Master Index of Archived Threads
Mets Top Ten Post-Trade Prospects: BA & Rotoworld
| Rotblatt Feb 01 2006 07:32 AM |
|
|
So basically, our farm system is really, really depleted.
|
| Johnny Dickshot Feb 01 2006 07:46 AM |
|
|
Read where some SoSH guy with alleged connections (cough) suggests a deal is "almost done" whereby Milledge and Nady goes to Boston, Clement goes to Washington, and Vidro, Livan Hernandez and a PTBNL comes to the Mets.
|
| MFS62 Feb 01 2006 07:46 AM |
|
Nice to see the nice words about my adopted kid, Carlos Gomez/.
|
| Edgy DC Feb 01 2006 09:27 AM |
|
The Mets strategy seems to be restocking the farm by being aggressive in the foreign amateur free agent marke to supplement their recent draftst. Time will tell if it works.
|
| smg58 Feb 01 2006 10:35 AM |
|
Bergmann is a rookie reliever who had a lot of strikeouts in limited action at the major-league level (21K in 19.2 IP), along with a 2.75 ERA. He'd have been a good pickup before the Mets got overloaded with righty relievers. I'd have given Benson and Diaz for Wilkerson and Bergmann a few months and several deals ago. But now, what's the point in getting him? You'd not only be cutting off any chance of Padilla or Bell making the team, but you'd also be blocking guys you just traded starting pitchers to get.
|
| Yancy Street Gang Feb 01 2006 10:39 AM |
|
|
For whatever it's worth, the following was in Jon Heyman's Newsday column on Sunday:
|
| smg58 Feb 01 2006 10:51 AM |
|
|
Steve Reed was the major acquisition in the deal that sent Bay, the lefty Bobby Jones, and somebody else to San Diego, but Phillips also insisted on Jason Middlebrook. I can't help wondering if we could have kept Bay if Middlebrook was not thrown in. It also goes to show that sometimes really good players sneak up on everybody.
|
| MFS62 Feb 01 2006 11:05 AM |
|
|
I had read that Millege has a strong enough arm to play right field. IMO the fact that Omar sees him as a left fielder tells me that he sees Victor Diaz sticking around as the right fielder for a while. I guess another way to look at that statement is that Cliff only has one more year left on his contract. Whaddaya' think? And wasn't Omar the GM who traded Jason Bay away when he was at Montreal? Later
|
| Yancy Street Gang Feb 01 2006 11:19 AM |
|
I guess we'll see what 2006 brings, but I'm not totally opposed to the idea of retaining Cliff in 2007 and letting Milledge play right field.
|
| vtmet Feb 01 2006 11:29 AM |
|
I don't know what is more ugly, the top 10 prospect list or that pathetic 3 way trade...even Mets fans don't come up with such lopsided trades as the one that either a Sox or Nats fan dreamed up...give up Milledge and Nady, get back broken down & overpriced crap?
|
| soupcan Feb 01 2006 11:38 AM |
|
|
I like the idea of what Milledge can become but I'm done getting suckered in by the 'potential' of highly rated Mets prospects. I'd prefer to keep Lastings and see what he turns into, but Vidro at second and a solid starter for the rotation isn't 'crap'.
|
| sharpie Feb 01 2006 11:43 AM |
|
No deal like that would ever happen with us still holding onto Matsui, plus Boone having the ST invite.
|
| Edgy DC Feb 01 2006 11:54 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 01 2006 03:28 PM |
|
Well, since the list is being promoted as relatively lean, nobody should over-romanticize the Met farm where it now stands. They cashed in a lot of chits this winter.
|
| Johnny Dickshot Feb 01 2006 12:02 PM |
|
While the Mets appear to be OK having a few potential impact players cooking in the system, I'd feel a lot better with more depth. I fear a situation like 2001-2002 happening all over again where few guys were able to fill a need or complete a trade if/when necessary.
|
| metirish Feb 01 2006 12:41 PM |
|
Dickshot that deal you mentioned is just you taking the piss right?, it can't be true...or even rumored to be.
