Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Robert Griffin III On NFL Combine: 'This Is A Business Trip'

New York Mets Top 20 Prospects for 2012

U.S. Futures All-Star Matt Harvey of the New York Mets throws a pitch during the 2011 XM All-Star Futures Game at Chase Field on July 10, 2011 in Phoenix, Arizona.  (Photo by Jeff Gross/Getty Images)

New York Mets Top 20 Prospects for 2012

The list and grades are a blending of present performance and long-term potential. Comments are welcome, but in the end all analysis and responsibility is mine of course. Full reports on all of players can be found in the 2012 Baseball Prospect Book. We are now taking pre-orders. Order early and order often!

Star-divide

QUICK PRIMER ON GRADE MEANINGS:

Grade A prospects are the elite. They have a good chance of becoming stars or superstars. Almost all Grade A prospects develop into major league regulars, if injuries or other problems don't intervene. Note that is a major "if" in some cases.

Grade B prospects have a good chance to enjoy successful careers. Some will develop into stars, some will not. Most end up spending several years in the majors, at the very least in a marginal role.

Grade C prospects are the most common type. These are guys who have something positive going for them, but who may have a question mark or three, or who are just too far away from the majors to get an accurate feel for. A few Grade C guys, especially at the lower levels, do develop into stars. Many end up as role players or bench guys. Some don't make it at all.

A major point to remember is that grades for pitchers do NOT correspond directly to grades for hitters. Many Grade A pitching prospects fail to develop, often due to injuries. Some Grade C pitching prospects turn out much better than expected.

Also note that there is diversity within each category. I'm a tough grader; Grade C+ is actually good praise coming from me, and some C+ prospects turn out very well indeed.

Finally, keep in mind that all grades are shorthand. You have to read the full comment in the book for my full opinion about a player, the letter grade only tells you so much. A Grade C prospect in rookie ball could end up being very impressive, while a Grade C prospect in Triple-A is likely just a future role player.

1) Matt Harvey, RHP, Grade B+: He can be a number two starter and someone to build around. Some evaluators see him more as a closer if his changeup remains erratic, but I'm cutting him some slack on that issue and am optimistic.

2) Zack Wheeler, RHP, Grade B+: This is actually more like Harvey -A and Wheeler 1-B. They are very close but Harvey is closer to being ready. Like Harvey, I see Wheeler as a future number two starter and staff anchor. He made big strides with his control last year. Like Harvey his changeup needs more work, but I'm optimistic about him given the improvements he's already made.

3) Jeurys Familia, RHP, Grade B: Control still needs work, but took a major step forward towards harnessing his stuff. Could be a number three starter, perhaps more with additional changeup refinement. Could also end up as a fine closer.

4) Brandon Nimmo, OF, Grade B: Borderline B-. One of my favorite players from the 2011 draft. Strong tools, skills are more refined than you think given his Wyoming background. There's some risk here but lots of upside too.

5) Cesar Puello, OF, Grade B-: Tough to grade and I'm not really comfortable with this guy. Tools are very impressive and he started tapping into his power. However his strike zone judgment slipped badly, with a dramatic reduction in his walk rate and increase in strikeouts. Power improvement was cancelled out by loss of OBP, and Double-A pitchers will easily exploit his over-aggressiveness. However, many scouts really like him and think he's going to break through, plus he was just 20 last year. Upside is very high but risk of failure is quite high as well.

6) Kirk Nieuwenhuis, OF, Grade B-: Positives here are solid tools, high walk rate, moderate power (secondary average skills). Weaknesses include high strikeout rate and inability to hit left-handed pitching. I've seen him compared to Brett Jackson but Jackson is a better athlete and younger. Kirk looks like a very solid platoon player/fourth outfielder to me. Doesn't have Puello's ceiling but a much higher floor. I've gone back and forth about 10 times between Kirk and Cesar in the 5/6 spots.

7) Jenrry Mejia, RHP, Grade B-: Waiting on Tommy John recovery at this point. I've liked him for awhile but he was handled badly by previous administration and it is still unclear if he's a starter or reliever going forward.

8) Reese Havens, 2B, Grade B-: Borderline C+. I like his power/patience combination and ability to handle second base, but his health care expenses have helped bankrupt the organization. If he manages to avoid injuries he can be a .260 hitter with 15 homers and a fine OBP.

9) Wilmer Flores, 3B-SS, Grade B-: Borderline C+. Still very young at age 20. Switch over to third base increases pressure on his bat. Will he develop sufficient power for that position? He keeps his strikeout rate low but power hasn't blossomed as Mets hoped, granted he was promoted aggressively. Stock is starting to sag but it isn't too late yet.

10) Cory Mazzoni, RHP, Grade C+: Borderline B-: North Carolina State product has sound combination of solid stuff and command. I don't think he got as much attention as he deserved in pitching-rich 2011 draft class and I expect good things from him.

11) Michael Fulmer, RHP, Grade C+: Live-armed Oklahoma high school kid, upside of a number two or three starter, but rather raw. Ceiling higher than Mazzoni but risk of failure is higher as well.

12) Jordan Valdespin, 2B-SS, Grade C+: Will probably rank higher on other lists. Tools and athleticism stand out, developed more power this year, but high-maintenance mercurial personality and sloppy strike zone judgment make me wary that he'll fulfill his potential.

13) Phillip Evans, 2B-SS, Grade C+: Overslot $650,000 bonus for 15th round pick could end up being a bargain if Evans develops as I expect...above-average hitter with some pop and solid glovework at second. Excellent makeup. Need more data, could be much higher next year.

14) Cory Vaughn, OF, Grade C+: Slump in High-A could be related to painful heel injury. I like his tools and he's flashed the skills to make them meaningful. Stock could be considerably higher next year. . .or considerably lower.

15) Darin Gorski, LHP, Grade C+: Excellent statistics in High-A Florida State League (2.08 ERA, 140/29 K/BB) generated by superior command of average fastball and off-speed stuff, refined changeup. Needs to duplicate this in Double-A.

16) Collin McHugh, RHP, Grade C+: McHugh broke out with impressive Double-A season. Average velocity for right-hander but works lower part of the strike zone well, nice assortment of secondary pitches, makeup well-regarded. Could be a fifth starter or long reliever.

17) Domingo Tapia, RHP, Grade C+: Earned some headlines with 99 MPH fastball but struck out just 30 in 50 innings in Appalachian League. High ceiling but needs a lot of work on his secondary pitches.

18) Akeel Morris, RHP, Grade C+: Teammate of Tapia at Kingsport, doesn't throw quite as hard, "just" in the low-to-mid-90s, but secondary stuff is in better shape. Fanned 61 in 51 innings and gave up just 30 hits, but wobbly command led to 38 walks. High ceiling.

19) Danny Muno, SS, Grade C+: Senior out of Fresno State led New York-Penn League in OBP, impressed observers with steady play and makeup. May end up as a utility player but a good one, could get beyond that if he keeps hitting at higher levels.

20) Juan Lagares, OF, Grade C+: Quick bat, improved plate discipline from abysmally awful to merely poor and hit .349/.383/.500 as a result between High-A and Double-A. This was at least partially driven by unsustainable BABIP gains, and I want to see more before buying into him.

21) Logan Verrett, RHP, Grade C+: College pitcher out of Baylor has yet to make pro debut. I saw him pitch in college and I think he has the stuff and command to be a number four starter.

