DocBauer

Great post! Kind of went over this in another thread, but still, the Twins and about half the ML teams have 6 affiliates from low rookie, high rookie, low A, high A, AA and then AAA. Short season, as I understand it, is sort of an "extra" quasi rookie low A level. There can't be more than 10-12 of them. Fine, get rid of them. But eliminating 42 makes ZERO SENSE! No rookie ball? Where do your HS, DR and later round college players go for introduction? "Sink or swim guys, you're going straight to low A ball. Wish you the best! What were you thinking of doing the rest of your life when baseball didn't turn out?" At that point, you are telling every single HS prospect who isn't s top 1-5 round pick to either go to college or hang it up. You're saying the same thing to a majority of Latin players of the same age who aren't the cream of the crop bonus babies. And even then, what ML team wants to give $100K up to a $1M+ to sink or swim for any player at A ball the first time they hit the states? Can you imagine the Twins signing Kepler, Rosario and Sano as teenagers and then sending them straight to Cedar Rapids and "wishing them luck?" I can just about guarantee you Arraez wouldn't be a Twin right now unless he was a 21yo playing in the Mexican league and signed to a contract. This is just stupid. Might as well make the ML draft 10 rounds of college players, a few choice HS players, and then scour the independent leagues and Mexican leagues for guys to bring up for A ball. No, the product on the field won't suffer at all will it? Might as well start looking at softball league players as options.

BTW, there is something wrong (or unfair) with the system when Arraez, no matter how good, leads this lineup in OPS. Just saying.

Wait, Hill and Pineda aren't on the 40 man??? I know this isn't real, but no the McMahon kid. Let's keep it as real as we can. Why do we have to make a single choice here? I vote to send down Rooker and Balazovic both and bring up Cave and Hill/Pineda. Not only does it make sense, but I'm betting the simulation will support both moves. Sidenote: If those 5 Pensacola players were producing in real life as the simulation, I'd be ecstatic. Especially in the case of Javier. Guessing Jeffers is at Rochester? Shouldn't Clay also be there?

The longer season idea certainly makes sense, but doesn't necessarily work due to the June draft. I am assuming the lower level(s) in this format woukd be constructed of players already in the system, including DR academy players and then cuts and promotions woukd take place after the draft? I think a generalised reduction to 6 affiliates per team makes sense. Not sure how many teams would then be eliminated. Guessing no more than 10-12? As a fan, I can not only live with that, it makes sense from a standardized format for all teams. I completely sympathize with towns that would lose their teams. But while not singly out any town, if you are a small location, with limited support and limited or archaic facilities, you probably just can't support a milb team properly. Forgetting the player salaries for this arguement, with a smaller total number of affiliates overall, I'd be fully in support of mandates in regard to playing conditions and facilities for any franchise to remain so. I'd also be in favor of mandates that might force the parent club to assist with upkeep and improvement. That last point may be hard to negotiate or enforce, but didn't the Twins just last year agree to help with improvements at Elizabeton? Again, putting on my make believe owner cap, wouldn't you want your system and your players to have quality environments to thrive in?

I could see some sort of academy league for HS kids and DR kids coming to the states to work together for a "rookie" level before graduating to low A ball. Stateside the Twins, and many teams, have 6 affiliates: rookie, advanced rookie, low A, high A, AA and AAA. Is that really too many? I don't think so. There are teams out there that have more affiliates and I could see that being trimmed. Maybe the problem is some of the cities where these teams are located having too low of a population base and too poor of facilities. But baseball is a very different sport than others who function just fine with a draft, a single developmental league or a practice squad. Sure there is "filler" on a lot of milb rosters. Not to sound heartless or mean but the milb system isn't built for them. (Though some break through to be sure), It's about the gradual progress and development of the guys who actually have a chance.

