PDA

View Full Version : Would you make this deal?



brm7675
06-17-2011, 03:15 PM
If offered straight up would you..

Trade Votto for J. Bautista

Even swap...

izzy's dad
06-17-2011, 03:29 PM
No way! How about this deal Edgar Renteria for a bag of chips. Any takers?

VottoFan54
06-17-2011, 03:31 PM
If offered straight up would you..

Trade Votto for J. Bautista

Even swap...

They are pretty equal players right now, Votto is younger, no deal.

brm7675
06-17-2011, 03:33 PM
They are pretty equal players right now, Votto is younger, no deal.

But if you are pretty sure you are only going to have Votto for another 2.5 seasons, would you do it?

Redsnake
06-17-2011, 04:01 PM
I will say when Votto hits free agency the Reds will lose him.
does anyone else get the feeling his heart isn't here in Cincy.

If that's the case this question will come up again and I would rather have Alonso and Bautista than Alonso only.

bshall2105
06-17-2011, 04:38 PM
But if you are pretty sure you are only going to have Votto for another 2.5 seasons, would you do it?

I wait until the 2013 trade deadline and see what we can get there. Trading Votto makes this team sub .500 imo.

brm7675
06-17-2011, 04:40 PM
I wait until the 2013 trade deadline and see what we can get there. Trading Votto makes this team sub .500 imo.

So you don't think it would be fair value in return AND you bring up Yonder to play first...

bshall2105
06-17-2011, 04:41 PM
So you don't think it would be fair value in return AND you bring up Yonder to play first...

I think that it's a fair trade but I think Votto is so valuable to this franchise that I would want to keep as long as possible.

The DARK
06-17-2011, 04:54 PM
It's trading a guy who is not only the face of the franchise, but the face of Cincinnati sports, for a trendy guy. You see Bautista, and you have no idea how long he'll keep up this production. You see Votto, and you see a probable Hall of Famer.

With Votto, it's not a matter of playing value. It's a matter of him being the reigning MVP and the key to the end of the Lost Decade. Even having him for only 2.5 years will boost attendance rates immensely, and thus indirectly increase the payroll and value of the franchise. Bautista is a great player and is signed to a (currently) club-friendly contract, but he can't be what Votto is to this city.

brm7675
06-17-2011, 05:11 PM
It's trading a guy who is not only the face of the franchise, but the face of Cincinnati sports, for a trendy guy. You see Bautista, and you have no idea how long he'll keep up this production. You see Votto, and you see a probable Hall of Famer.

With Votto, it's not a matter of playing value. It's a matter of him being the reigning MVP and the key to the end of the Lost Decade. Even having him for only 2.5 years will boost attendance rates immensely, and thus indirectly increase the payroll and value of the franchise. Bautista is a great player and is signed to a (currently) club-friendly contract, but he can't be what Votto is to this city.

I guess we differ on that. I don't see Votto as the face of the team, to me that is either Brandon or Jay. Votto is a very reserve not outgoing person. As for production, I think over the next 3 years you will see very similar numbers put up by both. To me this deal would keep the same production and all the Reds to bring Yonder up to play first. I am unsure why you think Bautista couldn't be to the city what Votto is?

VottoFan54
06-17-2011, 05:17 PM
But if you are pretty sure you are only going to have Votto for another 2.5 seasons, would you do it?

Yes, I would do it if the Reds FO felt their was anything less than a 50-50 chance at resigning him, otherwise I would take my chances.

RedsfaninMT
06-17-2011, 05:37 PM
I've been reading on here for a couple years, finally decided to join the mayhem.

I would hate to lose Votto. BUT (!) Bautista and Alonso sounds better to me than Gomes and Votto.

Natty Redlocks
06-17-2011, 06:28 PM
In a baseball sense, Bautista is a better fit. His ability to play third would be pretty handy with Rolen around. And Alonso is better than any OF they have coming up. But there are other issues as well. This ownership has worked very hard to bring people back to the ballpark and buy in. Selling off the MVP, the best hitter this team has had in a long time --and that's saying something -- would likely set back a lot of the goodwill the team has worked very hard to build. Obviously, if they continue to win, people will get over it. But guys like Votto don't come around very often, and it's difficult to imagine a non-video game scenario where he's traded.

I'd totally trade him and Volquez for Jered Weaver and Mike Trout though.

Vottomatic
06-17-2011, 08:17 PM
Votto will always be an excellent hitter with decent power.

