I guess Daniel Murphy is no longer a prospect?

I guess Daniel Murphy is no longer a prospect?

No, not after the apotheosis.

Man, does Ike Davis have a lot of ground to make up after being a first round pick who just stunk up A ball, or what? At least Reese Havens had an excuse for his uninspiring season at Brooklyn; he was hurt. So he hung on in the Mets' Top 10. Davis . . . wow.

There's good reason to think Mike Carp would NOT have made this list, by the way, even if he hadn't been traded. The article goes out of its way to note that Maikel Cleto would have made the top 10 if he hadn't been in the Putz deal -- but it doesn't mention Carp in that regard. More important, Nick Evans and Eddie Kunz both barely made the list (9th and 10th) off that Binghamton team, and Evans is certainly a better prospect than Carp. Kunz might not be, I guess, so perhaps Carp would have been 10th . . . at best.

I guess Daniel Murphy is no longer a prospect?

In the article, they project the Mets' 2012 line-up. Murphy is the first baseman.

Adam Rubin?

Parnell at #5 is too high.

Parnell at #5 is too high.

All tools, scouts like him, allegedly he has great stuff (I say allegedly because even when pitchers with great stuff are pitching badly you can usually see the stuff in their stat lines- not so Parnell...
but then again this guy had great stuff but you'd never know it from his minor league numbers...

Do scouts really love Parnell? I got the feeling that he was a guy that the NY Mets org was trying to hype for some reason. I know that BA uses the team's own scouting reports and internal rankings more than other lists do

Parnell is a great story. His numbers in college were ridiculously bad, but they obviously saw something in him.

He's made adjustments and eventually succeeded each stop on the way up so he's doing something right.

I like Marte more, and Holt less, than do most people. Marte would be 4 on my list, Holt 5. I'd also move Mejia down until we see what he does in a full-season league.

-- MWE

Goldstein on BPro has Marte 3, Holt 4, Niese 5.

He's made adjustments and eventually succeeded each stop on the way up so he's doing something right.

If by succeeded you mean he hasn't pitched ridiculously badly at each stop...

a 4.02 ERA in lo-A (Sallie League) as a 21 year old with college experience is not so hot (worse than league average)
then he had a .325 ERA in Hi-A (FSL)- in 55ip, so yes I guess you could say he "succeeded" in The FSL
then he posted a 4.77 ERA in the Eastern League

he was sent back to AA this year, where he did go 10-6, but with a rather pedestrian 4.30 ERA and 91 Ks in 127ip..
was lit up like a Xmas tree in AAA (6.64 ERA) and then was promoted for a cup of coffee...

There really is very little to like in his minor league career

At this point, I think Flores has to be rated a better prospect than F-Mart. I think Martinez has to be discounted just a bit on pure durability concerns, and until he proves he can stand up to the wear and tear of the long season, you have to wonder if the talent will ever turn into reliable production. I know BA is unconvinced Flores can stay on the infield (they have him as the Mets' 2012 right fielder . . . .), so they discount his long-term value for that reason. But right now, I have to weigh my nagging doubts about F-Mart just a touch higher. Flores # 1, F-Mart # 2.

I like Marte more, and Holt less, than do most people.

How come, Mike?

BTW, in the ongoing chat that Rubin is conducting, he just said that Carp was going to be rated as the Mets' eighteenth best prospect.

18th.

"18th."

Sounds about right to me, actually.

I think Martinez has to be discounted just a bit on pure durability concerns,

I agree, his performance continues to be good considering his age and level (he was just 19 in 2008), but his durability and lack thereof is starting to get worrisome... as a NY sportsfan that gets me thinking of Jay Payton, Alex Escobar and Nick Johnson, all who showed a tendency to get injured in the minors- which carried over into the majors/derailed their development...

Also if you look at BA's or BPro's old prospect lists, a lot of the position player busts were derailed by injuries

In the article, they project the Mets' 2012 line-up. Murphy is the first baseman.

