Would you make this deal?

[lonewolf371]

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]

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]

No way.

[Redeye fly]

The modifier "right now" pretty much takes care of all of this.

Perhaps, but I'm just stubborn.

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]

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]

I have a greater respect for Bautista after reading this: http://www.thepostgame.com/features/...-way-greatness however,,I will still take Votto easily,mostly because of familiarity,knowing his determination.