Cabrera won MVP Topic

Posted by burnsy483 on 11/18/2013 1:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2013 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/18/2013 12:57:00 PM (view original):
Cabrera is not nearly as valuable to the Tigers if they have somebody as high quality as Longoria ready to step in.
Yes, yes he is. Let's say that, without Longoria, the Tigers would require 3 high level prospects back in a trade for Cabrera.

Are you suggesting that, with Longoria, they'd accept less in trade?





 
Why is he being traded now?  "If the Tigers didn't have X player" doesn't mean he's being traded.  It means if they didn't have the player.

And what do prospects do for the team this year?  It's an annual award.
 
Wouldn't the amount received in trade give you a good idea as to how a player is valued, both by his current team and the team acquiring him?

Realistically, if the Tigers had both Longoria and Cabrera, Longoria would already be at third and Cabrera would be at first or DH.

But that's beside the point. The available replacement, be it Longoria, Bourjos, Peralta, or whoever, doesn't really matter when you're talking about MVP. Cabrera's 2013 value is the same, whether or not the Tigers do or do not have an adequate replacement for him.

 
11/18/2013 1:15 PM
"Wouldn't the amount received in trade give you a good idea as to how a player is valued?"

Yes, and now that I think about it, they probably would take less than if they didn't have Cabrera.  Mets are going through that right now, on a much smaller scale.  They need to trade Ike Davis or Lucas Duda, and teams know it.  They don't have much leverage in negotiating.  

But yes, Cabrera's value league-wide, overall, is the same regardless, since you're refusing to consider who else is on his team.  
11/18/2013 1:20 PM
If he isn't traded, and let's say he just gets up and leaves, or gets hurt, and the team doesn't falter because they have Longoria, he wasn't THAT valuable to the Tigers.  
11/18/2013 1:21 PM
This whole argument is besides the point.  Bourjos kinda sucks, I'm confused why this side of the argument has continued in the first place.
11/18/2013 1:23 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/18/2013 1:20:00 PM (view original):
"Wouldn't the amount received in trade give you a good idea as to how a player is valued?"

Yes, and now that I think about it, they probably would take less than if they didn't have Cabrera.  Mets are going through that right now, on a much smaller scale.  They need to trade Ike Davis or Lucas Duda, and teams know it.  They don't have much leverage in negotiating.  

But yes, Cabrera's value league-wide, overall, is the same regardless, since you're refusing to consider who else is on his team.  
?

The Mets don't have much leverage because Davis isn't very good. If I was trying to trade you a three week old McDonald's cheeseburger, I wouldn't have much leverage either.

If you had both Longoria and Cabrera and decided you wanted to trade Cabrera (but didn't have to, because you don't), you'd accept less in return than if you just had Cabrera? I wouldn't.

 
11/18/2013 1:23 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/18/2013 1:23:00 PM (view original):
This whole argument is besides the point.  Bourjos kinda sucks, I'm confused why this side of the argument has continued in the first place.
It is beside the point.

The available replacement doesn't matter when deciding MVP awards.

 
11/18/2013 1:24 PM
Of course I would.  If I valued Cabrera's worth at 4 A+ prospects, but the best offer I got was 3 A+ prospects, I'm pulling the trigger.  Would you rather Cabrera starting and Longoria on the bench, or Longoria starting and prospects?  Your team might be a little worse this year, but it makes sense for long-term success.
11/18/2013 1:27 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2013 1:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/18/2013 1:23:00 PM (view original):
This whole argument is besides the point.  Bourjos kinda sucks, I'm confused why this side of the argument has continued in the first place.
It is beside the point.

The available replacement doesn't matter when deciding MVP awards.

 
For those who see it as "value to the team," it could.  If you still understand that argument.
11/18/2013 1:27 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2013 12:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2013 12:19:00 PM (view original):
Players sitting on the bench aren't less valuable just because they're not playing. 

Yeah, that makes sense.
Who's sitting on the bench?
Do teams play two 3B in your league?
11/18/2013 1:33 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/18/2013 1:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2013 1:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/18/2013 1:23:00 PM (view original):
This whole argument is besides the point.  Bourjos kinda sucks, I'm confused why this side of the argument has continued in the first place.
It is beside the point.

The available replacement doesn't matter when deciding MVP awards.

 
For those who see it as "value to the team," it could.  If you still understand that argument.
But we're talking past tense. His production for 2013 is already decided. He wasn't replaced. Did Cabrera, in his 650 plate appearances and 1200 innings in the field, produce more than anyone else in the league?

The only reason I mentioned team production is in my argument that Trout produced more. That hypothetical team with Trout's production wins more games than hypothetical team with Cabrera's production. But that's certainly debatable.

 
11/18/2013 1:34 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2013 12:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2013 12:19:00 PM (view original):
Players sitting on the bench aren't less valuable just because they're not playing. 

Yeah, that makes sense.
Who's sitting on the bench?
Do teams play two 3B in your league?
Who is sitting on the bench?
11/18/2013 1:34 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2013 1:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2013 12:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2013 12:19:00 PM (view original):
Players sitting on the bench aren't less valuable just because they're not playing. 

Yeah, that makes sense.
Who's sitting on the bench?
Do teams play two 3B in your league?
Who is sitting on the bench?
Do teams play two 3B in your league?
11/18/2013 1:35 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2013 1:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/18/2013 1:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2013 1:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/18/2013 1:23:00 PM (view original):
This whole argument is besides the point.  Bourjos kinda sucks, I'm confused why this side of the argument has continued in the first place.
It is beside the point.

The available replacement doesn't matter when deciding MVP awards.

 
For those who see it as "value to the team," it could.  If you still understand that argument.
But we're talking past tense. His production for 2013 is already decided. He wasn't replaced. Did Cabrera, in his 650 plate appearances and 1200 innings in the field, produce more than anyone else in the league?

The only reason I mentioned team production is in my argument that Trout produced more. That hypothetical team with Trout's production wins more games than hypothetical team with Cabrera's production. But that's certainly debatable.

 
Who is more valuable - the catcher who puts up .300/.400/.500 or the 1st baseman who puts up .310/.410/.530?

Why?

 
11/18/2013 1:37 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/18/2013 1:27:00 PM (view original):
Of course I would.  If I valued Cabrera's worth at 4 A+ prospects, but the best offer I got was 3 A+ prospects, I'm pulling the trigger.  Would you rather Cabrera starting and Longoria on the bench, or Longoria starting and prospects?  Your team might be a little worse this year, but it makes sense for long-term success.
I'd be more likely to trade Cabrera if I had Longoria, but not willing to take less. Cabrera sucks at third anyway and he probably gets more at bats if I play him at first or DH full time.

 
11/18/2013 1:39 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/18/2013 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2013 1:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/18/2013 1:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2013 1:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 11/18/2013 1:23:00 PM (view original):
This whole argument is besides the point.  Bourjos kinda sucks, I'm confused why this side of the argument has continued in the first place.
It is beside the point.

The available replacement doesn't matter when deciding MVP awards.

 
For those who see it as "value to the team," it could.  If you still understand that argument.
But we're talking past tense. His production for 2013 is already decided. He wasn't replaced. Did Cabrera, in his 650 plate appearances and 1200 innings in the field, produce more than anyone else in the league?

The only reason I mentioned team production is in my argument that Trout produced more. That hypothetical team with Trout's production wins more games than hypothetical team with Cabrera's production. But that's certainly debatable.

 
Who is more valuable - the catcher who puts up .300/.400/.500 or the 1st baseman who puts up .310/.410/.530?

Why?

 
If I had to guess, probably the catcher.
11/18/2013 1:40 PM
◂ Prev 1...13|14|15|16|17...35 Next ▸
Cabrera won MVP Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.