Article: Twins Daily’s Instant Draft Reaction: WTF?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If people didn't like Day 1 of the draft, hey, I get it. But I think it's pretty silly to try and say with certainty today that the Twins have had a bad draft, or that whatever strategy you think they had didn't pay off. For all we know, things may have worked out exactly as they intended.

And therein lays my problem with the draft conversation every year. We all pick our guys and get disappointed when they're not chosen by the Twins.

 

But, come on, this is the sixth draft that Twins Daily has recorded. I encourage everyone who participated in previous draft threads to go back and read their comments. It will instill some humility in your certainty over whether this draft was good or bad.

[jgfellows]

None of the Twins moves make much sense under the premise that the Pohlads want the Twins to win an eventual World Series. I've been convinced by a friend that this is a flawed premise. If you view Twins moves with the premise that the Pohlads want to have a profitable season, all the moves make perfect sense.

[ALessKosherScott]

This is the longest i've gone in my Shadow Draft without flipping a pick out in some time I get the whole wanting the Pohlads to spend every dime allotted to them. But at the end of the day, it comes down to who did you get? So far, they've gotten an athletic middle-of-the-field player with a good swing and a good idea at the plate, a college corner guy who mashed this year and a high school pitcher with a good delivery and a decent chance at having good stuff. And in this draft, it seems like some of the name brand commodities aren't at all different from their generic substitute. 

 

If the previous administration had done that at any point in the last five years, it would've saved some wear and tear on my liver.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I think if you jump to conclusions based on the three picks it is not that the Twins have a problem. Judgments based of an incomplete picture is destructive. When the draft is over and players are signed, then whine away. Extra cash still can be spent in later rounds than round 2.  Any late round draft pick can be enticed to sign    There could be several drafted, all it takes is one.  As Thyrlos pointed out inadvertently with all of the late selections of Minnesota players, none of them panned out. What harm is there having a couple million in signing money to entice a high school player or two. One has to be patient and see what is drafted.

 

Which great top prospects are left to sign? 

[Vanimal46]

 

 I double checked this to be sure. I'm slightly off. The Cubs took a pitcher in the supplemental round a few years back, which is technically the first round.

 

And they seem to draft pitchers about 2/3rd the time in the second round. So, yeah, I was close, just a bit off in the details.

 

No pitchers in the "true" first round, though. And the Cubs picked high from 2011-2015, no lower than ninth overall and as high as second overall.

 

They did take 2 pitchers last night... But I get your point. It's different to pick at 26 and 30 compared to 2 though 9 overall. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

None of the Twins moves make much sense under the premise that the Pohlads want the Twins to win an eventual World Series. I've been convinced by a friend that this is a flawed premise. If you view Twins moves with the premise that the Pohlads want to have a profitable season, all the moves make perfect sense.

I think the Pohlads have virtually zero input in the draft. Why would they? That's a Steinbrenner move and the Pohlads have never been those types of owners.

[Steve Lein]

My initial reaction is option number 2 above. The player they wanted to fall didn't, so they ended up getting burned.

 

I like the Rooker pick, but Leach was a reach, and a pretty big one at that.

 

I would hope they're targeting Blayne Enlow to start the picks today.

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

They did take 2 pitchers last night... But I get your point. It's different to pick at 26 and 30 compared to 2 though 9 overall. 

Yeah, anything lower than 20 and you're meddling in potential second round guys anyway. The lines blur after pick 15 or 20, depending who you ask.

[Mike Sixel]

 

And therein lays my problem with the draft conversation every year. We all pick our guys and get disappointed when they're not chosen by the Twins.

 

But, come on, this is the sixth draft that Twins Daily has recorded. I encourage everyone who participated in previous draft threads to go back and read their comments. It will instill some humility in your certainty over whether this draft was good or bad.

 

And therein lays my problem with the draft conversation every year. We all pick our guys and get disappointed when they're not chosen by the Twins.

 

But, come on, this is the sixth draft that Twins Daily has recorded. I encourage everyone who participated in previous draft threads to go back and read their comments. It will instill some humility in your certainty over whether this draft was good or bad.

 

Tyler Jay. Kohl Stewart. 5 of 6 terrible seasons. Breslow. Belisle. Tepesch.

 

I think some skepticism is warranted. Others don't.

 

Rooker will turn 23 this year, 23. He'll be at least 25 before he plays in MN. 

 

KLAW didn't have the canadian in his top 100, so he wasn't "universally" in the top 100.

[Canizaro's Ghost]

 

While I would have preferred Greene as well, a draft pick has zero impact on attendance.

 

Any prospect that is highly touted and reaches MLB might nudge attendance upward but not a draft pick.

I agree that attendance would not be directly affected. However, I think that buzz and fan interest would rise, leading to more brand awareness and positive press for team that needs it at this point. 16k for a first place team last night (yes, it was a Monday). 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Tyler Jay. Kohl Stewart. 5 of 6 terrible seasons. Breslow. Belisle. Tepesch.

 

I think some skepticism is warranted. Others don't.

 

Rooker will turn 23 this year, 23. He'll be at least 25 before he plays in MN. 

