anyone have any idea why Wieters stinks?

[Joe Orsulak Fan]

He better get busy if he wants to get anywhere close to twenty homers.:laughlol:

Also, in case you don't know it the corner outfielders are normally expected to hit with more power than the Centerfielder. It is known by most baseball fans that I have ever conversed with. Not sure why you wouldn't know this?

Yep. I sense it is unpopular around here to agree with O5F, but he's dead on here. We need less HR pop out of CF than we need out of RF. Although I do like that arm in right.

[Stotle]

Well, that counts me out since I make my living outside of baseball. I do coach at the high school level, and I played at the division 1 college level. I am sorry, I guess I am not qualified. I am definitely not qualified by your definition. But, this "knee jerk fan" thinks that the greatest prospect in many years to come through our system is a bust. So far. I too am willing to give him much more time, and I am hopeful that things turn around for the guy. But anybody that thinks things are progressing as normal at the plate for Mr. Wieters....Is lying to themselves.

My issue isn't with anyone's qualifications to judge a player. It is with the idea that some people have that professional ballplayers all mature/adjust at the same rate. Yankees fans here in NY were declaring Phil Hughes a bust within his first two seasons of pro ball. 2009 and 2010 he's been one of the better arms on the team.

No where have I said that Wieters is progressing nicely. But people who make their living assessing professional talent would likely agree that 600 ML plate appearances is not enough to declare anyone a bust.

The term "bust" is thrown around entirely too willy-nilly, in my opinion. "Disappointing" does not equal "failure" for 1-3 year players.

[brooksie05]

A person whose profession brings them in regular contact with, or participation in, professional baseball.

The assertion that because "baseball people" outside of our organization say that Matt Wieters is great, and therefore will be great, is a cop out. There are hundreds of prospects that "baseball people" universally acclaimed will be future HOFers that have turned out to be flops. Matt Wieters has been a complete and total 100% bust from the offensive side of the dish...to this point. Is a slow bat and long swing correctable? Let's hope for our sake it is. Funny how his opposite field HRs were heralded as "easy power" when he got here and not the obvious. I haven't given up on him, but let's look with our eyes and not revert to "well, well, Keith Law or XYZ from outside our organization said he will be Johnny Bench with more power...it must be true!" It appears desperate and out of touch. I'm hopeful Matt Wieters will turn out to what he is purported to be.....gut geeesh, this is painful.

[theobird]

My issue isn't with anyone's qualifications to judge a player. It is with the idea that some people have that professional ballplayers all mature/adjust at the same rate. Yankees fans here in NY were declaring Phil Hughes a bust within his first two seasons of pro ball. 2009 and 2010 he's been one of the better arms on the team.

No where have I said that Wieters is progressing nicely. But people who make their living assessing professional talent would likely agree that 600 ML plate appearances is not enough to declare anyone a bust.

The term "bust" is thrown around entirely too willy-nilly, in my opinion. "Disappointing" does not equal "failure" for 1-3 year players.

And I cannot disagree with this. I have stated several times that Wieters has performed defensively beyond my expectations in the early going. I will retract my "bust" statement, because he certainly is a player worth keeping even with his current offensive output. And I also think he is presently under-performing at the plate. He is in a slump, because he has hit much better than he is right now. My big concern though, is that he has never hit as well as I thought he would at the major League level. At least not yet. Believe me, I want him to hit well as much as anybody does. But I am more than a little concerned about that after watching him for about a year, and never seeing him consistently drive the ball.

[Stotle]

The assertion that because "baseball people" outside of our organization say that Matt Wieters is great, and therefore will be great, is a cop out. There are hundreds of prospects that "baseball people" universally acclaimed will be future HOFers that have turned out to be flops. Matt Wieters has been a complete and total 100% bust from the offensive side of the dish...to this point. Is a slow bat and long swing correctable? Let's hope for our sake it is. Funny how his opposite field HRs were heralded as "easy power" when he got here and not the obvious. I haven't given up on him, but let's look with our eyes and not revert to "well, well, Keith Law or XYZ from outside our organization said he will be Johnny Bench with more power...it must be true!" It appears desperate and out of touch. I'm hopeful Matt Wieters will turn out to what he is purported to be.....gut geeesh, this is painful.

I understand your point, but I don't think it's a reasonable approach to take to evaluating the future potential of players who are still in there first 1000 or so ML PAs. I won't try to convince you otherwise -- you can think what you want and I'll keep my own opinion. But it's far from "desperate" to simply point out that every single organization would jump at the opportunity to add Wieters to their team tomorrow, were he made available. And you will not find one professional evaluator that would disagree with that statement.

[Stotle]

And I cannot disagree with this. I have stated several times that Wieters has performed defensively beyond my expectations in the early going. I will retract my "bust" statement, because he certainly is a player worth keeping even with his current offensive output. And I also think he is presently under-performing at the plate. He is in a slump, because he has hit much better than he is right now. My big concern though, is that he has never hit as well as I thought he would at the major League level. At least not yet. Believe me, I want him to hit well as much as anybody does. But I am more than a little concerned about that after watching him for about a year, and never seeing him consistently drive the ball.

I think you make lots of great points here and address some great areas of concern. I can't say that i disagree with any of this.

[ScottieBaseball]

Well, that counts me out since I make my living outside of baseball. I do coach at the high school level, and I played at the division 1 college level. I am sorry, I guess I am not qualified. I am definitely not qualified by your definition. But, this "knee jerk fan" thinks that the greatest prospect in many years to come through our system is a bust. So far. I too am willing to give him much more time, and I am hopeful that things turn around for the guy. But anybody that thinks things are progressing as normal at the plate for Mr. Wieters....Is lying to themselves.

Hey...you're free to form and express your opinion regardless of your qualifications and background. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

Maybe it's semantics, but I'm hung up on the word 'bust'. That to me is final. You can't come back from being a bust. Matt Riley, Adam Loewen, and Darnell McDonald are all busts by definition.

I think it's perfectly fair and accurate to call Matt Wieters' performance in 2010 disappointing. It warrants questioning his can't-miss, blue chip prospect status for sure.

But to call him a bust says to me he hasn't and never will live up to the hype. With the exception of his performance in 2010, less than half an MLB season, his entire body of work indicates he'll be the exact opposite of a bust.

EDIT: My bad...I see that this has already been said. I'll leave it here, but read it as "Great post! I agree!"

[theobird]

Hey...you're free to form and express your opinion regardless of your qualifications and background. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

Maybe it's semantics, but I'm hung up on the word 'bust'. That to me is final. You can't come back from being a bust. Matt Riley, Adam Loewen, and Darnell McDonald are all busts by definition.

I think it's perfectly fair and accurate to call Matt Wieters' performance in 2010 disappointing. It warrants questioning his can't-miss, blue chip prospect status for sure.

But to call him a bust says to me he hasn't and never will live up to the hype. With the exception of his performance in 2010, less than half an MLB season, his entire body of work indicates he'll be the exact opposite of a bust.

EDIT: My bad...I see that this has already been said. I'll leave it here, but read it as "Great post! I agree!"

No issues here Scottie. I think all of us die hards are a little edgy right now. I know I am. And I also know that it would not be un-like me to blow off on the wrong side every now and then. I want to blame Crowley. I want to blame MacPhail. I want to blame Angelos. No I don't, I want Matt to start raking in the worst way. That is for sure.