prouster

I agree that the Twins should invest more in the international market. It's a way to acquire moderate to high upside pitching with relatively minimal risk. In my opinion, teams choosing high in the Rule 4 draft are best suited going with college bats. Bryant, Schwarber, Swanson, Bregman, Conforto, Benintendi, and, yes, Turner were all taken high in the first round over the last couple years. Of course, so were Seager, Correa, and a few other nice HS bats. There have been some nice pitchers (Finnegan, Rodon, etc.), although pitchers strike me as being too risky for a high pick, unless someone like Strasburg is on the board. That said, I'm not sure how wise it is to point at the Gordon pick as evidence of general futility. It's a single data point, and we really don't know what we have in Gordon.

This is super interesting. Perhaps my question is without the scope of your study, but is there any way to tell whether it was participation in contact sports that increased violent tendencies, or whether people predisposed to violence gravitate toward contact sports? This seems like it could be a chicken and egg scenario, basically. I'd be really interested to hear what you have to say.

I'll add that it's definitely possible for a person to improve their strikeout rate over time. This is pretty common, actually. However, the coaches would likely have to put up with a lot of growing pains in Walker's case. He'd need to run a pretty high walk rate BABIP in order not to be a sinkhole.

It wouldn't have been a mistake to give Walker a cup of coffee this year, but I don't think it was a mistake to not give him one. As has been pointed out by several other posters, the K rate is simply to high to expect any level of success. Yes, it can't be 100%, irrefutably guaranteed that ABW won't be able to hit Major League pitching, but it's not 100%, irrefutably guaranteed that I will live long enough to finish writing this post (if you're reading this, I'm fine—unless this has been archived and you're reading it thousands of years in the future, in which case, well, I guess I've been fine for millennia). In any case, there really is no example of a player with Walker's profile sustaining any kind of offensive output at the MLB level. I pointed out Gallo earlier. It's not a perfect comparison, because Gallo arguably has the best raw power in the world. Nonetheless, Gallo actually had a higher K rate at Triple-A than Walker (39.5% to 38%). When Gallo came up for 36 games in 2015, his K rate ratcheted up to 46.3%. When he came up for 17 games in 2016, his K rate absolutely ballooned to 63.3%. I'm not saying that Walker would be as bad as Gallo has been, because the latter seems like someone who needs to get his head screwed on straight. The small sample size caveat also applies; I don't think Gallo's true ability is a hitter who K's two out of every three trips to the plate. My point is that many, many guys mash their way through the various MiLB levels without ever finding success at the Major League level. It's sad when it happens, because most fans want everyone with that kind of raw ability to do well. However, the track record of guys like Walker (which goes back years and years) means he has an extremely high chance at flaming out.

I think the issue is that ABW's K rate is at Triple-A, whereas Sano is a Major Leaguer. That 38% is very likely to shoot up over 40% if Walker ever cracks the MLB roster. That's not a path to success. A guy like Joey Gallo (much more touted as a prospect than Walker) serves as anecdotal evidence.

I'd rather have Bonds as a player.

I demand Brian Dozier show us all his birth certificate.

I agree. I just think that if maintaining the status quo was a priority, they would have hired Antony. Why take the outside guy if you don't have to? I don't think the front office is so conniving as to hire an up and coming executive simply to hide their real intentions. In any case, I was hoping for McCleod, probably because I know the most about him. The Falvey hire seems promising, though. Cleveland seems to do well with only a moderately talented roster (excluding Kluber and Carrasco, of course).

I don't think this will be an issue. If they wanted to maintain the status quo, they would have hired Rob Antony.

I'm wondering if they thought they'd need a third team involved to unload Nolasco, then pulled the trigger when that turned out not to be the case. Who knows? I'm pulling this straight out of the ether.

So your position is that the FO should make trades for the sake of making trades? I think this would be a really irresponsible use of assets, even if those assets aren't worth all that much. I can see making a move to get some bad contracts off the books (Nolasco, mainly), but a lot of the elder statesmen on the Twins roster still have a year or two of control remaining. Why get rid of that when there is still a possibility you could parlay it into something more valuable down the line? The fact of the matter is that not every prospect will turn out the way we all hope. If they decide to have a team full of players 25 and under, we're in for several more years of pain as a fan base.

As someone else mentioned, there doesn't appear to be a player locked into the number one spot, although it's still really early. As long as the Twins are choosing in the top five (or even ten this year), which they certainly will, they'll come away with a really good prospect. A few college catchers are currently expected to go very early, which would be nice. There's also a HS shortstop in Florida who is only 16. He'll be 17 when the draft rolls around. Tall and lanky, I've read, with some pop in his bat and the athleticism to stick at the position. Has a nice swing. Can't have to many quality SS prospects. Vanderbilt's CF seems really good, as well. There are also a few college pitchers getting top-ten buzz, although I like the strategy of taking hitters early, myself. Of course, it's still really early, and some of these guys will fall off the map while others rocket up. Given the depth of really, really good prospects in the upcoming draft, I see no reason why the Twins wouldn't want to win as many remaining games as possible.

What is a "power pitcher," anyway? It really seems like some arbitrary standard you yourself have invented in order to make your point. Besides, these "power pitchers" are presumably quite talented--is Park the only one who struggles against them? Define your terms, otherwise you make yourself susceptible to claims of cherry picking your data, which you have clearly done. If you recall, Desmond signed very late in the process. No one was eager to have him. No one signed him to play short stop. What he's doing is incredibly surprising and, as others have pointed out, likely unsustainable. The fact that he's having a career year at a position he has never really played before (something quite a few people rightfully complained about on this very message board regarding Sano), then I suspect your attitude toward him as a player would be quite different. The fact of the matter is he profiled as an aging ex-star deep in the decline phase of his career. There's no logical reason to blast Terry Ryan for failing to see into the future, especially when the Twins would have needed to forfeit a high draft pick. In any case, there isn't really a way to construe the Park signing as a hindrance. The mistake wasn't signing him, because it's never, ever a problem to have a surplus of power bats, especially when they hardly cost anything, posting fee included. The issue is that they failed to parlay that surplus into addressing other needs and diversifying the roster.

This really seems like cherry picking. Where are you getting these numbers? What is a "power pitcher" according to your source? Is it someone with an average fastball velo greater than, say, 95 mph? Someone with a wipeout slider? Someone who averages a K or more per nine? Someone who meets some vague criteria only your source's author knows about? If you're going to criticize Terry Ryan for failing to sign Desmond to play shortstop, then you need to criticize 29 other GMs for the exact same thing. He's an aging slugger who was in the midst of an extended drop in offensive output. There is a reason Texas signed him for 1/8m--no one thought he'd be as good as he has been. The only way to have a useful discussion about this stuff is to be intellectually honest, which means hindsight doesn't count as evidence.

Definitely a nice change of pace to see someone looking for positives about the Twins. I agree, it's encouraging to see the FO put out guys who have been performing well. Of course, some of your analysis depends on certain assumptions that may not hold up over time. Someone pointed out the small sample size, which is related to the implicit point that players like Berrios and Chargois displayed their true talent levels in their short stints on the big club. Berrios likely isn't a 10+ ERA pitcher, nor should we expect to Chargois to post an ERA over 60 going forward (I personally can't stand that they sent him down after only an inning of work). Essentially, this comes down to whether you value inputs vs. outputs--"stuff" vs. results. This is all to say, I agree that the current staff is the "best" we've seen all year, given the results. However, I think there are better pitchers who are not currently on the team, though they probably should be.

This is romanticizing the Carl Pohlad era a bit, isn't it? You know, the guy who nearly helped MLB contract our favorite team if he didn't get a publicly financed stadium, among other notorious gripes?

Right. Dozier turned 22 about a month before he was drafted. Polanco, 22 at the start of the 2016 season, made both the BA and MLB.com top-100 lists. Yes, Polanco being 22.9 vs. Dozier being 22.1 is different, if a person wants to be pedantic. I guess I'm not sure what point you're making. Do you think Dozier was a better prospect? As far as me following the conversation, you made an argument that gave me a strong reaction, so I wanted to post something. I don't care if you respond or not. As far as the Twins roster is concerned going forward, I fall into the camp that we should try and trade Dozier. Whether that's at the deadline or in the off season might not matter so much, unless a team on the cusp thinks he can help with a pennant run and is willing to pay a premium for that chance. His homerun power would definitely be missed, but there are other guys in the lineup who could make up for it. I also like Polanco's ability to get on base better than Dozier's. Considering that Dozier is likely to decline in the very near future, I'd rather take a chance on the rookie.

Age doesn't necessarily matter when drafting (although a 17 year old high schooler may turn a few more heads than one who is about to turn 19), but it is a huge factor when evaluating prospects. If a guy is two years younger than the competition, his stats carry more weight than if he was two years older than the competition. That's why a guy like Daniel Palka is a fringy prospect. Yes, he's crushing the ball, but he spent most of the year at Double-A, where the average age is slightly over 24 (Palka, as of his move up to Triple-A, was 24 years, 8 months, and 7 days old--so, a few months above average). A guy like Max Kelper, on the other hand, dominated the Southern League as a 22 year old. Kepler was obviously the more highly regarded of the two before either wore a Lookouts jersey, but he was also kind of fringy when he began at that level. The fact that he owned players generally older than him caused him to stand out among his peers. In other words, no one said Polanco is better than Bryant because the latter went to college. It would be crazy to think that. The OP's point was that Polanco's minor league track record is more impressive than Dozier's. Which it is. While Dozier was still at Southern Mississippi, Polanco was making top-100 lists.

