I dunno, I think sometimes there is backlash to the Mets prospect hype that ends up with some of them being underrated. It probably all evens out eventually.

In my time writing for MetsGeek, I’ve seen a number of posters throw out trades like Bobby Parnell and Eddie Kunz for Jake Peavy while labeling prospects like Jon Niese and Daniel Murphy untouchable.

Every team's fans are like this.

Here's my own personal self-check to see if I'm going over the top or getting swept up in the hype: are there as many (or more) Mets' prospects I scoff at and think have far LESS chance of (a) becoming significant or better contributors to the Mets, or (b) bringing back substantial value in trade, as there are prospects I am salivating over and believe are the next Gooden, Seaver, or Wright?

If I can't find the ones I disdain, I know I need a reality check. Right now, Kunz, Parnell, and Evans serve that purpose quite nicely. Evans is the only one of them I see making any contribution at all, and he's a platoon player at best. Carp, too -- probably the most overrated player in the system, at least the way some Mets' fans seem to regard him.

So that means I might not be right to be very excited about Flores and Murphy and F-Mart, but at least I know it's not because I'm just systematically giving in to hype and fanboyism. I'm not sure I'd trade those three for any other team's best three prospects.

Niese I'm somewhere in between on. I'm not a huge fan of his type of pitcher generally -- the big rainbow curve is a very nice pitch to ooh and ah over, but when it's your best pich by as much as it appears to be Niese's, I think there's still a lot of improvement needed.

Ruben Tejada for Albert Pujols, if St. Louis agrees to take Luis Castillo's contract off our hands.

Are Mets prospects overhyped?

Yes and no, as a reasonably knowledgeable Mets fan over the last 10 years or so, I've noticed that:

A: Seems to me many more Mets' non-prospects are falsely billed as being prospects (by the MSM and fans), than other team's non-prospects- if that's overhyping (I dunno what else to call it)- then yes Mets' prospects are overhyped.

B: The Mets "real" prospects imho tend to be underrated- which is partially a counteraction to A: above.

Agreed with #5

The NY tabloids, which dominate local sports coverage, are not good at making fine distinctions between prospects. Which is why we read stuff like "Eddie Kunz may be next Joba Chamberlain." But then also why you get Mike and the Mad Dog not knowing who David Wright is.

But then also why you get Mike and the Mad Dog not knowing who David Wright is.

I thought that had less to do with prospect ambiguity and more to do with M and MD being morons.

I think the extent to which "prospects are overhyped" in the media is largely irrelevant to how much they may be overrated among actual baseball executives. It's just the media repeating the same sort of thing more often for the Mets than for most other teams.

Sure, there are constantly people writing about the Mets and Yankees and Red Sox, and how they should make this trade and that trade, and choosing whoever the very top prospects are, and then saying that a small-market team should be grateful to trade their stars for can't miss prospects like Ed Yarnall and Jackson Melian.

But the trades that end up getting made are usually fair. The Yankees traded media-anointed future Hall of Famer Ricky Ledee and two other guys for 1/5 years of David Justice, but one of those guys was Jake Westbrook, who was probably underhyped. Yarnall and Melian and whoever else ended up getting traded for Denny Neagle, hardly a steal. Etc.

And the issue of being over-hyped only applies to the very top tier of guys who happen to be in a big-market team's system. Last year there was constant media blather about Phil Humber, Mike Pelfrey, Phil Humber, Mike Pelfrey, Carlos Gomez, Carlos Gomez, and of course the polarizing Lastings Milledge. Then these guys Nick Evans and Dan Murphy seemed to come out of nowhere, there was hardly any hype for them because they weren't the very top prospects.

Looking at the Mets prospects, Gomez, Milledge, Humber and Pelfrey are the 4 who are the most recently highly hyped. Gomez is an excellent defensive player (and a lot of fun to watch) but shouldn't be in the majors right now, Milledge looks like he should be a decent outfielder, Humber stinks, and Pelfrey is looking like a good pitcher after an awful start. That's not too shabby when it comes to the hype.

"Yarnall and Melian and whoever else ended up getting traded for Denny Neagle"

Brian Reith and Drew Henson, who then threatened to retire, and was re-exchanged (with Michael Coleman) for Wily Mo Pena. The Yanks also got Mike Frank in the initial deal.

Humber was an outstanding product out of Rice, but blew his arm out, because that's what Rice pitchers do. The problem was that his pre-injury rep survived the surgery, even though his stuff didn't come all the way back.

