Where do i find a current list of top Met prospects?

[MFS62]

He is my personal pet peeve. Everyone has one. And it is usually irrational. I plead guilty to that.

Those numbers are interesting, but not unexpected. What bothers me is that the organization kept promoting him even after disasterous seasons, not letting him develop at one level before moving him up. I wonder if the same thing happened to many of the others (90%+ according to your post)who didn't make it.

He admittedly had tools when drafted. I believe the organization may have done him an injustice by not giving him the coaching that would have allowed those tools to be turned into baseball skills.

Later

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

What a relief to know your tiresome Corey Ragsdale act isn't annoying just us.

[Guest Edgy DC]

We're supposed to debate you on this when you insist on being irrational?

And then hang that over everybody else's head?

[MFS62]

How am I "hanging this over everybody's head"?
Its my opinion.

If you don't agree with it, I don't force anyone to respond to it. Someone asked for an evaluation of Mets prospects and I gave mine. I gave my opinion on several prospects others were interested in, too.

He is my symbol of the ineffectiveness of the Mets organization just as much as some characterize the Vince Coleman M-80 incident as an example of a badly run team. Its my perrogative to do so.

Later

[metirish]

Anyone know how Concepcion is doing,FK has him as a questionable top 10 prospect...has he fallen back or is he on the up?

[Guest Edgy DC]

="MFS62"]How am I "hanging this over everybody's head"? Its my opinion.

="MFS62"]He is my personal pet peeve. Everyone has one. And it is usually irrational. I plead guilty to that.

This isn't about everyone. You catch others making irrational arguments, I expect you to call them on it. And you can expect them not to acknowledge the irrationality on one hand and go right on merrily working it on the other.

="MFS62"]Its my perrogative to do so.

Fine. As continuously shown above and elsewhere, it's annoying, and, not immaterially, such foolishness lends discredit to other things you have to offer.

But it's your perogative.

Lack of self-awareness is abosulutely epidemic.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Concepcion has fallen. Showing little power.

[Valadius]

ABG wrote: ="Edgy DC"]Andrew Wayne Wilson took a U-Turn. After winning awards going .284 / .370 / .532 // .902 at St. Lucie in 127 games (20 of them behind the plate) in 2005, he regressed to .226 / .303 / .335 // .638 in 90 games in 2006. He's from Zanesville, OH, the town that makes Mets, so he has that going for him, but he sure didn't look like he's making the big squad anytime soon, and he's 25. Zanesville can't help him now. Other than Payton, who else is from Zanesville?

Edgy was thinking in the right direction. It's not Bordick, though, but Kurt Abbott.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Duh, of course. Abbott. Michigan-born Bordick was from Maine, and a rare speieces of another stripe --- an undrafted free agent that makes the bigs and flourishes.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Anyway, what's the poop on Matt Durkin?

[Frayed Knot]

MFS62 wrote: What bothers me is that the organization kept promoting him even after disasterous seasons, not letting him develop at one level before moving him up. I wonder if the same thing happened to many of the others (90%+ according to your post)who didn't make it. He admittedly had tools when drafted. I believe the organization may have done him an injustice by not giving him the coaching that would have allowed those tools to be turned into baseball skills.

Again, I don't think any of this makes Ragsdale different from virtually any other prosepct.
There's no point in warehousing guys at those lower (short-season) rungs of the farm. Those are there as much to find out whether the new boys can play well with the other kids and to teach them to live away from home (or learn English in the case of the Latin kids) as much as anything.

Look, either this guy will get better at some point or he'll wash out and start learning the phrase "want fries with that?". If/when he becomes a 6-year guy he'll have some other options to boot. In the meantime, he's drawing a paycheck and filling a spot that needs filling while not adversly affecting anyone in the org.

[metirish]

I never heard of the guy until this thread...

[Frayed Knot]

metirish wrote: Anyone know how Concepcion is doing,FK has him as a questionable top 10 prospect...has he fallen back or is he on the up?

