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.

I'm not quite so optimistic.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.