I read a fair few chats, and so I know that snark is common currency, especially from KLaw (though that question didn't count as "baiting" by any measure), don't worry. But when the question was re-posted here, people acted like it was irrelevant to the discussion, as if it had been answered already. My point is that everyone dismissed the viability of the question because the answer implied that it was too soon to analyze the situation at all, which is intellectually lazy.
700 PAs is enough to stabilize a lot of numbers, heck, 500 isn't bad if we want to throw out his rookie season (since the argument is that it's too early to judge anything), in terms of season-to-season predictability. I actually kind of figured I was playing devil's advocate here and that aging curves would show that power rises steadily into a player's late 20s/early 30s, but then I found this, showing the opposite:
This article specifically talks about how we (including clearly, myself) mistakenly assume that the power peak is later than it is. While individual results will obviously vary greatly, Bogaerts should be right around the peak of his power right now. If someone, including KLaw, disagrees with that, that's fine, but don't dismiss the question as too early to ask. It's a reasonable thread, and we have plenty of data to throw around. How much time did we spend on arguing blindly about what prospects Hamels would require?
I know I'm fighting upstream here, and I am really not trying to antagonize anyone, even Law. I just feel like it's too easy to ignore the fact that a decent question is being raised, and that we are at least getting to the point where saying "too soon to tell" is not necessarily true, just a convenient way to side-step the discussion.