RealGM

DUNEDIN, Fla. -- If you utter that magic word, "phenom," in a baseball word-association game, you know the names you'll hear back:

Bryce Harper … Mike Trout… Matt Moore.

Every one of those names would represent a 100 percent correct answer, of course. But here's another name that should never again be left off your handy dandy list of Baseball's Brightest Phenoms -- or you'll be sentenced to watching 97 consecutive hours worth of highlights of The Bachelor's Greatest Dates:

Brett Lawrie.

The Toronto Blue Jays' 22-year-old third baseman isn't technically a rookie anymore, thanks to the 150 at-bats he got at the end of last season. But mention the name Brett Lawrie to people inside baseball's inner circle, and the responses blow your eardrums away.

"Wow," said one longtime scout.

"Oh my God," said another.

"Speed, power, attitude, hustle -- and he's got every intangible you could ever want in a player," said another."He's going to be a great offensive force," said yet another. "And defensively, I don't know what quality you'd want in a third baseman that he doesn't have."

And then you run across Blue Jays broadcaster Buck Martinez, a man who has seen many a ballyhooed young player hit the radar screen in his 45 years in professional baseball. But want to know where Brett Lawrie ranks? Here were the first words out of Buck Martinez's mouth when we asked him about the new third baseman in Toronto:

"He's got more ability than George Brett, and I was George's roommate in Kansas City," Martinez said. "Now obviously, he doesn't have 3,000 hits or [three] batting titles or an MVP award, so he's got a long ways to go. But he runs and he plays with the same kind of intensity as George did. And that's as high a compliment as I could pay any player."

UN-Owen wrote:Personally, I would look to deal Bautista while his value is at its highest, add 2 or 3 stud prospects to the mix, and build this team around Lawrie as the franchise player

UN-Owen wrote:Personally, I would look to deal Bautista while his value is at its highest, add 2 or 3 stud prospects to the mix, and build this team around Lawrie as the franchise player

UN-Owen wrote:Personally, I would look to deal Bautista while his value is at its highest, add 2 or 3 stud prospects to the mix, and build this team around Lawrie as the franchise player

Strav wrote:

UN-Owen wrote:Personally, I would look to deal Bautista while his value is at its highest, add 2 or 3 stud prospects to the mix, and build this team around Lawrie as the franchise player

why do this? There's already a number of stud prospects waiting in the wings, and we can win, win, win very soon.

jaymeister15 wrote:

UN-Owen wrote:Personally, I would look to deal Bautista while his value is at its highest, add 2 or 3 stud prospects to the mix, and build this team around Lawrie as the franchise player

I like Lawrie as much as the next guy, but I'm very happy AA doesn't think like you.

flatjacket1 wrote:

UN-Owen wrote:Personally, I would look to deal Bautista while his value is at its highest, add 2 or 3 stud prospects to the mix, and build this team around Lawrie as the franchise player

Jumping the gun a little bit? 40ish games and a good ST shouldn't shift your whole team. I think Lawrie will be great and trading Bautista now makes sense for the team but how you arrived at that conclusion worries me. (I'm not saying you specifically, I'm sure many fans have the same opinion)

I think it makes total sense to lock in what we have and reevaluate in 2013.

sule wrote:Trading Bautista b/c Lawrie had a good month or two last year + a good spring training is ridiculous.

We're on the cusp of being a team that is a perennial playoff contender. If we move Bautista, we move back a few years. Besides, if Lawrie meets expectations we're looking at a great 3-4 spot in the lineup for a couple of years before Bautista really declines. You don't trade your great players b/c another one is on the come up. You add to what you already have. And we have potentially two great hitters that should be terrifying for pitchers this season.

Besides, Bautista showed HUGE loyalty in re-signing with Toronto for less, and is a great leader in the locker room. You don't get rid of that kind of player. The value he brings alone is irreplaceable for the price we have him at, and trading a guy like him has ripples across the league, potentially affecting the free agents we can attract.

tl;dr - perennial rebuilding is the reason why no team since the 92/93 Blue Jays have won or done anything worthy of praise.

UN-Owen wrote:

sule wrote:Trading Bautista b/c Lawrie had a good month or two last year + a good spring training is ridiculous.

We're on the cusp of being a team that is a perennial playoff contender. If we move Bautista, we move back a few years. Besides, if Lawrie meets expectations we're looking at a great 3-4 spot in the lineup for a couple of years before Bautista really declines. You don't trade your great players b/c another one is on the come up. You add to what you already have. And we have potentially two great hitters that should be terrifying for pitchers this season.

Besides, Bautista showed HUGE loyalty in re-signing with Toronto for less, and is a great leader in the locker room. You don't get rid of that kind of player. The value he brings alone is irreplaceable for the price we have him at, and trading a guy like him has ripples across the league, potentially affecting the free agents we can attract.

tl;dr - perennial rebuilding is the reason why no team since the 92/93 Blue Jays have won or done anything worthy of praise.

Players are like stock.

RalphWiggum wrote:The only way you can trade Batista is if a team makes you an offer you can't refuse, they basically have to give you a great everyday big leaguer at a position of need along with a couple sure fire stud prospects. If Jose was 33-34 the case to move him would make sense but at 31 coming off 2 years as a top 3 hitter in the bigs under a great contract and also being a great guy the jays would be silly to move him right now especially considering that the yanks, Sox and rays have done nothing to improve this off-season and it could be argued they will not be as good as they were last year. Our time is now, not 3-4 years from now. Jose gives us a better chance at a ring in the next few seasons than what we would get back over the next 8-9 year's. Im not in a win multiple ring mode, Ijust want one and want it soon!

Duffman100 wrote:

UN-Owen wrote:

sule wrote:Trading Bautista b/c Lawrie had a good month or two last year + a good spring training is ridiculous.

We're on the cusp of being a team that is a perennial playoff contender. If we move Bautista, we move back a few years. Besides, if Lawrie meets expectations we're looking at a great 3-4 spot in the lineup for a couple of years before Bautista really declines. You don't trade your great players b/c another one is on the come up. You add to what you already have. And we have potentially two great hitters that should be terrifying for pitchers this season.

Besides, Bautista showed HUGE loyalty in re-signing with Toronto for less, and is a great leader in the locker room. You don't get rid of that kind of player. The value he brings alone is irreplaceable for the price we have him at, and trading a guy like him has ripples across the league, potentially affecting the free agents we can attract.

tl;dr - perennial rebuilding is the reason why no team since the 92/93 Blue Jays have won or done anything worthy of praise.

Players are like stock.

Good analogy. Problem is that Rogers is getting it's dividend from Bautista as he's the one helping sell tickets. They trade Bautista, a lot of money goes with him.

From a pure baseball prospective, it might be the right move. Not sure about business though.

Homer Jay wrote:As much as I love Jose, I would call up Miami and see if they would do Bautista and Kelly Johnson for Mike Stanton and Hanley Ramirez.

vaff87 wrote:Trading arguably the best player in baseball, when he has a good contract, and you already have a lot of talent around hm, makes very little sense.