onion999

You tend to get the benefit of the doubt by being a rookie since this would be your first time seeing big league pitching. His numbers can go down just like Dewitts numbers can go up, but what is more likely? Dewitt has already had his chance to show his stuff and he is sitting for a reason. Barney may always be this kind of hitter, but because its only his first season he has a chance to improve. But even if his numbers don't improve he is already a suitable SS who can start in this league while Dewitt has limited upside and will always be a bench player.

This is Barneys first year in the big leagues. He still has time to improve his bat. Blake has already shown what he is about and it is mediocre. You can tell value between the two by seeing who can start in this league and who cannot. If Barney were cut today, there would be lots of teams after him and he would start somewhere. If Dewitt were cut today he would struggle for a roster spot.

Not saying that Barney is an allstar, but to compare him to Blake Dewitt is ridiculous. Barney is a solid all around player who is not spectacular in a anyway, but there are lots of teams that field SS who have significant holes in their play. There would be lots of teams that would like Barney. They wouldn't give up a blue chipper but he would garner much more than Dewitt would. Even if their bats were comparable, which I am not willing to say, you would expect a lot more from a 3B than a SS.

toonsterwu: In regards to Lee I think it all comes down to how you value players. People are seeing things differently. Ozzie Smith only had 6 out of 19 seasons with an ops above 700. But in his time, pre steroids when 30 homers a year was a lot, this was all good as long as you made it with your glove which Smith did in spades. The best SS from my generation was ARod because he could hit 40 homeruns as a SS. We now know he was juicing for at least some of his career and while his glove was never great, it was good enough in the steroid era when balls were more likely to leave the yard than hit to short. I think the era we will settle in is somewhere in between. Having a good SS will definitely be a greater priority. And if your SS has a great glove, can steal bases, and OPS near 800 you are set. This is hard to predict because power has really dropped recently but no one knows how much further things will go. I for one am glad that we at least have 3 good gloves in CF to develop in Jackson, Ha, and Sczeer.

toonsterwu: The way baseball prospects go I could easily see Lee flaming out and not amounting to anything. That is the nature of baseball prospects. But there are lots of scouts who have actually seen Lee play that value him highly. Here is someone who thinks he can be a star. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110726&content_id=22314100&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb We all use the box scores to paint a picture for us because very few of us can follow these minor leagers in person with any regularity. But it is a mistake to value these guys based solely on stats. There are AAAA guys who put up incredible numbers, but that doesn't make them good prospects. Lee has been impressive because he has shown great potential in a tough hitters league at a very young age. Lee has been inconsistent on the bases, with the bat, and with the glove. But this is the norm for all young players, especially those mastering difficult defensive positions. What is more important is that Lee has shown that he CAN steal a lot of bases, play gold glove defense, and hit successfully as a leadoff man. How consistently he does these things will determine how good of a major leager he will be, but in High A ball it is more important to show that you can do big league things.

Just wanted to touch on Hak Ju Lee a little bit and how we value prospects overall. I agree that 7 may be a reach, but remember that baseball prospects are notoriously hard to project over time. Top fifteen seems reasonable, but in the case of Law he is just taking a guess based on his gut feeling. Nothing wrong with that. The thing is that the steroid era distorted what we look for in players, especially shortstops. Jacking home runs ala Miguel Tejada and ARod is a relic of a bygone era. OPS around the league is down and defense is much more important today. Elite shortstops of the future are much more likely to resemble Ozzie Smith than ARod. And with less home runs being hit, defense will be much more important. I would definitely take Profar over Lee, but Lee is an elite prospect. In a tough hitters league he has the third highest batting average and a top fifteen ops. He has a 388 OBP and 24 steals. He only has 3 home runs (the same amount as Castro), but he hits a lot of extra base hits. For a young player playing shortstop this is phenomenal. But what really makes him an elite prospect is his glove. He is inconsistent, which is typical of almost all young shortstops, but scouts who actually see his games (not internet scouts) rave about his defense. Garza has pitched exceptionally well, but I have to look at what could have been. Having you middle anchored by SS Lee, 2B Castro and CF Sczeer/Jackson for 10 years would have been awesome. The Cubs may not be in contention for another 5 years. What will Garza be to us then?