bird

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.

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?

Thanks for sharing! I guess if Rosario can progress, Polanco might serve as a decent replacement for Jamie Carroll.

Based on the article, while the scouting people deserve credit for the find, Gardy deserves some praise for making a good call on Florimon too.

This series of articles by Berardino should be required reading for anyone who thinks they can look at some stats and form a valid opinion about the draft prospects, and for those who think Ryan, or Smith, or any other GM plays a dominant role in who gets selected. jordenswest, thanks for the interesting facts on the '82 January draft.

This is spot on. The Twins believe they got the best player available in last year's draft. It's early, but now we're starting to hear some incredible reports and comments, such as the ones quoted by Heyman today. For those of you who still disagree, and think we should have taken Gausman, I have a couple of questions for you. First, can you find me a comment or a report like "best player I ever saw", or "only comes around every ten years" attributed to Gausman? Second, since you're clearly basing your opinion on KLaw or someone who might've seen the player twice, why would you place more credibility on that opinion than on the collective opinion of a number of Twins scouts that have seen the player a number of times over the player's entire timeline? Or are you arguing that it's rational to take a lesser talent based on need? And if you are positing that, for example, Gausman is not a sufficiently lesser talent than Buxton, what's your basis for that?

These reports are just great, Seth, so thanks to all you guys. The combined records of our two A-ball teams is 71-33!! With Kepler, Bard, and Chargois out of action. And even though the top two clubs have only a half-dozen legitimate prospects between them, they're still only about a combined ten games under .500. Perhaps the field staff at Rochester gave Ryan some sound advice when they recommended promoting Deduno and Walters and holding Gibson back.

I agree completely with this, but it doesn't refute the point I'm making. Giving Billy Smith COMPLETE credit for the success the Twins are having in the international arena is total nonsense. And while Smith should get partial credit for the Sano signing, there's no evidence whatsoever that allows one to conclude that he acted alone in the decision-making on this. And logic would tell us that, given the sheer number of people employed in the scouting department, that a lot of people deserve partial credit and that at least one or two deserve more credit that the GM for Sano's signing, and certainly for the rest of the success. Why would one conclude that Sano would not have signed if someone other than Smith was GM? mike wants wins and others, in my opinion, aren't trying to credit Smith so much as they're trying to promote their narrative by baselessly discredit Ryan.

mike wants wins, if you expect the Twins to have an improved farm system because they have had high picks for two years now, why didn't you expect the opposite after low picks for the eight previous years instead of ripping the Twins for being crappy at drafting? Isn't that a bit hypocritical on your part? You want it both ways, don't you? And again, Bill Smith never got on a plane, sat through many ball games in the sweltering heat, and decided to sign Polanco. And he didn't decide to spend more money on international players. But I bet he was in the room for some of thoe conversations.

Both. They need to draft a prospect with a chance to be an impact player in the major leagues. Like Buxton, who was an obvious and great pick. A pitcher who projects to be a mid-rotation starter? No way you go that route, because they're available via trade. None of us is qualified to make assessments, but when we read the reports, it seems like most scouts don't place any prospect other than the top three and possibly Stewart. So, if the Twins really don't agree with scouts who think Stewart has a #1-2 starter ceiling, and therefore represents a fourth "impact" prospect, then anything they decide will probably be dissappointing to fans. Here's what we CAN predict: one of the pitchers selected later in the first round will become an ace. And years from now, some of you will rip the Twins for passing on an obvious, sure-fire ace once again. Trey Ball, anyone?

markos, thanks for a very informative post!

It's always a pleasure to read your lists, Seth. Thank you.

Yeah I know. I was his babysitter.

This, exactly.

Wow, mike. Whatever works. Ten years, last year, a few years, five years, three years. You got it covered. 1. You Could look at it THIS way: for the third year in a row, the record will improve. And the team IS improving slowly. 2. Everyone concedes the systen went through a drought, but it takes players about 1500 MLB AB's to scratch the ceiling, so not acknowledging the new guys "in the last few years" is bogus. How are Arcia, Hicks, Parmelee and others supposed to meet your challenge of being "consistently good for more than a year or two" when they're in their first or second year. You're being unreasonable, maybe a bit obtuse. 3. Yes. The pitchers sucked last year. Every one of them: Liriano, Baker, Marquis, Pavano, and Blackburn all sucked last year. This has nothing to do with your point. 4. St. Louis. That's your evidence? No others? You SHOULD apologize, my friend. 5. Ryan has acknowledged the poor results. This is different than acknowledging the kind of ineptitude you suggest constantly. To his credit, he also has admitted that they've made mistakes and need to get better. I don't know what more we could ask of him. So you're right, mike, we'll keep arguing past each other, because you refuse to consider the evidence others point to, which is perhaps the third best farm system in baseball. And you will insist that the facts and data you supplied above is some kind of proof that they are really bad at drafting and developing starting pitching. You used to always include a list of every position of weakness on the current roster as evidence of their ineptitude. I applaud you for being fairer than you used to be.

