Jac caglianone and Matt Shaw

[backtothe50s]

The future of MLB looks bright with these guys. Absolute insane talent. What say you?
Updated: wanted to add Cam Smith too!

[boxbuster7]

Matt Shaws hitting .167 in spring training

am I missing something?

[LittleJimmies]

Matt Shaws hitting .167 in spring training

am I missing something?

I tried to do some quick cross-referencing on how these 3 players in any way deserve a joint hype post and have absolutely no idea.

[ThoseBackPages]

easy pass on these dudes

[Lonewolf]

Uh, pump it up...?

[NYRE2PECT]

Jac hit a 444’ tater…

Buy, buy, buy!

[emoji23][emoji1787][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[backtothe50s]

I tried to do some quick cross-referencing on how these 3 players in any way deserve a joint hype post and have absolutely no idea.

I saw on instagram the past few days posts of these guys from different people/accounts on instagram talking about how great these guys are going to be. So I was just wondering as they seem to be pumping these guys on social media. Just curious what your guys thoughts on these players were. That’s all, nothing more, nothing less. Just a simple question.

[hermanotarjeta]

Sell Bobby, buy jac?

[Poorboy]

buy winokur he's cheap....

[backtothe50s]

Sell Bobby, buy jac?

No Hermano! Bobby will be the face of baseball for the next decade! (At least) Im all in on Bobby! The other three guys I don’t really know much about, just what I’ve seen on social media the past few days (that’s why I asked here).

[oddstuff]

Sell all your Acunas cheap and buy every prospect that people talk about on social media. Stats don't lie...unlike social media (don't believe everything you read on here either)...do some research on your own.

[hermanotarjeta]

No Hermano! Bobby will be the face of baseball for the next decade! (At least) Im all in on Bobby! The other three guys I don’t really know much about, just what I’ve seen on social media the past few days (that’s why I asked here).

Yeah probably not a wise decision.

By the way, welcome back jac!

[backtothe50s]

Yeah probably not a wise decision.

By the way, welcome back jac!

Agree! Glad to see jac back also. He will put up an all star year this year but I still think that Bobby is the new Mike trout of baseball.

[hermanotarjeta]

Agree! Glad to see jac back also. He will put up an all star year this year but I still think that Bobby is the new Mike trout of baseball.

LOL, that’s hilarious.

[cardozo]

Agree! Glad to see jac back also. He will put up an all star year this year but I still think that Bobby is the new Mike trout of baseball.

A little bias is fine, hefty exaggeration not so much.

[eastbayak]

I think I have 1-2 Matt Shaw Pro Debut autos so please continue to pump him up!!

[Jaypers]

Update- Matt Shaw is traveling with the team to Japan for their upcoming series, so I guess this is considered his MLB debut.

Great vote of confidence for him.

[vwnut13]

I tried to do some quick cross-referencing on how these 3 players in any way deserve a joint hype post and have absolutely no idea.

backtothe50s owns cards of all three.

[backtothe50s]

backtothe50s owns cards of all three.

I have exactly one card of Matt Shaw (a bowman card and im not even sure what year it is) and none of the other two, so you are absolutely wrong funny guy!!!!

[theshowandme]

23 and 22 years old with no big league at bats so far

Hobby irrelevant

[YouTheManNick]

Matt Shaws hitting .167 in spring training



Dang. I was hoping he might be good. But he's clearly a bust. Cubs better release him and move on asap.

[eye4talent]

This seems like a shameless hype thread. But I will say that Caglianone is very intriguing. Matt Olsen-level power, and likely a better all-around hitter.

Shaw and Smith will probably be fine players. Maybe even all-stars at some point. But Caglianone has a chance to be a premier slugger in the league.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OhioLawyerF5]

23 and 22 years old with no big league at bats so far

Hobby irrelevant

I always get a chuckle out of this take. A college player drafted in July of the previous year, will essentially always have zero major leauge at bats by spring training, and will typically be 22 by then. This take means no college player can be hobby relevant. Which is insane. 22 or 23 is a perfectly normal age to develop a HOF career and be hobby relevant.