Keep in mind that's nothing more than my non-expert guess.

But it also could be treated as a good sign in that we now have others who can push him out of a top-5 spot. The recent high draft picks (Humber, Pelfrey) and Latin signings (F Martinez, Guerra, Gomez) are better, younger, and/or more polished.

Concepcion's problem is that he was always older than his level, having only acheived his somewhat lofty perch by having a good year against younger players in split-season Brooklyn. But, just as you don't get into college via good marks in grade school, prospects have to keep progressing if they want to get anywhere. Standing still is, in effect, the same as regressing.

[Frayed Knot]

I found that BA study of draft picks that I mentioned earlier
(this thing was run a couple of years ago but I kept losing it)

What they did was to examine 10 years of drafts over the first 10 rounds and categorized the resultant career of each player with 1 of 6 labels.
- 'Flops' were for those who never reached the big leagues at any point
- 'Cup of Coffee' is for those who had only brief stints in MLB
- 'Fringe' players are bench players or back of the bullpen types
- 'Regular' denotes a starting position player or someone who holds down a regular starting spot or key relieving role
- 'Good' players are those closer to the top of their position
- and 'Star' was for those at an All-Star level

Obviously the above categories are somewhat subjective and - even though the didn't use the most recent drafts when they did this - it's still possible that some players from those closest years could still "move up", it does give a good idea of the likelihood (or not) of a given draft pick succeeding. And I don't do this to further the Corey Ragsdale debate (on whom too much energy has already been expended) but because, in general, I think fans have an overly optimistic view on the overall success rate of picks - particularly once you get past the first round.

Round	# signed	Flops	Cup-o-C	Fringe	Regular	Good	Star	Reg or Better
1st	301	34.9%	20.3%	18.3%	14.0%	8.3%	4.3%	26.6%
2nd	223	52.9%	29.6%	8.1%	6.3%	2.2%	0.9%	9.4%
3rd	211	68.2%	18.0%	7.6%	5.2%	0.9%	0.0%	6.1%
4th	204	70.6%	19.1%	6.4%	3.4%	0.5%	0.0%	3.9%
5th	204	71.1%	16.7%	6.9%	3.4%	2.0%	0.0%	5.4%
6th	201	77.7%	11.4%	6.5%	3.0%	0.5%	1.5%	5.0%
7th	199	75.4%	14.1%	6.5%	4.0%	0.0%	0.0%	4.0%
8th	193	80.6%	12.8%	2.0%	2.6%	2.0%	0.0%	4.6%
9th	190	80.5%	13.2%	4.2%	1.6%	0.5%	0.0%	2.1%
10th	186	79.6%	11.8%	5.4%	2.2%	0.5%	0.5%	3.2%

[Guest Edgy DC]

If you're thinking about taking me in the seventh round, hold off until the eighth. If you're thinking about taking me in the ninth round, hold off until the tenth.

[Guest Mark Healey]

Just to chime in on Ragsdale...he's had plenty of opportunities, and plenty of special instruction...he just can't hit.

I love the guy as a person, and as a hard-as-nails ballplayer. But at the plate, he's just maddening...

[Vic Sage]

Frayed Knot wrote: ...in general, I think fans have an overly optimistic view on the overall success rate of picks - particularly once you get past the first round.

The TITTS swell with pride.

[MFS62]

Thanks, FK.
Good job. That looks like it took a lot of coding work.

Where were sandwich picks (between the first and second rounds) included (like David Wright), or were they?

Peter Gammons once wrote that a player drafted in rounds 10-20 has "just as much chance" of reaching the majors as a number 1-10. He didn't say whether that meant a cup-of-joe or as a regular. He may be correct based on those numbers, because after #1, the results seem within a very few percentage points of each other.

Now I'm going to have to check out my books tonight to try to identify those #6 picks who became all stars.

