Who would you rather start a franchise with? Both have been amazing to start their careers. I thought Harper would struggle mightily, but he has come on strong lately. Trout, meanwhile, has been a revelation and spark plug for the Angels. Let's have at it.

Harper is a force of nature.

I love Trout, and I love lead off guys, but Harper is Just too good for the league. I'm too young to have really appreciated Griffey and A-Rod in their primes, but that's what Harper looks like to me. He does everything amazingly well. At nineteen.

So maybe the better question is how good do we think Harper can be?

Better than everyone else.

I will say that Trout's numbers right now are much better than Harper's. Of course, Harper is a year younger, though. Also, North/China when I mean how good I think we're looking at a once-in-a-lifetime generation player. I think he will be better than any current player's numbers with the possible exceptions of Pujols and Arod. So basically, a top 15-20 all-timer, in my opinion.

I don't think you'd lose choosing either.

Exactly. Harper is the kind of player where you could bring in someone who had never watched a game of baseball in their lives and ask who the best player on the field was after ten minutes, and they would proceed to say Harper. Ryan Howard's power with defensive ability and the ability to hit for average? What would that make him? I think he's the best young player since A-Rod, and I wasn't old enough to really appreciate A-Rod when he first came on to the scene.

Yeah, same here RE: A-rod, Northway. I remember watching movies like Little Big League or playing video games like Major League Baseball: Featuring Ken Griffey Jr. for N64 and remembering him being so much more dominant than anyone else. That was basically the extent of my appreciation for him. Then when he went to the Reds and got injured I can remember thinking that "he lost it" and was no longer a great player, which to be fair, he basically had. As a result my memories are more focused on his injury ravaged years, so I cannot appreciate his talent.

However, when I go back and look now, I am in awe of the numbers he put up at such a young age in Seattle. He essentially hit 400 HRs (398) between 19 and 30 in Seattle averaging 36 (including 17 in 95), which is insane. Factoring in how medicore most of his seasons in Cincy were, it is amazing to think that he still has 600 HRs in his career and nearly 650 (he has 630). In Seattle, he averaged 36 HRs a year and in the rest of his career "just" 232. He played 13 seasons after Seattle, including 8 full ones in Cincy. If he averaged say 25 HRs per year over that span, accounting for decline, he would have 723 in his career. If we consider as an all-time great he would have continued to hit more than 40 for a few years we can assume it would increase to say 28 HRs per year, that would have given him the record at 762. He is the only player I am nearly 100% certain never used steroids because of swing, an absolute short, sweet, stroke of beauty. It is scary to think that injuries robbed Griffey of half his career, and he still is over 600. I get excited looking at this numbers. To bring it back on topic, when I watch Harper I get giddy thinking of his potential and what it can mean historically by looking at someone like Griffey's numbers.

Hilltop, that's funny regarding Griffey. We have pretty much exactly the same experience.

Harper has been historically special considering his age but it's funny how Trout has seemingly gotten such little recognition. He's posted a better OPS and OPS+ over basically the same sample this year, he'll stick at the less-offensive demanding position (CF) in the longrun, and he's probably going to be a better baserunner and fielder.

Trout won't keep these offensive numbers up (even with his excellent speed he won't sustain a BABIP near .400), but even with regression, his offensive production should be fine. I don't think he'll be as good as Harper in the longrun offensively, but I think the position difference, the fielding, and the baserunning will make him more valuable.

That's possible, and I love Trout. There's just something about Harper though, and this may not be grounded in any objective reality, but when I watch him play, he stands out. He's got a certain rare panache to go with his abundant tools. They're both going to b great players, but I would take Harper if I had to choose one.