So I guess Omar is gone at the end of the year? Earlier?

“Contrary to what you all are reporting about our minor leagues, our minor leagues are in much better shape than what’s being reported.

Maybe, it depends upon who is doing the reporting, and how bad they say the system is. If the report says the system is COMPLETELY barren, thats' not true, there are a few shiny baubles...

If Fed actually thinks the system is in good shape compared to the majority of systems, well Fred is either in denial or been drinking the wrong kool-aid

I think the great mystery of the Mets system is what exactly they have percolating in instructional ball and in the summer leagues. Publications like Baseball America have noted that the Mets have talent at the lowest levels of their system, but I tend to take an "I'll believe it when I see it" approach to that sort of thing.

is what exactly they have percolating in instructional ball and in the summer leagues.

They have a batch of real young guys, meaning guys who not only can't drink legally, but guys who can chase after Polonia targets without fear of legal repercussions...

(well the groupies may face legal repercussions)

The AAA team is pretty depressing. I don't think there's a single player on that roster I'd want on the Mets in two years, even in a margincal role. Maybe Collazo, Bostick, or Muniz as a middle reliever. That's pretty depressing.

I agree with Wilpon - I think the Mets farm system is in decent shape. We're not Tampa Bay strong, but there are enough interesting prospects. The bigger issue is that it doesn't matter how strong the farm is if the front office is afraid to use it.

Pascucci hit his 14th tonight (banging head on wall).
Evans and Carp are looking solid in AA.

I give Omar partial credit - I didn't think that he had the courage to remove Willie, but he did - late and in the most awkward way possible, but he did it.

Now I'm pleading with him to show some courage and bring the kids and the Ken Phelpsers up - even if it's way overdue.

Any appraisal of the Mets' farm system that doesn't end with "one of the five worst in baseball" is grossly inaccurate.

Any appraisal of the Mets' farm system that doesn't end with "one of the five worst in baseball" is grossly inaccurate.

I think just having F-Mart brings them up above there.

I think the whole obsession with who has the best farm system goes overboard sometimes.

The Mets could have not made the Church and Santana deals.
They would have kept Humber, Mulvey, Gomez, Guerra and Milledge - all of whom would have been in the minors or considered rookies (I think), and would have been credited towards 'the farm'.
Despite the flaws that some of these guys are showing at the MLB level, they are still very promising and would have raised the stature of the Mets farm system greatly...

but wouldn't you rather have Johan freakin' Santana and a good OF if you were trying to build a contender this year?

I think just having F-Mart brings them up above there.

Sigh. F-Mart is an injury-prone, toolsy prospect with enormous upside who has yet to show he can either stay healthy or translate all his tremendous gifts into actual production on a consistent basis. He is a great prospect to have -- great -- but if he's the best one your system has (and best by a wide, wide margin), then it is quite accurate (depressingly accurate) to say that your team's system is one of the five worst in baseball. There are at least 20 teams that have a top prospect I'd currently rather have than F-Mart, given that he has yet again gotten injured this year. At the start of the year, BA only had him rated the # 20 prospect in the minors; I'd say he's slipped rather than moved up. And let's say I'm wrong. Even if you cut that in half, and say that only 10 teams have a single better prospect, then at least another 15 beyond that have a FAR better "next five" than the Mets, thus more than erasing the slight advantage the Mets might have at the # 1 slot.

The Mets' hope now is that Davis, Havens, Holt and some of the others they drafted this year begin the process of rebuilding things. Because it will be extremely lucky (EXTREMELY) if they get even one star and three other productive players out of the entire rest of the system that currently exists. Say . . . F-Mart as the star, and three out of:

Binghamton: Carp, Evans, Murphy, Niese, Kunz
St. Lucie: Tejada, Owen
Savannah: Pena

That's how bad the organization is. Not counting the most recent draft, they really only have nine players you can even identify as possible guys who might reasonably become regular contributors at some point. Do you really think it's realistic to think you're going to get more than a 1/3 "hit" rate on those eight -- and that's assuming F-Mart becomes a star to be the saving grace of the system. So one star, and three productive regulars. We'd be lucky to get that.

The system is a shambles, guys. Face it.

EDIT:

but wouldn't you rather have Johan freakin' Santana and a good OF if you were trying to build a contender this year?

First of all, that's a different question -- whether or not it was worth trading away the whole freakin' system to try to win in 2008. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But the point is that the result of that decision (and the poor drafting that came before) is that the system, as it stands now, is a disaster. Let's not deny it.

Second, where is this "good OF" you speak of? The one with Tatis and Endy and Trot Nixon getting all the ABs, because we don't have a farm system to replace the injured Alou and Church? You mean that good OF??? Oh, yeah.

I agree with Wilpon - I think the Mets farm system is in decent shape.

Raski, the cockeyed optimist

but if he's the best one your system has (and best by a wide, wide margin), then it is quite accurate (depressingly accurate) to say that your team's system is one of the five worst in baseball.

Yeah, but we all know you hate prospects Sam. ;-)

Second, where is this "good OF" you speak of? The one with Tatis and Endy and Trot Nixon getting all the ABs, because we don't have a farm system to replace the injured Alou and Church? You mean that good OF??? Oh, yeah.

I was talking about Church of course. yeah, he got hurt but nevertheless the Church/Millidge deal is an example of the Mets using the minor league system productively.. to produce MLB talent.

I was talking about Church of course. yeah, he got hurt but nevertheless the Church/Millidge deal is an example of the Mets using the minor league system productively.. to produce MLB talent.

Well, let's talk about that, then.

First, let me reiterate: the conversation right now is about the state of the farm system NOW, not as it existed last off-season. If you want to argue that it was in good enough shape eight months ago to make good trades for a winning 2008, we can have that discussion, too -- that claim doesn't look so hot now, IMHO. But certainly, there was more and deeper talent on hand eight months ago, and things certainly looked better for the Mets' future then as well. But that has little or nothing to do with the state of the Mets' system today.

Second, the merits of the trade for Church and whether it produced a "good OF." Putting aside the fact that Church got hurt, the evidence that Church is such a great player is pretty damned thin. Yes, he was playing very well early in 2008. Can anyone say "sample size" around here? Are we supposed to believe based on 180 ABs that Ryan Church is really an .880 OPS player? Well, I don't, especially not in a full-time role. And because the trades, as a whole, robbed the Mets of essential OF depth (no Gomez, no Milledge) in the system, they left us vulnerable to precisely the injury problem than any moron should have known was coming with Moises Alou. Big, gaping hole in exactly the place the Mets were prone to be needing a quality bat. So I'd say they left the Mets with a decent player in Church who happened to get off to a fast start, making a lot of folks around here giddy thinking he's better than he is -- who then unfortunately got hurt -- and an injury waiting to happen in LF and no good answer when he got hurt. And Beltran. Is that a "good OF"? Well, if it is, it's not because the minor league system produced it. It's because Beltran is that good, and the minor league system had nothing to do with Beltran.

Third, we can of course have the philosophical discussion about whether we want the Mets to become like the Yankees of the early 2000s, using their minor league system as nothing but a vehicle for spinning off players around the league in trades, or whether we want the to actually, you know, use some of them as actual Mets. Saying that the Mets are "using the minor league system productively . . . to produce MLB talent" because they trade their prospects off for Ryan Church and Brian Schneider and even Johan Santana is to say -- in my book -- that they are making a mockery of drafting and development. I have cared about this Mets' team this year less than any team in a long time, and I think it's a direct result of having concluded that they have no commitment whatever towards building even partly from within. To each his own about how you want the team to look and be constructed, of course. But the longer they keep down Minaya's current path, the more this is an imported roster with a win-now approach, the less I personally will give a damn.

Second, the

merits of the trade for Church and whether it produced a "good OF." Putting aside the fact that Church got hurt, the evidence that Church is such a great player is pretty damned thin. Yes, he was playing very well early in 2008. Can anyone say "sample size" around here?

I don't think he meant "good OF" as in the whole OF; I believe he meant Church is a good outfielder, which he is.

