Mets Draft and Development Debunked
One of the main reasons the Mets aren’t spending money on the 25-man roster (outside of David Wright) is because they are focused on rebuilding the organization through drafting and player development — correct? If that’s the case, then why are the Mets signing so few of their draft picks?
This post of the seeming conflict emanated from an exchange between readers in the following thread in the MetsToday comments:
norme says:
January 26, 2013 at 12:30 amHey Dan B,
I have a question.
I found your statement about the failure to sign draft choices very interesting. To better understand this data we have to put in perspective with other clubs. Do you know if this failure is similar to what other clubs do–better?—worse?Furthermore, if a club systematically drafts and fails to sign a good number of these draftees, might they not be guilty of restraint of trade or some sort of willful restriction of a person’s right to earn a living? Just asking.
ReplyDan B says:
January 26, 2013 at 1:22 pmNorme,
Thanks for the homework assignment. I only did the National East for the past two years since I do want to stay married. It was bad news for people who think the Mets are serious about rebuilding. For the past two years, the Atlanta Braves signed 72% of their draft picks. Nationals — 62%, Phillies – 58%, Marlins – 66%, and the Mets – 48%. It gets worse when you realize most teams don’t sign many of players from the last 25 rounds. If you look at just the first 25 rounds, where you are more likely to find your true prospects (and spend the most money), the Braves sign 96% of their draft picks, Nationals – 82%, Phillies – 85%, Marlins – 84% and the rebuilding New York Mets signed 74% of the players they picked in the first 25 rounds. To put it another way, the Braves signed eleven more draft picks and nine more top draft picks in the past two years then the Mets. You wonder why they always seem to have rookie of the year candidates and the Mets have Mike Baxter starting in the outfield? My conclusion – the Mets are no more serious about rebuilding then they are about signing free agents. They are most interested in lower costs to help pay off their massive loans which have balloon payments coming due until June of 2014.
Great work by Dan B. I took the torch he lit and did some more digging. Following are the number of players drafted and signed by all MLB clubs in the 2011 and 2012 drafts. I started with 2011 because that is the first draft executed by Sandy Alderson and his fantasy front office, and also the first year that the Mets unofficially began their rebuilding stage. Because it’s only two years, it’s a small sample size. At the same time, it is what it is, and there are questions that require answers.
Finally, instead of collecting data for the first 25 rounds, I settled on the first 20, for no particular reason other than 20 rounds seemed like a more fair assessment — indeed, had I gone to 25, the Mets would have looked even worse.
2011 Draft
Mets: drafted 51, signed 37, or 72.5%, including 18 of 21 in the first 20 rounds (85%).
Rest of MLB: 1479 drafted, 924 signed, or 62%
Top 20 Rounds: 608 drafted, 499 signed, or 82%
Based on these numbers, the Mets did an above average job of restocking their farm system via the 2011 draft. It was a good start for the new front office.
But wait – what the heck happened in 2012?
Mets: drafted 42, signed 19 (45%), including 16 of 22 (72%) in the first 20 rounds.
Rest of MLB: drafted 1196, signed 880 (73.5%), including 556 of 615 (90.4%) in the first 20 rounds.
In summary over the course of the two years, the Mets drafted 93 players, signing 56 (60%). The rest of MLB drafted 2675 players, signing 67%.
There are many different ways to look at this. On the one hand, the Mets added a total of 56 players to their minor league system via the draft over the last two years. That number doesn’t include free-agent signings — something I found more difficult to track, for all teams. Did the Mets significantly augment their draft signee pool with free agents? It doesn’t appear so; they signed about ten amateur free agents over the two years, which seems in line with what most other teams accomplished.
Is 56 players a big number? Well, the average team added 62 players via the draft. Is it a big deal that the Mets signed six less players than the average? I don’t know. But it’s hard to suggest that the Mets are “stockpiling” talent based on that figure.
On the other hand, it could be argued that sheer volume doesn’t necessarily result in success. Maybe the Mets are signing only the players they deem worth the dollars. Maybe they’re spending more of their money on the better players, and didn’t see it efficient to go over budget just to add players of lesser talent.