 

KLAW didn't have the canadian in his top 100, so he wasn't "universally" in the top 100.

Sure, the former regime missed on some really ugly-looking pitching drafts a few years back.

 

And they didn't take pitching this year, but that's still a problem in the eyes of many. In my opinion, emulating an Epstein approach is rarely a bad strategy. Isn't that what we screamed for year after year after year under Ryan? But then the Twins do just that and people still scream about it.

 

I disagree that Rooker will be 25 when he reaches Minnesota. Sure, it's possible, but he profiles as a guy who could be here next year as a 23 year old. For him to reach Minnesota has a 25 year old, he'd have to spend nearly 2.5 seasons in the minor leagues. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? Not if the Twins got the pick right.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I agree that attendance would not be directly affected. However, I think that buzz and fan interest would rise, leading to more brand awareness and positive press for team that needs it at this point. 16k for a first place team last night (yes, it was a Monday). 

The only thing that impacts attendance is prolonged winning. Even the promotion of a Jose Berrios or Byron Buxton or Miguel Sano only nudges attendance upward for a brief period of time.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Sure, the former regime missed on some really ugly-looking pitching drafts a few years back.

 

And they didn't take pitching this year, but that's still a problem in the eyes of many. In my opinion, emulating an Epstein approach is rarely a bad strategy. Isn't that what we screamed for year after year after year under Ryan? But then the Twins do just that and people still scream about it.

 

I disagree that Rooker will be 25 when he reaches Minnesota. Sure, it's possible, but he profiles as a guy who could be here next year as a 23 year old. For him to reach Minnesota has a 25 year old, he'd have to spend nearly 2.5 seasons in the minor leagues. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? Not if the Twins got the pick right.

 

Based on what do you think the Twins will promote a guy to the majors in under 2 years? All the fast promotions this year?

 

Also, these are the SAME scouts, right? It isn't the "previous regime". It is the same scouts. Also, this FO chose this bullpen, right?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Sure, the former regime missed on some really ugly-looking pitching drafts a few years back.

 

And they didn't take pitching this year, but that's still a problem in the eyes of many. In my opinion, emulating an Epstein approach is rarely a bad strategy. Isn't that what we screamed for year after year after year under Ryan? But then the Twins do just that and people still scream about it.

 

I disagree that Rooker will be 25 when he reaches Minnesota. Sure, it's possible, but he profiles as a guy who could be here next year as a 23 year old. For him to reach Minnesota has a 25 year old, he'd have to spend nearly 2.5 seasons in the minor leagues. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? Not if the Twins got the pick right.

 

Epstein chose the top college hitter at number 2 and 7 (or whatever), not a HS kid under slot. Right? That would have been McKay this year. 

[TRex]

 

Some of the people that are upset about not picking Carlson (myself included) are upset because the Twins passed (twice!) on a player that analysts universally had ranked as one of the top-20 players in this draft. It has nothing to do with where he was from, and everything to do with skipping over a very talented player.

<emphasis mine>

 

While I love all the coverage that media outlets give to the Rule IV draft, I think it is important to remember that each and every ML ball club (likely) spends more money to evaluate the talent available than all the media outlets combined. In addition, much of the media outlets opinions are based on talking to ML scouts, who have no obligation to give them their complete (or honest) evaluation.

 

So while it is a nice talking point, these 'universally ranked' prospects rarely go where slotted (especially after the top 5-10).

[drjim]

Right, I think the big difference in how you view things right now comes down to whether you want to focus on who they got or whether you wanna focus on who they didn't.

 

I was strongly on Team Greene, but Lewis has crazy high upside, too. Sounds like a very complete, well-rounded player. I'm excited. If I look at Rooker's numbers too long I have to start fanning myself. Before anybody gets in an uproar about Leach, I'd encourage them to take a look at some of the video. Both his body and his mechanics look really good for a 17-year-old. There's a reason why Texas wanted him.

 

If people didn't like Day 1 of the draft, hey, I get it. But I think it's pretty silly to try and say with certainty today that the Twins have had a bad draft, or that whatever strategy you think they had didn't pay off. For all we know, things may have worked out exactly as they intended.

I don't get all the angst on Leach either. That is truly a situation where you accept some expertise from people who watch him or you aren't going to trust anything.

 

The difference between 30 and 100 for hs rhs is really small. I'm pretty accepting of them finding someone they like from that pool and going for it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Also, these are the SAME scouts, right? It isn't the "previous regime". It is the same scouts. Also, this FO chose this bullpen, right?

So it's the same guys who failed in the past with one approach and now take a different approach but are still the same guys so are automatically doomed to failure because they failed in the past with a different strategy under different leadership.

 

This is my problem with these arguments. New leadership comes to the organization, keeps some of the old staff on, use a different draft strategy, but they still have past failures hang over their head because they're "the same guys".

[drjim]

Based on what do you think the Twins will promote a guy to the majors in under 2 years? All the fast promotions this year?

 

Also, these are the SAME scouts, right? It isn't the "previous regime". It is the same scouts. Also, this FO chose this bullpen, right?