I think Shamar still has the early leg up on the #3 spot due to familiarity, experience and run defense. But I find Lynch exciting and a perfect addition. I'm really excited to see what Watts does in his 2nd year and have a feeling that the now 285lb Mata'afa could really contribute if used right. Read a stunning article on him from a Vikings site that the majority of his snaps in 2019 came from the NT spot in nickel and dime packages. That doesn't make and sense to me. Lynch should have a real shot at early rotation play, at least. Seems a perfect fit for the 3 spot with a little more development. Seems he's still a little more effort and bull rush rather than technique at this point.

Agreed. Taking Joseph out of the picture as he was signed as a FA, of the other 9 DL on roster last season, IIRC, they were 3 3rd rounders, a 4th rounder, a 6th, 3 7th's and a UDFA. Could be slightly off there, but pretty close. Shows an eye for talent and a good defensive staff, especially Patterson who has to be the best DL coach around. I like different things about each of the lineman we drafted and think all make the club, even Willekes. And is it just me but are you as excited as I am to see what Watts does his 2nd season especially?

I hear ya. I wasn't happy trading that 2nd choice in the 3rd round. Probably my biggest complaint. I was really hoping for a SE type or a G there. But adding more picks provided more options for a roster that suddenly found itself severely lacking in depth and needing fresh bodies to work with. As much as we need help at G, I think adding a fine young T was most important. If the extra picks wash out the loss of that 3rd rounder could haunt.

Really liked his comment about how teams who didn't like him didn't think he could catch. The thing that impresses me about him is his pride to be a quality backstop.

Been on this kid's bandwagon for a while now. His stuff is electric. Someone, please, find him a 3rd pitch that works. I have no idea how he has slipped through rankings and prospectus. Just because he's not 6' plus? He finds a decent 3rd pitch he's a SP. Without, or a weak 3rd offering just to keep hitters honest, he's got real potential in the pen.

Wish we had a better or more attended thread, but just wanted to share my thoughts on the draft. No OTA or rookie camps is going to make this a very hard season to properly introduce and develop young talent. Going to make it that much harder for teams to determine exactly where they are and what they have. I wonder if the NFL might squeeze in some camps if this whole situation settles down, start the season later, expand the roster, expand the practice squad or make the rules of retention easier for a year. Regardless, while I disagree with some of what Spielman and the Vikings did, as I always do, and have been right on a few occasions, I think they pulled off a tremendous draft. My biggest surprise and concern is Justin Jefferson as the first pick. I love the kid and his potential, but like Thielen, he works best out of the slot. He is not a direct replacement for Diggs. I am going to assume Kubiak, a very, very smart offensive mind, has a plan to get the most out of everyone. Other than that, I think they hit on every pick through the first 4 rounds. Every selection seems to fill need and seems like a fit for the systems in place, knowing there will be tweaks with staff changes. (I'm expecting some changes toward the "Tampa" 4-3 cover 3 we used to play). Very intrigued by the 4th round. Wonnum fits the athletic profile Patterson has been so successful working with to develop at DE. Lynch looks like a natural fit for the 3 spot. And Dye is the kind of athletic, mobile cover LB we haven't had for a while. Even though the 3rd LB isn't on the field that much, there are ways to use a player like that in different situations, especially if he can muscle up just a bit more and be a bit more physical. I could see Barr, finally, be used more as a rusher and let Kendricks and Dye play LB in dime packages. The 5th round is where I have concerns. Hand seems to have the length, physicality and attitude to develop in the secondary, but lacks long speed and seems stiff in his movements. But CB or S, he seems to be a versatile guy Zimmer loves to develop. But I just don't see a fit for Osborn, the WR from Miami. He may find a role as a return man, and that's important to be sure. He produced at Buffalo and improved year to year but didn't exactly set the world on fire after transferring to Miami. Was that poor QB play and a new system? I get the trades made for 2021 picks, which was smart, but it seems we lost out on a few guys we could have made a move for that had the potential to be a true SE instead of another potential slot guy. Call me crazy, but I think they went out and nailed the 6th and 7th round. Brandel started for 4yrs at Oregon State, primarily at LT. Some speculation be could mkve to G, and I see no way he makes the club. But he is a perfect, long and experienced 6' 7" T, to build up and work on the practice squad to develop in to a possible swing T. Metellus is an experienced and physical S to play ST and develop at S from a top program. Cole from Miss St is very similar to Kearse, who we just lost. Willekes is a limited athlete and former WO from a top program who has always overcome and produced. He's a high energy/effort player that I bet finds a role, especially with Patterson working with him. Hinton has no chance to make the club out of division 2 moving from tackle to G, but is a great PS option. He was a D2 All American and has great speed and tremendous strength. He participated at KS State, I believe, on his pro day and produced a 4.88 40, 34 reps on the bench and a 34.5 vertical. I wasn't surprised the Vikes took a QB considering what is on the bench. I also wasn't surprised it was Stanley as he had been repeatedly mocked. He wasn't my first choice, but he makes sense. While not overly mobile in the pocket, he is physically bigger clone of Cousins. He has tons of experience and productivity and an arm that can make all the throws, including the deep ball. But like Cousins, he has the problem of holding the ball too long and not checking down quick enough. He also lacks touch once in a while, probably due to holding the ball too long. Cousins has improved on these things, still needs to more, maybe Stanley can as well. Can he develop in to a nice #2? Worth a look. Spielman has stated they were also very aggressive on the UDFA front. Maybe they were. They've done very well over the years in this area. So far, not that impressed with what I've seen and researched. Neville Clarke at CB is very similar to Hand in the 5th round and could be interesting. DB/S Myles Torn comes from a good program at NC and could be interesting. Quartney Davis from TX A&M has skills and potential and might be one of those guys who really should have gone back for their senior year. UDFA to mid round pick in 2021? Maybe. The one guy I find really interesting is Jake Lacina/C from Augustana. His father was former Bill and Viking Corbin Lacina. He was the Div 2 Rimington award winner for 2019 and a consensus Div 2 All American. Again, a perfect PS member. I think we mostly nailed the draft. Edit: still depends on the coaching staff to develop said talent. While I could question not moving up once or twice and picking a certain player or two, or keeping existing picks and grabbing said player or two, I completely appreciate adding to next season. With expected compensation picks figured in, we already have 12 picks for 2021 to further add to the roster or move up for a special addition or two. SE or future QB? Not 100% sold on WR, but really happy with what was done.

Agreed. Especially, as I think I pointed out in an earlier post this staff has done well with UDFA development. But they have also done very well with those 6th and 7th round choices over the years. Think Johnson, Watts, Kearse and Weatherly for example. Or Odenigbo who could, potentially, be a starter this upcoming season. So the potential value of those late picks should not be undersold, whether they make the team initially or spend a year on the PS. The difference between a 6th and 7th round selection vs and UDFA is you get to select someone you really believe you can develop vs fighting offers from other teams on those UDFA you like who may choose to go elsewhere. I'd have to go back and review past drafts, but I would almost bet Spielman and company have had as good or better results from their 6th and 7th rounders vs their 4th and 5th round choices. So again, I say not to marginalize those pick opportunities. But to be clear, I also don't have a problem moving some of those late round options to move up and get someone the Vikings really like and believe in.

