bird

Antony said it during his recent interview with Doogie.

Yes, I'd agree with that take. Without an ounce of knowledge and armed with a few paragraphs of information, I had an uneasiness about Jay that I don't think I would have had with Fulmer or Benintendi as the pick. It'll be interesting to see if we get some hints about what the new guy thinks of Deron Johnson and his top scouts, and whatever we learn about changes they make in the process are going to be fun to discuss.

Historically, three of your top ten picks never see a day in the majors, and couple of the top ten pitchers always end up as relievers, so while it would be a disappointment to end up with Jay being more Perkins-like, that's just part of the whole shootin' match. Caveat: anecdotally, it seems like the predictability of these top picks is improving recently, at least when it comes to the college guys from elite programs.

Every team that drafts the #6 prospect each year has fans that complain about the couple of guys drafted a few picks later that have better careers than their guy. It may be that Benintendi has the best career of any player in that draft. So fans will call for the heads of GM's across the continent I guess. And it's not a race about who gets here first. Jay is progressing at a normal clip. Berrios and Buxton are terrific picks, looking retrospectively or otherwise. The Twins have not had an awful draft now for a decade now. Well, maybe one. Practically every team in baseball had an awful draft the year Levi Michael was drafted. The Rangers, Mets, and ohers have also had an awful draft during this period. It happens.

If someone offered me a bet that Tyler Jay would have a better MLB career than Carson Fulmer and that Nick Burdi would end up as a better reliever than Zach, I'd take it. This would be based on absolutely knowledge-free fandom.

Um, yes?

Yuck. Jose Canseco? Well, that's an entirely different matter.

It's too early to declare that Vargas, Park, or Palka should be part of the team's future, and my guess is that in any event none of the three will ever become exceptional major leaguers. As for Mauer, It appears we're stuck with him at least through next season. After that, I can imagine the FO possibly deciding that cutting him loose and eating the $23M remainder makes sense IF Sano can't cut it at 3B or Vargas emerges as the next Big Papi or something. In other words, he's not going away because he's less productive, and he's obviously still very productive. He's only going to be cut because two or more of the players of the future are demonstrably MORE productive than Mauer. And I don't personally see much evidence right this minute that this is the case. The most predictable scenario is Polanco needing to be in the lineup but only being adequate defensively at 2B or 3B, Dozier being retained, Sano flopping at 3B and therefore needing a home at DH or 1B, and then one of Vargas, Park, or Palka becoming a much more important offensive force than Mauer. And that scenario would probably play out over a period of time, such as the 2017 season. A further decline in production by Mauer would put the nail in the coffin. So, that's a lot of things that might have to come together before the FO would eat $23M and cut bait with Mauer.

Fidel?

Yes, first things first. It would be nice to see signs from Sano, Buxton, Duffey, Santana, and Vargas yet during 2016 that they're getting it and will be consistent contributors, and sure, maybe a couple of them stall out. I think the key to the next wave is the progress of the Outlook rotation, and those guys probably need this year and at least half of next season before we can even think about them as possible MLB contributors. I'm not particularly excited about Wheeler, Slegers, Hurlbut et al. The earliest arrivals of note from the next wave will clearly be relief pitchers. It's a strength for us, not just because we have J.T. Chargois, but because we have an astounding number of prospects with real promise. Jeremy didn't even mention Mason Melotakis, or any of the guys maybe a notch below him, such as Brandon Peterson or Baxendale. I'm excited about the potential of that 2017 bullpen. As much as I'd love to see Rosario as a 4th OF, I don't want it to be at the expense of Palka or Walker. Part of my viewpoint on this has to do with my personal distaste for a lineup crammed with strikeout prone, station-to-station players. I like speed, and defense, and smart base-running, and triples.

It was all Antony, but he DID read Billy Smith's notes on how he single-handedly snared Miguel Sano.

What a great idea for a promotion! Bring up Walker too, and go for a single-game strikeout record. You'd have to sit Kepler and Polanco, and Mauer would have to play out of position, but...

Now now, let's not be too hard on General Soreness. He's been a good soldier.

Yeah, I guess if I'm a GM of a contending club, my ideal for a #4 starter is Kyle Gibson. Or maybe Cheatin' Ervin Santana on a one or two-year contract.