You can't conceive of a scenario where a front office might promote their own draft picks, a college bat at that, on a different timetable than prospects they inherited?

[ALessKosherScott]

 

My initial reaction is option number 2 above. The player they wanted to fall didn't, so they ended up getting burned.

 

I like the Rooker pick, but Leach was a reach, and a pretty big one at that.

 

I would hope they're targeting Blayne Enlow to start the picks today.

 

I doubt Enlow signs. But as long as there isn't a Twins run on college relievers, I'll be happy. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Epstein chose the top college hitter at number 2 and 7 (or whatever), not a HS kid under slot. Right? That would have been McKay this year. 

It's pretty hard to compare individual players at different positions. For all we know, Epstein would have taken Lewis or somebody completely off everyone's radar at the 1-1 slot.

[Mike Sixel]

 

So it's the same guys who failed in the past with one approach and now take a different approach but are still the same guys so are automatically doomed to failure because they failed in the past with a different strategy under different leadership.

 

This is my problem with these arguments. New leadership comes to the organization, keeps some of the old staff on, use a different draft strategy, but they still have past failures hang over their head because they're "the same guys".

 

What's different?

 

They chose a toolsy HS OF/SS. That's EXACTLY what they did in 2 of the last 5 drafts with Buxton and Gordon.

 

They then chose a HS pitcher not from the US, just like with Berrios. 

 

The only real delta is Rooker, so far.

 

I guess I just don't see the delta that you are seeing. 

[mazeville]

I'm going to wait to see what the Twins do from here on to complain. The hope is that savings from the Lewis pick will help them get a better player later on. Personally, I would not have done that because I don't think the current rules make that a good option any longer, but I'll go ahead and trust the process.

 

But the Twins' recent draft history is nothing short of awful - Tyler Jay over Andrew Benintendi anyone? -- and warrants a healthy dose of skepticism, especially since most of the same people are still there.

 

If they get the Lewis pick wrong, or if they missed on a potential HOF player in Greene or Wright or Gore to save a few bucks to pick someone with less upside later in the draft, then that will be a major blunder. 

 

 

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

You can't conceive of a scenario where a front office might promote their own draft picks, a college bat at that, on a different timetable than prospects they inherited?

 

I can conceive it, yes. But I am only judging them on their actions so far. That's all we can really do.

[drjim]

<emphasis mine>

 

While I love all the coverage that media outlets give to the Rule IV draft, I think it is important to remember that each and every ML ball club (likely) spends more money to evaluate the talent available than all the media outlets combined. In addition, much of the media outlets opinions are based on talking to ML scouts, who have no obligation to give them their complete (or honest) evaluation.

 

So while it is a nice talking point, these 'universally ranked' prospects rarely go where slotted (especially after the top 5-10).

If nothing else, there has to be a better way than just reading rankings and flipping out. Especially since many of the same people would flip out if it was *too* close to the rankings.

[alarp33]

 

My initial reaction is option number 2 above. The player they wanted to fall didn't, so they ended up getting burned.

 

I like the Rooker pick, but Leach was a reach, and a pretty big one at that.

 

I would hope they're targeting Blayne Enlow to start the picks today.

 

Just curious... how big of reach was Noah Syndergaard at 38 in 2010?  

[drjim]

What's different?

 

They chose a toolsy HS OF/SS. That's EXACTLY what they did in 2 of the last 5 drafts with Buxton and Gordon.

 

They then chose a HS pitcher not from the US, just like with Berrios.

 

The only real delta is Rooker, so far.

 

I guess I just don't see the delta that you are seeing.

I hope the Twins can copy those results this year. It was a good draft!

[theBOMisthebomb]

When does the new front office stop getting the benefit of the doubt?

[Mike Sixel]

 

When does the new front office stop getting the benefit of the doubt?

 

Gotta give them 3 years. 

[Steve Lein]

 

I doubt Enlow signs. But as long as there isn't a Twins run on college relievers, I'll be happy. 

 

I think they should have the $ to get Enlow to sign. Lewis is around $1MIL under per Doogie. Rooker might save some $, Leach should be under-slot (if he's not I have a big mark against Falvey and Levine in their first draft). I'd bet they have around $3MIL to throw at him.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

What's different?

 

They chose a toolsy HS OF/SS. That's EXACTLY what they did in 2 of the last 5 drafts with Buxton and Gordon.

 

They then chose a HS pitcher not from the US, just like with Berrios. 

 

The only real delta is Rooker, so far.

 

I guess I just don't see the delta that you are seeing. 

Buxton and Gordon have been their only good first round picks in the past several years. And breaking down the draft into individual positions and players starts to get murky. We're literally dealing with two similar data points here, one of which doesn't even play the same position.

 

Maybe it wasn't that they Twins liked Lewis so much, maybe it was because they didn't like McKay at all and refused to draft a pitcher at 1-1. That throws the entire analysis on its head.

 

Any comparison to Berrios and Leach is eye-roll worthy on par with the Nishioka/Park comparsions.

 

Berrios is a short latin player. Leach is a frickin' huge Canadian. They throw with the same hand so they have that in common.