Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





View Poll Results: Who will have the better career?

Voters
97. You may not vote on this poll
  • Kershaw

    43 44.33%
  • Lincecum

    54 55.67%
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 75
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Mom's Basement
    Posts
    28,031
    vCash
    1500
    From the numbers/scouting reports Kershaw sounds to me like a left handed Lincecum(great fastball, great curveball, developing change, meh control). So because of that, and hte fact he's like 4 years younger, I'm going to go with Kershaw.


  2. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    6,801
    vCash
    1500
    Lincecum because he's proven he can pitch in the majors. If Kershaw actually becomes the prospect he's touted to be then he'll probably have the better career due to Age.

    Matt Carpenter
    .300 AVG, 1 HR, 6 RBI, .431 OBP, .375 SLG, .806 OPS, .371 wOBA, 136 wRC+, .4 fWAR, 126 OPS+



  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    5,393
    vCash
    1500
    Consdering kershaw has no ML experience, this really isnt a fair comparison, ill go with linc simply cuz hes shown what he can do in the bigs

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    6,822
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by CAIN=FUTURE View Post
    Because everyone is jelous!!!!
    No...we have Cole Hamels, who is much better

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantes4Life View Post
    Because he's so unique.
    He's a young Roy Oswalt, but with long-term injury concerns because of his size

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    7,448
    vCash
    1500
    I would give Kershaw the edge if he was the same age as Lincecum because he's a lefty but Lincecum has almost a whole year under his belt. Kershaw needs a year or 2 before we can see what he can really do. But regardless both pitchers will be down right nasty in the future pending injuries.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Portland,Connecticut
    Posts
    18,176
    vCash
    1500
    It is to early to tell but if i had to guess right now I take Lincecum since he major league proven as of right now but I not sure who will have the better career since neither of them have been in the major leagues long or at all in the case of Kershaw but both have bright careers ahead of themselves.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bremerton, WA
    Posts
    6,092
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by PhillyUD26 View Post
    No...we have Cole Hamels, who is much better
    Maybe. In my opinion, he isn't better, let alone much better. Lincecum has much better stuff, but there are other intagibles to think of.

    He's a young Roy Oswalt, but with long-term injury concerns because of his delivery
    Fixed.
    beatin down yo block

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    At the moment, at my computer
    Posts
    12,223
    vCash
    1500
    I am honestly in shock that Kershaw has three more votes then Lincecum when he hasn't even taken a step into the majors.




  9. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    431
    vCash
    1500
    My vote would be for Kershaw. His flaws seems to be "not having MLB experience" which is somewhat ironic being a prospect

    Lincecum is pretty much acting the pace of a typical "Weaver, Verlander". Coming in at age 23 and throwing down an ERA around 3.60-4.00 in their first season.

    If Kershaw can come in even younger and preform better, it makes the answer pretty clear. But the age level of play is a bit off

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    431
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by xander View Post
    I am honestly in shock that Kershaw has three more votes then Lincecum when he hasn't even taken a step into the majors.
    You make it sound like its "bad" he hasn't. I think if you went Kershaw vs Price (like someone else said) it would make more sense

    But the way I see it, its as if Lincecum had his chance for year one, and so to compare, Kershaw gets his shot at year one. And shouldn't be punished because he was born in 1988

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    At the moment, at my computer
    Posts
    12,223
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by TopShelf View Post
    My vote would be for Kershaw. His flaws seems to be "not having MLB experience" which is somewhat ironic being a prospect

    Lincecum is pretty much acting the pace of a typical "Weaver, Verlander". Coming in at age 23 and throwing down an ERA around 3.60-4.00 in their first season.

    If Kershaw can come in even younger and preform better, it makes the answer pretty clear. But the age level of play is a bit off
    And there's something wrong with following in the path of Weaver and Verlander?




  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    3,983
    vCash
    1500
    Kershaw 95 MPH Fastball and a nasty 12/6 curve and plus he's a Dodger baby!

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    At the moment, at my computer
    Posts
    12,223
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by G2BOAT View Post
    Kershaw 95 MPH Fastball and a nasty 12/6 curve and plus he's a Dodger baby!
    Lincecum 94-97 MPH Fastball and a really nasty curve and a devistating changeup, and plus he's a Giant baby.




  14. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    8,663
    vCash
    1500
    I don't see how useing a argument like Kershaw is so in so years younger than Lincecum really makes sense, being that they will probaly pitch around the same amount of time over there carrers. It will be a fun matchup to watch over the years, or we can just settle with watching Cain blow out Kershaw.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    431
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by xander View Post
    And there's something wrong with following in the path of Weaver and Verlander?
    not at all, its just that he didn't blow neither out of the water (not that its a bad thing) so he is pretty much on pace for what to expect from him. He should bounce around a 3.40-4.00 ERA for the better part of his career in the bigs, and could quite well be better then Kershaw long term. So he is a safer pick in my eyes, with less reward.

    But when you look at how well the Dodgers are hiding Kershaw, and making sure he goes nice and slow in the minor league level (so there is as little chance of an Edwin Jackson situation), I feel he can walk up and give you a sub 3.00 ERA right out of the gate and be more dominant long term. But, the flaw to that is folding like a lawn chair (like many 20 and under spects) which Lincecum will not have to worry about.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •