I'd have to agree here. Heyward has a much bigger upside but probably doesn't show it until 2011 (like Upton last year). If you think you can live w/o the production in 2010 then I'd take him but he'll probably end up putting up Francour #'s in 2010...Votto maybe your best bet for a championship this year. Personally though Heyward's going to be a stud, you can keep all player's indefinitely? if so I'd keep him, I mean, I assume that most of the top rookies are already taken no? and I'd much rather have a hitter prospect than a P anyday.
yes we keep all our players without any penalties. this is a yahoo league so the only rookies that are currently owned are the ones that were in the database lat yr (such as posey and bumgarner). we don't have a minors system (even though i wish we did) so we only go by the players that are available in the yahoo database.
also it bruce not votto
. does that change your perspective or was it merely a typo? i agree that heyward could see a slow-learning curve because he is so young and while it would be nice to have a bat like him hit right away in my lineup, it is not an absolute need since i can plug abreu in his spot and get underrated 100/15/100/20/.300 production out of him until heyward breaks out.
thanks for all the help guys, i still have not come close to making a decision, lol. while it is obvious, that bruce may be the better value, i fear that my lineup will be too prone for slumps/strikeouts. reynolds, arod, tulo, kemp, kinsler (altho kinsler does not K alot but has wild slumps) are all very high strikeout batters. while most of those can keep still manage to keep a .300+ avg, it still makes them prone to seeing long dips in the avg over a period of time if their not in a comfort zone. bruce would only add to that risk as he would be the 2nd high K hitter behind reynolds. bruce's avg worries me but he had a .330+ career avg in AAA so that potential is still there, whereas heyward is much more of a disciplined hitter as far as K/BB rates go (almost even).