RE: Players and prospects III (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Other Minnesota Sports] >> Minnesota Twins



Message

twinsfan -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 11:27:47 AM)

2007:

1. Slowey
2. Garza
3. Manship
4. Perkins
5. Waldrop
6. Parmelee
7. Neshek
8. DeVries
9. Duensing
10. O. Sosa



twinsfan -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 11:28:55 AM)

2006:

1. Liriano
2. Kubel
3. Moses
4. Perkins
5. Swarzak
6. Span
7. Garza
8. Rainville
9. Plouffe
10. Waldrop

Probably safe to stop there. When a successful major league career (Kubel) has run its course, that's enough.



twinsfan -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 11:38:16 AM)

I'm gonna assign a major league success value (0-10) for each player that has appeared on a Top 10 list from 2006-2011

Gibson 4
Wimmers 0
Hicks 3
Sano 0
Hendriks 2
Revere 7
Arcia 4
Bullock 0
Salcedo 0
Kepler 0
Ramos 7
Valencia 4
Gutierrez 0
A. Morales 0
Bromberg 0
Hunt 0
Mijares 8
Mulvey 1
Delaney 1
Parmelee 3
Blackburn 5
Benson 1
Robertson 1
Swarzak 5
Pridie 1
Duensing 6
Manship 1
Plouffe 9
Slowey 6
Garza 10
Perkins 8
Waldrop 1
Neshek 8
DeVries 2
O. Sosa 0
Liriano 10
Kubel 9
Moses 0
Span 10
Rainville 0



twinsfan -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 11:45:09 AM)

40 different players (many of them appeared in multiple years) made an appearance on the Twins Top 10 list from 2006-2011.

They scored a cumulative total of 137 major league points, for an average score of 3.425.

If you narrow it down to only those that made a major league appearance (so I would eliminate the "zero" players...my apologies if I missed some Sept call-ups and should have assigned a 1 score), the average score goes up to 4.89.

I believe, without looking some of them up for sure, that 12 of the 40 did not make a major league appearance. My guess is this is a pretty typical ratio if we tried this with every team in MLB. Most Top 10ers get a shot, if healthy, but a certain number of them get derailed by injury before they make it.



MDK -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 12:40:25 PM)

You give Plouffe a 9 and Wilson a 7

Plouffe: 1746 at bats, 223 runs, 100 2b, 5 3b, 62 HR, 224 rbis, 3.91 at bats / run, .245 .309 .415 .724

Wilson: 1179 at bats, 125 runs, 52 2b, 1 3b, 46 HR, 173 rbi, 3.96 at bats/run, .269 .317 .432 .749


??????

Plus defensive position.



Mr. Ed -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 12:43:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MDK

You give Plouffe a 9 and Wilson a 7

Plouffe: 1746 at bats, 223 runs, 100 2b, 5 3b, 62 HR, 224 rbis, 3.91 at bats / run, .245 .309 .415 .724

Wilson: 1179 at bats, 125 runs, 52 2b, 1 3b, 46 HR, 173 rbi, 3.96 at bats/run, .269 .317 .432 .749


??????

Plus defensive position.



Not how well they've done? looks like # of years since drafted?



MDK -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 12:44:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr. Ed

quote:

ORIGINAL: MDK

You give Plouffe a 9 and Wilson a 7

Plouffe: 1746 at bats, 223 runs, 100 2b, 5 3b, 62 HR, 224 rbis, 3.91 at bats / run, .245 .309 .415 .724

Wilson: 1179 at bats, 125 runs, 52 2b, 1 3b, 46 HR, 173 rbi, 3.96 at bats/run, .269 .317 .432 .749


??????

Plus defensive position.



Not how well they've done? looks like # of years since drafted?



I don't think so......I think it is Matt's scale in terms of his assessment of their big league success.



twinsfan -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 12:56:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MDK

You give Plouffe a 9 and Wilson a 7

Plouffe: 1746 at bats, 223 runs, 100 2b, 5 3b, 62 HR, 224 rbis, 3.91 at bats / run, .245 .309 .415 .724

Wilson: 1179 at bats, 125 runs, 52 2b, 1 3b, 46 HR, 173 rbi, 3.96 at bats/run, .269 .317 .432 .749


??????

