As Taro emphasized, Ramos is actually verrrrrrrrrry good for his age/arc at the C position (deflect it two years vs 1B/OF).

Here's a question for you, Taro (Cool Papa, G-Money, Matt, guys).  I give you 100x 22-year-old C Wilson Ramoses, who have already tasted the major leagues, and 100x 20-year-old CF Aaron Hickses, who have not yet solved class A ball, but who have stunning athleticism.

1.  How do the 100 Ramoses not do more in their 100 careers than the Hickses?

2.  Or do the 5 HOF'ers (and 20 Franklin Gutierrezes) you get out of the 100 Hickses  .... outweigh the 60 quality ML catchers you get out of the Ramoses?  Because of the pyramid/fungibility Star & Scrub dynamics? 

Are we saying that, granted, the 100 Hickses will do less as a group, but the Big Hits are more important than the Steady Eddie development ---- > because you can count on the Steady Eddies anyway?

...............

As mentioned, HQ had Ramos as an 8B prospect (probably an above-average ML player) and Hicks as a 9D (some shot at the All-Star team), and that's a hyper-objective source that weights sabr and tools equally. 

Not quibbling with those who are blown away by Hicks' athleticism, but is there any way to give an Aaron Hicks a >30% shot of impacting the majors?  He's got to impact A+ first :- )

................

Have seen YouTube.  Am well aware of the stunning physical gifts and even baseball leverage wth Hicks.  But Baseball America's historical top 25 lists are soaked in failed 20-year-olds like Hicks.

Definitely do not see this #9-in-baseball euphoria over Hicks.  Could be wrong.

..................

Last question:

3.  Wouldn't 100x Greg Halmans do more in their careers than 100x Aaron Hickses?   You're talking about another tools freak who is much farther along the obstacle course.

.

.