Mets Top Prospect Aggregate Rankings

by Eric Simon on Dec 22, 2008 1:18 PM EST

John Sickels just released his preliminary Top 20 Mets Prospects, which now gives us a trio of reputable prospect rankings which also includes lists from Baseball America and Baseball Prospectus. Here are the results, with raw average rankings and overall ranks.

Player	John Sickels	Baseball America	Baseball Prospectus	Average	Rank
Fernando Martinez	2	1	1	1.3	1
Wilmer Flores	1	2	2	1.7	2
Jon Niese	3	3	5	3.7	3
Brad Holt	4	4	4	4.0	4
Jefry Marte	6	6	3	5.0	5
Reese Havens	5	8	6	6.3	6
Jenrry Mejia	7	7	7	7.0	7
Bobby Parnell	8	5	9	7.3	8
Eddie Kunz	9	10	10	9.7	9
Nick Evans	10	9	13	10.7	10
Ike Davis	11	13	8	10.7	10
Scott Moviel	13	13	11	12.3	12

Since the three lists were all of different lengths (Sickels had 20; BPro had 11; BA had 10), I shrunk the overall list to only include players who appeared on at least two of the individual lists. This excluded the vast majority of Sickels's 11-20. If a player wasn't ranked on a particular list (e.g. Nick Evans, Ike Davis and Scott Moviel), he received a '13', which appears in the table above in italics to indicate that it's an artificial ranking.

What's fascinating to me is how similar these three lists are. It took only twelve players to complete everyone's top ten, with Martinez-Flores-Niese coming in 1-2-3 overall. Sickels's was the only list to flip Martinez and Flores, preferring Flores's apparent higher ceiling. Also noteworthy is that three of the top five and four of the top seven prospects were international signees, without whom the Mets' farm system would surely rank among the worst in baseball instead of the middle of the pack.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Murphy vs. Evans

So did Daniel Murphy collect too many plate appearances and thus is no longer considered a prospect? I’m not sure why Evans would be on these lists and Murphy not unless Murphy is no longer considered a rookie going into 2009.

Vote change: DePodesta/Acta in 2009!!!

by Greenpoint Ian on Dec 22, 2008 1:32 PM EST reply actions

I've been assuming it's the PAs

I seem to recall hearing at the end of the season that the Hammer went over the maximum number of PAs to still qualify as a rookie in 2009. Someone please correct me if I’m misremembering this.

'Oh yes, I know all about that duty-of-a-citizen stuff. It doesn't go. There are exceptions to every rule, and this was one of them. When a man risks his liberty to come and root at a ball-game, you've got to hand it to him. He isn't a crook. He's a fan.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Dec 22, 2008 1:43 PM EST up reply actions

I can't point to a particular place but I remember reading the same thing

by JoshNY on Dec 22, 2008 3:02 PM EST up reply actions

I read yesterday

that Murphy went 1 PA over the limit. Oh well…

by cjmulrain on Dec 22, 2008 3:06 PM EST up reply actions

Evans/Murphy eligibility

Technically, neither Evans or Murphy should be prospects if John’s going by the ROY requirements. For hitters, it’s 130 at-bats or 45 days on the major league roster, so Evans isn’t a rookie either.

by D.Szymborski on Dec 22, 2008 2:10 PM EST reply actions

excepting Sept.

Except days on the active roster from September 1 onward do not count against those 45 days (I think). Evans appeared in 38 games through the end of August, so it’s hard to imagine he didn’t spend 45 days on the roster…

Anyway, the system seems to be doing a pretty good job of developing average-type players, but it would be nice to see one of the high-ceiling Latinos (or Holt or even Moviel) put it together…

by Patrick Clark on Dec 22, 2008 6:14 PM EST reply actions

Evans rookie eligibility.

In the case of Evans, he’s easily over the roster time ignoring September (I should have been more specific). Just his 2nd callup provides enough to put him over the limit . By the 1st of September, he was already at about 60 days or so.

by D.Szymborski on Dec 22, 2008 7:23 PM EST up reply actions

OT

Don’t see how this is deserving of it’s own post, but given the way FA compensation works, is it worth paying Derek Lowe a premium because it means recouping a 1st round pick when Perez moves on? (We’d give up a 2nd rounder for signing Lowe, I think, but get back a 1st rounder for Perez depending on who signed him.) Is this too slippery to be worth anything?

by Patrick Clark on Dec 22, 2008 6:26 PM EST reply actions