Originally Posted by Steve4192
I always enjoy when prospect hounds try to pigeonhole a guy as a #1, #2, etc. The reality is, if a guy is good enough to profile as a #2, he's good enough to become a #1 if his development goes well. Look no further than Johnny Cueto, who most prospect hounds had as a MOR starter at best, power reliever at worst. Johnny just kept going out there and proving them wrong.
I get where you are coming from, but what gets me even more is the whole "scout speak" of what a #1 or #2 even is. Oh, there are only 10-15 #1's in baseball. Really? This isn't 1954 anymore guys, there are 30 teams, therefore in an even distribution of talent, there are 30 guys qualified to be a #1. Likewise with a #2, 3, 4 and 5. Yes, Justin Verlander is likely to be significantly better than the 30th best pitcher. So what? Joey Votto is a whole lot better than most other #3 hitters in the game, but you don't have to be Joey Votto good to be a #3 hitter or there would only be 2 or 3 of them.