kingfish Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Pujols is 29, about to be a free agent. For MLB I think its Lincecum, one of the most dominating pitchers the game has ever seen, and hes still reallly young. Pujols is the best player in MLB by far, but Lincecum might be better long term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trutrojan8 Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 He's marketable, and he's sexy. THAT'S WHY HE'S THE MVP PEOPLE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish7718 Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 He's marketable, and he's sexy. THAT'S WHY HE'S THE MVP PEOPLE.See that is why you are ignorant. First of all I never said he was the MVP. Second of all I was joking about him being sexy adds to his value, although he is. Third of all a marketable player is very important to a franchise it creates more revenue so you can sign better players. JACKASS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly3rs18 Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 See that is why you are ignorant. First of all I never said he was the MVP. Second of all I was joking about him being sexy adds to his value, although he is. Third of all a marketable player is very important to a franchise it creates more revenue so you can sign better players. JACKASS! that is stupid. any great player will bring more revenue to a franchise, it doesnt really matter how marketable they are. sure it could help a little but, but long run it really doesnt matter much at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly3rs18 Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 and how marketable he may be has nothing to do with trade value at all. any team would take skill over how well a player is liked. i would take a hated player like barry bonds or someone over david wright or a fan favorite any day if they could produce more for my team. that is the bottom line Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phightins Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 But he is SEKZI!! What a stud that David Wright is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted July 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 David Wright doesn't have more trade value than a few players in his own division. Hanley Ramirez has more, and I'd even say that Johan Santana does.  Anyways, I still think that Albert Pujols would command an absolute fortune, and I think that Jon Lester has a lot of trade value, considering that he is young and dominant, and he was the main player that the Minnesota Twins wanted for Johan Santana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish7718 Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 (edited) that is stupid. any great player will bring more revenue to a franchise, it doesnt really matter how marketable they are. sure it could help a little but, but long run it really doesnt matter much at all Somewhat true, yet it does matter a lot. The more the fans like a player the more of the players products they will sell. Ex. Delgado played better than Wright last year BUT Wright is far more marketable therefore sold a lot more Jerseys and T-shirts and sold more tickets yada yada yada.  and how marketable he may be has nothing to do with trade value at all. any team would take skill over how well a player is liked. i would take a hated player like barry bonds or someone over david wright or a fan favorite any day if they could produce more for my team. that is the bottom line Uhm then why couldn't the Giants land amazing prospects for Bonds. A decent argument with a horrible example. BTW if you can't read I already explained how marketable players can benefit a franchise. But he is SEKZI!! What a stud that David Wright is. ? I admitted already that was a joke, leave it to you to bring that up again. David Wright doesn't have more trade value than a few players in his own division. Hanley Ramirez has more, and I'd even say that Johan Santana does.  Anyways, I still think that Albert Pujols would command an absolute fortune, and I think that Jon Lester has a lot of trade value, considering that he is young and dominant, and he was the main player that the Minnesota Twins wanted for Johan Santana.David Wright doesn't have more trade value than a few players in his own division. Hanley Ramirez has more, and I'd even say that Johan Santana does.  Anyways, I still think that Albert Pujols would command an absolute fortune, and I think that Jon Lester has a lot of trade value, considering that he is young and dominant, and he was the main player that the Minnesota Twins wanted for Johan Santana.Hanley Ramirez may be the most over rated player in baseball. He is a remarkable hitter and has rare 40/40 potential. However he plays absolutely no defense, makes a lot of lazy/dumb plays that should be avoided, and doesn't hustle on a lot of plays. He has a long way to go before I'd say he's a top 5 baseball player. Edited July 12, 2009 by Fish7718 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trutrojan8 Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 He's without question top five. He doesn't play defense very well, which is why the Marlins should try to convert him into an outfielder, but his offensive stats are too good to rule him out of the top five. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phightins Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Hanley Ramirez may be the most over rated player in baseball. He is a remarkable hitter and has rare 40/40 potential. However he plays absolutely no defense, makes a lot of lazy/dumb plays that should be avoided, and doesn't hustle on a lot of plays. He has a long way to go before I'd say he's a top 5 baseball player. And Manny Ramirez plays no defense, never hustles, makes dumb plays, and has attitude problems. Forget the fact that he is one of the greatest right handed hitters of all time, overrated!!! ....Come on dude, seriously? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 LeBron James. In Basketball more than any other sport, one individual can make more of an impact. Marketability is a valued trait for people saying otherwise. LeBron is probably the easiest guy to market and he will bring in a ton of profit for your organization which is definetly valued. Not to mention surrounding a guy like LeBron with a bunch of average players makes your team a contender. LeBron's age combined with his skill set, marketability, and sport make this an obvious choice for me. This guy has the potential to be the best ever in his sport. I realize that he would never get traded unless the Cavs had their backs against the wall, but isn't that what it means to be valued most? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phightins Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 LeBron James. In Basketball more than any other sport, one individual can make more of an impact. Marketability is a valued trait for people saying otherwise. LeBron is probably the easiest guy to market and he will bring in a ton of profit for your organization which is definetly valued. Not to mention surrounding a guy like LeBron with a bunch of average players makes your team a contender. LeBron's age combined with his skill set, marketability, and sport make this an obvious choice for me. This guy has the potential to be the best ever in his sport. I realize that he would never get traded unless the Cavs had their backs against the wall, but isn't that what it means to be valued most? The question is not which player has the best combination of dominating skills and marketability. It is which player could bring the most net value in a trade. I know you disagree, but with the lack of a farm system in the NBA it is hard for that kind of value to be dealt in exchange for a superstar like LeBron. That's why it has to be an MLB or NHL guy, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish7718 Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 And Manny Ramirez plays no defense, never hustles, makes dumb plays, and has attitude problems. Forget the fact that he is one of the greatest right handed hitters of all time, overrated!!! ....Come on dude, seriously?I don't see what you're getting at here? How did this go from Hanley to Manny and what point are you trying to make, you think Manny is top 5 too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 MLB: Hanley Ramirez, Roy HalladayNBA: LeBron, DwightNFL: Peterson, Andre Johnson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 (edited) The question is not which player has the best combination of dominating skills and marketability. It is which player could bring the most net value in a trade. I know you disagree, but with the lack of a farm system in the NBA it is hard for that kind of value to be dealt in exchange for a superstar like LeBron. That's why it has to be an MLB or NHL guy, IMO. LeBron would bring back the most in a trade. Team's would have to give up a current all-star, their entire nucleus of young players, and their future first rounders for quite a few years. It would have to be legit young players too, none of that Ryan Anderson bs or stuff like that. I know I would any assortment of players on the Sixers for LeBron James because a superstar of that caliber is just THAT valuable in basketball. Other than the 2004 Detroit Pistons every championship team since 1990 has been built around MJ, Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan, Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant. So with one exception every team in basketball to win it all has a top 10 player of all-time on their team. LeBron has the potential which is why he is so valuable at the young age of 24.  I am curious to see who you think is more valuable than LeBron whether it be a guy like Sidney Crosby that only plays about 1/3 of the game in hockey, or a a 29 year old like Albert Pujols who's bat is limited to use only 1/9th of the times his team is at the plate. A Basketball Superstar of LeBron's caliber at such a young age is the most valuable thus having the most trade value. Team's would have to trade their entire roster of good players just to stand a chance and even that won't be enough. His trade value is unlimited and sooooo high btw leave it to a Mets fan to use "sexy looks" for one of their players as a reason in this topic. Edited July 12, 2009 by Diesel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phightins Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 I don't see what you're getting at here? How did this go from Hanley to Manny and what point are you trying to make, you think Manny is top 5 too? You said Hanley Ramirez is "overrated". You said he doesn't hustle, play D, etc. Isn't the same true for Manny? You don't see anybody calling him overrated. I'd say that the general public knows exactly what Hanley Ramirez will give you game in and game out. He is not in the league for his glove (although he is improving by the year), but he is one of the finest young bats in the game. How in the world is he overrated if everybody knows what his flaws are and talks about them regularly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phightins Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 (edited) LeBron would bring back the most in a trade. Team's would have to give up a current all-star, their entire nucleus of young players, and their future first rounders for quite a few years. It would have to be legit young players too, none of that Ryan Anderson bs or stuff like that. I know I would any assortment of players on the Sixers for LeBron James because a superstar of that caliber is just THAT valuable in basketball. Other than the 2004 Detroit Pistons every championship team since 1990 has been built around MJ, Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan, Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant. So with one exception every team in basketball to win it all has a top 10 player of all-time on their team. LeBron has the potential which is why he is so valuable at the young age of 24.  