Later

Later

[Frayed Knot]

Yes, the 1st round figures include the supplemental picks as well (that's how more than 300 signed)
There are also a handful of supplementals for the 2nd & 3rd rounds.



I've heard that Gammons statement referred to a bunch of times and I'd like to know what his actual words were.
I believe it was in response to questions about the 2nd day of the draft and trying to counter charges that is was a "useless" exercise due to the fact that there's a history of good players emerging from late rounds. I suspect his comment was along the lines of how the odds were similar to those selected anywhere BUT the 1st few rounds - which, when you see the low pcts past rounds 1 or 2 - isn't far off.
Some seem to have interpretted his remarks as saying that all rounds are the same and an admition that the whole draft was a crapshoot -- something I can't believe Gammons would actually say.

[Guest Edgy DC]

How is Gammons doing, by the way?

[MFS62]

="Frayed Knot"] I've heard that Gammons statement referred to a bunch of times and I'd like to know what his actual words were. I believe it was in response to questions about the 2nd day of the draft and trying to counter charges that is was a "useless" exercise due to the fact that there's a history of good players emerging from late rounds. I suspect his comment was along the lines of how the odds were similar to those selected anywhere BUT the 1st few rounds - which, when you see the low pcts past rounds 1 or 2 - isn't far off. Some seem to have interpretted his remarks as saying that all rounds are the same and an admition that the whole draft was a crapshoot -- something I can't believe Gammons would actually say.

I think you're right in your interpretation of his comments.

As for Gammons, he returned to ESPN at the end of the season and seems to be ok.

Later

[Vic Sage]

A tentative prospects list, based on info gleaned here and on last season's performance:

[u:25f99d686f]major league experience[/u:25f99d686f]
Milledge, OF
Pelfrey, RHP
Bannister, RHP
Bell, RHRP
Ring, LHRP
Soler, RHP

[u:25f99d686f]top 10:[/u:25f99d686f]
Humber, RHP
C.Gomez, OF
F.Martinez, OF
J.Flores, C
Owens, RHRP
Guerra, RHP
Neise, LHP
Carp, 1B
Coles, OF
Mulvey, RHP

[u:25f99d686f]next 20 (in no particular order):[/u:25f99d686f]
Abreu, 1b
Wylie,RHRP
B.Harper, 1b
Parnell, RHP
D.Martin, OF
G.Marte, RHRP
S.Henry, OF
M.Garcia, 2b
T.Stoner, RHP
N.Evans, 3b
J.Holden, OF
Nall, RHRP
Tomasiewicz, RHRP
M.Perez, RHRP
Devaney, RHP
C.Stewart, of
Collazo, RHP
Lindstrom, RHRP
Cullen, RHRP
J.Smith, RHRP

[MFS62]

Nice list.
Minor quibble.
I would have Smith instead of Mulvey. Smith seems to be a fast mover.

Later

[Guest Edgy DC]

It's a pretty safe bet, I think, that Martinez has passed Gomez.

None among Pelfrey, Bannister, and Soler got enough innings to knock them off the prospect lists.

[Vic Sage]

REVISED:

[u:fb6b8aaab8]major league experience[/u:fb6b8aaab8]
Milledge, OF
Bell, RHRP
Ring, LHRP

[u:fb6b8aaab8]top 15:[/u:fb6b8aaab8]
Pelfrey, RHP
Humber, RHP
F.Martinez, OF
C.Gomez, OF
Bannister, RHP
Owens, RHRP
J.Flores, C
Carp, 1B
Coles, OF
Guerra, RHP
Neise, LHP
Soler, RHP
Mulvey, RHP
J.Smith, RHRP
M.Abreu, 1B

[u:fb6b8aaab8]next 20 (in no particular order):[/u:fb6b8aaab8]
Wylie,RHRP
B.Harper, 1b
Parnell, RHP
D.Martin, OF
G.Marte, RHRP
S.Henry, OF
M.Garcia, 2b
T.Stoner, RHP
N.Evans, 3b
J.Holden, OF
Nall, RHRP
Tomasiewicz, RHRP
M.Perez, RHRP
Devaney, RHP
C.Stewart, of
Collazo, RHP
Lindstrom, RHRP
Cullen, RHRP
Privett, LHP
Maldonado, RHRP

It looks like the Mets prospects are mostly RHPs, OFs and some 1Bs, with very few middle infield or LHP prospects.

