Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
Inbox
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

A consistent approach in place ?

Posted: 11/21/2012 6:21 AM

A consistent approach in place ? 


Some of the recent transactions of the Mets have re-affirmed a very clear MO of the Mets front office. Leaving all polemics aside (this thread is not about the financial situation, the terrible ownership, criticism regarding trades or lack of expensive free agent signings or lack of progress on the Wright / Dickey front !), take a look at the scouting reports for many of the key draftees of this front office and also some of the small scale pickups such as Greg Burke or just yesterday OF Jamie Hoffman:

 

A common theme for Brandon Nimmo, Michael Fulmer, Gavin Cecchini, Kevin Plawecki, Ahmed Rosario, Rafael Montero, heck even Greg Burke, Mike Baxter or Jamie Hoffman is their  -  supposedly  - off-the-charts work ethic & makeup. Whether that will help them maximize their talent (in the cases of Burke, Baxter or Hoffman, quite limited in terms of physical  tools) remains to be seen. However, it´s an interesting approach.

On the other hand, players that – supposedly – have shown questionable work ethic / coachability issues  -  Fernando Martinez,Aderlin Rodriguez, Pedro Beato , Angel Pagan or Jordany Valdespin come to mind as examples of players where this has shown up in scouting reports have either been shipped out or – in the cases of Valdespin & Rodriguez – apparently aren´t held in high esteem.

 

Now, whether this approach will end up having a positive impact in the standings eventually, remains to be seen. Reading through some scouting reports was quite interesting in this regard.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/21/2012 6:27 AM

Re: A consistent approach in place ? 


I'm a big fan of this approach.  Makeup matters imo.  We will get burned from time to time passing on talented players with makeup concerns or a less than stellar work ethic, but as a general rule I think it's a great idea to target players who will work to no end to get the best out of their abilities, no matter how limited.

And it's not like the Mets are targeting players who lack talent or upside.  Nimmo, Fulmer, Cecchini, and Rosario all have considerable upside.

Last edited 11/21/2012 6:29 AM by DocK16

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/21/2012 7:31 AM

Re: A consistent approach in place ? 


I agree makeup is extremely important. The road to the majors is incredibly long and the amount of day to day grunt work required to get there is astronomical. A kid who has his head on straight and who is willing to outwork his peers has a better shot of making it when all is said and done.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/21/2012 7:36 AM

Re: A consistent approach in place ? 



DocK16 wrote: I'm a big fan of this approach.  Makeup matters imo.  We will get burned from time to time passing on talented players with makeup concerns or a less than stellar work ethic, but as a general rule I think it's a great idea to target players who will work to no end to get the best out of their abilities, no matter how limited.

And it's not like the Mets are targeting players who lack talent or upside.  Nimmo, Fulmer, Cecchini, and Rosario all have considerable upside.
As high picks (Nimmor, Fulmer and Cecchini) I should hope so. Rosario was an international signing, but the same applies (record bonus). Regarding the rest, it's always nice to have overachieving guys with limited ceilings in an organization, if for no other reason than to set an example for the talented guys who have gotten by on sheer talent until now.  Yes, makeup matters, but I doubt you'll find an organization which eschews it.

I only hope we aren't passing over players with high upside just because they may not have till now developed a systematic approach to self-improvement. Sometimes it's simply a case of poor coaching at the HS level. I guess what I am saying is, a good mix is the best way to go, but the more talent you have, the better. Mike Baxter has a nice little story, but I only want one of him on my 25 man roster.
_______________________________________________________________________

"The Mets have shown me more ways to lose than I even knew existed."
-Casey Stengel
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/21/2012 10:17 AM

Re: A consistent approach in place ? 


make up is really no substitute for talent.  a little surprised that some progressives are opening this door to this path.  what's next, calls for a Frenchy return?
"Maybe it's time to make some moves."  - Sandy Alderson
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/21/2012 10:28 AM

Re: A consistent approach in place ? 