I am curious to see who you think is more valuable than LeBron whether it be a guy like Sidney Crosby that only plays about 1/3 of the game in hockey, or a a 29 year old like Albert Pujols who's bat is limited to use only 1/9th of the times his team is at the plate. A Basketball Superstar of LeBron's caliber at such a young age is the most valuable thus having the most trade value. Team's would have to trade their entire roster of good players just to stand a chance and even that won't be enough. His trade value is unlimited and sooooo high btw leave it to a Mets fan to use "sexy looks" for one of their players as a reason in this topic. I think you are completely missing the point. Come up with a trade that a team could make for LeBron James. A legit trade, not some BS where 5 teams would be involved and Cleveland would wind up with Dwight Howard, Kevin Garnett, and Kobe Bryant. Make it a legitimate trade (although this is technically not a "legitimate" argument because this would never happen, but it is just for arguments sake). Then by comparison we will come up with a trade the St. Louis Cardinals could hypothetically make with Albert Pujols, or the San Francisco Giants could make with Tim Lincecum, or the Pittsburgh Penguins with Sidney Crosby. We will then compare "value" received by the team trading away the superstar.  It isn't that LeBron isn't the most valuable player in pro sports (because honestly I would agree with that), but with the setup of the NBA it is impossible to realistically get a net value worth anything that would even make the Cavs pick up the phone and discuss a trade. Not necessarily the case in MLB/NHL in this era of teams valuing so highly (and in lots of cases overvaluing) their top prospects. Edited July 12, 2009 by Phightins09 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish7718 Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 I honestly don't here anyone talking about his flaws at all, I hear everyone talking about how amazing he is and continuing to say how he has the highest trade value out of any player which is pretty silly. Comparing Manny to Hanley is also a stretch you said it yourself Manny is one of the greatest hitters of all time he is given a pass for his antics. Plus LF is not a position you count on for defense your SS is supposed to be your best defender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phightins Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 (edited) I honestly don't here anyone talking about his flaws at all, I hear everyone talking about how amazing he is and continuing to say how he has the highest trade value out of any player which is pretty silly. Comparing Manny to Hanley is also a stretch you said it yourself Manny is one of the greatest hitters of all time he is given a pass for his antics. Plus LF is not a position you count on for defense your SS is supposed to be your best defender. It was an example to prove your argument against Hanley ridiculous. They are two players who are in the league for nothing more than stepping up to the plate 4-5 times a game and swinging the bat. Everybody knows that. I didn't think this would be so hard to comprehend.. Edited July 12, 2009 by Phightins09 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish7718 Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 (edited) LeBron would bring back the most in a trade. Team's would have to give up a current all-star, their entire nucleus of young players, and their future first rounders for quite a few years. It would have to be legit young players too, none of that Ryan Anderson bs or stuff like that. I know I would any assortment of players on the Sixers for LeBron James because a superstar of that caliber is just THAT valuable in basketball. Other than the 2004 Detroit Pistons every championship team since 1990 has been built around MJ, Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan, Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant. So with one exception every team in basketball to win it all has a top 10 player of all-time on their team. LeBron has the potential which is why he is so valuable at the young age of 24.  I am curious to see who you think is more valuable than LeBron whether it be a guy like Sidney Crosby that only plays about 1/3 of the game in hockey, or a a 29 year old like Albert Pujols who's bat is limited to use only 1/9th of the times his team is at the plate. A Basketball Superstar of LeBron's caliber at such a young age is the most valuable thus having the most trade value. Team's would have to trade their entire roster of good players just to stand a chance and even that won't be enough. His trade value is unlimited and sooooo high btw leave it to a Mets fan to use "sexy looks" for one of their players as a reason in this topic.First of all your wrong in consider LeBron would require the most in a trade out of any athlete. Especially considering the NBA has a salary cap and in order to keep LeBron you pretty much have to commit 40% of your cap to him. Secondly I said that was a joke for I think the third or fourth time now.... Finally, Wright is pretty sexy  It was an example to prove your argument against Hanley ridiculous. They are two players who are in the league for nothing more than stepping up to the plate 4-5 times a game and swinging the bat. Everybody knows that. I didn't think this would be so hard to comprehend..Glad you can just throw away 50% away of the game right there. The Marlins must be pretty dumb then putting a player who is there for nothing more than swinging the bat and putting him at the most important position on the field besides pitcher. Edited July 12, 2009 by Fish7718 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted July 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 LeBron would bring back the most in a trade. Team's would have to give up a current all-star, their entire nucleus of young players, and their future first rounders for quite a few years. It would have to be legit young players too, none of that Ryan Anderson bs or stuff like that. I know I would any assortment of players on the Sixers for LeBron James because a superstar of that caliber is just THAT valuable in basketball. Other than the 2004 Detroit Pistons every championship team since 1990 has been built around MJ, Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan, Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant. So with one exception every team in basketball to win it all has a top 10 player of all-time on their team. LeBron has the potential which is why he is so valuable at the young age of 24.  I am curious to see who you think is more valuable than LeBron whether it be a guy like Sidney Crosby that only plays about 1/3 of the game in hockey, or a a 29 year old like Albert Pujols who's bat is limited to use only 1/9th of the times his team is at the plate. A Basketball Superstar of LeBron's caliber at such a young age is the most valuable thus having the most trade value. Team's would have to trade their entire roster of good players just to stand a chance and even that won't be enough. His trade value is unlimited and sooooo high btw leave it to a Mets fan to use "sexy looks" for one of their players as a reason in this topic. I don't think you understand how much harder it is to get "value" in the NBA than it is in the MLB/NHL.  In the NBA, you are only going to be dealing current NBA players and garbage picks. Also, I really don't see what team would trade for LeBron and give up everything they have(your point), or trade a star for a star. It just doesn't work that way.   Let me give an example of what the Boston Bruins would have to give up for Alexander Ovechkin, with cap space not taking effect, although I don't think this would even be enough, and I doubt either team would do the trade.  Phil KesselDavid KrejciBlake WheelerTukka RaskDennis Wideman For: Alexander Ovechkin  That is probably too much to give up, but that is a type of package that it would take in order to get Alexander Ovechkin.  The farm system and AHL is the main reason for MLB and NHL players having more trade value than NBA players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check my Stats Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 I think it has to be an MLB or NHL player mainly because there are "prospects" that can be dealt, whereas in the NFL and NBA you are just going to be dealing starters and draft picks.  I saw Albert Pujols hit 2 HR's tonight, and I think he would command an immense amount, even though he is old than some of the younger studs in the MLB. Also, I think Sidney Crosby would cost a FORTUNE! A single player can have a greater impact than any single player of any position in a sport besides probably QB IMO. Overall it's gotta be LeBron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phightins Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 (edited) Glad you can just throw away 50% away of the game right there. The Marlins must be pretty dumb then putting a player who is there for nothing more than swinging the bat and putting him at the most important position on the field besides pitcher. I am not throwing away 50%....that is what Manny does. You are right that might have been an extreme example since Manny literally throws away every aspect of the game besides hitting and Hanley at least gives marginal effort and is becoming a decent fielder...but did you really see right through that example? I thought it was clear as day, my bad for making it too confusing for you. Edited July 12, 2009 by Phightins09 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted July 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 First of all your wrong in consider LeBron would require the most in a trade out of any athlete. Especially considering the NBA has a salary cap and in order to keep LeBron you pretty much have to commit 40% of your cap to him. Secondly I said that was a joke for I think the third or fourth time now.... Finally, Wright is pretty sexy   Glad you can just throw away 50% away of the game right there. The Marlins must be pretty dumb then putting a player who is there for nothing more than swinging the bat and putting him at the most important position on the field besides pitcher. His excellent hitting ability makes up for his fielding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phightins Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 (edited) A single player can have a greater impact than any single player of any position in a sport besides probably QB IMO. Overall it's gotta be LeBron. Read ECN's 2nd most recent post. Edited July 12, 2009 by Phightins09 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.