2017 MLB draft thread

[d-mac]

 

Exactly, Kendall has plus tools all around (speed, arm strength, CF defense, power) except for his contact and his plate discipline which is suspect at this point.

 

The two most critical tools for major league success. I'm passing on Kendall at this point. 

[markos]

 

The two most critical tools for major league success. I'm passing on Kendall at this point. 

Yep. I read somewhere that you can do really well predicting success of the top college players just by looking at BBs and SOs: BBs > SOs == major league success. BBs < SOs == failure. Kendall last year, 62 SO, only 25 BBs.

[Thrylos]

 

At this very, very point, they should pick Hunter Greene. He will be in AA by 2019 and knocking on the door in 2020. He should be on the same MLB track as most college arms and, again at the very early point, he is the only real ace in the draft. 

 

Really?  Do you realize that Hunter Green has only one pitch, a fastball that he blows by high school kids at 97 mph?   He is playing with a slider and that is below average right now.  

 

1 pitch.

 

Ace?   As is he projects as a reliever.  97 mph fastball or not.  And that is if he gets his slider going.  If not, Hoey.

[d-mac]

 

Yep. I read somewhere that you can do really well predicting success of the top college players just by looking at BBs and SOs: BBs > SOs == major league success. BBs < SOs == failure. Kendall last year, 62 SO, only 25 BBs.

 

Exactly- Examples: Kris Bryant in college 

Fr: 1.67 K/BB

So: 0.97 K/BB

Jr: 0.67 K/BB

 

Anthony Rendon:

Fr: 0.74

So: 0.34

Jr: 0.41

 

Compared to someone like Mike Zunino who has failed to establish himself:

Fr: 4.22

So: 1.63

Jr: 1.52

 

Kendall has a worse K/BB ratio than Zunino as a sophomore (2.48) with an OPS of .150 lower. Now, there is the caveat that Zunino and Kendall played in the best conference in college ball, unlike Bryant and Rodon, but you'd still like to see a K/BB ratio near 1:1. 

[Cory Engelhardt]

Really?  Do you realize that Hunter Green has only one pitch, a fastball that he blows by high school kids at 97 mph?   He is playing with a slider and that is below average right now.  

 

1 pitch.

 

Ace?   As is he projects as a reliever.  97 mph fastball or not.  And that is if he gets his slider going.  If not, Hoey.

How come every single other expert says something different than you are saying? Have you seen Greene pitch? And by all accounts his curveball is potential plus, and his changeup looks average with potential. And, really, he will still be 17 on draft day, so plenty of time to grow.

Comparing the highest potential draft pick in the 2017 draft, basically universally, to Jim Hoey? This is nonsense.

Maybe Greene isn't the next Josh Beckett, but his ceiling is high for a reason

[Bob Sacamento]

 

I'll always take upside over floor. Especially in the first round.
If they can find a safer pick that has ace upside then fine, but if Greene is the only one with ace upside then they better not pass.

Well don't forget the Twins took that strategy in the 2013 draft when they took Kohl Stewart with the 4th overall pick.  He had the biggest upside of any of the remaining pitchers (HS or College) but also a lower floor.  

 

Fast forward to 2017, Kohl's still trying to put it together while a few of the "safer" college arms (high floor, lower ceiling) have already had playing time in the MLB, guys like Braden Shipley, Marco Gonzales, Michael Lorenzen, Corey Knebel, Aaron Blair, ...

[markos]

 

Exactly- Examples: Kris Bryant in college 

Fr: 1.67 K/BB

So: 0.97 K/BB

Jr: 0.67 K/BB

 

Anthony Rendon:

Fr: 0.74

So: 0.34

Jr: 0.41

 

Compared to someone like Mike Zunino who has failed to establish himself:

Fr: 4.22

So: 1.63

Jr: 1.52

 

Kendall has a worse K/BB ratio than Zunino as a sophomore (2.48) with an OPS of .150 lower. Now, there is the caveat that Zunino and Kendall played in the best conference in college ball, unlike Bryant and Rodon, but you'd still like to see a K/BB ratio near 1:1. 

Here is the article from a couple years ago.

http://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/61823/was-mike-zuninos-failure-inevitable

[Cory Engelhardt]

Well don't forget the Twins took that strategy in the 2013 draft when they took Kohl Stewart with the 4th overall pick.  He had the biggest upside of any of the remaining pitchers (HS or College) but also a lower floor.  

 

Fast forward to 2017, Kohl's still trying to put it together while a few of the "safer" college arms (high floor, lower ceiling) have already had playing time in the MLB, guys like Braden Shipley, Marco Gonzales, Michael Lorenzen, Corey Knebel, Aaron Blair, ...

Still doesn't mean Stewart was a bad pick. Hopefully his development can hasten this year, coupled with some new training tactics and a focus on fastball command

[drjim]

 

Well don't forget the Twins took that strategy in the 2013 draft when they took Kohl Stewart with the 4th overall pick.  He had the biggest upside of any of the remaining pitchers (HS or College) but also a lower floor.  

 

Fast forward to 2017, Kohl's still trying to put it together while a few of the "safer" college arms (high floor, lower ceiling) have already had playing time in the MLB, guys like Braden Shipley, Marco Gonzales, Michael Lorenzen, Corey Knebel, Aaron Blair, ...

 

It would be fine to have those guys, but realistically there isn't an arm taken in the first round after Stewart that will really burn the Twins. Kohl Stewart still has a shot to be the best pitcher from the first round. Exception might be Manaea, but that was an understandable pass. Position players on the other hand...

[d-mac]

 

Here is the article from a couple years ago.

http://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/61823/was-mike-zuninos-failure-inevitable

 

I think Zunino was also rushed quite a bit by the Mariners. But that K/BB ratio is a major red flag for Kendall. 

[Thrylos]

 

How come every single other expert says something different than you are saying? Have you seen Greene pitch? And by all accounts his curveball is potential plus, and his changeup looks average with potential. And, really, he will still be 17 on draft day, so plenty of time to grow.
Comparing the highest potential draft pick in the 2017 draft, basically universally, to Jim Hoey? This is nonsense.
Maybe Greene isn't the next Josh Beckett, but his ceiling is high for a reason

 

Few accounts on his stuff.   Plenty of video there as well...

 

Here (MLB.com)

Here (MLB.com)

Here (BA)

Here (BA)

 

from that link:

 

"Greene throws a hard breaking ball that has reached into the low 80s. At its best, Greene’s slider plays as a plus pitch, with hard and late break with 11-to-5 or 10-to-4 shape and no clear breaking point. At other times, however, his slider will back up and lack its powerful sweep. Green has shown flashes with his mid-80s changeup, which shows fade and tumble and projects as at least an average pitch."

 

How do you interpret that?  My interpretation is that the slider is inconsistent and a work in progress and if the changeup projects average, means that it is way below average now.  So he has one pitch.

So if his slider improves he will have 2 plus pitches maybe, so he will be suited for the end of a bullpen.  He needs at least one more plus pitch and one above average pitch to start talking about him being an "Ace".

 

His out pitch is his fastball.  This will not work about high A.

 

People are smitten by his "athletic ability" and the fact that he plays two ways.  Too risky of a pick.  I'd rather see them pick someone who has a couple of close to plus secondary pitches and an above average projectible fastball that someone who is only a fastball pitcher.  As far as athleticism goes, baseball is not track and field, esp. pitching.

 

[Mr. Brooks]

But the scouts were wrong, so it wasn't. A lot of us don't understand what your point is.

My point is I don't want Greene taken off the draft board just because he's a HS pitcher.

[drjim]

Few accounts on his stuff. Plenty of video there as well...

 

Here (MLB.com)

Here (MLB.com)

Here (BA)

Here (BA)

 

from that link:

 

"Greene throws a hard breaking ball that has reached into the low 80s. At its best, Greene’s slider plays as a plus pitch, with hard and late break with 11-to-5 or 10-to-4 shape and no clear breaking point. At other times, however, his slider will back up and lack its powerful sweep. Green has shown flashes with his mid-80s changeup, which shows fade and tumble and projects as at least an average pitch."

 

How do you interpret that? My interpretation is that the slider is inconsistent and a work in progress and if the changeup projects average, means that it is way below average now. So he has one pitch.

So if his slider improves he will have 2 plus pitches maybe, so he will be suited for the end of a bullpen. He needs at least one more plus pitch and one above average pitch to start talking about him being an "Ace".

 

His out pitch is his fastball. This will not work about high A.

 

People are smitten by his "athletic ability" and the fact that he plays two ways. Too risky of a pick. I'd rather see them pick someone who has a couple of close to plus secondary pitches and an above average projectible fastball that someone who is only a fastball pitcher. As far as athleticism goes, baseball is not track and field, esp. pitching.

He won't even be 18 by draft day, he's not going to have two plus pitches combined with necessary command to consistently get mlb hitters out when he's drafted. That's an almost unattainable standard for a pitcher out of the draft.

[Cory Engelhardt]

Few accounts on his stuff.   Plenty of video there as well...

 

Here (MLB.com)

Here (MLB.com)

Here (BA)

Here (BA)

 

from that link:

 

"Greene throws a hard breaking ball that has reached into the low 80s. At its best, Greene’s slider plays as a plus pitch, with hard and late break with 11-to-5 or 10-to-4 shape and no clear breaking point. At other times, however, his slider will back up and lack its powerful sweep. Green has shown flashes with his mid-80s changeup, which shows fade and tumble and projects as at least an average pitch."

 

How do you interpret that?  My interpretation is that the slider is inconsistent and a work in progress and if the changeup projects average, means that it is way below average now.  So he has one pitch.

 

So if his slider improves he will have 2 plus pitches maybe, so he will be suited for the end of a bullpen.  He needs at least one more plus pitch and one above average pitch to start talking about him being an "Ace".

 

His out pitch is his fastball.  This will not work about high A.

 

People are smitten by his "athletic ability" and the fact that he plays two ways.  Too risky of a pick.  I'd rather see them pick someone who has a couple of close to plus secondary pitches and an above average projectible fastball that someone who is only a fastball pitcher.  As far as athleticism goes, baseball is not track and field, esp. pitching.

I take it to mean he is a 17 year old kid who is not a finished product, and to treat him like a finished product is what I don't understand. All I am saying is, when I read mlbpipeline, and he is one of two guys given a future 60 grade, there is a reason for that. I am not a scout, nor do I work in baseball at this time, but I certainly think that if he is taken #1, the twins would be betting on a guy with higher potential than a 7th inning reliever.

But, if they deem someone else more worthy in June 2017, then I am hoping that guy succeeds too

[markos]

 

Few accounts on his stuff.   Plenty of video there as well...

 

Here (MLB.com)

Here (MLB.com)

Here (BA)

Here (BA)

 

from that link:

 

"Greene throws a hard breaking ball that has reached into the low 80s. At its best, Greene’s slider plays as a plus pitch, with hard and late break with 11-to-5 or 10-to-4 shape and no clear breaking point. At other times, however, his slider will back up and lack its powerful sweep. Green has shown flashes with his mid-80s changeup, which shows fade and tumble and projects as at least an average pitch."

 

How do you interpret that?  My interpretation is that the slider is inconsistent and a work in progress and if the changeup projects average, means that it is way below average now.  So he has one pitch.

So if his slider improves he will have 2 plus pitches maybe, so he will be suited for the end of a bullpen.  He needs at least one more plus pitch and one above average pitch to start talking about him being an "Ace".

 

His out pitch is his fastball.  This will not work about high A.