20 kids from 2006 draft were signed and played in the Mets system last year, and the productive ones were almost exclusively RHPs. Dustin Martin (of) was the only non-pitcher to show promise, and Duane Privett the only LHP to make progress.

[MFS62]

Edgy DC wrote: It's a pretty safe bet, I think, that Martinez has passed Gomez.

That may be true on some lists because of the way Martinez is being promoted quickly (like Gomez was this year). But I still think Gomez has the potential to become a better all around player because he has already demonstrated better speed, arm and defense than Martinez.

Still, its nice to see the Mets with two outfield prospects with their abilities.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

In part it'll depend on who's doing the rating.

BA tends to like touting young, toolsy types and could be fairly bullish on guys like Martinez and the pitcher Guerra because of what they've done despite being young for their league. Some fan-driven sites might go further than that simply so they can claim that they were touting these young'uns as superstars before anyone else. The more conservative Baseball Prospectus will probably want to see more before they go hog wild and may treat Gomez's AA experience combined with he raw tools (speed/arm) as the better bet.


Will also be intersting to see how ours compares to the league as a whole; both our individual guys and the system in general. I don't see any 'Top-20' types because the best guys are either very young (Martinez/Guerra) or have limited track records (Pelfrey/Humber).
BA had the NYM system ranked as 28th overall last year and said they had it tagged for dead last until the late signing of Pelfrey ("Milledge plus a bunch who wouldn't make other teams' Top-10", was their description). Figure it to rise this year (how could it not?) now that Pelfrey has a year under his belt, Humber looks healthy again, and the recent Latin signings have responded reasonably well to agressive promotions - although it's probably still a long way from the top.

[MFS62]

FK, good analysis of the different approach by the different rating services.
Its obvious that there's a big difference between a "top 20" type list and a ranking of an entire organization, where depth is considered.

A hint that BA may not rank the Mets too highly (my guess is they will come in around 20th) is that very few Mets farmhands showed up on their lists of top 20 players in each minor league this year. And, as you said, some services rate based on the major league readiness of the top prospects; others on future (longer term) upside of the players.

To me, depth at all levels doesn't matter as much as the quality of the few players who emerge from a system to become productive members of the parent club or good enough to be included in trades. A farm team is a life support system for a good prospect, giving him the opportunity to participate in enough games to fully develop his talent.

Its nice to know you have a major league ready backup at all positions. But if some of your players are 2-3 years away (from the majors), it doesn't upset me that greatly. What is more important to me is that a team has a "Top 20" list that compares well to those of other teams and will provide a steady stream of talent over time.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

What I meant by 'Top-20' was having a player who rates that high on the league-wide 'Top-100' type of lists.

In recent years, the knock on the Met system has been that while they've had those elite level prospects (Milledge was in the 9-15 range in last year's lists) their system has lacked the depth that you'd like to replace those top prospects when they either flop or simply "graduate" to the ML It's like having a great HS team but knowing that you're in trouble down the road because you've got lousy sophmore & junior classes. One year BA described the Mets as having; maybe the best 1-5 of anyone (Reyes, Wright, Kazmir, Huber, Heilman) ... but also the worst 6-10.

This year's crop sounds like it might tend towards the opposite. Better depth, but I'd be surprised if any of the current crop are among the elite level. Even our best guys are either very young or have enough questions attached to them to keep them from cracking the top level.

[MFS62]

Frayed Knot wrote: What I meant by 'Top-20' was having a player who rates that high on the league-wide 'Top-100' type of lists.

That's the distiction I made, too.
We are apparently in violent agreement.

Later