DuffyDyer wrote: make up is really no substitute for talent.  a little surprised that some progressives are opening this door to this path.  what's next, calls for a Frenchy return?

Frenchy is one of the least coachable players in baseball.  Makeup isn't all about playing hard.  

PDP has hinted for a while that he believes makeup is the new market inefficiency.  I think his logic is sound.  

You're right that makeup is no substitute for talent, but at the same time the approach we're taking now is really no different than what's been employed with the Cardinals for years.  There's a reason so many of their guys, who many felt were lacking in the talent department, have exceeded expectations and contributed to the team's success.

Speaking for myself, as a progressive, I don't have a problem placing an emphasis on intangibles like character and work ethic, it's when silly words like gritty, scrappy, and clutch get thrown around that I take pause.  I don't think there's any question that a strong work ethic is a positive attribute.  It's an intangible, but there's nothing mythical about a guy who gives 100% all the time and works out 3-4 hours a day.  That's different than someone getting a reputation for being gritty, scrappy, or clutch based on appearance and a few timely high leverage performances.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/21/2012 10:36 AM

RE: A consistent approach in place ? 


You definitely sleep easier after giving a kid 7 figures when you know at least he's going to work hard every day. I'm only speculating, but I don't think there is any way the Mets offer Rosario over a million dollars if he has a different makeup.

I think it's a good strategy, but obviously has it's limits like anything else.


17 & 14 = Best Duo In NY Sports
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/21/2012 10:37 AM

Re: A consistent approach in place ? 



DocK16 wrote:
DuffyDyer wrote: make up is really no substitute for talent.  a little surprised that some progressives are opening this door to this path.  what's next, calls for a Frenchy return?

Frenchy is one of the least coachable players in baseball.  Makeup isn't all about playing hard.  

PDP has hinted for a while that he believes makeup is the new market inefficiency.  I think his logic is sound.  

You're right that makeup is no substitute for talent, but at the same time the approach we're taking now is really no different than what's been employed with the Cardinals for years.  There's a reason so many of their guys, who many felt were lacking in the talent department, have exceeded expectations and contributed to the team's success.

Speaking for myself, as a progressive, I don't have a problem placing an emphasis on intangibles like character and work ethic, it's when silly words like gritty, scrappy, and clutch get thrown around that I take pause.  I don't think there's any question that a strong work ethic is a positive attribute.  It's an intangible, but there's nothing mythical about a guy who gives 100% all the time and works out 3-4 hours a day.  That's different than someone getting a reputation for being gritty, scrappy, or clutch based on appearance and a few timely high leverage performances.
not to make this into a big issue, but I chuckled when you said that make up is the new market inefficiency bc I used the same phrase off-line with someone in jest.  

As far as the rest, players who've gotten the "gritty" label have by and large done so exactly because they have a good approach and play "the right way" if you will.  It's pretty ironic that after years of mocking these labels, now these sorts of players are going to be embraced by some progressives?
"Maybe it's time to make some moves."  - Sandy Alderson
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/21/2012 10:46 AM

RE: A consistent approach in place ? 


I think there should be a distinction between amateur players and guys already in the major leagues.


17 & 14 = Best Duo In NY Sports

Last edited 11/21/2012 10:47 AM by acesfull86

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/21/2012 10:48 AM

Re: A consistent approach in place ? 



DuffyDyer wrote:
DocK16 wrote:
DuffyDyer wrote: make up is really no substitute for talent.  a little surprised that some progressives are opening this door to this path.  what's next, calls for a Frenchy return?

Frenchy is one of the least coachable players in baseball.  Makeup isn't all about playing hard.  

PDP has hinted for a while that he believes makeup is the new market inefficiency.  I think his logic is sound.  

You're right that makeup is no substitute for talent, but at the same time the approach we're taking now is really no different than what's been employed with the Cardinals for years.  There's a reason so many of their guys, who many felt were lacking in the talent department, have exceeded expectations and contributed to the team's success.

