This attitude reminds me a lot of the questions about Hill, and every other prospect that isn't great in his first year. How long? Well, a long time actually. At least until he's 26, when he'll be reaching his peak. His power is likely to keep improving after that age, even if his overall game declines. Here's a perfectly realistic potential developmental line for Murton: Current - .295/.362/.417 2006 final - .300/.365/.425 (24 years old) 2007 final - .305/.375/.440 (25 years old) 2008 final - .310/.380/.460 (26 years old) That is a gradual improvement, and entirely possible. Do I predict it'll happen that way? No. He might take a big jump next year and have a setback in 2008. Or he might stay stagnant in 2007 and make a huge leap in 2008. I have no idea. But that 2008 season, at age 26, is pretty darn good, and he'll still be pretty affordable. If that happens, I would expect similar production for the next 3 years, and by that time the Cubs will have spent maybe $16-20m on all his pre free agency seasons. That's nowhere near Lee or Ramirez, or the elite outfielders in baseball. But it's pretty solid production for a very reasonable cost, allowing you to spend much more on other positions, to make up for any SLG deficiency. In an ideal world, that's fantastic. But as it stands, he's taking up space in the one OF spot that myopic Hendry wants/needs to fill with an impact bat NOW. We all know Jacque ain't going anywhere. Allow me to clarify...I think Murton is a decent player. On a better team, it would be easy to fit him in and give him his playing time. Unless the Cubs are going rookie-heavy the next 1-2 seasons, they aren't that team. I have nothing against Murton and I don't think he's "bad" or that "he sucks" or anything against those lines...I just think as this particular team stands right now and looking ahead to next year, his development doesn't fit and doesn't help. THAT sucks, but that's sadly who it is and what we're reduced to.