Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

bird

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,413

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by bird

  1. bird
    From here on out, it becomes just as much who they sign as it does who they draft.
  2. bird
    They'll surely select some pitching prospects going forward here, but I'm wondering if they have plans to be pitcher-heavy in the IFA market this year. A ton of 3B picks in this draft so far, for all teams.
  3. bird
    "Mark Funderburk: Get To Know Him"
  4. bird
    Yeah, I'm talking about ANY player from ANY team drafted in the 5th (Duffey), 11th (Rogers) and 22nd (Hildenberger) rounds. The ones that ever get a W2 from the big club for even a week are in rare company. The Twins are far from unique in producing them, but they select and develop their fair share I think. I'm excited to think that process might improve now that the development side is getting much needed attention. We'll see.
  5. bird
    My personal assessment is that not much would change until after next year, and then things would be much more predictable in the third year. I base that view in large part on what the pundits' tendencies are. For example, only about 15% of anyone's league-wide Top 100 list is comprised of prospects from the 2018 draft class. That's predictably prospects picked in the first half of the first round. Over half the prospects on such a list are in their 2nd and 3rd year. Why? Because the opinions shift from being pedigree-based to performance-based. So the new guys have to kick non-performing older prospects off the island, so a Nick Gordon gets the boot. It's a bell curve. By year 4, those previous 2 and 3 year guys make up less than 40% as opposed to over 50% the previous year. Performance eventually becomes evident (barring injuries) and drives people's opinions much more than pedigree. That's what makes it fun to watch, because guys kind of crash onto the scene like Kirilloff did. Maybe Wander Javier is next? Balazovic is on the cusp in year 2. But from this list, I wouldn't count on anyone other than Larnach cracking anyone's Top 100, and for good reason. Guessing which, if any, of these later round guys might make it is fun. The Twins Daily Top Prospect lists are more optimistic than I am, but I love the enthusiasm for guys like Grace, Sands, Kiersey, etc.
  6. bird
    Looking at reports like this always reminds me of how very long the odds are for almost all of these prospects. In our current starting lineup, 3 of 4 domestic players were first-rounders: Buxton (1st overall), Castro (10th), and Cron (17th). Rosario was considered the best hitting prospect in Puerto Rico, a 4th rounder. Backup Garver may be the most improbable as a 9th rounder, but even he was regarded as I think the second best collegiate catcher in the draft. In other words, none of these guys really came out of nowhere to make their mark. (The above fact points to how important it is for organizations to scout and acquire IFA talent, right? We rely on Kepler, Polanco, Sano, and pick-ups Cruz, Schoop, and Marwin.) That's why even TWO "success stories" after the second round in any draft sets a team apart. For example, Taylor Rogers was the 340th guy taken in the draft, and of the roughly 300 of those selected after the first round or so, he's one of I think 6 guys playing in the big leagues. That's beating the odds! Trevor Hildenberger and Tyler Duffey may never become core players, but they're already success stories in a relative sense.
  7. bird
    Let's not cry too much for Swarzak, who's still pitching (poorly last night for another new team). A second-rounder making it 11 years, accumulating 4.8 WAR, albeit with 8 different teams. Not sure I wouldn't take that deal if I was Smeltzer and it was offered. But yeah, great story and game, so fun.
  8. bird
    Yes. Some things may be dumb luck, but plucking a struggling reliever from the Dodgers, listening to and agreeing with him that he deserves another shot as a starter, putting him on the right program to do that? Getting him prepared to dominate, really dominate, in AA and then in AAA? And then to have THAT debut? Doesn't seem like luck to me. Feels like the professional scouts weighed in on Smeltzer and Raley, the FO extracted a major haul (although their BEST decision was to not SIGN Dozier in the first place), and the field staff executed the development plan. Just in time, too, given that Stewart, Littell, and maybe Mejia are our next best depth options now.
  9. bird
    Nicely done. For the longest time, I've been critical of comments that suggest a competence issue related to talent evaluation with the Twins. My main objection has been the lack of a COMPARATIVE and FAIR assessment. Looking at the five "ones you could have had" is a good and fair thing. But I find it useful to also look at the five PRIOR picks in particular, but also the entire round in general. For example, Gibson was I believe the 14th pitcher selected, and only one (#1 pick Strasburg) has outperformed Gibson. Looking at that in isolation might suggest even more. I think what we'll discover, and maybe you already have, is that it's almost invariable, regardless of WHICH team's record you look at, that at least ONE of the next five picks will have been better, unless your pick was Trout. Over half the teams (16) "missed" on Kyle Gibson based on today's cumulative WAR in Baseball Reference. Grichuk and Gibson now have matching 9.6 WAR. The other thing you might discover is that there WILL be a draft or two every decade where an organization, ANY organization, will have a disastrous draft where MANY picks make their own look rather pathetic. As you are saying, it's hard to be consistently right at this. Last comment: for those seeking to draw any conclusions about organizational prowess on a RELATIVE basis, be aware of two things. One, that capabilities change over time. And two, that ALL teams are better at this in 2019 than they were in 2009, and the opportunity to "out-draft" the competition is fairly limited these days. Again, great exercise and very well done. Thank you for your contribution.
