Photo by Ed Delany
MLB Pipeline released their annual preseason top 100 prospect list on MLB Network Saturday night, and Mets fans hoping to see one of their own on the list didn’t need to hold their breath long. There were no Mets on the list, which was compiled by Pipeline’s prospect gurus Jim Callis and Jonathan Mayo.
It was unreasonable to think there were any shoe-ins to make the list after Baseball America placed Andres Gimenez 94th on their rankings, and Keith Law of ESPN (who rated the Mets’ farm system as the 21st-best in baseball) excluded Gimenez and slotted in David Peterson at 58 last week. Mayo stated that the pair were not particularly close to making Pipeline’s list.
Not very for me. I think Gimenez works his way this year. Peterson, I like the arm, but need to see how it plays at this level. #Top100Prospects https://t.co/csDk4oNd3P
— Jonathan Mayo (@JonathanMayo) January 28, 2018
While it’s fair to believe that there could be multiple Mets on next year’s list, it’s frustrating to be faced with the baseball world’s honest opinion on the current state of the system. There are six first or second-round draft picks from the last three seasons in the organization, seven prospects who were acquired for proven veterans in 2017, five international players who garnered a combined $7.3 million, and all but two (barely) were taken into consideration by the mainstream media to be among the 100 best minor leaguers in the game.
How did the rest of the NL East fare? 19 total, including eight Braves. The Yankees only placed one, but Gleyber Torres, at number five, looks like a sure bet to be a productive major leaguer. And, yes, the Cubs did not have any of their players ranked on the Pipeline list, but the Cubs won 92 games last season. The Mets have a lot more work ahead than it may seem.
This or any top 100 list means almost nothing to me. The Yankees have a top 5 system, but only 1 top 100 on this particular list. But more to the point, looking at Mets recent history:
Names that were pereniall “Top” Prospects: Milledge, F-Mart, Pelfrey, Humber
Names that never made these types of lists: Murphy, Duda, Degrom
When Minaya was fired, the perception of our farm was viewed much as it is now: mostly barren. 5 years later, the fruit came to bear as we all know. So time will tell. Although we didn’t win 92 games like the Cubs last year, the major league roster is not in a rebuild, it’s full of young talent (Rosario, Conforto, Thor etc…)
Agreed!
And the three you mentioned all have something in common I believe. All college guys.
These lists love youth and signing bonuses.
Let’s see how things shake out for Mets prospects in 2018
Dunn has alot to prove.
Alonso might hit 30 homers in minors.
Kay will make debut.
I believe Cameron Planck should debut in low minors.
Gimenez for all we know shoots into top 50 on these sites next list.
It seems that a lot of the bashing of the Mets farm system is emanating from Ny media that does not have any focus or know much about milb. From what I gather from national writers who write milb for a living, the mets ability to develop pitchers is above average as is the job they do in scouting amateurs in latin america. So while no one will say the Mets system is top ten, the ny media loves the narrative that it’s not where the yankee system is. I think the system will be seen as on the upswing once we keep up with the strong international signing periods and some of the kids who tore up the DSL last year get some name recognition.
Alonso might hit FORTY, Ernest 🙂
The Yankees have like 7 in the top 100, what list were you looking at?
You can’t just look at the pitching side of it. The Mets have been downright terrible at drafting and developing position players, particularly under the Alderson regime. I believe they’ve improved since Paul De Podesta left, but its still too early to say.
As for the pitching, you’re overstating the Mets acumen there. While the Mets have generally developed starting pitchers, they have generally failed to produce reliable relievers. Furthermore, most of the pitchers making an impact were acquired during the Minaya years. Lastly, the organization has had an inordinately high rate of injury, both at the major and minor league levels.
I’ve never seen proof that the Mets, under the Alderson regime, have failed to both draft and develop position players at at least league average success rates. I don’t think there is hard proof, rather such a valuation is subjective. Granted Cecchini and Reynolds have disappointed, but the book is out on Dom and Rosario. Nimmo may very well be a good MLB player.
Is it a bit unfair to credit Minaya for drafting Degrom, Matz, and Harvey, but the Alderson regime little credit for developing all three? It’s not necessarily a reflection of Alderson himself, but there was a narrative supported by certain sabermetrically inclined websites that the Warthen slider granted pitchers like Thor, Harvey and Degrom a vital weapon in their arsenal. Now Warthen is gone, and it remains to be seen if the organization pulls focus away from that hard breaking slider due to fear of increased risk of injury.
But if we are to agree halfway and call Mets player development and scouting a mixed bag, or roughly league average I wouldn’t quibble. I agree that whereas the Mets have found some success in certain areas that I mentioned, the areas you mentioned I would agree are not as strong. I think the larger point is that Mets scouting and development is not the embarrassment that some in the media seem to think it’s fun to describe it as.
I think you’ve gone overboard in overstating the media’s criticism of the Mets system. Its not been labeled an “embarrassment”. It simply been rated as below average. The media simply finds ‘below average’ to be unacceptable after seven years – and I agree.
I also agree with your evaluation of every player you’ve mentioned. But the fact that you have only five names to discuss (actually six with Conforto) is itself evidence of the Mets short-comings in developing position players. The fact that there are no third- thru fifth-round picks to discuss is also an issue. Those picks typically have a 32% chance of reaching the majors. Yet the Mets success rate is zero. The fact that Nimmo has taken this long and is still not established is another example of a bad job in developing players. The fact that the 2011 and 2012 drafts have produced zero major league starters is an issue. Especially since they had 4 of the first 75 picks in 2012.
And its not just about how many players made it. Far too many, in fact nearly all the players called up – heralded or not – are deficient in the fundamentals on defense or base-running, or both.