The NYPOST has this excellent critique of the Mets direction.

I’ve noticed a tendency of folks to talk down Mets prospects. Sure, four players went to Minnesota for Johan Santana. Its a deal I’d make again. The problem as the Post pointed out was that Minaya invested too much faith in older players with injury problems. Couple this with the fact that he traded a young outfielder in Lastings Milledge for another outfielder with a history of concussions. I still believe that the Nationals knew about it.

Meanwhile there was not alot of depth in even mid-level prospects. What we are seeing is the results now. Why? It may be a misplacement of player development focus.

There is a trend in baseball to open baseball academies in Latin American countries. The Mets are no exception, having one in both Venezuela and the Dominican Republic. Its true that latin players make up one-third of major league rosters. Half of the current ML roster (13 of 25) is made up of players from Latin American countries or Puerto Rico.

Much of the shift to the player development in Latin America ican is in the change of focus on amatuer scouting. The majority of US players taken in the draft are collegiate players. This is a shift. Latin players signed to play in academies are teenagers. And they are cheaper. It cost more to sign US players.

Of the rookies on the Met roster now, three (Carlos Muniz, Dam Murphy and Eddie Kuntz played divison one college baseball. Nick Evans was signed out of a Phoenix high school while Argenis Reyes began his career in the Cleveland organization.

Among the four players traded for Johan Santana were college players in Phillip Humber (Rice) and Kevin Mulvey (Villanova).

Some observers have said baseball is going after cheaper labor in its investment in latin american baseball academies. Maybe. If the Mets are indeed placing a greater emphasis in both development and investment in latin america than they do the scouting and signing of US college players their talent pool will drop quickly.