Speaking for myself, as a progressive, I don't have a problem placing an emphasis on intangibles like character and work ethic, it's when silly words like gritty, scrappy, and clutch get thrown around that I take pause.  I don't think there's any question that a strong work ethic is a positive attribute.  It's an intangible, but there's nothing mythical about a guy who gives 100% all the time and works out 3-4 hours a day.  That's different than someone getting a reputation for being gritty, scrappy, or clutch based on appearance and a few timely high leverage performances.
not to make this into a big issue, but I chuckled when you said that make up is the new market inefficiency bc I used the same phrase off-line with someone in jest.  

As far as the rest, players who've gotten the "gritty" label have by and large done so exactly because they have a good approach and play "the right way" if you will.  It's pretty ironic that after years of mocking these labels, now these sorts of players are going to be embraced by some progressives?

Well the key is productivity, not the illusion of productivity.  The problem with the "gritty" label, and others like it, is in the past those terms were used as counter-arguments to support paying for and/or playing players who don't deserve X amount of dollars, a starting spot, a spot high in the batting order, a roster spot, etc.  

PDP's emphasis on makeup has to do with outcomes and probability, not "grit" and playing the game "the right way".  His approach isn't about overpaying David Eckstein types to bat leadoff because they exhibit leadership qualities and play the game the right way.  That's just silly.  It's about targeting players who, based on their attitude and work ethic, will have a greater likelihood of maximizing their potential.

Last edited 11/21/2012 10:50 AM by DocK16

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/21/2012 11:02 AM

Re: A consistent approach in place ? 



DrDooby wrote:

Some of the recent transactions of the Mets have re-affirmed a very clear MO of the Mets front office. Leaving all polemics aside (this thread is not about the financial situation, the terrible ownership, criticism regarding trades or lack of expensive free agent signings or lack of progress on the Wright / Dickey front !), take a look at the scouting reports for many of the key draftees of this front office and also some of the small scale pickups such as Greg Burke or just yesterday OF Jamie Hoffman:

 

A common theme for Brandon Nimmo, Michael Fulmer, Gavin Cecchini, Kevin Plawecki, Ahmed Rosario, Rafael Montero, heck even Greg Burke, Mike Baxter or Jamie Hoffman is their  -  supposedly  - off-the-charts work ethic & makeup. Whether that will help them maximize their talent (in the cases of Burke, Baxter or Hoffman, quite limited in terms of physical  tools) remains to be seen. However, it´s an interesting approach.

On the other hand, players that – supposedly – have shown questionable work ethic / coachability issues  -  Fernando Martinez,Aderlin Rodriguez, Pedro Beato , Angel Pagan or Jordany Valdespin come to mind as examples of players where this has shown up in scouting reports have either been shipped out or – in the cases of Valdespin & Rodriguez – apparently aren´t held in high esteem.

 

Now, whether this approach will end up having a positive impact in the standings eventually, remains to be seen. Reading through some scouting reports was quite interesting in this regard.

I agree and the players have decent to above average tools. but not great tools.  And, I think this is a productive approach.  More players will make the majors, but there will be fewer prospects with superstars potential.   Quite frankly, few players actually realize their superstar potential, while occasionally a Pedroia over achieves.
"Friend Romans & Country Men Lend Me an Ear"  Hannibal Lecture in Florence.  Recipe from the Grand Dictionaire de Cuisine, (1873), Alexandre Dumas.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/21/2012 11:05 AM

Re: A consistent approach in place ? 


This is really no different than things have gone in the real world for years.  I hire attitude first and foremost, and I teach the guys with good attitude and work ethic the things they need to learn.  Potential will get you fired, and that applies to baseball or real world work.  I like the direction, it's based in common sense.

____________________________________________
We Are!
Penn State!

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/21/2012 2:27 PM

Re: A consistent approach in place ? 