It's too early to get excited about a lot of the younger guys, and too early to give up on any of them, including Plouffe and Parmelee. My concern about Hicks is his apparent difficulty in getting his bat in the way of a great fastball. He may end up being very valuable but not exceptional. To me, Doier looks like a two year placeholder. Not sure his ceiling is as high as any of Polanco, Rosario, Michael and Santana. Pressly is more evidence that the Twins have a prett decen scouting organization.

mike, you asked the same rhetorical question you have many times in the past: "how many [starting] pitchers have the Twins developed in the past ten years." As usual, someone provided you with an answer. And then your standard "I never said" backtracking begins. And I doubt you will ever acknowledge that trading an asset they drafted and developed for a starter counts for anything. But let's back up and see if you can accept a couple of very well-proven premises: 1. A team is lucky to get three eventual players out of any given draft. Do you disagree with this premise? 2. A team that is drafting in the lower third of the draft order is even luckier to get three eventual players out of a given draft. Isn't this logical? 3. There are generally no sure-fire aces available to teams picking after the first half-dozen picks. For example, there may only be three "sure-fire" aces in this draft, maybe two. So, when a team drafts an ace in the lower rounds, you pretty much have to chalk it up to serendipity, otherwise that ace would have been selected in the first few picks. 4. Last, please tell us the name of a team who has never had poor results in the draft. So, mike, you can decide that, over the last ten years, that the Twins have had abysmal results and try to prove that by beckoning us to review this year's roster, but that's a specious argument, and I think you know it. On balance, I'd say the Twins have had a slightly less than acceptable record when it comes to drafting and developing starting pitcher, or through trading assets they HAVE successfully drafted and developed for starting pitching. They've probably been no better than average at it. Part of that is could be due to their bias toward refinement versus velocity over the years, I don't know. But Bromberg won the SO title two years running before injury claimed him. So, before passing such harsh judgment, it makes sense to be open to both the failures, whether through judgment or injury (see Rainville, Fox, Waldrop, et al), and the sucesses, such as (recent history) Baker, Garza, et al. Remember, mike wants wins, it was less than two years ago that you were lamenting that the Twins had virtually nothing in the way of a farm system. Here comes the "I never said" refrain, but you did say they had nothing in their system to help the team in the next three years. You rejected the argument that we had some talent closer to being ready, guys like Hicks, Arcia, Parmelee, Dozier, Gibson, Hendriks. They may not be much, but they aren't the "nothing" you portrayed them to be. And likewise, your portrayal of the Twins as crappy drafters and as failures at promoting talent is simply inaccurate.

mike wants wins presents the same rhetorical question all the time. He never refutes this answer. He either ignores it or rejects it. AJ Pierzynski was a product of the farm system who was exchanged for Nathan and Santana, but of course, these guys don't count in the eyes of mike wants wins because it would render his argument completely mute.

mike, remind us about where Gibson started his time in the minors. He was the 22nd pick, right? I'm sure you believe that only the Twins would have started him in high A ball, whereas every other organization, because they're well-run and know what they're doing, would have placed Gibson in AA ball.

mike, you DO realize that this is Cody's estimated timetable, don't you? It's amazing that you automatically go into your standard nitpicking mode. So predictable.

That's funny. They probably know less about music than we do about baseball talent.

Not sure what the complaint is about how the Twins "use" AAA. It's no different than anyone else-Toledo (Detroit), Charlotte (Chicago), Columbus (Cleveland) for example. Every team occasionally promotes a real talent from AA. Every team occasionally demotes the same to AAA if he struggles. Every team "uses" AAA to shuttle AAAA players up as temporary replacements. Every team makes decisions about who stays in AA, who goes to AAA, etc. that seem arbitrary or misguided to fans like us. It's probably not arbitrary or misguided though. Could be we just aren't privy to what variables were considered.

Delmon hitting under .300? #@*! Who's the lousy hitting coach? Must be Vavra.

Virtually every team will have had "major misses" in every draft, so while this can be an entertaining exercise, it's certainly not even remotely instructive in my opinion. KLAW was asked to "redraft" 2012. He had Buxton #1 and Gausman #4. But frankly, that doesn't tell us that the Twins are brilliant. Everyone is dealing with imperfect information.

I'm with you on this, jorgenswest. My least favorite players to watch are Plouffe, Doumit, and Willingham.