MESSAGE BOARDS TOOLS:  Search | Members | User Control Panel |   | Login 


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: ESPN- Mets 26th in Franchises over the next 5 years
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:59 am 
User avatar
Offline
Legend of NYFS

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:57 pm
Posts: 69271
Location: New York, NY
Quote:
ESPN did it’s first future power rankings and established where each team stands going forward for the next five years (subscription required). They used five categories for ranking the teams: majors, minors, finances, management, and mobility (of contracts) and gave a number grade to each category. They then averaged the five numbers together based on a weighted system: full weight was placed on the majors and minors, finances and management received 2/3 weight, and mobility received 1/3 weight.

http://metsmerizedonline.com/2012/02/es ... ent-227269

_________________
Twit-@Wexlerrules
Staunch anti-BADP (Batting average dependent players)
Pronounced "Dar-No"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ESPN- Mets 26th in Franchises over the next 5 years
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:05 am 
User avatar
Offline
Manager

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:42 am
Posts: 6681
Not that this would necessarily affect the Mets' ranking but majors and minors should not be weighted the same. A good ML team is something you can bet on with some confidence. A good farm is something you can dream on. No question which one I'd rather have.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ESPN- Mets 26th in Franchises over the next 5 years
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:06 am 
User avatar
Offline
Legend of NYFS

Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:12 pm
Posts: 34487
I'm not quite so optimistic.


8)

_________________
Whatever.

8)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ESPN- Mets 26th in Franchises over the next 5 years
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:48 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Veteran Presence

Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:35 pm
Posts: 4743
Location: Brooklyn
Yawn.

The Mets have ZERO DOLLARS committed to the roster for the 2015 season - three seasons from now. Which means, there isn't one player you can say for certain will be on the team 3 years from now.

Of the 5 categories, the Mets should've been near the top in 2 of them - mobility of contracts (again, they have no commitments beyond 2014), management (Alderson, DePo, Ricciardi, etc.) and middle of the pack as far as the minors are concerned.

Again, the Major League roster in 2012 (for the Mets) has almost zero bearing on 2015 or 2016. The other important aspect - financial situation - may be resolved in the next few months (one way or the other).

ESPN and their assortment of imbeciles (aside from Law), projecting 5 years out is pointless.

_________________
I have a Mets blog, you should read it:

http://risingapple.com/author/dabriano

http://rationalmetsmusings.blogspot.com

On Twitter: @D_Abriano


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ESPN- Mets 26th in Franchises over the next 5 years
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:00 pm 
User avatar
Offline
NYFS Staff

Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Posts: 21009
Location: Jersey City
I never put much stock in these contrived rankings.

But adding to what has been noted, the front office could have a couple of real nice drafts and a new owner could come in looking to make a splash and sign up a couple of stud free agents and all of the sudden the Mets would be the hottest thing in baseball. And there's no way at all to project any of it.

Don't forget, Omar combined the arrival of Reyes and Wright with some good signings and the Mets went from being awful to arguably the best team in baseball in a space of two years. And that was with a very thin farm aside from the two young stars.

_________________
"For years now, young talent has been the source of the Mets’ sales pitch: Trust in the farm. It is the same mantra peddled by all losing teams, a convenient distraction offering optimism for a better tomorrow. The next losing team that does not talk up its farm system will be the first."--Tyler Kepner, NY Times, June 2014

--------------------------------------------------------
You can PayPal donations to donations@nyfuturestars.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ESPN- Mets 26th in Franchises over the next 5 years
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:05 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Legend of NYFS

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:57 pm
Posts: 69271
Location: New York, NY
Chico wrote:
I never put much stock in these contrived rankings.

But adding to what has been noted, the front office could have a couple of real nice drafts and a new owner could come in looking to make a splash and sign up a couple of stud free agents and all of the sudden the Mets would be the hottest thing in baseball. And there's no way at all to project any of it.

Don't forget, Omar combined the arrival of Reyes and Wright with some good signings and the Mets went from being awful to arguably the best team in baseball in a space of two years. And that was with a very thin farm aside from the two young stars.



Unless we have new owners the "quick fix" 2 year plan isn't really an option.

_________________
Twit-@Wexlerrules
Staunch anti-BADP (Batting average dependent players)
Pronounced "Dar-No"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ESPN- Mets 26th in Franchises over the next 5 years
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:07 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Legend of NYFS

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:56 pm
Posts: 49085
TimBogar wrote:

Again, the Major League roster in 2012 (for the Mets) has almost zero bearing on 2015 or 2016.


Not true, and not the point of the "0 payroll commitments" points.