Alexandre62 wrote:
DrDooby wrote:

Some of the recent transactions of the Mets have re-affirmed a very clear MO of the Mets front office. Leaving all polemics aside (this thread is not about the financial situation, the terrible ownership, criticism regarding trades or lack of expensive free agent signings or lack of progress on the Wright / Dickey front !), take a look at the scouting reports for many of the key draftees of this front office and also some of the small scale pickups such as Greg Burke or just yesterday OF Jamie Hoffman:

 

A common theme for Brandon Nimmo, Michael Fulmer, Gavin Cecchini, Kevin Plawecki, Ahmed Rosario, Rafael Montero, heck even Greg Burke, Mike Baxter or Jamie Hoffman is their  -  supposedly  - off-the-charts work ethic & makeup. Whether that will help them maximize their talent (in the cases of Burke, Baxter or Hoffman, quite limited in terms of physical  tools) remains to be seen. However, it´s an interesting approach.

On the other hand, players that – supposedly – have shown questionable work ethic / coachability issues  -  Fernando Martinez,Aderlin Rodriguez, Pedro Beato , Angel Pagan or Jordany Valdespin come to mind as examples of players where this has shown up in scouting reports have either been shipped out or – in the cases of Valdespin & Rodriguez – apparently aren´t held in high esteem.

 

Now, whether this approach will end up having a positive impact in the standings eventually, remains to be seen. Reading through some scouting reports was quite interesting in this regard.

I agree and the players have decent to above average tools. but not great tools.  And, I think this is a productive approach.  More players will make the majors, but there will be fewer prospects with superstars potential.   Quite frankly, few players actually realize their superstar potential, while occasionally a Pedroia over achieves.
How many players in a generation have "superstar" potential ?
Mets haven´t had one since Doc Gooden & Gregg Jefferies, essentially.

The idea is that due to a strong work ethic & good coachability you improve the odds to get the most of your talent and thus approach or even exceed the ceiling. Now, it´s tough to come up with a valid formular to assess "work ethic & coachability".
But considering some of the more prolific amateur signings, who to protect and not protect on the 40-man roster and even some of the cheap minor league free agent pickups, the pattern is pretty clear.

And I agree with Dock that "work ethic & coachability" has little to do with "scrappiness or leadership" abilities. You can have a quit high makeup (coachability & work ethic player) who is no leader and a scrappy type who hustles but doesn´t listen to advice or seems stubborn in his ideas.

In any case, it´ll be interesting to follow this pattern and see where it leads...
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/21/2012 5:18 PM

Re: A consistent approach in place ? 



DocK16 wrote: I'm a big fan of this approach.  Makeup matters imo.  We will get burned from time to time passing on talented players with makeup concerns or a less than stellar work ethic, but as a general rule I think it's a great idea to target players who will work to no end to get the best out of their abilities, no matter how limited.

And it's not like the Mets are targeting players who lack talent or upside.  Nimmo, Fulmer, Cecchini, and Rosario all have considerable upside.
I guess we have a different definition of upside.   Cecchini is the skinny hitting SS with no plus tools and Fullmer is long on guile but maxed out physically and lacks plus raw stuff.  Not saying Fullmer doesn't have a chance but to label these early picks as being high upside is simply wrong.  I haven't seen org rankings yet but I'm hard pressed to see the Mets system as better than "average" (mid-teens).   Below average major league talent and average minor league talent means you need a lot of "LUCK" to build a consistent contending team without the inclusion of adding payroll (free agents, salary dumps)
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/21/2012 5:24 PM

Re: A consistent approach in place ? 



KABOOOOM wrote:
DocK16 wrote: I'm a big fan of this approach.  Makeup matters imo.  We will get burned from time to time passing on talented players with makeup concerns or a less than stellar work ethic, but as a general rule I think it's a great idea to target players who will work to no end to get the best out of their abilities, no matter how limited.