OTHERS: Robert Carson, LHP; Darrell Ceciliani, OF; Albert Cordero, C; Matt den Dekker, OF; Josh Edgin, LHP; Erik Goeddel, RHP; Gilbert Gomez, OF; Chase Huchingson, LHP; Jack Leathersich, LHP; Zach Lutz, 3B; Brad Marquez, OF; Jefry Marte, 3B; Rafael Montero, RHP; Greg Peavey, RHP; Tyler Pill, RHP; Aderlin Rodriguez, 3B; Armando Rodriguez, RHP; Josh Satin, UT; Chris Schwinden, RHP; Juan Urbina, LHP; Taylor Whitenton, RHP.

The Mets farm system has improved and I don't think it gets enough respect. There are some problems that have to be addressed, but they have some strengths as well. The organization is still suffering hangover from the way prospects were managed in the previous administration, but things are looking up.

The entire second half of this list is very fluid. You could make a case to rank Juan Lagares, number 20, as high as 11 or 12. Even spots five through 10 are difficult to rank. How do you weight injury guys like Mejia or Havens in comparison to high-risk-high-upside tools guys like Puello and Flores? It is all a balancing act and every analyst is going to come to a different conclusion.

I like the pitching. Harvey, Wheeler, and Familia are three hard-throwing right-handers with the ability to be staff anchors. The first two aren't far off the A- category, and Familia is a fine prospect in his own right. It may be tempting to rush Harvey and Familia to the majors sometime in 2012, but I think both will be better-positioned to help in 2013. Mejia is something of a forgotten man but I liked him a lot before he got hurt, despite the ridiculous way he was handled in '10.

There are more right-handed arms coming up behind them. Mazzoni, Fulmer, and Verrett from the 2011 draft bring a nice variety of upside and command. Tapia and Morris from Kingsport have very live arms. There are several average-stuff-inning-eater types with McHugh and Chris Schwinden possibly contributing in '12. Whitenton is interesting too but we need to see him at higher levels. Efforts of the previous administration to find talent at smaller colleges didn't bring in any stars, but you need organization arms too and sometimes those guys become real prospects, which a few have in this case.

Left-hander Juan Urbina in the C-category is highly-projectable and picked up velocity this year, although this wasn't reflected in his performance. Darin Gorski was excellent at St. Lucie but we need to see if he can avoid being the next Mark Cohoon. Edgin, Huchingson, and Leatherisch all have southpaw bullpen potential.

Hitting is in tougher condition than the pitching. There are several very high upside players. There is some "shiny new toy" hope regarding Nimmo, but while his selection has been questioned by some, I like him. Products of the Latin American program like Puello, Flores, Valdespin (and Aderlin Rodriguez and Gilbert Gomez) have high upside but have yet to fulfill their potential, with strike zone issues being a persistent theme. Gomez had a nice run at St. Lucie but it was 75 at-bat sample and out of context with the rest of his career. I want to see more.

Comment 117 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Lutz

not even C+… Have to reserve a spot on the sleeper list for him then.

by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Dec 27, 2011 4:01 PM EST reply actions  

lutz

I actually like him but the injuries have cost him mobility and he’s getting old, plus k-rate becoming an issue.

by John Sickels on Dec 27, 2011 4:17 PM EST up reply actions  

if he's healthy,

he could surprise a lot of people and at least be a valuable bench bat.

by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Dec 27, 2011 4:02 PM EST reply actions  

but a couple of the B-

could have swing C+.

I was actually leaning C+ on Flores, based on what I saw this year, but maybe he could stick at 3B. He does have the hands for 3B, and I guess enough arm though I didn’t see the plus arm others have claimed.

But I also might have had Fulmer and Valdespin on the B- bubble.

I might have had McHugh a C; his breakout was due in part to improved velocity, but it’s still a fairly small sample. I also had Vaughn a C, based on what I saw, but I do remember being more impressed in the first half, and didn’t realize he was maybe less than 100% from August on.

Not much else there I can really argue though as far as grades.

by acerimusdux on Dec 27, 2011 4:36 PM EST up reply actions  

no disrespect to John,

but if this system had more respect, guys like Gorski, Lagares, Fulmer, Mazzoni, Evans & Morris could have swung B-. It will take more time before people really believe in this system and its ability to develop talent. I’m hoping they add a couple of players via trade plus they will have 4 of the first 60 picks in the next draft so the system is on its way to a being a top ten farm. It’s prob still midpack now.

by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Dec 27, 2011 6:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Fulmer

is worth a B- for me as well. He has some of the usual bad habits of HS pitchers (spins off his plant foot heel, glove hand down by his thigh on finish, gets away with pitches up), but he has a strong lower half with some projectability left up top, the arm works great, ball comes out of the hand well, and the FB and slider both feature excellent life. He’s very athletic, and he repeats his delivery. I like his chances of following in the footsteps of other recent HS supp picks made good (e.g. Odorizzi, Skaggs, Walker, Syndergaard).

by charles wallace on Dec 27, 2011 9:10 PM EST up reply actions  

yeah it will take time

because of all the gus you listed only Fulmer would i go B-

I like Dan Decker tho

Yoenis Cespedes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9ge8l3jY8

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 28, 2011 3:05 PM EST up reply actions  

Borderline

I agree Gorski, Lagares, Fulmer, Mazzoni, Evans & Morris, plus possibly Valdespin as well qualify as borderline B- guys. However, C+ seems acceptable as well with a more conservative approach.
Gorski & Lagares had great seasons on the field in 2011 but have limited upside.
Fulmer, Evans & Morris have high upsides but remain several years away and quite raw. Let them prove themselves in Low A ball in 2012 to justify the higher grade.
Mazzoni seems pretty advanced but has merely thrown 10 or so pro IP and he wasn´t a highly touted June pick either. So, a conservative C+ seems okay here.

The overall positive is that this list features a bunch of raw & high ceiling C+ types (including Tapia, Aderlin Rodriguez, G.Gomez, Urbina and others as well) who could break out in a significant way in 2012. With a slowed down development pace, the odds seem pretty solid that at least a couple will.

For now, the system already has very interesting pitching depth with the 4 advanced frontline guys and several pitchers at both the lower & upper levels with either raw upside or a likelihood to advance pretty quicky.

What´s lacking is advanced hitting talent. Beyond Nieuwenhuis & Havens who´ll have to show they can stay healthy and maybe Valdespin, there´s nobody who projects as a potential starter over the next couple of seasons.
Flores, Puello and others will certainly need more seasoning and won´t be factors before the 2014 season in all likelihood, if at all.

by Doob on Dec 29, 2011 5:32 AM EST up reply actions  

I think this is one of the better systems, top 15 imo

lightyears away from where it was the last few years. I would’ve thought Wheeler is an A- guy though John. With him going back to his old delivery and figuring out what a strike means, to me frankly he’s just flat out better than other prospects you have at B+.

by Matty Kid on Dec 27, 2011 4:28 PM EST reply actions  

Not too much higher than that though

I expected a little higher until I saw some of the other systems. I think the talent level throught the minors has improved the last couple of years. Partly because the last two drafts have been strong. I’ve seen some suggest grades have inflated a bit, but I think much of that is the talent in the minors as a whole is a bit deeper than it was a couple of years ago.

by acerimusdux on Dec 27, 2011 5:06 PM EST up reply actions  

Lagares

I feel like #20 is plenty generous a ranking for him.

by Ambient on Dec 27, 2011 4:33 PM EST reply actions  

Agreed, he could be a freak solid contact hitter

or more likely he’s just a lucky guy whose true talent level is hitting an empty 275 at a corner position.

by FrancoTAU on Dec 27, 2011 5:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Pretty good overall

I think Nimmo can blow up next year much like Trout did, albeit with more power and less speed. The 2011 draft added a nice injection into the system between arms (Fulmer, Mazzoni, Verrett, Leathersich, Pill) and bats (Nimmo, Evans, Muno, Marquez).

by Metfan on Dec 27, 2011 4:45 PM EST reply actions  

Finally...

…someone who agrees with me on ranking Harvey ahead of Wheeler.

Hard for me to rank this system outside the bottom third in baseball, despite the presence of Harvey, Familia, Wheeler and Mejia.

Other than Nimmo there really isn’t an impact position prospect in the entire system.

I’m a Reese Havens fan and Kirk Nieuwenhuis fan, I wouldn’t take anyone else.

by Kelsdad on Dec 27, 2011 4:56 PM EST reply actions  

I could name at least 10 systems that are worse

Red and White Sox, Indians, Tigers, Marlins, Phillies, Cubs, Reds, Astros, Brewers, Dodgers, and Giants are certainly no better when you look at both the impact talent and depth.

by secret defense on Dec 27, 2011 5:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Red sox?

Sorry, but I don’t see how this system looks better than the Red Sox.

by CaptainHowdy on Dec 27, 2011 6:36 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Agree

A year ago, I thought a lot of the Red Sox were over-rated, and the Mets system was maybe better. But they have really restocked that system over the last 2 drafts. The Mets have very slightly better pitching at the moment, but I would rather have that collection of solid bats in the Red Sox system.

Basically, 7 top 40 picks over 2 years time is going to reload a system pretty quickly.

by acerimusdux on Dec 27, 2011 8:59 PM EST up reply actions  

fair enough

doesn’t change my point though

by secret defense on Dec 28, 2011 1:24 AM EST up reply actions  

i also

Have Harvey ahead of wheeler. I might even put mejia ahead of wheeler, it is close imo…

by St.Steve on Dec 27, 2011 5:53 PM EST up reply actions  

Mejia is ahead of Wheeler only on Mars

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!" Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.

AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 458 posts (08/24/11)
3rd Place- 2011 AAOP Contest | 1st place- 2012 AAOP Contest

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 27, 2011 7:19 PM EST up reply actions  

I had some arguments in early community list posts

of putting Harvey over Wheeler, so I am right there with you. I think this is a bottom half system, not sure if I would go bottom third (so 16-19?)

by cookiedabookie on Dec 27, 2011 10:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Middle of the pack

This system features 4 likely top 100 overall prospects in Wheeler, Harvey, Nimmo and Familia, doesn´t have a top 25 prospect overall but a lot of depth, especially among pitchers, toolsy & raw young guys and advanced prospects with limited ceilings. Overall, this system probably should rank in the # 12 to # 15 overall range for whatever that´s worth or not.
Certainly deeper than the Phillies & Marlins, close to the Braves and post-Gonzalez trade Nationals. Among NL teams, probably deeper & more promising than the Brewers, Astros, Cubs, Reds, Dodgers, Giants and similar to the Rockies. Only the Padres & D´backs clearly have deeper systems, the Nationals & Pirates have higher elite upside and the Braves certainly do a better hype job.

by Doob on Dec 29, 2011 5:41 AM EST up reply actions  

Not so sure

While I don´t think the Mets system is better than the Braves system, I believe the difference is very close. And the difference in grades probably is mainly due to Atlanta´s much better reputation and past track record than in terms of truely having a talent edge.

Sure, Teheran, Delgado and Vizcaino are probably a year ahead of Harvey, Wheeler and Familia on the developmental path. However, the upside is similar with all 3 and the difference isn´t as huge as it may sound at first glance.

Secondly, the ratings of Edwin Salcedo (# 6 with John Sickels for ATL vs. # 9 for Flores) seems like a typical case of Braves edging Mets more on reputation than facts.
Both are the same age (Flores is a week or two younger). Both will be challenged to even remain in the Infield longterm. Salcedo posted a .711 OPS in Low A ball at age 19 and Flores posted a .689 OPS in High A ball at age 19. Flores had a much lower K rate, Salcedo had a slightly higher BB rate. Both received a lot of hype in the past as International signees. Yet, Salcedo is a strong B while Flores is a borderline B-. Why is that ? To me, both are very, very similar prospects.

Also, JJ Hoover & Zeke Spruill are solid SP prospects who project as # 3/4 starters if things work out well. Are they really far better than, say, Darin Gorski and Cory Mazzoni in terms of stuff & upside ? They get better grades for sure – and the two Braves may be a few months closer to the major leagues. However, not sure that they are in a ballpark of their own.

Also, JR Graham vs. Michael Fulmer or even Domingo Tapia doesn´t seem all that far apart if you consider that all three are several years away and the upsides are – at worst – similar.

Is Pastornicky a better prospect than Reese Havens ? While they´re somewhat different in style and Havens is two years older, I don´t think so. And just like the Braves, the Mets have significant depth. The Braves have better middle Infield & C, the Mets better OF prospects. Pitching & corner IF position prospects are very close.

Again, the Braves may still get the slight nod because most of their key guys are probably 3 months closer to their major league debuts / impact. However, there are a lot of similarities between these two systems.

by Doob on Dec 29, 2011 1:14 PM EST up reply actions  

The Braves have more elite level prospects (B+ or higher): 4 vs 2
The Braves have more quality prospects (B- or higher): 15 to 9

Your argument essentially is if everything goes great for the Mets system, they could be as good as the 2012 Braves system in 2013. Which is a weird counter to the fact that the Braves system is undeniably better at this point.

by cookiedabookie on Dec 29, 2011 2:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Player development

Two things I think have been working on the player development front:

1. The hitting program under Lamar Johnson. They could use to have more high end draft and IFA talents to work with, but they’ve had a good number of average ceiling types performing well with the bat the last few years. It seems a few break out every year.

2. A lot of those mid-round college arms who seem to surprise every year, the Dillon Gee, Darin Gorski, Colin McHugh types, seem to have high praise for St. Lucie pitching coach Phil Regan.

They also have drafted fairly well with their low cost picks (again, need to add more higher cost premium talent there), and I think part of that is good co-ordination with the drafting and development. They are drafting guys who sort of fit in with where the development strengths have been. Maybe this means you end up with a surplus of corner bats and back end arms, but it’s nice at least to have a system producing something useful.

by acerimusdux on Dec 27, 2011 4:57 PM EST reply actions  

Good list, I probably drop Lagares.

I was expecting the soft tossing advanced arms to get the shaft here for some reason but they’re where they should be.

by FrancoTAU on Dec 27, 2011 5:05 PM EST reply actions  

I don't like Guerreri's mechanics and I love Fulmer's breaking ball

You watch Fulmer’s breaking ball on the mlb.com video it just drops off the table. Guerreri also comes with potential makeup issues.

by Bravesin07 on Dec 27, 2011 6:30 PM EST up reply actions  

decent arm, not more than that

Getting an innings-eater vibe from him. When I was researching Mets prospects, though, I thought there might be some potential for him to surprise and go beyond that, though . . .I’ll be watching reports on him closely.

But if you want a straight answer, mid-rotation type, which is perfectly acceptable.

by mrkupe on Dec 27, 2011 6:59 PM EST up reply actions  

haha, this is a Mets thread, I'd like to keep it to Mets-centric discussion for the benefit of all (but especially Mets fans)

But since you asked, just a couple of brief comments:

Hager: Positive on him, although he’s a long ways off. Interesting potential as a legit shortstop with some bat.

Story: If you love tools, you love him. I don’t take anything from his numbers this year . . .Casper is like playing on the moon of the moon. Wondering about where he’ll end up on defense.

by mrkupe on Dec 27, 2011 7:32 PM EST up reply actions  

nimmo

The upside is obvious, but I’m unconvinced about his skills at this point.

It’s not hard to see him being a top 10-20 prospect in baseball by this time next year. At the same time, it’s not hard to see him being completely ineffective at the plate and busting completely.

by mrkupe on Dec 27, 2011 8:07 PM EST up reply actions  

we'll have to agree to disagree on that one

It happens. Not saying it’s something that I would expect to happen.

by mrkupe on Dec 27, 2011 8:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Fair enough.

He’s got the whole package, just a bit on the raw side, but you could be right.

by Kelsdad on Dec 27, 2011 9:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Fullmer has the highest ceiling of anyone in the system except Harvey, IMO.

Wheeler’s mechanics are a concern as is Mejia’s recovery timetable from his surgery, and to me Familia’s bigtime overrated.

In four years I could see a rotation of Harvey, Fullmer, Niese, Wheeler and either Familia or Mejia depending on how Jenrry’s arm responds.

by Kelsdad on Dec 27, 2011 7:20 PM EST up reply actions  

is that more praise for Fulmer or an indictment of the other guys?

I can see the ceiling argument for Fulmer . . .if he puts everything together he has the potential to be quite good. That’s best case, though, and there would seem to be an awful lot that can go wrong with him, too.

I’m a little higher on him than John is, but I’m guessing I have a bit more faith that Fulmer has the stuff and frame to handle a healthy workload even if he doesn’t reach his ceiling.

by mrkupe on Dec 27, 2011 7:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Fullmer won't turn 19 until mid-March and already has the best slider

in the system.

HIs fastball sits between 92-97 with movement, but unless your name is Randy Johnson or Steve Carlton you need a changeup How fast he develops the pitch and how good it ends up becoming will determine whether he’s a two or a four.

by Kelsdad on Dec 27, 2011 8:20 PM EST up reply actions  

Huh?

The Wheeler’s ceiling is that of a true ace. Mejia and Familia’s ceilings are top of the rotation pitchers. Fulmer would have to have an all-decade ceiling to have a higher ceiling than Wheeler.

And Familia’s off speed stuff has progressed. He spent all of 2010 working on it (hence the ugly BB rate).

Save Jenrry Mejia!
2012 Amazin' Avenue Offseason Plan: 2nd place

by Ogre39666 on Dec 29, 2011 1:55 AM EST up reply actions  

'The Wheeler'

Great handle – intentional or otherwise.

by Matt0330 on Dec 29, 2011 9:50 AM EST up reply actions  

I saw Familia last year and

his changeup was looking really, really good.

by nerfan on Dec 31, 2011 11:03 AM EST up reply actions  

Puello

I’m in the middle ground on Puello.

I’ve seen power projection frequently over-rated in this system for some of these younger players, from Milledge, to Gomez, to Flores. Puello can develop some pop, but he’s not going to be a big power hitter. I can see enough pop there for a range of positive outcomes from Shanon Stewart to Marlon Byrd (depending how much he fills out or slows as he ages). But not higher upside than that.

On the positive side, the Mets have had a number of guys with makeup issues as well, and Puello isn’t one of them, I’ve heard nothing but positives there. And I see him developing sound fundamentals, working on bunting, etc.

So I think he’s a solid B-, I think the peripheral ratios will improve there with experience.

by acerimusdux on Dec 27, 2011 5:31 PM EST reply actions  

Shannon Stewart to Marlon Byrd

Is being overly pessimistic on Puello’s potential.

by Ambient on Dec 27, 2011 6:48 PM EST up reply actions  

i dont think so

i thought acer brought up a very good point. a lot of people have overrated players in this system — and most others — by dreaming on kids with tools at the lowest levels who just have to figure out how to hit. and in many cases — at least in this system — it’s hitting for power specifically.

and while it happens, it’s hard to (reasonably) expect a kid with very little in-game power coming into 2011 to blossom into the kind of power hitter that slugs 20+ homers a season — which is the neighborhood you’re getting into if you go past stewart or byrd. hell, despite the bump in homers this year he still didn’t even slug .400 — though it should be pointed out that he played half his games at pitcher-friendly savannah.

either way, that’s around the level of ceiling that i’m envisioning for puello as well. i don’t see him as the potential superstar that some are floating.

by Rob Castellano on Dec 27, 2011 8:43 PM EST up reply actions  

Based on the power projection?

Those are pretty good players. Stewart had 5 seasons of over 3.0 WAR, Byrd so far has 3. Defensively, we’re talking average CF to above average corner (though Puello does have the arm for RF). Both hit pretty well for average, Byrd at .281 for his career, and over .290 in 3 of the last 5 seasons. Stewart was a career .297 hitter (which ranks #253 all time for players with over 3000 PA). Both drew walks fairly well, Stewart at an above average 8.1% of PA, Byrd a tic below average at 6.6% of PA. This is a skill that Puello struggled a bit with this season. And as for base running, all three were similar in the minors; Byrd obviously slowed down some as he added weight and Stewart didn’t (add weight or slow down much) and ended up a top base stealer (#353 all time).

So are you saying Puello is better in any of those aspects, or is it all about the power potential?

by acerimusdux on Dec 27, 2011 8:43 PM EST up reply actions  

Purely his power potential.

He’s seen by some as a guy who could hit upwards of 30 homeruns when his body matures. Also part of the idea behind him not being a center fielder, as his wheels could diminish, and he’s not exactly great at reading balls off the bat.

by Ambient on Dec 28, 2011 2:44 PM EST up reply actions  

way to provide excellent analysis and breakdown.

I can clearly see your point, despite acer’s well thought out analysis and breakdown, “Just about everything you said is wrong” automatically proves everything he said is indeed wrong and should be the future standard for all replies where someone disagrees with another poster’s comments. Well done.

by Looney4baseball on Dec 28, 2011 9:21 AM EST up reply actions   2 recs

I've you reference Byrd and Stewart before I believe

and I can definitely see that in a sense, but I do think it short changes the power potential simply based on size and current body type. I’m not sure Puello will ever develop some of the skills those guys have, such as zone and bat control, but he’s already bigger than Stewart’s current listed size, and he’s taller and leaner than Byrd, though Byrd seems more plausible based on the way Puello’s currently built—a lot of his weight seems to be in his upper half like Byrd, though even when he was younger Byrd’s midsection and torso were a bit thicker.

The other problem is that in terms of skill projection, Stewart and Byrd actually may be somewhat optimistic at this stage. There’s definitely some Carlos Gomez potential here, Puello really has a long way to go before he starts translating his tools into significant usefulness in the batter’s box, and they both have a fairly uncommon combination of raw size and atheticism/speed. That can be a double-edged sword, their natural abilities carry them this far, but without skill development beyond this stage, it’ll be difficult them to go much farther. The body type doesn’t really fit here either, Puello’s not as lanky and lean as Gomez, but just the combo of size and athletic ability in general. Again, more of Puello’s strength is in his upper half—in his chest and shoulders in particular. He’s bigger, but just the general build reminds me a bit of Fernando Tatis.

There are plenty of examples of guys like this who flame out and don’t become anything, but the ones who do eventually figure it out often have quite high ceilings. But the ones who do figure it out are often also ahead of where Puello is right now at this age in terms of their approach to hitting. As you point out, the makeup is a positive, and that works in his favor, and it seems like he’s always going to have that quirky HBP boost to his OBP (he actually had more HBP than BBs in 2011, which is astonishing), but he has a lot of work to do in terms of pitch recognition and controlling the zone before he can really hope to tap into the raw tools he does have, including any power potential he has. I just think there’s probably a bit more boom left in the boom-or-bust here. If he has to be a guy who relies on zone and bat control or a solid walk rate to be a productive hitter, as Stewart and Byrd were/are, he’s in some trouble. It would take a drastic shift in approach to get him to be that kind of great-at-nothing, good-at-everything kind of offensive player.

The other positive thing worth pointing out here is that he’s shown the ability to adjust to his level each of the last few years, showing pretty significant improvements in the second half. He posted an .800 OPS after the break in 2011 and he did something similar in 2010, struggling in the first half and then really turning it on in the second half. So perhaps that does portend that a drastic shift in approach is possible. But those kinds of changes become dramatically less likely to older a player gets, and until he learns the strike zone better, more advanced pitching is simply going to eat him up.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 28, 2011 11:05 AM EST up reply actions  

Binghamton

The Bing should at least superficially boost guys like Puello, Flores in the numbers department, get their stock back up. They are still young and just having the better numbers may increase their confidence. St. Lucie is tough on hitters.

Havens needs to stay healthy. And it would be nice to see Nimmo get off to a roaring start. The pitching looks pretty good, but the Mets need some hitters to start coming through.

by wobatus on Dec 28, 2011 11:21 AM EST up reply actions  

I'd be surprised if either starts the season at Bing.

They didn’t exactly dominate A+ ball and they’re pretty young for that league still.

by FrancoTAU on Dec 28, 2011 1:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Flores

has already spent a year and a half at A+. He had a 108 wRC+ there at age 18/19. He did regress a bit last year. Puello was at 96 last year at age 20. Perhaps not a bad idea to start them there, but I think they might be helped by a better hitting environment, which obviously boosts numbers but I also think it’ll give them a taste of success hopefully, even if it is an illusion at first.

Puello actually did ok in the second half last year. .284/.336/.463 (and he hit ok at home, so there goes that theory). That’s fairly comparable to Daniel Murphy’s triple slash line over his full year in St. Lucie at age 22. Murph had much better plate discipline, higher walk rate and lower k rate, and I know I am cherry-picking Puello’s half season, but I hope he can build on his second half.

Flores is doing ok in Venezuela this winter. He’s upped his walk rate (his k rate is also up, though down there, so perhaps he is trying to go deeper into counts).

by wobatus on Dec 28, 2011 2:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Its a tricky situation

in both cases. I’d love to get keep Puello and den Dekker de-coupled. Its probably irrelevant, but Puello’s improvement did come after den Dekker was promoted, but den Dekker also isn’t ready for Triple-A yet, and that OF is going to be a bit full with F-Mart, Nieuwenhuis, Lagares, and perhaps Maldonado (who struggled a bit in Double-A but did get a full season there and hit 28 HR) there already. It might be wise to consider moving F-Mart to 1B with his knee, but you also have Allan Dykstra there, though he’s probably not much more than organizational depth with Lucas Duda and Ike Davis both set to be every day players. I’d also love for the Mets to get Lagares a bit of time back in the infield to try and groom him for something of a super-utility role, which might be the best use for him, but I’m not sure that’s in the cards. Either way, as long as den Dekker and Puello are on the same team, Puello will likely be in RF, which I suppose isn’t the end of the world, but I’d love to get him as many CF reps as possible too.

As for Flores, I’m not sure he actually regressed, most of his numbers were pretty similar while the BABIP dipped, he just hasn’t improved, and it was the same story in Savannah, he had 840 PAs there over two seasons and not much changed. He already has 849 in St. Lucie. On the one hand, it doesn’t seem like he’s ready for Double-A, but on the other, its got to be frusterating for a kid to be putting in all this time at the same levels with such slow going on the promotion scale.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 28, 2011 2:30 PM EST up reply actions  

"Slow going on the promotion scale"

A refreshing change of pace from the Omar-Bernazard reign, where guys would get bumped up as teenagers after half a season, but yes, I imagine it is frustrating.

Of course you’re correct, Flores just hasn’t developed much rather than regressed. Mike Newman seems to think he still has some promise but he’d better start realizing. Egads the man is 20 years old already.

by wobatus on Dec 28, 2011 2:36 PM EST up reply actions  

And that's part of the problem still with Flores

He was promoted so aggressively under the previous regime that even they realized they had to slow him down in Savannah, and now we have a completely different administration with a completely different philosophy trying to realign him to what they see as the best path for him moving forward. I don’t envy their decisions in these cases.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 28, 2011 5:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Good points
It would take a drastic shift in approach to get him to be that kind of great-at-nothing, good-at-everything kind of offensive player.

Yeah, unfortunately I think something drastic would have to happen for him to ever be great at any one thing either.

I tend to not worry as much about walk rates for very young players, but if they haven’t developed past age 21, that’s more of a concern. John Sickels had a post on this issue today, and I posted some data in there. Basically, when I start looking at walk rates for teenagers in A ball, they aren’t a strong predictor even of future walk rates. When I look at extra bases per strikeout [(TB-H)/SO] though, that remains a pretty strong predictor even at those levels.

On the later measure though, Puello is still into red flag territory for me, at 0.59 this year. He’ a bit better for the second half, at 0.67. But that still isn’t what you want from a top prospect.

On the whole, the bat right now still looks pretty fringy, so he’s maybe going to need all those other baseball skills just in order to be a valuable 4th outfield type.

by acerimusdux on Dec 28, 2011 3:46 PM EST up reply actions  

Right

That’s part of why I worry more about Valdespin’s plate discipline than Puello’s at this stage, but Puello’s is quite extreme and thus a concern. I’ve seen you reference that stat before too, and in particular I think it’ll be interesting to watch Puello in that context. In general the more I’ve thought about it the more I like it and see where you’re coming from with it, but especially for a guy like Puello who conceivably be valuable just be becoming a high contact-low power guy (thanks to the speed and glove) or could become a good power, mediocre contact guy (if he fills out right and learns to lay off bad pitches), it seems like a good way of monitoring potential progress, if there any significant progress that’s to be made.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 28, 2011 5:10 PM EST up reply actions  

Puello

Yeah, thing is Puello’s numbers there aren’t awful, overall they aren’t far off the average for a 20 year old in that league, but the average 20 year old there is still going to be a bust. Of course the odds will be even worse for the average 21 or 22 year old.

But I’m just really not seeing the physical upside some are claiming, either. Kirk was a year and a half older when he came through St. Lucie, but I thought he was superior in every offensive tool or skill. And I’m not talking numbers there, but physical tools. Defensively, Puello has the better arm, and a little better speed, but he needs to learn to use that better.

Puello is a different type of athlete from Kirk though, I think he might well be a guy who is better off hitting line drives, getting on base, and using his speed. I’m not convinced there’s really more than 10-15 HR power there. As for the Beltran comps, I’ll believe it when I see it.

Just for the heck of it, looking at the numbers:

age BB% XB/SO avg obp slg
20 9.8% 0.80 .277 .348 .396 Kirk 2008 A-
21 9.7% 0.79 .282 .364 .479 Kirk 2009 A+/AA

19 6.8% 0.33 .292 .375 .359 Puello 2010 A
20 3.7% 0.59 .259 .313 .397 Puello 2011 A+

I’d really like to see what Puello could do repeating A+ next year. Maybe he will do as well as Kirk in 2009, but he’s going to have to improve the walks, the power, and the contact.

But obviously 20 is still very young for the FSL. Of the dozen position players there under 21 (as of 6/30) with over 100 PA, only 4 had good walk rates. Flores, with only a 4.8% rate, was 5th. Here’s that group sorted by XB/SO:

BB% XB/SO
3.85% 1.10 Jae-Hoon Ha
4.83% 0.84 Wilmer Flores
3.96% 0.79 Oswaldo Arcia
9.25% 0.69 Hak-Ju Lee
3.69% 0.59 Cesar Puello
7.64% 0.55 Jefry Marte
14.66% 0.49 Jonathan Singleton*
3.50% 0.46 Avisail Garcia
3.56% 0.45 Sebastian Valle
2.89% 0.38 Jose Torres
9.90% 0.35 Daniel Fields
3.75% 0.18 Ty Morrison

So it’s not that Puello is awful, I like him, and agree with the B- grade. His perfect world projection is arguably a tic higher than Kirk, but for now I would still give Kirk the better chance at being a solid regular.

by acerimusdux on Dec 30, 2011 1:03 AM EST up reply actions  

I like Den Dekker better than most

I’d probably rank him just ahead of Valdespin. The two of them have some things in common as far as age/tools/positional value, except Den Dekker has more glove, more pop, and better makeup. And, of course, Valdespin’s plate discipline problem is walks rather than Ks.

by psiogen on Dec 27, 2011 6:14 PM EST reply actions  

His K% was OK in the first half

Probably flukily high in the 2nd half. I think he can bounce back there. Whereas I doubt that Valdespin will ever walk enough.

by psiogen on Dec 27, 2011 6:58 PM EST up reply actions  

it's funny

cesar puello has been riding a wave of hype to almost unanimous top five rankings — despite very poor plate discipline — based on crazy good tools, and the promise that he’ll continue to take to a premium position.

yet valdespin is resoundingly criticized due to his similarly poor K and BB rates despite the fact that he’s actually translated his crazy good tools into production at the highest levels of the minors, and has much more of a pedigree at a premium defensive spot.

not to say that makeup is unimportant but to me turning raw tools into demonstrable in-game skills is far more important in a prospect.

then again, maybe it’s the age disparity here but for me i’ll take the toolsy player who’s actually done it — compared to the one who only might — any day of the week.

by Rob Castellano on Dec 27, 2011 9:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, age does matter

Puello is 40 months younger than Valdespin and only 12 months behind him on the minor league ladder. He has a lot more time to refine those tools during his prime develpoment years.

Also, Puello can definitely fall back on RF if he can’t hack it in CF. Valdespin is not a SS and may not even be able to stick at 2B, in which case he’s in limbo.

by psiogen on Dec 27, 2011 10:49 PM EST up reply actions  

idk

obviously it’s great when a player shows signs at a younger age, thus leaving more room for development as he ages. but players who do show signs then flame out are a dime a dozen.

i suppose it’s a matter of taste but i’d rather have the player who has shown the ability to turn tools into skills over the project. especially when the tools are comparable and when you consider that valdespin has done it at a significantly higher level.

by Rob Castellano on Dec 28, 2011 10:10 AM EST up reply actions  

as far as defense

i’m not really concerned about valdespin as a MI at all. yes the errors are a problem but his athleticism, range and glove actions are all major league caliber. errors in the MI at the minor league level are not a good indicator of future ability whatsoever.

paul depodesta said as much in his state of the system with adam rubin this summer:

“One thing I feel strongly about, and one thing I think we feel strongly about organizationally, is that one of the things that improves dramatically with repetitions is infield defense probably as much as anything in the game…there are just a lot of stories of guys who made 30, 40, even 50 errors in the minor leagues and went on to become very solid defensive infielders in the major leagues”

whereas puello — while he can clearly man a corner OF spot from a defensive perspective — has never shown the kind of offensive potential to profile as a corner outfielder. and to project him to do so takes a mighty liberal amount of confidence in his long-term growth as a hitter, more than i feel is reasonable at this point.

by Rob Castellano on Dec 28, 2011 10:14 AM EST up reply actions  

Why assume he can't play CF?

He basically did it until den Dekker, the only clearly better defensive outfielder in the system, was put on the same roster in 2011. Its pretty confounding as to why he didn’t play CF in 2010, and least in 2009 Ceciliani was on the same team, but I just feel like at times Puello has been defaulted to RF because he’s had other good outfielders on the same team who didn’t have his arm, not because he is or is expected to be the inferior defender. He’s still probably the second best defensive outfielder in the system right now (not counting Nimmo, who we don’t have a clear defensive picture of, so just behind den Dekker).

As for the age thing, its a bit of a double-edged sword. Yes, Valdespin has shown a bit more with the bat, but his offensive track record has also been very up-and-down. He had a good 400 PAs as a 23 year old in Double-A, which is great, but its not as if his resume is a clean list of superior performances at every level. Even in Double-A, he didn’t dominate the league, and by 23, you really like to see prospects to have shown some signs of skill development, even if the overall performance is solid. Its great that the tools translated into performance, and maybe that can carry him into a solid major league career, but the longer we wait to see some kind of zone control, the less likely it is it ever shows up. Whereas with Puello, who is seeing what more advanced pitching can do at a younger age, making in season adjustments to boost his performance within each level, and getting much better marks for makeup, the likelihood is quite a bit higher that those skills do develop to some extent. There’s plenty of chance they don’t, but the odds that they do are probably orders of magnitude higher than with Valdespin.

I’m a bit surprised John ultimately settled on Puello over Nieuwenuis, but I agree that they’re close, and both a notch above Valdespin.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 28, 2011 11:26 AM EST up reply actions  

hey meddler

long time no see, hope all’s well.

yeah i agree with you, hopefully puello sticks in center and it’s not an issue. no real reason to think that he won’t, aside from his somewhat stocky build. i was just speaking in terms of fall back options.

as for the age discussion, that’s a bit tougher than it looks. obviously valdespin is a few years older but he signed a lot later than puello did. in fact in terms of service time, they’re only separated by a couple hundred PA’s (1555 : 1334). while puello is still better positioned for growth, i don’t think it’s so cut-and-dry as it typically would be for a 21-yr old vs. a 24-yr old. (not even going to get into the ‘does a 21-yr old learn better than a 24-yr old’ discussion).

then add in the fact that puello actually regressed significantly in both BB% and K% this season while valdespin actually saw pretty significant improvement in both categories — before his late season move to Triple-A — and I don’t know if that argument holds a ton of water. despite his superior hitting in the second half, puello actually regressed in terms of K:BB following the ASB (to be fair it’s nearly the same as the first half, definitely no improvement though).

beyond that, while — like you mentioned — valdespin has been a bit spotty across his career it’s actually not been anything beyond pretty typical statistical deviation (aside from maybe his stolen base output but that’s to be expected for someone that struggled with injuries a bit early on). in fact, in terms of his ISO he’s posted relatively consistent totals year after year; whereas puello is the one that’s on a roller coaster ride up and down each season.

as an aside, going back to the original discussion of power development valdespin’s annual ISO totals have been consistently better than puello’s, even when looking at similar ages in similar hitting environments.

by Rob Castellano on Dec 28, 2011 3:17 PM EST up reply actions  

Been very well, how bout yourself?

