has been running an excellent series titled, "How Are The Stars Acquired". After looking at 115 of the leagues best players, they had this to say:
There are some teams that take the scouting and drafting game less seriously than they should. I doubt those teams read this website, but if they did and wanted to take one statistic â€“ one message â€“ from this series, it’s this: 47% of 2009’s best players were "just prospects" at one point or another. That’s not to include all of the players traded at early points of their career either. Meanwhile only 13% were signed as free agents. (emphasis added)
Read the articles for yourselves:
The point the series makes is that the best way to build a team of great players is through the draft and keeping your prospects. This point is essential as we go into the off-season and plan for the future. If the Mets sign Type A free agents, they will lose high draft picks (except for the first pick, which will be protected). If the Mets trade for a player, it will be at the cost of some prospects. The counter-argument, though, is that the Mets have needs that must be addressed now and there are no prospects in the system that can address those needs now. Therefore, making a trade or signing free agents is necessary. Of course, the biggest problem is that you don't know whether that prospect will be the next Scott Kazmir or Alex Escobar.
What do you think? Should the Mets sacrifice the future for next season?