And it's not like the Mets are targeting players who lack talent or upside.  Nimmo, Fulmer, Cecchini, and Rosario all have considerable upside.
I guess we have a different definition of upside.   Cecchini is the skinny hitting SS with no plus tools and Fullmer is long on guile but maxed out physically and lacks plus raw stuff.  Not saying Fullmer doesn't have a chance but to label these early picks as being high upside is simply wrong.  I haven't seen org rankings yet but I'm hard pressed to see the Mets system as better than "average" (mid-teens).   Below average major league talent and average minor league talent means you need a lot of "LUCK" to build a consistent contending team without the inclusion of adding payroll (free agents, salary dumps)

We do.  Upside for me doesn't necessarily mean future star.  Both Cecchini and Fulmer have the potential to be above average big leaguers.  People act like both project to be fringy major leaguers.  Nothing could be further from the truth.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/21/2012 5:38 PM

Re: A consistent approach in place ? 



DocK16 wrote:
KABOOOOM wrote:
DocK16 wrote: I'm a big fan of this approach.  Makeup matters imo.  We will get burned from time to time passing on talented players with makeup concerns or a less than stellar work ethic, but as a general rule I think it's a great idea to target players who will work to no end to get the best out of their abilities, no matter how limited.

And it's not like the Mets are targeting players who lack talent or upside.  Nimmo, Fulmer, Cecchini, and Rosario all have considerable upside.
I guess we have a different definition of upside.   Cecchini is the skinny hitting SS with no plus tools and Fullmer is long on guile but maxed out physically and lacks plus raw stuff.  Not saying Fullmer doesn't have a chance but to label these early picks as being high upside is simply wrong.  I haven't seen org rankings yet but I'm hard pressed to see the Mets system as better than "average" (mid-teens).   Below average major league talent and average minor league talent means you need a lot of "LUCK" to build a consistent contending team without the inclusion of adding payroll (free agents, salary dumps)

We do.  Upside for me doesn't necessarily mean future star.  Both Cecchini and Fulmer have the potential to be above average big leaguers.  People act like both project to be fringy major leaguers.  Nothing could be further from the truth.
And potentially above-average big league players and production are exactly the things the Mets need to be developing out of the farm system. You'll get lucky now and then and land a Zach Wheeler or have Matt Harvey showcase incredible upside, but having a slew of young, inexpensive, productive players who you won't need +$15 million a year to re-sign is a major factor in building a perennial winner in any sport, as I've watched the Devils do for almost twenty years now, and as the Braves did it for so long in their glory days.

John Adams: At a stage in life when other men prosper, I'm reduced to living in Philadelphia!
Mike "Doc" Emrick: THEY SCORE! HENRIQUE!! IT'S OVER!!!

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/21/2012 7:25 PM

Re: A consistent approach in place ? 


I think is a very useful approach... but one that should be part of... and not the sole approach.

IMO, talent/ability-- should come first. Always.

"Seen It All"

loyal_Jues (IG)

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/22/2012 6:57 AM

Re: A consistent approach in place ? 



Gstacks177 wrote: I think is a very useful approach... but one that should be part of... and not the sole approach.

IMO, talent/ability-- should come first. Always.
Obviously, talent should always be first.
However, when in doubt, take the player with the better makeup, maybe to improve your odds of reaching a ceiling. But who knows. We´ll be smarter in a couple of years..
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/22/2012 10:07 AM

Re: A consistent approach in place ? 


no one would ever suggest that all things being equal opting for the better character guy isn't the obvious way to go.  good luck winning on just character tho.
"Maybe it's time to make some moves."  - Sandy Alderson
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/22/2012 10:32 AM

Re: A consistent approach in place ? 



DrDooby wrote:
Gstacks177 wrote: I think is a very useful approach... but one that should be part of... and not the sole approach.

IMO, talent/ability-- should come first. Always.
Obviously, talent should always be first.
However, when in doubt, take the player with the better makeup, maybe to improve your odds of reaching a ceiling. But who knows. We´ll be smarter in a couple of years..
I'm not 100% sure that has obviously been the case during the first 2 yrs of this regime's Draft/int. signings...

I'm not as enamored w/ our last 2 Drafts as some seem to be. Hopefully, I'll be wrong.

"Seen It All"

loyal_Jues (IG)

Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >