Master Index of Archived Threads


"Very Good Citizens"

Edgy DC Dec 09 2007 10:24 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Dec 09 2007 10:24 PM

Ken Davidoff has Omar Minaya fessing up to what was already spilled by the draft follower that Frayed Knot corresponded with. This (a) sucks in general, (b) doubly sucks if you're a Met fan, (c) amounts to collusion --- except, of course, that the whole stupid draft is collusion and amateur draftees don't have a union to look out for their interests. I guess this is a problem with hiring a GM that had been working for the league --- he's got his loyalties mixed up. For the record, Davidoff misses the greater point. I don't want a new approach to the farm system so we can grow chips to trade for Johan Santana; I want one so we can grow fine players to play in Queens. It doesn't matter either way, but the purpose of baseball is not to make the big splash trade. Or is it? And Omar may have a screwy idea of what the city is when he declares the Mets policy to be good citizenship. It may help the league but it hurts society at large. Minaya must change approach with farm system Ken Davidoff December 9, 2007 It's clear, from what has transpired this offseason, that the Mets need a deeper, more talented farm system if they want to trade for the likes of Johan Santana, Dan Haren and Erik Bedard. You can revamp an organization pretty quickly nowadays by capitalizing on the very imperfect amateur draft. That's what the Yankees have done. It's precisely what the Mets have not done. But Omar Minaya sounds as if he wants to change his drafting methodology. "In the past, we have really been very good citizens," the Mets' general manager said this past week at the winter meetings in Nashville. "We've operated under the slotting system. But I think we have to continue to evaluate each individual case. "It's tough when you are operating [by the slots] and not everybody operates by the slotting system. Each individual draft, we'll have to look at it." Major League Baseball establishes "slots" for the early rounds of the draft, and it begs teams to adhere to those signing-bonus ceilings. The Yankees are among many clubs that treat those recommendations with stifled laughter, routinely paying above slot. That's how the Yankees have restocked their minor leagues, with director of scouting Damon Oppenheimer choosing the right players to reward. The Mets, to the contrary, have an excellent relationship with the commissioner's office, and they haven't paid over slot since drafting Mike Pelfrey in 2005. They haven't had a first-round pick the past two years, the result of signing Type A free agents Billy Wagner and Moises Alou, but they haven't utilized their considerable financial might to take some risks in the later rounds, either. When the subject of the Yankees' draft approach came up, Minaya nodded. "By doing that, they've been able to get Joba Chamberlain and [Ian] Kennedy and those kinds of guys," he said. "We would always like to be good citizens, but we have to see. If we're the only club, if we're one of only two or three teams, then we have to evaluate it." Minaya first expressed these sentiments in Baseball America.

metirish Dec 09 2007 10:31 AM

I think I understand this, my question is what are the penelties if any for a team that does not adhere to the signing bonus ceilings?

Kid Carsey Dec 09 2007 10:39 AM

"The Mets don't have chips" got pretty old for me the last week or so.

Kid Carsey Dec 09 2007 10:48 AM

And while I'm at it, "The Mets over-value their prospects" wasn't doing much for me either -- meaning as if the Mets were significantly different than other teams to warrant headlines explaining why trades aren't made.

Frayed Knot Dec 09 2007 06:54 PM

Not that I don't think there's some truth to this subject, given the Wilpons' friendship with Selig and Omar owing his big break to Uncle Bud and all. But a coupla problems: - this is really starting to take on the air of piling on. One source opines that the Mets have been "under-drafting" due to slavish devotion to the bonus numbers and then six more report the same thing in rapid succession as if the first one established it as confirmed fact. - mostly it sounds like an attempt to explain the widely reported "dearth of prospects" to nail BIG trades as repeated ad nauseum in recent weeks. That Humber got hurt and Pelfrey is (so far) not living up to his draft position and amateur promise is the main reason why there wasn't a not young'un or two to entice the likes of those holding pitchers in their deck. - that the last few NYM drafts have started with 45th or so pick (Mulvey) and the 60th-something (Smith) is another reason. Both have done well to date and to think those slots should have produced more in this time-frame ridiculously unrealistic. - I may be wrong on this but I don't remember any buzz amid the '06 draft saying, 'OMG, the Yanx were able to land those studs Kennedy & Chamberlain!!!' (I'm not even sure if either was an over-slot signing). That those two progressed faster and farther than anyone had a right to expect in their first full pro year is great for the Yanx but let's not act like that was pre-ordained, particularly from a team that was on something like a 1-for-14 streak in having 1st round picks even reach the major leagues. The Mets in the same time-frame saw top picks Wright, Heilman, Milledge, Kazmir, Pelfrey & Humber reach. - and finally I've STILL yet to hear even one name that the Mets c/should have drafted but passed on due to bonus demands. Maybe there's one or two out there but the critics sure seem to be keeping them a secret.

Frayed Knot Dec 09 2007 07:02 PM

metirish wrote: I think I understand this, my question is what are the penelties if any for a team that does not adhere to the signing bonus ceilings? None, except for dirty looks from Selig. ]And while I'm at it, "The Mets over-value their prospects" wasn't doing much for me either -- meaning as if the Mets were significantly different than other teams to warrant headlines explaining why trades aren't made I've never quite bought the notion that the famed NY media bias extends to prospects. If there's any place that a classic big league town it's NYC. Most of the outlets here have paid virtually no attention to the farm systems (beyond the occasional uber-prospect) until very recently. And it's not like the national media spends its time talking about minor league or amateur ball.

Edgy DC Dec 09 2007 10:27 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: - this is really starting to take on the air of piling on. One source opines that the Mets have been "under-drafting" due to slavish devotion to the bonus numbers and then six more report the same thing in rapid succession as if the first one established it as confirmed fact. Except, isn't Minaya coming clean in quotes there and all?

Frayed Knot Dec 10 2007 08:08 AM

Sure. That the Mets have been stringently minding their (bargaining) table manners doesn't look to be in question at this point. It just seems to be all the rage right now for various folks to use that fact as a jumping off point to explain all matters affecting the NYM farm system whether the cause-and-effect fits or not. Linking the inability to land Santana for instance (something which may or may not be true) because they haven't gone "over slot" since Pelfrey (two whole drafts!) is jamming a square peg into a round hole. The difference between the "star prospects" of the Met & Yankee systems right now is that the 3rd and 9th drafted Humber & Pelfrey haven't progressed as quickly or as well as the trio of Hughes, Chamberlain & Kennedy (2 mid-20s picks plus a 41st) - a condition which may be temporary btw and, even if not, is totally unrelated to who did or did not adhere to a bonus structure. Maybe the rocket-like rise of those picks was the result of better scouting & foresight on the Yanx' part or maybe it was just good fortune (or some combo of the two) but it's folly to imply that if only the Mets had chosen different players in the last two drafts (while not having 1st round picks) that those players would be on the same level and that that info was knowable at the time. 37 pitchers (including Kennedy & Chamberlain) were picked prior to Kevin Mulvey in his draft; is the implication that there were known aces still leftover that they should have grabbed instead but were simply unwilling to pay for? If so I'd like to know who those players were because no one seems willing or able to identify them, even with the benefit of two years of hindsight.