MLB.COM Comes out with new top 30 prospect list

[AZTwin]

1. Royce Lewis  (20 overall, 1 behind Mackenzie Gore in 2017 class)

2. Fernando Romero (68)

3. Stephen Gonsalves (78)

4. Nick Gordon (80)

5. Wander Javier

6. Alex Kiriloff

7. Brusdar Graterol

8. Brent Rooker

9. Blayne Enlow

10. Lewin Diaz

11. Akil Baddoo

12. Lewis Thorpe

13. Lamonte Wade

14. Travis Blankenhorn

15. Zach Littell

16. Tyler Jay

17. Felix Jorge

18. Kohl Stewart

19. Mitch Garver

20. Andrew Bechtold

21. John Curtiss

22. Tyler Watson

23. Luiz Arraez

24. Ben Rortvedt

25. Jacob Pearson

26. Zach Granite

27. Jose Miranda

28. Landon Leach

29. Yunior Severino

30. David Buenulos

 

Damn what a farm system compared to what we have seen lately

 

[Vanimal46]

The list looks good. I'd still have Gordon above both Gonsalves and Romero but that's a minor nit pick. Pretty exciting to have 4 names on the top 100 list!

[laloesch]

Kohl Stewart still 18? Wow, I'd have thought he'd be towards the bottom of that list.

[bird]

I'd probably switch the rankings of Pearson and Granite.

 

Kidding.

[jimbo92107]

Sad to see Tyler Jay and Kohl Stewart drop out of the top ten, but at least it looks like Nick Gordon and Alex Kiriloff are back on track. Meanwhile Wander Javier could be a lucky break for this organization. Now if these pitching prospects can go a year without their arms falling off... Knock on head. ;-)

[Guest]

Ten players who were not with the organization one year ago.

[twinsfanstreif]

Ten players who were not with the organization one year ago.

Is that number right? If so holy crap that's crazy, Falvey and Levine are legit!

[AZTwin]

 

Is that number right? If so holy crap that's crazy, Falvey and Levine are legit!

Yep... 1, 8, 9, 15, 20, 22, 25, 28, 29, and 30

[bird]

Not to discredit anyone, but 5 of the 10 newbies came to us via the draft, which was excellent. Severino cost $2.4M in cash, we gave up $2M in IFA pool money for Banuelos and Pearson, Watson cost us a half-year of Kintzler, and we lost Ynoa, who would've been on this list, in the Littell/Garcia exchange.

 

That said, we added an impressive amount of real talent to the system.

[twinsfanstreif]

Not to discredit anyone, but 5 of the 10 newbies came to us via the draft, which was excellent. Severino cost $2.4M in cash, we gave up $2M in IFA pool money for Banuelos and Pearson, Watson cost us a half-year of Kintzler, and we lost Ynoa, who would've been on this list, in the Littell/Garcia exchange.

 

That said, we added an impressive amount of real talent to the system.

I'm failing to see your point here. There's no doubt that Falvey and Levine have done a very good job amassing talent. Are you arguing that those 5 picks would've been on this list Jo matter who was picking? That's very debatable, it seemed like nearly every year TR would pick some head scratchers in the Supplimental rounds that never made it on to lists like this. The other moves to me were very savvy moves that could pay out big time for us

[Guest]

Kohl Stewart still 18? Wow, I'd have thought he'd be towards the bottom of that list.

It’s probably a talent and age thing.

[KGB]

I'm failing to see your point here. There's no doubt that Falvey and Levine have done a very good job amassing talent. Are you arguing that those 5 picks would've been on this list Jo matter who was picking? That's very debatable, it seemed like nearly every year TR would pick some head scratchers in the Supplimental rounds that never made it on to lists like this. The other moves to me were very savvy moves that could pay out big time for us

4 players are from the 2016 draft without the benefit of having the first pick in each round. I think getting 5 in the top 30 isn't a big accomplishment.

[Otto von Ballpark]

4 players are from the 2016 draft without the benefit of having the first pick in each round.

Actually, using last year's top 30 list, the Twins had five 2016 draftees on that too:

 

https://www.mlb.com/news/where-twins-top-prospects-start-2017-season/c-222075834

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?team_ID=MIN&year_ID=2016&draft_type=junreg&query_type=franch_year

[jimmer]

For those who like MLB.coms prospect work, Twins are not listed in the top 10 farm systems.

 

https://www.mlb.com/news/top-10-farm-systems-ranking-by-mlb-pipeline/c-267360666

 

[jimmer]

It's pretty sad if Gonsalves is our 3rd best prospect.

[gunnarthor]

 

Is that number right? If so holy crap that's crazy, Falvey and Levine are legit!

I don't think that adding ten or so is that unusual. You'll lose a few guys on a top 30 to graduations, trades, rule v, DFAs etc and you'll also add a bunch with your draft picks and international signings every year. I don't know what are top 30 looked like last year before the draft (mlbpipeline's 2017 includes all our drafted guys) but a net change of a third or so doesn't strike me as too unusual.

 

In any event, I think there's been a lot of discussion about the system and a lot of reasons for optimism from the experts.

[bird]

 

I'm failing to see your point here. There's no doubt that Falvey and Levine have done a very good job amassing talent. Are you arguing that those 5 picks would've been on this list Jo matter who was picking? That's very debatable, it seemed like nearly every year TR would pick some head scratchers in the Supplimental rounds that never made it on to lists like this. The other moves to me were very savvy moves that could pay out big time for us

 

The group of scouts who influenced the decision to pick Royce Lewis are pretty much the same group of scouts who weighed in on the team's picks for the last several years. MLB's Top 30 list is historically well-represented by selections from the most recent draft. So yes, I think it's possible, even likely, that we'd have 4 or 5 names from the most recent draft on the list regardless of who the GM is.

 

Falvey didn't hand-pick Bechtold any more than Ryan hand-picked Valencia when he held about the same spot on these lists. It's a process. Many people influence the final selections, often even the other teams.

 

We agree, as I said in my post, that they added an impressive collection of real talent. We'll see, but it could be that Severino, Banuelos, and Pearson will be well worth the cost. 

[old nurse]

 

Not to discredit anyone, but 5 of the 10 newbies came to us via the draft, which was excellent. Severino cost $2.4M in cash, we gave up $2M in IFA pool money for Banuelos and Pearson, Watson cost us a half-year of Kintzler, and we lost Ynoa, who would've been on this list, in the Littell/Garcia exchange.

 

That said, we added an impressive amount of real talent to the system.

Ynoa was 22 on the list last year. Littel 15. The Twins gained. A blurb in fangraphs called him one of the fringe prospects turned failure.

[TheLeviathan]

 

It’s probably a talent and age thing.

 

I've come to believe that Kohl Stewart has the most comprehensive, wide-ranging blackmail scheme we've ever seen.  It's the only logical explanation.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It's pretty sad if Gonsalves is our 3rd best prospect.

Not necessarily, depending how you weight prospects (projection vs. results). And I always twist up these listings but I recall that MLB.com leans a bit toward the results side of things. And Gonsalves isn't a terrible #3, as he's a relatively high floor, low ceiling mid- to back-rotation guy.

 

But I'm not particularly fond of MLB.com rankings in the first place (not for that reason, just in general).

[Tomj14]

 

It's pretty sad if Gonsalves is our 3rd best prospect.

I think everybody would agree he really isn't the Twins 3rd best possible baseball player, but at this point he has a way better chance of playing in the big leagues then most of the guys between Alex Kirilloff,Wander Javier,Blayne Enlow,Brusdar Graterol,Akil Baddoo,Lewis Thorpe.

I would think most would agree that is a perfect world these guys should end up better than Gonzo.

That is why prospect lists IMO are tough to read and do.

[nicksaviking]

 

The group of scouts who influenced the decision to pick Royce Lewis are pretty much the same group of scouts who weighed in on the team's picks for the last several years. MLB's Top 30 list is historically well-represented by selections from the most recent draft. So yes, I think it's possible, even likely, that we'd have 4 or 5 names from the most recent draft on the list regardless of who the GM is.

 

Falvey didn't hand-pick Bechtold any more than Ryan hand-picked Valencia when he held about the same spot on these lists. It's a process. Many people influence the final selections, often even the other teams.

 

We agree, as I said in my post, that they added an impressive collection of real talent. We'll see, but it could be that Severino, Banuelos, and Pearson will be well worth the cost. 

