Minor League Ball: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: MLB Hot Stove: blogging the rumors, trades, signings Bar-right-arrows

Jim Callis Ranks Flores Above Martinez

Tiny by Duece on

Josh (NC): Mets #1 Prospect-Fernando Martinez or Wilmer Flores?

SportsNation Jim Callis: Wilmer Flores.

Can't agree here. Wilmer has put up some gaudy numbers but I can't jump off the F-Mart bandwagon yet. I still believe Fernando will be a solid big league player, borderline star at times, while the jury is still out on Wilmer. I really, really, can't believe someone such as Jim Callis would make this kind of statement. Usually, they don't put much stock into the rookie ball stats.. And I mean, it's not like Fernando struggled as a 19 year old in AA..

Obviously, with Fernando, he needs to stay healthy. He only got what? 350 AB this year, so the Mets are putting him in Winter Ball to get that closer to 500 in a season.. IMO, I'd say F winter ball and get him on an OD workout program and fill out his body quick.

 

Would anyone here rank a 17 year old doing it in Rookie ball above F-Mart?

1 recs | Comment 103 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Wow

I have to say this suprises me quite a bit. I wonder if it says more about Wilmer, or less about Felix.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Sep 4, 2008 6:57 PM EDT   0 recs

This probably doesn’t effect Felix much.

by bigboy1234 on Sep 4, 2008 9:53 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah

It probably doesn’t affect him much either.

by killa on Sep 4, 2008 11:48 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

My bad....

I meant F Mart.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Sep 5, 2008 9:46 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Can someone that young be your top prospect?

I mean, maybe in extenuating circumstances, like if you put Flores in the Astros system before the draft, he’d have to be number one. Or Villalona for the Giants before last year’s draft. But in general, should it be possible to consider a just-17-year old a team’s best prospect?

by aap212 on Sep 4, 2008 7:15 PM EDT   0 recs

Sure

If a guy is that good, I guess he is that good. As you stated, Angel deserved it prior to this year. However, I am not sure if I would rank Wilmer ahead of Felix.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Sep 4, 2008 7:20 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Villalona

He was the Giants top prospect at 17 coming into this season (well after the draft) in BA’s rankings. They like upside. I like upside too.

And the Mets’ have an awful system so that makes it easier. This probably says a good bit about Callis’ opinion of Fernando, though.

by aCone419 on Sep 4, 2008 8:11 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Flores

Watching him tonight, he looks completely over matched. He’s swung at every fastball thrown at him, and though he laid off a couple of good sliders, looks like he has a hard time extending his arms for the outside pitch.

BTW, the Mets system isn’t awful. It just goes under the radar, and I like it that way.

by Duece on Sep 4, 2008 8:48 PM EDT   0 recs

Saw the game on tv

and when Wilmer was up he just did not look as if he had any sort of pitch recognition. Saw him chasing pitches constantly as well as behind on the fastball. Its my first game watching him, and Ive been wanting to see him play badly, but now I have to temper my expectations. The kid is 17 and needs plenty of time.

by tbach81 on Sep 4, 2008 9:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

No it is awful

It was abhorrent last year. Now just awful.

by aCone419 on Sep 4, 2008 10:53 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

according to who? you?

or the many others like you who don’t know any of the names so you just assume they’re bad. deuce is right, the system goes right under the radar and dopes just keep on bashing it even as it continues to produce.

last year’s “abhorrent” crop of youngsters has given us very solid contributors like joe smith, nick evans, dan murphy and argenis reyes with guys like carlos gomez and kevin mulvey having promising years for minnesota and milledge quietly having a pretty promising year for washington considering hes been banged up. oh yeah and hows mike pelfrey looking to you about now?

currently our “awful” system has a number of prospects having success at higher levels like jon niese, eddie kunz, mike carp, bobby parnell and oh yeah fernando martinez who are all almost ready to contribute. even further down you’ve got very interesting guys like wilmer flores, brad holt and scott moviel and this is all without talking about almost anyone from this years draft where there are a few very intriguing players, obviously davis and havens, but then guys like kirk nieuwenhuis. now i know you don’t know anyone that i just spoke about so its probably hard to follow all that but again, in that case just say you don’t know or even better, don’t post at all.

by robcast23 on Sep 5, 2008 8:50 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Wow way to take offense. I agree with aCone more than you about your system at the moment. Lot of OK prospects and some high end ones who have a lot of work to do but I don’t think you can rank it to high.

by jfish26101 on Sep 5, 2008 9:05 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Difference....

“I don’t think you can rank it to high” != abohrrent | just awful

by Lunkwill Fook on Sep 5, 2008 9:23 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Well BA ranked it 17th before you dealt all the guys robcast23 mentioned away, F-Mart continued to be unimpressive…the only positives really are most spects are closer to the majors (although also a full year older), Flores played well (at a low level) and you had another draft. I don’t see them being in the top 20 and I wouldn’t be to surprised if they didn’t break the top 25. Take that for what you will but again I agree with aCone419 more than you guys praising it. You can’t get credit for prospects you used to have or the Braves would be 1st on any list. ;)

by jfish26101 on Sep 5, 2008 9:45 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Current Mets Prospects

I was just trying to point out that not ranking a system too high and calling it abhorrent/just awful aren’t the same thing.

But I guess let’s list the Mets current prospects.

Fernando (regardless of what you say, scouts are still very high on him)
Wilmer Flores
Nick Evans
Daniel Murphy
Mike Carp
Jon Niese
Bobby Parnell
Eddie Kunz
Ike Davis
Brad Holt
Brook Havens

That’s just the guys off the top of my head that seem to have made an impact. I’m not saying this has the makings of a top 10 farm system but it certainly isn’t one of the worst systems in the game as you represent.

by Lunkwill Fook on Sep 5, 2008 11:12 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Oh wait

I think Brook Havens is a porn star. Nevermind.

by Lunkwill Fook on Sep 5, 2008 11:17 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I'd think

that only 3-4 of these are actually top 100 guys. And Those are not in the top half of that.

I still think it’s a pretty bad system.

Ike Davis has made an impact? I like Reese Havens, but it’s early. I also don’t see any of these as impact players. Also, the FMART comment about “scouts are very high on him” I think you left out the word some. As some are not high on him. at all. I think he’s Alex Escobar 2.

by benzalman on Sep 5, 2008 12:26 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Prospects

3-4 being top 100 guys is fine. I mean, I’m not arguing it’s a good system. But they’re definitely middle of the road. Ike Davis has at least a full season waiting before we call him lost. He’s definitely got the power potential somewhere in that body.

Concerning Fernando, how about “most” scouts are still very high on him? Because it IS still most. You’ve got at least two of those other players contributing at the major league level in a pennant race. I’d call those impact players.

Look, seriously, I’m not saying it’s a good season. But to say it’s something like a bottom 5 farm system is just blatantly haterism.

Also, you said nothing about Brook Haven. Come on, a little love there. I thought that was a good joke.

by Lunkwill Fook on Sep 5, 2008 12:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

who's a top 100 out of that group?

besides Martinez and Flores?

You could make arguments for some other guys, I guess.

I like Reese Havens, but I enjoy Brook Haven’s work more.

by El Duq of Hurl on Sep 5, 2008 12:53 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

:D

The joke was nice but it doesn’t help the Mets system. F-Mart and Flores will be on the top 100 I’m sure (especially if Callis thinks this highly of Flores) but who after that is going to be on it?

by jfish26101 on Sep 5, 2008 12:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Niese will be

And he deserves to be somewhere in the back half of the top 100, probably toward the end.

I’m not going to pretend the Mets system is even right in the middle of the pack, but its critics are a bit extreme. There’s some depth of at least useful parts and a couple of potential impact guys, if only a couple. The system isn’t actively good, but it’s lightyears better than the White Sox, Astros, and Tigers of the world.

by aap212 on Sep 5, 2008 1:00 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

You really think

that Niese will be top 100? I’m a big Niese fan, but top 100? I guess it comes down to what gets accentuated for each top 100 list, as different lists focus on different aspects, but much as I am a Niese fan, and much as I think he’ll be a solid mid-end of the rotation starter, I’m just not sure he’s a top 100 guy. Maybe that’s my own perceptions getting in the way.

As for the Mets system, I think that, depending on the “evaluator”, they are likely in that late teens-early 20’s section in regards to their system.

by toonsterwu on Sep 6, 2008 1:44 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

he's top 100

did very well in AA and AAA, still extremely young.. Got good enough stuff.

by Duece on Sep 6, 2008 1:08 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think

3-4 is to me a bit sub par when comparing with most other systems. I’d put them in the 20-25 range. I’m not saying Ike Davis is bad – just that he does not belong on a list of players who have made an impact.

With Fernando, I think the jury is very much out. I think he has a high cieling, but hasn’t shown enough to indicate he is going to become a 5 tool type of player. He’s had a nice, good but not great, season.

And with Murphy and Evans (and really not Evans) i firmly believe that they are not impact players. However, they definitely are players who’ve made an impact. There is a bit of a difference there.

I don’t think they’re bottom 5 (mostly because of my thoughts abut their June draft). That said, I f i had to throw out a number right now – 22?

I’m not familiar with Brook Haven, though I’ll have to…..research his peripherals??

Sidenote – Was at a wedding two weeks ago and there was a shuttle van from the reception back to the hotel. A couple started making out. Someone from the back of the bus shouts "What is this?! The Bang Bus?!?!

Everyone busts out laughing. 20 year olds to 50 year olds. A joke that everyone got, but no one should have!

by benzalman on Sep 5, 2008 12:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Cheers, benzalman

We seem to have been posting similar sentiments at the same time, but you had a good Bang Bus story, so you win. :)

by aap212 on Sep 5, 2008 1:01 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Ranking

I’d guess more around 16-20 myself, ranking wise. I like Evans, I’ve liked him since last season and wondered why he doesn’t get love. All he does is rake and now we know he plays a passable left field and can hit major league pitching (well, okay, at least lefties).

Murphy looks like he IS an impact player (I understand what you’re saying and somewhat agree with Evans if he ends up a platoon player). Murphy has looked really good all season in the minors and tremendously skilled at the plate in the majors. I’m not saying all star but I think he could be a starter for other teams, especially if he makes a successful transition to 2nd base (He’s going to the AFL to specifically play 2nd more).

And everyone should get the Bang Bus. They just SHOULD! :)

by Lunkwill Fook on Sep 5, 2008 1:04 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Drinks and a free subscription to the Bang Bus

on me! Well. maybe just drinks. I’m ready to hit the bar already and it’s only 115.

by benzalman on Sep 5, 2008 1:19 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

For the record

3-4 players in the top 100 is basically an average amount for a team (100 prospects/30 teams=3.33). Considering teams aren’t regularly distributed (i.e. there are probably more teams with 6 players on the top 100 than 0), I would guess that have 4 players would put you in the top 10 (in terms of amount of 100 prospects), and 3 right around the middle.

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Sep 5, 2008 3:30 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Shhhh

Don’t be logical. You’ll ruin it.

by aap212 on Sep 5, 2008 3:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm not really sure it works out that way.

as there are likely a bunch of teams with 3-4. So that part of the list will extend down. And also you’d have to consider the quality of those 3-4 prospects. The Mets have one who is considered top 50 at this point.

by benzalman on Sep 5, 2008 3:34 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

No, it's still average

It might be lower because of the three guys’ rankings as you say, but 3-4 is still average. The Rays will have a whole bunch, the Astros won’t have any, and teams like Mets are in the middle in terms of number of guys on the list.

by aap212 on Sep 5, 2008 3:37 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Assuming

that there is no way to rank all of the teams with 3-4, which there is.

by benzalman on Sep 5, 2008 3:57 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Nice

Well, at first I was just being smarmy, but you’ve actually convinced me that I was right.

