Mets Prospect Rankings

[Guest Rotblatt]

BP's Kevin Goldstein weighs in on the Mets' prospects.

]Excellent Prospects 1. Fernando Martinez, cf 2. Philip Humber, rhp 3. Mike Pelfrey, rhp Very Good Prospects 4. Carlos Gomez, of Good Prospects 5. Alay Soler, rhp Average Prospects 6. Jon Niese, lhp 7. Kevin Mulvey, rhp 8. Mike Carp, 1b 9. Deolis Guerra, rhp 10. Joe Smith, rhp

He has semi-detailed notes about each of the above, and I believe non-members can read, so I thought I'd keep this short and conclude with the happy recap . . .

]The Big Picture: Rankings Combined With Non-Rookies 25 Years Old Or Younger (As Of Opening Day 2007) 1. Jose Reyes, ss 2. David Wright, 3b 3. Lastings Milledge, cf/lf 4. Fernando Martinez, cf 5. Philip Humber, rhp 6. Mike Pelfrey, rhp 7. Carlos Gomez, of 8. Oliver Perez, rhp 9. John Maine, rhp 10. Ambiorix Burgos, rhp Yes, I just put Reyes ahead of Wright. In order to stem the flow of angry e-mail (somehow, I get the feeling that's not going to happen) let me proclaim up front that Wright is clearly one of the best young players in the game. That said, I think Reyes is a little better. Reyes' game took a giant leap forward in 2006, and many within the industry believe he's capable of a similar level of improvement in the coming year. If that happens, you're talking about a leadoff man who is pushing 350 total bases or so. If you ask me right now who will win the National League East in 2007, I'll say the Mets in another landslide. If you ask me who the MVP in the NL with be, I just might say Jose Reyes. While the Mets have been willing to discuss Milledge in trade talks, that says more about the organization's depth than any negative feelings about his skills. The attitude, on the other hand, could use some work. Perez and Maine will both likely begin 2007 in the rotation, and with Perez, it's still a coin flip situation where he won't surprise many if he wins 15 games, and won't surprise anyone if he's out of a job by May. Maine is solid and no more, but good enough to carve out a Steve Trachsel kind of career. Picked up during the winter meetings, Burgos has struggled so far in the big leagues, but it's hard to ignore such a young power arm. It's a top heavy organization, but the Mets don't need much in the way of talent at the big league level. Many of their top young prospects could be used as valuable chips in the mid-season trade market, with Mets fans hoping for something better than 2004's Scott Kazmir/Victor Zambrano debacle.

[Vic Sage]

This is the top 10 from my projected list back in an earlier thread (to the extent they are still in the organization):

L.Milledge, OF
M.Pelfrey, RHP
P.Humber, RHP
F.Martinez, OF
C.Gomez, OF
M.Carp, 1B
Coles, OF
D.Guerra, RHP
J.Neise, LHP
A.Soler, RHP

[u:c066a369b2]compared to their list:[/u:c066a369b2]
L.Milledge, of
F.Martinez, cf
P.Humber, rhp
M.Pelfrey, rhp
C.Gomez, of
A.Soler, rhp
J.Niese, lhp
K.Mulvey, rhp
M.Carp, 1b
D.Guerra, rhp

i included coles over Mulvey, but otherwise the lists are identical (if not precisely in the same order). I concede their point about Mulvey, who was the next on my list.

[Guest Edgy DC]

]and many within the industry believe he's capable of a similar level of improvement in the coming year.

How about quoting one of those guys, or at least giving a reason why the "many" are thinking this? I think he may have better years ahead of him, but I'm expecting something of a backslide this year. I may just be jaded.

]While the Mets have been willing to discuss Milledge in trade talks, that says more about the organization's depth than any negative feelings about his skills.

This organization does not have outfield depth.

[seawolf17]

Three of their top ten prospects are outfielders, and one of their major league OF spots is locked up for the forseeable future. I'd say that's reasonably deep.

[smg58]

Has anybody else put Humber ahead of Pelfrey?

[Guest Edgy DC]

With Martinez 21 years away, Gomez having displayed more tools than performance (he's slugged all of .400 in 297 minor league games), and Milledge coming off a mixed debut, I'd look for more redundancy before I'd describe them as organizaiton deep. Ben Johnson helps, but I don't think the organization thinks that Milledge is more dealable because of the relative certainty of getting a player out of Martinez and Gomez.

[Benjamin Grimm]

And with over-the-hill guys manning two of their outfield positions, the Mets will need all the outfield depth that they can get.

[Guest Rotblatt]

I think you're right, Edge, but they DID say that we're top-heavy. So while we don't necessarily have redundancy, we DO have high-ceiling type guys.

Frankly, I'd rather have the latter than the former. Both, if possible, of course, but hey, you can't have everything.

Overall, it sounds like this guy thinks our farm system is in decent shape, even though we're top heavy, which was a little surprising to me.

[Benjamin Grimm]

He also thinks the Mets are going to run away with the division again, which I consider very unlikely.

The 1986 Mets didn't run away two years in a row, and they were a better team. Of course, they also had a strong division rival in the Cardinals; the Mets may or may not have a strong competitor in the East in 2007.

But last year's early lead helped the Mets get away with a shakey starting rotation that had a lot of turnover. I can't imagine them being that lucky again this year. They may repeat as division champs, but I think it will be much more of a struggle. I don't anticipate any magic number updates in May.

[Frayed Knot]

The top-heavy/low-depth label has been the description (knock) for the Met system for years now.
Reyes, Wright, Kazmir, Milledge, and, to a lesser extent, Heilman, Huber and the recent college pitchers, have been in among the top half of those 'Top-100' lists over the last half-dozen years, but most find the back half of our Top-10s to be lacking. The good news, I suppose, is that we seem to be good at replacing the top level with new ones as the old ones "graduate"

Following along with what Goldstein/BP has done so far (they're going team-by-team alphabetically): they've now rated 10 NL teams and come up with 15 "Excellent" prospects while finding, in true 'Bell Curve' fashion, even more "Very Good" (21), "Good" (30), and "Average" (didn't count 'em). Meanwhile in our system (small sample I know) they find 3, 1 & 1 plus a bunch in the 'Average' pile -- thus the 'Top-Heavy' label.

[Frayed Knot]

Long-time prospect maven John Sickels weighs in with his rankings

In addition to just listing them (Top 20 in this case) in order he also gives an evaluation of the system as a whole:
This system has quality at the top, but the talent level bottoms out very fast. (same as it ever was it seems)
as well as gives each a letter grade to each so you get some kind of comparison to prospects elsewhere.


1) Fernando Martinez, OF, A- (tools and youth, just needs refinement)

2) Mike Pelfrey, RHP, Grade A- (I think the breaking pitch problem is overblown. He had a good one in college and I think he'll find it again. I am sticking with my guns on this one)

3) Phil Humber, RHP, B+ (Many prefer him over Pelfrey, I like both)

4) Carlos Gomez, OF, B (great tools, but I'm not sure about his power)

5) Jon Niese, LHP, B- (projectable lefty is a personal favorite)

6) Deolis Guerra, RHP, B- (live arm, a long way away)

7) Kevin Mulvey, RHP, B- (accidently left off first list)

8) Joe Smith, RHP, B- (impressive reliever could advance fast)

9) Mike Carp, 1B, B- (developing power bat to watch)

10) Alay Soler, RHP, C+ (Cuban defector looks better as a reliever to me than a starter)



Sickels (to his credit) doesn't tend to fawn all over prospects too easily - unlike others who just want to be the first to say they were yapping about some teenager long before everyone else - and doesn't throw out high grades easily.
As a comparison, he's reviewed 10 NL teams so far and has only given out 2 'A' grades (Homer Bailey - RHP Cincy; Tim Lincecum - RHP Giants) and 5 'A-minus' (in addition to our two here).

[Frayed Knot]

Baseball America chimes in with their Top-10 list (details to paying customers only) and continue with the now common refrain about good talent up top but little depth.


1. Mike Pelfrey, rhp
2. Fernando Martinez, of
3. Carlos Gomez, of
4. Philip Humber, rhp
5. Deolis Guerra, rhp
6. Kevin Mulvey, rhp
7. Jon Niese, lhp
8. Mike Carp, 1b
9. Joe Smith, rhp
10. Alay Soler, rhp


Best Hitter for Average -- Fernando Martinez
Best Power Hitter -- Fernando Martinez
Best Strike-Zone Discipline -- Corey Coles
Fastest Baserunner -- Carlos Gomez
Best Athlete -- Carlos Gomez
Best Fastball -- Mike Pelfrey
Best Curveball -- Philip Humber
Best Slider -- Joe Smith
Best Changeup -- Deolis Guerra
Best Control -- Willie Collazo
Best Defensive Catcher -- Drew Butera
Best Defensive Infielder -- Jose Coronado
Best Infield Arm -- Corey Ragsdale
Best Defensive Outfielder -- Carlos Gomez
Best Outfield Arm -- Carlos Gomez

[Benjamin Grimm]

Corey Ragsdale?!?!?!?

I read somewhere that he was evil incarnate!

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Corey Ragsdale narrowly defeated Corey Coles in the hotly contested "Best Corey" competition.

Other winners:

Best Practical Joker: Blake Whealey
Most Likely to Score with Local Annies on a Road Trip: Chris Basak

[Guest Edgy DC]

I guess Francisco Peña isn't yet eligible.

Repeat after me. The top Mets catching prospect was born in 1990.

[Benjamin Grimm]

The top Mets catching prospect was born in 1990.

[Gwreck]

Yancy Street Gang wrote: He also thinks the Mets are going to run away with the division again, which I consider very unlikely. The 1986 Mets didn't run away two years in a row, and they were a better team. Of course, they also had a strong division rival in the Cardinals; the Mets may or may not have a strong competitor in the East in 2007.

I think you mean 87.
Regardless, I don't think that's in any way a convincing argument. What happened 20 years ago is irrelevant.

]But last year's early lead helped the Mets get away with a shakey starting rotation that had a lot of turnover. I can't imagine them being that lucky again this year. They may repeat as division champs, but I think it will be much more of a struggle. I don't anticipate any magic number updates in May.

I'd tend to agree here, although I think the team could easily hold on to first place wire-to-wire again, although not necessarily with the same lead.

[Vic Sage]

]What happened 20 years ago is irrelevant.

yes, history is always irrelevant, until it repeats itself.

The point i think is that, simply because we were dominant last year doesn't mean we're just as likely to go wire-to-wire this year. Invidivual performances fluctuate (especially with young players), teams get old, injuries happen, competition changes.

I remember thinking in 86 that we were at the beginning of an age of total dominance. Didn't happen. Nor did the 69 team usher in a decade's worth of division titles. Talent is spread out thinner amongst teams, and small differences distinguish the best and worst teams. Thats why, when you have a chance to go for it late in the season, you go for it. Because that collection of talent may never get that close again, and you could wait a decade (or a century) before you have a serious post-season shot.

[Gwreck]

Vic Sage wrote: yes, history is always irrelevant, until it repeats itself.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. I think drawing comparisons to repeating/not repeating as division champions based on past trends isn't meaningful.

Since the 3-division era of play began, there have been 72 division champions (6 divisions, 12 years). We can ignore the most recent 6 since we don't know if they'll repeat yet. That leaves 66.

Of those 66 division champion teams, exactly 33 repeated as champions the next season. Exactly 33 did not.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I wasn't saying anything about "trends." I simply said that just because the Mets ran away in 2006 there's no reason to think it will happen again. Winning the division by 15 to 20 games is a rare thing. How often has that happened two years in a row?

[Guest Edgy DC]

This isn't looking like a prospect rating thread.

Vic Sage wrote: ]What happened 20 years ago is irrelevant. yes, history is always irrelevant, until it repeats itself.

Then it's worth noting that all the Mets added in the 85-86 offseason was Bob Ojeda and Tim Teufel.

Sometimes restraint is the best path. The only change the Mets made from 1983 to 1984 was in-house, replacing Brian Giles with Wally Backman --- who was fast becoming a minor-league veteran -- but they scored 77 more runs. Sometimes you believe in where you're going and restrain yourself.

Vic Sage wrote: The point i think is that, simply because we were dominant last year doesn't mean we're just as likely to go wire-to-wire this year. Invidivual performances fluctuate (especially with young players), teams get old, injuries happen, competition changes.

I think that, while young players may (or may not) flucuate more volatilely as individuals than older players, young players establishing themselves tend to get better as a group while older players tend to get worse.

]I remember thinking in 86 that we were at the beginning of an age of total dominance. Didn't happen.

I think the lesson of 1986-1987 offseason was overrating the supposed problem of leftfield. Lacking faith in being able to piece the production they got in leftfield from the platoon staffing the job at the end of 1986, they short-sightedly overpaid for Kevin McReynolds.

When the problems are few, they tend to get magnified. Then real problems can be created when one over-corrects.

[Willets Point]

What happened twenty years ago is irrelevant to the Mets top catching prospect because he was born in 1990.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Here's the abstract:

(Subscription content.)

Just in case you stopped reading in there, let me repeat this note about Kevin Mulvey: "Mulvey’s mother was watching a Dwight Gooden start for the Mets when she went into labor with Kevin...."

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

I guess that makes her a MeLF

[nymr83]

]A late-season injury to one of their biggest free-agent signings, Pedro Martinez, undermined New York in October.

No, it didn't. While an injury to Pedro would have been a good bet to hurt the Mets in October, luck was on our side and we received good pitching performances from unlikely sources. The only bad performance was turned in by Traschel, and if Pedro were healthy it would have been Perez, not Traschel, taking a seat for him.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Good point. What undermined the Mets was that Pedro got hurt instead of Trachsel.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I shouldn't be posting subscription content.

[Vic Sage]

yup... as much as i appreciated reading it.

[Guest Edgy DC]

There has to be a way we can turn Mulvey's birth circumstance into a walloping nickname. Where's Valadius when you need him?

[Guest Edgy DC]

Looks like Gooden took the loss in support of Mrs. Mulvey.