ALessKosherScott

Hunter's first couple hundred at-bats were pretty dreadful too. Ditto Morneau, Cuddyer, Plouffe, Dozier and the aforementioned Gomez. The exceptions are the Mauers who come in and hit right away. The norm is a guy taking some time to find success in the big leagues. That doesn't mean Hicks will hit for pop. But there's a chance, which is more than I'd give of Arcia learning to be anything more than a DH.

The scouting reports coming up have mentioned 20-homerun power. He had 16 extra-base hits in Rochester earlier this year in 123 plate appearances, good for an ISO of .225. The power is there. Now the question is can he unlock it at the major league level.

The biggest flaw I see with today's prospect fandom culture is that we're too quick to assign superstardom on kids while they still have holes in their game that major league pitchers will exploit. And too quick to cast them aside when those holes are exploited. Hicks hasn't been great so far in the majors. And maybe that will continue to be the case. But he's also 25, and when Trevor Plouffe was 25 no one saw him as a capable starting third baseman. No one saw Carlos Gomez as a potential All-Star at 25. No one saw David Ortiz as a future Hall-of-Famer at 25. Hicks probably isn't going to be the long-term answer to Puckett. But I like the chances of him learning to hit for some pop and becoming a good right fielder more than I like the chances of Arcia learning how to field.

Sign him. Send him to Cedar Rapids. Put him on a strict pitch count. See what happens. If he's dominating and you're still in contention, move him to the pen and see what happens. If he's simply doing pretty good, well, it's not worth a lot of discussion.

Date is wrong in the video. It's from 5/2/15

The Baseball America scouting report that Bob quoted earlier disagrees. "He ranked second in the nation in ERA and was overpowering hitters with a 92-96 mph fastball from a quick-armed, high-energy delivery with a long stride and deception. The video shows its more Shooter Hunt bad than Adam Johnson bad. He has an inconsistent landing point and his arm is quicker than his legs. There's also a slight recoil as he releases. The stuff and command are their to start. But the question is will the deliver hold up to 180 innings, and what happens to his command as they tone him down.

I'm not a fan of this pick either. Any time the Twins take a pitcher with any kind of effort in his delivery it never ends well (Mills, Johnson, Wimmers, Hunt). But to be fair to Jay, he's more Perkins than Duensing.

It's a little unnerving when Shooter becomes the voice of reason for the local sports media.

The irony being when I was reviewing my past shadow drafts last night, I was pondering if my biggest whiff was on an 8th rounder (Dozier). But IMO, there's two ways to look at it. I'm pretty sure the White Sox don't regret going over slot for Rodon. On the transitive side of things, I don't think the Astros regret the way things ended with Aiken either, since whomever they end up with at #2 will be a pretty good consolation prize. The way compensation picks work in this day in age, you have to take the best player on your board in round one and either A) find a way to make it work or cut bait and take the pick next year. If Cameron is the highest player left on the Twins board at 6, you go for it. Bonus demands and agent be damned. There's not a lot of risk in losing a #6 pick in this day and age, especially in a thin draft.

Tucker has the kind of swing that I like to dub the "Restovich." There's a big hitch in how he loads the bat and really good pitchers are going to exploit it if he doesn't change things up, especially if they throw left-handed. Cameron and Whitley are much quicker to the ball. I buy them more for hit.

I don't know about that. Cameron has a much better swing than Tucker does. And while Tucker probably has more raw power, I never like the thought of paying someone millions of dollars to completely rework their game. If you believe in Tucker, he might be Sano with better outfield defense. But he's going to strike out a lot and probably have problems hitting for average. Cameron isn't going to hit for as much power, but there are fewer holes in his game and he's more likely to stay in center field. You're not going to have to completely rebuild him in the minors as a hitter like you will Tucker either. And if Boras starts to strong arm you, well the seventh pick in a deeper draft next year isn't a bad consolation prize. I've got Cameron at four on my board, Tucker somewhere in the teens, and Whitley somewhere in between. He strikes me as a safer prospect than Tucker by a mile though.