Plus defensive position.

I see progression w/ Plouffe, plus more playing time. See the cumulative numbers.

How about if I give them both 8's and keep the overall score the same?



twinsfan -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 1:08:22 PM)

Any other suggested corrections?



Mr. Ed -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 1:10:26 PM)

Perhaps that's a normal indication of success rate among drafted players.

For the Twins, who choose to bank on the farm system for re-stocking, that's a real indication of how badly they've drafted, with the correpsonding results on the field..



twinsfan -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 1:13:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr. Ed

Perhaps that's a normal indication of success rate among drafted players.

For the Twins, who choose to bank on the farm system for re-stocking, that's a real indication of how badly they've drafted, with the correpsonding results on the field..

It's probably pretty normal, I guess. The guys ranked 7-10 have served a purpose (somewhere). 6 and under is basically filler (Duensing, Swarzak, etc.).



CPAMAN -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 2:16:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: twinsfan

2008

1. Blackburn
2. Benson
3. Ramos
4. Robertson
5. Swarzak
6. Revere
7. Pridie
8. Duensing
9. Manship
10. Plouffe


Blackburn was only a prospect in 2008? Wow. I thought he was pitching full-time with the Twins in 2007 and 2008?



CPAMAN -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 2:17:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MDK

quote:

ORIGINAL: twinsfan

2008

1. Blackburn
2. Benson
3. Ramos
4. Robertson
5. Swarzak
6. Revere
7. Pridie
8. Duensing
9. Manship
10. Plouffe


What happened to the Ramos guy? What position did he play? Did he wash out?


WOW, a lot of us were wrong on Benson......still think he never could shift from a football mentality to a baseball mentality.


His downfall was the mullet hair cut.



CPAMAN -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 2:18:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: twinsfan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr. Ed

quote:

ORIGINAL: twinsfan

2009

1. Revere
2. Hicks
3. Ramos
4. Hunt
5. Valencia
6. Mijares
7. Mulvey
8. Gutierrez
9. Delaney
10. Parmelee


Is there any wonder why they're sucking?

Gutierrez/delaney were bullpen guys and the Twins effed up trying to make Gutierrez a starter(a novel idea that continues to fail)

And shooter hunt a washout. Mulvey never made it.


All reasons why the current team stinks.

The farm system was wiped out long before Bill Smith got his hands on things, too. Terry Ryan was the one that originally decimated the farm system. Not sure why everything is always blamed on the Bill Smith years.



That is an easy one. Convenience. Pass the blame to whoever is off the radar.



CPAMAN -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 2:22:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: twinsfan

2007:

1. Slowey
2. Garza
3. Manship
4. Perkins
5. Waldrop
6. Parmelee
7. Neshek
8. DeVries
9. Duensing
10. O. Sosa


How could Blackturd be the #1 prospect in 2008 and not even in the top ten in 2007? That makes no sense at all. DeVries was already a top ten prospect in 2007 and was just brought up last season?



CPAMAN -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 2:28:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: twinsfan

I'm gonna assign a major league success value (0-10) for each player that has appeared on a Top 10 list from 2006-2011
Gibson 4
Wimmers 0
Hicks 3
Sano 0
Hendriks 2
Revere 7
Arcia 4
Bullock 0
Salcedo 0
Kepler 0

Ramos 7
Valencia 4
Gutierrez 0
A. Morales 0
Bromberg 0
Hunt 0
Mijares 8
Mulvey 1
Delaney 1
Parmelee 3
Blackburn 5
Benson 1
Robertson 1
Swarzak 5
Pridie 1
Duensing 6
Manship 1
Plouffe 9
Slowey 6
Garza 10
Perkins 8
Waldrop 1
Neshek 8
DeVries 2
O. Sosa 0
Liriano 10
Kubel 9
Moses 0
Span 10
Rainville 0



Mijares, Neshek and PAB get an 8 and Liriano, Garza and Span a 10? I think a 10 should be reserved for potentially a future HOF type player. And Plouffe and Kubel a 9? Except for the 0-3 players, drop every player on your list by a score of 2-3 and it would be more appropriate. For example, Plouffe should be absolutely no higher than a 6-7. 6.5 would be about right. Liriano a 7-at best.