There are some intriguing arms that could be available at 15, but I'd like to see the Twins take a position player. Pitchers are simply too hard to predict, what with the high frequency of TJ surgery, other injuries, and just plain flaming out. I think quality pitching prospects can be acquired in ways other than the draft, namely through trades and international signings. This seems to be the route the Cubs have taken the last few years, and it has certainly paid dividends. Some players I'm particularly interested in that could be on the board at 15: Zack Collins - C, University of Miami (Powerful catcher, numbers and profile remind me of Kyle Schwarber, the chance of him being on the board at 15 seems slight) Blake Rutherford - OF, CA High School (Highly touted, considered the best HS bat in the draft until recently, signability concerns could cause him to slip to the mid-late first round) Delvin Perez - SS, Puerto Rico High School (Very toolsy, considered by some to be best position player in the draft, garners comparisons to Carlos Correa, fluid defender with little concern of ability to play SS at MLB level, hit tool is underdeveloped, one of the younger players in the draft, recently failed a drug test for unnamed PED, will almost certainly be available at 15) Alex Kirilloff - OF, Pennsylvania High School (Most here know a bit about him, will likely be on the board when the Twins pick) Will Craig - 3B/1B, Wake Forest (Smooth right-handed swing with tons of power, this guy can mash, will likely be available at 15)

I haven't read all the comments on this thread, so this post could be redundant. I don't think any of the catchers listed by the author, with the exception of Dioner Navarro, would have been any better than JRM. A few, like Avila and Iannetta and Soto and Saltalamacchia, would not have been upgrades over Suzuki. JRM has some upside. Those listed generally do not. I understand that your argument isn't that they would be upgrades in isolation, but that the Twins wouldn't have had to give up Hicks to acquire any of them. This is true. Then again, they have a potentially above average MLB catcher on their roster, who has shown flashes of hitting ability in a small sample size. Hicks has also flashed some potential, but his track record is dismal. There's nothing to suggest he will ever live up to his talents. Also, if you include Bethanchourt's triple-A numbers, you should probably include his MLB numbers. In an admittedly small sample size (160 PA), his triple slash line was .200/.225/.290. His wRC+ was . . . wait for it . . . 36. That's Aaron-Hicks-in-his-rookie-year bad (although Hicks' wRC+ in 2013 was 62, almost twice as good as Bethancourt). There are also serious questions about Bethancourt's defense, as someone else mentioned. Finally, I wouldn't assume that San Diego is preparing to deal a catcher simply because of this trade. Austin Hedges has looked more like Drew Butera than Matt Wieters thus far. It's possible they're hedging risk (pun intended) against him busting.

I'm with you that Berrios should start the year in Rochester. He doesn't have anything left to prove, really, but keeping him down for the first few weeks a la Kris Bryant would save the Twins a lot of pain and money down the road. Service time doesn't even need to be the primary reason for keeping him down. There really isn't an obvious place for him on the roster yet. (On a related note, I'm right there with you, as well, that some of the starters should be on a short leash.) Personally, I like the idea of Duffey making the rotation out of spring training. I think he showed he has the stuff to make it as a mid-rotation arm, at the very least. That bender of his is something to behold. In my mind, his presence on the roster makes it so the bullpen is the only obvious place for Nolasco. Unless, for some odd reason, a team is willing to trade for him.

I really don't think there's any reason to believe this. It's not as if standing in RF will make Sano suddenly forget how to swing a bat. Remember, he wasn't at third base when he was playing as the DH. Some people say they feel uncomfortable if they don't play defense. I don't think it affected Sano at all. There is also a contemporary, glaring comparison we could make. Miguel Cabrera has rotated positions throughout his career (3B, 1B, DH, and yes, LF). I don't know. I think he's a pretty good hitter. Thinking more broadly, I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make regarding the affect playing outfield has on one's offensive performance. Are you speaking generally or about Sano in particular? Is it that OF isn't Sano's "native" position? Because there are some pretty good hitters who have played OF. Trout. Bonds. Griffey Jr. Mays. Ruth. Etc.

Someone else referenced this, speculating that someone other than Ryan made the call. That's possible. Another possibility is that there was some confusion translating the original report (I'm assuming a Spanish language publication) into English. In any case, I really don't think this is the emergency some people see it as. It's December. They want Sano to rest. So what?

I agree with most of what you said, although I don't think Molitor should feel any pressure to slot Nolasco into the rotation. Why not try him out in the bullpen (which is what they should have done with Pelfrey, instead of the really weird decision to send Milone to AAA and have Pelfrey start)? Nolasco wouldn't be the first reeling starter to rediscover his stuff in the pen. I'm also not sure how a thread about the White Sox acquiring Brett Lawrie turned into bashing the Aaron Hicks trade?

My guess is they like Plouffe's 3B defense more.