Deleted

[Mortician]

1-a, 2-b

It seems as if Person B in argument 1 isn't factoring in defense enough, and just talking fantasy wise. In real life, Beltran is right up there with the players b mentioned because aside from a-rod, B's "studs" are average or below average defensively. Beltran is a gold glover playing at Shea Stadium, one of the largest Center fields in the game.

[METS 24]

Deleted

[jealousblues]

1) A
2) B

[AllDay]

States that Carlos Beltran is not a pure 5-tool player because of the fact that his career average is .281 & that isn't considered hitting for a high batting average. Also, points out that Beltran only averages 29 home runs which also shows that he isn't the true definition of a power hitter either.

Being a 'true power hitter' really doesn't have anything to do with him being a 5 tool guy.

I would tend to agree that .281 isn't what I'd consider a 'plus' average. It's acceptable - not outstanding. I still don't think I would disqualify Beltran as a 5 tool guy because he hits for a decent average. I don't know how many more points on average I'd be willing to give up to revoke that declaration - but it isn't that many. I can understand B's side - but I would argue A.

I think there is a bit of ambiguity in the stud debate. If you are talking from a pure baseball standpoint I would say Beltran was a stud. His fielding and batting skills combined it is hard to deny him that label. From a fantasy standpoint I would think borderline stud - but that is a completely ambiguous term in either instance.

In situation 2 the Marlins were definitely dumping high salary players for prospects. Obviously they liked the Red Sox offer best - but the debate about 'knowing' a guy would be a stud versus the impossibility of predicting Hanley's success and power production leaves a whole lot of gray area where I think the truth actually lies.

[walkoffblast]

Looks like you got smoked on your Beltran theory. I would say the only reason to try and make the argument is being too fixated on the "traditional" stats that ironically enough do not have that as much to do with the players actual ability and blatantly ignoring defense.

On the Hanley topic its true you could not tell he would be this good this fast based on his numbers but that argument is horribly flawed because it ignores all the scouting which made maybe only how fast he reached his potential surprising.

Also someone stated Hanley is bad defensively. I used to think that as well mostly because we heard about it a lot but I read some interesting stuff this offseason and it appears that reputation is greatly exaggerated because of one terrible season.

[Matthias]

That said, who seems to be the more knowledgable person in each of the 2 debates by judging each of them separately? Who wins debate # 1 & who wins debate # 2? Thanks in advance!

Situation #1: Person A
Situation #2: Person B

[Matthias]

If you are like person A, then you think that the Marlins would have just accepted only Hanley Ramirez in return because they knew how good he was going to be. So the Marlins felt that they wouldn't need any other prospects in the trade because they knew they were getting a player who was going to turn out to be a stud as well as one of the best players in the game. That was his point & that is sad.

If this is your argument, then when you go to the grocery store, you shouldn't pay the price that they charge, you should pay the price that it's worth it to you. If you really want a Snickers bar, then you should give them $5 and tell them to keep the change.

No matter what the Marlins thought of Hanley or no matter how good they projected them to be, it's in their best interest to extract as much value as they could out of the Red Sox in extras. The fact that they didn't doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Which is to say that ultimately, on the second question, Answers A & B are not really mutually exclusive.

[djxskillz]

beltran is a stud and a 5 tool player.

wasn't into baseball back then to comment on the hanley/beckett thing

[Neato Torpedo]

Also someone stated Hanley is bad defensively. I used to think that as well mostly because we heard about it a lot but I read some interesting stuff this offseason and it appears that reputation is greatly exaggerated because of one terrible season.

UZR/150
2006: -6.0
2007: -20.9
2008: -0.6

Even if you take out 2007, he still has a -3.3 career UZR/150, which is slightly below average. He's not bad defensively, but he's not especially good either, so it shouldn't count as one of his tools.

[jtsandwich]

Like the majority on this one.
1. A
2. B

But I do see your #1.B point a bit, Beltran hasn't been quite as "stud" like compaired to 8-10 others in the league over the past couple years. That being said he does do a bit of everything rather well. 5 tool.