  10. bird
    I think he was just gassed.
  11. bird
    The Dozier trade was won simply by his departure. Schoop's success is frosting. This is piling on.
  12. bird
    Very much this. If I owned the team, one of the deliverables that would drive compensation in my baseball operations would be the team ranking in the top 10 in both the MLB Power Rankings and the prospect pipeline. I'd also measure the effectiveness of the sell discipline. Are they moving assets before they depreciate? Are they winning the player trades at an acceptable rate? Gotta like what we see so far, although I'm hoping to reverse my distaste regarding the Pressly and Escobar trades as well as the zero-return "losses" of guys like Bard, Curtiss, Chargois, and Burdi.
  13. bird
    Really nice post. Write more please.
  14. bird
    I expected you were questioning rather than strongly opining, and Baldelli is going on intuition in leaving Buxton down in the order. There's a distinct possibility that his improvement is mostly swing-related, but that his performance is also enhanced by this perceived "less pressure" thing. Maybe he performs the same, maybe he doesn't, we're guessing, but I'll happily give Rocco the benefit of the doubt. Also, my own theory is that batting order is overrated as a tactical element despite what some of the arithmetic tells us. Because to me, the much more powerful tactic, as twins1095 is depicting, is the relationship of the placement. I very much like the thought of Buxton as #9. I may be wrong, but it feels to me like having a terrific #9 hitter plants a negative seed in the psyche of the opponent. As in "WTF? The bottom of the order is supposed to give me a chance to breathe!" Buxton gets on, steals a base, and holy crap, look what's coming up.
  15. bird
    In order to keep Arraez up here, he has to be an upgrade over someone else, right? If Polanco goes down with an injury, which of the utility guys is an upgrade at SS over Adrianza among Gonzales, Astudillo, and Arraez? I don't know the answer to that myself. I guess I'd maybe stash Turtle and Arraez in AAA and keep Ehire around for now, but maybe not. But if I decided he was expendable, I'd take my time and try to get a low A prospect for him rather than DFA him.
  16. bird
    I'm very much hoping this is precisely how Falvine is thinking about things. Don't just replace. Get something in exchange and upgrade. Take advantage of surplus. We have too many MLB-calibre middle infielders right now. I blame both the scouts and the front office.
  17. bird
    I'm not convinced you can be confident of that. Lots of people believe it's been a factor of some magnitude or another. Some decisions are correct despite a lack of empirical support. We tend to discount or completely ignore the value and even the validity of intuition, and the truth of the matter is that qualitative decisions are far more effective in many cases. That's especially true when the intuitive reasoning being relied upon is backed by sound logic and a relevant anecdotal basis. And it's even MORE especially true when we're talking about probabilities of generating an increase of 3-5 runs over the course of 162 games. Isn't the real fallacy thinking about those maybe/maybe not runs as producing more wins than Buxton maybe/maybe not producing them because he's in a different and arguably higher-pressure spot in the order? I'm with John and Rocco on this one.
  18. bird
    I'm trying to cut LaVelle some slack, because it seems like he's more engaged this year. Probably had a sit-down. Engaged enough even to scoff at Parker's well-researched theories. Alas, it appears that the man still does his best work from a bar stool.
  19. bird
    Maybe the best, most contextual, least inflammatory explanation of what happened in 2018 that I've read. Very well-written. Keeping all these extraordinary factors in mind is why we should probably think of every new season as a reboot, really, good results or bad. Control the things you can control and watch the cards fall.
  20. bird
    SSS or not, these are stunning statistics in my mind. Despite the results though, I'm inclined to temper any opinion about what it says about the Twins decision-making. No Yu Darvish "I told you so" arguments are going to persuade me that the FO, rightly or wrongly, is not dancing a fine line with this pen. Morin, Adams, Magill, Duffey, Harper...those names make me nervous. I agree with Strato Guy about depth from all sources of acquisition: the system, FA signings, minor league make-good signings, independent league wanna-be's. I'll give the FO some credit in that regard. Looking at Diehard's list, and then looking at our own list of disappointments leads me to thinking they get an okay grade when it comes to assuring adequate yet imperfect depth. They've had their share of hiccups so far in Romero, Hildenberger, Vasquez, et al, but also their share of pleasant surprises too in Harper, Magill, possibly Duffey and Morin, who knows? But dammit, they shudda gone out and gotten Ottovino. I told them so.
