Salfino, interesting article - this seems like a bunch of reasonable opinions on Mets prospects. A solid group, to be sure, but not a bunch of superstars. Hey, you guys already hit the lottery with both Wright and Reyes - it wouldn't be fair if all of these guys were that good!

From what I hear, the guy who is that good is Wilmer Flores, but that's a column for another day. I'm told by objective scouts that he has a chance to be a hitter at the level of Miguel Cabrera. Of course, we're still waiting for Fernando Martinez to turn into Carlos Lee. Prospects....

I'm told by objective scouts that he has a chance to be a hitter at the level of Miguel Cabrera.

So, you're saying there is a chance?

"Murphy has good bat speed, is short to the ball and judges the strike zone, which should allow him to hit for average. But I'm not convinced he is much more than a 15-20 homer hitter. I don't think his bat is solid enough to play left field."

I doubt he's more than a 20 home run guy, too. But I think those positive factors -- bat speed, short swing, strike zone judgment -- are much more positive than that scout. Add it to his being a lefty hitter (platoon advantage most ABs) who adjusts well and is adept at going deep into counts and taking walks, and you have a guy who will get on base at a very high rate. Substantial doubles power brings him in range of 60+ XBH, and you absolutely have a bat that plays in LF.

As for the defense, I take it as an excellent sign that he was even good enough to be seen as borderline passable after having had almost no experience at the position. If the Mets had the luxury of giving him a season in AAA to actually learn the position, the best long-run option for the organization might well be to do that, and it's quite possible they'd have themselves a second baseman for the next 10 years. But from those reviews, I'd say they probably can't afford to put up with the defensive cost in 2009, and they can't afford the offensive cost of keeping him in the minors to learn 2B, either. So it's LF, I guess.

Parnell as a reliever is a very, very good idea.

If the Mets had the luxury of giving him a season in AAA to actually learn the position, the best long-run option for the organization might well be to do that, and it's quite possible they'd have themselves a second baseman for the next 10 years.

ages 25-34, 29 2Bs had 100+ games last year, just 4 were 34 and over
so basically you are not just projecting him to play 2b, but to have him play regularly at 2B for 10 years...
no pressure...

So it's LF, I guess.

The average NL LF hit .271/.350/.452 last year.

BPro's translation has him at .272/.331/.451
Dan's MLEs have .247/.295/.382
Tango's Marcel Projection: .293/.360/.455
CBS Sportsline Projections: .313/.396/.473 (Calm down!)

I could see Murphy hitting like Rusty Greer. Which is awesome.

I do fear that he's going to end up like Todd Walker but an even worse fielder. Which would cause him to sort of fall between the cracks and end up being a player with real skills but not much practical value

He might end up settling in at first base after Delgado leaves. Sure, you want to have a 35 HR guy there, but if he is putting up .290/.370/.440 I would be very satisfied.

Todd Walker is a good and disturbing comparison. Murphy is never going to be star unless he can stick at second but he could be n avergaish player in left. I am not overly concerned with his struggles in the field last year considering how little he has played the outfield but I am worried that he isn't going to get the time to learn the outfield because he is playing second. It's a good gamble to take but there is a downside.

Jason Vargas was a surprising addition to the AFL roster, given his big-league experience.

Says our scout, "In the outing I saw in the AFL, he was pretty solid in mixing his pitches and disrupting timing. I give him an excellent chance to resume his role as a backend starter."

Vargas' numbers up to 2006 were outstanding. It'd be awesome if he could revert to that form.

so basically you are not just projecting him to play 2b, but to have him play regularly at 2B for 10 years...

Hardly. I said that it's "possible." I am utterly confident about his bat, but Murphy's ability to learn second base and then play it adequately is very much a question mark. I'm certainly not projecting that, much less that he could do it for 10 years. But the upside of that possibility is enormous, and if they could afford to give him the opportunity to do the learning at AAA in 2009, they could profit greatly down the road.

The average NL LF hit .271/.350/.452 last year.

And Daniel Murphy will -- mark this down, and hold me to it, and ridicule me if you like as mercilessly as you want if I'm wrong -- outhit that. He will have an OBP that is substantially higher than that. He'll have a batting average substantially higher than that. And he'll slug in that range as well, though it'll be mostly based on a high BA and a lot of doubles.

I don't go overboard on Mets' prospects that often. Even when I have a lot of faith in them in the face of struggles, the way I did with Pelfrey, it's of the, "Let's be patient while he learns and becomes the pitcher he has the ability to be" variety. I don't trot out the, "He's about to come in and win a CYA" stuff.

Daniel Murphy is going to be much, much better than the minor league stats, and age-based examination of those stats, think. He will be better than Lastings Milledge, Carlos Gomez, Nick Evans, Mike Jacobs . . . and any other hitter the Mets' system has produced since David Wright. He's not close to Wright, obviously, but he's the best since Wright. And to tell you the truth, though it's blasphemy to say it around here, I wouldn't trade his future for F-Mart.

Yup. I've said it. I know I'd be trading a monster ceiling in F-Mart, but I'd rather have the level of certainty I believe I'm getting in Murphy. I think Daniel Murphy is going to make All-Star games as an .850+ OPS guy. He is going to be one of the three best players on pennant-winning clubs. F-Mart MIGHT be the best player in baseball someday, or he might never play 120 games in a season in the majors. I'd be willing to sacrifice the boom to avoid the possibility of the bust. Daniel Murphy will not go bust on us. I am about as sure of that as I was that Wright was going to be David F'ing Wright.

I'm glad the Mets have both of 'em, but if I had to give up one of the, it'd be F-Mart, not Daniel Murphy. So there.

I'm glad the Mets have both of 'em, but if I had to give up one of the, it'd be F-Mart, not Daniel Murphy. So there.

Cocaine is a helluva drug.

Does the Sam M stand for Sam Murphy? Is he related to Daniel?

Sam, let's just pretend you were really drunk when you wrote #8. I forgive you, but never do that again.

I'm glad the Mets have both of 'em, but if I had to give up one of the, it'd be F-Mart, not Daniel Murphy. So there.

Cocaine is a helluva drug.

We shall see, my friend. We shall see. Talk to me when F-Mart proves he can actually, you know, play a full season. Even a minor league season? Even once? Wouldn't that be nice before we declare him the next Greatest Thing Ever?

There is a real value in certainty. Or at least measuring relative levels of certainty. And whatever you may think of the limits of Murphy's ceiling, the probability of getting that value out of him is simply much greater than the probability of getting the magnificence you see in F-Mart. I see the flame-out potential there as high, too high to value him the way you do. So I discount the raw talent . . . well, pretty significantly. When the performance, and the ability to stay in the line-up, catch up to the talent, then my view of it will change.

EDIT:

Sam, let's just pretend you were really drunk when you wrote #8. I forgive you, but never do that again.

You know, BA ranked F-Mart # 7 in the Eastern League after this season, and Murphy # 13. They don't see THAT much difference between them as overall prospects. And neither do I.

And Daniel Murphy will -- mark this down, and hold me to it, and ridicule me if you like as mercilessly as you want if I'm wrong -- outhit that.

Daniel Murphy is going to be much, much better than the minor league stats, and age-based examination of those stats, think. He will be better than Lastings Milledge, Carlos Gomez, Nick Evans, Mike Jacobs . . . and any other hitter the Mets' system has produced since David Wright.

Yup. I've said it. I know I'd be trading a monster ceiling in F-Mart, but I'd rather have the level of certainty I believe I'm getting in Murphy.

Daniel Murphy will not go bust on us. I am about as sure of that as I was that Wright was going to be David F'ing Wright.

If I wasn't a fellow Mets fan, trust me, I would ridicule you as mercilessly as possible. But, alas, should Murphy go bust, and have Alex Ochoa's career- or worse- I won't kick you when you're down, except perhaps to say I told you so... once or twice.

Sam, let's just pretend you were really drunk when you wrote #8. I forgive you, but never do that again.

I think I bring out the worst in him, at least he doesn't insult me when I doubt Murphy's impending greatness, some of my fellow Met fans were quite more personally aggrieved the last 2 years when I said Carlos Gomez couldn't ht his way out of a paper bag... (Of course after the trade most of the pro Gomez contingent no longer cared)

I won't kick you when you're down, except perhaps to say I told you so... once or twice.

That's OK. Because believe me, if Murphy does turn in the career I believe he will, you know I will be crowing like my last name really is Murphy and the SOB was my brother. I'll be utterly, preposterously, mind-numbingly, shameless.