|
| rpackrat Feb 01 2006 02:05 PM |
|
JD hits the nail on the head. That list (and our farm system in fact) is not at all bad. We have a number of potential impact players (especially pitchers), and most of them look like they're on track to hit the majors in '07 or '08. The system lacks depth after the trades, but depth can be made up pretty quickly through the amateur and Minor League Rule V drafts.
|
| seawolf17 Feb 01 2006 02:32 PM |
|
I like our system right now. Could be deeper, but at least there's something there.
|
| Rotblatt Feb 01 2006 03:05 PM |
|
|
Good point about the redundancy, Edge--I totally agree. And JD, you're right too--we do have some impact players. Of course, we had more a few months ago . . . Still, a top three of Milledge, Pelfry & Humber seems pretty solid to me.
|
| Frayed Knot Feb 01 2006 03:31 PM |
||
|
Well there's always something but this isn't a good system right now. Aside from Milledge - who's a legit top-15 in all of baseball kind of guy - I doubt we'll see anyone else in the top-100 lists that'll come out this Spring with the possible exception of Pelfrey who may find his way onto the middle/back of some lists based strictly on his potential & amateur career since obviously there's nothing else to go by at this point. Now if Pelfrey makes a huge splash and Humber bounces back quickly you've got the potential for a real big "top 3" a la Reyes/Wright/Kazmir, but we're a couple of 'ifs' away from that point and even then you've still got the depth question to contend with. I think Dickshot's point is that the lack of depth limits what you can do when a trade is needed since most of the guys would fall under the extremes of being either close to untouchable, or so far away to the point where they're not all that valuable. This wasn't a very highly rated system prior to dealing Petit, Jocobs, Hernandez, etc. and I'd be surprised if the mags that rate these things this Spring have it anywhere but the bottom 1/4 of their lists.
Most places define "prospects" the same way MLB does rookies, so Jacobs - with only 100 MLB ABs - would still be considered one.
|
| vtmet Feb 01 2006 03:57 PM |
||
|
At this point of Vidro's career...a lot of salary, bad legs after playing for years on the cement floor in Stade Olympic...I stand by my appraisal of Vidro... I will admit that I overlooked Livan Hernandez's name as the other player...a pretty solid pitcher, but I don't know if I'd get rid of our top position prospect for him...especially when Floyd's contract is up soon and Diaz/Nady/Beltran haven't proven much last season...Do I expect Milledge to be Darryl Strawberry? No...but he should be able to handle any of the 3 OF positions; he's fast, and has so far carried a pretty solid OBP in the minors...I think I'd like to see a 1-5 lineup of: Milledge/Reyes/Wright/Delgado/Beltran instead of getting another middle age pitcher for him...don't know if he'll work out, but it's a better risk than buying a lottery ticket...
|
| soupcan Feb 01 2006 04:10 PM |
|
Its already a lottery ticket. Its always a lottery ticket.
|
| Edgy DC Feb 01 2006 04:20 PM |
|
I don't know who in particular you're quoting, but I imagine the production of Roberto Alomar was even more guaranteed than the Alex he was dealt for.
|
| vtmet Feb 01 2006 04:22 PM |
|
IMO, the thing is, at some point in time, you need to be able to trust your prospects...constantly trading away top prospects prolongs mediocrity...without free agency, our OF is going to be pretty lame very shortly...prospects are a roll of the dice, but that's why you should have multiple prospects instead of banking on a few...and also why I don't fully feel comfortable banking on Pelfrey and the guy that just had Tommy John surgery...
|
| Elster88 Feb 01 2006 04:26 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 01 2006 04:31 PM |
|
I say the opposite is true. Of the guys penciled in to start next year, let's say the lineup and rotation, how many came up through our system? 4 out of 13. Maybe this is just cherry picking this current year, but I'd guess that the majority of players are going to come from outside sources. You don't have to ever just "buckle down and trust your farm system."
|
| vtmet Feb 01 2006 04:30 PM |
|
|
exactly...IMO, that's how the Braves, Marlins, and now the Indians have built themselves up...of course you will have your Steve Avery's & Jason Schmidt's that don't work out for your team, but if you stock up on young guns, you might find a Tom Glavine, an Andruw Jones, a Chipper Jones, a John Schmoltz, a Rafael Furcal out of the bunch...instead of importing mediocrity in Benson, Zambrano, etc forever...
|
| soupcan Feb 01 2006 04:39 PM |
|
Again, I'm not advocating trading Milledge, I'm just saying that no one should be untouchable based upon potential that's all.
|
| Nymr83 Feb 01 2006 04:52 PM |
|
|
my unscientific (IE just by memory) survey of the 128 starting position players in the NL tells me that 58 of those players are on the team for which they first made a major league appearence... yeah i could be wrong on a few, wrong about who has the starting job, and i'm not taking into account which system they came through only where i remember them playing in mlb as a rookie but its still a starting point.
|
| sharpie Feb 01 2006 04:54 PM |
|
|
John Smoltz came to the Braves via a trade from the Tiggers for Doyle Alexander. Detroit won the division that year in part because of Alexander's strong finish but clearly the Braves got the better of the trade.
|
| vtmet Feb 01 2006 05:06 PM |
||
|
I know, I was just looking at where some of there guys came from earlier...the Braves made out trading for a few younger players in the late 80's to early 90's. Hard to believe that Smoltz was drafted in the 22nd round. And if you look at the Tigers drafts in the years surrounding when they drafted Smoltz, they made some real horrible draft evaluations...very few players of note, which kind of explains why the Tigers have been horrible for so long... Who did the Braves get back in the Dale Murphy salary dump?
|
| soupcan Feb 01 2006 05:42 PM |
|
|
Bag of balls it turns out. From BaseballReference.com: August 3, 1990: Traded by the Atlanta Braves with a player to be named later to the Philadelphia Phillies for players to be named later and Jeff Parrett. The Atlanta Braves sent Tommy Greene (August 9, 1990) to the Philadelphia Phillies to complete the trade. The Philadelphia Phillies sent Jim Vatcher (August 9, 1990) and Victor Rosario (September 4, 1990) to the Atlanta Braves to complete the trade.
|
| vtmet Feb 01 2006 05:53 PM |
|
Thanks Can of soup,
|
| Johnny Dickshot Feb 01 2006 06:08 PM |
|
Tommy Greene. One of those guys who, for no particular reason, one day threw a no-hitter.
|
| cleonjones11 Feb 01 2006 06:14 PM Jose Vidro...Milledge |
|
A bit of a stretch. Vidro sems like he's been hurt for three years. Let Milledge alone and let Floyd play it out. I'm sure Boston would love that trade.
|
| KC Feb 01 2006 07:37 PM |
|
No, they can't.
|
| Matt Murdock, Esq. Feb 01 2006 11:07 PM |
|
|
welcome to the TiTTS. We're a pert and bubbly bunch.
|
| Frayed Knot Feb 01 2006 11:24 PM |
|
|
Yes it is, and some of the teams that have been at or near the top in recent years have done just that to get/stay there*. Ideally, what you want to do is hang on to the "real deals" and swap out the others as needed in order to fill the big team's holes. The trick, of course, is figuing out which ones are the true gems and which are expendable. A strong farm system is a great thing to have but sometimes I think fans tend to treat having one as if it's an end unto itself instead of a means to a different end: namely a good MAJOR league team. No one should be considered "untouchable". The problem with Kazmir for Zambrano wasn't a philosophical one of a prospect being dealt for an established ML player; it was with THAT prospect being dealt for THAT player. I wouldn't do that proposed 3-way deal w/Boston & Wash (which I don't believe is real anyway) but mainly because I don't trust Vidro's health and I'm not sure that Livan Hernandez is much younger than Keith Hernandez, not because I'm convinced Milledge (who I wouldn't recognize if stuck on a elevator with) is "a sure thing". * The Cardinals are a good example of a team that's used that strategy well in recent years. They kept Pujols (who oddly wasn't as high on the charts as some others early but became a star so quickly that it removed all temptation) but have had a lower-ranked farm system over the last few years because they've dealt most of the rest of their decent "parts" to net themselves some key components of their recent runs like Edmonds, Rolen, Mulder, et al. The early '90s Yanquis did much the same. Many MFY fans thought Gerald was the better Williams over Bernie and hated the Roberto Kelly for Paul O'Neill deal ... but the club made the right call both times. It's not always as easy as it looks in retrospect.
