Tom Brennan - HOW THE METS GOT A C- DRAFT GRADE

Tom Brennan - HOW THE METS GOT A C- DRAFT GRADE

Bleacher Reports is a well respected sports site. 

Annually, it grades each team on its drafts.

In 2017, they graded the Mets in a 4 way the for 19th best out of 30 teams.  Grade B. 

So being 21st, in effect, was enough for a B rating.

A year later, that grade seems reasonable. 

David Peterson and Mark Vientos (rounds 1 and 2) are picks that Mets fans can truly be excited about, based on their performance.  After that, mostly average performance.

This year, Bleacher Report released its grades post-draft. 

Ten teams had an A+, A, or A- grade. 

The Mets?  Tied for LAST with a C-.

So, if you weren't thrilled with last year's draft, BR is telling us by its grade that this draft might be worse. 

Of course, Bleacher Reports could be dead wrong.  Hope so.

My guess is, they are more right than wrong.

The White Sox, who drafted 4th, got an A+ rating. 

They drafted Nick Madrigal, a very highly regarded college hitter I am almost certain the Mets were hoping would slip to them at # 6. 

The Mets got Jarred Kelenic, no doubt a great prospect, and one I look forward to following, but a Kelenic is high school kid that will likely take 1-3 years longer to develop than the more seasoned Madrigal.

The Sox got the 4th slot due to winning 67 games. 

The Mets won 70 - only 3 more wins.

I will put on my GM hat for a minute.

Did the Mets have and employ the intelligent strategy in late 2017 of maximizing their playing of prospects, to see what they could do, guys like Evans, Taijeron, Guillorme, Nido, etc., while also (without saying so) trying to lose as much as possible to enhance their draft position?

Nope.  Nada.  Uh uh.  No way.

They played their remaining 4 veterans constantly, almost daily, Messrs. Reyes, Aoki, Cabrera, and d'Arnaud. 

What did that veteran quartet do in September and October?

355 ABs, .313, 55 runs, 24 doubles, 2 triples, 16 HRs, 62 RBIs. 

You know, the equivalent of starting All Star #s, for half the line up.

Do you think they won at least 4-5 games more by overplaying those "All Star" guys, costing them the 4th round?    Most likely.

I would have played for the kids, giving them much more time to show what they could do on the major league level.  The kids would have cherished the challenge and the opportunity. 

Since the kids would not have hit anywhere near at a pace like .313 with 42 extra base hits and 62 RBIs had they gotten most of those veteran ABs, the Mets would have ended up with a better draft slot.

The 4th round vs. the 6th round - could be a small difference or a big one.  I'm sure the team that drafted 2nd after LeBron James got picked wished they'd been one draft pick higher and gotten King James.  

The NBA Nets once drafted 2nd and got Keith Van Horn.  The Spurs drafted first and got Tim Duncan.

Of such actions are long term franchise swoons cemented, elongated, and yes, even perpetuated.  Houston rebuilt itself quickly via great draft position.  The Mets could have helped themselves by being 2 picks earlier in every round - that is how I see it.

Before I wrap up here, a final note on draft selection weighting:

On the subject of drafting more hitters and fewer pitchers, I just read that former Mets catcher Paul Lo Duca agrees with me that hitters should be emphasized more. 

In a NY Post article by Kevin Kernan, Lo Duca said:

“My point of view is that they handled this completely the wrong way, they went the pitching route…I get it, you can never get enough arms, but hitters don’t want to sign to come to Citi Field.

"Agents want their players to base themselves on numbers and when you go to Citi Field your numbers are going to dip.

"So, to me, I always felt the Mets should go stock up on hitters through the draft and the minor leagues and then go through free agency for pitching. It’s backwards.”