Article: Twins Draft Blayne Enlow, Seven More

[ThejacKmp]

 

I agree. But my point was based on the fact that the Twins offered him first, and then went to Lewis. If they liked him better take him. It should be quality over quantity in the baseball draft.

Enlow is the one pick that was ranked much higher than than when the Twins took him. Every other picked so far has been a guy that could be signed under slot. They were all ranked lower than when they were taken. The Twins can't be smarter than everybody.

 

They may have gone to him first but that doesn't mean that they liked him better. That just means they thought he was the guy most likely to cut a deal. He was a guy who many saw a big drop for (if he doesn't go the Rays at 4 he may have dropped even further) so he might be willing to deal. Going to Lewis next doesn't mean they didn't like Lewis more, it might just mean they had a concept how low Lewis would go but wanted to see other options.

 

That's the reality - they liked all 5 of the top guys. They'd take any of them if they had the 7th pick. The decision at #1 just doesn't take place in a vacuum. The Twins had to consider the ramification of each pick down the line. Lewis = Enlow. With McKay, you don't get Enlow. That's opportunity cost at it's finest.

[Bob Sacamento]

 

 

Ryley Widell

 

 

 

A Hawaii prep product, Widell played first base and pitched as a prep and for his Trosky Baseball travel team before focusing on pitching as a freshman at Washington State. He struggled with command (19 BB in 20.1 IP) and wound up transferring to Central Arizona JC, where he emerged as one of the state’s top juco talents. Physical at 6-foot-4, 205 pounds, Widell got his delivery in sync and dominated wood-bat competition down the stretch, giving up just two earned runs in his last 36.2 IP with 39 strikeouts. He’s mostly a fastball-changeup lefty at this point, with the fastball in the 89-91 mph range that has touched 92 mph. It plays average as he locates and sets up an above-average changeup. with action. His curveball is fringy but serviceable because of Widell’s command. Scouts see projection in the body, which could get Widell out in the first five rounds

[Teflon]

Since they have been passing on higher-ranked pitching prospects I'm wondering if the Twins will possibly be targeting more back-up type catchers who can pitch in the later rounds?

[NapoleonComplex]

 

Jeremy Nygaard pointed out on Twitter, by drafting Leach at 37 (someone they liked, but is likely signable under slot), they can get a tougher sign guy like Enlow. BUT if Enlow still doesn't sign, which may happen, the Twins only lose $755k ( the slotted value of its 3rd round pick. If they had drafted Enlow at 37 and he still didn't sign (even though the $$$$ offered were the same), the Twins lose the slot bonus assigned to pick 37, which is $1.8M. The Twins can offer Rookers slot value - $1.9M - could get $1.5 Leach - 1.8M - could get $1.5M Enlow - $755k - could get $2M (money from Royce Lewis deal added) Bottom line is a lot of risk is mitigated, by taking a tough sign later, because the Twins only lose $755 bonus money with no Enlow signing.

 

This point can't be emphasized enough. Although I was all about Greene at #1, drafting Lewis to save money for later picks, while picking guys at certain points to mitigate the amount of money lost if they don't sign is an incredibly savvy move by Falvey/Levine.

I tend not to focus too much on player rankings since they vary by between publications. But for those that only see it as black & white, look at it this way ... we got the #5, #29, and #50 best players according to MLB.com in the first three rounds.

[Mike Sixel]

 

This point can't be emphasized enough. Although I was all about Greene at #1, drafting Lewis to save money for later picks, while picking guys at certain points to mitigate the amount of money lost if they don't sign is an incredibly savvy move by Falvey/Levine.

I tend not to focus too much on player rankings since they vary by between publications. But for those that only see it as black & white, look at it this way ... we got the #5, #29, and #50 best players according to MLB.com in the first three rounds.

 

Well, they could have had Rooker w/o going under slot in pick 1, so I'm not sure that's a good look at the outcomes.

 

Which sounds better?

 

Any player+Rooker+number 40ish player vs Lewis+Rooker+number 29.

