Top 20 Minnesota Twins Assets of 2020: Part 3 (6-10)

Cannot agree more with your last comment about Buxton.  For that reason, I am hopeful that the Twins work out a nice extension with him before opening day.  Putting the issues of September 2018 behind him together with long term security may be a factor in his changing how he plays the game to becoming a safer Byron Buxton in the field.  He is a potential MVP.

I love Mitch, but I think we're putting too much stock into his rise. Let's see him replicate 2019 before even mentioning him in the conversation for best catcher in the game.

For the final five, I'd have them ordered:

5. Lewis

4. Graterol (we need pitching desperately)

3. Polanco

2. Kepler

1. Berrios

Nick, you're doing a great job at a difficult task. I have a comment though...

Nick's question: "Which current players in the organization are most indispensable to fulfilling the vision of building a champion?"

Seems the answer depends on when you think the Twins can be a champion. If it's the next two seasons, I'd rate Sano and Buxton higher than Lewis, Balazovic and Kirilloff (IMO). Maybe put Rogers higher on the list too. If you're shooting for 2021 and beyond, the prospects move right behind Berrios, Polanco and Kepler.

This is my problem with the Twins FO. They say they want to win it all now but they act like they're looking at 2021 or 2022. If it's now, they need to trade top prospects for a SP (and maybe a corner bat). If it's later, they could trade Sano, Rosario and May for AA prospects (or sign Sano and May to long-term contracts). 

The FO keeps hedging their bets. At some point they have to commit to a plan. There's still time this offseason. Maybe at the trade deadline. Maybe when they have to adjust their 40-man roster next offseason. Ugh

Fun exercise. Thanks for doing this. In my view, if you are talking about most valuable assets to an organization, service years factor large. Therefore, I don’t think Nelson Cruz, at age 40, signed for one season, should be in this list. He could put up the same numbers as last year, but it’s unlikely. Odorizzi falls in the same realm—although if he were signed to a Jose Abreu-like extension, he could easily turn into a much more valuable asset.

I think I’d view Lewis Thorpe and Keoni Cavaco as more valuable assets for the organization.

Honestly, take a look at Thorpe’s last three years. 10-11K/9, under 3 BB/9, FIP of 3.7 or under. And this is with high BABIP. I think he should be in the rotation to start the year, and could stick.

Cavaco is obviously a wildcard, with a rocky small sample first year. But if he has a good year, he shoots up their boards (while Cruz and Odorizzi are gone.)

These rankings are crazy. The players chosen are OK, even easy, but their rankings are all over the place. Cruz is top 5. Ditto Buxton and Sano. Arraez has to prove himself and so does Garver. Berrios, Polanco, Lewis, Kepler and the mystery player that eludes me...it had better not be Graterol!

If Garver is truly the real deal and not just a guy who had a great season, how on Earth did it take so long for the Twins to realize what they had? 

He was DEVELOPED into the real deal.

The better questions to ask would be: why did every team in baseball pass on him about 8 times, why were 16 other catching prospects selected before he was, and how on earth did he turn out to be more productive than any other catcher in the entire major leagues in somewhat limited play?

These rankings are crazy. The players chosen are OK, even easy, but their rankings are all over the place. Cruz is top 5. Ditto Buxton and Sano. Arraez has to prove himself and so does Garver. Berrios, Polanco, Lewis, Kepler and the mystery player that eludes me...it had better not be Graterol!

Take a look at the ranking parameters. That might help and I am pretty sure all-stars (Berrios / Polanco) have proven themselves. This type of assessment involves a fair amount of speculation but Nick has done a nice job of laying out how he came to these rankings. The fact that's it's not an exact science makes for interesting debate.

These rankings are crazy. The players chosen are OK, even easy, but their rankings are all over the place. Cruz is top 5. Ditto Buxton and Sano. Arraez has to prove himself and so does Garver. Berrios, Polanco, Lewis, Kepler and the mystery player that eludes me...it had better not be Graterol!

With Duran @ 13 and Balazovic @ 8, Graterol has to be top 5.  He qualifies as a top pitching prospect near the big-leagues, as the most top pitching prospect closest and actually in the Bigs.

That's following the author's logic anyhow.

If Garver is truly the real deal and not just a guy who had a great season, how on Earth did it take so long for the Twins to realize what they had? 

I'd argue the exact opposite. He was drafted in 2013 (in the ninth round, no less!), and despite being a catcher, he was in the majors by 2017. The following year he was a primary catcher. 