Probing that angle, we would have to accept the idea that the higher the draft pick, the better the player. Of course, that’s not always the case, but it’s a generality that fits most of the time. So, looking again at the 56 players added by the Mets over the past two years, 34 were drafted in the first 20 rounds. The other 29 teams signed 1055 picks from the first 20 rounds — an average of 36 per team. So again, the Mets aren’t far behind the average — but, they certainly aren’t above the average.
Perhaps it would be more helpful to know what teams were above the average, and see if there is any correlation with their farm system’s reputation. Following are the top 15 teams in terms of players signed from the draft over the past two years.
Team | Signees | Top 20 Signed |
|---|---|---|
| Rays | 77 | 42 |
| Angels | 75 | 34 |
| Mariners | 75 | 40 |
| Cardinals | 73 | 41 |
| Padres | 73 | 45 |
| Diamondbacks | 72 | 35 |
| Blue Jays | 66 | 37 |
| Astros | 66 | 37 |
| Tigers | 66 | 37 |
| Braves | 65 | 38 |
| White Sox | 65 | 35 |
| Royals | 64 | 35 |
| Athletics | 63 | 41 |
| Dodgers | 62 | 36 |
| Giants | 62 | 33 |
| Rockies | 62 | 38 |
Which are the best organizations in baseball? Hard to say, as it’s very much a subjective thing and there are opposing views on where certain teams rank. However, most of the “experts” agree that the top 7 teams listed here — Rays, Angels, Mariners, Cardinals, Padres, Diamondbacks, and Blue Jays — are among the top ten of the best farm systems in baseball. The Braves, Royals, and Rockies are in some top-tens, and certainly in top-15 lists. And it should be noted that Jim Callis of Baseball America personally rates the Astros as #10, based primarily on their strong drafting over the last two years. To get a better idea on whether organizational talent and depth is related to volume, we should take a look at a five-year or ten-year history — a project for another rainy day.
So what does all this mean for the Mets? Again, two years is a very small sample size, so it’s hard to say. However, it appears that some of the more respected organizations have a habit of adding more players to their systems than others. Will the Mets follow that strategy going forward? Should they? What do you think? Answer in the comments.
About the Author
Joe Janish began MetsToday in 2005 to provide the unique perspective of a high-level player and coach -- he earned NCAA D-1 All-American honors as a catcher and coached several players who went on to play pro ball. As a result his posts often include mechanical evaluations, scout-like analysis, and opinions that go beyond the numbers. Follow Joe's baseball tips on Twitter at @onbaseball and at the On Baseball Google Plus page.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed.
I recall that the Mets drafted Roger Clemens as a junior at UT but he didn’t sign. The Red Sox signed him the next year as a first rounder.
That said: Sandy Alderson gets a ton of credit from his supporters for his “patience” and commitment to draft and development. But most of that credit is based on assumption; we haven’t seen results yet, and really won’t have a fair assessment for a few more years. As always, Alderson talks a good talk. I still can’t see a meaningful distinction between the Mets current “plan” and that of, say, the Pittsburgh Pirates or any other low-budget team.
I have two points to make.
First, do remember that the Mets dropped their Gulf Coast League team in 2012. That team has returned for 2013. In that one year they simply did not have enough roster space to sign all of their draft picks. They have brought the team back this year and I’ll eat my hat if they do not sign more of their draftees in 2013.
Second, if the Mets do not sign someone then they can assign that slot money elsewhere. Buying out a kid’s scholarship through bonus money is hard to do with a limited budget set by MLB. I think that they were smart knowing that if they sign a bunch of guys in this fashion, but lose out on a few others, then they would be better off than if they drafted a bunch of “signable” picks and signing all of them. That is a very long winded way of saying that they chose to invest in a few higher upside guys rather than many lesser upside. These were mainly guys out of high school who were ticketed for big time schools. These were very highly regarded prospects.
My guess is they thought they would save some money and test out a theory that the GCL is unnecessary. Not every major league franchise has a team at the level of the GCL. The Yankees most notably.
Sometimes you lay out a plan, execute it as best you can, but end up still 90% complete. I think that is what happened to the Mets here. Signing a bunch of guys under slot and using the extra cash to sign a few guys to over slot. Then one guy just does not want to sign. You cannot undo your draft of reassign that money elsewhere in the draft. These things happen.
What is also disturbing for me is that the players the Mets draft and don’t sign are higher picks due to their bad records. The Mets are drafting in the first third and not sighing players and the Cardinals are drafting in the back third yet they see the value of signing draft choices. Also, the Met’s farm system is only rated as high as the middle because of d’Arnauld, Wheeler, and Syndergaard — three players they only recently traded for. It is not like there are a lot of mid level prospects already, making the need to sign a #19 round player less urgent. I haven’t even started ranting about cuts the Mets made to their scouting and minor league operations plus how the Mets never sign over slot draft picks. They rarely sing draft picks at the slot amount!
The bottom line is that I still don’t believe the Mets operate with enough capital to fully finance a New York based team. I am beginning to think they don’t have the finances to operate a Kanas City based team. They don’t have the money for a payroll over $95 million and they don’t have the money to build through the farm system because that requires signing bonuses and being able to see your team really bottom out (i.e. the Marlins and Astros) by trading anything of value away for prospects.
Look, I am just a guy with a computer with no access to the inner workings. i am going on what I read and research. I could be wrong and I hope I am.
great work by you and the others, this is a very interesting and overlooked topic. Like you, I am just a guy with a keyboard and an opinion, a scary combo, but like you I remain skeptical. My sampling is simply last year’s draft. The Mets took a kid shortstop at #12 that agreed to sign underslot, passing on Courtney Hawkins, a power hitting RF, that the ChiSox took next. He signed with the ChiSox and is already their top-rated prospect and was as high as #68 in one top #100 list this year. For the 2nd pick the Mets drafted a kid pitcher, but he refused to sign when the Mets failed to offer him the alotted slot money. Why this approach, I don’t know if it is lack of money or whatever, but it certainly is not consistent with the minor league mantra.
Yeah. I also would like to see a comparison to their record let’s say in the five years beforehand. I’m not willing to do the research myself, so hey, I realize this is akin (this might sound familiar) to liking to get a nice new car.
They probably aren’t spending money for a few reasons, including economic difficulties and you know the management and Alderson are [deleted].
Anyway, where should have they spent money? The OF would seem logical, but it is not as if there were many options there. Four years with a possible fifth for Bourne? A starter? They might have did better finding useful starting pitching, but spending a lot of money here doesn’t seem overly logical, especially with not that bad options already.
IF help? Maybe, they could have spent money for someone there though other than 2nd, they have pretty good options. Catching? They signed a top prospect that not only stupid Mets fans thinks has a good future. Is this a comment on Reyes? Hairston? Not overly useful to spend lots of money for a 4th outfielder.
Anyway, not sure what was ‘debunked’ here. Seems “unresolved.”
Whether it’s baseball or any other business, at some point, to be successful, there has to be an investment of money. You get what you pay for.
I’m not even suggesting that the Mets should have spent an extreme amount of money — I am merely curious as to why, if they’re not spending much on the 25-man roster, why there isn’t more to spend on player development. It wouldn’t take tens of millions to sign 5-10 more amateurs every year.
The definition of “debunked” is to expose a myth or to reduce an inflated reputation. The public perception — and one championed by the Mets themselves — is that Sandy Alderson and his regime are focused on rebuilding the organization via the farm system. If they’re adding fewer amateur players than the average, then there is a big question as to how the farm system is going to improve — ergo, the reputation has been reduced by turning a statement (“The are rebuilding the farm”) to a question (“Are they rebuilding the farm?”).
Further, “Mets Draft and Development Unresolved” doesn’t sound nearly as intriguing. And I like alliteration.
Three other points:
1. Don’t believe anything that comes out of Fred Wilpon’s oral cavity relating to the Mets.
2. Joe Janish should be very pleased with high level of comments on this blog.
3. Dan B, thank your wife for me.
I agree with your guinea-pig conclusion.
TB had 11 picks in the first and supplemental round in 2011 from losing so many free agents.
Angels farm system has been wiped out.