Post Trade Deadline Twins Prospect Rankings

[Tom Froemming]

Screw it, I'm gonna keep goin'

 

26. Leach

27. De La Torre

28. Balazovic

29. Jax

30. Moran

31. Diaz

32. T.Wells

33. Raley

34. Wiel

35. Rijo

36. Keirsey

37. L.Wells

38. Jay

39. Watson

40. Maciel

41. Barnes

42. Curtiss

43. Ober

44. Aguiar

45. Teng

46. Mack

47. Montero

48. Jorge

49. Vasquez

50. Stashak

 

Everybody else tied at No. 51

[Mike Sixel]

 

Doesn't it really come down to who "you" think is going to be best major league ball player?

If somebody thinks that Rooker could/will be an all star first basemen and thinks Kirilloff is going to be a good every day player, then you would say Rooker is the better prospect or vice versa.

But IMO if you believe that OF > 1B is the end all to decide between prospects than the Twins made a huge mistake drafting Rooker that high when a OF is greater than 1B.

Now I believe Kirilloff is going to have a better major league career than Rooker for multiple reasons but not based on the fact he plays OF vs 1B.

Just my two cents, but as my friend's son always says "just give me two cents because it is worth more than your opinion"

 

Well, the discussion is the relative value of the position, and nothing more......

 

NO  PLACE did I say that is the only way to make a decision on anyone, I was merely trying to say that Kiriloff can play the OF, and probably 1B, and that his defense gives him an advantage in rankings.

 

Clearly if you think someone will hit A LOT better than him, that matters, but that literally is not the discussion I was having. I don't know how to make that more clear......I was literally discussing the relative value of defensive positions, nothing more, nothing less.

[howieramone2]

 

Screw it, I'm gonna keep goin'

 

26. Leach

27. De La Torre

28. Balazovic

29. Jax

30. Moran

31. Diaz

32. T.Wells

33. Raley

34. Wiel

35. Rijo

36. Keirsey

37. L.Wells

38. Jay

39. Watson

40. Maciel

41. Barnes

42. Curtiss

43. Ober

44. Aguiar

45. Teng

46. Mack

47. Montero

48. Jorge

49. Vasquez

50. Stashak

 

Everybody else tied at No. 51

Tom, that's the whole point. Our farm system is very deep. Last off-season I thought they would trade a Gonsalves and Romero type for a 2/3. The problem with that would be, we would lose our starting pitching deep. IMHO we can package at least 2 blockbusters w/o completely stripping our farm system after the outstanding work done at the deadline.

[bird]

 

I bet Brunansky would be a better 1st baseman than Hrbek would be an outfielder.

 

 

I bet that Kiriloff will be a better MLB baseball player than Rooker, despite that onerous home schooling issue. The authentic evaluators like KLAW think so, pretty much universally now. 

 

I don't buy thrylos's opinions about base running (speed?!?) and defense when comparing these two prospects either.

 

Kiriloff has shot up the overall prospect rankings, and there's a reason for that. KLAW, for one, recently said he's going to be an all-star many times over.

[Dman]

 

Screw it, I'm gonna keep goin'

 

26. Leach

27. De La Torre

28. Balazovic

29. Jax

30. Moran

31. Diaz

32. T.Wells

33. Raley

34. Wiel

35. Rijo

36. Keirsey

37. L.Wells

38. Jay

39. Watson

40. Maciel

41. Barnes

42. Curtiss

43. Ober

44. Aguiar

45. Teng

46. Mack

47. Montero

48. Jorge

49. Vasquez

50. Stashak

 

Everybody else tied at No. 51

 

Man there is some serious talent in that top 50.  I think we need to petition MLB.com to publish at least a top 40 for the Twins because they have too many talented players.  Thanks to for above and beyond!  I like your list.

[jkcarew]

Compared to Graterol and Rooker, he is.   They are both ahead of him. 

 

Kiriloff's hit and power tool are above average and might be approaching plus.  His fielding and arm are both below average and his speed/base running is much below average.  He does not walk much (career: 0.044 isoD).   To me he projects as a LF/DH.  Which is fine.  He is still a top 10 prospect in this system, with pretty much similar profile to Lanarch btw who might actually be a step ahead of them in fielding, arm, speed, and discipline.  

 

My point is that he is overrated, which means that I think that there are better prospects than him, not that he is a bad prospect.  Just not that high in this team.

Defense and plate discipline might be the two last criteria I would use to rate Rooker ahead of Kirilloff as a prospect. I’d be way more concerned by Rooker’s (very much) higher K rate than Kirilloff’s marginally lower B.B. rate. Kirilloff will have more defensive flexibility, not less. And it’s strange how they keep putting a guy with such a weak arm in RF rather than LF.

 

When considering that Rooker was a sophomore in college (3 years ago) when he was Kirilloff’s age, I think the first, last, and only reason to rank Rooker ahead of Kirilloff, would be Rooker’s power tool.