That discounts probably the most IMPORTANT aspect of the major league roster: the cheap, controllable, out-produce-their-cost youngsters. While they won't be on guaranteed contracts, they'll still be on under market, arb-eligible contracts and while you COULD simply cut those guys to alleviate yourselves of any financial burden, it'd be awfully silly.

Secondly, thats not really a positive as much as its not a negative. Having contracts on your books isn't in and of itself bad - its having contracts that don't equal the results. Are the Angels worse off in 2015 than the Mets because that have that pesky Pujols guy on a guaranteed contract? Or, on a point more close to home, are we better off once we get that RA Dickey contract out of here? No.

So yay, we're free of albatrosses by then: how did we replace them? But we're also done with the not albatross contracts by then - how did we replace those contracts? Hopefully with pieces that equal or exceed their cost, but all thats saying is you COULD get a complete re-do by 2015 if you wanted, but that would be silly: there wouldn't be a full roster out on the open market that could be imported to craft a full, competitive roster, nor would it be financially prudent to try and do so.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ESPN- Mets 26th in Franchises over the next 5 years
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:34 pm 
Offline
Veteran Presence

Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:31 pm
Posts: 4322
A lot can happen in 5 years, wonder what this would have looked like if done in Feb 2007

_________________
"It's not a daily regiment, it's not a twice daily regiment, who has time for that nonsense" - Giuseppe Franco Beverly Hills Salon Owner

Hey, you know what they say: see a broad to get dat booty yak 'em... ...leg 'er down a smack 'em yak 'em!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ESPN- Mets 26th in Franchises over the next 5 years
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:40 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Everyday Player

Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 5:05 pm
Posts: 1456
Location: Brooklyn, NY
ndfordarling wrote:
A lot can happen in 5 years, wonder what this would have looked like if done in Feb 2007


I can't tell if this was supposed to be positive or incredibly depressing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ESPN- Mets 26th in Franchises over the next 5 years
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:40 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Veteran Presence

Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:35 pm
Posts: 4743
Location: Brooklyn
MarkJohnson>You wrote:
TimBogar wrote:

Again, the Major League roster in 2012 (for the Mets) has almost zero bearing on 2015 or 2016.


Not true, and not the point of the "0 payroll commitments" points.

That discounts probably the most IMPORTANT aspect of the major league roster: the cheap, controllable, out-produce-their-cost youngsters. While they won't be on guaranteed contracts, they'll still be on under market, arb-eligible contracts and while you COULD simply cut those guys to alleviate yourselves of any financial burden, it'd be awfully silly.

Secondly, thats not really a positive as much as its not a negative. Having contracts on your books isn't in and of itself bad - its having contracts that don't equal the results. Are the Angels worse off in 2015 than the Mets because that have that pesky Pujols guy on a guaranteed contract? Or, on a point more close to home, are we better off once we get that RA Dickey contract out of here? No.

So yay, we're free of albatrosses by then: how did we replace them? But we're also done with the not albatross contracts by then - how did we replace those contracts? Hopefully with pieces that equal or exceed their cost, but all thats saying is you COULD get a complete re-do by 2015 if you wanted, but that would be silly: there wouldn't be a full roster out on the open market that could be imported to craft a full, competitive roster, nor would it be financially prudent to try and do so.


Some will always err on the side of pessimism for the sake of it. I prefer to err on the side of optimism with a dose of realism.

I was pointing out the fact that no one is under contract for 2015 for two reasons. The first, was to note that they have no long term (albatross) commitments. The second, was to point out that no one at ESPN has any idea who will be on the team in 5 years.

Even the best young stud players can turn to near worthless or at least average in a matter of months or years - look at Joe Mauer and Scott Kazmir. Having those "studs" guarantees nothing.

Still, the Mets have a lot of solid arms in their system, and the hitters are a little further away. However, I think they definitely have something at the Major League level in Ike Davis, Lucas Duda, Daniel Murphy, Jon Niese, Pedro Beato, and others...

Like I stated above, though, it's impossible to project that out. All it becomes is another excuse for the pessimistic crowd to pile on what the teams' chances are FIVE YEARS from now.

