Add new comment

The reality I'm trying to get across with Saunders is he is not - never will be - has not even the tiniest potential to be - much more than a solid good MLB hitter.  He's not an uber talent like Griffey or Ichiro or even Sweeney (before the injuries).
Historically, superstars are horrible TEACHERS.  Why?  Because they had athletic gifts beyond mortal men, so "most" (and there ARE exceptions - Ted Williams, for example), aren't very good at helping young guys, because they don't have the skills to do so - (the skill of teaching is NOT the same as the skill of doing).
Am I going to learn more about how to play basketball listening to Bobby Knight or Michael Jordan? 
Yes, Langerhans and Saunders are incredibly close in a multitude of measures.  Let me accept that they are, in fact, identical (for the sake of this argument).  Exactly why should anyone therefore expect Saunders to ever, at any point in his career, to be any more productive than Langerhans was or is?
Langerhans got a little taste at age 23 (15 PAs), but came up and played part time at 25 ... and produced a .774 OPS in his first partial season and a .727 in his second.  Saunders got a shot earlier (23), but managed a .662. 
What prevents Saunders from peaking as a .670 #4 OF?  Because Langerhans minor league numbers are (similar), but slightly superior to Saunders.  Saunders has more inate HR power, but sacrifices average and a lot of Ks to get there. 
I've said it before and I'll say it again ... young players do not improve simply by getting older.  Simply getting more PAs does *NOT* magically result in improvement.  To improve, you have to change SOMETHING.  You have to stop doing something bad - or start doing something better. 
Yes ... for superstar players, they can come up, step into the lineup, and learn while being productive.  Chipper, Heyward, McCann ... I've seen them.  But, the next tier down ... the Saunders and Langerhans class players ... they have struggles ... so, you HAVE to leverage what skills they bring the best you can, while attempting to cultivate traits they don't have out of the gate. 
Saunders fans too much and has problems with lefties.  The options are -- do what Seattle has done for the last 6 years -- give him a full time job and let him try to figure out how to hit lefties, which he has been unable to do for his entire pro career.  Or, you can decide from day one that he'll never hit lefties - classify him as a platoon hitter - (the Branyan label) - and make him a 75% player, while you search for a righty that can hit in Safeco.  OR, you can work with him, give him exposure to lefty pitchers, but in carefully measured doses -- and try and give him examples of HOW to improve.
Langerhans arrived basically in tandem with guys like Adam LaRoche, Jeff Francoeur, Matt Diaz.  Some blossomed, some failed.  But, *ALL* got to work on their games as the Braves tried to get the most out of them.  Out of that crop, the one with the biggest hype?  Scott Thorman ... who was a 1st rounder that was supposed to become the Braves 1B for the next 15 years. 
You can do everything right and still fail.
But, if you just believe that players will magically improve without trying to improve ... well, you will get the results the Ms got with Yuni and Lopez.
My foundation principle remains unchanged -- when developing prospects, you concentrate on what is best for the PROSPECT, unless forced to do otherwise.  I believe Saunders is likely benefitting from having Langerhans around.  That certainly won't always be the case.  And when it is no longer true, by all means, dump Ryan. 
But, I watched a LOT of Braves prospects come up -- share time -- get better (or flop).  I felt great about the successes and sighed about the failures.  But, in each and every case, the Braves' attempted to *HELP* the prospects reach their highest potential.  There was never this attitude that (from my perspective) pervades the Ms fan base -- that simply by handing more ABs to a young kid, he'll just suddenly improve.