CPAMAN -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 2:29:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MDK

You give Plouffe a 9 and Wilson a 7

Plouffe: 1746 at bats, 223 runs, 100 2b, 5 3b, 62 HR, 224 rbis, 3.91 at bats / run, .245 .309 .415 .724

Wilson: 1179 at bats, 125 runs, 52 2b, 1 3b, 46 HR, 173 rbi, 3.96 at bats/run, .269 .317 .432 .749


??????

Plus defensive position.



Yup, can't forget than "premium" position factor. [&o]



TJSweens -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 2:30:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CPAMAN

quote:

ORIGINAL: twinsfan

2007:

1. Slowey
2. Garza
3. Manship
4. Perkins
5. Waldrop
6. Parmelee
7. Neshek
8. DeVries
9. Duensing
10. O. Sosa


How could Blackturd be the #1 prospect in 2008 and not even in the top ten in 2007? That makes no sense at all. DeVries was already a top ten prospect in 2007 and was just brought up last season?


DeVries was already gone by last season.



MDK -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 2:36:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: twinsfan

quote:

ORIGINAL: MDK

You give Plouffe a 9 and Wilson a 7

Plouffe: 1746 at bats, 223 runs, 100 2b, 5 3b, 62 HR, 224 rbis, 3.91 at bats / run, .245 .309 .415 .724

Wilson: 1179 at bats, 125 runs, 52 2b, 1 3b, 46 HR, 173 rbi, 3.96 at bats/run, .269 .317 .432 .749


??????

Plus defensive position.

I see progression w/ Plouffe, plus more playing time. See the cumulative numbers.

How about if I give them both 8's and keep the overall score the same?


I'm ok with that........but when all is said and done, Wilson Ramos (as long as he stays somewhat healthy) will put up better numbers than Plouffe. His career Wins Above Keanu Reeves will be higher.[;)]



Black 47 -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 2:38:53 PM)

Billy made mistakes, but the last four years were 100% Ryan's mess. Billy made a great trade to get Hardy in here. But the crack medical staff prescribed the wrong treatment for his injury, combined with the fact he wasn't a Gardy guy to begin with, and he was gone. And I won't blame Billy one bit for the return he got for Hardy. He was forced to trade him at his lowest value.

The Hunter and Santana messes were dumped squarely on Billy's lap, and in hindsight, the Santana trade wasn't so bad. Gomez turned out to be a star. Gardenhire just couldn't get it out of him.

The Delmon trade sucked, but once again, he was in a tough position. He needed to replace Hunter. Gardy and Anderson hated Garza. Delmon had unlimited potential. The trade made sense. It just didn't work. I applaud Billy for taking a risk. Ryan's too scared to take
risks.

The Pavano and Cabrera trades in 2009 were outstanding. Props to Billy.



MDK -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 2:39:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CPAMAN

quote:

ORIGINAL: twinsfan

I'm gonna assign a major league success value (0-10) for each player that has appeared on a Top 10 list from 2006-2011
Gibson 4
Wimmers 0
Hicks 3
Sano 0
Hendriks 2
Revere 7
Arcia 4
Bullock 0
Salcedo 0
Kepler 0

Ramos 7
Valencia 4
Gutierrez 0
A. Morales 0
Bromberg 0
Hunt 0
Mijares 8
Mulvey 1
Delaney 1
Parmelee 3
Blackburn 5
Benson 1
Robertson 1
Swarzak 5
Pridie 1
Duensing 6
Manship 1
Plouffe 9
Slowey 6
Garza 10
Perkins 8
Waldrop 1
Neshek 8
DeVries 2
O. Sosa 0
Liriano 10
Kubel 9
Moses 0
Span 10
Rainville 0



Mijares, Neshek and PAB get an 8 and Liriano, Garza and Span a 10? I think a 10 should be reserved for potentially a future HOF type player. And Plouffe and Kubel a 9? Except for the 0-3 players, drop every player on your list by a score of 2-3 and it would be more appropriate. For example, Plouffe should be absolutely no higher than a 6-7. 6.5 would be about right. Liriano a 7-at best.