Well, I don't, especially not in a full-time role. And because the trades, as a whole, robbed the Mets of essential OF depth (no Gomez, no Milledge) in the system, they left us vulnerable to precisely the injury problem than any moron should have known was coming with Moises Alou. Big, gaping hole in exactly the place the Mets were prone to be needing a quality bat. So I'd say they left the Mets with a decent player in Church who happened to get off to a fast start, making a lot of folks around here giddy thinking he's better than he is -- who then unfortunately got hurt -- and an injury waiting to happen in LF and no good answer when he got hurt.

I know we have discussed this before, but how is Milledge OF depth and Church not? If we didn't make the trade for Church, then Milledge wouldn't be OF depth; he would be the starting RF. I don't see how Milledge has anything to do with the absolute hole we've had in LF. If we didn't make the Church trade, then we still have a huge hole in LF, and we are getting a 75 OPS+ from our RF. We would be screwed. Sure, if we kept both Milledge and Gomez then I guess we could be playing Gomez in LF, but we wouldn't be better off with Gomez in LF and no Santana. Then we could have the 75 OPS+ from Milledge in RF and the 82 from Gomez in LF and no Santana.

The way I see it, Gomez isn't part of the discussion. Because we traded him for Santana and I don't see how you can argue with that move. So the question comes down to Milledge vs Church, I guess. You don't get any more OF depth; you are talking about trading one OF for another OF.

I guess you could make the argument that maybe the Twins would have taken Milledge instead of Gomez, but I don't see that, and anyway, then you are talking about Gomez vs Church, and once again you aren't talking about depth, just one OF for another, and the Mets are way ahead in that one so far.

Like I said, I don't see the argument for depth, and on performance, Church is outplaying both of the OF the Mets traded.

First, let me reiterate: the conversation right now is about the state of the farm system NOW, not as it existed last off-season. If you want to argue that it was in good enough shape eight months ago to make good trades for a winning 2008, we can have that discussion, too -- that claim doesn't look so hot now, IMHO.

Agreed, of course. But I think the point was we sometimes overrate the farm system rankings; if the Mets hadn't made the trade for Santana then their farm system would be in a lot better shape, but the team overall wouldn't be.

But I think the point was we sometimes overrate the farm system rankings; if the Mets hadn't made the trade for Santana then their farm system would be in a lot better shape, but the team overall wouldn't be.

Sometimes, perhaps we do. We might say that a low-rated system isn't a big deal, for instance, in the case of a team that had a rock-solid, relatively young team in place at the major league level, with few holes on the big club in the near future and thus with time to rebuild the system in the next 2-3 years. But not in the case of the New York baseball Mets. Or we might say it in the case of a team with a GM and accompanying draft/development team with a proven, very consistent record of turning around such a situation in the farm system and/or making wizard-like trades to fill holes. But while Omar Minaya has his strengths, and has made SOME good trades, his overall record (and especially that of the Mets' recent drafts) is only mixed and leaves no basis for general confidence in the midst of a barren system.

As far as the Santana trade is concerned, you say "the team overall wouldn't be" in better shape. That is certainly true if you take 2008 as your focus. But I am not all that sure that I agree it is true if we are talking about the longer-term health of the franchise. I guess it's blasphemy to say this, and since I supported the trade at the time it is classic second-guessing . . . but given how truly barren the system is and how long it is going to take to rebuild and how profound the needs of the team are going to be in the next couple of years, and how hard it is going to be to fill them, I am not at all sure any more that they wouldn't be better off with a fuller cupboard of assets with which to work. Omar has virtually nothing but dollars with which to fill the holes he's going to have to fill. No one to trade that is worth a darn to anyone else (at least no one he can really afford to give up without just creating another hole . . . .), and no one to bring up from a destitute farm system. The future is bleak.

And Conor, you make excellent points about the OF depth issue. But the point really is that if you're going to give up BOTH your young OFers in separate deals, as Omar did, then you are down one net outfielder. The gain you're getting is, yes, Johan Santana -- so it's worth it (at least for 2008, if not the long-term future of the franchise). But it IS a sacrifice of OF depth. You can't really deny that. In light of that, and the fact you are going into the season with a ticking time bomb of a left-fielder (and, by the way, a not-exactly-durable center fielder), you MUST do something to bring in a reasonable bat behind Moises Alou. It's not enough to say that you got something really good (Santana) when you gave up your safety net. He needed to get something really good . . . and restore the damned safety net.

The AAA team is pretty depressing. I don't think there's a single player on that roster I'd want on the Mets in two years, even in a margincal role. Maybe Collazo, Bostick, or Muniz as a middle reliever. That's pretty depressing.

A lot of AAA teams are like that nowadays. I think the Phillies' AAA team has an average age of more than 30, and consists almost entirely of guys who are waiting for their big chance to be the 25th man on the major-league roster if someone gets injured and there isn't an actual prospect who's ready for the majors yet. (exceptions: soft-tossing 26-year-old pitching prospects J.A. Happ and R.J. Swindle; hitting-impaired 26-year-old catching prospect Jason Jaramillo; somewhat good outfielders Chris Snelling and T.J. Bohn)

But I am not all that sure that I agree it is true if we are talking about the longer-term health of the franchise. I guess it's blasphemy to say this, and since I supported the trade at the time it is classic second-guessing . . . but given how truly barren the system is and how long it is going to take to rebuild and how profound the needs of the team are going to be in the next couple of years, and how hard it is going to be to fill them, I am not at all sure any more that they wouldn't be better off with a fuller cupboard of assets with which to work.

I have to disagree on this. How many of the guys they traded for Santana are probably going to contribute? I guess Gomez could be a decent CF; he is a very good defender. But is he going to hit enough? Maybe one of the 3 pitchers you traded turns out to be a decent starter. Maybe. But I kinda doubt it. Guerra has a 4.83 ERA in the FSL with 32 BB and 40 K in 69 IP. Humber has an ERA of 5.60 in AAA. Mulvey is at least doing okish, 4.05 ERA in AAA (but a ton of unearned runs, 34 ER and 11 UER). Gomez has an 86 OPS+ and 6.25 K's for every BB. He leads the AL in ZR, and based on what I saw last year he is likely to be a very good OF, but still, that's the best piece the Twins got and will likely be the best player in the long run.

Even if the Mets hold onto those guys, how are they helping us? Gomez is either in AAA, or killing us in an OF corner. He may never hit enough to be a good player. Humber and Guerra have taken big steps back this year, and maybe Mulvey has treaded water. If we keep them, they aren't helping us at the big league level and I doubt their trade value is enough to get someone anywhere near the level of Santana.

And Conor, you make excellent points about the OF depth issue. But the point really is that if you're going to give up BOTH your young OFers in separate deals, as Omar did, then you are down one net outfielder.

Down one net OF and up one ace.

Anyway, the big problem I have is that Milledge has been horrible this year. I mean straight up terrible. Schneider gets killed by Mets fans, and rightfully so, and he has a 73 OPS+ compared to the 75 of Milledge. Neither of the 2 OF the Mets traded would be good at all in the corners. They would be net negatives.

Based on performance so far, even if the Mets kept both Gomez and Milledge their OF depth would have sucked because one of those guys has been terrible, and Gomez has been better, but as a corner OF he would be really bad.

Anyway, that doesn't make your point about getting a guy to back up Alou wrong. I 100% agree with that; but it isn't like the only way to do that was to hold onto Gomez and Milledge. There are plenty of guys around who could do a reasonable job backing up Alou and allow you to trade for Santana.

One other thing, and this is dealing in the hypothetical so I don't want to get too deep into it. But if the Mets had kept Milledge, and he was hitting the way he has for Washington, how long do you think Willie sticks with him before he starts playing Chavez or Anderson in the OF?

