22
2013
Keith Law Posts An Update On RHP Teddy Stankiewicz
An article by 
Most readers on MMO know full well my detailed account about what went down when the Mets failed to sign 2012 Draft second rounder RHP Teddy Stankiewicz. Here is but a reminder from what I wrote last July:
With their second, second-round pick (75th overall) in this year’s First Year Player Draft, the Mets selected RHP Teddy Stankiewicz, an 18-year-old pitcher from Fort Worth, Texas. Stankiewicz went 12-2 with a 1.35 ERA this season, having struck out 135 batters in 93 1/3 innings. He was committed to Arkansas, one of the nation’s best baseball programs.
Though disappointed, Arkansas was certain that they were going to lose Stankiewicz, who was the highest signee taken in the draft that was committed to them. “The Fort Worth, Texas native is expected to sign a professional contract”, they said.
On Day Three of the Draft, Mets VP of Player Development and Scouting Paul DePodesta, raved about getting Teddy Stankiewicz who the Mets heavily scouted according to what a source told me. ”He really has excellent ability and command of his stuff,” DePodesta said. “He has some velocity, and a quality breaking pitch to go along with it.”
There were many experts on Draft Day who raved about Stankiewicz, in fact, Jonathan Mayo said he didn’t think the Mets would be able to sign the talented right-hander, who he called a high-ceiling pick who could get drafted a lot higher in the future and everybody knows it. “It was a tremendous pick for the Mets, especially if they could sign him, Mayo said. “He’s a Major League starter in the making.”
Razorback head coach Dave Van Horn was thrilled the Mets couldn’t seal the deal with Stankiewicz, ”Teddy’s fastball usually sits 90-93 with movement and he can really locate,” Horn said. “He’s very polished for his age. We’re hoping to get him to campus and he’ll have a chance to get in the rotation early and be a contributor right away.”
So what happened, what went wrong?
Did the Mets run out of money or cap room?
No they didn’t. According to Baseball America’s Jim Callis, the Mets came in under budget by $866K after the signing deadline passed, and they could have spent as high as $1.223 million without incurring any penalty under the new CBA.
Was Teddy Stankiewicz’s demands too exorbitant?
The answer to that is not at all. According to what a family source commented to us last week, the difference between signing Stankiewicz or not came down to $80,000 dollars. The family was merely looking for him to get the slot amount of $680,400, but the Mets were unwilling to go a penny more than $600,040 dollars for their No. 75 overall pick. “The Mets offer was less than slot”, Chris Stankiewicz said. “Even though slot would have gotten it done. It was disappointing because he was very excited about being a a New York Met.” One more thing I think is important to note. The telephone never rang on deadline day (Friday the 13th), the Mets in fact confirmed that there were no last minute offers made to Stankiewicz or any other unsigned selections.
Was this the second round pick from the Marlins that we got for losing Jose Reyes?
Not exactly. The Mets had two second round selections, pick No. 71 which they used to select another Razorback, third baseman Matt Reynolds, and of course pick No. 75 which they used on Stankiewicz. It could have easily been the other way around, and according to comments made by Paul DePodesta, “We loved the Arkansas kids. They have a great program and know talent when they see it.” In an interview with ESPN’s Adam Rubin, DePodesta offered some consolation saying that the organization will have an extra pick in next year’s draft. The Mets will get the No. 76 pick next year for failing to sign Stankiewicz. Still, when the Mets lost Reyes, it was DePo who was quick to remind us about getting the Marlins’ second round pick (their first round pick was protected) and later added that this year’s draft class was loaded with talent and some exciting pitching prospects. Stankiewicz was the first pitcher the Mets selected in the draft.
That was what I wrote almost nine months ago, and the reason I bring it up is because Keith Law of ESPN caught up with Teddy Stankiewicz this week and said that Stanky has probably set himself up to be selected higher in this year’s draft – courtesy of the Mets.
Stankiewicz pitched in a scrimmage against a lineup of Texas Rangers A-ball kids that included prospects Jorge Alfaro and Jairo Beras, throwing well despite getting zero help from his defense. Stankiewicz pitched from 91-96 mph with fringy command, mostly 92-94 in the first with the range expanding as the outing went on. He showed a curve, slider and change, nothing above-average, with good depth on the slow curveball (70-73 mph) and slight fade on the change, plus what I believe was an attempted cutter at 89.
Stankiewicz stands 6-foot-4 and has a very high leg kick, getting his knee up near his shoulder while extending his leg outward, but then he sacrifices his height as he drops down to drive forward. He takes a long stride toward the plate, although his arm is late relative to his front leg and he doesn’t turn his pitching hand over until pretty late in the delivery. There’s also some head violence in the delivery after the release, not severe but enough that some teams will downgrade him for it. His arm is quick and he’s athletic enough that a good development team could probably tidy up the arm swing enough to send him out as a starter.