Still at that job I mentioned last time I saw you guys, so I get my baseball fix, but definitely fallen out of the minor league loop a bit. Still lurk around and follow you guys for the most part, but its tough for me to engage without being tempted to start talking about things I probably shouldn’t lol. Office is closed this week though and I volunteered to answer the phones for some extra cash, so pretty boring here, perfect timing for John’s writeup for me ;).

Anyway, all good points. I think you’re right, and to be clear, I think if we’re talking John’s grading system, Valdespin is a high C+ while Puello (and Nieuwenhuis) are low B-, and it wouldn’t take a whole lot for me to envision them in opposite categories a year from now.

As far as Valdespin’s statistical variation, its definitely pretty natural looking, but my point was more simply that when he’s been good he’s been solid, but just as often he’s been pretty meh in terms of performance, not often downright awful but below average. He could make up a lot of that ground with glovework at SS, I’ve heard too many mixed reports on his glove to really make a good judgment on that without seeming him up close more. Its not as if his best performances are superior and then his lesser performances are merely decent, so throw that in with a bit of a lack of development potential and I’m just not sure I ever see him as a major league regular or even a great bench option (he’ll need the glove for that). I see the most likely scenario is that he’s something of a Ruben Gotay clone. Maybe a bit more athletic and speedy, but with some makeup issues too. His floor isn’t established the way I’d need to call him more than a C+ prospect with what his ceiling seems to be (such as with Nieuwenhuis, for example). Whereas with Puello, at least there’s enough projectability left that I could see him as a major league regular or a solid 4th OF despite the fact that his floor is still pretty bottomless.

I know after watching guys like Milledge and Gomez and Martinez peter out its easy to get down guys who get some hype for plus tools at a young age despite mediocre performance—part of that may have been the development system and part of it is just that most prospects simply don’t pan out, but that doesn’t mean the ceiling for that type of player isn’t pretty high. If 5% of prospects of that type become stars (perhaps generous), 20% become non-star regulars, 25% have short/fairly unsuccesful major league careers, and 50% basically fail entirely, its not that unusual to find 4 or 5 that all fall into the latter two categories. Its frusterating, and in our case some of it may well be the system they were developed under or some kind of amateur scouting issue, but these are still good players to have in the system. Like acer pointed out above, perhaps we should deduct some points for Puello because of all other similar recent failures of the system, but the flipside of that is also that when it happens its easy to turn those failures into bias that may not be entirely warranted.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 28, 2011 5:03 PM EST up reply actions  

I can see an argument for Wheeler or Harvey being an A-

but I don’t have any problems with this list nonetheless, I am surprised to see Mazzoni ranked ahead of Fulmer though. This will be an interesting system to follow as a fan of this team (drafting college relievers and hoping F-Mart and the C guys figure it all out got kind of stale), and I’m excited to see how my personal favorites, Evans and Nimmo fare over a larger sample size.

"Let them be stud muffins"
-Tom Seaver
Proud Mets, Jets, Knicks, Islanders fan.

by piazza62 on Dec 27, 2011 6:14 PM EST reply actions  

lol.

“Every Pitcher has the type of mechanics that could cause elbow or shoulder problems”

THere i fixed it for you.

Writer at Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times
Pitchf/x enthusiast.
http://twitter.com/#!/garik16

by garik16 on Dec 27, 2011 6:54 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

His pitching elbow definitely goes above his shoulder.

It seems to be a lot worse on his curveball in the video I’ve seen from earlier in this year(I guess he has changed his mechanics since then, don’t know if they are better or wose) . Fastball mechanics aren’t that bad. Will be interesting to see how Wheeler’s arm holds up. Considering that is he likely at least a few years from the majors, his mechanics significantly less his value as a prospect.

by silverbook1 on Dec 28, 2011 4:51 AM EST up reply actions  

He reportedly went back to his original pitching mechanics.

I had read somewhere that the Giants tinkered with it. Once he was traded, his BB/9 dropped from over 4 per 9 to 1.7 per 9, albeit in a SSS in St. Lucie. How that affects his mechanics remains to be seen though.

by Looney4baseball on Dec 28, 2011 9:28 AM EST up reply actions  

Matt Harvey

Something like the 2010 Colby Lewis?

Zach Wheeler….Matt Garza?

I just want to try this out having much time on my hands.

by SenorGato on Dec 27, 2011 6:59 PM EST reply actions  

I don't see Kirk Nieuwenhuis as a B- prospect

Even if one still sees him as such, though, I don’t agree with him being ranked 6.

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!" Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.

AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 458 posts (08/24/11)
3rd Place- 2011 AAOP Contest | 1st place- 2012 AAOP Contest

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 27, 2011 7:22 PM EST reply actions  

I am a huge Kirk fan, but I agree, he's a C+

I don’t agree with Puello being ranked so high, his strike out rate is scary bad.

"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"

by feslenraster on Dec 27, 2011 7:46 PM EST up reply actions  

...as a Padres guy,

…I have no problem believing Alderson & DePodesta are building a solid if un-sexy system that lacks the supposed high-ceiling prospects that evaluators such as BA tend to get enamored with… I argued for years that Padres drafted & developed far better than the “experts” said and I believe the Mets’ system will be similarly solid.

Great write-up John. I love the ranking & comment on Nimmo – I’m also a big fan of his but I’m trying not to overrate the recently-drafted prospects vis-a-vis those who have actually produced in the upper minors…

-peter

by PeterF on Dec 27, 2011 8:51 PM EST via iPhone app reply actions  

A solid but un-sexy system is ok, but

who have the Padres graduated to the majors recently that have been solid? Since 2007, I see Freese, Headley and Latos. There may be others but I don’t see the Padres producing a ton of solid MLB guys in the last 5 years. I don’t see the solid players or the star power from the Padres or Mets systems in the last 5 years, which is likely why both teams are where they are today, in rebuild mode.

by Looney4baseball on Dec 28, 2011 9:42 AM EST up reply actions  

their system is pretty flush

with talent at the moment and is set to start paying dividends for them.

by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Dec 28, 2011 10:03 AM EST up reply actions  

I agree, but in the last 5 years it has not.

My response was based mainly on the comment, “I argued for years that Padres drafted & developed far better than the "experts" said and I believe the Mets’ system will be similarly solid.” The development of solid major leaguers really hasn’t been there for the Padres the last 5 years and my opinion is that if the Mets system develops like that, then it is going to be a longer rebuilding process than they anticipate. To me, the Padres current system is so much better than the Mets system that I just don’t see them as a worthy comparison to each other. The Padres have 6 B+ prospects, the Mets have 2, so the Mets are lacking possible impact players as well as solid players.

by Looney4baseball on Dec 28, 2011 10:44 AM EST up reply actions  

BA

Had an article awhile back (and of course I forget the date ranges) that said over a 4-7 year span they have the 2nd highest number of draftees reach the bigs (who knows what production levels)…

-peter

by PeterF on Dec 28, 2011 4:04 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions  

Vaughn

You nailed it. Before he shut down his Twitter account (again,) I remember Cory tweeting about how he learned his lesson and that he needs to keep quiet about injuries so that he doesn’t get kept from playing. The wrong lesson, IMO, but that led me to take the same view as you that he might have been playing injured.

