Poll: Draft Scenario 1

[John Bonnes]

I'm pretty much good with anything (Which I'm sure surprises many of you).

 

So what did you pick in the poll?

[John Bonnes]

When do we get Mr. Bonnes' take?

 

I voted Stewart. I'm a BPA guy, and to me, BPA = Stewart. But that might not be the case for the 2nd poll that I'm putting up today....

[ericchri]

I went with Stewart for this. Seems like he has the highest upside. We have plenty of depth in our farm system right now, I'd rather see them add more high-end quality than gambling on McGuire + ? to add quantity. Essentially all the pitching possibilities bandied about as possibilities leave a bit of concern, so I say go with the one who looks like he has the highest ceiling. Trey Ball is interesting because he's a lefty, but sounds a bit more risky.

 

It's funny, I almost wish we weren't picking 4th, cause I really like the possibility of McGuire, a top-end HS catcher hitting our system now would be pretty good timing I would think, we've probably got another 3-4 years of Mauer being the primary catcher, but I just don't think McGuire should be #4.

[Wookiee of the Year]

I actually voted college pitcher, and I would go with Shipley. I like that he's already developed a deceptive change-up; I hear that's usually harder to do than developing a breaking ball, so I'm hopeful that will come.

 

Some here are downplaying "closer to the majors" by saying they'll take whoever has more upside, even if they have to wait. To me, the advantage to "closer to the majors" isn't that it comes sooner; it's that by virtue of the fact that it's closer to major league-ready talent, it's more proven and has less room for things to go wrong in development. Closer to the majors = less risk.

 

All of that said, if the Twins take Stewart at #4, I trust they made the right decision. If they pass on Stewart at #4, I also trust they made the right decision. I see HS pitching as risky, but I'm no scout; I'm not close enough to Stewart to know if he's worth the risk and/or less risky than it might appear. With the outside knowledge I have, I'd take Shipley, but on whether Stewart is worth the risk of taking a HS pitcher #4, I trust the insiders.

[Oxtung]

I actually voted college pitcher, and I would go with Shipley. I like that he's already developed a deceptive change-up; I hear that's usually harder to do than developing a breaking ball, so I'm hopeful that will come.

 

Some here are downplaying "closer to the majors" by saying they'll take whoever has more upside, even if they have to wait. To me, the advantage to "closer to the majors" isn't that it comes sooner; it's that by virtue of the fact that it's closer to major league-ready talent, it's more proven and has less room for things to go wrong in development. Closer to the majors = less risk.

 

All of that said, if the Twins take Stewart at #4, I trust they made the right decision. If they pass on Stewart at #4, I also trust they made the right decision. I see HS pitching as risky, but I'm no scout; I'm not close enough to Stewart to know if he's worth the risk and/or less risky than it might appear. With the outside knowledge I have, I'd take Shipley, but on whether Stewart is worth the risk of taking a HS pitcher #4, I trust the insiders.

 

The recent data coming out shows that there is no difference in risk really between HS and College RHP taken in the 1st round. Now LHP is a different story!

[70charger]

The recent data coming out shows that there is no difference in risk really between HS and College RHP taken in the 1st round. Now LHP is a different story!

 

The "greater risk" of LHP in and of itself makes me skeptical of the usefulness of this study. Unless there's something inherently riskier or more injury-prone in a lefthanded delivery (seems ridiculous), then stats are probably just showing a lot of randomness; i.e. the correlations are not nearly as high as we'd like them to be.

 

Given that, it could be that any other category of pitcher is overrepresented or underrepresented with regard to perceived risk. We don't really know, and that's the problem.

[bird]

I'm pretty much good with anything (Which I'm sure surprises many of you).

 

I'd be good with Stanek because of how well he's come on, he's advanced, he has been considered a top 10 pick all year.

i'd be good with Stewart, especially if they believe he'll sign. He may have the best upside.

I'd be OK (at best) with McGuire and have to trust that he will have enough bat to be a #1 catcher in the big leagues for several years. No one is expecting Mauer, but want something. He's a consensus Top 10 guy too, which means he's pretty good. if they do that, I'll be curious how the savings will affect later picks.

 

Frankly, after the Big 3, it's a crapshoot, so get the one that allows most flexibility

 

I trust the Twins scouts these days, but I guess I'm hoping that either they concur with Stewart as advertised, or they see something in McGuire and go with the underslot strategy. It'll make things more interesting, and won't it be fun when the board goes ballistic?

[bird]

I am not sure how anyone without "access" can comment on Stewart.

 

Do I want him? I want the idea of him - a top line pitcher. But all I have is the same reports everyone else has.

 

Have I ever seen him pitch live? No.

Do I know if he is FB is laser straight or does it move a bit? No.

Do I know if his offspeed is any good? No.

Have I sat in his living room to talk about his commitment to A&M? No.

 

There should be a choice: The player who twins think is best regardless of position.

 

That what I want.

 

Great comment. Berardino's articles on the draft, featuring Twins scout John Wilson and discussions about the Puckett decision and the Trout miss, should be required reading for any one on the board who believes they have a valid opinion about the relative qualifications of prospects.

[Oxtung]

The "greater risk" of LHP in and of itself makes me skeptical of the usefulness of this study. Unless there's something inherently riskier or more injury-prone in a lefthanded delivery (seems ridiculous), then stats are probably just showing a lot of randomness; i.e. the correlations are not nearly as high as we'd like them to be.

 

Given that, it could be that any other category of pitcher is overrepresented or underrepresented with regard to perceived risk. We don't really know, and that's the problem.

 

The study I'm talking about just looked at what level pitchers ended their careers at (minors, solid regular, all star, all time great). HS LHP were far and away the least successful. I think given the need for LHP it isn't surprising that teams would reach for LHP that probably didn't deserve to go in the first round just because they were left handed.