Forum Home

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.
Here, courtesy of Tim Good-Times (Bontemps) in the NYPost is a summary of how things have gone during Tony B's (now terminated) tenure as player personnel dude.


2005 Draft
The Mets lone top 10 pick during Bernazard's tenure with the team was in his first draft, when they selected Mike Pelfrey with the ninth overall pick. While Pelfrey has turned into a solid major league starter (25-26, 4.49 ERA, 1.48 WHIP), he hasn't turned into the kind of impact player that some later draft picks (in particular Tampa Bay's Matt Garza and Cincinnati's Jay Bruce) have.
The Mets did do a nice job of developing some later picks in that draft, particularly two rookie pitchers currently on the staff - starter Jonathon Niese (7th round) and reliever Bobby Parnell (9th). They also picked catcher Josh Thole (13th), an All-Star this year in the Double-A Eastern League.

2006 Draft
The Mets' top pick in 2006, Kevin Mulvey (2nd round), was one of the pieces involved in the trade for Johan Santana. The next pick, Joe Smith (3rd), was a dependable reliever for the team before being shipped out last winter in the J.J. Putz trade.
One of the Mets more notable mid-round selections occurred in this draft as well in Daniel Murphy (13th), who now is the team's starting first baseman. The other player of potential note from this draft is pitcher Tobi Stoner, who now is with Triple-A Buffalo.

2007 Draft
The Mets had five picks in the top 100 in this draft, and all five of them have pretty serious question marks at this point. The top pick, reliever Eddie Kunz, is doing OK with Triple-A Buffalo, but doesn't seem like he's going to be the dominant closer the Mets hoped he'd be when they took him with their first pick in the supplemental first round. Their other supplemental first rounder, left-hander Nathan Vineyard, had shoulder surgery last year and has hardly pitched in the majors.
Scott Moviel, the Mets first second round pick, is another projectable pitcher at 6-foot-11, but is still far from a finished product. Right-hander Brant Rustich, who was drafted out of college, still has yet to advance beyond High-A, while their third rounder, Eric Niesen, has bombed so far in several starts with Double-A Binghamton.
This seems to have been the Mets best draft in terms of mid-round talent under Bernazard. Lucas Duda, a seventh-round pick, has performed well through Double-A, while pitcher Dylan Owen (20th) is in Double-A and pitchers Michael Antonini (18th) and Dillon Gee (21st) are in Triple-A.

2008 Draft
The 2008 draft class could prove to be a pivotal one for the Mets organization. With three first round selections, the Mets had a chance to quickly stock their system with three long-term answers at the big-league level. So far, it looks like they got at least one of them right, with the other two up for debate.
The one that they've nailed - at least so far - is the third one, right-hander Brad Holt (33rd overall). He's shot through the minors, and after a bit of a rough start with Double-A Binghamton, has quickly found his groove there as well. He's now mentioned as one of the top prospects in the Mets' system, and could be in the rotation in Queens as soon as next year.
The other two, first baseman Ike Davis (18th overall) and middle infielder Reese Havens (22nd), have left more questions than answers. Davis, the son of former Yankee reliever Ron Davis, took nearly 300 at-bats to hit his first major league homer. Since then, though, he's been on a roll. This season between High-A and Double-A, Davis is hitting .295 with 14 homers and 52 RBI. He could be the Mets starting first baseman as soon as next season, and could be the team's answer there for years to come - both offensively and defensively.
Havens, on the other hand, has spent much of his time as a pro hurt with various nagging injuries. He's shown some serious pop in limited action (12 homers in 80 career games) but needs to prove he can stay on the field.
The rest of the organizations' '08 draft class has had too little time in the system to judge one way or the other. The same can be said of last month's draft class, of which several top picks have yet to sign.

International signees
Under Bernazard's watch, the Mets have signed several prominent Latin American players who developed into known quantities. From the 2005 class, pitcher Deolis Guerra was part of the Johan Santana trade, while Fernando Martinez has developed into one of baseball's top prospects.
In 2006, the Mets inked Ruben Tejada, who is starting as short for Double-A Binghamton, as well as Francisco Pena (Tony's son). The Mets also signed Maikel Cleto that summer, who turned into the biggest piece of the Putz trade. The organization followed that up with inking two of its current top 10 prospects, Wilmer Flores and Jefry Marte, in 2007, along with its top overall prospect right now, Jenrry Mejia.




FK: To compare the above record to what a team should reasonably expect to get out of the same situation draft & money-wise is always speculative and shirley something beyond what I'm capable of assessing (not to mention that the players are still young enough and their acquisitions recent enough that we're talking about a still-moving target). Armed with hindsight it is, of course, easy to see who the "right" picks were, but one can always find a player drafted later that looks better than an earlier one even if the one you got was is developing nicely.

Bottom line is I think the both the pct of success coming from the draft and the rate at which they develop is the area that fans in general most consistently over-estimate. It would be great if hitting studs and ace hurlers were strewn all over every draft but that's just not the case in a sport where nearly 1/3 of all 1st round picks never spend a day in the majors and only around 1-in-4 even becomes a regular much less a star. The 'our picks always suck' lament or the one where they don't turn out to be what we were "promised" they'd become are pretty universal themes amongst fans of all stripes.

My guess is that that record would stand up at least reasonably well against most; particularly when taking into consideration that there was just one top half of the 1st round pick (Pelfrey) in the whole bunch, but then it's tough to demand prime draft positions, competitive teams each year, and numerous big-name FA signings all at the same time.

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.

And you know, once they add Damien Magnifico, who knows how awesum they can be lol!!!1

PS -- Brant Rustich hooks like he could be a monster reliever. 6-6, 230 pretty good K figures

Edgy DC
Jul 28 2009 07:44 AM

UR a dooshbag. ROFL!

Frayed Knot
Jul 28 2009 07:57 AM

]... wouldn't think the Met system is nearly as bad as its popularly believed to be


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.

Buffalo may suck, but true prospects avoid AAA these days if they are for real.. Mets seem to have plenty of talent. maybe I'm missing something

Frayed Knot
Jul 28 2009 08:13 AM

="Ashie62"]It wasn't that long ago when Baseball America ranked the Met farm system in the Top 5.
I don't remember it being that high in the last few years (back of the top ten maybe) but these things fluctuate wildly from year to year based on the fact that good prospects get promoted and become ex-prospects which drives the ranking down.
]Buffalo may suck, but true prospects avoid AAA these days if they are for real.. Mets seem to have plenty of talent. maybe I'm missing something


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.

Most Mets customers are asking for one player..Ruben Tejada...secondary Lucas Duda and Ike Davis

Say Tejada does well, real well, and so does Holt and "ranking of the farm system goes up.

So many variable in rating farm systems

MFS62
Jul 28 2009 09:08 AM

I'm not sure that article really answers the question of Bernazard's role in "Player Development"
Was he responsible for heading up the scouting organization? If so, it appears that the job he did was about what other organizations would have expected to do, maybe more.
If not, if his title of VP of Minor League Operations only included managing the minor league club operations (the business side), then he can get no credit for recent drafts.
Until we know his exact job responsibilities the article, though interesting and encouraging, may not be pertinent.

Later

Edgy DC
Jul 28 2009 09:31 AM

I believe his title was vice president of development.

MFS62
Jul 28 2009 09:55 AM

="Edgy DC"]I believe his title was vice president of development.

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

="MFS62":1v8l7x25]I'm not sure that article really answers the question of Bernazard's role in "Player Development"[/quote:1v8l7x25]

I'm not sure it does either - although he was clearly on the talent end rather than the business side - and you can never lay the blame (or success) at the feet of one person in a concept as large as 'player development' in a baseball team.

But part of what was going on in the initial Bernazard thread was what I thought was a case of scapegoating, taking shots at the low-hanging fruit while it was there for the whacking. Part of that whacking was blaming Tony B for for being in the Bingo locker room when he had no role in player development while simultaneously blaming him for the lack of player development (as evidenced by our "barren" farm system). Then there was the part about the failures being his fault while the successes were no-brainers that anyone could do.

Be nice if solving all the problems were as easy as getting rid of one guy but the big picture is a lot more involved than that and I think this summary at least partially shows that.

Valadius
Jul 28 2009 12:23 PM

If I had to rate Bernazard on the player development that occurred during his tenure, I'd guess that he's somewhere in the middle of major league teams. Like around 14-17. Which isn't bad, but I'd like to expect something in the top 5.

seawolf17
Jul 28 2009 12:33 PM

="Valadius":2pah4pru]If I had to rate Bernazard on the player development that occurred during his tenure, I'd guess that he's somewhere in the middle of major league teams. Like around 14-17. Which isn't bad, but I'd like to expect something in the top 5.[/quote:2pah4pru]
I'd love to see your methodology; where'd you rank, say, Cleveland? Or the Twins?

metirish
Jul 28 2009 12:39 PM

="seawolf17":1daq6btk]
="Valadius":1daq6btk]If I had to rate Bernazard on the player development that occurred during his tenure, I'd guess that he's somewhere in the middle of major league teams. Like around 14-17. Which isn't bad, but I'd like to expect something in the top 5.[/quote:1daq6btk] I'd love to see your methodology; where'd you rank, say, Cleveland? Or the Twins?[/quote:1daq6btk]


it's similar to the methodology Val has for giving nicknames to players, just needs to be tweaked a little.