He's nowhere close to the 2nd best player in MLB. At the bare minimum: A-Rod Pujols Howard Braun Longoria Hanley Ramirez Utley Texiera Fielder Cabrera Are all substantially better players (and that's just hitters). Yes, he plays Catcher and plays it extremely well. But you don't pay that much extra for defense, and especially not if you're Minnesota. Last year, in Mauer's career season by far, there were 30 players with more HRs than him. I think people are assuming his one totally out of character career year is the norm for him, but people need to look at his career as a whole. Even in the minors, he hit a total of 9 HRs in 300 games. Until last year, he wasn't even the best catcher in the league.
OPS last season: Pujols 1.101 Mauer 1.031 Fielder 1.014 Hanley Ramirez .954 Teixeira .948 Braun .937 A-Rod .933 Howard .931 Utley .905 Longoria .889 I can't see how you could possibly rate any of those guys above Mauer, except Pujols, given age, position, and last season. Longoria and Utley are "substantially better" even though they have never had a season as good as Mauer's last year (and were substantially worse last year)? Mauer had a "career year" at age 25? People have been predicting a power breakout for him for a long time. I also think you can't compare the value of guys like Fielder, who plays 1B, to Mauer, who catches, without comparing the batting ability of their competitors at their respective positions.
Pujols being on steroids/P.E./HGH is on borderline rumors (drawn up by writers trying to sell stories) and conspiracy theories, so you can't really take into account at least not yet. Unless, he personally admits it or is outed by a trainer, staff member, or former team mate. You are totally wrong on the LeBron argument. Do you realize how many players or much less NBA forwards have averaged at least 30 ppg with 10 ast or 10 rebs? If we exclude rebounds, there are only two players in NBA history to average over 30 ppg and 10 ast in season. Oscar Robertson and Tiny Archibald. If Lebron pulled that off, he'd be in exclusive company. #ell, there is only a handful of players who averaged 20 ppg and 10 ast, as Chris Paul is the only one who has done it in this decade, since Kevin Johnson, Michael Adams, Kevin Johnson, Magic Johnson, Oscar Robertson, and Isiah Thomas.
Because I'm not looking at 1 yr. Each of those guys has been performing for their entire careers, and pretty much since the day they came into the majors. Mauer has had ONE great year, his 6th in the majors. To value them similarly is pure insanity and the very definition of "buy sky high". If Mauer maintains a 1.000 OPS going forward, sure, that's great. Mauer has never demonstrated any power at either the minor league or major league levels before this year. Even with last year, most of his power was in the first month of the season. So yes, until he duplicates it, it should be regarded with caution, and certainly shouldn't be looked at the same level as the players who've done it for years, both in the majors and minors. When you're paying people, you're paying them for offense. It's nice that he plays catcher, but when you can get more production for substantially less money at another position, that's a far better value since you're not going to have stars all over the field anyway. Take catcher and 1B, for example. You could get more production for less money from a $17MM Howard + $6MM catcher than you can from a $23MM Mauer + a minimum wage 1B.
My last post had to do with Mauer being called a great hitter. It had nothing to do with his age, position, etc... When I say he isnt worth the contract, thats because I dont think anyone in baseball is worth that much...specially for a team like the Twins. Also, Mauer has to show that last season is going to be the norm for him going forward...any decline in his power numbers and that is a complete waste of money. But to answer your question...yes, catcher would be a position I would fill early, but I'd also make sure to keep the contract below a certain level as well. 184 million is quite excessive.
I think that flew right over your head. I guess you must have missed the or's in there. 30 points, or 10 assists, or 10 rebounds. That seemed pretty straight forward to me. There have been countless guys average 30 points a game. There have been tons average 10 assists a game. There have been even more average 10 rebounds a game. How many times has Lebron done even 1 of those things? Rethink that and then tell me how wrong I am, again.
Are you trying to say that Lebron is not a freak of nature ? At the current pace he is on he will go down as possibly one of the greatest players the NBA has ever seen. If he finishes his career the way he's started it he will be one of the top 10 players the game has ever seen. Once again Albert and Lebron are probably the two best players at there sport. And when you are as great as they are people want to do anything to try and bring you down......