I thought some of you might be interested in this recent update…
About the Author: Joe DeCaro
I'm a lifelong Mets fan who loves writing and talking about the Amazins' 24/7. From the Miracle in 1969 to the magic of 1986, and even the near misses in '73 and '00, I've experienced it all - the highs and the lows. I started Mets Merized Online in 2005 to feed my addiction. Follow me on Twitter @metsmerized.
74 Comments + Add Comment
NL East Standings
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Braves | 42 | 30 | .583 | - |
| Phillies | 35 | 37 | .486 | 7.0 |
| Nationals | 34 | 36 | .486 | 7.0 |
| Mets | 27 | 40 | .403 | 12.5 |
| Marlins | 22 | 48 | .314 | 19.0 |
Last updated: 06/19/2013
MMO Mets Chat
Recent Comments
- Vinny B.: on The Future Is Here: Six Scoreless In Wheeler’s MLB Debut: Hey, Corporal, It's good to see that your...
- ImaginaryFigment: on Wilmer Flores: It’s Time For Another MLB Debut: Murph will have 10 game winning HR's...
- ImaginaryFigment: on The Future Is Here: Six Scoreless In Wheeler’s MLB Debut: WOW Even Ron Darling is calling out the...
- Hitman: on Mets vs Braves Live Chat: Eric Young Jr. Makes His Mets Debut: Crawford deal? No way. Maybe a BJ...
- MetsWatchman: on Wilmer Flores: It’s Time For Another MLB Debut: Really now.....move Murph to 3rd and get...
Latest From Mets Minors
Check Out These Great MLB Links!
Photographs From Gordon Donovan
Fans Follow Us On Twitter!
1334 Fans Like Us On Facebook!
2341 Fans Read Our Feed!
1702 Fans Subscribe via Daily Email!
I don’t understand how 80K could stand in the way of this going down, but I still think that there is some other reason this didn’t happen. There had to be. You don’t just lose a top tiered talent like that for 80K. It is not like it was 200K difference or something like that. I understand that they are sitting in not the best financial situation, but this one still boggles my brain.
Yup, there’s always more to the story and chances are we will never know the truth either.
TRS, didn’t he JUST say the truth? Man…. You’re something else you know that!
Alex, I am trying to not have any flame wars with you today but let me say this.
It is my opinion that there has to be more to the story than just 80K. I don’t know who or what and I am not making excuses for either side. If you choose to believe that 80K was the reason then so be it.
However, when responding to each other today lets try to be civil.
you are something else… Period… We heard the mets BS side, now we hear his side of the story, yet you come back with the “we never know the truth” crap to defend once again your favorite FO… Moving on…
So what is the truth Alex? That the Mets refused to pay 80K and they didn’t sign him?
I think we got that part as true from both sides. What we don’t know is why. Yes moving on.
Hi TRS,
All we know is that he wanted slot money and the Mets offered him $80,000 less. It’s not like Pittsburgh’s number one draft pick whot was asking for the moon after the Pirates put themselves in the positon of going over their slot money and paying a penality for doing so.
I think it was a case just not wanting to spend the money they could have. Looking down the list, the Mets signed their other top seven picks at all below slot money as well. Then they wound up signing the second fewest draft picks in the majors.
It might have been a case of Stank being the only one to say no to being offered less than slot money. But what it comes down to is the Mets wasted the opportunity of having TWO second round draft picks along with signing others as well and for an organization priding itself on building from within and developing it’s own talent, that type of waste goes completely against the grain.
That is why so many of us contend player decisions are not based primarily on a baseball strategy as they are on a cost cutting one. It wasn’t just Stank – it was with what they were not spending all around.
Joey if you actually believe the deal fell through over 80k that’s up to you but don’t pretend it’s cut and dry. To each his own.
What we have are two facts and endless speculation. We know the facts and that is the Mets passed on Teddy for that measly amount. Now you could speculate that the Mets thought he was a crack addict, or that his arm was being held together by kite string, or anything else, but what we do know is what both sides admitted to. You can make more out of it, but that doesn’t mean there was more to it.
And for the two who said they didn’t sign him because of below average stuff, than if that were true I would submit that Paul DePodesta should tender his resignation.
All I have is the fact that Teddy gave what he believed to be his side of the story and the fact the Mets did not come to an agreement or wish to go into any detail why they could not come to an agreement.