Seriously, is that the best rebuttal you can come up with to my abhorrence coming into the season? You listed FOUR guys who weren’t even Mets’ prospects anymore. The fact that Pelfrey, Milledge, Gomez, Mulvey, Guerra, et al. had moved on or up is a root cause of the horribleness of the Mets’ system coming into this season, not some kind of mitigating factor.

I know who all those guys you listed are, btw. I’m sorry that I don’t think as highly as you do about the Bobby Parnells of the world.

by aCone419 on Sep 5, 2008 10:29 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

whatever

i was addressing the system /last year/ which is what you said: “It was abhorrent LAST YEAR”. and i proved you wrong in that there were plenty of prospects worth noting which many commentators, like yourself but also including john and others, did not deem worthy of consideration yet are helping the mets win as we speak. NO, they are not all stud prospects but is a stud the only thing thats valuable? and YES, a number of them are out of the organization today which hurts the system presently, but you said last year and you were wrong.

as far as this year (or even last year) i’m not saying its a top 5 system, i’m not even saying its a top 15 system. i honestly don’t know where i would rank it because i don’t follow any other teams system closely enough. all i know is that it is in no way a system where a minor league baseball “expert” should have trouble finding 20 interesting guys (like john so inaccurately stated when doing the mets top 20 while leavings guys like murphy, parnell or evans to the bottom or even off the list completely") and its funny how many people just parrot what they hear and pile on the mets system without knowing the first thing about it beyond fernando, especially as the system continues to churn out at the very least solid major league players, often with the chance to be a lot more.

as far as parnell, i agree with you. his ability to be a dominant starter in the majors is overstated, hes never truly dominated at any higher level however i DO think he can be a good ML reliever as soon as next year. i also believe in his ability to develop into a good ML starter but not for 2-3 years at least, and again thats just me.

by robcast23 on Sep 5, 2008 11:29 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Last season

I was referring to seasons in prospecting terms, which is basically the major league off-season, but I understand that was unclear. As we are about to start seeing this year’s prospect rankings, “last year” referred to last year’s rankings and the time period thereabouts. The abhorrent period was after the Santana trade.

by aCone419 on Sep 5, 2008 3:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Ahh so you started all of this!!!! :D

by jfish26101 on Sep 5, 2008 3:31 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I'd think

That it’s more of a statement about FMart than Flores…

by benzalman on Sep 4, 2008 10:47 PM EDT   0 recs

I’m fine in that I never liked F-Mart much and he really hasn’t done a whole lot that has impressed me but like most here I’m not sold on Flores. I’m not sure who I’d make the Mets top prospect (Holt? Kunz?) but their system does seem weak.

by jfish26101 on Sep 5, 2008 9:04 AM EDT   0 recs

Holt or Kunz?

Holt is a college guy pitching at low levels and Kunz is a reliever with severe platoon splits. You really would take one of them over Martinez already? Or ever, in Kunz’s case. Niese is certainly a better prospect than those guys right now.

by aap212 on Sep 5, 2008 10:17 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Well I don’t have to much faith in F-Mart at all so yeah.

Is Niese that much better really? Seems pretty inconsistent; avg FB, average CU, maybe above avg CB. Didn’t look to good in terms of his debut the other night but it’s a small sample.

I picked Holt because he rose up draft charts fast and has done well in his pro debut. Havens was hurt for part of his season, Davis hasn’t played that well, I have no faith in F-Mart…if Holt isn’t good enough to top that list than I guess it has to be Flores.

by jfish26101 on Sep 5, 2008 12:12 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Wow.

Talking about seeing what you want to see. Even with the small sample caveat, you’re judging Niese based on his first major league appearance against the best lineup against lefties in the league? Talk about judgmental. Also, he’s got a plus curve (no, there is no doubt, it’s a plus curve). I just don’t get this. I don’t get it at all.

by Lunkwill Fook on Sep 5, 2008 12:35 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

…I said it was a small sample right in my post. “Talk about seeing what you want to see”…yeah I’d say that definitely applies for you. ;)

by jfish26101 on Sep 5, 2008 12:54 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Wow.

You totally didn’t read my post at all, did you?

by Lunkwill Fook on Sep 5, 2008 1:00 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

No I read it but I’m not sure Niese has had the numbers over his MiLB career to just throw out his debut as “well it’s his debut” and said myself it was a small sample which showed I wasn’t putting a lot of weight into it. If his numbers in the minors were more impressive it would help but I’m not sure what is that impressive about him or why he should be a top 100 spect.

by jfish26101 on Sep 5, 2008 2:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Okay, but you DID mention it anyway after saying “small sample size”. I’m not letting you get away with that.

I don’t know what more you want to see. He’s 21 years old in AAA, he’s shown decent to great strike out numbers for years and he’s always kept the ball in the park. He obviously turned a corner this year. What’s wrong with that?

by Lunkwill Fook on Sep 5, 2008 2:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Nothing wrong with it but I don’t think that makes him a top 100 spect nor do I see it as that impressive. Mets always rush their prospects, age vs. level doesn’t mean a whole lot to me when discussing them. I mean someone said in here that F-Mart could struggle to get through AA for 3 more seasons and only then be the age most spects are at AA. I’d hope it wouldn’t take him 4+ years to figure out AA pitching but regardless that is just an asinine comment. At some point you have to produce and stay on the field neither of which he has been able to do with any consistency yet. We obviously just disagree, you can throw that on me being a Braves fan all you want but I haven’t once said your simply being a homer (I don’t think I have at least) so really don’t appreciate it.

by jfish26101 on Sep 5, 2008 3:11 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Mets prospects are generally rushed, but...

Niese really earned his way to Triple-A at 21. The promotion to the majors was a bit much, but his age-to-league is legit.

by aap212 on Sep 5, 2008 3:23 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

+1

all that sounds like is someone that bases their opinions on hearsay and a minimal amount of stats. if he had cared to check ike davis has been crushing it since his slow start following the draft, but i bet he didn’t hear that anywhere. if fernando wasn’t hyped so much due to age i’d bet more people would have noticed his solid season at AA but nobody cares because hes young, when it should actually be the other way around. and jon niese has an average curve, thats how i know hes not paying attention. thats a plus curve in the majors, today.

by robcast23 on Sep 5, 2008 3:12 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

F-Mart

The problem with Fernando Martinez is that he always looks like his next year could be the one in which he stays healthy, breaks through, and removes doubt about his prospect status. But he also always looks like he may never do any of those things. So what do we do? Same as before. Wait til next year and hope he shows us more.

by aap212 on Sep 5, 2008 10:19 AM EDT   0 recs

well

put it this way (how it was put on metsblog):

fernando can take 3-4 more years to develop before breaking into the majors and only then will he be reaching the same age(s) as dan murphy and nick evans today, as they break into the majors.

i know hes hasn’t blown us away yet but hes putting up very solid #‘s at AA, imagine what would happen if he sat there for 3 more years? murphy’s big ’08 in binghamton would most likely pale in comparison and murphy is transitioning well into the majors so far so what would that mean for fernando? WAY too early to jump ship like i am sensing is starting to happen.

by robcast23 on Sep 5, 2008 11:34 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm not jumping ship

I’m just not assuming the ship in question is Paul Allen’s yacht either.

by aap212 on Sep 5, 2008 11:38 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

count them up

people seem to think the mets system is barren and has been for years. lets take a look at the players who have broken into the majors out of our system over the last 2-3 years and evaluate it then:

CURRENTLY WITH METS

pelfrey (rookie in ’07) – was definitely rushed up in ’06 but has put it all together in ’08 and looks like top of the rotation starter as soon as next year

murphy (rookie in ’08) – VERY good knowledge of the strike zone for a rookie, at the very least a solid major league average LF, RF, 3B, 1B, 2B with the potential for a lot more

evans (rookie in ‘08) – like murphy looks at least league average and can play all over the diamond but with a worse eye at the plate, potential isn’t as high as murphys

joe smith (rookie in ’07) – like pelfrey was probably rushed, presently looks like a solid, cost-controlled member of the bullpen with the ability to dominate at times and at age 23 has potential to be more

OUT OF ORGANIZATION

milledge (rookie in ‘07) – sporadic ab’s killed his #’s in ’07, injuries hurt him this year but even doubters must admit hes nearly a lock to be AT LEAST a 20-20 candidate as soon as next year while putting up approx. a .270ba

gomez (rookie in ’07) – definitely should have been and should still be in the minors. playing a month w/ broken hand killed his line in ’07, but hes showing the raw ability to be another carl crawford, IF the twins can work with him on plate discipline. already has a top notch glove in center, maybe gold glove in a couple of years.

jesus flores (rookie in ‘07) – nats started him in the majors right out of our system and while he was obviously rushed, he kept his head above water long enough to last and now looks like soon he’ll be a top offensive catcher while about average in all defensive aspects.

brian bannister (rookie in ’07) – ROY candidate in ’07, a little worse than league average in ’08, probably lies somewhere in between. at least a good 4-5 in the majors.

heath bell (rookie in ‘05 due to days on roster, not appearances) – didn’t actually pitch 50+ innings until ’07 with SD and dominated. a top 5 setup man.

jeff keppinger (rookie in ’07) – first looked like a ML pinch hitter, then a super sub, now a league average SS and at times looks like he may become even more.

ABOUT READY TO HELP

niese – dominated AA, handled AAA at 21. with some more time at AAA could help very soon.

carp – one could argue that he was more deserving of the call than evans or murphy, has made huge strides with his plate discipline. can help as soon as spring ’09.

parnell – handled AA, above his head in AAA. the problem is secondary pitches and walks. thrown into a reliever role, relying more on his 96+ fastball, and i believe he is at least solid by next season, maybe even this sept.

kunz – looked dominant from ’07 draft until his debut, underlying split problems means he will not be the future closer without working on the changeup. at the least can be effective righty specialist by spring ’09.

not the caliber of players as wright and reyes from 2-3 years before, but plenty of players that will help a major league roster at all different levels. a couple of star level players (pelfrey, possibly gomez and/or milledge), with a number of good, average and role players mixed in. regardless, the mets system has been churning out good young players for years now, despite what experts and bloggers alike would have you think. now keeping many of them in the organization has been somewhat of a problem but thats another issue entirely.

*i mentioned argenis reyes in an earlier post but forgot that we only acquired him this offseason

by robcast23 on Sep 5, 2008 12:36 PM EDT   0 recs

thank you

people really underrate this system. There is also a ton of talent in the lower levels.

by Duece on Sep 5, 2008 12:53 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

We aren’t arguing their system has been horrible for 5 years. We are arguing it isn’t good now. Listing players who used to be in it or have graduated doesn’t help your side of the arguement that the system is still good now. 2/3 of that post has nothing to do with this thread topic at all. Should Callis and BA really rank systems based on every single player that has been in their system the last 3-4 years?

by jfish26101 on Sep 5, 2008 12:58 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Better now

It’s better now than it has been anytime in the last 4 years; after the promotion of Wright and trade of Kazmir. Anyone saying otherwise probably isn’t following this sytem very closely.
 

by acerimusdux on Sep 5, 2008 1:20 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Wow.

Where do they make this Kool-Aid?

Few quick notes. Brian Bannister close to league average this year? Nick Evans looks at least league average??

Aside from this, what’s being conveniently glossed over, is that the majority of systems are better than this. The players mentioned here are generally nice pieces. Some of them will be ok regulars.

Again, When compared it simply isn’t as good. To borrow from above, Anyone saying otherwise, isn’t following minor league baseball very closely.

by benzalman on Sep 5, 2008 3:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

fine then name it

name the system which has graduated significantly better talent in the last few years. of course some of these guys are role players, and some aren’t. no system graduates star after star every year. some teams have nice waves of stars like wright and reyes for the mets or hart, braun and fielder for the brewers. i’m not saying the mets have been the best, i’m saying theyve been average, not “awful” like people seem to think.

and yes, bannister has a 5.40 era and league average varies between 4.50-5.00 so hes 1-2 bad starts worse than league average

and evans #‘s suffered because he got about 5 ab’s a week and they were all pitch hitting ab’s. now that he actually starts his #‘s have jumped. couple that with strong minor leagues #’s and yes you have a player who looks like hes about league average.

anything else you need explained?

by robcast23 on Sep 5, 2008 3:19 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I never said they have been awfule over the past 4-5 seasons because that isn’t what this topic is about. The topic was about whether Flores is really the Mets top spect which then turned into the system overall was weak enough that yes it’s possible Flores is the top prospect. Almost all your posts are centered around the past 2-5 seasons when the people saying the system is weak are simply focusing on the system as is right now. I think the Mets have done a fine job the past decade but it’s weak right now.

by jfish26101 on Sep 5, 2008 3:22 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Who cares about the last few years?

If you include the last few years, the Phillies get Ryan Howard and Cole Hamels, and you get things like that for most teams. Let’s keep focus here. The Mets farm system, in terms of what’s in the minors or mid-season callups, is okay. It’s not one of the very worst, but it’s easily in the bottom half.

by aap212 on Sep 5, 2008 3:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I’m not trying to discuss the Mets system over the last decade but some are trying to use the players they have produced recently as evidence of the strength of their system…I don’t know if they are trying to say their history shows the younger guys are better than they are getting credit for or what but it seems we are arguing 2 different things. Several of the Mets fans keep throwing the likes of Guerra, Gomez, Milledge, Pelfrey, etc at us while those saying the Mets’ system isn’t that good now are simply talking about the players they have right now.

NVM really…this is a waste of time…everyone have a great afternoon.

by jfish26101 on Sep 5, 2008 3:28 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm talking more about right now....

But I’m also not saying it’s a great system right now. It’s just not “awful” as some are saying either.

I agree that their aren’t that many top 50 type guys there; for me only Fernando (and some might argue he’s no longer that high either). So the very top end talent isn’t great.

But the depth is better than it’s been in several years. A lot of those “B” guys, Murphy, Evans, Carp, Niese, were under rated coming into this year, and the next wave, Thole, Carrera, Gee, Antonini, are under the radar as well.

Add in some high ceilling international talent (like Cleto & Mejia) and a pretty good 2008 draft class and you have not a bad sytem overall at all. This sytem should have an above average number of guys in the top 200. But not better than average in the top 100.

by acerimusdux on Sep 5, 2008 3:57 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i would agree

its probably in the bottom half. i brought up the past because of a post saying that the mets system is bad and has been bad for years.

however, dispeling that false statement does 2 things:

1: obviously it proves that the mets system WAS good, or at least average as they’ve produced plenty of major league talent including a couple star-level players so the guy who said it was horrid was an idiot.

2: it helps legitimize the mets current system after people (john and the legions of parrots who live here) continue to say "the mets system is the same as always, 1-2 high level players and not much else". well if thats what it was 2-3 years ago and we were able to produce just as much talent as the next team then maybe everyone should look twice before condemning the mets system as bottom 5 in baseball.

by robcast23 on Sep 5, 2008 3:28 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Well I partially agree with point #2 but only to a certain point. I certainly think it’s possible the Mets could produce a handful of MLB quality players out of their younger group but they have plenty of time to show it and be rewarded for it with better rankings. /me shrugs

by jfish26101 on Sep 5, 2008 3:31 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Also not how it works

A lot of teams have graduated more/better talent. And also, most teams currently have better systems. Just go down the list, team by team. I’m not saying awful either.

And let’s be accurate. Bannister, does not have a 5.40 era. He has a 5.56 Era. Let’s also be specific about League Average. This year it’s 4.48. His peripherals are pretty terrible to boot. And thats not 1-2 bad starts below league average. It’s a lot more than that.