 

Given that, I'm not sure I don't like the first one (using your rankings).

 

Really, they must really like Lewis a lot more than number 5, if they planned to take Rooker all along.

[Bob Sacamento]

 

Most Cubs picks are below their mlb.com rankings. Are the Cubs dumb too?

I'd take the Cubs scouting and developmental system over the Twins, that's for sure.

[dogsday]

Maybe the best way for the Twins to find pitching is to have position players to trade for the pitchers other teams develop?

[InfraRen]

Enlow has Minnesota Twins in his Twitter profile already, so I'd assume they worked something out before the pick .

 

https://twitter.com/BlayneBlaynee

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Maybe the best way for the Twins to find pitching is to have position players to trade for the pitchers other teams develop?

 

 

that appears to be the argument being made by some here, yes. Of course, prospects aren't traded for each other, so you are trading multiple prospects with many years of control for 1 player with less years of control.....

[alarp33]

 

so you are trading multiple prospects with many years of control for 1 player with less years of control.....

 

Says who? You couldn't have traded Dozier for De Leon (6 years of control) in January? 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Says who? You couldn't have traded Dozier for De Leon (6 years of control) in January? 

 

People are arguing trading for MLB pitchers, to help next year or the year after.

 

Apparently, no one want Dozier, and Santana is too valuable to trade. Who else are you trading, other than prospects?

 

And, since they refused to make that deal, I'm guessing they won't make it this year either.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Mike Sixel

[ThejacKmp]

Sammons

[nicksaviking]

Brian Sammons. No profile available on MLB.com but this is what I found with a Google search:

 

 

https://patch.com/new-york/merrick/young-man-dies-motorcycle-crash

 

Doesn't sound very promising.

[NapoleonComplex]

 

Which sounds better?

 

Any player+Rooker+number 40ish player vs Lewis+Rooker+number 29.

 

 

It's sort of a toss up for me.  I will continue questioning the Twins draft strategy based on the outcome. But the greater point I tried to make was simple perspective on our choices using player rankings from the MLB website. Too many people seem to be relating NFL/NBA draft to MLB Amateur draft. So many variables to consider rather than "#1 ranked player should be picked #1." Additionally, many of these picks may not sniff AA, let alone start in a MLB All Star game.

[alarp33]

 

People are arguing trading for MLB pitchers, to help next year or the year after.

 

Apparently, no one want Dozier, and Santana is too valuable to trade. Who else are you trading, other than prospects?

 

And, since they refused to make that deal, I'm guessing they won't make it this year either.

 

I thought we were speaking in more generalities, how you can acquire pitchers.  I didn't realize it was you had to acquire one now for this season or next

[Willihammer]

Sammons- College senior, lefthanded, should be cheap.

Would like to see them start turning to high schoolers in the next few rounds.

Still a lot of draft to go.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Willihammer

[Mike Sixel]

 

But it's possible they would not get Enlow without Rooker and Lewis savings. They know what it takes to sign him and who they liked but could save money signing in order to be there.

 

Uh, that was the point of the math experiment.....

 

do you like:

Anyone+Rooker+number 40ish player

 

Lewis+Rooker+Enlow

[Respy]

All I see on Bryan Sammons is a big-frame lefty who was projected to go around #350.

[AZTwin]

Sounds like we got more savings. Good lord what a draft.

[Willihammer]

 

 

Brian Sammons. No profile available on MLB.com but this is what I found with a Google search:

 

 

https://patch.com/new-york/merrick/young-man-dies-motorcycle-crash

 

Doesn't sound very promising.

Yeah we got a Blayne, a Ryley, and a Bryan. Should be giving Seth spell-check fits for many years!

