Mookie Betts

[santini1]

Seems like hes been in the shadows of Kris Bryant's attention but hes getting things done. Was highly touted coming into March amd for all spring trainings worth he is number 1 in OPS, ahead of Trout. Looking forward to seeing him play...

Who has a better year, him or Bryant?

[LAAMike]

Mookie

[bloodbrother]

I hate that Betts plays on the Red Sox. Dude's going to be a stud. Both players look like they'll be great but I figure Betts may provide more total value since he'll hit for better average, steal more bases and will provide better defense. Betts looks like a guy who will routinely hit .300+ with good OBP and 15-20 HR with 30+ SB's whereas Bryant is more of a .250 BA, 30+ HR slugger

Edited April 1, 2015 by bloodbrother

[Hollyw00d]

Jorge soler

[Angelsjunky]

All three are going to be good.

[Second Base]

Betts will be the safer pick this year just because his style of play has less of a learning curve to the majors.  Bryant's success is predicated on power, which can be difficult to come by against major league pitchers.  So I'd say Mookie Betts is better in the first 2 years and Bryant is better after that. 

[Guest]

It's difficult to tell at this point, but Bryant will be the superstar–overrated or not. I do hope that these new stars overshadow the mediocre Bryce Harper. 

[bloodbrother]

He's not mediocre and he's probably not even at his best yet. Remember, dude's still 9 months younger than Kris Bryant

[Second Base]

Yeah, just because Harper's not in Trout's echelon as far as exceeding the hype with performance, that doesn't make Harper a bust.

What is he, 22 or 23 this year? He's already shown he can get on base and hit for some power, and even if he's 25 before he puts it together, I still think Harper can hit .290/.400 with 35-40 HR's.

Trout's just a special player, one that comes along once every 30 years maybe. There was a lot of hype with the group of prospects he came up with, like Harper, Machado and Matt Moore and none of them have flopped, they're all deserving of the attention they got.

But in Trout's case, instead of being good, he was a superstar and then he hit another level and was the best player in the game, then he hit an entirely other level of play where few can go. The level where you can't be compared to the greatest of today because it isn't fair to them. We're forced to compare Trout to guys that died before he was even born, heroes, folklore.

That's where Trout is. Guys like Bryant, Betts, Soler, Puig, likely superstars. But not historic.

[Angelsjunky]

I still think Harper is going to be a superstar. I predict .290/.900 with 30+ HR this year.

[Yogle]

I have Betts and Bryant on my fantasy team so im feeling pretty good

[ABC]

I have Betts and Bryant on my fantasy team so im feeling pretty good

 

Thanks, I was wondering about your f team.

[Angel Oracle]

Harper's only downside may be....Harper.

His defensive style is reminiscent of Pete Reiser, who's potential HOF career was derailed by countless crashes with the OF wall.

[m0nkey]

Does he already have the name "mookie monster"

[Tank]

I still think Harper is going to be a superstar. I predict .290/.900 with 30+ HR this year.

 

that'll be a pretty impressive accomplishment in only 94 games.

[Ocangelfan]

why its called trout porn.  its very cool we get to see it finally...the ones compared to were over 50 years ago and more.