Cautious Optimist -- Home Grown Talent: Dodgers, Braves, Brewers, Yankees and Mets: Facts, Lessons and the Value of Good Judgment

  

 

Watching the Mets play both the Brewers and the Dodgers this past week got me thinking about the quantity and quality of home grown talent on various contending teams and whether we could learn something about the relationship between the depth and breadth of home grown talent on the one hand, the duration of a team's success window, and their overall approach to roster construction, on the other.

I expanded my research beyond the Dodgers and Brewers to include the Yankees and Braves in addition to the Mets.  I wanted to compare snapshot pictures of the Mets' approach to that of their peer group as well as to compare the strategies of the four members of the peer group to one another. 

(I use the term 'peer group' when lumping the Mets together with the Dodgers, Yankees et al in a loose aspirational sense of the term, not intended to reflect comparable performance -- of which there is painfully little.)

I did not approach my research with any preconceived expectations of what I would find nor with any working hypothesis regarding potential correlations between home grown talent and the likelihood of success -- especially sustained success.

I wanted to see if any interesting patterns would emerge. My findings were sufficiently interesting that I hope to expand the study group to include teams like the Marlins and Nationals who seem to go through brief periods of success followed by longer periods of decline, and others like the Guardians who are consistently good but rarely delicious, as well as the Mariners who are always on the fringes of 'in it' without ever being sufficiently in it to win it.  And so on.

My findings are preliminary but not uninteresting.

Including all International Free Agents as well as draft choices and undrafted free agents (and recognizing that the numbers can be fluid given the extent of options and a team's willingness to employ them strategically), here are the numbers (relatively accurate as of July 26, 2026 when I put this post together).

How many home grown talents are currently on the rosters of our comparison group?

Dodgers: 13 -- though two of their IFA signings Yamomoto and Sasaki spent no time in the minors with Dodger affiliates

Brewers:  12 

Atlanta:     8

Yankees:   6

Mets:         9

Purely by the numbers, the Mets fall into the middle of the pack.  

I was surprised both by the number of Dodgers who are home grown and by the lack of meaningful contributions they have made to the team's overall success, bearing in mind, moreover, that two of the most consequential 'home grown' talents are really anything but, having never played a game between them in the Dodger affiliate minor league squads. 

The least surprising results were those of the Brewers, Braves and Yankees.  The Yankees have dealt from their pocket book far more often than they have relied on promoting from within. The Brewers, lacking a wallet adequate to compete with big spenders, have relied more on judgment and a willingness to lock down talent long term.  They substitute judgment for dollars.  

Judgment always trumps dollars.

The Braves strike an impressive balance in their roster construction as they appear to have invested equally in seeking out good trades, making the occasional free agent acquisition while honing a keen eye for young talent that they develop well. 

If the Mets hadn't traded Nimmo and McNeil, nor let Alonso go, their list would have been comparable to those of the Dodgers and Brewers, though significantly more unbalanced in quality than the Brewers. 

The numbers vary but less so than does the quality 

There are two standards of quality -- comparative and absolute.  Acuna, Judge and Smith are excellent at what they do, full stop.  Others like Churios may be excellent as well, but we don't have enough evidence for that claim now.  But we do have enough evidence to say that he is significantly better than Vientos or Volpe and better than others on his own team, including Frellich, for example.

I have shied away from ranking the players on the list in order as there are too many factors involved and doing so is a fools errand that serves no useful purpose.

I do make a few broad claims about overall quality that strike me as uncontroversial and illuminating to some degree, however.  

Of the Dodgers 13 home grown talents, four stand out: Smith, Pages, Yamomoto, Sasaki-- again the latter two were never home grown in the sense of working their way up through the minor league affiliates.  I can't help but be surprised by how few prospects from the vaunted Dodger's minor league system are currently playing a role in shaping the major league roster, or contributing to the team's standing as the 'best team in baseball.'

