DJ's left nut |
12-11-2015 10:34 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by -King-
(Post 11944456)
So basically the only thing he has over Gordon is age? Is that really worth $100mil extra?
|
Age and upside.
If you think you're the team that can take the gains in contact that Heyward has made and combine it with the power stroke he showed in his first and third seasons, then you think Heyward can be a legitimate MVP player - a superlative defender who is also capable of a .900 OPS, 25 HRs and 20 SBs.
I absolutely believe there are teams out there that could manage that. I watch his swing as a rookie and there is so much ability in there. The problem is that he re-worked his swing completely right before the 2012 season and to his credit, it actually appeared to work. But you could see the beginnings of that cramped mess his swing has now become. Pitchers adjusted to it and he doubled down on the cramped mess rather than doing what he should have done which was to open himself up a bit more (go back towards where he was as a rookie). I think it would do wonders for syncing up his top/bottom halves. It would help him get his front foot down on time and go out to attack those pitches on the inner half. It would allow him to extend more on inside pitches and really drive balls instead of just getting sawed off and grounding out (or if he's lucky, fisting a humpback liner for a single).
So on one hand you can say that the only difference between Gordon and Heyward is age, but that's not entirely accurate - with that age and with his early career success comes so much untapped potential. Gordon is who he is - a player who's good years are going to be pretty similar to Heywards floor going forward. But with Heyward, there is talent there to be on Trout Light and there's still plenty of time to unlock it.
For the Cardinals, it's not worth that $100 million, IMO, because they don't teach an approach that will unlock his potential. There are teams and coaches that can though.
|