prouster

BPA. As you say, it's definitely a crap shoot. Drafting in response to holes on the 25-man roster is . . . not a good strategy. Things simply change too quickly. That said, it's probably not a bad idea to go after certain positions later on in order to fill in thin areas across the entire MiLB system.

Lineups don't really matter after the first inning. I'm fine with it. Dozier may get another AB in the 9th, if anything.

There was the Brady Aiken fiasco a few years back. Edit: Our very own Twins failed to sign Tim Belcher after selecting him 1-1 way back in 1983.

I don't understand the outrage. Is anyone surprised by this roster? Were they supposed to trade for Trout and Kershaw? I don't get it. The only real surprise to me is Park's reassignment, but as has been pointed out a few times, his 40-man status (or non-status, I guess) would mean exposing someone else to the waiver wire. I personally dislike that Santana is still around, so there's a spot that could have gone to Park. But I'm not that upset about it, because they could make that change tomorrow if they wanted to. Park is a 30 year old DH whose ST stats could be a mirage, kind of like Hicks a few years back. Nor am I upset about a backup catcher. Yes, you want value from all 25 roster spots, but there is no one who represents a viable upgrade from Gimenez. JRM maaayyybe has some upside, but I don't see how that could be met sitting on the bench. Not to mention that whatever upside he has is severely diminished from his 2016 season. People seem to have forgotten that he was really, really bad last year at both the MLB and AAA levels. Garver simply needs more time in the upper minors. I also don't understand the anger about the bullpen. It makes sense to carry the extra arm when there are so many question marks in the rotation. This is also a part of the team that is more or less reassembled every year. So, if a guy like Chargois isn't there now, he could be next week, or next month, or next year. It depends on when he's ready. He was pretty bad last year and this spring. For all we know, he's Jim Hoey. Personally, I'm just excited that it's baseball season again. When the Twins have a chance at the pennant, I'll start getting upset about their roster decisions.

Well, there are his 2016 stats. In 83 Games at Triple-A: .236/.286/.323/.609 In 26 MLB Games: .146/.193/.220/.413 Small samples and recency bias for each, yes. But holy cow.

You are referring to Spanish. Along with French and Italian, it is one of the most widely spoken, read, and written Romance Languages. It derives from Latin, though gained prominence after the fall of the Roman Empire. It spread to modern day North, Central, and South America through the bloody process of Spanish colonization. It is now one of the major global languages, spoken and read by billions around the world.

That's a good point. I haven't seen any games either, only highlights. Some very quick research tells me the calibre of opponent Greene faces is pretty good—there is at least one other UCLA commit on his team, and the team he pitched against last has a Michigan commit. I'm not sure beyond that.

I think that what's maybe most impressive about this (SSS caveat applies, although Greene has a well noted body of work at this point) is that he's doing this while throwing an 80-grade fastball as a teenager. Out of the guys who can even throw that hard at that age, most have a lot of difficulty with command. Maybe part of the story is that high school hitters aren't as selective and swing at more pitches out of the zone. Regardless, Greene is limiting base runners while pumping elite gas at an incredibly young age.

I...what? Since when has 13 pitches per inning been problematic? How many should he be throwing? 3? 6? 10? Hypothetically, he could strike out the side every time out while throwing four balls among three batters. Obviously that isn't what happened, but the point is that 13 pitches per inning is efficient. If anything, it may indicate that he's working hitters instead of simply blowing his triple digit fastball past everybody. I honestly don't see how this could possibly indicate a problem. Edit: Regarding his teammate's complete game, I think it's possible (even probable) that the coach is looking out for Greene's health. The kid is a stud playing for much more than his high school team.

http://www.dailynews.com/sports/20170317/notre-dame-baseball-sweeps-loyola-behind-hunter-greene-josh-perlmutter "Greene was efficient on the mound, striking out six and allowing two hits in four shutout innings. He only threw 52 pitches and hit 100 mph with a fastball in the third." A couple of things: 1. From my very limited vantage, Greene is starting to separate himself as the best available draft prospect. There's still a lot of time and several intriguing names, but none have been as consistent for as long with the tools Greene has shown. 2. Kudos to the coach for pulling his best player after 52 pitches. Not enough youth coaches are so careful with their talented players.

Ok, but what you are describing here isn't trading "elite prospects for multiple prospects," as you said in an earlier post. What you're proposing here is to trade a veteran nearing the end of his arbitration years. This exact scenario (sort of) played out this winter with Brian Dozier. In fact, it happens all the time. It's why the Twins traded Johan Santana all those years ago. What you're talking about here is wildly different from what you actually proposed--trading elite prospects for multiple prospects. You're moving the goal posts in order to make it seem like you said something you didn't actually say.

We are in complete agreement on this. The only reason not to pursue expensive FA talent is because it will cost the Pohlads too much money. Of course, that's a pretty good reason to think they'll try to find shrewder ways to spend.

(I'll stop posting for a while after this one so as not to spam the thread.) Well, Ervin Santana signed the fourth largest FA contract for any pitcher during the 2015-16 offseason. The larger ones went to Max Scherzer, Jon Lester, and James Shields. Santana's was the ninth largest contract overall that year. Maybe that's an indictment on the TR regime, or maybe Ervin was a free agent of note. I lean toward the latter. Someone else also mentioned the Hughes contract. Just throwing it out there.