I'm not convinced Bautista is here to stay with his power. Plus, he's a late bloomer and already a bit old for me.

mu4103
06-17-2011, 08:22 PM
No way! Votto could be one of the best ever. Keep him in a Reds uniform for a long time. I'm surprised people are even considering this.

webbbj
06-17-2011, 09:03 PM
Votto will always be an excellent hitter with decent power.

I'm not convinced Bautista is here to stay with his power. Plus, he's a late bloomer and already a bit old for me.

not exactly sure why you would think the best player in baseball who is only 30 is not here to stay.

lonewolf371
06-17-2011, 09:19 PM
Votto will always be an excellent hitter with decent power.

I'm not convinced Bautista is here to stay with his power. Plus, he's a late bloomer and already a bit old for me.
...Joey Votto is a late bloomer.

mrherd05
06-17-2011, 09:44 PM
Every Reds fan hated Adam Dunn...why would any Red fan then want Bautista.

21 HR's and only 44 RBI's until tonight. Hitting .269

No way

Maker_84
06-17-2011, 10:17 PM
I'd rather do Votto for Matt Kemp, wouldn't think twice about that one

Redeye fly
06-17-2011, 11:03 PM
not exactly sure why you would think the best player in baseball who is only 30 is not here to stay.


Clearly we have differing opinions on what makes someone the best player in baseball. I'm not going to be dismissive enough to say flavor of the month or that he's "chemically enhanced".

At the same time, when a guy's comparables on baseball reference include names like Jack Howell,Dan Pasqua, Craig Paquette, and yes even Jonny Gomes, to me he needs to do it for a more extended period of time to be remotely considered the best player in baseball.

I know the baseball reference comps probably don't take into account what he's done so far this year, but even so, it's not likely the guy had an Albert Pujols type year last year with that .260 batting average. Not that batting average is everything, but even last year was more Ryan Howard than Albert Pujols, and not many people really say Howard is the best player in baseball.

lonewolf371
06-18-2011, 09:56 AM
I'd rather do Votto for Matt Kemp, wouldn't think twice about that one
Well then I'm glad you're not managing the Reds.

Vottomatic
06-18-2011, 11:01 AM
not exactly sure why you would think the best player in baseball who is only 30 is not here to stay.

He turns 31 in October.

A guy who has had stints in the majors since 2004, and played in over 100 games in 2007, is a career .251 batter, and never hit more than 16 HR's in a season untnil hitting 54 last season, is the best player in baseball?

Get frickin' real.

He's batting .335 right now. The highest full season batting average he's ever had was last year, and it was only .260.

Again, get real.

wlf WV
06-18-2011, 11:15 AM
Votto will always be an excellent hitter with decent power.

I'm not convinced Bautista is here to stay with his power. Plus, he's a late bloomer and already a bit old for me.

This.

wlf WV
06-18-2011, 11:16 AM
No way! Votto could be one of the best ever. Keep him in a Reds uniform for a long time. I'm surprised people are even considering this.
And this.

lonewolf371
06-18-2011, 03:04 PM
He turns 31 in October.

A guy who has had stints in the majors since 2004, and played in over 100 games in 2007, is a career .251 batter, and never hit more than 16 HR's in a season untnil hitting 54 last season, is the best player in baseball?

Get frickin' real.

He's batting .335 right now. The highest full season batting average he's ever had was last year, and it was only .260.

Again, get real.
Jose Bautista is the best player in baseball right now. His triple slash is .335/.486/.685. He could pretty much tank the rest of the season and still be in the MVP conversation. That's how good he's been.

The big thing for me wouldn't be how good/bad either player will be, but the contract and the potential to resign Votto. Bautista is locked up for five more years; Votto is locked up for three. Then, look at ages and how much that may impact Bautista's decline.

redsrolen
06-18-2011, 03:07 PM
I will say when Votto hits free agency the Reds will lose him.
does anyone else get the feeling his heart isn't here in Cincy.

If that's the case this question will come up again and I would rather have Alonso and Bautista than Alonso only.

I've heard he likes Cincy and doesn't like change!!

mu4103
06-18-2011, 04:03 PM
A. I would not trade Votto for Kemp. Kemp has had a lot of problems in the past and was even benched for awhile last year.
B. I am not sure I would trade Bruce for Bautista. Bruce is really starting to hit and has a huge upside.

Sometimes people shine because of their situation (don't need to look further than Griffey Jr.). There are a lot of factors to look at - your fan base, the community, your manager, your teammates ... I am not sure Bautista would shine in Cincy. Of course you never know.

Redeye fly
06-18-2011, 06:32 PM
Jose Bautista is the best player in baseball right now. His triple slash is .335/.486/.685. He could pretty much tank the rest of the season and still be in the MVP conversation. That's how good he's been.

The big thing for me wouldn't be how good/bad either player will be, but the contract and the potential to resign Votto. Bautista is locked up for five more years; Votto is locked up for three. Then, look at ages and how much that may impact Bautista's decline.

Call it a matter of semantics, being bull headed, or just having to agree to disagree, but I side with Vottomatic on the first point.

He may be having the best offensive season of any hitter right now, but that at best makes him the best hitter, not necessarily the best player, in baseball... even though most of the time we do invariably say the best hitter in the game is the best player in the game.

Even if someone wants to show me that he has the higest WAR in the game, including pitchers, I'm still going to be stubborn and say that he's had the best season up to this point, but that doesn't necessarily make him the best player.

When there was a debate in the 90s before Barry went on the juice about whether Bonds or Griffey was the best in the game, a lot of it was of course fueled by the offensive numbers they put up. In fact almost all of it was. But they could also be considered the best player(s) because they each had an impact defensively out in the field as well.

As far as I can tell, Bautista has no major impact defensively. Unless someone can show me otherwise, he's just another guy out there. No superior speed, no cannon arm, no outstanding range and fly tracking abilities.

Even if one wanted to take a pure statistical argument, if there is a player (and I don't know that there is) who's combined value offensively [B]and [B] defensively matches or exceed's Bautista's, then you might say he's the best player in the game and not Bautista.

But to me, it's simple. Less than one half of a season's worth of games, of even adding in last season for Bautista still does not make him the best player for me.

You've got to do it longer than that. If Bautista next season hits .270 with 21 home runs and 75 RBI's (and I know those are traditional "counting stats"), then if he does that over the course of a full season it's hard to say he's the best player in the game. We'll look back and say he had maybe two incredible seasons back to back, but that will be the extent of it.

For me, the title best player in the game is reserved for a guy who does it year after year after year with a proven track record. Guys like Bonds juiced or maybe unjuiced, or Griffey Jr, or Pujols, or Alex Rodriguez juiced or maybe unjuiced. But less than 1.5 seasons thus far of some great numbers is not best in the game stuff for me. You're not looking at Bautista's career and saying "Hall of Fame" and since he is a late bloomer it's hard to imagine you ever will.

webbbj
06-18-2011, 10:26 PM
He turns 31 in October.

A guy who has had stints in the majors since 2004, and played in over 100 games in 2007, is a career .251 batter, and never hit more than 16 HR's in a season untnil hitting 54 last season, is the best player in baseball?

Get frickin' real.

He's batting .335 right now. The highest full season batting average he's ever had was last year, and it was only .260.

Again, get real.

hes the best player right now. i didnt say he was the best player last year or btw 2004-2009. Its not like Joey Votto has put up 4-5 years of MVP quality baseball he did that for now 1& half years. The same amount as Batista.

he has the highest OPS, SLG, OBP in baseball. hes just hit his prime and no reason to think a guy who is dedicated enough to figure out his offensive issues this late in his career doesnt have another 4-6 years of prime baseball left.

Now none of that means i would trade votto. votto still is the face of the organization and that value is worth something. but in a vaccuum batista is the best player right now. Its like trading Peyton Manning for Brady. Theres really no upside either way. the guy each team already has is gonna be more value to them than vice versa.

Redeye fly
06-18-2011, 11:59 PM
hes the best player right now. i didnt say he was the best player last year or btw 2004-2009. Its not like Joey Votto has put up 4-5 years of MVP quality baseball he did that for now 1& half years. The same amount as Batista.

he has the highest OPS, SLG, OBP in baseball. hes just hit his prime and no reason to think a guy who is dedicated enough to figure out his offensive issues this late in his career doesnt have another 4-6 years of prime baseball left.

Now none of that means i would trade votto. votto still is the face of the organization and that value is worth something. but in a vaccuum batista is the best player right now. Its like trading Peyton Manning for Brady. Theres really no upside either way. the guy each team already has is gonna be more value to them than vice versa.


Yes, but with all due respect, I think there's a substantial difference between Votto and Bautista when you say they both have 1 and a half years of MVP quality baseball to their names.

Number 1, Votto is still younger than Bautista. If you're saying Bautista is in his prime at 30 (and he clearly is), at age 27 Votto should actually be entering his prime years, and he's already put up great numbers.

Number 2, Bautista had shown himself to be a average or just above player who of all organizations the Pittsburgh Pirates had given up on. While he indeed may very well have another 4-6 years of great production, on the other hand he may not. I know, that's an easy wuss out statement. But Bautista is just a weird case that has caused a lot of people to debate about whether he's chemically enhanced or just finally figured it out. Fwiw, I tend to give Bautista the benefit of the doubt and say he figured it out. But it took him several very average plate appearances at the major league level to do that.

Votto has been on a solid path since he arrived in the majors and OPS'ed at a .907 clip in 24 games in 2007 then was runner up for rookie of the year in 2008. Again according to baseball reference his comps through age 26 included guys like Jeff Bagwell, Lance Berkman,Matt Holliday,Tim Salmon, Todd Helton, and Norm Cash. That ain't too shabby. Not necessarily Hall of Fame types, but some might be in Bagwell, Berkman, and Helton... maybe even Holliday. Interesting to see a couple of former Reds in there like Sean Casey and Kal Daniels too. But all in all, pretty impressive names.

So in short, some of us just have a hard time saying Bautista is the best in the game... although I can come closer to accepting the argument that he's the best right now. But even with that, when you base it just off of those stats, it's funny because in 2 or 3 months someone could get hot, Bautista could cool off, and by those same standards that other guy becomes the best player in the game 2 months later.

lonewolf371
06-19-2011, 12:42 AM
Call it a matter of semantics, being bull headed, or just having to agree to disagree, but I side with Vottomatic on the first point.

He may be having the best offensive season of any hitter right now, but that at best makes him the best hitter, not necessarily the best player, in baseball... even though most of the time we do invariably say the best hitter in the game is the best player in the game.

Even if someone wants to show me that he has the higest WAR in the game, including pitchers, I'm still going to be stubborn and say that he's had the best season up to this point, but that doesn't necessarily make him the best player.

When there was a debate in the 90s before Barry went on the juice about whether Bonds or Griffey was the best in the game, a lot of it was of course fueled by the offensive numbers they put up. In fact almost all of it was. But they could also be considered the best player(s) because they each had an impact defensively out in the field as well.

As far as I can tell, Bautista has no major impact defensively. Unless someone can show me otherwise, he's just another guy out there. No superior speed, no cannon arm, no outstanding range and fly tracking abilities.

Even if one wanted to take a pure statistical argument, if there is a player (and I don't know that there is) who's combined value offensively [B]and [B] defensively matches or exceed's Bautista's, then you might say he's the best player in the game and not Bautista.

But to me, it's simple. Less than one half of a season's worth of games, of even adding in last season for Bautista still does not make him the best player for me.

You've got to do it longer than that. If Bautista next season hits .270 with 21 home runs and 75 RBI's (and I know those are traditional "counting stats"), then if he does that over the course of a full season it's hard to say he's the best player in the game. We'll look back and say he had maybe two incredible seasons back to back, but that will be the extent of it.

For me, the title best player in the game is reserved for a guy who does it year after year after year with a proven track record. Guys like Bonds juiced or maybe unjuiced, or Griffey Jr, or Pujols, or Alex Rodriguez juiced or maybe unjuiced. But less than 1.5 seasons thus far of some great numbers is not best in the game stuff for me. You're not looking at Bautista's career and saying "Hall of Fame" and since he is a late bloomer it's hard to imagine you ever will.
The modifier "right now" pretty much takes care of all of this.

webbbj
06-19-2011, 12:54 AM
But Bautista is just a weird case that has caused a lot of people to debate about whether he's chemically enhanced or just finally figured it out. Fwiw, I tend to give Bautista the benefit of the doubt and say he figured it out. But it took him several very average plate appearances at the major league level to do that.



i wont argue with ur other points in how each player reached their current success.

but i did want to make note of the chemically enhanced part.

I dont think there has ever been a case in the history of baseball where a player has turned around his career in such dramatic fashion ever. I think his improvements are way beyond PEDs.

Weve seen the players who have been convicted of PED use and in pretty much each case its an already great player turning into the G.O.A.T. or an above avg player becoming an allstar, or a fringe major leaguer doing enough to get bye. Never has a guy gone from near exile to MVP candidate (im almost certain)


but as i said earlier trading votto for bautista is like trading manning for brady. votto is > bautista for the reds and vice versa for the jays even tho in a vacuum i believe right now baustista>votto.

smixsell
06-19-2011, 01:32 AM
No way.

Redeye fly
06-19-2011, 03:17 PM
The modifier "right now" pretty much takes care of all of this.

Perhaps, but I'm just stubborn.:p

I mean really, especially with baseball and especially with hitters where there are so many hot streaks and cold streaks, it can be so temporary.

By such temporary and limited standards, you could just select one of the guys awarded player of the month and say, that guy is the best player in baseball, right now

The thing is, in one sense you might be right. In another sense someone may have a pretty credible argument comparing someone else who didn't have quite the month of player A, but has been much more consistent throughout the season and has better overall numbers.

Naturally, the truly great hitters generally don't have the lengthy slumps that many other players can be prone to.

I don't know. It's fun to talk about and debate or try to figure out. Bautista's career will certainly be interesting to watch, and the Pirates coaching staff in his tenure has to be feeling even worse about themselves these days.

Redeye fly
06-19-2011, 03:53 PM
i wont argue with ur other points in how each player reached their current success.

but i did want to make note of the chemically enhanced part.

I dont think there has ever been a case in the history of baseball where a player has turned around his career in such dramatic fashion ever. I think his improvements are way beyond PEDs.

Weve seen the players who have been convicted of PED use and in pretty much each case its an already great player turning into the G.O.A.T. or an above avg player becoming an allstar, or a fringe major leaguer doing enough to get bye. Never has a guy gone from near exile to MVP candidate (im almost certain)



but as i said earlier trading votto for bautista is like trading manning for brady. votto is > bautista for the reds and vice versa for the jays even tho in a vacuum i believe right now baustista>votto.


I will disagree on that trading Manning for Brady comparison in kind of a side door way. I'm not talking about talent or who's better than who.

If I'm the GM of the Blue Jays I'm much more willing to part with Jose Bautista in the right deal than I would be willing to part with Votto as GM of the Reds.

Reason being, and this is just me, as a GM or anyone associated with the Blue Jays organization, you're almost always going to be dealing with a couple of obstacles for the immediate future.

1. Unless the stars align correctly you're probably always going to be looking
up at the Yankees and Red Sox, and at times if not every time the Devil
Rays as well. That's just the reality of the situation most of the time with
at least the Yankees and Red Sox and the economics of the game.
2. Baseball is almost always going to come second in Canada to hockey. It
definitely came second in Montreal. Toronto has had or did have better
attendance and fan support. Maybe it was a better stadium, maybe it
was a couple of World Series titles in the 90s, maybe it's the fact the
Montreal Canadians used to be a hockey dynasty. I don't know, but
regardless, Canada is a hockey country first and foremost. You can
probably trade anybody and you'll upset some people but still be alright.

In Cincinnati on the other hand, when they're going well, the Reds rule the city. It's possible or arguable that problems aside Ohio State football rules the state. The Bengals certainly have their fan support even when they're bad. But fickle as they can be, Reds fans and people in Cincinnati love to support a good Reds team. The Reds also compete in a division that is much more balanced and open to not necessarily any team to win. But you don't have the juggernauts like the Red Sox and Yankees in this division. The Cardinals come or at least came the closest over the past several years. But you don't have a team or two gobbling up the top free agents in the game each and every year, so that allows for at least a bit more even playing field.

While you may argue about whether Votto or someone else is the most important player or the face of the Reds team, I think he does mean more to the Reds organization than Bautista does to the Blue Jays organization.

Votto is homegrown, for one thing. You can perhaps argue that the Blue Jays developed or "fixed" Bautista, but he didn't come up through their organization. I'm not saying that factor should kill a deal, I'm just saying that makes Votto a little more identifiable as a Red. Bautista on the other hand is a guy, imo, that for the Blue Jays you love having on your team. But if the right player(s) or right package comes along, if you're out of the race because you're in a division with Boston and New York, I think you deal Bautista and don't think twice about it.

Actually, if I'm the Blue Jays I'd be inclined to look harder at that type of deal just with Votto being a hometown guy. Of course with hockey still ruling the country, I don't know what kind of a spark that would give you in terms of attendance, revenue, or wins. But I'd be more willing to do it on Toronto's side than I would on Cincinnati's side.

wlf WV
06-20-2011, 02:49 PM
I have a greater respect for Bautista after reading this: http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201106/number-crusher-how-blue-jays-slugger-jose-bautista-experimented-his-way-greatness however,,I will still take Votto easily,mostly because of familiarity,knowing his determination.