cardinal1975 wrote:I do not think who hit better at 21 or 22 is much of an issue. Lubanski has proven he can't be more than an average AAA OF. He has already failed. He may get a chance to play for a really bad team in a few years and do a good impression of Emil Brown from 2005-2007, but what does that mean in the grand scheme of things. Crowe hit well over .300 in the 2nd half of 2007 and has usefullness as a steals guy at worst. Lubanski does nothing well.....his power is subpar, he does not hit for a high average, he does not run well, and he strikes out at an alaming rate. I will always take the prospect learning on the way up as opposed to the former prospect who has shown why he is no longer a prospect.
How has Lubanski who is just turning 23, proven he can't be anything more than an average AAA hitter? And yes, it does matter who hits better at the same level at a younger age, not sure how you can say it doesn't. Your right Crowe did hit about .310 for 2 months at the end of the season, but also sucked it up for 3 months to begin and another month plus last year. It's nice he showed some progression but for his age it's not the most inspiring, that he needed 4 months to adapt to AA. Lunbanski has shown he can hit for good avg in the minors .301 - .282 - .295 and shown enough power w/ his body type to think he could hit more down the road. As for his strike out rate, it's really not alarming as you make it out to be: 2005: 4.05ab - 2006: 4.33ab 2007: 5.60ab. He had troubles in his adjustment to AAA but you can see has been making steady progression. Brandon Wood's K/rate is alarming, not really Lubanski's.
Anyways the way I see Lubanski has a small chance to turn into something, while Crowe has less of a chance and I see him mainly as a SB guy. If you show me something where Crowe can develope into more, please do ... I however don't see it. I don't think there is a huge different in these prospects, but I'll take the chances with the guy who I think has potential to do more than just run.