A-Rod the MVP on a losing team, that says a lot about a player.....

[Mike Gallo]

I do not know how the Texas Rangers would have finished in last place without him. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Does the award go to the best overall player award or should the award go to the player most valuable to his team.

All sarcasm aside, Alex Rodrigues must have had a heck of a year statistically to win the most valuable player award. Only once before has a player from a losing team won the MVP. Andre Dawson in 1987 with the Cubs.

I think Dawson got it because he paid his dues to the league. When he won the award, I feel the writers compensated him later in his career for the find body of work he his in first leg of work with the Expos. Dawson was a five tool centerfielder with the Expos for ten years prior to his winning the mvp his first year with the Cubs.

I have friends who rave that A-Rod is the best player in the league right now. Since I do not follow the American league, I have never watched him play. I have other friends who claim that he plays poker and does not hold the same mvp status. From another source I heard he paid for the time charge for the entire table the entire night.

Should A-Rod deserve the award no matter how poorly his team finished in the standings because he has paid his dues, and his simply the most dominant player of his generation?

I do not feel a player from a losing team deserves the reward, I do not mean to minimize the award for A-Rod, however I just have a purists heart and I feel the award should go to a player from a winning team.

I just wonder if I stand alone here. For the record every person who I have asked prior to the award getting rewarded has told me A-Rod would get it this year.

[Sooga]

Seems to me that A-Rod won not because he had a great (for him) year, but because no one else really had a fantastic one. And also, I have to say, IT'S ABOUT TIME A-ROD WINS AN MVP. He was robbed in '96 and '02, and he probably shoulda won in '01. He's a gold-glove caliber shortstop who also happens to hit .300 and 40-50 homers every season. What more does this guy have to do?

On another note, I absolutely cannot STAND it when people say, "How can A-Rod be valuable to his team? The Rangers would be good if they didn't have to shell out $25M for him every year." So if A-Rod were just a .270/20hr/80rbi player who cost less, he'd be a more valuable player? What a load... Anyway, congrats to A-Rod, and I hope this is the first of many more MVP's to come.

[Josh W]

First, to MG...

I gotta think that a 'purist' wouldn't insist on the MVP going to a player on a winning team. It would go to the player that is the most valuable.

The problem lies in what we mean by "value". If we mean who is worth the most, in terms on contract, then, well, Arod wins (not cuz he has the biggest contract, but because he's WORTH the biggest).

However, people don't realize that he's one of the biggest (if not the biggest) why the Rangers aren't better. Really.

If the Rangers had an average shortstop making 3 mil a year (or whatever the avg. shortstop makes), it's easy to see how the Rangers would be better. They'd be able to spend 20 mil a year on other players to improve their team.

I'm a huge seattle fan. And I'm tired of hearing people talk about how 'amazing' it was that the M's were suddenly better when they lost Arod, JR, and Randy. Please. They were able to then add a ton of good roleplayers to their team (Sele, Olerud, Ichiro, Boone, Cameron, Garcia, etc...). Baseball is the least super-star oriented of the major sports. It takes a team.

And having Arod and his contract makes it very very tough to have a complete team. Yeah, he's worth a huge contract, but if he wants to win, he'll have to ditch it.

And, as much as it pains me to say, I think I agree with Sooga. He had a very good year. But had there been any other clearcut MVP candidate, he woulda lost. The Yankees were very balanced, as were the RedSox (hence three of the top 7 candidates). No winning team had a single player that was definitely their most valuable (hence the fact that they were a winning team).

Josh

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I think the key is this: Did any player on any of the playoff teams make a significant enough contribution that you could say, "without him, they don't make the playoffs.?"

I don't think you can single out any one guy on any of the AL playoff teams that fits the definition. Therefore A-Rod deserves it.

He also deserves it because he gave 100% every day even though his team was never in it, was always a good clubhouse guy, and just in general, seems to believe he has to *earn* his salary (HEAR THAT, MANNY???)

With all the talk about athletes being overpaid (not from me, I don't believe thay are, but that's a different discussion), you never hear A-Rod criticized like that.

If the next decade of his career mirrors the last, he'll be recognized as the gretaest player that ever lived.

[andyfox]

Most valuable player is kind of a misnomer. It's more like a Player of the Year award.

I thought Delgado had a lock until he went in the tank the last month and a half or so. Statistically, Manny was probably the best, but who wants to vote for Manny?

Since a player's job is to win the pennant, there's a case to be made for the league MVPs to be the MVP on the pennant winning team. In that case, I guess you'd say Posada (or Pettitte or Rivera?) would be the AL MVP and Pudge (or Pierre?) the NL MVP.

Certainly A-Rod is the most valuable player in the league. If I was going to start a team, he'd be my number one pick.

My prediction is Pujols beats out Bonds for NL MVP, with Javy Lopez 3rd.

On another note, I see among the teams interested in Japanese shortstop Kaz Matsui are the Yankees and Red Sox. Don't they already have pretty good shortstops?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

On another note, I see among the teams interested in Japanese shortstop Kaz Matsui are the Yankees and Red Sox.

The Red Sox at least are in dire need of a shortstop. Nomar is gone after '04 unless he accepts far less than Jeter makes. Most writers here think he has no desire to stay anyway.

The Sox attempt to dump Manny was step 1 in trying to get A-Rod.

[Mike Gallo]

Since a player's job is to win the pennant, there's a case to be made for the league MVPs to be the MVP on the pennant winning team. In that case, I guess you'd say Posada (or Pettitte or Rivera?) would be the AL MVP and Pudge (or Pierre?) the NL MVP.

I would even concede the award to Delgado. The Jays finished in third place.

MVP and Pudge (or Pierre?) the NL MVP.

Bonds or Pujols in the NL. St Louis made a serious run at the post season until the last month of the season.

Bonds played very well despite suffering from sleep deprivation and stress due to losing his dad.

My prediction is Pujols beats out Bonds for NL MVP, with Javy Lopez 3rd

I agree with this, but Bonds could win.

On another note, I see among the teams interested in Japanese shortstop Kaz Matsui are the Yankees and Red Sox. Don't they already have pretty good shortstops?

The Yankees have enough shortstops, but they want to stop the Mets ( cross town arch rivals) from landing him. It also wont hurt for the Yankees to have another Japanese draw for their Japanese viewing audience abroad.

[southerndog]

I agree with this.. What if a player batted .410 and had 55 homers, etc.. and his team still didn't make it to the playoffs? He still had a great year, give him the award.. No big deal.

[B-Man]

It should go to the player that is most valuable--as in, the player who contributes more, through offense, defense, base-running, leadership, intangibles, etc., than any other player.

It should not be limited to players on winning teams. There's already an award for being on the best team (it's called a championship).

I'm amazed that the voters actually got it right this year. A-Rod should have won it last year, too (and anyone that thinks Miguel Tejada was more valuable than A-Rod last year is smoking something pretty powerful).

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I think that when a player is so dominant, as in your example, then it's easy. When it's close, you have to defer to the "take him out of the lineup..." analysis.