Mike Sixel
-
Posts
48,911 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
340
Content Type
Profiles
Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Mike Sixel
-
Jim, it's a great theory, but I really have strong doubts about it's liklihood of success. Just curious, do you feel there is a guy here that will be starting still even in three years in the minors?
-
The difference is drafting starters that become relievers (because that's how it usually works), and taking guys that are already relievers. At this point, it is what it is. I have little confidence that three years from now, this minor league system will have any starting pitchers from this draft so far. And that's not good.
-
jeffk, it was tried in the 70s, I think, but it was too big a culture change for teams to adopt. Also, pitchers hate it because it means they make A LOT less money. I'd try it if I had a staff as bad as the Twins, afterall, it can't be worse. But it's just not something anyone in baseball is likely to try.
-
Three or four relief pitchers, depending on which scouting reports you believe. It is truly a mind boggling strategy, given what little information and data and opinions we have available to us. I admit to not understanding these picks at all.
-
And, pick 72 comments from ESPN: He's strictly a short reliever, someone to sign and send right out to Double-A with the hope that you can get him to the majors before the arm action catches up to him. What are they thinking? I'd 100% rather they take hitters, than pitchers whose upside is short reliever who you need to play right away before he hurts himself. If, of course, you believe anything BA or ESPN say.
-
BA had him 88th. ESPN had him 63rd. From ESPN: "I'd try to keep him online, put him in the pen and get him to the majors quickly, but I wouldn't be shocked to see a team try to make him a starter given his size and out pitch in the breaking ball."
-
Paul, fair enough. I am going on their opinions, then.
-
I'm all for Mitch Brown at this point, if he's there. Great value (assuming I should trust BA or ESPN at all) given the information we have. There are some good players available according to BA and ESPN. I'm hoping for pitching and middle infielders (if they are good / projectable).
-
Ouch, your supplemental pick shouldn't be your 30th best prospect.....I take it you find that pick less than ideal Seth?
-
Always great to see the likely future Twins names in these writeups! Thanks for the update on Gibson.
-
IN defense of "so called draft experts", they do usually do an article or three assessing how well they did 2-4 years ago. Absolutely those articles are on web sites, every single year. Kiper does it, others do it. It simply isn't fair to accuse them of not talking about their past mistakes, because they do.
-
I'm (I won't talk for others) not assuming BA or ESPN know more than the Twins' scouts. I'm assuming they know more than I do, or anyone else on this site does. Since the Twins are not willing to share their analysis and decision making with us (rightly so), the only data I have is the data from BA and ESPN (and similar sites). So I base my thoughts on the draft on that information. I suppose I could change my personality, and just go "well, we won't know for 7 years, so I won't even think about it", but that's not likely to happen. At this point, I'm really done talking about whether or not we should analyze the draft or not, it's not going to change anyone's mind one way or the other. If there are threads talking about how well we think the Twins did, I'll comment on those, continuing to do so based on what little knowledge we are able to scrape up on the interwebs and tv and radio. It's really no different, imo, than talking about whether or not we think Hicks will ever be good or not, or whether or not the trade for Scott Diamond was a good idea at the time it was made.
-
All the posters complaining about "negativity", what would you like to do in a discusson about the draft? Only read positive stuff? I'm good with the Buxton pick, has a chance to be great. Wasn't keen at all on the other two picks, not even a little. But I don't get what people want in a discussion about the draft.....if you don't want discussions both pro and con, what do you want?
-
Good news. Not sure how that jibes with their third pick yesterday...but good news (from a process perspective, at least).
-
Not really. The logical argument being made is that we should trust the scouts because they have the job. I showed that isn't true, so the logic does not hold. I do not know what they should have done, but if we are going to discuss the draft, shouldn't we use the information we have to do that? Not sure what people want out of a discussion on the draft if they do not want to discuss positives and negatives.
-
Rank by whom? BA and KLAW had these two pitchers way down their ranks, and had them as likely to be relief pitchers, not starters. So, Buxton is #2, and the other guys are out of the top 10 by BA and KLAW I'd guess, maybe 8th or worse for the best of them, and 15th for the other.
-
Slightly? So your whole post is, no need to really discuss the draft? One or both of those guys would be there in round 2. Revere was a good pick because their other picks suck? I'm not sure I understand this blog post, unless the point is, we should just trust the scouts because they have jobs. How'd that work out in Pittsburgh lately? Or for the the Detroit Lions when Millen was the GM?
-
Anyone worried that one of the players put on 25 pounds and saw his FB jump in speed in 1 year?
-
thrylos, BA has Mitch Brown number 44 on their list, he's not a 3-4th round pick.
-
Maybe they are saving their money for Soler....or maybe they want to only draft pitchers whose upside is reliever, because they are going to sign a bunch of FA starters.
-
After Buxton, I'd give them a D. Both guys might have been available in round 2, at least one of them. You don't pick two guys that will be available in later rounds, that's not good strategy.
-
from espn.... His low slot and lack of a weapon against lefties point to a career in relief, but he does have the fastball and possible out pitch to be a starter if he's healthy and can develop a changeup.
-
Luke Bard, BA has him 93....wth are the Twins doing? KLAW had him 66th...really, one of these guys would be there in round 2, if not both.
-
What else but rankings can we go on? This isn't like other sports where we can see these guys play.
-
Why do I have to trust the scouts? We can only know what we read on line, and other than Sickels, good luck finding anyone that had him in the top 45. The ESPN guy says he has a chance to start, and Mayo says he won't get much better. Not sure why you'd do that if other guys are on the board.