In my experience on this website every single prospect is overhyped.

In my experience on this website every single prospect is overhyped.

Most people, IIRC, thought Wang and Cano both stunk around here. I'm sure there are others. I agree with the general point, though. We have a habit here of underestimating just how hard it is to be a major leaguer and so over value potential over average major leaguers.

In my experience on this website every single prospect is overhyped.

Hell, if Kevin had been banned a few years ago, Petunia would most definitely have been an underrated prospect...

Folks here are (generally) too protective of their prospects and too reluctant to trade them. Generally speaking, if you can trade a good prospect for a good major-leaguer, you make that trade.

The things to avoid (generally speaking):

1. Trading a bunch of prospects, at least some of them legit, for one player;
2. Trading a genuinely good prospect for a 2-month rental;
3. Trading a genuinely good propsect for a hole-filler (aka the last piece).

In a way, it's not that different than the FA market -- you spend extravagantly, maybe even overpay, for the stars and you look for bargains. It's the overpriced average players and the "panic" trades that kill you.

Evans is the only one of them I see making any contribution at all, and he's a platoon player at best. Carp, too -- probably the most overrated player in the system, at least the way some Mets' fans seem to regard him.

That's harsh, Sam. Evans posted an .841 OPS against righties (actually posting a higher slugging percentage against them than Murphy) in AA. He might very well end up a platoon player but to say that's the best case scenario is pretty harsh.

Carp might become a 4A slugger. He has yet to show the power he needs to be a good player at first considering his defensive defiencies.

Several reactions:

1. The typical reaction I heard to the Santana deal is that the Mets gave up *fair* value for Johan; they didn't overpay or underpay.

2. That was a recognition of the value of Gomez, Guerra, and Mulvey; Humber was filler.

3. Once that deal was made, the only Met prospects that drew significant interest in trade talks were Martinez and Niese. That's why the Mets couldn't get a decent reliever at the deadline; they tried, but everyone wanted FMart and/or Niese (or both).

4. Aside from those two players, and the two Caribbean kids (Flores and Marte), the Mets have primarily role players. Role players aren't a bad thing to have, mind you; some teams would like to have role players as good as Murphy or Evans or Carp in their systems. But the star potential is virtually non-existent.

-- MWE

Mike, what do you think about Reese Havens? Does he only project as a role player too?

The typical reaction I heard to the Santana deal is that the Mets gave up *fair* value for Johan; they didn't overpay or underpay.

Well I think that they way underpaid. The Yankees/Red Sox, etc. missed the boat.

Brad Holt gets no respect, eh?

The Mets farm system is firmly average. For a team with a core of Santana/Pelfrey/Wright/Reyes/Beltran, that's good enough.

Does Brad Holt have any "star potential"? What about Francisco Pena?

Well I think that they way underpaid. The Yankees/Red Sox, etc. missed the boat.

Pretty much all the players the Red Sox were rumored to need to trade for Santana played key roles FOR the Red Sox in 2008. I wanted them to get him, in all fairness, but hindsight says they were right to hold off (particularly with Lester).

I think that the reason that Mets prosects end up seeming overhyped is twofold: One, there are lots and lots of Mets fans, and fans tend to be irrationally optimistic about their team's prospects and to think that they can either A) get more in trade, or B) be fruitfully held untouchable. Two, the Mets have not had as much success lately as the other three teams with which this can be a problem -- the Red Sox, Yankees, and Cubs. Thus, despite the fact that they've actually had more-than-reasonable success with the prospects they've kept, the overall impact tends to feel a little disappointing.

Was Carlos Gomez overhyped? Sure. The Mets obviously recognized that fact, might even have contributed to it on purpose. Most major league teams have a couple of those guys, guys whose value doesn't match their skills, and most of them will attempt to pump them into something they're not, both for the purposes of morale-building and possible team-building. Teams that are good at this sort of thing -- the Braves come to mind -- tend to get a reputation for overhyped prospects.

Mostly, I think this is a reaction to the sheer volume of Mets fans.

Pretty much all the players the Red Sox were rumored to need to trade for Santana played key roles FOR the Red Sox in 2008. I wanted them to get him, in all fairness, but hindsight says they were right to hold off (particularly with Lester).

The Sox could have probably gotten him for Ellsbury and Buchholz and a couple of other decent prospects if they wanted him badly enough. Time will tell if that's a mistake but the 2008 Red Sox might have very well won the WS if they pulled the trigger on that deal.