Who has done this? I don't mean to be snarky, but I literally can't think of a single prospect for prospect swap that included a player with elite upside. The reason is that those kinds of players are exceedingly rare, and the chance that they hit is way more valuable than the (maybe?) lower risk strategy of having several decent prospects. Not to mention one pre-arb player who puts up as many WAR as 2-3 pre-arb guys is inherently more valuable to the team. The drop off after number five or so on any top-100 prospect list is incredibly steep, to the point where number 10 is typically closer in upside to number 40 than to number 1. So, yeah. I don't see how this is a legitimate rebuilding strategy. For argument's sake, imagine the Cubs trading Kris Bryant for something like Severino and Judge before the 2015 season.

It's hard to tell. That bat speed is just so distracting.

BA released a top-ten mock draft yesterday. They have the Twins taking Hunter Greene #1 overall. Interestingly, they have Atlanta taking North Carolina prep outfielder Austin Beck at #5. Admittedly, I'd never heard of him before reading about him ten minutes ago. According to BA, he flashes 70's in power, running, and defense (they mention a plus arm separately, so I think they mean range/decision making when they say defense). He was out all summer and fall with a torn ACL and is drawing increasing attention now that he's playing games again. Here is a rather impressive video of him taking BP: http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/austin-becks-stock-rise-torn-acl-heals/#6UM9pFrEDSJUR0vv#AK4zk55920z5qVVM.97 He definitely could be in play at 1-1 if he keeps it up.

Here are some updates regarding potential 1-1 selections from the weekend. Friday's Games: Jaren Kendall (vs. Illinois-Chicago), 2-5 with a homer, 0BB 0K Kyle Wright, 6IP, 4H, 1R, 0BB, 7K Alex Faedo (vs. U Miami), 8.2IP, 2H, 0R, 1BB, 8K Alex Lange (vs. Maryland), 6IP, 6H, 1R, 2BB, 12K J.B. Bukauskas (vs. Radford), 7IP, 3H, 0R, 1BB, 11K Brandon McKay (vs. Nebraska-Omaha), 5IP, 2H, 2R, 4BB, 5K Saturday's Games: Jaren Kendall, 0-4, 1BB, 4K Also of note: LSU's Jared Poche tossed eight scoreless inning against Maryland on Saturday, giving up one hit while walking two and striking out six. In 13 innings pitched on the year, he has given up one hit and the two walks from last night. Could be someone to keep an eye on for Comp A or maybe the second/third round. Edit: Poche's first start against Army was a seven inning no-hitter, the program's first individual no-hit effort since 1979. It also happened to be the 2,500th win in program history.

Well, no high school or college player is drafted as a 28 year old who is expected to crack the opening day lineup.

I agree. But they don't make trades for the sake of making trades. Selling assets for less than they're worth is a great way to stay terrible. De Leon would have been a nice get, but he would not have been enough on his own. Good baseball executives hold out for the second or third piece, because there is always a chance they could pan out better than the centerpiece. Corey Kulber and Carlos Carrasco are good examples of this. They were both throw-ins that turned out to be really good for Cleveland. So, when trading a player like Dozier, I really think the people in charge should hold out for a second (or third, or fourth . . .) player they are truly excited about. For one, it hedges the risk of accepting a 1-for-1 swap, and it could turn into unexpected value down the road.

Hey now. I think that would be a good starting point.

I don't understand this mindset. I don't think anyone actually believes the Twins are on the cusp of winning. However, there is untapped upside on the roster as it currently exists. It would have been batty for the Twins to accept a bad offer for Dozier, even if he is ripe to be traded. Teams don't get better by making bad trades. Why is this controversial?

I don't think we should be too upset about this. By all (confirmed) indications, De Leon was the only real piece the Twins would have received for Dozier. The risks involved have been well documented on this site. If this was truly the case, I'm glad the Twins passed. They can either trade Dozier later or try to extend him. Of course, this trade means Tampa now has a vacancy at second base. Dozier would not be a perfect fit by any means, because the Rays weren't a whole lot better than the Twins last year. However, there have been a few rumors about Tampa looking to unload some of its pitching surplus. Archer is out of the question. Someone like Odorizzi or Snell could be interesting. I don't think a Dozier trade to the Rays is realistic whatsoever. Just saying. . .

I agree. It seems weird to critique a particular draft pick through the lens of hindsight, given that it's impossible to make an actual decision that way. Another example: would anyone say the Nationals should have taken Machado over Harper in 2010, given that Machado has put up more WAR in fewer games? Of course not, because Harper was the clear cut choice at the time. People make decisions based on the information they have, not the information they will eventually receive. I totally agree that Greene should be considered for 1-1, even if the risk profile may be a bit higher than the alternatives.

There. I can play with bold fonts, too.

Honestly, given the benefit of hindsight, they only player I'd rather have than Gordon is Turner (maybe Conforto). Hoffman is definitely interesting, too. His MiLB track record is pretty good, but the peripherals come with a tinge of meh. The strikeouts have generally gone up as he's advanced, but so have the walks. A few of the arms strike me as topping out at Gibson on a good day, which is fine and certainly welcomed on a team deprived of quality pitching. However, college arms that are at AA two and a half years after being drafted don't scream upside to me. I'll take the 21 year old who can stick at short.