 

People are smitten by his "athletic ability" and the fact that he plays two ways.  Too risky of a pick.  I'd rather see them pick someone who has a couple of close to plus secondary pitches and an above average projectible fastball that someone who is only a fastball pitcher.  As far as athleticism goes, baseball is not track and field, esp. pitching.

Reminds me of another pre-draft scouting report from a past season:

 

"The knock on X is the lack of a true secondary pitch. He pitches off his best weapon, a 92-94 mph fastball that has been up to 97 this spring. It has late life and finish. He has tried multiple grips and shapes with his breaking ball, and at times has flashed a fringe-average pitch that has tilt and late snap at 81 mph. X throws from a low three-quarters release point, which he doesn't repeat well, and that makes achieving downward action on his breaking ball difficult. His changeup is a below-average pitch that should improve when and if he throws it more often. Because of his size, athleticism and velocity, Xis a surefire first-rounder. The club that believes he can come up with a true breaking ball down the line could pop him as early as 10th or 11th overall."

 

Madison Bumgarner, 2007 BA draft ranking:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/draft/rankings/?rank=draft&year=2007

[d-mac]

 

My point is I don't want Greene taken off the draft board just because he's a HS pitcher.

 

What does that have to do with Hochevar?

[prouster]

 

Few accounts on his stuff.   Plenty of video there as well...

 

Here (MLB.com)

Here (MLB.com)

Here (BA)

Here (BA)

 

from that link:

 

"Greene throws a hard breaking ball that has reached into the low 80s. At its best, Greene’s slider plays as a plus pitch, with hard and late break with 11-to-5 or 10-to-4 shape and no clear breaking point. At other times, however, his slider will back up and lack its powerful sweep. Green has shown flashes with his mid-80s changeup, which shows fade and tumble and projects as at least an average pitch."

 

 

There. I can play with bold fonts, too.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I swear we have this BPA debate every year.  It's easy to look back at past drafts and see WAR and go "you hit this one or missed that one," but in the present, that is much more murky.

 

The problem with BPA is that it is subjective. Obviously when a Harper shows up in the draft, there's little question, but short of a clear cut standout that everyone agrees on, not so much.  There's all sorts of things that contribute to BPA:  Ceiling, floor, speed to the show, position, teachable, mental makeup, injury risk, etc.  We cannot even agree on which order these should be in, so to simply say get the BPA really sells it short. We don't know what constitutes the BPA until well after the draft (and that assumes that people can develop in a vacuum regardless or the org, and that too is a questionable assumption).

[Mr. Brooks]

What does that have to do with Hochevar?

Nothing at all. Someone else brought him into the discussion, not me. I wasn't exactly sure why either, but I think it went like this:

 

Them: We need help now, not in 4 years, and HS arms are too risky. I wouldn't consider Greene at 1-1.

 

Me: I hope they don't take Greene off their board just because HS arms are risky. He wouldn't be in the discussion if he didn't have upside to go with that risk.

 

Them: That is how you end up with a bust like Hochever at 1-1.

 

Me: Just because Hochever busted at 1-1 in hindsight, doesn't mean he shouldn't have been a consideration for that pick.

 

 

I'm not an eloquent writer so I may have been missing with my points. I hope that synopsis helps with what the convo looked like in my head.

[prouster]

 

Nothing at all. Someone else brought him into the discussion, not me. I wasn't exactly sure why either, but I think it went like this:

Them: We need help now, not in 4 years, and HS arms are too risky. I wouldn't consider Greene at 1-1.

Me: I hope they don't take Greene off their board just because HS arms are risky. He wouldn't be in the discussion if he didn't have upside to go with that risk.

Them: That is how you end up with a bust like Hochever at 1-1.

Me: Just because Hochever busted at 1-1 in hindsight, doesn't mean he shouldn't have been a consideration for that pick.


I'm not an eloquent writer so I may have been missing with my points. I hope that synopsis helps with what the convo looked like in my head.

 

I agree. It seems weird to critique a particular draft pick through the lens of hindsight, given that it's impossible to make an actual decision that way. Another example: would anyone say the Nationals should have taken Machado over Harper in 2010, given that Machado has put up more WAR in fewer games? Of course not, because Harper was the clear cut choice at the time.

 

People make decisions based on the information they have, not the information they will eventually receive. I totally agree that Greene should be considered for 1-1, even if the risk profile may be a bit higher than the alternatives.

[T_J]

 

Really?  Do you realize that Hunter Green has only one pitch, a fastball that he blows by high school kids at 97 mph?   He is playing with a slider and that is below average right now.  

 

1 pitch.

 

Ace?   As is he projects as a reliever.  97 mph fastball or not.  And that is if he gets his slider going.  If not, Hoey.

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/pg-national-greene-shines-day-one/#SkrywGxkmFFUzMgO.97

 

He threw three breaking balls. The first, in an 0-1 count, showed hard sweeping action and broke with two-plane movement. The next two had no clear breaking point, looking like Greene’s fastball from the time they left the hand until just a few feet before the plate, when they showed short horizontal break.

 

Sure, it's only three pitches, but it sounds like he has the a pretty solid curve in this write-up. Looks like his fastball than dies a few feet before the plate... Sounds like the makings of a pretty good pitch. 

 

http://www.si.com/mlb/2016/06/13/2017-mlb-draft-tanner-houck-jaren-kendall

 

He’s also shown a plus curveball, and if he can throw his changeup with more consistency, he has a real chance to be a top-10 pick.

 

Again, talking about his "plus curve."

 

https://vine.co/v/5qEqOwbb9DA

 

This is a nice looking slider.

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/mlb-draft/insider/post?id=2966

 

He sat at 94-96 mph with his fastball with considerable movement and touched 98. His slider was inconsistent at best during the Under Armour All-American Game the previous month, but it flashed plus here, and he was able to locate the pitch for strikes for the most part. He also showed a change in the mid-80s that he buried down with good arm speed, and although he didn't have great feel for it, you can see the makings of a quality third offering.

 

Yeah, he isn't a perfect pitcher yet, but he has the makings of an ace. He might be the only ace in this whole draft. If he should happen to fail as a pitcher, he has a back-up plan as an everyday nine. What more do you need? 

 

 

 

 

[twinssporto]

 

I swear we have this BPA debate every year.  It's easy to look back at past drafts and see WAR and go "you hit this one or missed that one," but in the present, that is much more murky.

 

The problem with BPA is that it is subjective. Obviously when a Harper shows up in the draft, there's little question, but short of a clear cut standout that everyone agrees on, not so much.  There's all sorts of things that contribute to BPA:  Ceiling, floor, speed to the show, position, teachable, mental makeup, injury risk, etc.  We cannot even agree on which order these should be in, so to simply say get the BPA really sells it short. We don't know what constitutes the BPA until well after the draft (and that assumes that people can develop in a vacuum regardless or the org, and that too is a questionable assumption).

Agreed.  Best route is to pick the most athletic player and roll the dice...

[Bob Sacamento]

Is Greene a refined pitcher, no not at all.  But scouts see alot of projectability with his stuff, frame, size, aptitude, etcetra.  Even with that said, he's still rated and regarded the best HS pitcher in the 2017 draft with the next closest being DL Hall.  Hunter gets alot of his bump due to how freakishly athletic he is, hands down the most athletic player in the draft.  He's a Top 5 pitching talent and arguably a Top 20 hitting talent.

 

That being said, there has never been a HS RHP taken first overall in the history of the draft and I don't see the Twins bucking that trend in 2017.  As of right now, and that will change by April/May, my money is on one of the college pitchers, probably who ever distances himself from the rest whether that's Alex Faedo, Kyle Wright, Brendan McKay, JB Bukauskas, or Tanner Houch.  

 

Remember with the new CBA that #1 overall pick slot isn't $9M like it was in 2016, it's 7.4M so that does take away from some of the financial flexibility that the Twins would otherwise have for overpaying a slot later in the draft ie what the Astros did in 2012 (Correa, McCullers, Ruiz), 2015 Astros (Bregman, Tucker, Cameron) or the Reds did in 2016 (Senzel and Trammell).

[d-mac]

 

Nothing at all. Someone else brought him into the discussion, not me. I wasn't exactly sure why either, but I think it went like this:

Them: We need help now, not in 4 years, and HS arms are too risky. I wouldn't consider Greene at 1-1.

Me: I hope they don't take Greene off their board just because HS arms are risky. He wouldn't be in the discussion if he didn't have upside to go with that risk.

Them: That is how you end up with a bust like Hochever at 1-1.

Me: Just because Hochever busted at 1-1 in hindsight, doesn't mean he shouldn't have been a consideration for that pick.


I'm not an eloquent writer so I may have been missing with my points. I hope that synopsis helps with what the convo looked like in my head.

 

Sorry, I thought you brought him up. My bad. Hochevar was a college arm so it was a really bad example. I also hope they don't pass on Greene just because he's a high school arm either. However, there is inherently more risk with high school arms and I'm not convinced that he is significantly better than the top college arms at this point to go with him 1-1. Obviously, there is a long time between now and June, so that could certainly change. But I think with a college pitcher, you would likely be able to sign him for less than Greene (or any high schooler for that matter) and reallocate that pool money to 1-35 and 2-1. If that's the case, we should be able to snag first round talents in those spots. In other words I think the risk adjusted return in that scenario is higher than Greene at this point, but it may change if Greene improves relatively or the other players back up a bit. 

 

One more thing to think about at this point is fitting the timing with the current core. If things go well for Greene, were looking at 4 years before he's up. If he gets injured, then maybe 6 years. 4-6 years from now the current core of Buxton, Sano, Kepler, Polanco will be getting expensive or already at free agency. Then we've already missed the opportunity to maximize that window without even mentioning that most players, even top prospects, can take 2-3 years to establish themselves. 

[Mr. Brooks]

Sorry, I thought you brought him up. My bad. Hochevar was a college arm so it was a really bad example. I also hope they don't pass on Greene just because he's a high school arm either. However, there is inherently more risk with high school arms and I'm not convinced that he is significantly better than the top college arms at this point to go with him 1-1. Obviously, there is a long time between now and June, so that could certainly change. But I think with a college pitcher, you would likely be able to sign him for less than Greene (or any high schooler for that matter) and reallocate that pool money to 1-35 and 2-1. If that's the case, we should be able to snag first round talents in those spots. In other words I think the risk adjusted return in that scenario is higher than Greene at this point, but it may change if Greene improves relatively or the other players back up a bit.

 

One more thing to think about at this point is fitting the timing with the current core. If things go well for Greene, were looking at 4 years before he's up. If he gets injured, then maybe 6 years. 4-6 years from now the current core of Buxton, Sano, Kepler, Polanco will be getting expensive or already at free agency. Then we've already missed the opportunity to maximize that window without even mentioning that most players, even top prospects, can take 2-3 years to establish themselves.

All good points.

 

One thing I'd like to point out regarding the time-line is that you don't have to necessarily wait for him to reach mlb to have an impact.

If we are competitive in 2019 and he's still 2 years away you can trade him for an impact player.

[kab21]

 

I swear we have this BPA debate every year.  It's easy to look back at past drafts and see WAR and go "you hit this one or missed that one," but in the present, that is much more murky.

 

The problem with BPA is that it is subjective. Obviously when a Harper shows up in the draft, there's little question, but short of a clear cut standout that everyone agrees on, not so much.  There's all sorts of things that contribute to BPA:  Ceiling, floor, speed to the show, position, teachable, mental makeup, injury risk, etc.  We cannot even agree on which order these should be in, so to simply say get the BPA really sells it short. We don't know what constitutes the BPA until well after the draft (and that assumes that people can develop in a vacuum regardless or the org, and that too is a questionable assumption).

This is not at all what the BPA argument is about. BPA means taking all of those things that you listed into account while ignoring organizational needs. For this draft, it means don't force a starting pitcher at 1-1 (or even in the 1-s and 2nd rounds) because the Twins desperately need a starting pitcher.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

This is not at all what the BPA argument is about. BPA means taking all of those things that you listed into account while ignoring organizational needs. For this draft, it means don't force a starting pitcher at 1-1 (or even in the 1-s and 2nd rounds) because the Twins desperately need a starting pitcher.

 

I don't think we disagree here.  I'm just saying that all of those things are somewhat murky and subjective as everyone values them differently.  Ryan for instance, really liked those high floor picks in the mid-2000s because they were safe and pretty much guaranteed a major leaguer.  Most of us at TD wouldn't have that same opinion (we certainly did at BYTO).

 

I agree that if they like Greene the best, he goes 1-1... at least that's how I'd do it.  The problem is that when that gap is not nearly as obvious, things like need do (and should) creep in.  I'm hoping that there's a Harper or Strasburg in this draft making it an easy decision, but if there's no clear cut number 1... that's when it's really hard to cite BPA.

[Mike Sixel]

This is not at all what the BPA argument is about. BPA means taking all of those things that you listed into account while ignoring organizational needs. For this draft, it means don't force a starting pitcher at 1-1 (or even in the 1-s and 2nd rounds) because the Twins desperately need a starting pitcher.

Well.... They need seven every year.... So never taking them early if a tiny bit better hitter is there is how you end up with an offensive line like the Vikings... Because there was a better defensive player there.. At some point, you need pitching. Thirteen every day, actually, are on the roster....

[kab21]

 

Well.... They need seven every year.... So never taking them early if a tiny bit better hitter is there is how you end up with an offensive line like the Vikings... Because there was a better defensive player there.. At some point, you need pitching. Thirteen every day, actually, are on the roster....

Good grief. When people talk about BPA they aren't talking about a player that is a tiny bit better. Yes, if two players are in a virtual tie then pick the one based on need. 

Your Vikings analogy breaks down in the different developmental systems for each sport. It takes 3+ years for an MLB draft pick to reach the majors. The needs of today might not be the needs of tomorrow. There are also more ways to acquire and develop prospects than in the NFL.

 

Yes, the Twins need MLB pitching right now. Yes, I hope they get a pitcher in both the draft at 1-1 (and at least one with the 1s and 2nd rd picks). But I don't want them to lock in on SP so much that they ignore players that are currently better choices.

[nytwinsfan]

 

Good grief. When people talk about BPA they aren't talking about a player that is a tiny bit better. Yes, if two players are in a virtual tie then pick the one based on need. 

 

. . . 
 

Yes, the Twins need MLB pitching right now. Yes, I hope they get a pitcher in both the draft at 1-1 (and at least one with the 1s and 2nd rd picks). But I don't want them to lock in on SP so much that they ignore players that are currently better choices.

 

Completely agree. Plus, by the time the 2017 draft rolls around, the Twins may have traded for DeLeon (and possibly another high-upside pitching prospect), Berrios may be doing well in the majors, May may have re-established himself as a competent mid-rotation starter, and who knows how well Gonsalves, Jay and Stewart will be doing in AA or AAA. If even two of those four things come to pass, the Twins desperate need for pitching may not look so desperate. For instance, I'd consider Kendell very carefully. If it were not for the K%, I'd already be 100% on board the Kendell train. Watch how he does this year. If he reduces the K% or ups the BB% a bit more, he'd be a hard guy to pass up on at 1-1. The speed, defense, athleticism and power are clearly all legit. Imagine an OF of Buxton, Kepler and Kendell in 2019? We're talking a huge plus outfield on both sides of the ball. Think about that with flyball pitchers like Berrios, May, and maybe DeLeon.