Wow, the Mets are going to stink in 2012, huh?

"18th."

Sounds about right to me, actually.

Halfway through the year when Carp was still hitting something like .350 on the year, Sickels had a post where he said he thought he had goofed and Carp was a much better prospect than he'd thought... Gotta wait until the year is out.

How come, Mike?

He's posted this a few times, actually given what he's written I'm surprised that he thinks Holt is the Mets #5...

basically he think Holt has one pitch, and for a college pitcher to dominate the NYPenn league is meaningless...

basically he think Holt has one pitch, and for a college pitcher to dominate the NYPenn league is meaningless...

Which is fair, but a slight exaggeration. Plenty of college pitchers with one pitch fail to dominate the NYPenn League, so it would have told us something if Holt hadn't at least done that. IOW, he's cleared a minimal hurdle, which is nothing to sneeze at. And the fact that he has a major league quality plus fastball is also no small thing, at least from Holt's POV. With the right breaks and good enough command of that pitch, guys have at least made careers as relief pitchers out of that. But if you're a Met fan hoping for a dominant starter, obviously, he's got a hell of a lot more to prove.

Parnell is a setup man at best.

Three names that deserve to be ahead of Parnell at least are Dillon Gee, Josh Thole, and Francisco Pena.

Josh Thole, and Francisco Pena.

Thole and Pena were the subject of much of the discussion during Rubin's chat at BA today. Basically, their view seems to be that Pena has made very little progress . . . other than to get in somewhat better shape "after being confronted by Mets' officials," which to me is a good news/bad news thing. It suggests he did lose weight (good), but I'm wary of any prospect who requires an intervention when he's in the low minors to get himself back into shape. Anyway, they point out that Thole is a big-time project in terms of his catching, so he requires a lot of projection before you can hope/assume/believe he can be a major league catcher. Their attitude on both, basically, is "wait and see." Next year is probably a huge one for both of them; Pena in terms of attitude and hitting, Thole as to whether he makes progress defensively.

I'm wary of any prospect who requires an intervention when he's in the low minors to get himself back into shape

Pena just turned 19. I'd cut him a bit of slack on this. I think it's more important that he responded when confronted.

basically he think Holt has one pitch, and for a college pitcher to dominate the NYPenn league is meaningless...

Not meaningless, just less meaningful than doing the same thing in the SAL or FSL at the same age.

And Holt's at 5 on my list because he's a better prospect than everyone below him, at this stage of his career and with his skill set and performance to date. He's behind Marte in my evaluation because Marte is younger, a position player, and because Marte posted a .930 OPS at age 17 in the US without an excessive number of strikeouts.

-- MWE

Not meaningless, just less meaningful than doing the same thing in the SAL or FSL at the same age.

Curious how often you saw Holt pitch, Mike. I didn't see him enough for a representative sample- only 2-3 times- but he had a tremendous change every time I saw him, though he told me he'd only started throwing it this season, while his slider was about average. Still, far from a one-pitch pitcher in my experience. But I trust your take on minor leaguers, so I'm curious how you arrived at your take on Holt.

I can't speak for Mike, Howard, but BA doesn't share your enthusiasm for Holt's change, Howard. From their scouting report:

Holt relies mainly on his fastball for success. He'll flash some average or plus sliders, but he usually holds onto it too long before releasing in it. His changeup is even more raw. He has trouble throwing his secondary pitches for strikes and ranked second in the NY-P with 33 walks.

From your report, combined with that, I'd say: you saw the high-end potential; they (and those walk numbers) are reporting on the inconsistency he'll have to overcome. Which adds up to the bottom-line that -- for now -- he's a one-pitch pitcher who will probably struggle when he faces hitters at higher levels who are better at laying off the inconsistent secondary stuff. I'll certainly be a lot happier when I see those W/IP numbers improve.

From your report, combined with that, I'd say: you saw the high-end potential; they (and those walk numbers) are reporting on the inconsistency he'll have to overcome.