  21. bird
    No, I haven't gone back 25 years, because most of the scouts and other talent procurers from the distant past have been replaced. Going back even ten years is a bit of a stretch, although MANY of the same people from 2009 are still scouting and weighing in on draft prospects in 2019. But it's important to consider how much has changed in talent evaluation and draft strategy, especially within the last few years. I can't substantiate this, but I've come to believe that the percentage of "hits" with first round picks over the last 4-5 drafts will be much higher than even back in 2012 and 2013. If you look at those drafts, you'll see only three or four bona fide superstars emerging from each of those drafts. I doubt Mike Trout or Aaron Judge would make it to the tail end of the first round today. But that's sheer speculation on my part.
  22. bird
    Really solid answer. I wonder if our baseball people (not just Falvine, as others have brains and a voice in the matter) have developed a more conscious preference for position players due to the greater predictability and lower risks. It may not be an accident that Larnach, Lewis, Kirilloff, Gordon, Javier, Urbina, and now Enmanuel Rodriguez are our largest investments. Oh, and Wes Johnson, Rapsodo, Trackman, and a bunch of additional coaches.
  23. bird
    This isn't a comparative analysis, so I won't touch on points you're making that aren't relevent. But the relevence of Rogers, Hildenberger, Bard, and any number of OTHER successful later round picks is to refute the implication that's always there when the draft record gets called into question. Which is the question of competence at talent evaluation. They didn't reverse a frontal lobotomy in time for the 11th round. In a reasoned comparative analysis, Buxton, Gordon, Gibson (for sure!) and Michael would all be judged to be good decisions. Hicks too, but he was over ten years ago. Stewart, probably not, but that case is open. As I've argued for awhile, having much of an edge in the draft is pretty much fiction these days because of observation technology, spending limits, and widespread emphasis on reliance on homegrown talent by almost every team now, including the Yankees.
  24. bird
    Yeah, I think it's harsh and simplistic, but there's some validity to that argument. Even back in 2015, if you weren't drafting in the top third of the first round, pretty much all the high velo starters were off the board, usually in the first handful of picks. They may have mistakenly convinced themselves that Jay profile more as a starter, as scouts were suggesting. Flawed as it was as a strategy, if the goal was to populate the ranks with some fireballers, the relievers were what was out there. In this day and age, when every prospect is seemingly throwing gas, it would be a terrible plan for sure. Rogers and Duffy were not throwing 95 when they were drafted as 5th and 11th rounders. Frankly, I think the much larger problem was gambling that most of these max effort guys would avoid injury for one (Melotakis, Bullock, Hunt, Gutierrez, Burdi, and Jones ALL suffered injuries), and then failing to either retain or convert guys like Chargois, Bard, Burdi, and a number of others into some semblance of a return. One could argue that taking ANY high velo pitcher, starter or not, is a bad strategy. Look at the data. It's littered with casualties and TJ guys like Hunter Greene.
  25. bird
    If you were to steadfastly and objectively COMPARE first round draft results for a ten year period going backwards from 2018, as I have many times, and I mean COMPARE results against the other 29 teams, you could not possibly declare the results to be dismal on a relative basis. In every draft, with almost no exceptions, teams will have "passed" on a player or two within the next ten picks or so of their own who surprised the pundits and has outproduced most every earlier pick. So either ALL teams are dismal in absolute terms if that fact represents failure, or you have to cut them all some slack. In that time frame, Tyler Jay may be the one pick that truly stands out as a clear bust. Stewart probably qualifies too. There were a couple of horribly unproductive draft classes where no one panned out. For example, only one player within ten picks of Levi Michael made it in 2011. If you did a random check of any five teams you assume have a better track record with those top 30 first round selections, as I have a number of times, you'll discover that every one of them has at least one bust, and more commonly two or three. In other words, equally or more dismal. So yeah, back to Jay, he's a bust, but I think it's only fair to mention Taylor Rogers in the same breath then. Because only 18 of the 339 players selected ahead of Rogers are likely to accumulate more WAR, and 12 of those players were first rounders, including Berrios and Buxton. I mean, think about that. Six players total, rounds 2 through 11, about 300 prospects, selected by 30 organizations. About 295 busts.
×
×
  • Create New...