 

Those at the round table may be the same, but I really don't think we've seen enough to know if the new king accepts evaluations at face value and delegates draftresponsibilities the same as the old king.

[The Wise One]

 

It's pretty sad if Gonsalves is our 3rd best prospect.

It is a harmless opinion that should have absolutely no sadness about it.  If your order of prospects  is by ceiling, your list will look different than someone who places added value on proximity to being major league  ready. Some places have mathematical formulas like KATOH. Some people have some unknown criteria. In 20 years there might be some proof as to who was right, mlb.com, Sickels, Law, fangraphs, twins daily,puckett's pond, some inning stretch, or a cold Warne's best guess. 

[bird]

 

For those who like MLB.coms prospect work, Twins are not listed in the top 10 farm systems.

 

https://www.mlb.com/news/top-10-farm-systems-ranking-by-mlb-pipeline/c-267360666

 

 

Yeah, they're probably 11th. KLAW has them 10th. Either way, we know, comparatively speaking, where the system stands.

[Oxtung]

 

Yeah, they're probably 11th. KLAW has them 10th. Either way, we know, comparatively speaking, where the system stands.

I don't think the Twins would be 11th on mlb.com's list. The Twins have 157 prospect points using their methodology. The tenth place team had 204. That is a big gap.

[bird]

 

Those at the round table may be the same, but I really don't think we've seen enough to know if the new king accepts evaluations at face value and delegates draftresponsibilities the same as the old king.

 

 

Right, and we probably never will understand the dynamics involved in matters of talent assessment well enough to attribute success and failure so singularly to the king, other than simplistic "buck stops here" stuff.

 

I read a recent article about Mike Pohl's championing of Aaron Slegers. Unquestionably, he was a terrific selection in that spot. We will never know how much of that success is attributable to other scouts reviewing and weighing in, Pohl's ability to influence things, the final call by someone else, etc. That's why I think it's just so much extraneous noise to argue about the role of the GM, other than his expressed statements related to philosophy and strategy, or indications of his leadership of the talent evaluators employed in the process. I suppose we can give the GM more credit for guys like Pearson and Banuelos, but I guarantee you, those decisions weren't the sole province of Falvey and a couple of stat-heads either. The scouts weighed in. Although we really know almost nothing right now about the process and dynamics of things in this arena. Wish we had a reporter who would delve into it.

[bird]

 

It's pretty sad if Gonsalves is our 3rd best prospect.

 

BA regards Gonsalves as pretty much interchangeable with a group of 7-8 prospects. So another way to look at it might be that it's pretty cool that a 4th round pick might turn out to be good enough to anchor the middle of the rotation.

[bird]

 

I don't think the Twins would be 11th on mlb.com's list. The Twins have 157 prospect points using their methodology. The tenth place team had 204. That is a big gap.

 

 

Knowing this, how does it alter your view of the relative strength of the system? It's better than average and less than elite, right? 

[Oxtung]

Using mlb.com methodology I calculated the Prospect Points for every organization. The Twins are 19th. Here is the entire list:

 

Padres 423
Braves 407
White Sox 359
Rays 339
Yankees 295
Reds 268
Blue Jays 240
Phillies 239
Cardinals 209
Dodgers 206
Astros 202
Nationals 178
Pirates 176
Tigers 174
A's 174
Indians 167
Angels 161
Twins 158
Rockies 148
Rangers 115
Marlins 104
Brewers 82
Orioles 81
Red Sox 38
Diamondbacks 38
Giants 38
Mariners 31
Royals 0
Mets 0
Cubs 0

 

One thing I failed to notice the first time I glanced at their rankings they didn't go straight down the prospect points list; rightfully since there are more prospects than just the top 100. Since the mlb.com crew haven't given out more than their top 10 list it is up to the individual to decide if the Twins should rank higher than 19th and if so how much.

[bird]

Depending on how much weight you want to put on more elite prospects as opposed to depth, we're going to see some variance. Not because of this ranking, I just find other rankings more credible, including Sickles, KLAW, and BA to name three. All three would take issue with a number of things about the value and relevance of MLB's distribution of points. For example, I think eyebrows would immediately be raised about any team receiving zeros. What does a zero suggest? Is the Cubs system that much worse than a team with 160 points? I'm going to guess MLB's ranking will be an outlier, maybe five slots or so worse than any of the other credible publications.