Master Index of Archived Threads


Agree or Disagree?

Mex17 Jul 18 2009 07:07 AM

Even when you are in "Live For Today/Win Now/Go For It/whatever term you wish to use" mode, it SHOULD be plausable to be at least within the top 3/5ths of organizational minor league systems (I guess using Baseball America as the arbitrator. . .they seem like a good source), shouldn't it? With 30 teams in the league that means at least 18th. The difference between being within that range and being below it, even after taking into account losing your higher draft picks to FA signings and the occasional trade of a group of prospects for a veteran, must be the result of effective scouting/drafting vs. ineffective scouting/drafting over the course of several years. I asked the other day if anyone knew precisely where the Mets fell in the most recent BA listing. I do not think that it is 18th or above however. I could be wrong. . .if anyone knows please confirm. Minaya has three years to go after this one. If I were Wilpon I would mandate that this baseline be reached by the end of this contract extension or else I, at the end of the alotted time, would be scouring other organizations (like the Red Sox, Rays, and Marlins who do have top systems as far as I know) and interviewing the top assistants from these places for my next GM (that is if I cannot lure the main guy over). That along with the additional mandate to make the post season in at least two of the next three seasons. I think that you can do both if you are only talking about the top 60% as your mandated baseline. When it came time to "rebuild" I would mandate being in the top 5 organizations overall, but we are not at that point now (not with Santana and Wright still in their prime). That day would come soon enough though.

Edgy DC Jul 18 2009 08:13 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 18 2009 12:49 PM

I don't agree because rankings are taken as a snapshot. A team before or after a major deal would look different from that point of view even though they arguably didn't grow poorer or richer. The Yankees promoted a bunch of players last year and dropped from #5 to #15. It's like saying a team with the best offense should remain within the top 3/5s of pitching staffs. Well, not if you traded some pitchers for hitters and got much better doing it. A good strong deep minor league system is a goal. It's not the goal.

Frayed Knot Jul 18 2009 12:03 PM

]I asked the other day if anyone knew precisely where the Mets fell in the most recent BA listing. I do not think that it is 18th or above however. I could be wrong. . .if anyone knows please confirm. 'Baseball America' & 'Baseball Prospectus' ranked the Met system 17th & 18th prior to the season so I guess the Mets fit your cut-off point for an 'acceptable' system. Other than that, what Edgy said. The purpose of having a strong system is to give you options (either through promotions, trades, or a combination of the two) at improving your major league team, not so you can reach some arbitrary level of minor league prowess simply for the purpose of doing so. btw, these rankings are almost always cyclical because of the very nature of promotions weakening a system and sucking leading to high draft picks. For instance if you want to hire the Tampa guys for their good system keep a couple things in mind 1) it got that way largely by losing 95+ games per year for 11 years straight 2) their system is no longer on top for all the reasons listed above So if your goal is to get a good system by employing step 1 then I'll pass thankyouverymcuh. And even if you do get it there then step 2 (and a hopefully improved MAJOR LEAGUE TEAM -- kind of the long-term goal, no?) will almost certainly knock it back down again. You're looking at a piece of the process and treating it as the final score.

Mex17 Jul 18 2009 02:39 PM

Obviously it is not the end result but I do believe that it has to be the engine that drives the car. A good system allows you to: 1) Put packages together for more experienced talent. 2) Pay said talent what they are worth (or convince them to remain) because you are getting production from less expensive sources elsewhere. Case in point: Could Hernandez/Carter/Knight/Ojeda have been inserted as the final bricks of a championship wall without the mortar of Strawberry/Gooden/Backman/Dykstra/Mookie/McDowell/Aguliera/Orosco (acquired as a prospect)/Darling (same)/Sid Fernandez (same) or even the homegrown players traded for the above? Plus, with regard to what Edgy said, the Yankees went from #5 (top notch)to #15 (still within my range) even though they have been signing FA's and "gong for it", so it can be done. Ergo, if they fall below what I said then it is not really cyclical at all but a function of incompetance. You said that the Mets are not at that low of a point so that it good news, but I see no reason to dispute my proposition that keeping the system above a certain level at all times ought to be expected.

Edgy DC Jul 18 2009 03:05 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 18 2009 06:34 PM

1) relaize that good system allows you to packages together for more experienced talent. But as soon as you do, that system isn't as "good" anymore. The truth is they are as good, but not as stocked at that moment, and therefore lower ranked. 2) Who are we thinking of that has left the Mets because of their unwillingness to pay? Strawberry? Hampton? ]Plus, with regard to what Edgy said, the Yankees went from #5 (top notch)to #15 (still within my range) even though they have been signing FA's and "gong for it", so it can be done. So are the Mets, So I'm not sure what the issue is ]Ergo, if they fall below what I said then it is not really cyclical at all but a function of incompetance. You said that the Mets are not at that low of a point so that it good news, but I see no reason to dispute my proposition that keeping the system above a certain level at all times ought to be expected. That depends on what level, and who ranks the levels. Picking an arbitrary ranking level (top 3/5) and an arbitrary arbiter (<i>BaseballAmerica</i>) doesn't seem very productive. I'm sure the Mets have a very seriious standard for what they want in their system and their minimum acceptable levels. But anybody who gains comfort from good Baseball America rankings over a decade of losing over 95 games isn't getting the baseball thing. ]Ergo, if they fall below what I said then it is not really cyclical at all but a function of incompetance. You said that the Mets are not at that low of a point so that it good news, but I see no reason to dispute my proposition that keeping the system above a certain level at all times ought to be expected. If you're a trading man, and your team has the 15th-ranked system, and you refuse to make a trade for Hanley Ramirez because your system would fall to 19th or 20th, you've met your goal but lost. Similarly if you refuse to promote a player who is capable of helping the team. ]Minaya has three years to go after this one. Go after what? An artificial after-the-fact standard? What he's going for is an excellent organization by numerous metrics, but, bottom line, wins. Nobody wants to see an organziation brimming with talent more than I do. But I certainly don't want to overstate this current injury crisis as being broadly linked to a wreckless lack of organizational depth.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 18 2009 03:23 PM

="Edgy DC"] ]Minaya has three years to go after this one. Go after what? An artificial after-the-fact standard? What he's going for is an excellent organization by numerous metrics, but, bottom line, wins. Nobody wants to see an organziation brimming with talent more than I do. But I certainly don't want to overstate this current injury crisis as being broadly linked to a wreckless lack of organizational depth. I think he meant that Minaya has three more contract years remaining. The injury crisis is one thing. The lack of organizational depth-- or direction-- is another, more disturbing thing.

Kong76 Jul 18 2009 03:23 PM

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9yiYbCJitvQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9yiYbCJitvQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Edgy DC Jul 18 2009 04:03 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 18 2009 08:01 PM

="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":1gxfbhcj]The injury crisis is one thing. The lack of organizational depth-- or direction-- is another, more disturbing thing.[/quote:1gxfbhcj] I don't think so, and I think they're two different issues. The Mets have a cascading injury crisis. FANners are beating up on them because they don't have Major League ready winners ready to step in. But a lot of teams can't field a full lineup of better-than-replacement players on opening day. This is awful, but we may have to weather it. I don't know what we really expect when the team's first three shortstops are simultaneously hurt, and the number two ws playing as an act of self-sacrifice when he belongs on the disabled list. It's also true that getting a good <i>BaseballAmerica</i> ranking isn't necessarily accomplished by having the best big league-ready emergency backups at AAA. Frayed Knot Jul 18 2009 04:04 PM ]Obviously it is not the end result but I do believe that it has to be the engine that drives the car. No one is arguing against having a good feeder system, only against your mandate that it needs to be at and remain at a particular (and arbitrary) level at all times and to use that as your standard for judging the GM. btw, two seasons ago the NYM system was ranked in the top 10, how'd that work out? It got downgraded since mainly because of the trade for Santana although it would have anyway because the Santana pieces (Humber, Guerra, Mulvey, Gomez) would have graduated or been degraded in value even if we had held onto them. And if it's your contention that a GM shouldn't make a deal like that unless and until he had sufficient lower minors people so as the keep the "ranking" up high enough, well then I don't even know what to say. Mex17 Jul 18 2009 06:29 PM In a perfect world, you would make a trade (or trades) like that when you are up near the top and then as a result drop down to the 15-18 range. But you and Edgy are correct. . .you cannot turn down a great deal for a Santana or a Hanley Ramirez based on something like whether or not it will drop your organizational ranking down below a certain level. The qualitative point that I am trying to get across is that it is possible to try to win on the major league level without your system dropping all the way to the bottom. I was under the impression that the Mets were at the absolute bottom but it turns out that I have been mislead or misunderstood. But, if they were indeed at the very bottom, excuses like "Well, we lost a lot of draft picks because of Free Agent signings" or "The trades we made have put us here" would not cut the mustard. . .not if the Yankees can sign everyone that they want and still be in a position where they start out at #5 and drop down to #15 due to promotions. At this point it is all theoretical I guess but a part of me suspects that Minaya would try to sweet talk us in that manner if they were 28th or 30th or something like that. Edgy DC Jul 18 2009 06:35 PM i agree that it's possible to simultaneously win and build the system. Kong76 Jul 18 2009 06:39 PM M17: part of me suspects that Minaya would try to sweet talk us <<< He's sneaky that way. You can see it in interviews, he wants to fool the fans. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 18 2009 07:45 PM ="Kong76"]M17: part of me suspects that Minaya would try to sweet talk us <<< He's sneaky that way. You can see it in interviews, he wants to fool the fans. He really should stop with the compulsive lip-moistening and winking. It's really more sleazy than seductive at this point. ="EdgyDC"] ="LWFS"]The injury crisis is one thing. The lack of organizational depth-- or direction-- is another, more disturbing thing. I don't think so, and I think they're two different issues. I think we agree on this point. What I'm getting at is that I am much more concerned about the general direction of the team than about this year's results(although the fact that this seems a lost year may have something to do with that). While I'm not sure the situation is quite as dire as, say, the Rubin article depicts, I'm also much more worried about the team's general direction/depth than about the year-to-year, period. I think I see another aspect of Mex's argument-- that of accountability. It's Omar's job-- as I understand it-- to build a sustainable winning, marketable baseball organization (of course, as I have no idea what directives the Wilpons have given Omar in terms of operating the baseball side of things, I could be very, very wrong). The year-to-year results of the major league team are just one aspect of organizational health; the minor-league talent and the scouting/evaluation/player-development pipeline that shepherds it are, of course, the other primary aspect. Now, it's relatively easy to quantify how well the major-league club is doing-- both wins/playoff appearances/championships and the primary-order statistical matter which underlies these provide pretty decent measures. Since the minor-league system's job is literally a work in progress, it's a lot more slippery to gauge in any objective way. Still, if Omar's bosses are doing their job, they're evaluating all aspects of organizational health when making decisions about whether to extend him. If they're doing this job dilligently, then they're finding out as much as they can about how he's running the minors, too... even if they have to go to outside evaluators. (Team scouts probably wouldn't make the most unbiased judges of their own work, right?) The problem is... what are these standards? What should they be? I'm not sure than Mex's initial proposal is the right way to go... but asking folk like John Sickels or Keith Law or [intelligent, unbiased outside party of your choice] to do an audit on the team might be a valuable part of a comprehensive, responsible evaluation process. It seems a smarter way to do business than relying on mere internal reports/presentations, or going largely by the number of wins the major-league team produced this year. Edgy DC Jul 18 2009 08:10 PM So Minaya should be held accountable if the Mets fail to effectively and continually build the farm system. I don't think anybody particularly disputes that. But nobody is sure if he did anything wrong.