I'm going to sidetrack this thread even more, I gave up MVP awards 10 years ago. Well, the NBA has had a history of screwing up the MVP vote, and it happened way before Nash was in the picture, just look at 96-97 season or the 98-99 year. How in the world does KM win over MJ in a year that the Bulls tied the old record and he's playing at his usual self? With the Bulls for the most part crushing the NBA. This is why I hate the criteria of MVP awards, because they can get to the point of being too biased or circumstantial. I often hear arguments that it should go to "a player who is the most valuable to their team," or "the best player on the best team record wise, and stats shouldn't be the only indication." Yet, I can look at the 96-97 season, and all of that suddenly went out of the window. How was Michael Jordan not the most valuable player to his team that season (or how was Karla more deserving)? I'll hear (or have it implied) the more notorious, the MVP award should be spread around. I've never heard one logical argument for the Mail lady being a better MVP in 97 than #23. http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_1997.html#mvp Let's fast forward to 1999, how in the world does Karl Malone win over Tim Duncan? Duncan averages less points (less than two), but is superior in every other category. Both teams tie for 1st place. Though head to head, Spurs won the season series 2-1 with Tim Duncan having a monster game against Malone near the end of season. Though, the biggest reasons . . ."Oh, Karl Malone is far more valuable to the Jazz than Duncan who plays with David Robinson on the Spurs." "He's the best player on one of the best teams." Also, the Jazz are the unanimous favorites to win the NBA title, since that crew Chicago decided to close the curtain. Yet, the great Mail-lady delivered a 8 point performance in an elimination game as the underdog Blazers reach the Western Conference Finals. It wasn't even a Sunday. In another disappointing playoff perfomance, the heavily favorite Jazz went home, yet again without an NBA title, this time at the hands of a team without any superstars or powerhouse teams in their way. The Trailblazers were good team, but they certainly were not the Bulls or Rockets. http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_1999.html#mvp I'm sorry I think Karl Malone is less deserving MVP than Nash, given his competition. MJ should've had six, while Duncan should've had three.
*Forgot* Tim Hardaway You realize that most players who averaged 30 points (in one season or more) in NBA history are either in the hall of fame or headed there someday. For the players who have done that, while averaging or coming close to 10 assist or 10 rebounds (or more) are mostly a group of legendary players.
Thanks for making his point. At that time in his career Mcgrady was looking like a sure-fire Hall of Famer and being compared to some of the greats. When you put up monster stats like that chances are you are going to be something special.
He will probably reach 20,000 career points at some point. And he will probably win a ring as well by riding the pine or being a roleplayer. -2 Scoring Titles -20,000 Career Points Scored -1 Championship Without going in-depth thats pretty much a sure fire HOF.
I know this thread has gone way off track, but McGrady a sure-fire HOF? You can't really be serious when you say this. Did McGrady have times when he was a good, if not great player, sure. I don't think he did it long enough or consistent enough, as he was always injured. He is also remembered for basically quitting and never doing a thing in the playoffs. If he is a sure-fire HOF, then the whole system needs to be done away with. The HOF has no cred if he is considered sure-fire. He doesn't even have the great college career to fall back on when making his argument. His only body of work is the NBA, and it is nowhere near sure-fire.
Look at the list of players with 20,000 career points. I guarantee you almost 90 percent of those players are in the Hall of Fame. A big part of making the Hall of Fame is purely stats. Not to mention he has one of the highest Playoff scoring averages of all time, even if it got him nothing. And what you did in college has nothing to do with the NBA.....both are entirely different things. That's why there is the college basketball hall of fame. Look at Craig Biggio, statistically one of the greatest second basemen of all-time. He never had much playoff success similar to Mcgrady, but because he achieved that number of 3,000 hits he's a guarantee to get in. But Biggio had a work ethic as well, something Mcgrady has yet to really show. I'm just saying the biggest factor into getting into the Hall in any sport is personal stats, and let's face it if Mcgrady lasts it a few more years in the league he's only going to be padding them.
