No other free-agent position player came within $50 million of the deals that Albert Pujols ($246 million, according to the union's calculation) and Prince Fielder ($214 million) signed this winter.
No, check that: No other free-agent position player came within $100 million. There was a top 1 percent in the baseball world this winter, as well, with the middle class left to take the leftovers. The third-highest free-agent position player this winter was Jose Reyes, at $106 million, and the fourth-highest was Jimmy Rollins, whose deal of $38 million is more than $200 million less than Pujols' contract.
This makes the Pujols and Fielder deals fascinating to talent evaluators who have pored over the remains of the agreements as though they're conducting an autopsy.
An informal poll of 10 evaluators in the past few days -- a mix of team presidents, general managers, assistant GMs and scouts -- generated a solid consensus about whose deal was better for the respective clubs.
Five believe the Tigers' signing of Fielder was the better deal.
Three believe Pujols was the better signing.
Two believe both teams won't get what they paid for.
What follows are most of the individual responses:
High-ranking AL official: "I think I have to go with the Angels' signing of Pujols, only because from the marketing perspective, you understand what [Angels owner] Arte Moreno is trying to do. I think Pujols is going to have a much bigger impact from a revenue standpoint than Prince Fielder, because the Tigers have a ceiling with how much revenue they can generate. He's not going to change their TV [revenue] in the way that Pujols will. Albert's the older player, but I think he's the bigger star, and he'll generate more money."
High-ranking NL official: "Is Pujols going to be productive for two or three more years? Longer? That, to me, is the key question. If Pujols can be productive for the next six years, then the Angels got the better deal. If not, then Detroit. The Pujols deal could be an epic disaster if he's not productive in the last five or six years of the deal, at $30 million annually. The Fielder deal is one of the craziest deals in a while. That would have been a great deal at the beginning of the offseason. Not sure why the Tigers didn't just go huge for seven years. Given the market, $26 million a year over seven years or something would have been plenty. The nine years is just inexplicable in late January."
AL talent evaluator: "Fielder's the better deal. Fielder is the younger player, and he's left-handed; he turns 28 this spring. It's not inconceivable that at the end of this deal, he could still play a couple of more years, if he's pushing for the Hall of Fame. People I know say he absolutely loves this game. He loves playing baseball. I first saw Prince when he was in the ninth grade; he could rake then, and he can still rake now."
NL executive: "I think the Tigers got the better deal. Age matters. I might change my mind after the Cabrera third-base experiment unfolds."
NL executive: "Having lived those deals, I don't think either one of them will be happy."
AL scout: "Either deal is appealing, but I would go with the younger guy with fewer years -- Fielder."
AL official: "It's tough to tell. You have got Miguel Cabrera moving to third base, and that will dictate a lot to the value of the Fielder deal. Pujols fits better with the Angels, but [Mark] Trumbo has to switch positions or get traded. I think both will be good players early in the contract, but the true value will be told when they are four or five years into the deals."
NL evaluator: "I like the Tigers' deal for Fielder more than the Angels' deal for Pujols. Fielder is younger and more consistent, while Pujols is older -- and some people question his age being as young as he maintains -- and has seen his OPS decline for four straight seasons. Fielder got less money total, fewer years and less average annual value. Pujols brings leadership and legacy, but going forward, the better player is Fielder."
AL scout: "It's hard to like either of those deals, especially with respect to the Mark Teixeira and Adrian Gonzalez deals. However, if you're going to like one of them, I'd prefer the shorter, cheaper deal given to the younger player, to put it pretty simply, so I'd go with Detroit. I'm not sure either guy will carry any defensive value even three or four years into their respective deals, though at least Detroit can say that as Prince's deal winds down, they at least won't be paying him $30M per year as the Angels will to Pujols. Not crazy about either one, but Prince's seems to be more sensible."
-ESPN
No, check that: No other free-agent position player came within $100 million. There was a top 1 percent in the baseball world this winter, as well, with the middle class left to take the leftovers. The third-highest free-agent position player this winter was Jose Reyes, at $106 million, and the fourth-highest was Jimmy Rollins, whose deal of $38 million is more than $200 million less than Pujols' contract.
This makes the Pujols and Fielder deals fascinating to talent evaluators who have pored over the remains of the agreements as though they're conducting an autopsy.
An informal poll of 10 evaluators in the past few days -- a mix of team presidents, general managers, assistant GMs and scouts -- generated a solid consensus about whose deal was better for the respective clubs.
Five believe the Tigers' signing of Fielder was the better deal.
Three believe Pujols was the better signing.
Two believe both teams won't get what they paid for.
What follows are most of the individual responses:
High-ranking AL official: "I think I have to go with the Angels' signing of Pujols, only because from the marketing perspective, you understand what [Angels owner] Arte Moreno is trying to do. I think Pujols is going to have a much bigger impact from a revenue standpoint than Prince Fielder, because the Tigers have a ceiling with how much revenue they can generate. He's not going to change their TV [revenue] in the way that Pujols will. Albert's the older player, but I think he's the bigger star, and he'll generate more money."
High-ranking NL official: "Is Pujols going to be productive for two or three more years? Longer? That, to me, is the key question. If Pujols can be productive for the next six years, then the Angels got the better deal. If not, then Detroit. The Pujols deal could be an epic disaster if he's not productive in the last five or six years of the deal, at $30 million annually. The Fielder deal is one of the craziest deals in a while. That would have been a great deal at the beginning of the offseason. Not sure why the Tigers didn't just go huge for seven years. Given the market, $26 million a year over seven years or something would have been plenty. The nine years is just inexplicable in late January."
AL talent evaluator: "Fielder's the better deal. Fielder is the younger player, and he's left-handed; he turns 28 this spring. It's not inconceivable that at the end of this deal, he could still play a couple of more years, if he's pushing for the Hall of Fame. People I know say he absolutely loves this game. He loves playing baseball. I first saw Prince when he was in the ninth grade; he could rake then, and he can still rake now."
NL executive: "I think the Tigers got the better deal. Age matters. I might change my mind after the Cabrera third-base experiment unfolds."
NL executive: "Having lived those deals, I don't think either one of them will be happy."
AL scout: "Either deal is appealing, but I would go with the younger guy with fewer years -- Fielder."
AL official: "It's tough to tell. You have got Miguel Cabrera moving to third base, and that will dictate a lot to the value of the Fielder deal. Pujols fits better with the Angels, but [Mark] Trumbo has to switch positions or get traded. I think both will be good players early in the contract, but the true value will be told when they are four or five years into the deals."
NL evaluator: "I like the Tigers' deal for Fielder more than the Angels' deal for Pujols. Fielder is younger and more consistent, while Pujols is older -- and some people question his age being as young as he maintains -- and has seen his OPS decline for four straight seasons. Fielder got less money total, fewer years and less average annual value. Pujols brings leadership and legacy, but going forward, the better player is Fielder."
AL scout: "It's hard to like either of those deals, especially with respect to the Mark Teixeira and Adrian Gonzalez deals. However, if you're going to like one of them, I'd prefer the shorter, cheaper deal given to the younger player, to put it pretty simply, so I'd go with Detroit. I'm not sure either guy will carry any defensive value even three or four years into their respective deals, though at least Detroit can say that as Prince's deal winds down, they at least won't be paying him $30M per year as the Angels will to Pujols. Not crazy about either one, but Prince's seems to be more sensible."
-ESPN