IMO, the goal with a top ten pick is always to get a high-ceiling player with a high-floor. You can get high-ceilings at 20. You can get high-floors at 20. But the players who go early in the draft tend to combine those two traits. The problem is there aren't a lot of guys in this draft who fit this mold. If there were a Hultzen-type college pitching prospect in this draft and he were available at 6 this year, it would be a no-brainer pick. But for the most part, all the college pitchers should have question marks as their numbers. Tate, Jay and Fulmer have deliveries that scream either reliever or Steve Blass disease (aka, high ceiling, low floor). Buehler, Kaprelian and Harris have questionable stuff (low ceiling, high floor). Allard, Aiken and Mattula have questionable health (high ceilings, indeterminable floor). If Bregman lasts until six, it's a no-brainer. But the odds are he won't be there in this draft. So it really comes down to what risk you want to take. And I get Buehler to an extent, even though it isn't the move I'd make. If you have a firm belief that your #1 and #2 pitchers for 2018 are already in the system in the form of Berrios/Meyer/Stewart/Gonsalves etc, playing it safe and trying to find the next Scott Baker isn't a bad play.

I tend to like the three shortstops and Cameron the best, and given I suspect the three shortstops will be off the board I lean Cameron. The pitchers at the front of this draft scare the living crap out of me from a mechanical standpoint, and give me bad nightmares of Shooter Hunt and Adam Johnson. Tate, in particular, is the type of pitching prospect the Twins have screwed up too many times. I guess I'd lean Allard if I had to grab a pitcher. It would be a much better draft to be drafting 24 with a first-round comp pick than six with no second rounder. There's not a lot of safe at the top of this draft, and it's better to play a numbers game.

I think I buy this problem with Okafor more than Towns. Towns' biggest strength over Okafor is that he has fewer weaknesses. Okafor has his strengths but his weaknesses dictate a certain kind of team construction. You need to surround him with shooters and a back-up center who can hit free throws and block shots. The second part means you probably don't trade Dieng. The first part means your best lineup is probably Rubio/Martin/Budinger/Bjelica/Okafor, and realistically you want a different point guard. With Towns, you have options. You can go big with Towns at the 4 and Dieng/Pek at the 5 (with Martin at the 2 to space the floor) to counter the biggest flaw in the team last year (that they couldn't rebound without Love). You can play the pick-and-roll game that Rubio, Wiggins and Lavine were born to do with Bjelica at the four. You can even create a small ball lineup with Muhammed at the four. If the right trade offer comes along for Dieng, you can listen and use Garnett and Pek to back up the five. If the right trade offer for the rights to Bjelica comes along, you can listen and give Bennett and Payne some time to develop. At 31, it will be easier to find a guy who can play a role in the rotation by grabbing a Delon Wright or a Jordan Mickey instead of drafting the best shooter. You're not necessarily hoisting a championship next year, or even guaranteed a playoff spot, but there are more paths you can go down with positive outcomes. With that said, I can't get it out of my head that Flip is going to draft Okafor.

Canis Hoopus had an interesting read on Jones two weeks ago. To paraphrase it, they didn't think he had a lot of star potential because of his lack of athleticism, but he seemed like a safe bet to be a really good back-up PG. And if you draft Towns plus bring Bjelica over, the next biggest question seems to become who backs up Rubio next year? Given the predraft rankings (18, 20 and 25), I wouldn't hate it if Saunders packaged #31 and #36 to sneak back into the end of the first round for Jones. But I don't think I'd be one of those calling for him to start either.

Draft Express had an interesting article that mentioned if the Wolves grabbed Towns, they might slot him as a stretch four at first with Dieng and Pekovic manning the center position. Okafor would be the more problematic pairing, and the center you'd want to dump is the one you probably can't in Pekovic. Everything Saunders seems to be saying in the press (we need a two-way player, yadda yadda) seems to be setting the stage for Towns as the pick. But there's that dark concern that guys like Doogie and Zgoda keep saying Okafor. And I have to wonder if the Wolves are targeting moving back into the first round with their seconds (from what Ford is saying) to try and pick up Jones.

To me, if you draft Russell more likely than not Lavine becomes superfluous. They're both shooting guards who can distribute a little. Lavine is more athletic. Russell has a higher basketball IQ. But they really can't live together. And that's not a bad thing. Rubio isn't that far off from being the next Jason Kidd, a guy who does everything well except for shoot the ball. And that's fine if you surround him with two or three legit scoring options.

That I can't answer with anything more than speculation. Maybe he just wanted to see what Lavine would do with the minutes. Maybe he didn't like Mo Williams. Maybe Lavine wanted to prove he could be the next Westbrook. But between the bad turnovers and missed passes, the sooner the experiment ends the better.

From a pure PER (which is flawed, but still), Muhammed was the best Wolf last year. Beyond the stats, the best SG/SF lineup they can field is Muhammed and Wiggins, because they bring such different strengths to the floor. Would the line-up be better if Russell can be the next Harden? Definitely. And that's why I like Russell more than Okafor. But what's there isn't bad when healthy. The problems last year were injuries, bad defense and the giant hole that trading Kevin Love left at the #4. Lavine? He was the problem last year. He should never, ever, ever be allowed to handle the ball again. Ever. When he runs the point, he makes you realize how valuable Rubio's passing and defense are. But there were glimpses, especially toward the end of the year when he was forced to play shooting guard and let Lorenzo Brown run the point. The kid can shoot and get to the rim, and I'm curious if he improves next year with a healthy Rubio and (hopefully) a better back-up PG pushing him into more SG minutes. My two cents is the problems aren't at one to three, they're four and five. If you could walk into a draft where you land Towns or Cauley-Stein plus a better power forward, it's a good day.

My draft board for the Wolves: 1. Towns 2. Russell 3. Okafor 4. Cauley-Stein With each one opening up a different Pandora's Box. 1. Towns, if the Wolves land one (or two behind Philadelphia), seems the ideal piece. He has the best chance of being a two-way post player, and he opens up options. You can move Dieng for a young stretch four, either someone established or one of the ones that will go 10-20 in the draft (Turner, Looney, Kaminsky, Lyles, Portis). It opens up 31 to take a college kid who can step in now and 36 to grab a Eurostash, if they keep both picks. 2. Russell seems to be the safest pick in the draft, even more so than Towns. But the log jam at the wings is rebooted. Lavine and Muhammed become less important long term, and you need to grab the best defensive big available at 31 (Upshaw? Diange?) 3. Okafor scares me, but if you're going to miss, miss with the second man in a two-player draft. He doesn't fit into the current NBA play of great post defense and three-point shooting, but maybe the talking heads are right that his defense is fixable. Weirder things have happened. 4. Cauley-Stein solves the real elephant in the room, that Dieng is more the problem than Rubio. For all the blocked shots, opponents shot 60% in the paint when they were guarded by Dieng (compared to 55% with Pekovic). And with the league trending toward using the 5 position to anchor the defense, the question of is Dieng really the future seems a legit one. The problem then rolls out is you need to hope Bjelica can be the stretch four who can rebound that the team needs, because you run low on tradable assests. My fear is that Flip's draft board goes: 1. Okafor 2. Towns 3. Porzingis

Fine. Pettition the league so Arcia, Hunter and Vargas can all DH then.

Petition the league so Arcia, Hunter and Mauer can all DH?

That was no way to celebrate Rex Manning Day.

Good trade? Bad trade? It doesn't really matter. It was nice to see the Timberwolves relevant for at least one night.

I'd almost dub Garnett the Bizarro Torii Hunter though. Hunter can hit these days, but he can't defend. Garnett is still one of the better post defenders out there, but scoring isn't his thing anymore. Hunter is going to take 500 at-bats from someone who potentially will be there the next time the Twins contend. Garnett, on the other hand, is good for about 20 minutes a night. So that suddenly means there are a lot more minutes for Bennett and Payne that they may or may not be ready for. The bright side of it I guess is that defense has been the Wolves weakness ever since Garnett left. However, it will make for pretty good dramedy if Garnett threatens to break AB after a game for slacking.