Discussion in 'Baseball' started by rangerssharks414, Oct 1, 2017.
you give the individual award to the guy on the best team, got it.
Ah it's so close. Guess I'll go with the guy who has the best teammates
"too close to call! too bad the reds couldn't find pitching with both hands and a map!"
"tough break for votto! needs to start not only getting on base but petitioning the league to allow him to use ghost runners so he can drive himself in"
Possibly the hardest poll I've ever voted on. Went with Goldschmidt just due to the resurgence of the Diamondbacks, not that he did it alone.
So many great candidates, but too many of them play on ****ty teams - Stanton namely, and Votto. Arenado is a beast and carried the Rockies to the wildcard. Any one of them would be MVP on a winning team.
Hell, if I was a voter I might toss it down for Corey Seager too. He's incredible. NL has so many amazing players.
Remember when everyone was dumping on the Reds for giving Votto that contract? Fun times.
Yea he's aged graciously.
He's still owed 150 mill.
Yeah, but he keeps on playing like a HOFer, brilliant, brilliant player. Love to watch him at the plate, a perfect example for any upcoming kid.
Agree but the point I'm making is that they'll be paying him 25 mill per until age 40. This could still turn ugly.
I do think Votto has 2 more elite years in him.
Fair point, but IMHO he returned the investment, his last years could be pricey, but he already did quite a bit to justify the contract he was given, it's just too bad Reds are no good.
Any contract can turn bad though. Other than 1 season where Votto was injured for 2/3 of it, he has been elite his entire career. He definitely has the type of skillset that should age better than others. I agree there is risk and the contract may be terrible in the end but the guy is an MVP caliber player every year. He's more than worth the 25 mil he's making each season.
He's not going to make it to 3000 hits but if he can keep his power numbers up and get to 400+ HR then I can't see an argument for keeping him out of the HOF. Not that 400 or 450HR is that important a number but to the dummies voting it looks much better.
It's still a bad contract.
And the Reds aren't going anywhere - wasting Votto's prime years and hurting their draft position by keeping him around.
The contract is untradable.
It's not bad now though. He's worth the money at this moment and is probably out performing it. I agree with you that he's being wasted on the Reds but that's not his fault. Let's say he's an elite MVP type player for 2 more seasons, a good/all-star caliber player for 2 more, and then an average player for 1-2 more. There's a buyout for the last year so that would be a wait and see type thing. That career arc isn't out of the realm of possibility and he may even be better than that. It wouldn't be that bad of a contract.
They still have a top-5 pick.
It's not a bad contract until Votto starts performing poorly. He's definitely playing to the contract value now, and historically, players with excellent plate discipline and strong contact have hit well into their late 30s. When you think of hitters that decline at that age, he's the opposite. He doesn't strikeout, he doesn't pop out, he rarely swings out of the zone. He never had wicked bat speed that can't be sustained, so his athleticism should keep his swing intact for years to come. He won't continue to put up MVP caliber seasons until he's 40, but he can easily be an all star caliber hitter till then.
If the Reds eat salary, someone would take that contract in a heart beat. Especially budgetary bottomless pits like Boston, New York, or the Dodgers.
Giambi fell apart mid 30s
He also helps them sell tix & jerseys.
Giambi is nothing like Votto lol. They share a high walk rate, other wise they are very different hitters. Giambi also took steroids, which probably contributed to his rapid decline.
Yeah, that's not a great argument to say the least. It's a monster contract. No one will deny that but Votto is exactly the type of player that should age well vs. someone like Giambi, Tex, Miggy, etc. Hell, even Tex put up an excellent year at age 35.
Exactly. Cincinnati probably shouldn't have offered him that, mostly because they had little to no chance to compete during the years Votto would likely be most productive, but if they didn't offer him 10 years at 25 mil/season, he was going to walk as a free agent. He had no reason to resign with the Reds (beyond loyalty, which rarely if ever keeps superstars with a declining team) without a great contract.
If we look historically at players who have strong contact and excellent plate discipline, they usually age quite well. While we shouldn't expect Votto to be an all-star up until age 40, I wouldn't be surprised if he can consistently put up slash lines of at least .275/.400/.400 until the end of the contract.
That's why I figure 2 years of elite, 2 years of 2 all-star, 2 years of average play is totally doable for Votto. Yeah, the contract may not look great at the end but I could see him maybe doing 3 years elite, 2 years all-star, 1 year average or 3 years elite and 3 years all-star. He's shown nothing in his mlb career to make us think that he can't do any of those scenarios listed above which are all fine based on his contract.
This isn't a case where Votto has put up a 10 WAR season on a last place team and nobody else is above 6.5.
There are 3 guys between 7.2 and 7.6 WAR (with Stanton actually ahead of Votto). There is no significant difference there - all have had nearly identical seasons.
And this isn't the 'Most Outstanding Player' award. It's the 'Most Valuable Player' award. Votto's team would have been in last place with or without him. Arenado's team doesn't come anywhere near the playoffs without him. Arenado has been more valuable to his team, or at the very least his value actually meant something.
you know how everyone has those daydreams? telling your boss to shove his stupid reports up his ass? or writing that script that goes worldwide and gives you a stupid amount of money?
from the time i was a kid it was to build a time machine. when i was a kid i wanted to use it like biff tannen to get rich on sports betting. other people share this dream and joke about committing murder as a thin guise of altruism. "hurhur i'd kill hitler" and such.
i want to use my time machine for one sole purpose: when the bbwaa is sitting down to create the actual mvp award, an award given by people who watch baseball and not by a car manufacturer or a flawed system of voting that allowed babe ruth to only win one mvp, but an actual, factual mvp award. i want history to be rewritten that as they sat around after finishing writing the criteria of the mvp award and likely making off-color jokes, drinking scotch and sweating through five layers of wool clothing, that they saw something beyond anyone's belief. a swatch of light grew larger all the time in the room until it enveloped the room in blinding light and a man steps out of the light. one of the writers faints as i step out of the light and without an introduction or so much as a "how do you do?" i open up a sharpie and scrawl
"player does not need to play for a winning team to win this award"
at the bottom of the paper in my very poor penmanship. without another word i step back towards the light and come back to present time where we don't have to have the semantics argument every year about what "value" is and how it relates to whether an individual should win an individual award.
i'm sure joey votto would like nothing more than to make the postseason, play in or even win the world series. he certainly did his part this year, posting ridiculous numbers that, had he had any semblance of a major league baseball team around him might have mattered. he lead the planet in obp and basically tied frankenstein's monster aaron judge in most offensive categories. votto is arguably the best hitter in baseball but he shouldn't win the mvp because his team was eliminated in june.
it just doesn't make any sense.
Again, this would be an argument if Votto was several WAR ahead of the next guy. He wasn't. He, Arenado, and Stanton all had nearly identical seasons.
If 3 guys have identical seasons and one of them carries his team to the playoffs on the back of that season and the others don't, people are going to vote for that guy for an award given to the player who is 'most valuable to his team'. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp.
Obviously there have been many horrible selections throughout the history of the award. Arenado wouldn't be one of them.