nicksaviking

Good defense at the corner OF spots is a luxery, and not one that should come at the expense of offense. It's not a defensive priority position. Especially if we're talking about RF at Target Field. It's more important to find someone with a good arm and is smart about playing the wall. Not much range is needed for the postion as there's no foul territory and it's not very deep. It just plays deep because of the towering wall.

It's funny that the guy who's contract we all hated last year, we are now suddenly expecting to have good value. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, because I too hated the contract, and I now too think he has some value. However, Correia does seem like the kind of pitcher (boring innings eater) who fans would hate to give up anything for, but managers would overpay for. Depending on the GM, there probably is some decent value under the right circumstances.

I think he's probably more like Wimmers. That's how the scouts/draft wonks make him sound anyway. These guys (like Wimmers) seem to strike guys out in college due to their control, but I don't think most expect those numbers to translate to the majors as the velocity and/or movement just isn't there to get it past many MLB batters. They did get some decent production, but aside from Garza and to a lesser degree Gibson and Gutierrez, none of them had dominant stuff and almost surely never had a chance to amount to a top the of the rotation pitcher. I understand the logic, as these guys had less risk of becoming a bust, but you're not going to get your ace if you take a "safe" pitcher outside of the top five. Everyone knew Wimmers was going to the Twins because they liked "safe" pitchers. He was said to be the guy likely to be quickest to the majors. So why didn't every other team jump at him? Because he had very little upside and that was more important to other teams Look at all the HS arms the Twins passed up playing it safe that year. Tijuan Walker, Aaron Sanchez, Noah Syndergaard, Jesse Biddle and Zack Lee were all picked after Wimmers and the end of the first round. You can't play the draft pick hindsight game, but you can play the draft strategy hindsight game. The Twins were conservative, that's not just my view, that was the view of nearly everyone who projected the guy with the most MLB ready control would fall all the way to the Twins at 21 and that they would take him. I agree though, I think that strategy has been revised, and I for one am happy. Saying that, I don't think there's any chance Nola is the pick at #5 unless he gains some velocity and starts to profile as an ace.

I like Hicks getting another shot at CF again. Though I think I'd prefer they didn't stick him batting leadoff. His tools are probably the closest the Twins have to a leadoff hitter, but I'd like to see him bat lower while he gets re-acclimated to the majors.

At #5 I still want upside. The Twins always have an underwhelming stable of starters because they previously valued control more than velocity or movement. Guys can improve control, it's pretty difficult to improve velocity or movement.

Yes but then what happens if the defense only turns out to be average at the MLB level and he has no other attributes to fall back on? You can't pick a guy who's all glove at #5. You have to pick the guy with the most tools, not just the tool you like best. And personally I would care about defense much less than the hit or power tool.

If Worley, Diamond, Deduno and Gibson had been pitching better I'd guess the Twins would be actively shopping Correia. I'm still for a move, but knowing this front office, they're not going to sell a guy preseason and insert what looks to be a downgrade from their perspective.

Maybe he'll now be considered a top 46 guy?

It seems to me the Twins starters were seeing guys for the 2nd and 3rd time at about this point in the game during most outings last year.

I'm guessing other cities feel the same thing. And Peterson really only missed like 4 games.

The artical did make it seem like the Twins, Sano and Andrews knew it was a partial tear last fall. That's news to me, I don't recall hearing of any kind of tear, just that he had some elbow inflamation. It's easy for me to say "Have the surgery right away," since it's not surgery on my elbow, but I don't think there are many partial tears that don't end up having TJ surgery anyway. I can think of Ervin Santana, who else is currently playing with a partially torn UCL? Still, if he'd had the surgery in October, Sano may have been back in tme for August games, though they likely would have wanted him doing some rehab work at Ft. Myers first. He probably only missed a few weeks of AA/AAA games this year by putting it off. He would have never been a MLB call up. Yet still, I think it's time these guys start getting opinions from the world's second best renowned orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Andrew James.

With the #5 pick? No, you can't take Mark Belanger. He was good at exactly one baseball activity. You can't pick a guy with only two (and defense and arm strength really are the same tool) of the five tools and expect him to work out. You'd have to have everything break perfectly. If Belanger had only turned out to be an average defensive player, he probably would have never made it to the majors. He had no other tools that made him useful.

That's particularly true if those fans happen to work in the Cardinals organization. They certainly believe in that philosophy.

I've barely read this debate, but for the record, I think the fact that both Kepler and Polanco require 40-man spots and are only in A ball probably hurts their value a bit.

Everything I've heard about him makes him sound like a HS Trae Turner. Should stick at SS but it's not a certainty, lots of speed and likely very little pop. What is it that Klaw likes in him but doesn't in Turner? And for the record, I'm not a Turner guy until he can prove he's more than a slap hitter.

You could, but generally in that scenario, you're still passing up the guy with the highest upside. I'm not disagreeing that it's a valid approach, I just prefer taking the guy who appears to be the best player even while acknowledging that it's not a perfect science.

For all we know, Diaz turned down more dollars for fewer years, or vice versa. We don't know his preference, but as the Cardinals showed the most interest and the earliest interest, that may have put him in their pocket money not withstanding. Still, it did sound like the Twins had no interest in this guy after the age dust up last summer. However, classifying a guy is a "utility" player is kind of subjective. The Twins have probably given the opening day start to at least one (often two) "utility" middle infielder every year since.....? I'm going to go with Gagne and Knoblauch in 1992.

I kind of like starting many of these guys in the bullpen anyway. It's working for the Cardinals. It used to be a right of passage for nearly all pitchers in fact. Also, saying May won't cut it because even relievers need control is like saying a guy won't make it as a shortstop or catcher because even they need to hit. Lack of a particular skill set and strength with another is generally why guys end up as relievers, or shortstops or catchers. There are varying degrees of control and maybe May's lack of it is more off the charts than we are aware of, but it seems strange that Klaw is neglecting the fact that many relievers, maybe even most, are in the bullpen because they don't have the control of their starting counterparts.

That would make sense, but last year both Appel and Gray went quite a bit under slot.

I understand reaching for a guy so you can go underslot with him and overslot on the next guy, but I don't like it. I want the BPA mostly because there's no promise the guys you like with pick #2 will be there. That's why it would be nice if an underslot guy happened to be the BPA at #5.

The Red Sox used quite a few prospects last year in Bogaerts, Middlebrooks, Iglesias, Bradley Jr., Webster and De La Rosa. The Twins will hopefully be getting production from their prospects soon. However, I don't know that I'd consider Johnson or Raley much of a prospect.

That's interesting' date=' because that's the excuse [u']I[/u] use when I miss the urinal at the mall restroom.

I've never been overly interested in De Aza, but the more I think about it, the more I think it would pay off if the asking price isn't too steep. He's a leadoff hitter and can play CF. That's the kind of guy who has inflated trade value at the deadline, perhaps not as much at the moment. Plenty of teams are willing to give a young or out-of-position guy a shot early in the season, but when the pennant race heats up.....

If the Sox would take a lower level prospect along with one of the out of option starters I might be more interested. Helping clear up the Worley/Diamond/Deduno mess would be nice in itself. Probably have to give up a decent looking prospect to go along with the pitcher though.

How low are the White Sox selling him? He seems like a pretty useful player, but like everyone else, I don't want to give the White Sox a legit prospect for a guy who will be gone/expendable in a year or two. Though he may be a better leadoff option than anyone on the team currently, with some pop to boot. Don't really need another lefty though.