Liriano last season put up Cy Young worthy numbers.

His second half of this season was outstanding after a very very poor start.

The Pirates should have rested Liriano instead of pitching him to try and win the division. The Clint Hurdle strategy backfired as they didn't have their top two pitchers available for a one and done playoff game.



Black 47 -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 2:45:25 PM)

And I also applaud Billy for the thing that got him fired. Presenting ownership with a competitive plan to aggressively pursue top free agents and regain some respectability after the disastrous 2011 season. After all, they were in a new ballpark with revenue coming out of their ears.



Black 47 -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 2:47:37 PM)

Pirates weren't winning last night no matter who pitched. [:D]



TJSweens -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 3:00:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black 47

And I won't blame Billy one bit for the return he got for Hardy. He was forced to trade him at his lowest value.

Billy wasn't forced to trade him at all. He was too much of a whimp to stand up to Gardy. That was where he needed to sit Gardenweasel down and explain "Here's the thing Ron, you work for me and we're not trading him."

The Delmon trade sucked, but once again, he was in a tough position. He needed to replace Hunter. Gardy and Anderson hated Garza. Delmon had unlimited potential. The trade made sense. It just didn't work. I applaud Billy for taking a risk. Ryan's too scared to take risks.

This was a stupid risk. Delmon was not a replacement for Hunter. Trading his #1 pitching prospect when he knew he was going to trade his ace pitcher over the winter was just plain mind numbingly stupid.




twinsfan -> RE: Players and prospects III (10/2/2014 3:23:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CPAMAN

quote:

ORIGINAL: twinsfan

I'm gonna assign a major league success value (0-10) for each player that has appeared on a Top 10 list from 2006-2011
Gibson 4
Wimmers 0
Hicks 3
Sano 0
Hendriks 2
Revere 7
Arcia 4
Bullock 0
Salcedo 0
Kepler 0

Ramos 7
Valencia 4
Gutierrez 0
A. Morales 0
Bromberg 0
Hunt 0
Mijares 8
Mulvey 1
Delaney 1
Parmelee 3
Blackburn 5
Benson 1
Robertson 1
Swarzak 5
Pridie 1
Duensing 6
Manship 1
Plouffe 9
Slowey 6
Garza 10
Perkins 8
Waldrop 1
Neshek 8
DeVries 2
O. Sosa 0
Liriano 10
Kubel 9
Moses 0
Span 10
Rainville 0



Mijares, Neshek and PAB get an 8 and Liriano, Garza and Span a 10? I think a 10 should be reserved for potentially a future HOF type player. And Plouffe and Kubel a 9? Except for the 0-3 players, drop every player on your list by a score of 2-3 and it would be more appropriate. For example, Plouffe should be absolutely no higher than a 6-7. 6.5 would be about right. Liriano a 7-at best.

I stand by my rating system because you can't expect any prospect to be a HOFer. That's unreasonable. If a prospect pans out to be a definite above-average long-term answer on a major league roster(s) and is basically healthy, he's a 10 in my prospect rearview mirror rating system.

I've kinda capped out relievers at an 8. If they were any good, they would have been starters. They don't pitch enough innings and are easily replaceable. If a reliever was top-notch for an extended career, I may be able to be talked into giving him a 9.

If a guy does not make the majors, he of course gets a 0.

Cup-of-coffee type guys get a 1.

DeVries types get a 2.



Page: <<   < prev  62 63 [64] 65 66   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode