Phenoms vs Busts

Phenoms vs Busts:
I think the term "phenom" and "bust" are used too loosely.
Whats a phenom? Whats a bust? Can you be both?
Can a player be a phenom and not be a bust? or vice versa, not be a phenom but still a bust?

For example, one of my fantasy players michael cuddyer is putting up really good numbers this year. Is he a phenom? No, because he is too old to be consider as one. Was he a phenom? Yes, i think he was ranked a one of the best prospects in the twins system along with rasto and mohr. he also happened to be the only one that was not traded. In general conversation, i would say that a "phenom" is someone who is much more advanced than his peers relative to age, kinda like a kid who skipped a grade or 2 in elementary school. It seems to me that "phenom" is a word that was made up to describe two players with similar skill sets but one is younger or considerably younger.

So what's my point? Why do people even care about AGE when evaluating players, in particular baseball players? There are 50 rounds in a baseball draft not including supplemental drafts. There will ALWAYS be a supply of talent that is one year younger than the previous year. If that's the case, why do people get so caught up on these so called "phenoms" when they are readily available every draft at one year younger? Lets say there are two players with exactly the same stats ages 25 and 28. The player who is 25 is better right? If you answer yes, then you've evaluated these two players with the same blinding ignorance that plagues GMs and scouts today, which leads to my next point.

What is a bust? Pretty much i think the term "bust" can be summed up in two words... "unfulfilled expecatations." One person, lets say a certain Cubs fan, can call kerry wood and mark prior as "busts" while another, lets say a red sox fan, does not. So whats the difference? It is their difference in expectation. Cubs fans say WOW!!! the first time they see wood/prior and think World Series. BoSox fans say "Hmm... not bad." Going back to the previous point on age, GMs and scouts today seem to value age a lot more heavily than it should be. Every one of them idiots are looking for that special player that is ahead of the learning curve. Problem with this is that just because a player is ahead of the learning curve at 19 or 20 DOES NOT mean he will be ahead of the learning curve at at 24 or 25. GMs and scouts hope that these players ALWAYS stay ahead of the average learning curve at every age... but is it really true? isnt this unfair expectation? Is kerry wood better than bronson arroyo at this point? Who will be better in the next 2-3 years? how can you tell?

The problem with these so called "phenoms" is that immediately they are given extremely high expectations that are rarely met. Terming them "busts" after x amount of years of service is completely arbitrary and pointless. It might be more fair to judge all of them at some arbitrary age, such as 28. Simply put, every one of these special players will grow and decay at their own rate and sustain their peak/career years also independent of other players. Suppose you have 2 good young players with the same stats ages 22 and 24, and you know both will have similar productive years until age 30. Which one would you choose? The answer... age is irrelevant, there is no difference between the two players. The key isnt how young or old or how many years of service a young player is projected to provide. The key lies in being able develop the farm systems to provide replacements once the player is used up, whether its 6 or 8 years. Then keep cycling the talent pool via the draft. Thus the Billy Beane's School of GM.

Personally, given all the sports that i've watched, i have never seen one so called "phenom" that made me say holy shit, with two exceptions... allen iverson as a freshman at georgetown and upside.