[Grave252]

I always get a chuckle out of this take. A college player drafted in July of the previous year, will essentially always have zero major leauge at bats by spring training, and will typically be 22 by then. This take means no college player can be hobby relevant. Which is insane. 22 or 23 is a perfectly normal age to develop a HOF career and be hobby relevant.

More often than not, college players end up being serviceable MLB players, but rarely hobby stars. In the past two decades how many former college players were hobby relevant? Judge and Skenes for sure, perhaps Holliday but moreso when he was in the minors - and maybe short blips of relevance for Bryant and Posey? It's not to say there aren't other solid or even great players, but hobby relevance seems to be a different category.

[asujbl]

Blowout in 2025 gets worse and worse

[OhioLawyerF5]

More often than not, college players end up being serviceable MLB players, but rarely hobby stars. In the past two decades how many former college players were hobby relevant? Judge and Skenes for sure, perhaps Holliday but moreso when he was in the minors - and maybe short blips of relevance for Bryant and Posey? It's not to say there aren't other solid or even great players, but hobby relevance seems to be a different category.

I didn't say it was common. Hobby relevance is uncommon. But the fact that you just rattled off two names proves my point. The take that a 22 year old in the minors can't be hobby relevant is a terrible take. Heck, many young non-college stars don't debut until around 22. Elly de la Cruz was 21 1/2 when he debuted. Bobby Witt Jr. was 2 months shy of 22. Shohei was almost 24. So five of the top guys currently in the hobby, were almost 22 or were older. Eliminating a player from hobby relevance because they are 22 is just wrong and lazy.

[LVDan]

Throwing out the names Judge and Skenes as exceptions seems a little disingenuous. Beyond that freakshow Ohtani and maaaybe Soto and Witt aren't these 2 guys kinda the only "hobby good" players out there currently?

[hche]

More often than not, college players end up being serviceable MLB players, but rarely hobby stars. In the past two decades how many former college players were hobby relevant? Judge and Skenes for sure, perhaps Holliday but moreso when he was in the minors - and maybe short blips of relevance for Bryant and Posey? It's not to say there aren't other solid or even great players, but hobby relevance seems to be a different category.

If you are using Skenes, then Strasburg was definitely hobby relevant before all the injuries. Everyone was chasing Stras like crazy back then.

[OhioLawyerF5]

If you are using Skenes, then Strasburg was definitely hobby relevant before all the injuries. Everyone was chasing Stras like crazy back then.

And again, my issue was with age, not college pedigree. I just mentioned college because those guys don't even get drafted until 21 or 22. But the take was that 22 automatically eliminates them from hobby good. So we aren't limited to just college players. Judge, Ohtani, Skenes, Witt, Elly all turned 22 or older in their debut year. And that is a big portion of currently hobby relevant guys.

[Poorboy]

Blowout in 2025 gets worse and worse

Onward and upward !!!!!

[ScooterD]

And again, my issue was with age, not college pedigree. I just mentioned college because those guys don't even get drafted until 21 or 22. But the take was that 22 automatically eliminates them from hobby good. So we aren't limited to just college players. Judge, Ohtani, Skenes, Witt, Elly all turned 22 or older in their debut year. And that is a big portion of currently hobby relevant guys.

Harper has a foot in both camps, no?

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

Harper has a foot in both camps, no?

How so? Harper’s first season was at age 19. He attended a community college briefly, but that was just to get some wooden bat experience. I don’t really think he’s what people are talking about when they say they shy away from “college bats”. Think more JJ Bleday and Spencer Torkleson, etc.

From Wikipedia:

He earned his GED in October 2009 in his junior year, reclassifying and making him eligible earlier for the Major League Baseball (MLB) draft in June 2010.[6][7][8]

For the 2010 college season, 17-year-old Harper enrolled at the College of Southern Nevada of the Scenic West Athletic Conference (SWAC) in the National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA), where he was a catcher. His older brother Bryan, who had been his teammate at Las Vegas High School, was one of the Southern Nevada Coyotes' starting pitchers, and the brothers often worked as a battery.[9] An advantage for Harper in his eventual transition to his MLB career was that the SWAC, like MLB, uses wooden bats in conference play. In 66 games, he hit 31 home runs with 98 RBIs, hitting .443 with a .526 OBP, and a .987 SLG.[10] Harper's 31 home runs in 2010 broke the school's previous record of 12, and he was named the 2010 SWAC Player of the Year.[10]

In the Western district finals of the 2010 NJCAA World Series, Harper went 6-for-7 with five RBIs and hit for the cycle.[11] The next day, in a doubleheader, he went 2-for-5 with a three-run double in the first game. In the second game, he went 6-for-6 with four home runs, a triple, and a double.[12]

On June 2 that year, Harper was ejected from a National Junior College World Series game by home plate umpire Don Gilmore for disputing a called third strike. Harper drew a line in the dirt with his bat as he left the plate, presumably to show where he thought the pitch was. It was Harper's second ejection of the year and resulted in a two-game suspension.[13] The suspension ended his amateur career, and Southern Nevada lost the game from which Harper was ejected. With Harper suspended, the team also lost their next game, which eliminated them from the tournament.[14] Harper won the 2010 Golden Spikes Award, given to the best amateur baseball player in the nation.[15]

[ScooterD]

^^^ doesn’t all that show that he was a college player (one camp) who was hobby relevant at a young age (the other camp)?

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

^^^ doesn’t all that show that he was a college player (one camp) who was hobby relevant at a young age (the other camp)?

The two camps are people who avoid “college bat” prospects because they get off to a late start, and the other camp is people who feel that starting at age 22 isn’t a hindrance to potential hobby love.

[OhioLawyerF5]

My point had nothing to do with college players. It was about age. College players only got brought up because they have to spend 3 years in college before they can be drafted. Which means they are typically older when they debut.

[ScooterD]

I must be misunderstanding something because I rarely disagree with the two of you.

Harper was a college bat that had MLB success at a young age. We can agree on that, right?

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

I must be misunderstanding something because I rarely disagree with the two of you.

Harper was a college bat that had MLB success at a young age. We can agree on that, right?

It’s really more a debate about prospecting and “how old is too old” to invest in a prospect. As a rule of thumb, some people just avoid the older college bats because they are usually drafted at 21-22, and some see the Bigs until age 23 since they (usually) still have to work their way up through the minors. It isn’t anything directly related to attending college.

Some people say age is just a number and that a player can break out and get hobby love at any age.

[OhioLawyerF5]

It’s really more a debate about prospecting and “how old is too old” to invest in a prospect. As a rule of thumb, some people just avoid the older college bats because they are usually drafted at 21-22, and some see the Bigs until age 23 since they (usually) still have to work their way up through the minors. It isn’t anything directly related to attending college.

Some people say age is just a number and that a player can break out and get hobby love at any age.

This is an accurate description. Although, I think it's more than that. I responded to someone who took the position that if a player is 22 and hasn't played in the bigs they cannot be hobby good. So my point is that a player who debuts after 22 absolutely can be hobby good. I was arguing against an absolute statement. Obviously, a lot of factors go into being hobby good. And age is relevant. But it isn't as prohibitive as some people tend to portray it as.

[theshowandme]

I stand by my age statement.

If they went to college, that is not good 99.9% of the time.

Blame Trout and Soto, not me.

[OhioLawyerF5]

I stand by my age statement.

If they went to college, that is not good 99.9% of the time.

Blame Trout and Soto, not me.Strangely enough, if they don't go to college, it's not good 99.9% of the time when it comes to hobby relevance. You have made the classic mistake of assuming correlation equals causation. There are currently more hobby relevant players that don't fit your age theory than do. Trout and Soto don't even offset Judge and Ohtani, let alone the others.

[eye4talent]

I must be misunderstanding something because I rarely disagree with the two of you.

Harper was a college bat that had MLB success at a young age. We can agree on that, right?


Harper doesn’t exactly count, as he is unique situation: he left high school early to play junior college ball. He played one season at Southern Nevada, then was drafted that June at age 17.

That’s not the typical college route of going to high school for four years and then staying at an NCAA 4-year college/university form a mandatory three years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ScooterD]

Harper doesn’t exactly count, as he is unique situation: he left high school early to play junior college ball. He played one season at Southern Nevada, then was drafted that June at age 17.

That’s not the typical college route of going to high school for four years and then staying at an NCAA 4-year college/university form a mandatory three years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with you too - I just don’t know why no one will agree with me.

Special/Different circumstances… sure! He is the exception to the rule that college players don’t hit the MLB at a young age. That’s the reason I brought him up - nothing in the earlier posts about age or college players precluded his inclusion in this conversation. So I mentioned him as an exception that did both things.

[texmcpherson]

Sell all your Acunas cheap and buy every prospect that people talk about on social media. Stats don't lie...unlike social media (don't believe everything you read on here either)...do some research on your own.

How else would you sell your Acuna’s? Poor reference to a guy thats prices are relying on reviving from two ACL surgeries.

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

This is an accurate description. Although, I think it's more than that. I responded to someone who took the position that if a player is 22 and hasn't played in the bigs they cannot be hobby good. So my point is that a player who debuts after 22 absolutely can be hobby good. I was arguing against an absolute statement. Obviously, a lot of factors go into being hobby good. And age is relevant. But it isn't as prohibitive as some people tend to portray it as.

Yeah, I’m not disagree with anything you’re saying.



I agree with you too - I just don’t know why no one will agree with me.

Special/Different circumstances… sure! He is the exception to the rule that college players don’t hit the MLB at a young age. That’s the reason I brought him up - nothing in the earlier posts about age or college players precluded his inclusion in this conversation. So I mentioned him as an exception that did both things.

You’re caught up on the college aspect, but what we’re really talking about is age.

[ScooterD]

Yeah, I’m not disagree with anything you’re saying.





You’re caught up on the college aspect, but what we’re really talking about is age.

Agree again because the situations seemed (to me) to be presented as mutually exclusive. Harper is an example of that not being true.

That’s all

[OhioLawyerF5]

I agree with you too - I just don’t know why no one will agree with me.



Special/Different circumstances… sure! He is the exception to the rule that college players don’t hit the MLB at a young age. That’s the reason I brought him up - nothing in the earlier posts about age or college players precluded his inclusion in this conversation. So I mentioned him as an exception that did both things.I don't consider junior college as college for this conversation, as there are different rules for each. If you go to a 4 year university, you must stay for 3 years before becoming draft eligible. That's why college players even came up in a conversation about age. Whereas junior college players don't have the same restriction and are draft eligible immediately, no different than a high school player. So they just aren't the same thing.

[theshowandme]

How many players are hobby relevant right now?

[eye4talent]

More often than not, college players end up being serviceable MLB players, but rarely hobby stars. In the past two decades how many former college players were hobby relevant? Judge and Skenes for sure, perhaps Holliday but moreso when he was in the minors - and maybe short blips of relevance for Bryant and Posey? It's not to say there aren't other solid or even great players, but hobby relevance seems to be a different category.


Just like college players, high school draftees and Latin Americans signed at 16 rarely become hobby relevant.

Posey didn’t have a short blip—he’s still relevant. Maybe he’s not Ohtani-hot, but list a nice card of his on ebay and you’ll be happy with the sale price. Staying power with collectors is a sign of true hobby relevance.

Lincecum was also a college guy, and he remains relevant—and he’s not even a future HOFer. (I sold a 2010 Bowman Chrome orange refractor just last year for $150.)

Longoria was relevant for a long while.

Verlander and Scherzer are HOF-bound and relevant.

And these guys have all been hobby relevant at some point, with some still in the conversation:

Ryan Braun
Gerrit Cole
Paul Goldschmidt
Jacob deGrom
Matt Harvey
Chris Sale
Alex Bregman
Pete Alonso
Adley Ruschman
Garrett Crochet (speculative)

And the hobby world was hoping for this trio of 2014 college draftees become something—if only health or early-career struggles didn’t get in the way:

Trea Turner
Kyle Schwarber
Michael Conforto

Yes, most of these guys tailed off or didn’t quite launch, but the vast majority of hyped high school and Latin American players who debuted before age 22 also fall short of a HOF career.


*Note: I would say this forum needs to distinguish between “hobby relevant,” “hobby good,” and “hobby elite.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OhioLawyerF5]

How many players are hobby relevant right now?I don't care much for the term, but based on how people on this board use it, 5 or less. Which is why 2 of the 5 being super young at debut is unpersuasive.

[theshowandme]

The 3 names are Trout, Ohtani, and Soto

Professionally debuted at 19, 18, and 19

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

The 3 names are Trout, Ohtani, and Soto

Professionally debuted at 19, 18, and 19

I know you’re a vintage guy, and that’s cool. I would stick with that. You clearly don’t follow ultra modern if that’s your list.

[OhioLawyerF5]

The 3 names are Trout, Ohtani, and Soto

Professionally debuted at 19, 18, and 19

Ah, mental gynmastics are fun.

Convenient use of "professional debut" instead of MLB debut. So you are holding other prospects to the MLB debut standard, but Ohtani to a professional debut standard. A player makes their professional debut when the play a game in the minors, so if you want to play that game, Matt Shaw and Jac Caglianone both made their professional debuts at 21.

But regardless of the games you want to play to fit your narrative, you are simply out of touch. Judge is more hobby relevant than both Trout and Soto as of today. And so are Paul Skenes, Bobby Witt, and possibly Elly De La Cruz. All of those names made their MLB debuts at a much later age than the 3 you listed, and don't fit your theory of the requirements for hobby relevance. :doh:

[theshowandme]

I am a Yankees fan but Judge will not be a top 5 most accomplished player for his own franchise.

That is not good for the long term.

Big fan of his bat and presence on the team though.

LOL at Skenes and De La Cruz

I do like Bobby

[KhalDrogo]

I am a Yankees fan but Judge will not be a top 5 most accomplished player for his own franchise.

That is not good for the long term.

Big fan of his bat and presence on the team though.

LOL at Skenes and De La Cruz

I do like Bobby
Agreed on all. Especially Judge. People think the Yankees base will love him long term if he doesn’t win a championship? He’d have to break Barry’s record, which just isn’t going to happen. He’ll go down as a great regular season player who always disappointed in the playoffs.

[OhioLawyerF5]

I am a Yankees fan but Judge will not be a top 5 most accomplished player for his own franchise.

That is not good for the long term.

Big fan of his bat and presence on the team though.

LOL at Skenes and De La Cruz

I do like Bobby

I don't think you understand what hobby relevance means. It has nothing to do with what will be long term. It means right now. And those guys are hobby relevant whether you admit it or not.

But nice job dodging the fact that you are trying to use a Japanese debut to justify Ohtani being younger than he was when he reached MLB. :)!

[theshowandme]

The majority of people who seriously believe De La Cruz and Skenes have a shot are 8-13 year old boys who play MLB the Show.

They are poor and should not be taken seriously.

[OhioLawyerF5]

The majority of people who seriously believe De La Cruz and Skenes have a shot are 8-13 year old boys who play MLB the Show.

They are poor and should not be taken seriously.

Still missing the point. Whether they have a shot isn't the question.

Not to mention, your take that only 8-13 year olds believe those two have a shot is almost as bad as your take that a 22 year old rookie can't be hobby relevant, given that there are literally hundreds of professional evaluators who disagree with you. And none of them are 8-13 years old.

If there is anything to learn from this exchange, it's that you are only capable of speaking in absolutes, you think your position on those absolutes is gospel, and that you are very bad at evaluating modern baseball card markets and players.

Stick to dead guys on cardboard. It's more in your wheelhouse.

[Sluggerrr]

I wouldn't worry about a player not being a top 5 player for the most storied franchise in baseball. Seems unfair.

[theshowandme]

Baseball good ≠ hobby good

[MyckKabongo]

Aaron Judge is far more hobby relevant than Soto or Trout and has been for at least a few years. Trout stuff is just beaten down and it's a race to the bottom with timid demand. All the team switching has killed the market for all non-rookie Soto stuff whereas Jusge has a robust market for a huge breadth of cards. I'd hope that 1st year Mets stuff sells really well like Ohtani 1st year Dodgers stuff. TBH, if it doesn't that's a horrible sign for his hobby relevance.

At any rate, Cags has a better chance at hobby relevance than a lot of other flavors of the month that came and went. He's got 50+ HR potential while most others can hope for 30+ at best. Long way to go of course but you can make a better case for him than most because of rare true 80 grade power.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Baseball good ≠ hobby good

What do you know about hobby good? You are contantly conflating it with future potential value, and included Trout in the current top 3 of hobby good. I'm a trout supporter, and even I know that's not the case.