Of the Yankees group of 6, only two stand out: Judge and Schlictler, while two others, Dominguez and Volpe, have shown brief flashes but not more.  The current iteration of the Yankees is constructed by FA signings and trades.  They have not developed a lot of talent of their own, and those contemplating trading with the Yankees might want to keep that in mind.

Of the Brewers group of 12 all of whom are early in their careers, four are already standouts: Chourios, Turang, Mitchell, and Misiorowski -- while Frelich is no slouch, and two -- Lara and Pratt -- are expected to be future all-stars. The Brewers also double down on the confidence they show in their judgment by signing players under control to long term extensions.  There is no doubt a financial reason for doing so, but at the end of the day they are taking a risk and placing bets -- rational because they are so confident in their judgments.  

Judgment not only trumps money; it saves money as well.

Of the Braves group of 8  Acuna, Jr is arguably among the top 5 players in the National League, while Riley, Albies, and Harris II, Baldwin, Strider and Schwellenbach have been all-stars, and Jarvis looks like he will stick at SS.

Of the Mets group of 9, only McLean has been around barely long enough to have established himself as a potential All-Star.  Ewing and Benge show sufficient promise to ink them in to the outfield lineup card for years to come.  Scott and Thornton are likely to join McLean as stalwarts of a very good starting rotation, and Alvarez remains promising though no one believes that he is the ultimate solution for the Mets behind the plate.  

The Baby Mets feature two soon-to-be-gone 'lost causes' -- Baty and Vientos -- and one potentially valuable but puzzling piece -- Mauricio -- in addition to Alvarez.  The overall Mets group displays gaps in timing and performance.  The baby four all arrived earlier to much fanfare yet have met with little success.  The most recent five are all much more promising but wet behind the ears.  Can you imagine how much better we would all feel about the Mets long term prospects had the new group been added to a roster anchored in part by a successful group of prospects that had proceeded them.

But it's even more depressing than that, because we should not forget the 'haul' of talent that the previous regime was able to secure for Verlander and Scherzer -- featuring, Gilbert, Clifford and Acuna -- two of whom are already gone, and the third nowhere near ready to perform at the major league level.

There is no substitute for good judgment, and its absence can prove to be costly -- in every aspect of roster construction!  

The current crop of Mets home grown talent should have been added to an outstanding core that never materialized.  On their own and under a new regime, their grade must be an 'Incomplete.' 

There is a little more talent in the Mets AA and AAA affiliates ready to join the five contributors already performing admirably at the major league level, but after that there are lots of gaps -- in terms of absolute talent,  positions and time alignment -- throughout the organization's affiliates.

It is no wonder that Stearns' impending fire sale is designed, in his words, to accumulate talent throughout the minor league affiliates.

What do the lists we have created tell us about the roster construction strategies of each of these teams?

The Braves: Most striking fact: 3/4 of Atlanta infield is home grown and of high overall quality, They have their catcher and 2/3 of their outfield of the future -- from home grown talent alone.  They are weakened this year by injuries to 2 of their 3 best pitchers, both of whom are on this list. 

What extraordinary balance with a genuine home grown super star in Acuna (injuries notwithstanding).  If both Schwellenbach and Strider return from injury and perform to previous standards, they will have produced a remarkable outcome that surpasses what even the Brewers have accomplished

The Dodgers have surprisingly few home grown starters, but have an ACE in Yamomoto, a comer in Sasaki, the best catcher in the NL in Smith and a rising potential All Star in Pages.  But the truth is that the current team -- the best team in baseball -- has been formed through occasional trades (most notably, the Betts trade) and many free agent signings --  Ohtani, Tucker, Freeman, for example.  

Unlike the Braves and Brewers the Dodgers are a veteran dominated team.  They are constructed more like the Yankees than any other perennial contender.  

And like the Yankees their veterans are getting older.

However, unlike the Yankees, they have a stellar farm system so they are in a good position to fill gaps drawing on three different sources: trades, FA, minor league prospects.  They have the most optionality and the depth of their minor league system provides additional flexibility and cost control.

Milwaukee is amazing in that their outfield is all home grown and the new blood has forced a mid career perennial all-star in Yellich into a largely DH role. The Brew Crew has the most exciting SP in baseball.  All of their position players are young, athletic and versatile.