There are those prospects, like Mauer for instance, where everyone just KNOWS the guy is special and going to be good. And for those guys, you usually just make room for them when needed. But it seems to me, even for top prospects, often the best course of action often turns out to be a cautious approach. In more specific terms, guys get their shot organically. Think of Arraez coming up last year due to injury. They may or may not stick immediately for a variety of reasons; less than spectacular first step, injured player is now healthy, etc. Now, if you are a winning ballclub vs a rebuilding one, your course of action is probably different. If you're the current Detroit or Baltimore franchises, for example, you probably just promote and live with bumps in the road and growing pains. One of the DUMBEST things MLB has done recently is change the September expanded roster. Why did they do this? Apparently out of some misguided idea that there would be "throwaway games" in September where lesser teams play mostly prospects instead of established MLers in order to tank and possibly skew tight division and WC races. I ask you, if a contending team is playing a cellar dweller in September, would said cellar dwelling team really provide less of a competitive game that would make any difference? In fact, it could have the opposite effect as auditioning prospects could provide a spark. It's a ridiculous change. Competing and non-competing teams have always used September to audition players get them their first ML experience, even rest veteran players for the stretch run and the playoffs. This rule change could easily have a negative effect on all clubs and the integrity of the game by restricting development of young players. The obvious point of this entire OP, as it pertains to the current Twins, is in regard to Rosario and Kirilloff and Larnach. We could also include Rooker in the conversation. Forgetting the entire "will there be or not be a milb season" scenario for a moment, the ideal situation is for September play, promotion due to injury, and then make moves as necessary when the prospect(s) themselves force the situation.

I don't have a problem with spending some late round choices to move up and grab someone. And maybe the Vikes will sign a FA or two after the draft. (Griffen still, maybe?) But the fact is, looking at the existing roster, they need a couple S somewhere. They still need another CB. An athletic LB to play special teams develop would be welcome. Also need a DT and a couple DE, one to help now and one to develop maybe. On offense, still need a couple OL and at least one more WR. I hate to say it, but there is legitimate room for 9-10 rookies to make this roster. So keeping all the picks and drafting depth and talent for the roster and practice squad is OK by me.

So you're saying there was a reason the Twins couldn't get over the hump in the early '00's? Thanks for the bummer trip on a national sports holiday Matt. Lol But seriously, there are some good players and memories there. 2006 might be my biggest bummer year listed. I really, really had high hopes for both Parmalee and Valencia. Shouldn't 2005 be rated higher because, you know, Duensing?

Tossing in one of my all time favorite utility players, Denny Hocking in the 52nd round, which doesn't even exist anymore.

Just to echo your thoughts, I have ALWAYS believed you draft a QB every couple of years to see what happens. And I don't necessarily mean early selections. But QB is such a special and unique position that I have always believed you look for the next guy with potential you could develop. You always want to have a good #2. You need those. Sometimes they become your next starter. Sometimes they offer great trade value to someone else. We've seen that time and again. A guy who sits and learns and then gets a shot somewhere else. And then you bring in the next guy. Back in the day, Wade Wilson and Brad Johnson were late round QB who would be FA today in a shortened draft. Todd Bouman was another find. You just never know what you will find if you bring in a good arm and smart head and let them sit for a year or two and develop.

Absolutely not out of your gourd, but going to disagree with you. The Vikings are minus 7 players from last season via trade/cut/FA and a couple signings to the plus side. I would be looking to stack prospects/talent to fill those holes best I could for this year at CB/WR/OL/DL/S and look to QB next year. People kind of laugh at Trader Rick moving down to acquire later round picks, but when you look at how many later round selections and UDFA have been developed by this staff in to good players, it makes sense. Hell, unless the board goes crazy and works against the Vikes...always can happen...I'd love to move back a time or two, not far, and end up with 14 picks instead of 12. Especially considering the depth of this draft. Unless there is a big run on QB, there are some intriguing guys in the, ate rounds that could develop in to nice backup options. You need those guys too. I mean, what do we have now? I'd be all in on building up the roster depth/talent for this draft, maybe a late round development guy unless someone just falls to us, and then go all in/trade up next year for the next potential franchise QB.