Buchholz was considered untouchable at the time, though. Lester wasn't (except by the Red Sox, apparently).

Was Carlos Gomez overhyped? Sure. The Mets obviously recognized that fact,

Of course he was, and a lot of Mets fans bought it- but I don't know that much of anyone else did. WRT Twins I think he was the type of guy they tend to overvalue- so that helped the Mets- I don't think they neccesarily bought the Mets hype.

Right now, Kunz, Parnell, and Evans serve that purpose quite nicely. Evans is the only one of them I see making any contribution at all, and he's a platoon player at best. Carp, too -- probably the most overrated player in the system

So that means I might not be right to be very excited about Flores and Murphy and F-Mart, but at least I know it's not because I'm just systematically giving in to hype and fanboyism.

It's really impossible to rate Murphy as high as Evans or Carp (let alone higher)*, unless you are throwing out all 3 players' track records and focusing solely on Murphy's first 100 MLB at bats. Murphy is 18 months older than Carp, and 12 months older than Evans.
Murphy and Carp were virtually even offensively in AA this year, Carp hit betetr in A+ at age 20 than Murphy did at age 22. Evans in A+ at 21 out hit what Murphy did in A+ at 22,
Evans' combined AA/MLB line this year (1 year younger than Murphy) was better than Murphy's.


*I haven't seen Murphy play 2B, the only people I know who have said bluntly that he "can't"- BUT if he really can play 2B, obviously he could be a better prospect than Carp or Evans even if realistically he's not and is not likely to hit as well as they will.

It's really impossible to rate Murphy as high as Evans or Carp (let alone higher)*, unless you are throwing out all 3 players' track records and focusing solely on Murphy's first 100 MLB at bats. Murphy is 18 months older than Carp, and 12 months older than Evans.

That's funny. BA managed to do it -- rate Murphy higher than both of them -- with no difficulty whatsoever. They ranked him # 13 in the Eastern League this year, a league which was, by the way, totally stacked with prospects. That was ahead of every player on that Binghamton team except F-Mart (# 7), including Niese (# 18). Evans and Carp? Also-rans.

As for Carp, here's at John Manuel had to say during the chat after the EL rankings appeared:

The bat does not look to be for real, according to scouts and managers I talked to. His bat looks to be for real against bad or mediocre pitching and much less so against LHPs (though he was better this year), and especially less so against good velocity. I couldn't find one scout or manager who liked him frankly, who considered him a regular. He doesn't earn points with his defense or field demeanor either. He had a good year offensively, I'll give him that. But no one I talked to seems to think of him as a big league starter at first base.

You may think it's "impossible" to rank Carp below Murphy. I think looking beyond numbers is important, and knowing both how a guy in the minors compiles them, and how he projects, is also critical. Carp doesn't project at all; Evans can't hit righties, which makes him a platoon player. As a lefty with a terrific approach, Murphy projects to be almost infinitely more valuable.

EDIT:

Except for this bit of news:

This doesn't sound good.

New York Mets left fielder and rising star Daniel Murphy was flown back to New York from the Arizona Fall League last night for an MRI exam this morning on his ailing right knee.

Murphy felt discomfort in the knee during pregame batting practice Nov. 11 and hasn't played in the AFL since.

Ugh.

I will toot my own horn about calling Carlos Gomez correctly. I was the one pointing out that yeah, he was young for the league and yeah, he's been in tough hitter's environments, but he never had a minor league OPS that cracked .780. You can't steal first.

Holt and Havens are IMO perfect examples of prospect overhype by Met fans. Yes, Holt had a great start to his minor league career. But he was 21 (a relatively old 21, at that), pitching in short-season ball, and walking over 4 men per nine innings. Right now Holt has one pitch - granted, it's one very good pitch, but he's going to need more than that pitch to be successful. The minors are full of guys with good-to-excellent fastballs and little else. Some of them make it, most of them never get enough command of anything else to be successful. Yet some Met fans are already talking about him like he's the second coming of Joba Chamberlain.

Havens is not going to be a shortstop at higher levels, and that means the bat's going to have to improve. Again, he had a decent enough start in the minors, but he's almost exactly the same age as Holt (a week younger, in fact) in short-season ball and spent much of the time hurt.

As for Pena; he's got upside, he's a catcher, he's young, and he wasn't awful at full-season ball - but we still have no idea whether or not the bat will develop. He got a little better this year - but not a lot better.

-- MWE

Holt and Havens are IMO perfect examples of prospect overhype by Met fans.

Holt: To the extent anyone thinks he's as good a prospect as Joba, then sure -- that's overhype. But I think you kind of overdo it on the negative side there, Mike. Four BB/9 IP, yes. But also a 3:1 K/W ratio in his first minor league season, and 11.9 K/9 IP is nothing to sneeze at, especially because he's essentially a one-pitch guy right now. At the very least, he profiles as a very good relief prospect with a fastball that impressive.

Havens: I honestly haven't heard that much hype about Havens, especially not for someone who was a first round pick. Since he was hurt, no one is really sure what the Mets have here, so it's really a benefit-of-the-doubt kind of situation when it comes to his debut season. He excelled against strong competition before that, so the BA ranking on him (# 11 in the NYP) seems pretty fair.

Havens: I honestly haven't heard that much hype about Havens,

I think it's a bi-polar issue between him and Ike- when Havens DID play he looked so MUCH better than Ike who was supposed to be this polished college hitter...

That's funny. BA managed to do it -- rate Murphy higher than both of them -- with no difficulty whatsoever.

And I say the same thing about them.
Unfortunately I'm not trying to claim Carp and Evans are underrated- it's Murphy who is being irrationally hyped.

Also, I saw both Evans and Murphy last year (as you did), and while Murphy's results were still better at year's end, Evans to me looked like the better hitter- while my subjective impression from watching them is certainly no better or valid than your's (and hopefully worse than the subjective impressions of BA's guys)- I also have the #s on my side- unless he can play 2b, I see no way that Murphy can be considered a better prospect that Evans.

But also a 3:1 K/W ratio in his first minor league season, and 11.9 K/9 IP is nothing to sneeze at, especially because he's essentially a one-pitch guy right now.

If he'd done it in a full-season league, I'd agree with you. But doing it in the NY/P - not so much. It's not that hard to find guys who are good in the NY/P at age 21/22, but who never do anything in the full-season leagues.

-- MWE

EDIT: A lot of Phillie fans were saying much the same thing about Daniel Brauer after 2006.

The Phillies got a guy with Holt's stuff in the 6th round?

If he'd done it in a full-season league, I'd agree with you.

Mike have you seen Holt pitch (I haven't)?
The comments I've read from people who have is that his raw stuff was a lot better than they expected.
I do agree that at his age and the level they put him in his stats last year really mean nothing.

One thing that was odd- Mets pitcher draftees in recent years have tended to either make their debut against tougher competition- or get promoted after 1-2 starts in short season ball- Humber/Pelfrey/Mulvey/Durkin/Hernandez were all handled/promoted more aggressively-
did the Mets change tactics with Holt because of Holt- or is Omar reconsidering his whole sink or swim throw the prospect in over his head approach?

Mike have you seen Holt pitch (I haven't)?

I have not. However, a couple of people that I know who did see him (in college) said the fastball is major-league quality but the other pitches are not even close.

-- MWE

The Phillies got a guy with Holt's stuff in the 6th round?

Brauer's fastball is not as good, but his slider is a lot better.

-- MWE

Of course he was, and a lot of Mets fans bought it- but I don't know that much of anyone else did. WRT Twins I think he was the type of guy they tend to overvalue- so that helped the Mets- I don't think they neccesarily bought the Mets hype.


I'll stand on an island on this one. I think Gomez will be a star. He's still young and raw with all the tools one drools about. His progress is about where I expected - I didn't expect him to have early success, but I do believe that he will be one of the top CFers in the majors in 5 years.

I've said all along that I expect both Gomez and Milledge to be stars, with Gomez > Milledge, and I still expect that. Milledge had a disappointing year.

- Agree about reservations on Holt and Havens. Holt had an excellent year, but I've seen equally brilliant years from Mets pitching prospects in the past. I'm thinking of Dotel and Roberts. Holt has a long path ahead before we can consider him a stud prospect, and he has to avoid injury.

- Havens looks intriguing, but was old for his level last year. Let's see him put up good numbers against age-matched peers before raising the expectations. To me, he's unproven at this point.

- Murphy will hit. The issue is finding a position for him. If everything breaks right, I think he will be a star. Otherwise, I think he'll be a good bat looking for a position, which isn't the worst thing in a prospect.

- Evans has a chance to be an everyday player. I don't think he has much upside, but I still would rather give him a chance than a veteran retread.

- Carp needs to hit for more power. He might not make it, but I'd be patient.

- I think Flores is on a star track. Early, but definitely high upside.

- And of course, Fernando will be better than all of them.

Also, I saw both Evans and Murphy last year (as you did), and while Murphy's results were still better at year's end, Evans to me looked like the better hitter- while my subjective impression from watching them is certainly no better or valid than your's (and hopefully worse than the subjective impressions of BA's guys)- I also have the #s on my side- unless he can play 2b, I see no way that Murphy can be considered a better prospect that Evans.

Well, if Evans looked to you like the better hitter, I guess we're at an impasse. He looked to me completely overmatched. Now, that's fine -- he's not ready yet and no one should have expected him NOT to be overmatched. At this stage, he can't handle good major league fastballs, and he looked utterly befuddled by even routine breaking stuff. The most important problem is that right-handers ate him alive (.135/.150/.189). That's a good news/bad news thing -- the good news is that it indicates he might have real value as the lesser half of an OF platoon (.319/.380/.514 against LHP). The bad news is that it may foretell there is a serious ceiling on his value/potential: platoon player.

Murphy, OTOH, showed absolutely no limits. He handled LHP well. He handled all sorts of pitches well. He showed excellent pitch recognition, and strong patience. He adjusted to different approaches, and showed the ability to go to all fields depending on how he was being pitched. As a lefty hitter, he will have the platoon edge most of the time.

You also have to look, IMHO, at trend lines. Daniel Murphy made a leap forward in 2007, and an even bigger one in 2008. A player like that who shows the ability to improve as he moves up the ladder -- rather than having his numbers deteriorate because the competition is getting progressively tougher -- is something very special. Contrast that with, say, Mike Carp, whose numbers have basically been stagnant. His development has essentially only allowed him to keep pace with the improved competition as he's moved up to AA. Evans is somewhere in between; his performance has improved, but not nearly as impressively as Murphy's.

Bottom line: if you want to look just at raw, AA numbers and age, fine. Nick Evans on the surface might seem to be the superior prospect. If you look beyond that, to see how they get there, and how they project, I think it's not close. And I think anyone who can't see what Murphy has to offer is going to be very, very surprised. We'll see who's right.

You also have to look, IMHO, at trend lines. Daniel Murphy made a leap forward in 2007, and an even bigger one in 2008.

Murphy was 22 in A+ in 2007 and 23 in AA in 2008. (BTW I'm not only a Mets fan, I have Murphy stashed as a reserve on my NL only Roto league- I WANT HIM TO SUCCEED)- but, I really don't see a likely "star" here.

he had a nice year in AA, but as Szym is fond of pointing out to us Mets' fans- Binghamton is the most hitter friendly of the Mets farm clubs-
This year we had 22 year old Carp hit: .299/.403/.471
Murphy (23): .308/.374/.496
Evans (22): .311/.365/.561
FMart (19): .287/.340/.432
2007:
Brett Harper (25): .296/.350/.500
Mark Kiger (27): .312/.432/.478
2006:
Michel Abreu (27?): 332/.404/.530
2005:
AHernandez (22): 326/.360/.462
BHarper (23): 326/.360/.462
MJacobs (24): .321/.376/.589
MJacobs (22): .329/.372/.548

2004:
Wright (21): .363/.458/.619 (NOW that is a real prospect)

Well, if Evans looked to you like the better hitter, I guess we're at an impasse. He looked to me completely overmatched. Now, that's fine -- he's not ready yet and no one should have expected him NOT to be overmatched.

Yes he looked overmatched to me too during his 1st call up- he looked good later in August, also, I've also seen established vets go through periods when they look hopelessly overmatched, I don't base my opinion of a player by how good (or bad) a player looks in his first 20 MLB at bats (or I try not to any way)

The bat does not look to be for real, according to scouts and managers I talked to. His bat looks to be for real against bad or mediocre pitching and much less so against LHPs (though he was better this year), and especially less so against good velocity. I couldn't find one scout or manager who liked him frankly, who considered him a regular.

Yes, I've heard that he's a1B/DH who is gonna have to REALLY hit- and that he's likely not going to- but I'm rooting for him- if for no reason that I read he was never going to hit at AA (let alone AAA or MLB)- and he certainly did all right in AA in 2008 (while being 18 months younger than Murphy)- but he's gotta start putting the ball over the fence more frequently