The depth of their home grown talent is such that they have developed an overall approach to roster construction built on it.  They rarely make trades to fill gaps at the major league level -- the Yellich trade being the obvious exception.  On the other hand, they are so confident both in what they have in the minors and in their capacity to develop what they get -- that they trade away some of their best pitchers still under their control a year before that changes (Peralta, Williams and Burnes) in order to secure even more high quality minor league talent they can develop.

They have not historically competed in the upper reaches of the FA market and this limitation is likely what keeps them from making deep playoff runs.  This is the one area in which they are hurt by not being in a position to write the occasional massive check.

Yankees: In all honesty, the Yankee farm system has not been productive. Schlictler and Judge are one offs separated by several years.  The farm system has been largely barren in between. The Yankees have been forced to participate in the FA and trade markets and have spent too much in the FA.  This strategy defines a 'win now' strategy given the amounts already invested at any given time, one downside of which is the absence of time alignment.  Another downside is vulnerability to injury of players whose contracts last longer than their health holds out. And it is painfully clear to Yankee fans that they no longer own the biggest wallet in the market as Toronto, Boston have joined the Mets and Dodgers as spending competitors.  And SF is not shy, but alas not yet competent, as well.

The Mets have the youngest cohort of high baseline talent among their home grown talent on the major league roster. They also have the greatest variance of performance as the drop off between the top (McLean, Benge and Ewing) and the next rung down (Baty and Vientos) is of Mount McKinley (if not Mount Everest) proportions. 

The truth is that most of the not so fab four baby Mets will be gone by season's end.  

They may end the season with only 5/6 home grown players (all starters, however) but one should expect them to open next season with another 3, likely to include Morabito, Tong and Santucci.

But even with as many as 9 or 10 home grown players on next year's roster, the Mets will remain in no position to emulate what the Braves and Brewer's have done in building the rest of their roster construction strategy around their home grown talent. 

There are two very different reasons for this.

First, and foremost, the variance in performance among the home grown talent currently on the major league roster is mirrored throughout the roster as a whole. Even as they would need only 16 additional players, taking the current group as an indicator, the variance between the ceiling and the floor of performance is monumental.  Worse, the space in between is virtually empty!

Consider the position players first. The Mets have two perennial All Stars one of whom is likely a Hall of Famer in Lindor and Soto, respectively. They have one better than very good player not under their control in Bichette, and two exceedingly good back-ups in Torrens and Taylor. 

It's quite a fall off from there.  The team is getting virtually nothing from Semien  Polanco, and Robert and, beyond that, they have a bunch of low average major leaguers like Wagaman and Young, who are what they are. No disrespect, but they are on the roster primarily because they have proven to be marginally better than Melendez, Brujan and Short.  

Now consider the starters.  Right now the top performing starters are McLean, Scott and Thornton.  Holmes was performing as well as anyone but is on the IL.  Don't look but here comes the floor.  Senga has been a disaster and Peralta has not been much better.  Manaea has approached competence while Peterson never did, and after some early season fanfare, Tobias Meyers has faded faster than a pair of bleached jeans sent through a 30 minute wash cycle. 

If there is a pattern on the Mets it is the cliff that separates the few from the many. As the band Traffic would remind us; it's a lot of 'Empty Spaces.'

The exception is the bullpen, and as the saying goes, the exception proves the rule (though, frankly, I have never fully understood what that means).

That said, the bullpen has been filled with very good veterans who have done their job at a consistently high level.  Just imagine how good the team would have been if the veteran position players and starters would have performed at a comparable level.!!!!

Sadly, few, if any, of the relievers will be around after the August 3 deadline.

The second reason why the existence of home grown talent cannot be the foundation on which a long term roster construction strategy might be developed is that there just isn't enough talent in the system, nor is the talent that is there distributed among positions and over time in a way that will allow the farm to anchor or control the roster construction strategy.

That's not just my view.  I believe it is the FO view as well, though it has taken them too long to own up to it.  IMO, the FO does not believe there is another outfielder at AA or AAA aside from Morabito capable of contributing at the major league level.

Nor do they believe that there are any sure thing infielders at either AA or AAA.  My best bet is Reimer if he recovers his form.  

Below that at Brooklyn, St.Lucie, the FCL and beyond, there are a number of infielders with genuine major league potential, catchers aplenty, but no outfielders I am aware of.  

I think they see what I do on the pitching side as well.  In my view, at the AAA and AA level, the leading candidates are Tong (whose ceiling is akin to Scott's) and Santucci (whose ceiling is closer to McLean's).  I think they agree that Thornton is a very good back of the rotation starter.  I don't think they believe in Wenninger.  They are still waiting for the relievers to sort themselves out.  There are lots of pitchers farther down on the farm, but they all need time to sort themselves out.  

Right now, if the Mets want to compete for a playoff spot next year they will have to follow a path more like the ones familiar to Yankee fans than those pursued by either the Brewers or Braves.  The Mets will have to eat contracts and get little in return for the players they need to rid themselves of.  They will need to find expensive FA pitching (which they should do anyway), restock the bullpen with FAs on short but high paying contracts, and find a First and Second baseman, and probably turn Alvarez into the primary (right handed) DH.

That's the only way forward if the goal is to be competitive next year.

But they have a path to becoming more like the Braves and Brewers thereafter, and it starts at the deadline

None of the group of position players and pitchers on the block -- Semien, Senga, Polanco and Robert, Vientos and Baty -- can bring back high level prospects.  Nor can Raley or Brazoban among the relievers.  Wherever possible, in trades for these players, the Mets should be looking to bring back higher ceiling talent at any position currently playing farther down in the minors.

These trades invariably create a trade-off between skill sets and readiness for a shot at the majors.  With the players the Mets will be looking to move mentioned above, they should always opt for the former over the latter if the opportunity to do so presents itself.

Peralta, Holmes, among the starters, and Weaver among the relievers can bring back more promising or more advanced prospects.  Perhaps Mintor can as well. We shall see.   

The Mets lower affiliates have talented infielders, pitchers and catchers.  There is a shortage of outfield talent however, and no team can ever have enough pitchers.

These trades are unlikely to complete the task of creating a prospect list that can anchor a rational roster construction strategy, but it can go a long way to getting there.

I know that Cohen wanted to develop the Mets as an East Coast Dodgers organization.  I see the attraction.  On the other hand, I much prefer the way the Brewers and Braves have operated. Both have produced top tier home grown talent across all positions.  The Brew Crew especially. With their organizational decision making ability, developmental capacity and Cohen's wallet, they would be betting favorites for a spot in the World Series every year!  

Hey, wait a minute, isn't that what we bargained for when Cohen brought in Stearns as POBO?

Apparently, not so much.  We have the wallet.  This is the year we find out if our man in the FO and his team have the judgment to match it.

YOU?

If you had to pick a franchise with a model roster construction stratgy you would like the Mets to emulate which would it be and why.

My vote is for a cross between the Brewers and Braves with Cohen's wallet being the additional asset that is the difference maker.  I think the Yankees are stuck in a cycle of having to spend too much for too little, though they have made great choices in spending on pitching, not so much elsewhere among position players.  The Dodgers aren't making the best use of their farm system, and success can be intoxicating.  Intoxication will likely lead them to resist any possibility of intentionally taking a step back if only to put order back in place and solidify another run.

There is no way of avoiding having to take a step back.  Better to do it intentionally and earlier, rather than unintentionally and later, when you are least prepared for it  

The Brewers don't ever really take a step back to retool. Their problem is that they never put all their assets in the middle of the table.  In effect they take the expression that the playoffs are a crap shoot too literally. 

It's not a crapshoot. It's a card game and it's much better to take your seat at the table with as stacked a deck as you can put together.  If the Mets follow the Brewer's roadmap until it's time to push the tokens to the middle of the table, they can count on Cohen being willing to do so.