|
| Edgy DC Feb 01 2006 11:36 PM |
|
It wasn't just the fans who thought Gerald was the better, as I recall. There were professional opinions along that line as well. And not a few that thought that D'Angelo Jiminez was a better bet than Alfonso Soriano, although, in the latter case, fate largely made the call for the Yankees, as (1) a car wreck injured Jiminez and bumped Soriano ahead of him and into the majors first, and (2) a bizarre throwing malady bumped Chuck Knoblauch from the Yankee second-base spot.
|
| Bret Sabermetric Feb 02 2006 06:24 AM |
|
|
Again, with the straw men. There's no sure things, as the Alomar deal tells you (and as has been pointed out here already). It's a numbers problem. The average club needs at least three rookies per year to establish themselves on the MLB level (Three would give each club 30 new players over a ten year period, which is probably a little below the actual figures since there are many more players with shorter careers than 10 years than there are players with longer careers.) If you're going to be dealing off your players who are close to MLB-ready, then what you're getting back is players who are a) more likely to succeed at the MLB level (since they've already done so) but b) far more expensive c) closer to dropping off the edge of the cliff (again, see Alomar) d) far less flexible in terms of cutting them loose if they don't work out, or trading them, or benching them and e) because of a), their established levels of MLB performance, less likely than rookies to have a surprising upside, as with Bernie Williams and Pujols. It's a dead-end path, trading rookie prospects routinely for veterans, especiailly when you're a bad ballclub that needs to broaden its talent base. You're creating a cycle in which you have holes cropping up at more frequent intervals (because your players are older) but you have less talent to fills those holes with on demand. Trading rookies for prospects should be a short-term solution to fixing the roster problems of well-established, successful teams, and even there should be used as minimally as possible.
|
| TheOldMole Feb 02 2006 06:29 AM |
|
Is "toolsy" really a word?
|
| Frayed Knot Feb 02 2006 10:04 AM |
||
|
What straw men?
If you do it wrong it is. Like I said, the Cards have made a habit of doing just that in recent years (for Edmonds, Rolen, McGwire, Mulder, Rentaria) which has resulted in their farm system being often ranked at or near the bottom of the barrel. It's also resulted in them playing in or for the World Series in the last 3 seasons and in 4 of the last 6. That doesn't prove that that method is the only way to do things, just that it alone is not some kind of poison pill to be avoided on some kind of philosophical principle. And besides, no one sticks to only one method of player procurement. You use some combination of all of them and hopefully make the right decisions with each.
In the world of baseball evaluations it is. Doubt the folks at SCRABBLE would accept it -- although probably only because none of them have thought of it yet.
|
| Bret Sabermetric Feb 02 2006 11:21 AM |
|
|
Setting Milledge up as a "sure thing," of whom you've seen none, is a straw man argument, because no one actually says he's a sure thing. Certainly far fewer would vouch for him as a sure thing than would have vouched for Alomar, at least in the short term. I say it's a numbers thing because swapping kids out for veterans is a losing game over large numbers of players. It works now and then for a few years, for some teams, who get lucky or who have specific gaping holes to fill and scout talent well, but if you swap out your kids for veterans as a general philosophy, you're usually walking up a dead alley. To do it from a narrow talent base, and do it hard, as the Mets are doing the last few years, is especially futile, since you've got to make every single one of your trades count. When you fuck up a veteran acquisition, not only does it deprive you of young talent, but it also commits you to the bad play of the overhyped veteran you've acquired at top dollar. Since you lack the young talent to replace him even if you wanted to, and you probably don't want to eat salary routinely, you're locked in to a lot of bad baseball. It's relatively easy to scout MLB talent, because you're dealing with proven commodities. You're not going to rob other systems of MLB talent if you're offering MLB talent because everyone knows what he's getting and giving up, more or less. The real inequities, through which you broaden your talent base, come in MLB talent for prospects. if you're the one shipping your prospects out, you're going to give up a superstar now then for very little return, and that sort of deal wrecks your franchise for a deacde or more. If St. Louis has been able to swap out prospects for MLB talent and not get burned, they've been or they really know what talent looks like.
|
| Frayed Knot Feb 02 2006 11:41 AM |
|
"... but if you swap out your kids for veterans as a general philosophy, you're usually walking up a dead alley"
|
| KC Feb 02 2006 12:02 PM |
|
>>>And besides, no one sticks to only one method of player procurement. You use some combination of all of them and hopefully make the right decisions with each.<<<
|
| Bret Sabermetric Feb 02 2006 02:42 PM |
|
|
As you can see by reading my post at the top of this page, I'm not not opposing it across the board, ever, as one possible method of building a team. I specifically recommend it for teams needing to fill a particular gap, or for teams that are on the cusp of advancing in the playoffs. But if you have many more prospects going out than coming in over a period of years, as the Mets have over the past six years or so, you're trying to fill an inside straight with fewer and fewer cards in the deck. I'll play poker against you anytime when you've got a 25 card deck and I've got a full deck.
|
| Yancy Street Gang Feb 02 2006 02:53 PM |
|
I agree that there needs to be a balance. I like the way the Mets did it in the 1980's: they hyped all of their prospects, fooling a lot of people. They traded the ones that were falsely hyped, and kept the ones that they really liked.
|
| Bret Sabermetric Feb 02 2006 02:59 PM |
|
Of course you don't. That's how they get away with this stupid policy. "In this hand, I show you Victor Zambrano--see how good he is on a major league roster RIGHT NOW? And in my bad hand I have only puny minor-leaguer prolly-never-will-be pint-sized schmuck nobody Scott Kazmir, who is years and years and years away from the MLB and who will probably hurt hisself before he even--whoops! bad example!"
|
| Yancy Street Gang Feb 02 2006 03:03 PM |
|
Other than Kazmir, who I pretty much acknowleged was thrown away needlessly, name a prospect trade since 2000 that we know has failed.
|
| Bret Sabermetric Feb 02 2006 03:14 PM |
|
Doesn't matter. I could run down players like Jason Bay for you, but my point is that if you swap out thirty prospects over five years and take in five prospects from other systems, either some of those kids you swapped out will grow up to be All-Stars, or you got very lucky. Neither seems to me to be a sound system for building a team.
|
| Frayed Knot Feb 02 2006 03:17 PM |
|
|
Not neccesarily. While no one's saying you should deal off as many as possible (the StL example is merely one where something like that HAS worked recently) the prospects that really matter are the true gems and those are always going to be vastly out-numbered by the never-will-bes. If you're smart enough to indentify and hang on to the jewels while waving the others in front of some desperate GM's eyes like some shiny bauble and extracting the correct MLers out of him then you can reap the best of both worlds. Cetainly hanging our hopes on Escobar, Ochoa, Eric Cammack, Grant Roberts, Pat Strange, Ty Wigginton, Matt Peterson, etc would have gotten us nowhere. There's a thread around here (currently playing in a featured archive near you) where I went through the best prospects of 2002 just to see how many would have looked like good "gets" with 3 (now nearly 4) years of hindsight. Not all that many as it turns out and that was from a list of the best of the best from all 30 ML teams. One team will be lucky to have more than 1 or 2 of those at any one time. Minor league players are a commodity. They can be useful if kept or they could be more useful traded away depending on the situation. I don't object as a matter of principle to doing either.
|
| Bret Sabermetric Feb 02 2006 03:44 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 02 2006 03:51 PM |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|