As I said, I have no idea why it fell through only that it did and I do it believe 80k was the reason. I am sure others believe that as well. There is nothing cut and dry except for the fact they picked him and didn’t sign him. Everything else can be left for interpretation.
Hi Trs,
I said I came to recognize that it was probably not $80,000 for the sake of saving $80,000. I said it was the message that by not paying that to Stank, other draft selections will have to understand it was either signing with the below slot bonuses the Mets were offering or not signing at all.
If they paid Stank the full slot money he was asking – after they offered him less – that puts them in a bad negotiating posture with all the others that they also wanted to sign below slot money as well.
If that’s what you want to believe so be it. I am still not sure what the reason is but as I said I am confident it had nothing to do with the 80k.
I think you’re absolutely correct. I think the club went into the draft and knew on a few picks that they knew what they thought the person was worth and if they got them, great, if not then they get the pick back the next year.
Alex, havent you heard the old saying? “There’s always 3 sides to a story” There’s the Mets side, Teddy’s side, and the truth.
Maybe I missed it but what was the Mets reasoning for not signing him?
I don’t recall seeing that anywhere.
The reasoning was this, “Joe, we’d rather not discuss it and you are free to post what the Stankiewicz family told you. Thank you for the opportunity to respond, but we’d rather not.”
Seems like a lawyer talking to me. Either that or a presidential press secretary. Ther Met’s response was well calculated.
LOL
a nice way of saying…
NO COMMENT
lmao
http://metsminorleagueblog.com/draft/the-mets-miss-out-on-signing-second-round-pick-teddy-stankiewicz/
http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/51156/mets-pass-on-signing-second-rounder
And to finish up the “Don’t look because it doesn’t fit our agenda BS”
Adam Rubin: Was it your intention not to sign second-round pick Teddy Stankiewicz in order to use that slot money to apply to other picks?
DePodesta: “It came down as much to looking to next year’s draft as anything else. It came down as much to looking to next year’s draft as anything else. It came down as much to looking to next year’s draft as anything else. It came down as much to looking to next year’s draft as anything else. It came down as much to looking to next year’s draft as anything else. We certainly liked Teddy quite a bit — enough to take him where we did. But the situation is now that we get that pick next year. And, I think, just as importantly we get that cap space next year. Realistically, we’re not going to have as much cap space next year as we had this year. But having that additional pick next year will hopefully give us a chance to be much more competitive in next year’s draft, even if the major league team continues to play very well. We obviously won’t have any extra picks for the loss of free agents [per the new collective bargaining agreement]. So I think we were looking at a situation where our cap was going to drop dramatically and decided not to sign Teddy. It should make us more competitive in the draft next year.”
I repeated WHAT DEPODESTA SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It came down as much to looking to next year’s draft as anything else
“It came down as much to looking to next year’s draft as anything else.’
LOL…I got it.
‘We certainly liked Teddy quite a bit — enough to take him where we did. But the situation is now that we get that pick next year. ‘
Yeah, just what exactly is ‘that situation’? I smell a cover-up Maybe it’s just the cynic in me.
well, in this kind of dealings, if you get 1/2 the truth you are probably doing good. So, with this, read between the lines and see what you come up with!
hard to say what if anything changed between making the pick and the end of the signing period. maybe they ran out of money in the checking accoutn? Maybe it was the plan all along? But for whatever reason, they decided to cut it short with Teddy, and defer the pick until this year.
Come on Joe D. Can’t you ban this clown already? He might not use profanity, but come on. It is absolutely impossible to express an opinion about anything at all on this site without this jack ass chiming in.
If you’re going to use the power at all, shouldn’t it be to mold a constructive enjoyable community?
Unlike myself, TRS goes out of his way to be civil to Alex and his joker buddies. And each and every time this loony comes back more aggressive and accusatory.
You guys write great posts. There are some really terrific commenters here. A guy can learn a lot by reading through the threads.
But this really should stop. It does not contribute anything to the discourse and while it may not include profanity, it certainly does largely consist of personal attacks.
Yup. 2 sides to every story, i’m sure.
yeah that’s just weird …
Matt,
Sounds more dumb than weird. Again, we are on the outside looking in, but the Mets picked the kid, he agreed to sign at slot, so even if “something” turned up after they drafted him that caused them to sour to the degree of $80K, it does not reflect well on the organization.
Wonder if it was some kind of lack of communication in the chain that left this kid unsigned.
I’m not sure if I ever saw a reason given by the front office.
What we heard was there was some type of rumor of a predraft deal that fell through for some reason. Honestly we will never know.
It reminds me of the Reyes situation, which I think was just flat botched … like someone was asleep at the wheel.
I understand the Reyes one completely, this one I got nothing. There has to be something.
When I read about the prospective packages the Rays and Marlins were offering for Reyes, jeez … if you’re not going to trade him then I think you have to find a way to sign him. Letting him go for just the picks was the biggest boneheaded non-move of the past 3 years.
Was it, though? If they did want to try and retain him, trading him isn’t an option. And, if being hurt killed his trade value, then really the return may have only been on par with the picks they would get in compensation. If he wasn’t hurt, I’m sure they could have gotten a haul for him and they probably should have.
Problem is, there was a lot of speculation about what teams could would or should offer, but no way to know for sure what was actually put on the table (and I don’t remember any details at the time). Once he pulled up lame it must have gutted the possible return.
but, like Tx said, I think they really did hope/expect/want to sign him, just only within their (not quite large enough) parameters. And were prepared to take the 2 picks if it did not happen.
so the only real comparison is between the 2 picks and whatever players were actually put on the table in a trade offer. If the Mets at the deadline did not think the prospects were materially better than what they were likely to get in the draft, absolutely no reason to trade him.
I think they did want to sign him also, I think they were surprised by the Marlin final offer.
Who wasn’t?
Joe,
Thanks for the update. I consider myself Alderson-neutral. That said, anyone using logic, reason, and a minimal amount of brain cells can conclude that what happened with this kid is completely contrary to the “Alderson plan” being spewed by the front office. Time will tell as to whether they get a better prospect with the carryover pick this year (assuming he is signed), but in either case this type of behavior certainly impacts credibility within the fan base.
If he is a contrary to the “Alderson plan”, why would they draft him in the first place?
Task,
Drafting him was not the problem, and most pundits thought the Mets were very fortunate that he dropped to their selection. Failing to sign him is contrary to the Alderson doctrine. Failing to sign him over $80K is mind boggling.
I still taste the puke in my mouth from months ago when I heard they didn’t sign him. For all the arms in their system, they only have one pontential high ceiling talent in Steven Matz. Adding Teddy to the system would have been great.
Matz is the only high ceiling pitching talent in the system?
I am confused.
If he was referring to lefty pitchers, Matz is the highest ceiling Met prospect in that category. Not sure if that was what he meant.
Isn’t the minimum annual salary for a minor leaguer around $65k? Something went very wrong for this deal to fall through for barely more than the salary of some journeyman A-baller.
Who was Stanky’s “adviser”? Could he be the same guy who was “advising” a bunch of the other Mets draft picks that didn’t sign?
Nope, I was wrong. Decidedly less than that.
It was an odd decision overall.
That said, what it does is create a higher budget for the Mets in 2013 where – unlike 2012 and 2011 – they wouldn´t have any extra pick otherwise.
As it plays now, the Mets will have had three picks in the Top 76 overall of each draft:
2011: Nimmo (1) – Fulmer (1s for Feliciano) – Mazzoni (2)
2012: Cecchini (1) – Plawecki (1s for Reyes) – Reynolds (2 from MIA for Reyes)
2013: regular 1st and 2nd rounder (the 2nd actually a lot earlier than in the past due to fewer comp. picks) and an extra early 3rd (the # 76 overall where Stankiewicz would have been slotted).
Sure, Stankiewicz looks like # 30 to # 60 overall pick right now, up a few notches vs. 2012. The Mets get the extra budget space for the 2013 draft. So, essentially the “trade” is 1 year of development time in 2012 in exchange for a higher overall draft budget in 2013 and spreading out extra early round picks evenly.
So, yes, it was an odd decision. However, unless you happen to be a big fan of this particular prospect which now probably goes elsewhere (though he´d seem to be a good target for the Mets regular 2nd rounder in 2013), it seems like a rather marginal effect overall.
You make a good point.
I don’t think that this will be a standard for operating, but it almost makes sense to go cheap one year (thus acquiring more $ for the next year) and then going overslot galore the next.
Ya, but why cut your second round pick? Especially since they can’t roll over all of the money that went unused?
that is why many people think there is some other part to the puzzle that we aren’t seeing.
My theory is one of three things happened:
1) The financial situation at the time was worse than anticipated. This the worst case scenario, but still makes one wonder why it had to be the second round pick instead of any of the others
2) The had a falling out with Stanky’s adviser (because amateurs can’t call them agents) who also happened to be be advising several other Mets draft picks. One side felt so insulted that they up and left the bargaining table all together
3) The Mets were one of several teams trying to game the new CBA rules. Selig got word of it and spanked the Mets for it and giving up Stanky was an unofficial punishment.
The only one that I think is for sure not the issue is #1. I can’t see anyway at all that 80K was actually the deciding factor.
not the 80K. If it was the 600K, then it was more of a “show me” offer, that they knew would be refused. That way they can claim they tried, as opposed to just not even making one.
I know, a stretch, but this is the Wilpon Mets we are talking about here!
That part wouldn’t surprise me. What’s the 600K part?
The total they would have had to pay him if they went the extra 80K.
I think it’s quite obvious they had no intention of signing him (or anyone else they would have selected there)
if they ran short of cash, and couldn’t come up with the 600K (as opposed to having that but not the extra 80K)
I did say “almost”.
Certainly wished they had agreed on Stanky, and it seems so odd to have it collapse due to 80K. I think something odd was afoot here.
yup. almost like for some reason after the pick was made, they changed there mind, so this was the way of “backing out”?
Its very simple. The Mets decided that the player they would draft with the compensation pick in 2013 would be better than Stankiewicz.
Only time will tell if they were correct or not…
I’ve obviously never seen the kid pitch, but a professional just wrote that he has fringe command, no above average pitches and mechanical issues. Perhaps it wasn’t the 80k…
Then why take him? Why not draft someone else, unless they thought that he could be had on the cheap, but wouldn’t they have discussed this prior to taking him?
Maybe they thought no one available was worth the high pick and the money and the aggregate talent could be had later in the draft, so instead of wasting it on someone that won’t pan out, they took someone and threw him back to get an extra pick this year. I’m just speculating, but I’m not all that concerned with passing on a guy who just got a very unflattering scouting report.
It had nothing to do with the player. By failing to sign the player, they got to use the pick again this year.
that seems pretty clear, even from what Alex posted above (the Depo quotes).
really, the only thing that makes it look odd was being so close together (80K) but having both sides dig in and not budge. I assume that the mets would have signed him if they caved and aggreed to the 600K offer, but being the Mets, who knows!
Good luck finding out for sure if they new before the pick they did not want any guy there for normal money, or decided after they made the pick adn saw how the rest of the draft went.
I think the 80K is irrelevant since the Mets had no intentions of signing in the first place.
They could have been a dollar apart and the Mets would not have signed him…
That note about the “head violence in the delivery after the release” could also be a clue.
Mets weren’t looking for talent only fringe players who would sign below slot. Cecchini wasn’t the best player available, he was just a player with no above average tools that would be an easy sign. Teddy wanted slot. Truth is every player the Mets drafted were fringe players and that’s why they didn’t care if they signed on the dotted line or not. And more than half of them didn’t.
Hi Guys,
I think I’m picking up a trend here that might – just might – give a plausible explanation of why the Mets didn’t sign their number two (of two) draft pick.
It wasn’t the $80,000. It was the message that the $80,000 would send to their other draft picks. As indicated, the Mets signed them (or most of them) for under slot money. If they saw the Mets wouldn’t sign their number two for slot, they would know the same would hold true with them. The Mets wanted to their draft selections to know they were drawing a line and it was take it or leave it.
Unlike Stanky, who felt holding out a year would net him another chance in the draft and for more money, the others might not felt it worth the risk. But, if the Mets made an exception for him, they would then have to explain why and justify to the others why the same didn’t hold true for them.
It’s like the old joke about an employee being paid less than others asking for a raise out of fairness. The employer says he would love to give him that raise but it would not change anything because that would mean having to give all the other ones a raise as well and then he would still be underpaid.
“Now you know why I can’t give you that raise, it would be unfair to you!” he said.
Most of these deals are worked out before the draft. Everyone had a pretty good idea what they were getting
When? Next year? Most of the other guys signed without even knowing how this would turn out.
I’m a believer in the plan Sandy has, but this Stankiewicz thing really chaps my ass.
If you say you are building the farm, then do it. Hard to believe they passed on this guy.
Not that hard to believe when you read the less-than-glowing scouting report. Maybe he’ll wind up winning six Cy Youngs, but you have a guy right now who apparently has no plus pitches, “fringy” command and mechanical concerns.
I am going to go out on a Cerrone and bet he will never win a Cy. Lol
I would agree.
Well played.
Stankiewicz is a legit talent. Remember he’s only 18. Follow him and see where he ends up.
Many people would like to believe that there was more to the Mets not signing Stanky. I heard that the Mets called before the pick and asked if Teddy would sign for slot. The Mets were told that he would. After the pick, the Mets backed off their verbal offer. If you know the Stankiewicz’s, they are men of their word and if you don’t keep your word, then they will not “play ball” with you. The Mets missed out on a great talent because they didn’t keep their word. Plain and simple, Teddy would have signed for slot. I will be interested to see who the Mets select at #76 in the next draft.