So if you want to have a “Anything else you need explained” attitude, then yes. Yes I do. What I need explained is why do you ignore the numbers,

With Evans – he’s never hit more than 15 HR in a year at any level. Also, no one worried about the decreases walk rate this year? No one worried about the high AVG way out of line with his norms (350 babip)? Do you really want a 1B or LF with those numbers? I sure dont.

By the way, Nick Evans thus far has a higher OPS as a Pinch Hitter than a Starter. Granted a different amount of AB’s, but he was hitting just fine when that was his role.

Next point – now that he’s starting? He’s started four of the Mets last 10 games. He’s start much less now that Church is back.

That was easy and fun!

by benzalman on Sep 5, 2008 3:49 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Evans

He’s in a strict platoon with Murphy in left field. So, yeah, he’s starting but it depends on how many lefties he sees per day.

Also, his OPS as a starter is MUCH higher than as a pinch hitter. You must have your stats backwards.

Nick had 14 homeruns in under 300 at bats this season. Not hitting more than 15 homeruns this season was a technicality.

He’s a 22 year old in the majors right now. Seriously, what do you want from him? He was CRUSHING AA pitching (.926 OPS).

That was even EASIER! But not fun at all.

by Lunkwill Fook on Sep 5, 2008 4:29 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

set

and match.

by robcast23 on Sep 5, 2008 4:39 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Well, no.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/8258/situational;_ylt=Ansr.tKmU.OUgCmf6YJCvCSFCLcF

Ops as a PH: 801
OPS as a LF: 694

So no, not reversed.

on the HR front. If your 1B or LF hits 15 HR, there is next to now way he is an average regular unless he’s doing a ton of other stuff. Also, even if ou include his MLB HR – which does put him at 15, it’s not like he’s showing himself to be someone with a lot of punch.

I’d also point out that he has only one HR in 96 AB’s. Thats a pace for how many a year?

I’d further point out that he’s pretty over matched right now. 21K in 96 AB’s? 5 BB? Ugh.

We’d be doing ourselves a big service by pointing out Murphy (who is good, but not this good) as opposed to pretending about evans. As much as he hits lefties well, He hasn’t come close to hitting a righty.

I get that the mets seem to do no wrong in both of your eyes, but lets not ignore reality.

He was good in the minors this year. My point is that he’s above his head in doing that and that I dont think its real growth

by benzalman on Sep 5, 2008 5:24 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=evansni01&year=2008

See, the problem here is that you’re comparing “As a starter” to “As a pinch hitter” which are two different categories:

As a starter: .741
As a sub: .572
As a PH: .801
As a LF: .713
As a 1B: .450

Mind you, this is a couple days (and a bad series against the Phillies) later so his numbers as a starter have dropped but, at the time, his numbers were much better as a starter than a sub. But anyway, since his total pinch hitting appearances equal 13, you’re kinda playing with numbers that don’t mean anything. But that’s good for you, really.

You’re killing a guy for having his power drop off after shooting from AA to the majors at the age of 22? Seriously, what do you want? Oh wait, you want to hate on a Mets prospect. Again, that’s good for you, really.

I get that you like to crap on Mets prospects because of some unknown inferiority complex. That’s great. But to just crap on a great AA season by a 22 year old kid that has got potential (No, NO ONE is saying he’s tearing the cover off the ball in the majors although a .907 OPS as a platoon player is pretty damned good. Also, you’ll note no one has said he’ll be an All Star. Which just think he’s a good prospect.). He had great plate discipline last season in A ball and hit for decent power in a notorious pitcher’s league. What, he can’t make progress? He can’t suddenly figure something out?

Nah, of course not. What am I thinking? I’m just a Mets homer.

by Lunkwill Fook on Sep 8, 2008 10:57 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Bannister ...

Isn’t very good. The league average for a starter in KC is 4.48 this season, btw. If you look at his FIP, xFIP, tRA, etc. you’d see that he pitched out of his mind in ’07. Even he admits it.

And I don’t get how he even pertains to how good the Mets’ system is.

I like Mike (Saunders)

by Humongo on Sep 6, 2008 3:42 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs