Master Index of Archived Threads


How many phenoms actually work out?

iramets Feb 08 2007 05:52 AM

Old Mole's guess in Edgy's reincarnation of Babe Ruth thread, Amos Otis, brought to mind a meme often seen on Mets' messageboards, that for every star young player the Mets have traded off, there's X number of Never-heard-of-hims. So here's the idea. I'll name a young phenom the Mets have dealt off who became a star, and you name X number of young mega-hyped Mets traded off whose parachutes never opened. To make this fun, you have to name guys who were really hyped as potential stars, as Otis was, and must provide evidence of that potential stardom (evidence that someone other than you and your Uncle Johnny thought the kid was going to develop into a star. Johnny drank too much anyway.) For my part, I'll name people who never played a full season for the Mets as a regular, and I'll define a regular as "never listed at a starting position, or in the rotation, on any UMDB roster." When we're done, we should know what X equals. So I'll start with "Amos Otis." Whattaya got?

Edgy DC Feb 08 2007 08:23 AM

Yusmeiro Petit?

Yancy Street Gang Feb 08 2007 08:27 AM

Shawn Abner. Alex Escobar.

DocTee Feb 08 2007 08:37 AM

Bill Pulsipher Alex Ochoa

iramets Feb 08 2007 08:49 AM

So far, the ratio of "legitimate stars traded off prematurely" to "overhyped never-were-stars traded off, hanks the Lord, for almost anyone wo would have to be better than these nebbishes turned out" is 1/3, pending evidence for Petit's hype (I never heard of him, I don't think--if you'd asked me what a "Yumiero Petit" was I would have guess "the smallest size of Nougat available in France") Documentation is also pending on Pulsipher, who was traded (I think) after demonstrating fairly clearly that he was no longer a young star but rather someone who'd been seriously over-hyped. I haven't looked up Pulsipher, so I could be wrong, but that's what I remember. Does Scott Kazmir qualify as a legitimate star yet? If so, that's my next bid. 2/3, pending final qualifications of Kaz, Puls, and Petit.

HahnSolo Feb 08 2007 09:04 AM

I seem to remember both of these guys being over-hyped before being dealt: - David West - Stanley Jefferson

Johnny Dickshot Feb 08 2007 09:14 AM

There is some question as to Kazzy's shoulder. He had some discomfort during the season and skipped a start or two, insisted he was fine, then went and played hurt. They shut him down for the year in August. Recently he began throwing again, though at 80% velocity. "I'm fine," he insists.

Yancy Street Gang Feb 08 2007 09:15 AM

I remember Mike Lupica saying (I think in April of 1986) that this is the last Opening Day for the next ten years in which Stanley Jefferson won't be starting in center field for the Mets. Does it matter, for the purpose of this study, who's doing the hyping? Is it the expectation of fans or sportswriters? The projection of scouts and other experts? Or what we think the Mets really thought of the player in question. For example, when the Mets traded Alex Escobar, did they think they were making a sacrifice, or did they know he was a dud and were glad to find a sucker who'd take him in exchange for a future Hall-of-Famer?

MFS62 Feb 08 2007 09:19 AM

Petit. Check the minor league strikeout totals: http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/P/Yusmeiro-Petit.shtml Alex Ochoa was a different story: http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/O/Alex-Ochoa.shtml He was touted as a player with "5 tool" potential. The only one lacking was power. He had speed, arm and hit for a decent average. But the power (especially for a corner outfielder) never developed, and the fans got impatient with him. What really soured the fans was a stretch of a few games at Shea in which he had some problems with the lights and misplayed some fly balls. He never lived up to the expectations predicted in the press when the Mets got him, but was actually a decent major league player. Later

iramets Feb 08 2007 09:39 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: I remember Mike Lupica saying (I think in April of 1986) that this is the last Opening Day for the next ten years in which Stanley Jefferson won't be starting in center field for the Mets. Does it matter, for the purpose of this study, who's doing the hyping? Is it the expectation of fans or sportswriters? The projection of scouts and other experts? Or what we think the Mets really thought of the player in question. For example, when the Mets traded Alex Escobar, did they think they were making a sacrifice, or did they know he was a dud and were glad to find a sucker who'd take him in exchange for a future Hall-of-Famer? Excellent questions, Yancy, though I think we'll have to go with "general perceptions of fans/sportwriters/scouts" instead of "What the Mets really thought" because we;ll never agree for a second on what that is. If you check the fan memories section of UMDB, for example, you'll find players traded and a lot of comments "I thought he'd be a gigantic star" and others who, even in retrospect, don't get much outrage for their being traded. But you've got Met fans who are willing to credit the Mets with prescient brilliance in cleverly over-hyping Escobar so he'd have more trade value while secretly laughing at the fools who bought the hype, yet are also insisting that Viola trade was a godsend because Sweet Frankie turned in a pretty good season for us--and how could they know he wouldnt have turned in a solid decade?--while Tapani and Aguilera never REEEALLY amounted to much in the AL. There's no arguing with such folks, is there? So I'll pass on discerning what was on "the Mets'" minds for the purposes of this discussion.

soupcan Feb 08 2007 09:46 AM

How does Gregg Jefferies fit in here? He had a pretty decent ML career - he made a lot of money anyway - and the Mets traded him pretty much knowing what kind of player he was/was going to be. No he never became the next Pete Rose but he could hit. I suppose he was hyped pretty hard and never lived up to it though.

Johnny Dickshot Feb 08 2007 09:50 AM

Jefferies is probably the best "pure hitter" the Mets ever developed, save for perhaps Fonzie and Wright/Reyes.

Yancy Street Gang Feb 08 2007 09:52 AM

Jefferies was a hyped player that they kept until they saw that he wasn't working out for them. I think that's a different category than an Alex Escobar or a Shawn Abner, who were traded when they still had their entire future ahead of them. The Mets clearly had planned to keep Jefferies as one of their own. With Abner or Escobar, they were trading players who we (the fans) at least still thought of as future superstars. The bloom was off Jefferies' rose when he was dealt.

Johnny Dickshot Feb 08 2007 10:03 AM

Escobar is one of those guys whom the fans shouldn't have been fooled by. He got the attention mainly because he was the best Met prospect there was at the moment, sorta like my example in the NBF regarding the hottest chick in your office. She didn;t do anything to get hotter, she was just there when the one hotter chick left. Anyway, Escobar's numbers were good but not fantastic iirc, he was regarded highly due to a killer year at a young age in the lower minors that he wasn't able to replicate at higher levels.

MFS62 Feb 08 2007 10:05 AM

When the Mets drafted Abner, Escobar and Robert Stratton, we were told of their great power. But that came with the caveat of "they'll have to learn to cut down on their strikeouts". The world is still waiting. In the case of Escobar, his development in that area was hindered by a constant string of injuries. With substantial time in the minors to develop, he may have been able to do that. Unfortunately, his options were used up before he could. Later

Edgy DC Feb 08 2007 10:09 AM

This subject is bound to get lost in nebulousness.

Johnny Dickshot Feb 08 2007 10:14 AM

Edgy DC wrote: This subject is bound to get lost in nebulousness. Naw

Willets Point Feb 08 2007 10:18 AM Re: How many phenoms actually work out?

iramets wrote: How many phenoms actually work out? I think they all do, otherwise they get fat and slow and scouts don't take interest in them.

MFS62 Feb 08 2007 10:23 AM Re: How many phenoms actually work out?

Willets Point wrote: ="iramets"]How many phenoms actually work out? I think they all do, otherwise they get fat and slow and scouts don't take interest in them. Willets, are you preparing us for a fat slow phenom spinoff thread? Can I start with Butch Huskey? Later

soupcan Feb 08 2007 10:26 AM

Here's one for ya to ponder - Ken Singleton. Alas, I'm too young to remember whether he was 'hyped' or not but here's a guy who had a good career. Was it as good as expected? 2000+ hits in 15 years ain't too shabby.

ABG Feb 08 2007 10:30 AM

How about Kevin Mitchell?

smg58 Feb 08 2007 10:41 AM

Petit was indeed terrible last year, but at 22 I think it's too early to call him a bust. John Maine is a good example of a pitcher who looked promising initially (maybe never as highly regarded as Petit, but somebody the Orioles were hoping would pan out), saw his stock plummet over a season, then rebounded nicely. And sometimes pitchers need more time than fans are willing to give them. Adam Wainwright was a very highly regarded prospect in the Braves system a few years ago, to the point that somebody making a similar list to this one on John Sickels' blog last month listed him as a bust even though his current team would not have won a World Series without him. I wouldn't be surprised if Escobar (naturally assuming no injuries) finally gets a full year in the majors this year with the Nats. He may even do something with it. But I do remember some site projecting him as a "future All-Star," and that didn't quite work out. I thought the luster was off by the time of the trade. He'd been doing fine in AAA early in 01, then came up for two weeks when Payton got hurt and promptly forgot how to hit, then didn't hit much when he returned to Norfolk. I was OK with selling while there was still value. My impression, from looking at the Baseball America archive of top 100 prospects a while back just for fun, was that I recognized about half the names. Some of the guys at the top of the lists are well known, and some aren't. So from a dealing perspective, I'd probably weigh a prospect as about half what I perceive his upside to be, being more conservative the further away they are from the majors.

Johnny Dickshot Feb 08 2007 10:43 AM

Complete hindsight here, but the Mets shoulda kept Singtleton and Otis, and ejected whichever of Jones/Agee/Swoboda/Shamsky, etc they coulda when they had the chance. I think they were reluctant to break up the 69ers and they were run without any imagination or emphasis on talent evaluation ever since Devine left.

soupcan Feb 08 2007 10:46 AM

ABG wrote: How about Kevin Mitchell? Anybody who wins an MVP has lived up to the hype. Although I don't believe he was ever really hyped.

Yancy Street Gang Feb 08 2007 10:47 AM

I don't either. I think he was just a guy called up from AAA who could play several positions. At least that's how I remember my expectations of Kevin Mitchell.

Edgy DC Feb 08 2007 10:52 AM

Was there an options period (or the equivalent) in 1970, because Otis would have run out of them (by today's standards) and had showed very very little at the big-league level. It would have been fun to to have an all-Mobile outfield. Here's the first game all three were in the outfield together.

soupcan Feb 08 2007 11:03 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I think they were reluctant to break up the 69ers I've heard Ed Charles complain bitterly to the contrary about that. At least in his own case.

MFS62 Feb 08 2007 11:13 AM

Edgy, in those days the option rules were different. A player could be kept in the minors for four years before they had to be added to the major league roster or else exposed to the equivalent of the RuleV Draft (as compared to the current three years). But the major change was that once on the 40 man roster, they had a total of three options, not the current three option years. Under the current system, players can be yo-yo'd several times during those three years. But in those days, teams generally brought up players once per year, when the rosters expanded after September 1. In the case of Otis, he was an excellent centerfielder in the minors. But the Mets played him at third base when they brought him up. They were still in their constant search for a decent third baseman. He had little or no experience at the position, didn't play it well, and his hitting suffered. I'm not sure it was a case of his options being used up. It was more a case of trying to fill a need when they traded him. Later

Edgy DC Feb 08 2007 11:24 AM

I'm not sure it's a safe assumption (thoguh certainly arguable) that his hitting was a result of him playing out of position. I just now decided to look it up. Otis played 51 games in the outfield for the Mets, and four at third.

soupcan Feb 08 2007 11:34 AM

Busted.

MFS62 Feb 08 2007 11:42 AM

I posted my thoughts before looking him up, too. Was relying on memory. But there were stories at the time that part of the reason they traded him was because it didn't look like he could take to third very well. That said, I stand busted. LOL! But what I wrote about the option rule in force at the time is correct. Later

Nymr83 Feb 08 2007 11:50 AM

i think the "methodology" here is flawed if you're looking to determine what % of the Mets "hyped" prospects worked out. You should agree on a list of all "hyped" prospects and then decide which ones lived up to the hype and which ones didnt.

Edgy DC Feb 08 2007 12:00 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 08 2007 01:16 PM

There we go. How about anybody who ever made Baseball America's top 50? Is that an objective hype standard?

MFS62 Feb 08 2007 12:20 PM

Edgy DC wrote: There we go. How about anybody who ever made Baseball America's top 50? Is that an objective hype stnadard? A good start. But in lean organizational years, a "top" prospect from a team may not even crack the BA top 50, but may still receive some sizeable local hype. So I suggest also including players who were on the BA top 10 team prospect lists for each year. Later

Edgy DC Feb 08 2007 12:28 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 08 2007 01:34 PM

Well, then we're lost, including girls who are only hot relative to their co-workers. "Hype" means little enough as it is, without working from the assumption that each team's prospects get equal amounts every year. We ought to have an objective standard.

iramets Feb 08 2007 12:55 PM

I'm happy to develop one. I began by saying that no one who plays a position or breaks into the starting rotation may count as a hyped rookie, presumably because thaty means we had a real look at them and not the hype. So Singleton is out. Otis is in. Other objective standards would be what?

Nymr83 Feb 08 2007 01:28 PM

i think including top 10 organization guys is overinclusive... any Met who made the BA top 50 is a better starting point, we may miss a guy or three but at least we have a pretty good objective starting point