Maybe Lovable Buddy Boshers can be marketed.

Does reformed cheater Ervin Santana have panache?

Good point.

I'm just hoping the proven closer tag helps gets us an overpay for Kintzler...

In a perfect world, I'd ask the teams to rank the players according to the order in which they would select them today for their own team, staying blind to positional need. But, from a practical standpoint, we're kinda stuck with WAR. We just need to be more judicious about how much credence we give it. Again, I wouldn't use anything in the way WAR was used in the analysis thrylos did, because it isn't measuring what it intends to measure in reality.

Yes.

Welcome to Target Field for keeps, Mr. Polanco.

I also appreciate the effort that goes into such an ambitious attempt to analyze the relative skill of these organizations. As you might predict however, I find the analysis to be terribly flawed, almost to the point of complete uselessness. The primary reason has to do with the absurd connection that gets made between the success (as measured by WAR, which is its separate problem) of a given selection and an opinion that the skill of the selecting team is what is at play here. Think about it for a moment. Let's take a hypothetical 15th round selection in 2008 that generates 20 WAR in his 5 years of MLB when this study goes to press. Every team in baseball would select that player in the first round if he was available to them in a redraft. However, all 30 teams lacked the foresight to draft the player in the first round. They all lacked the skill to project success for that player 15 times!!! So, adding up a bunch of WAR numbers and declaring one team to be more skillful than the next is folly. The second reason, which is an equally fatal flaw, is the failure to adjust for draft order. The studies are too numerous to even mention regarding how favorably skewed collective WAR numbers get due to the inclusion of those premium early picks. Here's a thought: let's take the 2008 draft as our example. Now, since this was a weaker draft than maybe the next, perhaps the players selected #5 through #15 in this year are regarded as a "weak crop", and the same group a year later is regarded as stellar. Because of this important nuanced reality, it makes sense to compare teams who are faced with similar talent options, right? So, in Rd1 of 2008, I would compare the success of this group of selections, #9-#20: Aaron Crowe, Jason Castro, Justin Smoak, Jemile Weeks Brett Wallace, Aaron Hicks, Ethan Martin, Brett Lawrie, David Cooper, Ike Davis, and Andrew Cashner. This gives us a window into the selections of 11 teams in a single round. In Rd2, you'd compare Destin Hood, Robert Ross, Tyson Ross, Shane Peterson, Joseph Austin,Tyler Ladendorf, Joshua Lindblom, Thomas Adams, Kenneth Wilson, Robert Stovall, and Aaron Shafer. And on, so maybe a team looks bad compared to the teams that picked Dee Gordon and Jason Kipnis 5 picks apart in the 4th, and Chris Herrmann gets compared to Tommy Milone in the 10th. It would be a much more meaningful analysis, especially if one avoided 2010 and later at this juncture, where the WAR accumulation is close to meaningless right now. I don't know how the Twins would stack up in this methodology. My guess is better. In the example above, I'd guess that the combo of Aaron Hicks and Tyler Ladendorf would compare favorably.

Nolasco's bad for sure, although not as bad as the ERA number suggests. Reports came out that the Orioles, and perhaps others, were scouting Milone and Nolasco, so I'd suggest there is at least a slim hope one or both could be moved for a little something maybe, depending on the willingness of the Twins to absorb some of their contract sins. The way I look at it, I'd very possibly think that Nolasco and Milone, as bad as they are, give me a better shot at winning a given MLB outing than Darnell, Dean, Greenwood, Albers, or even Wheeler, the guys at AAA who have helped Berrios keep that team in contention. So, if a team comes along, desperate for a 5th starter but with worse options than those guys, maybe they throw a bone our way and give Milone or Nolasco a try here.

Yes!

I think this is a bit unfair. Jim Pohlad has put on a business suit and gone to work early almost every morning since before a lot of people on TD were born. Obviously, he has had enormous advantages in life and in business. But he's not just showing up and treating Pohlad Companies and the Twins like they are some unappreciated toy. Jim Pohlad I think can be described as somewhat socially and interpersonally awkward, but that shouldn't cause us to unkindly paint him as either uncaring or inept, although it's understandable since he clearly invites criticism. He can actually be kind of engaging in person, self-deprecating, a little sarcastic even. I hate to see anyone demonized, even if they're guilty of saying some pretty stupid things.