That's the interesting part, to me. I went to see him pitch for a piece I did on him- came away with that experience of seeing the terrific change. So because of those reports, and having him tell me he just started working on it, I went back, then saw him in SI- both times the change was very good.

What I'm wondering, I guess, is how much these reports build on each other, and how far along the change really is.

I saw Holt pitch in college (twice), and I got some feedback from friends in the NYC area on a couple of his outings in Brooklyn. The BA scouting report is essentially what I saw and what I was told; he didn't have the change in college (as Howard notes), and the offspeed stuff he did throw in college was nowhere close to adequate, and everything other than the fastball was marginal in the minors.

That said, the Mets have some of the best minor league pitching instructors in the business, and if anyone can get the most out of Holt's potential, they can.

-- MWE

That's helpful, as always, Mike. Thank you.

"At this point, I think Flores has to be rated a better prospect than F-Mart."

I don't think Flores is considered to be a prospect anymore, given his time in the majors. Also, I'm pretty sure he's playing for the Nationals.

I don't think Flores is considered to be a prospect anymore, given his time in the majors. Also, I'm pretty sure he's playing for the Nationals.


He's talking about Wilmer, not Jesus.

A guy who I think is more interesting than his raw numbers would indicate is Scott Moviel. He had a rough start in the SAL league but pitched better as the season progressed an earned a promotion to St. Lucie. He's 6-10 and supposedly similiar to Pelfrey. His strikeout numbers are mediocre but he didn't walk anyone or give up many homers.

I'm not saying he deserves to crack this list but he's someone whose stock I could see rise quickly this year.

Just for comparison's sake:

Brad Holt in the NY-Penn League last year,

72.2 IP, 96/33 k/bb, 3 hr, 43 h, 1.05 WHIP.

Scott Moviel's last three monthes of the year in the Sal league and one start in the FSL,

78.1 ip, 50/17 k/bb, 4 hr, 69 h, 1.10 WHIP.

Holt's numbers are more impressive but Moviel put up those numbers in the more advanced league. Moviel's also 19 months younger than Holt.

Dillon Gee needs to be on that list. I'd take him over Parnell, Evans, or Kunz.


BTW, in the ongoing chat that Rubin is conducting, he just said that Carp was going to be rated as the Mets' eighteenth best prospect.

18th.

They're all in a big lump in the 8-20 range. There isn't that much difference between Carp, Evans, or .... Murphy (ducking).

An interesting update, by the way. Today at BA, Jim Callis was asked this question:

In light of new Mariners general manager Jack Zduriencik's 12-player trade, where would the new prospects fit into an updated Seattle Top 10 list?

Here's his answer:

None of the three prospects the Mariners acquired from the Mets in three-team deal—righthander Maikel Cleto, first baseman Mike Carp or outfielder Ezequiel Carrera—made the revised Top 10 in the Prospect Handbook. And none of them would have ranked ahead of second baseman Luis Valbuena, who just missed out on our Mariners Top 10 but will check in at No. 10 on our new Indians Top 10. Cleto was No. 8 on our original Mets Top 10 before the trade.

They're all in a big lump in the 8-20 range. There isn't that much difference between Carp, Evans, or .... Murphy (ducking).

Well, that's just false, Rasky, at least as a description of BA's views. It may be your opinion, but it's definitely NOT BA's. They clearly see Murphy a significant cut above Evans, and both of them above Carp (WAY above, in Murphy's case). In the chat, Rubin said that if Murphy had been eligible, he'd have been # 3 or 4, right there with Niese. In fact, Murphy ranked five spots ahead of Niese in their post-season Eastern League rankings (Murphy at # 13, Niese at # 18). Neither Evans nor Carp made it, but they've at least had positive things to say about Evans in general (at least as having platoon potential in the majors, unlike Carp).

There's a huge difference, one that will be evident over the next decade or so. It is called a "major league career."