And you're avoiding the point. Come up with a prospect on YOUR favorite team and we can argue about him then!

Barton is a fine prospect - I'd be happy if he was in my favorite team's organization.
But I'll always take the guy with much extraordinary power and a position to play. Sure, power develops past the age of 20 for most people, but that just makes Young's numbers even mre impressive.

What Young has done is very rare and indicative of elite MLB talent.
I just looked at fifteen years worth of data. Here is a list of guys who have hit over 20 HR at the AA/AAA levels as 19 or 20 year olds:

1990. Juan Gonzalez
      
1993. Cliff Floyd
      
1996. Paul Konerko
      
1996. Derreck Lee
      
1998. Eric Chavez
      
2000. Corey Patterson
      
2004. Andy Marte
      
2004. Prince Fielder

Hermida had a .225 iso slug in the southern league, Young had a slightly better .246 iso slug.  But Hermida had a significantly higher XBH%, 43.4%, than Young, 33.3%.  Why was that? Hermida hit 29 doubles to 18 homeruns, while Young hit 13 doubles to 20 homeruns.  It seems to me that while Young is 1 1/2 years younger, Hermida may have more growth in terms of power infront of him as more of those doubles go over the fence; his iso slug has been growing for three years running, in 2004 it was only .144, and .109 the year before. And its not as if Hermida doesnt hit homeruns, he hit a homerun every 21.4 ab's, Young also hit a homerun every 21.4 ab's in 2005.  Hermida can also match Young's defensive abilities and is a better baserunner.

Barton has the plate discipline that Young lacks,  but Hermida can match.  Barton walked 97 times with 504 ab's between A and AA, Hermida walked 111 times with 386 ab's all in AA.  Hermida can match Barton's control of the strike-zone; Barton had a W:K ratio of 1.23, Hermida had a W:K ratio of 1.25.

You can compare Young to Albert Belle, or Barton to John Olerud.  Hermida could be like Bobby Abreu, if his power held steady in the .200 iso slugging area.  But if his power continues to grow, as it has significantly every year since he was drafted, he could be good for 35-40 homeruns a year.  Lets see, take that power, tons of walks, solid batting average, plus defense in a corner outfield spot, and a great ability to steal bases.  Sounds a lot like vintage BArry Bonds to me.  That makes him the best prospect in baseball.

A fastball that no one but Pujols can catch up with.  Ok.  Excellent.

You're right, a 25 year older starter with one plus pitcher and a couple average pitches is better than 20 year olds playing in AA and AAA and putting up .900+ OPS's.  

Paps is a nice pitcher, a nice three potentially a mid three ERA guy for a few years, but he's not the best prospect on his own team, let alone the game.  

As for the debate at hand, i'm voting Barton over Young as a hitter, but Young a better overall contributor to a team.  

I love performance as much as anyone, but I also recognize that defense must be played, bases must be run, and Young can effect the game in a lot of different ways that Barton could never even dream of.

That said, you can't go wrong with either

I can't think of a ton of hitters who have suddenly become more disciplined hitters to any substantial difference.  Sure, there are a few, but the list is MUCH smaller than the list of people who develop power, who increase their average, etc.  

For the purposes of this discussion, I think we should assume that Delmon Young is not going to be a very patient hitter.  At best, MAYBE league average IsoOBP (around .060)

Barton will be a fine 1B... Chavez wasn't supposed to be a great defensive guru, either. Neither were various other GG players. Defense is far more easily learned than good discipline. Plus, he's already rated as "average" at first base (at age 20) so I'm not sure where your comments of "he's a liability on the field" come from....
The rest of the ill-conceived points in your logic have been taken care of (discipline can be learned etc.)
Why would you bank on someone becoming more intelligent instead of someone lifting more waits/maturing physically? I'd argue Delmon is almost finished maturing, whereas Barton will continue for another couple years.

As far as speed, unless he can add an entire base to what Barton would do (happens rarely enough that Barton's far-better OBP probably outdoes it) and unless he can steal successfully 80% of the time, speed is almost worthless (except for Young's position. Barton plays a position that doesn't require speed anyway, so the point is moot).
Delmon's edge in contact is small, to the point that it might fall lower than Barton's because of his less-than-stellar place discipline (swinging at those outside sliders tends to cut the ol' AVG down)

Please keep arguing though

Speed, unless it's utterly game changing (Podsednik, maybe three-five other current MLB players) is more prone to reducing your team's long-term run count than it is to increasing. Barton doesn't need arm strength. Barton's defense will get better under some of the best infield coaches in the Majors (see the transformation of Chavez, Eric, and Crosby, Bobby, and Hatteberg, Scott, and Ellis, Mark... need I go on? Even Giambi was OK under the Oakland defensive tutelage)

Athleticism in baseball is less than important. After all, is Mark Teixeira the most athletic of players? Albert Pujols? Aren't they the guys that you'd want most? With Young's power, why is speed important anyway?? When he's banging out 50 HRs like you expect (though ~40 sounds more plausible at the peak of his career) why need to steal? Wouldn't you trade that for good discipline? His stealing has to be successful a huge portion fo the time to actually help his team, and most major leaguers simply don't have that kind of success rate.

Physics wise, force on ball is more important than torque/spin. Barton lifts weights, gains 20 pounds, no reason he shouldn't hit around 30 dingers (or at least large double totals)
Was Babe Ruth a superfreak athlete? I don't know -- I always thought he was kind of fat...

Power tends to catch up to plate discipline (more often than the reverse at least... Jason Kendall is an example you'll want to use against me though obviously I have a counter argument ;-))

Young probably has filled most of his body out, and won't physically develop much more. If he does, his speed, defense, strength, and durability fly out the window. Barton can grow without sacrificing any of that (especially speed since he has little of that ;-))

Of course, he might have had some "Other help" in achieving those home runs, but Giambi was only an example.  

Another example would be Conor Jackson, who has fantastic plate discipline and has hit plenty of doubles, but has not hit too hit many homers in the minors so far.  Yet many still project him to be a home run threat in the majors.  Maybe not 50 homers, but still a threat.  

"With virtually no chinks in his armor, it's easy to see why managers tabbed him the Southern League's best batting prospect, best power hitter, best outfield arm and most exciting player."

haha, these stats are really good stuff

thanks man

You may say he's 6th, but I'm wondering if that is homerism. Until he shows power and/or defense, he's not that high.

Getting ahead of myself?  What're you talking about?

If it really is, and you're really serious, then I would say that no, it is not a deep rooted disdain for athleticism because they don't have athleticism (I'm assuming you're making an indirect statement that people who support Barton are unathletic/nerdy?)
Billy Beane might choose Barton over Young. Billy Beane was drafted first round specifically because of his physical prowess/5 tool talent.
As for myself, as a sophomore HS I'm already on one varsity sport (baseball) and probably two (soccer) by the end of junior year. Regardless, your post is so... ridiculous... that I shouldn't be offended... but I am. Nearly everyone here is posting coherent, stat-backed arguments to their decisions. You arbitrarily say "I don't think I would take 40-60 BB's over more power, pedigree, defense, speed, arm etc." Why, when we've basically said that the latter three don't matter in this discussion of players playing completely different positions? And what the hell is a pedigree? How many players with "pedigrees" have failed?

And no, we're not trying to "prove a point to traditional scouts." We're trying to make an objective argument that goes against conventional wisdom (which is clearly in favor of Young) because A) it's a legitimate argument, B) it's fun, C) it's better than all the draft questions, and D) Just to make you angry, I'm doing this entire diary specifically to prove a point to traditional scouts.