Master Index of Archived Threads
Player Development
Frayed Knot Jul 28 2009 07:32 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 28 2009 02:11 PM |
A side discussion broke out in one of the Bernazard threads about his role (or lack of it) in player development.
|
metirish Jul 28 2009 07:39 AM |
Makes for good reading that, certainly better than what I am led to believe in the media.
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 28 2009 07:39 AM |
I wouldn't think the Met system is nearly as bad as its popularly believed to be. If there are 3 or 4 guys who could be good major leaguers in there now, and there may be between Holt, Meija, Davis, etc., than that's pretty good.
|
Edgy DC Jul 28 2009 07:44 AM |
UR a dooshbag. ROFL!
|
Frayed Knot Jul 28 2009 07:57 AM |
|
Much of this comes from those seemingly intent on proving the adage about 'a little bit on knowledge is worse than none at all' When big-name, high-salary players get put on the block (or just rumored to be) everyone naturally turns their attention to the bigger market clubs since those are the ones likely to be in position to absorb the salaries. Since the better NYM prospects are mostly in the lower levels and not quite ready from prime-time right now, accurate statements like 'Mets don't have the horses' or 'aren't a good match' for this trade get interpreted into 'the system is barren' by those who pay no attention to the system except when some outside superstar is on the move - at which point they wonder why a Santana-like trade can't be made every year and look for someone to blame.
|
Ashie62 Jul 28 2009 08:00 AM |
It wasn't that long ago when Baseball America ranked the Met farm system in the Top 5.
|
Frayed Knot Jul 28 2009 08:13 AM |
||
They seem to have average-ish talent according to those who follow this stuff. But even then there are different ways to be "average". Some systems have fewer guys but ones who are closer to being ready while others might have a lot of more promising bodies but ones that are still far away. Then there's the system with lots of good talent but no stand-outs vs the ones with one or two potential superstars but little or no depth. Which of those types are better is very subjective.
|
Ashie62 Jul 28 2009 08:20 AM |
I run an online sports memorabila business and the funny thing is speculators are very often spot in in picking the correct guy. These days Donruss & Bowman put out a card the year a player is drafted.
|
MFS62 Jul 28 2009 09:08 AM |
I'm not sure that article really answers the question of Bernazard's role in "Player Development"
|
Edgy DC Jul 28 2009 09:31 AM |
I believe his title was vice president of development.
|
MFS62 Jul 28 2009 09:55 AM |
|
So, still not too specific. It could mean that someone else scouts and drafts, then turns them over to him to "develop". Titles can be misleading. On a resume, you put your title as well as a list of responsibilities and achievements. Later
|
Edgy DC Jul 28 2009 10:09 AM |
I'm certain that his responsiblilities weren't about "managing the minor league club operations (the business side)," but about overseeing the development of players, and the instructional staff worked underneath him.
|
Frayed Knot Jul 28 2009 10:20 AM |
||||||||||
|