I think I bring out the worst in him, at least he doesn't insult me when I doubt Murphy's impending greatness, some of my fellow Met fans were quite more personally aggrieved the last 2 years when I said Carlos Gomez couldn't ht his way out of a paper bag... (Of course after the trade most of the pro Gomez contingent no longer cared)

I still disagree with the notion that Gomez will never hit. He has just been playing at the big leagues before he is ready.

you know I will be crowing like my last name really is Murphy and the SOB was my brother. I'll be utterly, preposterously, mind-numbingly, shameless.

You know, I'm kind of glad Kevin quit BBTF before Petunia won the MVP...

I'm not about to go all Sam on Dan Murphy, but I try not to forget the lesson of Jason Bay. Sometimes overage players who can hit really can continue to hit at the major league level. Sometimes players improve more than could be expected. You'll go broke betting on who these players will turn out to be, but Dan Murphy really looked like a guy who can hit. I think the Mets would be wise to open up a path for him to get regular ABs. If it's at 2b, that would be ideal. If it has to be in LF, I think Murphy will end up having the bat for it.

Gomez is never really going to hit, but that doesn't mean he won't be a decent player. I could easily see him at a .280/.330/.430 hitter with excellent defense in CF whose speed is a significant asset. That's a worthwhile player. If he does manage to exceed those levels at the plate even by a bit, he could end up being very good. But his bat will always only be half the story.

And Daniel Murphy will -- mark this down, and hold me to it, and ridicule me if you like as mercilessly as you want if I'm wrong -- outhit that. He will have an OBP that is substantially higher than that. He'll have a batting average substantially higher than that. And he'll slug in that range as well, though it'll be mostly based on a high BA and a lot of doubles.

This is positively kevinesque.

This is positively kevinesque.

There's one critical difference. Kevin did it with every Red Sox prospect -- Ellsbury, Lester, Buchholz, Papelbon, Pedroia, Youkilis, Hansen, Bowden . . . it didn't matter to Kevin. All of them were/are going to be the greatest thing ever.

I'm saying it about this one guy. And I'm saying he's going to be a .300/.400/.450 hitter.

Oh, and the next time Kevin admits he is/was wrong about something will be the first. I've been awfully damn wrong about a lot of things, and if Daniel Murphy turns out to be the next one, I'll be more than willing to admit it. Sad, but willing.

I'm not about to go all Sam on Dan Murphy, but I try not to forget the lesson of Jason Bay.

which would be?
At 21 Bay hit .304/.356/.385 in the NYPenn league
At 21 Murphy hit .213/.312/.300 in the GCL & NYPen

At 22 Bay hit .315/.404/.488 in the Midwest league and the FSL (actually he destroyed the Midwest league and hit very poorly in Jupiter, FSL)
At 22 Murphy hit .283/.338/.430 in the FSL

At 23 Bay hit 272/.356/.437 in St Lucie, followed by .299/.389/.522 in AA
At 23 Murphy hit .308/.374/.496 in Binghamton AA

At 24 Bay hit .303/.409/.541 in Portland (PCL- but a pitcher's park).

Bay overall: .301/.391/.487
Murphy overall: .290/.352/.444

Bay, for whatever reason, juts could not hit in the FSL (Jupiter BTW is a godawful place to hit, usually the worst place to hit in the FSL- and the FSL as a whole is a tough place to hit)

Bay was a stud hitter, who for whatever reason had a 75-100 game suck spell at A+, straddling his age 22/23 seasons.

The career path that would make your point better is this: guy's
He hit .257/.312/.422 in the FSL at 22, then hit .263/.329/.461 in the IL at age 23
and he's a 2B which we all hope Murphy can be.

If Murphy follows that guy's carer path, Sam will never ever shut up.

I agree with Sam and Keith Hernandez, to a point. Murphy is underrated right now. I see him coming in at between the Tango and Sportsline projections and it wouldn't shock or even surprise me if he ended up right around the Sportsline line. The corner OF stuff is overrated when you have Beltran. Murphy also gives you lineup versatility -- right now he's perfect at No. 2, for example. Who cares if he does that as a LF, given the Mets current circumstances.

Despite what it does to Murphy's "overall" numbers in a comparison like JPWF13 does to Jason Bay, I actually think it is a major positive that Murphy's trajectory is what it is. The terrible first season at age 21, followed up by the vast improvement in the FSL (which you'd never expect moving up into that pitchers' league), followed by an even more impressive leap forward when he moved up to Binghamton (and Shea, by the way) at age 23. The fact is that as Murphy has moved up and faced the tougher competition, his numbers have just gotten better and better. Just when you expect a kid to struggle, or at best show only marginal improvement in the numbers because the competition is that much tougher, Murphy has completely outpaced the leagues. He's been getting better and better. I always like a player who shows me he can adjust and improve; baseball is a game that requires constant adjustments. Players who can, thrive. Players who can't, stagnate and regress.

Bay may have been a stud hitter, but it's worth noting what he did at Binghamton when he was 23:

.290/.377/.477 (His overall AA numbers were better, but inflated by what he did after being traded to the Padres and playing the rest of the year at Mobile in the Southern League.)

Daniel Murphy? .308/.374/.496

Same age, same park, same team. Pretty comparable.

His overall AA numbers were better, but inflated by what he did after being traded to the Padres and playing the rest of the year at Mobile in the Southern League

That's the first time I hear that the Southern League inflates someone's numbers.

My only explanation is that Sam has a picture of Dan Murphy in his bedroom.

The Bay comparison was something I threw out there off of the top of my head because he was a guy who was discounted because he was a little overaged and not as toolsy as one would like, but seemed to get better and better as he moved up the ladder. I think Murphy also fits that profile. But I don't think it's nearly as off as JPWF13 does. Bay destroyed the Midwest League, which is nice, but hardly impressive for a 22 year old. Then he had 500 ABs over his 22/23 seasons where he progressively went from being awful at A+, to decent at A+ to pretty good at AA. Then he went nuclear at AA and AAA.

As for Murphy, I wouldn't give his first 80 professional ABs at 21 which he split over 3 affiliates any credence at all. Then Murphy pretty much matched Bay at St.Lucie and Binghamton, though Murphy did this at 22 and 23 while Bay did this all in his age 23 year. And while Bay spent the end of his age 23 season destroying the Southern League, Murphy spent the end of his age 23 season mashing in the majors. They're both players who looked at lot better at 23 than at 22 because they continued to hit at higher levels and ended their age 23 seasons doing something that they never seemed capable of doing before.

The point isn't that Murphy will become a comparable hitter to Bay - it's that young players are dynamic and that the last 250 ABs for a 23 year old might be a lot more instructive than the last 250 ABs for a 29 year old. Having watched Murphy, I think he might be one of those players who made an improvement over the course of his age 23 season, the magnitude of which is hard to recognize at the time. Because I can't imagine how the hitter we saw in MLB for 130 ABs couldn't manage a .770 OPS in St.Lucie just one year ago.

Wow. Exactly what billyshears said. Past results do not guarantee what will happen in the future. All of these prospects are players and many many many things contribute to their development - physical size, stamina, vision, personality, weather, tenacity, willingness to take instruction, instructors, etc. Murphy may be this good. I like the Tango projection.

Wow. Exactly what billyshears said. Past results do not guarantee what will happen in the future. All of these prospects are players and many many many things contribute to their development - physical size, stamina, vision, personality, weather, tenacity, willingness to take instruction, instructors, etc. Murphy may be this good.

Well, in fairness to those in this thread (and in others from past threads) who have been skeptical of my confidence in Murphy's future, they aren't saying Murphy might not be this good. They would agree that there are some outliers who outperform their projections, and it's certainly possible that Daniel Murphy could be one of them. Their argument, I believe, is that you can't confidently assert, as I have, that Murphy WILL be one of them, and thus that I am way over the top in being so bold in predicting his success.

And I cheerfully confess that I am out on a limb here, beyond what Murphy's minor league numbers (adjusted for his age/league) would support. Fine. My view is based on the extremely positive trend line in his numbers, and my observation of his performance and approach at the plate. It is NOT based on the numbers he produced in his relatively small number of major league PAs. It was the way he compiled them that has me convinced he will succeed; players (especially lefty hitters) who hit the way he does rarely fail. Not everyone can utilize that approach, of course -- they don't have either the strike zone judgment, the patience, or the pop. Murphy has all three -- a bit more power would be ideal, but he has enough. When you've got those things, it works. He'll be outstanding. What the minor league numbers tell me is that he needed some time to figure out how to utilize those attributes. And he has, and he continues to develop and get better. Those of you who put such emphasis on the overall numbers, I think, are missing the importance of the development curve, and thus not discounting enough the poor early stats.

But hey . . . we'll see. If I'm right, and the Mets are smart enough to give him the PAs he deserves, then they should have the best offense in the NL next year (assuming they stay even moderately healthy elsewhere, of course). That would sure be nice.

Latest Heyman:

Mets GM reaches out to K-Rod, Fuentes

Mets GM Omar Minaya today began reaching out to the agents for free-agent closers Francisco Rodriguez and Brian Fuentes, SI.com has learned. The Mets are intent on landing an elite closer after their bullpen was the main culprit in their second straight September disappointment. It is believed Rodriguez is favored slightly over Fuentes, but they consider either pitcher an excellent candidate to take injured closer Billy Wagner's spot.

The proper signals having been sent -- that they can, if necessary, turn to Hoffman or some such silliness -- they are now apparently ready to get down to business. Playing Fuentes and K-Rod off against each other is the smart play. Go, Omar.

Rotoworld

The Rockies turned down the Mets' proposal of Aaron Heilman for Huston Street, the New York Post reports.

A trade apparently is still a possibility, but the Rockies would want Pedro Feliciano along with Heilman. The Mets think that's too high of a price to pay for a guy in Street who might not even be their closer by the time the season starts.
Source: New York Post

Go, Omar.

I tend to agree with you, Sam, and I think Murphy might be a great example of how statistics don't tell the entire story. I find it amazing how many people appear to swear by one or the other without putting the two to good use together. I loved the way Murphy grinded out his at bats and approached each PA intelligently and tenaciously. Of course, eyes can deceive, so its good that Murphy also has some decent minor league credentials to go along with it.

It's hard to project him much better than the Tango line, even being optimistic, but I think he'll be a useful player at worst. I'm tend to agree with you that he'll be better than any hitter our system has produced since Wright... excepting Milledge.

I'd be very surprised if Murphy turned out to be a better hitter than my Lastings. FWIW, in 221 at bats after the all star break, Milledge hit .299/.355/.448. He tallied 30 runs, 7 hr, 29 rbi, and 11 sb in that time. Prorated to about 600 at-bats, that line becomes: .299 average, 85 runs, 20 homers, 85 rbi, 30 steals. Pretty nice player and younger than Murphy still.

That's a pretty interesting trade proposal and I think I'd make that deal. Feliciano had held his won against righties prior to 2008 despite a very average k/bb ratio mostly to flukishly home run rates and BABIP. I like him but he's hardly irreplacable. Is he that different from Joe Beimel, for example? Sign Fuentes or K-Rod, trade for Street, sign Beimel and the bullpen looks pretty good to me. Sanchez and Stokes can help Street setup, and Schoeneweis as the LOOGY, Beimel can be the LOOGY who can face the occasional righty, Smith as the ROOGY.

BTW, is there any chance that Wagner could be ready before the 2009 season ends?

The Mets got offered Street for Heilman and Feliciano and Omar passed?!?! What?!? Are you freaking kidding me?!?!

If the Rockies want a lefty to go along with Heilman I'm sure Show can tag along.

If the Rockies want a lefty to go along with Heilman I'm sure Show can tag along.

As far as I can tell, that gets it done if the Mets send some money back.

What is it they say about things that are too good to be true? I wonder what is wrong with Street...

As far as I can tell, that gets it done if the Mets send some money back.

I'll throw in $20.

Street and K-Rod, and we can focus on starting pitching.

Street is going to be very expensive guys. He made 3.3 million in his first year of arbitration so he's probably going to get around 5 million or so this year. If you think Heilman and Feliciano are roughly a first round pick, the Mets could go just sign someone like Juan Cruz.

It's a move to consider but it's hardly a slam dunk.

Considering that SS is negative infinity in value, there is no way Heilman + SS = 1st round value. I try to keep Feliciano - he and Smith make an effective platoon as long as we have enough 2-way relievers to buffer them.

Cruz or someone similar might only cost the Mets a third round pick if they sign a closer and a starting pitcher. The Mets could always move Heilman for something else they need.

I think Feliciano has more value, because I suspect he's not a LOOGY, and 2008 was the outlier. But against lefties:

Feliciano: .210/.280/.295 in 2008, .214/.291/.285 career
Schoeneweis: .178/.243/.277 in 2008, .224/.299/.295 career

If the idea is someone to pair with Smith, either guy works.

But hey . . . we'll see. If I'm right, and the Mets are smart enough to give him the PAs he deserves, then they should have the best offense in the NL next year (assuming they stay even moderately healthy elsewhere, of course). That would sure be nice.

Well the 2008 Mets scored 799 runs, the Cubs 855 and the Phillies 799- considering the difference in parks I'm not sure the Mets didn't have the best offense in 2008.