Mostly agree here. The OL needs to be addressed. Just can't keep hoping later round picks can somehow be developed in to studs even though it happens once in a while, (I do have hopes for Us on however). I don't know that I'd trade up for a tackle though as it seems there are another 4-5 past the first few that have real ability and potential later in the 1st or even the 2nd. But the time to get one is NOW. Interior OL is scarce this year, but I feel there are a few guys who have real potential 3rd round on if you get one that fits the current system. I would take a WR in the 1st if the right guy slid. And there is no doubt we've seen some awsome WR talent come in to the league the last few years in the 1st. But how many busts have we seen? I read a half serious joking comment not so long ago that Spielman shouldn't be allowed to draft a WR until the 3rd round or later based on history, lol. But there may be some truth to that. I am absolutely fine waiting until day 2. But they need to bring in at least 2 If not 3 thjs year. Also agree on the DL. Need to find someone who can play the 3 technique well. Especially since I think they are going to shift more back to the old "Tampa" defense and cover 3 they used to play. I'm all in on a quality DT in the first 3 rounds and depth/potential seems to be there. Call me a homer, but Khalil Davis from Nebraska is a guy I really like if they wait until the 4th or 5th round. They absolutely have to come out of this draft with TWO DE prospects for Patterson to work with. Losing Griffen hurts...though I STILL think he might be back as his and the team's best option...but we also lost Weatherly who developed in to a nice role player with potential. We need a couple nice, long, athletic kids to work with here, whether one comes early or not.

Funny how memory works. For years now I had forgotten Allan Anderson had TWO really good years, a mediocre one and then a poor 4th. I kept thinking he only had the one really good year. I had such high hopes for him and what might have been. Unfortunately, to long time followers of the system, the 80's are as much about ML pitching struggles as well as further what might have been in regard to the milb system. I can't recall top 100 lists or anything of that nature, but the Twins had half a dozen highly regarded young arms with velocity that were really expected to augment that very good lineup. There was a time when the foundation of that '87 team was expected to contend yet again when a couple of those young arms rose up. Sadly, most never even sniffed the majors.

Agree on Gladden. He was a spark plug for the team that got things going and seemed to often be involved in big moments. And he absolutely brought an edge to the team and a fire, and those things, as you stated, can't be measured. Hatcher did a lot of things OK, but was never great at anything. But he was professional and kept things loose, as I remember. IIRC he primary hit in the 2 hole, so some of his production was undoubtedly limited as a result. He also played on some bad teams. Ward remains, probably, the ideal choice. I remember being very disappointed when be was traded, though the move turned out great for that first year. Had Smithson and Butcher been able to maintain for a couple more years, it would have been a much better trade.

Not going to lie, I had forgotten about Al Williams. Maybe that was deliberate on my part, lol. The 80's left a lot to desire on the mound. If Butcher had had a little better 2nd season I think I would have selected him over Williams even with only 2yrs Twins time. Nice to see Atherton mentioned. Guy wasn't great but he was solid.

Not going to replace Ward as he was very good. He is deserving. But it is really hard not to argue Hatcher and Gladden as good as or better options for their contributions and time frame.

Some of the dumbest ideas turn out to be great in the end. Lots of fun! Love the Ueker...err, Harry Doyle... overtones in the broadcast. Purposeful I'm sure.

Arguing with the simulator and not you. 1] I don't buy Cleveland's 11 game losing streak, but didn't buy their 11 game winning streak either. So balance. 2] Don't buy the Dirty Sox being that good. 3] I think the sim is being unfair to Cruz's age, but slumps do happen. 4] Love what Oddo is doing, don't agree with the results from Berrios. One interesting thing I've noted from all the various sims is Cleveland getting off to a hot start. Don't know if that is the algorithm looking at past performance, rotation pieces or early season opponents. But...interesting. I also believe in drafting the BPA and voted as such. The draft is such a crapshoot and wait and see that I hate to draft for need. Especially considering the system is pretty well stocked overall at this point. And the FO seems to gravitate towards pure upside and look at developmental arms beyond the 1st round. HOWEVER, my final decision could change quickly when presented with options on both sides. Love to see a HS/college list of 3-4 guys available at our pick, however unfair that option might be to ask.