__________________________________________________
"He who gets the best players usually wins" - Bobby Bowden

by Russ on Dec 27, 2011 9:43 PM EST reply actions  

B+?

I feel like guys with similar write-ups, staff anchors who are fairly close to being major league ready got much higher grades, I mean Cole who has barely thrown a pitch outside of college got an “A”. I expected A- for both harvey and wheeler

by Noah McKinnie Braun on Dec 27, 2011 11:34 PM EST reply actions  

Cole has far better stuff than Harvey or Wheeler

What separates Harvey and Wheeler from B+ prospects like Randall Delgado and Arodys Vizcaino?

by nixa37 on Dec 27, 2011 11:40 PM EST up reply actions  

While they are both very good prospects, they still have some things to overcome

An A- prospect, to me, is a near-can’t miss.

1. Wheeler and Harvey’s success has been at the A+ and AA level, respectively, rather than AAA, thus they are close to MLB but not MLB-ready.
2. Wheeler seems to have turned things around with regard to his command but we have yet to see low BB rates sustained for a long period of time.
3. Neither pitcher has the kind of plus-plus pitch to make you salivate. They look like at least average major leaguers, if not better, but nobody’s jaw is dropping.

by TheBigStapler on Dec 28, 2011 9:14 AM EST up reply actions  

Indeed

I get a Ryan Dempster-ish vibe.

by wobatus on Dec 28, 2011 11:25 AM EST up reply actions  

Wheeler and Harvey

Just as the type of seasons one might expect out of them, not stuff per se. Dempster threw a tad harder when he was younger, although his average fastball never topped 92.7 in a season. But just the type of guy with a few 3 WAR seasons, maybe topping at 5. Wheeler and Harvey may have more upside than that, but that’s about where I’d expect them to be. Maybe more like the 3 season run he was on before last year. From 2008-2010 Dempster was 15th in starter WAR (right behind John Danks and ahead of Chad Billingsley). Maybe Billingsley is another guy whose numbers may be the type Wheeler or harvey might match up with. Good but not great.

by wobatus on Dec 28, 2011 2:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes he does.

When you’re hitting 95-97 with the kind of movement he has on it, it’s a plus-plus. If you’re gonna dispute it, you’ve never seen the crazy life it has down in the zone.

by Ambient on Dec 28, 2011 3:45 PM EST up reply actions  

What else can a fastball do then?

"Let them be stud muffins"
-Tom Seaver
Proud Mets, Jets, Knicks, Islanders fan.

by piazza62 on Dec 28, 2011 7:33 PM EST up reply actions  

You joke,

but I read a great article about how Wheeler’s FB raises your white blood cell count. And of course movement and velocity can be part of what makes a pitch plus-plus, as can command, and penis size.

by charles wallace on Dec 28, 2011 10:12 PM EST up reply actions   2 recs

A few opinions on the list

While it is a ranking of your opinions, I believe Harvey and Wheeler should be A grades. Both will be top 50 prospects this season and I feel like Wheeler really started to break through at the end of the year when he was going back to his HS windup.

-Very surprised to see Aderlin Rodriguez left off of the list. Feel like he has the most pop in the system and could be a special bat if he can improve his plate discipline.

The Mets have a very deep system it seems. Just a few names off the “left-off” list
Juan Urbina Son of Ugueth, LHP still only 18 and was one of the top IFA in 2009. Apparently shows strong command, mechanics and a solid changeup already. Will be interesting to see how he does in a full season league this season.
-Bradley Marquez-Drafted this season out of HS. Signed a two-sport deal splitting between baseball with the Mets and football with Texas Tech. Reminds me alot of Jose Reyes. Shows great speed and runs like Reyes. BA ranked him the best Athlete in the Mets system.
-Matt Den Dekker-Drafted 2010 out of Univ. of Florida. Put up 17 HR between A+ and AA but struck out way too much. Could eventually make his way to the Majors as a 4th OF. BA ranked him as the Best Defensive OF in the system. Plays a fantastic CF.

Overall a well done list and a positive thing for Mets fans to look at. A list that could go 30 deep of C+ and highers grades.

by Metsfan on Dec 28, 2011 12:52 AM EST reply actions  

Got hit in the face with a ball in the beginning of the 2011 season

He did some serious eye damage which puts his career in jeopardy.

by FrancoTAU on Dec 28, 2011 1:04 PM EST up reply actions  

serious eye injury

Hit in face by baseball. Retina was nearly fully torn. Should be back next season, but it’s really not 100% clear his vision will be the same. General information on the procedure from a few medical sources says:

With proper treatment, the prognosis is excellent. More than 90% of detached retinas can be reattached successfully. In some cases, more than one treatment is necessary.

Vision is most likely to return to near normal if the problem is treated less than seven days after the detachment begins. Some blurring of vision may remain in people who have detachments that involve the macula (central vision).

If the macula has not detached, the pre–existing vision will usually be retained following successful repair. However if the macula is detached and central vision is impaired by the detachment, there may be permanent loss of central vision even if the retina is successfully repaired.

The final outcome for vision depends on several factors. For example, if the macula was detached, central vision rarely will return to normal. Even if the macula was not detached, some vision may still be lost, although most will be regained.

I’m guessing if you are hitting a baseball for a living, “near normal” vision might not be good enough.

Ratliffs surgery was fairly complex. Apparently something where they removed the lens and did the surgery (using laser) in April and then he had to recover for 6 months before having the lens reattached.

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/20026/farm-report-ratliff-rebounding-from-eye-injury

by acerimusdux on Dec 28, 2011 1:20 PM EST up reply actions  

ratliff

yeah that was a damn shame. i was higher on him than most and expected a big 2011. now it’s unclear if he’ll even be able to play at a high level again. sucks for the kid but at this point you really can’t include him in any list of top prospects until we see more this coming season. i’ll be rooting hard for him.

by Rob Castellano on Dec 28, 2011 1:22 PM EST up reply actions  

Any good rookies @ St. Lucie?

John,
Any good-looking rookies coming up – specifically, the two Austin,Tx., boys, Shepard and Hutson, both I believe playing at first base. (yes, I’m from Austin!)

by SozoMojo on Jan 19, 2012 6:11 PM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Minor League Ball: Where the Future of Baseball is Discussed

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
BA Top 100
Gorilla_small
Kevin Goldstein's BP top 101 Prospects
Small
Catch-22: Is Travis D’Arnaud the ‘Next One?’

Recent FanPosts

Small
Overall Community Prospect #102
Small
Community Pitching Prospect #68
Small
Community Positional Prospect #70 RUNOFF
Small
My 2013 top 15
Dme_small
2012 MLBDD Prospect Lists: Top 15 First Basemen
Small
Baseball America Top 100 for 2012
Small
Community Pitching Prospect #67 RUNOFF
Small
Community Positional Prospect #70
Small
Overall Community Prospect #101

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

March2111_084_small John Sickels

Jeri_avatar_small mssickels

Authors

Headshot_small dougdirt

Mblpglogo_small Matt Garrioch

Small SethSpeaks

Osnation2_small Jordan Tuwiner

Img00006-20101226-1702_small Ray Guilfoyle

Lax-xl_small Marisa Ingemi

Small Marc Hulet

Moderators

Small mrkupe


Site Meter