we're throwing out there in MLB right now. We need three of Berrios, Mejia, Gonsalves, Romero, the 2017 draft selection, Thorpe, Jorge, or Stewart to come through for us over the next couple of years. That's of course assuming we find no other avenue to fix the problem, such as trades or FA.

 

But Levi, I think it's very possible to disagree with your statement that the Twins starting pitching talent pool is among the worst in baseball. You would have to accept that Sickles is a good evaluator for the following to alter your viewpoint. Or perhaps you're quite certain that if you dig deeper you'll discover that the Twins are the beneficiary of grade inflation in Sickle's case, and therefore the following information lacks credence for you. But indulge me:

 

According to Sickles, 171 -pitchers were worthy of at least a B- grade. If evenly distributed, each team would have 5.7 pitchers of that calibre. Thirteen teams had fewer than 6 such pitchers. Another six teams had exactly 6 such pitchers. So, eleven teams out of thirty had at least 7 pitchers who graded out as B- or better. Three had 7. Another four had 8, including the Twins. The last four teams had 9, 10, or 11. Five of the Twin's  8 B grade prospects project to be starters, the exceptions being Jay, Burdi, and Shaggy.

 

I think the nitty gritty is the analysis and conclusions of guys like Law, Callis, and Sickles, not the personal opinions of you or me. And while the analyses and conclusions these guys reach might be subject some variance in interpretation, one would be hard-pressed to interpret Sickle's grades, or even Law's rankings, to mean they regard the Twin's pitching situation as among the worst in baseball.