Anyway, that doesn't make your point about getting a guy to back up Alou wrong. I 100% agree with that; but it isn't like the only way to do that was to hold onto Gomez and Milledge. There are plenty of guys around who could do a reasonable job backing up Alou

Which means, ultimately, you agree that we blew up our OF depth. You just think it was the right thing to do given what Omar got in return. My answer is two-fold: first, Church isn't actually as good as he performed in a small number of ABs before he got hurt, so we shouldn't be fooled by that. I mean, it's good that he did so well for purposes of helping keep the Mets afloat, but in judging the trade, I think it's premature to say the Mets got such a good outfielder.

And second, you have to judge the trades fully. Part of the cost of them was in reducing the Mets' outfield depth -- and Omar should have known that, and taken steps to acquire an adequate bat behind Alou. The fact that he didn't do so has hurt the Mets significantly, unless you think it's been fun watching Tatis take so many ABs. Maybe you think I should talk about the failure to acquire a back-up separately, as opposed to thinking about it as a criticism of the trades themselves hurting the OF depth. But either way, the fact is they lost depth that Omar did not adequately replace. And going forward, they have pretty limited means of dealing with their OF problem. I consider Church only a so-so RFer for 2009, and they have a big gaping hole in LF.

Which means, ultimately, you agree that we blew up our OF depth. You just think it was the right thing to do given what Omar got in return.

I agree we didn't go into the season with enough OF depth, but I am not convinced keeping Milledge and Gomez would have solved that problem. If we had Milledge and Gomez as our corner OF we'd be in big trouble right now. Omar should have been able to make the trades and still find someone who could at least be adequate in the OF. He should have been able to make the trades and find someone who is out hitting both Gomez and Milledge. That's 100% on him.

My answer is two-fold: first, Church isn't actually as good as he performed in a small number of ABs before he got hurt, so we shouldn't be fooled by that. I mean, it's good that he did so well for purposes of helping keep the Mets afloat, but in judging the trade, I think it's premature to say the Mets got such a good outfielder.

Agreed that Church isn't as good as he showed, but he is definitely a good player. Career 116 OPS+ and he's a strong OF.

But either way, the fact is they lost depth that Omar did not adequately replace.

I actually think they did adequately replace Milledge and Gomez. The problem is those guys, especially Milledge, have been so bad that adequately replacing them doesn't help us all that much. If we had both of those guys in our OF right now would we really be singing the praises of our OF depth? The depth that is resulting in us playing corner OF with a 75 and 86 OPS+?

I consider Church only a so-so RFer for 2009, and they have a big gaping hole in LF.

If we had kept Gomez we would still have a big gaping hole in LF, just the guy would be a lot younger.

I think you are really selling Church short. He is a good fielder, and he has a career OPS+ of 116. He's not as young as Milledge, but he's 29 this season. You really think he's going to fall off a cliff for next year? He'll probably be a 115 OPS+ or so guy for the next 2-3 years along with above average defense. That's so-so? Maybe it is, I don't think so but maybe, but either way that looks better than what Milledge is going to give.

Anyway, I think the basis of our disagreements boils down to this: we both agree that the Mets lack OF depth. But I don't think having Milledge and Gomez would give them good OF depth, and I guess you do. Or you at least think it would provide them with better OF depth than they have now. I can't really disagree with that, but our starting OF wouldn't be nearly as good and we also wouldn't have Santana.

Conor basically hit on what I was trying to say. I'm sorry that I wrote what I wrote about Church so hastily that it lead to confusion. I did mean that trading Milledge got you a "good OUTFIELDER", I didn't mean that to read that it produced a "good outfield," as obviously no one trade will do that. I was just lazy and abbv'd outfielder as OF.

Anyway, as he already pointed out, it is ludicrous to suggest that the Milledge deal hurt the OF depth since it netted a major leaguer outfielder who is presently a good deal better than Milledge.

Second, the merits of the trade for Church and whether it produced a "good OF." Putting aside the fact that Church got hurt, the evidence that Church is such a great player is pretty damned thin. Yes, he was playing very well early in 2008. Can anyone say "sample size" around here? Are we supposed to believe based on 180 ABs that Ryan Church is really an .880 OPS player? Well, I don't, especially not in a full-time role.

Church is an athletic 29-yo OF with a career OPS+ of 118. I don't see how an OPS+ in the 130s at age 29 is such a stretch. He is putting up a good year in the prime of his career. He put up a 131 OPS+ in 200 ABs two years ago and in the closest thing he has ever had to a starters playing time, last year, he basically put up the same averages as his career mark.
He is no world beater of course, but hes been a solid OF his whole career - its not a fluke.

And while we are on the subject of the OF depth of the 2008 team, the Mets entered the year with Gomez, Milledge, Pagan and Chavez. Four players with fairly similar present abilities, despite the differences in future potential. They dumped two of them and you are blaming part of the Mets failures on dumping those two and hurting the MLB teams OF depth. Well, keeping two speedy light-bat type OFs on your MLB team seems like plenty and as disappointing as Pagan and Chavez might be right now they are playing as well (or as poorly I guess) as Milledge and Gomez are playing elsewhere.
None of the deals the Mets made affected the Mets ability to replace the offense of a Moises Alou in left.
Actually I'd argue that the Church trade HELPED things. It didn't work out so well since Church went down too, but if he hadn't gotten hurt than at least you'd still have one power-hitting corner OF in the lineup if you replace Alou with a backup CF type.
If you kept Milledge, and then Alou goes down, than you are basically starting an all-star CF in CF and two backup CFs in LF and RF. It'd be a nice D, but your O would still be lacking lots of pop.

EDIT-I forgot that Pagan is shelved right now too. Oh well, doesn't change what I said a whole lot. Losing a starting LF, a starting RF, and a backup is going to give lots of teams problems.

The depth that is resulting in us playing corner OF with a 75 and 86 OPS+?

Well, that'd be a noticable step-up from Tatis and Chavez (both in the 50s) and probably about equal to Nixon (who is around 80).

Well, that'd be a noticable step-up from Tatis and Chavez (both in the 50s) and probably about equal to Nixon (who is around 80).

Sure, except in that scenario there is A) no hope of Church ever coming back and B) no Johan Santana in the rotation.

Third, we can of course have the philosophical discussion about whether we want the Mets to become like the Yankees of the early 2000s, using their minor league system as nothing but a vehicle for spinning off players around the league in trades, or whether we want the to actually, you know, use some of them as actual Mets. Saying that the Mets are "using the minor league system productively . . . to produce MLB talent" because they trade their prospects off for Ryan Church and Brian Schneider and even Johan Santana is to say -- in my book -- that they are making a mockery of drafting and development. I have cared about this Mets' team this year less than any team in a long time, and I think it's a direct result of having concluded that they have no commitment whatever towards building even partly from within. To each his own about how you want the team to look and be constructed, of course. But the longer they keep down Minaya's current path, the more this is an imported roster with a win-now approach, the less I personally will give a damn.

I don't really see how the Yankees comp holds up.. and don't get me wrong, I love finding reasons to hate the Mets : )

Trading for a promising, underrated 29yo (but still cost controlled) OF who has never really gotten a chance to be a full-time starter isn't really a Yankees kind of move. If anything that sounds like a Billy Beane move.

And trading for the maybe the best pitcher in the game while he is still in his prime isn't "Yankees move" or an "(anyone) move". It is just a good idea.
If you can't give up equal value to get the very best, who the hell DO you trade for?
The Yanks gave CARL PAVANO 4/40, y'all gave up some very promising talent for one of the very best. I'd take the latter.

He'll probably be a 115 OPS+ or so guy for the next 2-3 years along with above average defense. That's so-so? Maybe it is, I don't think so but maybe, but either way that looks better than what Milledge is going to give.

Yes, I think that's so-so for a corner outfielder. It's not bad, it won't bring the franchise down, but it's not going to move the Mets substantially forward towards winning anything, either. Church -- if he can stay healthy and do that in full-time play, which is a question mark -- is a reasonably productive guy who helps you. But he's also a lot older than Milledge and virtually certain never to be an outstanding player. I never make a trade like that.

But anyway, that's water under the bridge. The fact remains that they now don't have a Milledge, and they don't have a Gomez, and they don't have an Humber or a Guerra or a Mulvey. They don't have anything approaching a major league ready outfielder or pitcher ready to move in to help the team to fill the void in LF, or to replace Pedro and/or Ollie Perez if they leave. The only way to fill those voids is free agency . . . which would be just dandy, if it didn't mean that the ability to replenish the farm system would take yet another hit from the lost draft picks.

God, I'm in a sour mood. I have to stop talking about this.

Well, that'd be a noticable step-up from Tatis and Chavez (both in the 50s)
What happened to the collective man-love for Endy Chavez? I remember when Mets' fans were ecstatic over having him. Funny what a fluke year at the right time can do as well as an awful year at the wrong time can do.

Yes, I think that's so-so for a corner outfielder. It's not bad, it won't bring the franchise down, but it's not going to move the Mets substantially forward towards winning anything, either. Church -- if he can stay healthy and do that in full-time play, which is a question mark -- is a reasonably productive guy who helps you. But he's also a lot older than Milledge and virtually certain never to be an outstanding player. I never make a trade like that.

I can accept that. But at this point he's a much better player than Milledge. And it's possible Milledge never fulfills the promise he showed. I'm not writing him off right now, but if Church doesn't substantially move you toward a title, then Milledge is hijacking a car and driving you away from it at 100 MPH.

But anyway, that's water under the bridge. The fact remains that they now don't have a Milledge, and they don't have a Gomez, and they don't have an Humber or a Guerra or a Mulvey. They don't have anything approaching a major league ready outfielder or pitcher ready to move in to help the team to fill the void in LF, or to replace Pedro and/or Ollie Perez if they leave.

But Sam, they traded those guys for one of the best pitchers in the game. They already started replacing Pedro or Ollie. Would you rather they didn't have Santana in the rotation and instead traded those guys (who by the way don't have a whole lot of trade value at all) for a LF, or a pitcher to replace Pedro or Ollie who isn't as good as Johan Santana?

Seriously; who are they trading those guys for that gives you anywhere close to the return of Santana? Humber has an ERA of like 5.60 in AAA and he's turning 26 this year; what exactly is his trade value.

I just can't figure out the way the Mets hold onto the guys they sent to Minnesota and somehow turn those guys into something better than Santana.

If they used those guys, and I don't think they could, but if they could trade them for C.C. or Matt Holliday or something, how are we any better off?

But Sam, they traded those guys for one of the best pitchers in the game. They already started replacing Pedro or Ollie. Would you rather they didn't have Santana in the rotation and instead traded those guys (who by the way don't have a whole lot of trade value at all) for a LF, or a pitcher to replace Pedro or Ollie who isn't as good as Johan Santana?

I didn't mean any of that. I just meant that -- looking at the team they have now, and the minor league system they have now -- they have virtually no prospects who are close to ready who can come on to fill the holes they will need to fill, or even be traded to fill holes (if that's what you'd want to do). Forget the past. We have Johan Santana, and that's wonderful. But we do NOT have any remaining assets comparable to the type it took to get him, and thus we don't have a way to replace the holes that will be opening up next winter the same way we filled the hole that we filled last winter. That is the price the Mets have paid for not replenishing the system, for not drafting well enough, for giving up talent in trades and not getting enough back . . . .

Don't take everything as if it's a criticism of the Santana trade. The Santana trade can be the right thing to have done, and ALSO have a downside -- specifically, that it cleaned the Mets' out of any depth of talent that can be used for other trades, or to fill holes that crop up. It is only a slight exaggeration to say there is simply nothing left down below. That is my point.

I didn't mean any of that. I just meant that -- looking at the team they have now, and the minor league system they have now -- they have virtually no prospects who are close to ready who can come on to fill the holes they will need to fill, or even be traded to fill holes (if that's what you'd want to do). Forget the past. We have Johan Santana, and that's wonderful. But we do NOT have any remaining assets comparable to the type it took to get him, and thus we don't have a way to replace the holes that will be opening up next winter the same way we filled the hole that we filled last winter.

I hear you. But my point is that if we didn't trade for Santana, not only would we have the holes to fill that you already mentioned, we would also not have an ace at the top of the rotation. The team would be much worse off; they would still need a LF and a pitcher to replace Ollie/Pedro AND they would need to "replace" Santana. So how does it make sense to keep the guys we traded for Santana to fill the LF hole if we are now down our ace pitcher? (If I am mistaking your point, I apologize, but this seems to be what you're saying. But you said you think we might be better off with the cupboard full of assets than Santana. And I don't see that at all.)

And the other thing is that the general consensus seemed to be that we got a great deal for Santana; it's no lock that the same package of guys would be able to swing a player his his level again. Especially since at least 2 of the guys we traded have taken big steps backward.

Don't take everything as if it's a criticism of the Santana trade. The Santana trade can be the right thing to have done, and ALSO have a downside -- specifically, that it cleaned the Mets' out of any depth of talent that can be used for other trades, or to fill holes that crop up.

Thats fine, but I would take you saying we might have been better off keeping the 4 players instead of dealing them for Santana as a criticism of the deal.

I find it impossible to believe that we would have been better able at any time to leverage those 4 players and do a better job of filling a hole than we did with trading for Santana? Do you disagree with that? If you do, how do you propose filling some of the holes on the team with those guys?

You would expect a trade like that to clean out the system and make it harder to fill other holes on the team. But you seem to be glossing over the fact that while doing so you filled the biggest hole on the team. You have one less hole to fill, and you aren't going to do a better job of filling any hole on the team than you did with Santana. If you trade those guys for a LF, then you can just as easily say "well sure they traded for a LF, but now they cleaned out their system and how can they get a good pitcher?"

I asked this before; lets assume they kept Gomez, Guerra, Humber, and Mulvey. How are they going to fill any other holes? Who are they using those players to acquire?

And of course the Mets have done a poor job stocking the farm system in the past few years. That's a given. But I'm at a loss to see how they do a better job filling a hole than they did with the Santana trade. Give me something, some trade they could have made or something.

I hope my last post didn't come off in the wrong way; I'm just trying to figure out your POV. My apologies.

Ryan Church turns 30 this October. He's played more than 102 games once in his career. He's already missed one month of this season.

A 118+ means zilch if you aren't in the lineup.

What happened to the collective man-love for Endy Chavez? I remember when Mets' fans were ecstatic over having him. Funny what a fluke year at the right time can do as well as an awful year at the wrong time can do.

Endy is still a phenomenal defensive outfielder. If he could reproduce last years batting (84 OPS+) he would be good as a 4th outfielder/defensive replacement.

What happened to the collective man-love for Endy Chavez? I remember when Mets' fans were ecstatic over having him.

I love Endy.

If he could reproduce last years batting (84 OPS+) he would be good as a 4th outfielder/defensive replacement.

Which is 10 points higher than his career. At age 30, he has a lifetime 74 OPS+.

I guess I have man-hate for him because he was 3rd in a string of "played like crap for the Phils, played great for the Mets players". Wendell*, Roberto Hernandez and then Chavez, were all disappointments in the year they were obtained.

*To be fair, Wendell did have a nice year for the Phils the year after but he left a bad first impression.

I love Endy.
You are an honorable man, keeping your man-love in spite of his 57 OPS+. :)

Conor, frankly I want to stop talking about the frigging Santana trade. You keep wanting to talk about the trade -- I want to talk about the state of the organization post-trade. It doesn't matter whether it was a good deal or not; it's water under the bridge. We have Santana. Great. And we have one of the worst organizations in baseball. Bad. The latter part is going to hurt the Mets for a long time to come.

If you insist . . . . My honest opinion: I have mixed feelings. I think the 2008 Mets are obviously better off. In the longer term, I think there's a decent (though less than 50%) chance they will regret it. Because a team with as threadbare a system as they have is taking a HUGE chance putting itself in as vulnerable a position as the Mets are now in, with few if any tradeable assets and almost no help on the horizon from the minor league system. They may well be on a treadmill to disaster, and the Santana trade may -- may -- well be looked on one day as the move that represented the point of no return, because it robbed Minaya (or his successor) of all flexibilty to pivot in different directions as needs and opportunities arise in the next several years.

A team with a much deeper system (the Angels, or the Red Sox, or the Brewers) would have been in a MUCH better position to make that deal, because they would have had assets remaining to move as their future needs reveal themselves. As players leave, or get hurt, or fail to develop. Omar Minaya has, by virtue of a whole series of moves, put the Mets in a position where they were almost certainly the team that could LEAST afford to make the deal they made (from a talent perspective; not from a dollar perspective, obviously). The Santana move was, ironically, by far the least objectionable of the moves that have put the Mets in the situation they are in. But it is the one that is the most visible, and the culmination of them all. The others include the Delgado deal; the free agent signings that cost them draft picks; the Church/Schneider deal; the Flores debacle; and the terrible 2007 draft.

The bottom line of all of that is the current situation, which is what I DO want to talk about. There is, IMHO, almost nothing that Omar Minaya can or will do to prevent a decline in this team's fortunes that is 75% likely to happen starting next year. Does anyone here seriously think the Mets will hand 1B over to a rookie (Carp)? Get serious. This franchise? A full-time job at a key offensive position, to Mike Carp? Hah. And that's not even an option in LF, or the rotation, at least not for 2009. They can't trade, they can't (or won't) go with kids. So they sign FAs, if they can. And that just makes any efforts to rebuild the system all that much harder.

The downward spiral has only begun.

Ryan Church turns 30 this October. He's played more than 102 games once in his career. He's already missed one month of this season.

Wow is that misleading-
Professional games played by season:
2001: 125
2002: 124
2003: 99
2004: 128
2005: 106
2006: 129
2007: 144

By and large he's missed MLB games due to managerial choice, not by a physical inability to take the field, he's been in the minors or on the bench-

His missed time this year was due to a fluke injury- not a pattern, not even a pattern of fluke injuries.

Gomez was worth a lot less to the Mets than he was to other teams b/c he is a CF and the Mets have Beltran. And what Connor said above about Milledge surviving hitting .240 for 2 months is dead-on, which is why the Mets never would have had Mike Jacobs, Starting 1B even if they'd kept him.

All of this of course assumes that the same player in a different context would perform similarly, which is not necessarily a safe assumption. Maybe around Beltran Jacobs gets some useful hitting tips, or Delgado takes Milledge under his wing, or facing a different set of pitchers nets a different result, but that's another set of issues entirely.

And what Connor said above about Milledge surviving hitting .240 for 2 months is dead-on, which is why the Mets never would have had Mike Jacobs, Starting 1B even if they'd kept him.

Well, that is just a massive indictment of the Mets as an organization. If the current regime is so incredibly impatient with a young player that they are unwilling to allow him to work through his growing phase in order to reap the rewards -- and if they have so little faith in their own judgment that Player X is good enough and WILL produce if given the time -- then it doesn't say much for the future of the franchise as long as it is in these folks' hands.

The counter-example, by the way, is Mike Pelphrey -- in whom they have shown admirable patience and willingness to swallow some pretty bad results and from whom they are now getting some damned good (certainly, improved) pitching. Now if they would just show similar resolve when it comes to a position player or three . . . better yet, if they would only develop one or two worth showing confidence in.

Conor, frankly I want to stop talking about the frigging Santana trade. You keep wanting to talk about the trade -- I want to talk about the state of the organization post-trade. It doesn't matter whether it was a good deal or not; it's water under the bridge. We have Santana. Great. And we have one of the worst organizations in baseball. Bad. The latter part is going to hurt the Mets for a long time to come.

But that is exactly why it is pointless to look at a current snap shot of a farm system.
It ignores what the farm has been doing (via trades or promotions) and what the major league picture looks like as a result.

And I'm not just talking about the Mets in particular..
I think we see this every year. Every time a team trades a few guys or calls a few guys up from a strong system we see fans go "ha ha. Now your farm system sucks." or something equally moronic. It. Doesn't. Matter. what is in the minor leagues alone. That is why I have a problem with the "snapshot" look at farm systems. If a team was to demote a couple future stars who they just called up the system would look great, but since they are in the bigs now the org is in trouble?
Same thing if you turn a couple prospects into superstars, which is what you want your prospects to turn into whether by development or trade. Detroit caught the same flack this offseason.
It is a stupid mindset.
If your farm system never produces good players or good trade chips that is a different problem. Then you do have a bad farm system, even if your MLB team is great, but cashing in the crops from your farm doesn't mean you don't have a good farm.
All the matters is the overall state of the organization. Now maybe the overall state of the Mets org sucks, as a Braves fan I certainly hope so but that is a different discussion, but I don't see how the trades hurt the Mets overall organization.

And cripes, you can't just keep insisting with certainty that the 2007 draft was "terrible". Is it what I would have done, or what you would have done? Nope. But you're a smart enough fan to know that it is absolutely batty to be too sure of a draft just 12-13 months later.
Most of the guys the Mets picked were selected around where they should have been, there were a couple reaches but that doesn't mean they were bad picks. It is far too early to tell

Does anyone here seriously think the Mets will hand 1B over to a rookie (Carp)? Get serious. This franchise? A full-time job at a key offensive position, to Mike Carp?

Jason Phillips in 2003...

If the Mets do not make the playoffs this year, then Omar will be history, IF (a big IF) Carp is still a Met, and keeps his OPS above .900 for the whole year, he might actually have a chance at that job starting 2009.

Sooner or later, the question, "what do we have to lose" has to seep into the Wilpons' heads, the Mets have gotten crap production from 1B every year, but one, since Olerud left- that's a long time.

Kind of off-topic but Mike Jacobs is one of the worst starting MLBers I have ever seen in person. Small sample size of one game has something to do with it but he can't hit and he can't catch even the most routine ball.

Conor, frankly I want to stop talking about the frigging Santana trade. You keep wanting to talk about the trade -- I want to talk about the state of the organization post-trade. It doesn't matter whether it was a good deal or not; it's water under the bridge. We have Santana. Great. And we have one of the worst organizations in baseball. Bad. The latter part is going to hurt the Mets for a long time to come.

Sam-
I agree with MM1f; I think you are pointing too much emphasis purely on the farm system and not what it is yielding.

You can't talk about the farm system without mentioning that we just turned 4 decent prospects into Johan Santana.

The Santana move was, ironically, by far the least objectionable of the moves that have put the Mets in the situation they are in. But it is the one that is the most visible, and the culmination of them all. The others include the Delgado deal; the free agent signings that cost them draft picks; the Church/Schneider deal; the Flores debacle; and the terrible 2007 draft.

Yeah, this is pretty much it. The Santana move was by far the best of these, but you can obviously take it as the culmination of a trend or whatever.
It's probably too early to call the 07 draft terrible, but early returns aren't promising.


But thats it; I think we have reached the end of the line on this one, at least for now.

I just find the idea that the Mets would have been better off keeping those 4 guys than trading them for Santana crazy, (or, to be honest, the fact that you even suggested it as a possibility) but hey, who knows.

I think we see this every year. Every time a team trades a few guys or calls a few guys up from a strong system we see fans go "ha ha. Now your farm system sucks." or something equally moronic. It. Doesn't. Matter. what is in the minor leagues alone. That is why I have a problem with the "snapshot" look at farm systems. If a team was to demote a couple future stars who they just called up the system would look great, but since they are in the bigs now the org is in trouble?

There's some obvious truth in this, but the Mets are under .500 this season. And the snapshot sense of the farm system is accurate, it's barren. So for the moment the Mets have empited out their farm system to create an under .500 team and have nothing on the horizon to solve it.

Now of course they could go on a 15 out of 18 style run, and make this whole discussion moot, at least as it refers to 2008. But it is hardly unfair to call out Omar for creating a franchise where neither the top level nor the farm teams are worth anything.

I love Endy.

Me, too. If you like defense at all, you love Endy and he's been a tad hit unlucky this season and that's why his numbers are way down. I really think he takes away a couple hits a week from the opposition when he is playing in a corner outfield spot. He has terrific instincts, excellent speed, and a strong and accurate arm.

Carlos Beltran is a legitimate Gold-Glover in center and he doesn't even come close to Endy defensively. It's ridiculous how good he is.

Trading for a promising, underrated 29yo (but still cost controlled) OF who has never really gotten a chance to be a full-time starter isn't really a Yankees kind of move. If anything that sounds like a Billy Beane move.

Trading some random middle reliever who had a good year for that OF sounds like a Billy Beane move. Trading Lastings Milledge for that guy, not so much.

In other words, you pick up 29-year-old-hitters-who-haven't-gotten-a-chance off of the scrap heap, you don't trade your prized minor leaguers for them.

But that is exactly why it is pointless to look at a current snap shot of a farm system.
It ignores what the farm has been doing (via trades or promotions) and what the major league picture looks like as a result.

I don't think it's pointless at all. I think it tells you an awful lot about the capacity of the organization to move forward from the point where it is right now -- especially when the status quo is as extreme as the Mets' system is right now. They have almost no tradeable assets, and no worthwhile promoteable assets. There is, IOW, no help to be had in the entire organization, and very few players you can even point to who are reasonable prospects down the road. Frankly, you can't put together a list of 15 players worthy of the term "prospect" in the Mets' system.

That tells you that this is a system in dire need of repair -- and it wasn't that highly ranked or regarded to begin with, even before Milledge, Gomez, Humber, Mulvey, and Guerra were traded. Yes, it's a relevant point that the system was "good enough" to yield players who brought Johan Santana in return. I grant that -- although every indication is that the Mets were damned lucky that Smith didn't jump on better trades when he had the chance. But if you don't think a snapshot like the one that can be taken right now is relevant, for a team that is going to need assets to fill holes and simply does not have them, then we just disagree.

As for the 2007 draft, well it certainly is a truism that you generally have to wait and see what the future brings with any draft. In this instance, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say the Mets' 2007 draft was a disaster. Quote me on it, and I certainly hope I am someday proven wrong.

Well, that is just a massive indictment of the Mets as an organization. If the current regime is so incredibly impatient with a young player that they are unwilling to allow him to work through his growing phase in order to reap the rewards -- and if they have so little faith in their own judgment that Player X is good enough and WILL produce if given the time -- then it doesn't say much for the future of the franchise as long as it is in these folks' hands.

I agree with you, but it doesn't take away from the point. WRT Milledge, there is every indicator that he'll be an above-average player. Jacobs I think was a different story. He hit great for the Mets in the last month of the season, looked like an awesome hitter to the eye, but there were serious concerns about his ability to develop as a regular.

For some reason, I think the Mets could've had Church in the spring of '07 in exchange for the rights to Flores. That would have allowed Washington to send him down. As it turns out, carrying Flores last year didn't seem to hurt the Nats or his development, but that was far from a sure thing in the spring.

Agree WRT 2007 draft. No idea what they were thinking...

I think you are pointing too much emphasis purely on the farm system and not what it is yielding.

You can't talk about the farm system without mentioning that we just turned 4 decent prospects into Johan Santana.

And you are living in the past. That trade is done. It's over. I am talking about the farm system AS IT EXISTS TODAY.

The farm system as it exists today doesn't have any Johan Santana's in it. It doesn't have any prospects who would yield a Johan Santana. It doesn't have any 10 prospects combined who would yield a Johan Santana.

It is not just the fact that we made that deal that has left the Mets in this situation. It is poor drafts, and prior deals, and free agent signings that sacrificed draft choices. You keep fixating on the Santana trade as if that alone is responsible for the Mets having a suck-ass farm system, and thus it is OK because that was a good trade. Which is, with all due respect, missing the point. The Mets should have a good enough farm system that they have enough assets to make that trade and have assets remaining. They should have a good enough system because they stockpile draft picks, and go over slot when it suits their interests, and because they have the best scouts in the business. But they don't, and they have let assets like Flores go.

The reason I have lingering doubts about the Santana trade is because the Mets were so ill-prepared to pay the price they paid, and it left them in such a bad position with no talent left to fill holes we all know they need to fill. I wanted at the time, and I want now, to be able to be more enthusiastic, because I know that on the surface it's a no-brainer. I'm not an idiot, after all. But Omar Minaya's other moves, and his other failings, left them in such a precarious position. If they'd had the talent base they SHOULD have had, they'd have had enough talent remaining that, when Alou went down, they could have swung a deal or promoted someone who was ready to take his place. But they had no one, and so they couldn't. That is the core problem. They do not have the system they should have, and anyone who wants to deny it hasn't been paying attention (MM1f) or is in deep, deep denial (Wilpon).

Call it a snapshot if you like. You could also take a snapshot of the Titanic going down, and it would have told you all you needed to know.

This is kind of going in circles, when Sam already said:

Maybe you think I should talk about the failure to acquire a back-up separately, as opposed to thinking about it as a criticism of the trades themselves hurting the OF depth. But either way, the fact is they lost depth that Omar did not adequately replace.

I'm pretty sure that "why didn't we go get Matt Murton or somebody?" is a less controversial question to ask than "why'd we go get Johan Santana?" :-) In fact, we can probably all agree on that first question as being a sound one.

Put that together with Milledge (I am absolutely not acknowledging this was a good trade yet), Keppinger, Gotay, Flores, Bannister, Bell, and the other 300 guys, and, yeah, there's your Nye Mets.

Binghamton: Carp, Evans, Murphy, Niese, Kunz
St. Lucie: Tejada, Owen
Savannah: Pena

The Mets system isn't as bad as that. They have Justin Thole in St. Lucie who is hitting .290/.388/.410 as a 21-year old catcher with a superb 27/19 bb/k ratio. The plate discipline is real as he posted a .372 OBP in Savannah last year with no power but his power has significantly increased.

They have Scott Moviel, a 20 year-old starting pitcher, who has progressed nicely in A-ball for Savannah this season. (9.68 ERA in April, 4.31 in May, and 2.59 in June). He is 6-11 and 235 pounds by the way. He is showing a lot better control.

If you are going to include Owen, you should probably include someone like Tobi Stoner, another guy with mediocre stuff but good numbers nonetheless. (Stoner is older but is further ahead of Owen)

The system isn't in great shape but there are more than three prospects lower than A-ball that are intriguing.

You are an honorable man, keeping your man-love in spite of his 57 OPS+. :)

I still love Endy too. His BABIP this year is 252. His LD% is 20.5%. In fact his BABIP this year is very similar to his BABIP in 2005, the season in which he had a 39 OPS+ for the Phillies. His D is still phenomenal. Now obviously very small sample size and all that, but his RZR is 957 in RF, 893 in LF. Zone Rating, 966 in RF, 941 in LF. If he qualified, he would be right at the top among outfielders.

I agree with you, but it doesn't take away from the point. WRT Milledge, there is every indicator that he'll be an above-average player

There are a lot of indicators but you have to be worried about his 75 OPS+ so far this season. There's still plenty of time but let's not pretend that his stock hasn't fallen more than a little bit because of this season. He has been atrocious.

I said I would stop, but..

It is not just the fact that we made that deal that has left the Mets in this situation. It is poor drafts, and prior deals, and free agent signings that sacrificed draft choices. You keep fixating on the Santana trade as if that alone is responsible for the Mets having a suck-ass farm system, and thus it is OK because that was a good trade

Not true. I don't think I have said this either. They have failed across the board to stock their farm system. This is a fact. The Santana trade was a great trade. Letting Flores go was horrible. A lot of their drafting has been very poor. I don't know if the farm system is a disaster, but it isn't very good and the Santana trade is only part of the reason.

The farm system as it exists today doesn't have any Johan Santana's in it. It doesn't have any prospects who would yield a Johan Santana. It doesn't have any 10 prospects combined who would yield a Johan Santana.

It's a good thing they already traded for him then.

My feeling is this: The Mets farm system leaves a lot to be desired, for a multitude of reasons, but the trade for Santana was a great one. Keeping the four guys they traded for Santana would have resulted in a better farm system, but when having a better farm system doesn't result in a better team then I don't see the point of it.

They have Scott Moviel, a 20 year-old starting pitcher, who has progressed nicely in A-ball for Savannah this season. (9.68 ERA in April, 4.31 in May, and 2.59 in June).

Oy. Moviel has all of 50 Ks in 73 IP, tying him for 56th in the Sally League in K's. While his ERA has improved as the season has gone along, his K rate hasn't. His WHIP is 43rd in the league. He's a longshot prospect at best. At best.

I'll give you Thole as a nice prospect. Makes it a nice round 10.

Oy. Moviel has all of 50 Ks in 73 IP, tying him for 56th in the Sally League in K's. While his ERA has improved as the season has gone along, his K rate hasn't. His WHIP is 43rd in the league. He's a longshot prospect at best. At best.

Sam, you have an opinion and you are seeing everything from that viewpoint. Moveil's WHIP, like the rest of his numbers, have improved as the season has gone along. He had a 2.15 WHIP in April, and now has a 1.03 WHIP in June. He is 20 years old. That's the kind of progression I like to see. He's a legitimate prospect.

There are a lot of indicators but you have to be worried about his 75 OPS+ so far this season. There's still plenty of time but let's not pretend that his stock hasn't fallen more than a little bit because of this season. He has been atrocious.

This is what really scares me. It isn't just a slump, or that he's been slightly below average. He has been absolutely terrible. He had a 709 OPS in April; thats his best monthly OPS of the year. And here's the other thing; his career OPS+ is now 84. I don't know what's going on, this is a guy who had a very strong performance record in the minors, and a guy who did a solid job with the Mets last year, but he has been just so bad this year.

Of the 5 kids the Mets traded in the offseason, how many of them have improved their stock?

I would say 2 at the most. Milledge definitely not. Humber definitely not. Guerra not. Probably Gomez. Ok, definitely Gomez. He has shown he can probably be at least an ok CF because his defense is so great. Possibly Mulvey.

According to Heyman, Ike Davis signed for 1.5M, pending physical.

Should they really be sending Davis and Havens to Brooklyn?

Oy. Moviel has all of 50 Ks in 73 IP, tying him for 56th in the Sally League in K's. While his ERA has improved as the season has gone along, his K rate hasn't. His WHIP is 43rd in the league. He's a longshot prospect at best. At best.

I know you are smarter than to take 73 innings worth of a strikeout rate and WHIP in the Sally to be a significant factor in determining whether a 19 yo is a legitimate future major leaguer or not.

I know you are smarter than to take 73 innings worth of a strikeout rate and WHIP in the Sally to be a significant factor in determining whether a 19 yo is a legitimate future major leaguer or not.

Don't try flattery, pal. Actually, I think 73 innings of a mediocre strikeout rate in the SAL tells us something quite significant. Me, I believe in performance. A genuine prospect competing in the low minors against a bunch of non-prospects should dominate. He should be able to put up outstanding K rates and K/W ratios. If he can't do it in the Sally, how the hell is he going to do it in the Eastern League, much less the NL East??? If anything, I am skeptical (or at least remain not completely convinced) if a kid DOES put up eye-popping numbers in the SAL. I still want to see him sustain it as he moves up the food chain. But if he does NOT put up those numbers, then it really makes me dubious. Moviel, to me, is a suspect until he proves he can do what real prospects do at that level: dominate. Guys who do what he's doing at that level -- the vast majority of the time -- get eaten alive long before they ever get to the majors.

When he starts to perform, in the ways that prospects perform, that's when I start to believe. It's a simple formula. I am not being Mr. Negative just to be ornery, or contrary. I am more than happy to get excited over a superb prospect, believe me. Just show me a guy who is doing something special, and you'll see how over-the-top I can get. Or does everyone forget how much a fanboy I was over a certain third baseman on his way up?

I know you are smarter than to take 73 innings worth of a strikeout rate and WHIP in the Sally to be a significant factor in determining whether a 19 yo is a legitimate future major leaguer or not.

That's way better than slicing and dicing data by the month to show "progress".

This is what really scares me. It isn't just a slump, or that he's been slightly below average. He has been absolutely terrible.

He was warming up, then the last two weeks his bat just completely shut down.
On the other hand I've heard that he's shown he can handle CF....

Kearns and Wily MO have been even worse, and Felipe Lopez just as bad.

Dukes has hit .313/.406/.482 in June...

Carlos Gomez BTW, after a good May, has also shut down: .239/.271/.304 in June...

Alex Gordon hit .232/.321/.358 in 334 PAs the first half of last Year (same age Milledge is now)
Dionar Navarro hit .177/.238/.254 the first half of 2007- when he was the same age Milledge is now.

Milledge's performance this year has been abysmal, and certainly isn't a good sign, but by no means is it dispositive evidence that he's a bust. Luckily for him though, he's on a team that really has nothing better to do than let him work his way through this.

Now I'm pleading with him to show some courage and bring the kids and the Ken Phelpsers up

I don't really see any Phelpsers, Val could be a platoon partner for Delgado, that's about it. Aguila might be a productive 4th OF...

A genuine prospect competing in the low minors against a bunch of non-prospects should dominate. He should be able to put up outstanding K rates and K/W ratios. If he can't do it in the Sally, how the hell is he going to do it in the Eastern League, much less the NL East???

Well, this guy certainly couldn't dominate the low minors: Cone

That's way better than slicing and dicing data by the month to show "progress".

Met prospects are unlikely to put up eye-popping numbers simply because of the Mets aggressive promoting. I disagree with the idea that we can't look at monthly splits to look at progress.

Sam, Moviel isn't a superb prospect but he is a solid prospect. You get enough of those guys, and you start to produce solid major league players. If you need David Wright calibre prospects to get get excited, you are rarely if ever going to be happy about any system.

The reason I have lingering doubts about the Santana trade is because the Mets were so ill-prepared to pay the price they paid, and it left them in such a bad position with no talent left to fill holes we all know they need to fill.

I really disagree with this. The Mets are in great position to fill holes through free agency. Not only because they are one of the wealthiest teams in the sport, but because they have Reyes and Wright and Maine and Church and Pelfrey who are below-market cost for their ability, and they defer a lot of money that makes contracts like Santana and Beltran (especially Beltran) a lot less of a limit for future signings.

The Mets really have 4 holes going into 2009: LF, 1B, #3 starter, #4 starter. Yeah, they could upgrade at 2B and they could really upgrade at C, but as bad as Schneider is, in a platoon with a decent right-handed catcher, he's adequate. They also will have a nice chunk of money to throw around with Pedro and Delgado and Alou and El Duque coming off the books and greater revenue from a new stadium.

There are also no really bad contracts on this club. The way the Mets get killed in 2009 and beyond is if they sign crappy long-term contracts, and so far, Minaya's been pretty good at avoiding the real stinker of a signing. There is no Barry Zito or Carlos Lee or Soriano or Jason Giambi on this club.

If they'd had the talent base they SHOULD have had, they'd have had enough talent remaining that, when Alou went down, they could have swung a deal or promoted someone who was ready to take his place. But they had no one, and so they couldn't. That is the core problem. They do not have the system they should have, and anyone who wants to deny it hasn't been paying attention (MM1f) or is in deep, deep denial (Wilpon).

The Mets have been really poor at drafting, and that's more of an explanation for why the farm system is so poor than Minaya having prospect-hate. 11 Met picks since the 2000 draft have ML playing time in 2008. Three of those are Billy Traber, Lenny DiNardo, and Carlos Muniz.

I'm all for saying the Mets need to draft more effectively, particularly in the later rounds. I just don't think you can really hammer Minaya so much for what he's done with the guys he's drafted or for the guys he's signed instead of drafting.

Well, this guy certainly couldn't dominate the low minors: Cone

Do you really want to compare what David Cone did at the age of 19 in the SAL and FSL to what Moviel is doing in the SAL this year at the age of 20? It'll be pretty ugly for Moviel, I'm afraid:

Cone: 16-3, 177 IP, 140 H, 72 BB, 144 Ks, 2.08 ERA (7.32 K/9 IP)
Moviel: 7-7, 73.1 IP, 84 H, 24 BB, 50 Ks, 5.93 ERA (6.14 K/9 IP)

So Cone was a year younger, pitched nearly half his season in an A+ league, and pitched much, much better.

Met prospects are unlikely to put up eye-popping numbers simply because of the Mets aggressive promoting.

But that doesn't apply to Moviel. He's in A ball (not even the advanced FSL -- just the SAL), at the age of 20. Age appropriate. He should be showing more than he is if he really is someone to get excited about. But he's not.

If you need David Wright calibre prospects to get get excited, you are rarely if ever going to be happy about any system.

Give me enough Mike Carps, and I'll be fine. You're right -- enough of those, and you'll produce some solid major leaguers (assuming the Mets would ever give one of them a real chance, that is). We just disagree that Moviel has (to date, anyway) shown that he is one of them. I gave you Thole. What more do you want?

EDIT:

I really disagree with this. The Mets are in great position to fill holes through free agency.

UGH!!!!! That's exactly the spiral to hell we need to get off of! Free agency just means more lost draft picks, which means the farm system continues to deteriorate. If we truly are locked into free agency as our only way out, our only means of acquiring the talent we need to fill holes on a year-to-year basis, then we truly have become the Yankees. And I want no part of it. Get me off this ride now.

UGH!!!!! That's exactly the spiral to hell we need to get off of! Free agency just means more lost draft picks, which means the farm system continues to deteriorate.

Well, only type-A free agents cost draft picks and I agree the Mets have to be careful when signing type-A free agents. In retrospect, signing Alou was a mistake because it cost the Mets a pick. But Wagner and Beltran and guys like that are usually worth the pick. You can fill holes in your roster with costing yourself draft picks via free agency.

then we truly have become the Yankees. And I want no part of it. Get me off this ride now.

I can only imagine how actually making the playoffs more than once every five years might sicken you.

And I want no part of it. Get me off this ride now.

How's your chop?

I can only imagine how actually making the playoffs more than once every five years might sicken you.

There are worse things than your baseball team having only sporadic success. Losing one's soul, for example. Speaking of which . . .

How's your chop?

I'd rather die first. But thanks for asking.

There are worse things than your baseball team having only sporadic success. Losing one's soul, for example.

Fair enough, it's not like you have nothing to look forward to though. Pat White graduates next year.

Well, only type-A free agents cost draft picks and I agree the Mets have to be careful when signing type-A free agents. In retrospect, signing Alou was a mistake because it cost the Mets a pick. But Wagner and Beltran and guys like that are usually worth the pick. You can fill holes in your roster with costing yourself draft picks via free agency.

Alou cost the Mets what was practically a second-round pick. If we had even a remotely competent manager, Alou would have been a difference-maker for that 2007 team.

If the Mets lose a late first round pick because they signed Texiera or Dunn or Sabathia to reasonable deals, I'm not going to get too bent out of shape. The best you can reasonably hope for with a late first-round pick is that they get as good as one of those guys.

How's your chop?

I'd rather die first. But thanks for asking.

Too bad. I was going to send you a Chipper jersey to wear to the meetings.


Seriously, I understand the frustration. But I wouldn't write off the year or the team. Two very good to great starters on the infield, a couple of home grown rotation fixtures - I was going to say that isn't a ton, but it isn't the Yankees, either, but then I realized it's pretty close to even there. It's really amazing to me how fast the Mets' prospects (as a team, not individual prospects) have fallen. At the end of 2006 I thought they may be a dynasty. At the end of 2007 I thought they were a really good team that would be a playoff contender for the next few years and probably win a pennant or two. At this point I wonder. I don't see a lot of difference in the Mets next few years and my Braves.

So, come on, Sam. Tell me how wrong I am about that.

I gave you Thole. What more do you want?

World peace?

There are worse things than your baseball team having only sporadic success. Losing one's soul, for example. Speaking of which . . .

How's your chop?

I'd rather die first. But thanks for asking.

Ironic given that the Braves do what you wish the Mets would do, which is give the kids a chance, and play people who have done well in your farm system instead of signing "savvy veterans".

It really really blows that the Mets' only exciting high-level prospect (Carp) plays the same position as the best investment on the market this winter (Tex).

In any case, check out tonight's lineup for the end result of Omar's super-duper decision making.

Sorry, I've been away most of the day, and will be for most of the night and tomorrow. Looks like the thread took off without me.

Some basic comments:
Sam, I think you're overestimating how deep an average farm system is. The Mets farm isn't a strong farm, but it's not a barren one either. If you're expecting a steady stream of future stars, then yeah, you're going to be disappointed most years.

Regarding your list:

* Binghamton: Carp, Evans, Murphy, Niese, Kunz

Kunz isn't a prospect, neither is Murphy. Niese is definitely a prospect. Carp and Evans need more of a track record. They could be.

St. Lucie: Tejada, Owen

Owen isn't a prospect. Tejada is definitely a prospect.

Savannah: Pena

Pena is borderline.

On Thole: I would put him on borderline until I read more about him, preferably from someone like Goldstein or Baseball America. Actually, I would say for now he's not a prospect.

On Moviel: Not a prospect. He's a project.

Havens: From what I read about him, he's a prospect. But yeah, we need to get 200 PAs before we get a better read.
Davis: See above.
Flores: Not yet a prospect, but someone with a *lot* of potential.

Well, only type-A free agents cost draft picks and I agree the Mets have to be careful when signing type-A free agents. In retrospect, signing Alou was a mistake because it cost the Mets a pick. But Wagner and Beltran and guys like that are usually worth the pick. You can fill holes in your roster with costing yourself draft picks via free agency.


I don't get this philosophy in general. If you mean filling holes in terms of adding bench depth or picking up a spare starter or reliever, than okay. Otherwise, free agency is usually a losing game - you're picking up someone on the downslope of their career and you have to bid against other suitors for him. If it's to get one of the true stars of the game or to fill a real hole, then I think you go for it - draft picks and all. If it's to get a slightly above average option, I'd rather see what the youngsters can do. Type B free agents are usually not worth it.

Beltran gets tossed tonight, leaving this lineup:

Reyes
Castillo
Anderson
Delgado
Nixon
Tatis
Schneider
Chavez

AAA-caliber.

free agency is usually a losing game - you're picking up someone on the downslope of their career and you have to bid against other suitors for him. If it's to get one of the true stars of the game or to fill a real hole, then I think you go for it - draft picks and all. If it's to get a slightly above average option, I'd rather see what the youngsters can do. Type B free agents are usually not worth it.

I see two ways to be successful at signing free agents. The first is to sign legitimate superstars, and the second is to sign pretty good players that are flawed in some way that reduces their marketability to cheaper deals. The risk with the former is when the superstar fades earlier than expected, and the risk with the latter is that the players' flaws end up catching up with them.

The worst free agent signings are when you sign a second-tier FA to a long-term contract because you missed the top guy or because it was a weak FA pool. Minaya has his faults, but he hasn't yet saddled the Mets with a really painful contract. That counts for something when you compare it to former glorious contracts like Cedeno II or Mo Vaughn or Rey Ordonez.

The most painful contract on the Mets is probably Castillo, and it's not expensive enough to interfere with any contract decisions in the future. I can understand being a nervous Met fan because of a history of chasing marginal free agents and locking up guys to painfully long and inescapable contracts. I don't see Minaya as that guy.

Minaya's been pretty good at avoiding the real stinker of a signing.

We'll see... I'm not sure the Santana contract isn't going to end up a stinker, and sooner rather than later.