Hanley Ramirez is probably not the best example to choose for this argument. IIRC he's pretty widely regarded as a poor-to-terrible defensive SS. That's why I chose him. You chose a SS that probably shouldn't be playing SS to prove the point that Castro should stay at SS? I'm confused. It's not that difficult. Hanley is still a very valuable player because of his offense at SS, in spite of his terrible defense. Castro won't have that kind of offensive value - but he's still above average. He has a smaller frame and better range, his athleticism and range is fantastic. Castro's defense will be more valuable, especially when he improves on routine plays - which comes with experience and improved footwork. On top of that, Castro will certainly improve in both areas, he's only 21 years old. Isn't he the youngest player in the majors still? You can have your flaws but the premium on the position gives you leeway for them. If Castro doesn't improve over the next couple years you make your move, I don't see that happening though.