Morosi said that their respective ages (Fielder is 27, Pujols is 31) and their 2011 offensive numbers complicates "the argument that Pujols deserves the richest free-agent contract in history." Morosi's case makes sense in some ways. Yes, Fielder is four years younger than Pujols and teams will keep that in mind when throwing out seven-plus year offers worth over $150 million dollars. And because of their age difference, it can be argued that Fielder's production will increase or at the very least be constant in the future, while Pujols' production could easily dip, as evidenced by his numbers thus far in 2011.
But then I remember something. This is Albert Pujols we're talking about.
The same Albert Pujols that has won three NL MVP awards and, as Morosi pointed out in his article, has a 2006 World Series Championship ring with the St. Louis Cardinals. The same Albert Pujols that has made nine NL All-Star teams (translation: every season except 2002, his second big league year where he posted a pedestrian by Pujols standards .955 OPS). The same Albert Pujols that has 422 career homeruns and almost 1,300 career RBIs. The same Albert Pujols that has won two NL Gold Glove awards (how many of those has Fielder won, or will ever win?). And the same Albert Pujols that any intelligent person would say is the best player in baseball.
Pujols is undoubtably having the worst season of his career, even though we are not even half way through the year. Here are some of his numbers: 14 homers and 40 RBIs (Pujols standards at this point in the season – meh), .833 OPS (Pujols standards – downright awful), and a .278 batting average (What?! Pujols is hitting below .300?! HOW?!).
But does anyone really think that he won't go back to his career norms sooner or later in 2011? Just last week, he showed signs of coming out of his "slump." He hit walk-off homers in back-to-back games against the Chicago Cubs. By season's end, Pujols will probably have a batting average over .300, have around 40 home runs and 100 RBIs, and have an OPS around 1.000, as usual.
Based on career numbers, Pujols is simply a better overall hitter than Fielder, and we cannot forget defense. As I said earlier, Pujols has won two Gold Gloves and is sure to win more. He is widely regarded as one of the best defensive first basemen in baseball. Fielder, on the other hand, has put up positive UZRs (ultimate zone ranking, a sabermetric statistic used to measure fielding) in just two of his six MLB seasons prior to 2011, including a -7.8 UZR just last season. Pujols even adds a little value in stealing bases, with 80 in his career. Fielder has a grand total of 15 in his career.
Now, you may be thinking "Wait, Morosi didn't say Fielder was better than Pujols. He just said he could deserve more money after the 2011 season." Yes, Morosi never said Fielder was the better player. But the fact that he thinks Fielder deserves a richer deal just because he is four years younger and is putting up better offensive numbers 64 games into the season is just absurd.
Morosi said that when giving out free-agent contracts, teams do not look at the past, but rather at the future. I don't think this is true in all cases. Just look at the last offseason. Jayson Werth got just about the same money from the Washington Nationals as Carl Crawford got from the Red Sox. At 31 (compared to Crawford's age of 29) and with better career numbers, the Nationals were likely thinking more about the past when they gave Werth $140+ million over seven years.
The bottom line is that teams will not be looking at simply past vs. future when looking at Pujols and Fielder in the offseason. Albert Pujols is the best player in baseball. Prince Fielder is, while nothing to sneeze at of course, simply one of the best hitters in baseball. Teams will know the difference between those two when it comes time to make one of them a very rich man.
Who is worth more money, Pujols or Fielder? Leave your thoughts below.