[Bob Sacamento]

Bryan Sammons

 

 

 

Sammons was a durable college lefty for much of his career. Then he pitched for Yarmouth-Dennis last summer in the Cape Cod League, pitching and winning the league title game, and got on scouts' radar a bit more. He had his best season as a senior and should be a solid senior budget sign. He's big-bodied (6-foot-3, 235 pounds), improved his walk rate (to 3.5 from 5.3) and throwing more quality strikes with his 88-91 mph fastball that can touch 92. He throws a curveball and cutter as well as a changeup, though none grades as more than average.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Enlow has Minnesota Twins in his Twitter profile already, so I'd assume they worked something out before the pick .

 

https://twitter.com/BlayneBlaynee

 

He even retweeted a tweet suggesting he will sign rather then attend LSU

[Respy]

Video of Bryan Sammons striking out 14 here:

 

http://www.catamountsports.com/sports/m-basebl/recaps/033117aaa.html

[nicksaviking]

 

that appears to be the argument being made by some here, yes. Of course, prospects aren't traded for each other, so you are trading multiple prospects with many years of control for 1 player with less years of control.....

 

Not if it's the Twins player who is the established MLB'er and the Twins are the ones trading for multiple guys of years of control.

 

I'd assume if the Twins started trading away redundant shortstops, at some point it would start with Polanco to Gordon to Palacios to Lewis. Ideally.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I thought we were speaking in more generalities, how you can acquire pitchers.  I didn't realize it was you had to acquire one now for this season or next

 

I was talking about the Twins. They have 2 veterans to trade, plus Polanco, plus prospects (unless you are trading Sano or Buxton) to get starter(s). 

 

Sure, if you have veterans you can trade for AA or AAA players. That involves risk, though, as you are now trading for a player in the 30s - 50s or so, most likely. While they don't usually fully bust, they do carry risk. AKA, Meyer, May, Worley....

[Vanimal46]

 

Maybe the best way for the Twins to find pitching is to have position players to trade for the pitchers other teams develop?

 

Wouldn't be opposed to this idea. 

[InfraRen]

Hard to judge a draft where we really won't know anything about these players for 1-4 years or so.

 

I'm going to trust Falvey, who's known as having a great eye for pitching, and developing it and Levine, who many in the industry were surprised the Twins could pry from TX than what I believe to be the right choice in the current moment.

 

I know I'm pretty excited about Lewis, Rooker and Enlow - we'll see what else shakes out with the others over time.

Edited June 13, 2017 by InfraRen

[Mike Sixel]

 

Not if it's the Twins player who is the established MLB'er and it is they who are trading for multiple guys of years of control.

 

I'd assume if the Twins started trading away redundant shortstops, at some point it would start with Polanco to Gordon to Palacios to Lewis.

 

Well, I'm told no one wants Dozier, and ESan is off limits....and you aren't dealing Buxton or Sano....so Polanco and Kepler?

[alarp33]

 

I was talking about the Twins. They have 2 veterans to trade, plus Polanco, plus prospects (unless you are trading Sano or Buxton) to get starter(s). 

 

Sure, if you have veterans you can trade for AA or AAA players. That involves risk, though, as you are now trading for a player in the 30s - 50s or so, most likely. While they don't usually fully bust, they do carry risk. AKA, Meyer, May, Worley....

 

They carry more risk than drafting pitchers in the 1st round?

 

Isn't that the argument?  Because I would rather trade for someone's AAA pitcher who they've developed for 3 years with IF or OF depth, than I draft only pitchers in Round 1

[Mike Sixel]

 

They carry more risk than drafting pitchers in the 1st round?

 

Isn't that the argument?  Because I would rather trade for someone's AAA pitcher who they've developed for 3 years with IF or OF depth, than I draft only pitchers in Round 1

 

no, but they carry more cost, since you are giving up a player and taking on risk. And, a AAA or AA player is just a prospect, those sometimes fail. More often than we think. Even the highly rated ones. I never said "more risk", I clearly said "risk".

 

Do we see a lot of MLB ready pitchers traded? I don't know the answer to that, have there been many/any in the last 5 years?

 

DeLeon, assuming you thought he was MLB ready.....but I have no idea about others.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Mike Sixel