ggs wrote:lane_anasazi2 wrote:Let's put this in context; he's raking right now, but we're talking about less than 50 AB in Spring Training.
My opinion on him hasn't changed; he's a top 100 prospect, maybe top 50 depending on what you want to emphasize. He has loud tools but an unrefined swing. He doesn't use his lower half well. He has a Cespedes-like ceiling; big-time power and athleticism but might never make enough contact for it to matter.
It might sound like I'm down on him, but I'm not. He has superstar upside; I just want to point out that the reason he's a top 100 prospect and not a top 10 is that, unlike, say, Oscar Tavaras, he does NOT have a high floor to go along with his high ceiling. Puig carries considerable risk.
agreed - upside is as good as any top 10 prospect but floor is much, much lower
I don't see this as a reason to avoid him, or really even as a reason to prefer the other top prospects. So what if the others have higher floors? Whatever that higher floor is, it's probably on par with or lower than the production of a replacement level player anyway. Which is to say, no top prospect who performs at his floor this season is worth rostering unless you're in a dynasty/keeper league. All that matters is upside, because that's all that matters with prospects. Which prospects have won people championships? Those that came out of the gates mashing. Trout, Braun, Hanley, Pujols, Longoria, etc. With most prospects, they either get it or they don't. They can either hit major league pitching or they can't. They can either make adjustments, and then make further adjustments as the league adjusts to them, or they can't. So all I care about is skillset, upside, and if/when to expect a full-time gig in the majors.