For a pretty good prospect, that's a nice pace through the minors. For a ninth rounder, that's fast. For a ninth round catcher that's breakneck. For a ninth round catcher who was the best hitting catcher in the game last year, that's ludicrous speed.

  Pretty remarkable how fast Arraez went from the #20 prospect to the #10 asset

I'd argue the exact opposite. He was drafted in 2013 (in the ninth round, no less!), and despite being a catcher, he was in the majors by 2017. The following year he was a primary catcher. 

 

For a pretty good prospect, that's a nice pace through the minors. For a ninth rounder, that's fast. For a ninth round catcher that's breakneck. For a ninth round catcher who was the best hitting catcher in the game last year, that's ludicrous speed.

So THAT's why the label on the Spicy Garv Sauce is plaid.   Totally makes sense now .

I agree with some of the sentiment on Garver that we really don’t know yet.

Was his production enhanced by the juiced that ball? I think so. And, no, the juiced ball didn’t help everyone. Not all hitters are created equal in terms of fly ball rate, etc. it helped some more than others. I don’t know the data, but it just seemed like he was one who really benefitted from an approach geared towards “lifting” the ball. There’s really no telling at this point how that will affect Garver and his production.

There’s also the issue of playing time. If he’s truly the offensive force he appeared to be in 2019, he needs to play more games. But, if he plays more does his production decline? Likely. Nonetheless, you can’t say he’s one of the greatest offensive catchers of all time and an MVP candidate when he’s only playing in half of the games.

I can’t really argue with where he is placed on this list right now, at the end of the day. But, I have a healthy level of skepticism that he’s indefinitely going to be the player we saw last year. I certainly don’t think he’ll ever match the level of production per PA/AB, so where does that put him?

On Buxton, despite the injuries and past struggles, etc. I still think he’s one of the most valuable piece on the team. He’s certainly higher than 7 in the Twins organization. There’s a reason all of these teams start with Buxton when discussing trades with the Twins. Personally, I think he has a big year in front of him. He could very well be a top 5 piece in the MLB, let alone on the Twins, this time next year.

Garver needs to do it again this year to convince me of what you say he is. He had a great year. Can he repeat it?

"Is Garver the best catcher in baseball? Is he one of the best offensive backstops in MLB history?"

I love me some Garver, but lets not get crazy about Garver, He isn't the best catcher in baseball (yet) and is no where near one of the best offensive backstops ever at this point in his career (218 games and 5.7 oWar) and he will be 29 years old in a week.

First, two questions....

How would you ever justify trading a prospect?

Did you steal this list from the Twins FO?

Good idea, but the exercise seems a bit ambiguous without a time-frame around the championship you are 'visioning'. Is a championship in 2025 worth more than a championship in 2020? By this list, it would appear so. Are two likely years of championship competition in 2020-2021 worth as much as three or four hypothetical years of competition in 2024-2027? Not by this ranking. Does Sano's standing (for instance) predict an unlikelihood that he has an extended tenure with the Twins? Apparently so. In short, I think the list is severely biased toward unrealistically rosey projections for a big group of prospects. It's next to impossible that this number of prospects prove to be BOTH this good AND retained by the Twins for 'extended' contributions to championship windows.

Garver still not getting credit he has always deserved. More like Garver developed himself. Do you really think that if Garver had been picked by many other teams, that he would not have worked to be who he is now, just the same? The Twins didn't develop him, Garver developed himself, and he was the best of the two (Turner) when he was drafted, too. He was Johnny Bench runner up, after all. You don't get that if you don't already have good defense in college. The talking heads and the TD writers always deferred to Turner, too. And the Twins always kept Garver behind Turner in the promotions, even though he was killing it on offense. This could have happened at least a year before it did, if not held back, I think. Years were wasted holding him back.

Of course Garver deserves most of the credit or his own progress, that goes without saying for most of us.

The Yankees just hired Tanner Swanson away from the Twins. The reason? He's developed a rep as an innovative catching coach. To say the Twins had nothing to do with his development, as you are suggesting, is utter nonsense. 

If you went back and read the scouting reports, you'd know that Turner possessed better skills. What's clear now, is that Garver possessed greater athleticism and raw talent. If you went back and read various reports about Garver during his years in the minors, all the way up to his promotion to MLB, you'd know that there were serious and lingering questions as to whether his defensive skills were adequately improved. So again, your claim that Garver came out of college with "good defensive skills" is bogus.