_________________
I have a Mets blog, you should read it:

http://risingapple.com/author/dabriano

http://rationalmetsmusings.blogspot.com

On Twitter: @D_Abriano


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ESPN- Mets 26th in Franchises over the next 5 years
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:46 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Everyday Player

Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 5:05 pm
Posts: 1456
Location: Brooklyn, NY
I don't think the article is saying we have no shot in 5 years, but I don't see any reason that we necessarily have a better shot in 5 years than anyone else. I'm guessing the 2017 championship played a very small part in the rankings. Can you name 5 teams in baseball that the Mets have a better shot at winning at World Series than the Mets over the next 5 years? I'd say the A's, the Orioles, and the Astros. Having a hard time of thinking of any others.

edit: the article has the Indians and White Sox behind us, and the A's in front. I'd probably swap the A's and the Indians but the jist of my point is the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ESPN- Mets 26th in Franchises over the next 5 years
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:51 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Legend of NYFS

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:57 pm
Posts: 69271
Location: New York, NY
TimBogar wrote:
MarkJohnson>You wrote:
TimBogar wrote:

Again, the Major League roster in 2012 (for the Mets) has almost zero bearing on 2015 or 2016.


Not true, and not the point of the "0 payroll commitments" points.

That discounts probably the most IMPORTANT aspect of the major league roster: the cheap, controllable, out-produce-their-cost youngsters. While they won't be on guaranteed contracts, they'll still be on under market, arb-eligible contracts and while you COULD simply cut those guys to alleviate yourselves of any financial burden, it'd be awfully silly.

Secondly, thats not really a positive as much as its not a negative. Having contracts on your books isn't in and of itself bad - its having contracts that don't equal the results. Are the Angels worse off in 2015 than the Mets because that have that pesky Pujols guy on a guaranteed contract? Or, on a point more close to home, are we better off once we get that RA Dickey contract out of here? No.

So yay, we're free of albatrosses by then: how did we replace them? But we're also done with the not albatross contracts by then - how did we replace those contracts? Hopefully with pieces that equal or exceed their cost, but all thats saying is you COULD get a complete re-do by 2015 if you wanted, but that would be silly: there wouldn't be a full roster out on the open market that could be imported to craft a full, competitive roster, nor would it be financially prudent to try and do so.


Some will always err on the side of pessimism for the sake of it. I prefer to err on the side of optimism with a dose of realism.

I was pointing out the fact that no one is under contract for 2015 for two reasons. The first, was to note that they have no long term (albatross) commitments. The second, was to point out that no one at ESPN has any idea who will be on the team in 5 years.

Even the best young stud players can turn to near worthless or at least average in a matter of months or years - look at Joe Mauer and Scott Kazmir. Having those "studs" guarantees nothing.

Still, the Mets have a lot of solid arms in their system, and the hitters are a little further away. However, I think they definitely have something at the Major League level in Ike Davis, Lucas Duda, Daniel Murphy, Jon Niese, Pedro Beato, and others...

Like I stated above, though, it's impossible to project that out. All it becomes is another excuse for the pessimistic crowd to pile on what the teams' chances are FIVE YEARS from now.


Bogar,
All due respect but how does Mauer get lumped in with Kazmir? He was hurt in 2011, 2010 he had a 140 OPS+, 2009- 170. Even 2011 he hit 287/360/368. I'd trade any current Met (contract aside) for Joe Mauer in a milisecond.

- Beato really shouldn't be counted as a plus at this moment. His era+ was 87, he didn't strike many out, walked a ton and lefties pounded him. He may be good, he might not but he's not anything special either way.

_________________
Twit-@Wexlerrules
Staunch anti-BADP (Batting average dependent players)
Pronounced "Dar-No"


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Inapparent and 31 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group


SUPPORT NYFS VIA OUR NETWORK OF SITES: AA MEETINGS | FIND A JOB NEAR | BOOK REVIEW | ENTERTAIN: MOVIE TV GAME | LAST MINUTE GIFT | GET AUTO HEALTH LIFE HOME INSURANCE QUOTE | DOCTOR HOSPITAL | REPAIR CONTRACTOR | LIVE MUSIC | WHERE VOTE LOCAL CONGRESSMAN | PET FRIENDLY | FILE TAX RETURN 4G SEO PHONES TABLETS | FOR SALE OR RENT | SPORT COURT FITNESS | CHRISTMAS BACK TO SCHOOL BLACK FRIDAY | GOLF BEACH RESORT HOTEL | LOCAL LINKS | INSTALL SOLAR QUOTE ESTIMATE | LOCAL NEWS | FAST SSD HOST METRO BUS TRAIN STATION | CRAFTS DIY RECIPES | WEB TECH SEO TIPS | WEB HOST SERVER | BIRTHDAY PARTY RENT | MANAGED SSD VPS ARTS CRAFTS SUPPLY STORE | HEALTHY HEART DIABETIC | CHURCH TEMPLE MOSQUE | HYBRID SERVER | ATM BANK CONSOLIDATE LOAN RATES | DRUG OXY REHAB | FIND BOOK STORES | WEB SITE BY UMPS © 2014