Hot Stove League

[JasonEvans]

I think that's very unlikely. Unless he ages very well, as rasputin said he's unlikely to be as outrageously productive with the Angels as he was with the Cards, and I suspect there will be a significant disparity between his stats in StL and LAA. I think it will be completely non-controversial for his plaque to have a Cards' cap.

I am sure we all thought the same thing when, at age 33, Randy Johnson left Seattle for Arizona. Well, which cap does he wear? He was with Zona for a long time, won a ton of games there, and his team was arguably more successful than the ones in Seattle.

Greg Maddux started his career in Chicago and spent 10 years there (2 at the end of the career). He spent 11 seasons in Atlanta and I suspect there is no question he will wear a Braves hat.

Now, a better comp to Pujols may be Junior, who 29 when he left Seattle and went to Cincy for the next 9 years. But his Cincy years were often marred by injury and he was never the player there that he was in Seattle. He will wear Mariners hat in the HOF, right?

Vald Guerrero will be an interesting one. He played 8 seasons with Montreal and 6 with the Angels. He is now bouncing around some other teams and would seem to be certain of making the Hall when he is done (2500+ hits, 450+ homers and he seems to have a few more good years in him). Is he an Expo or an Angel in the Hall?

Mike Piazza (who may not make the Hall) -- would he be a Dodger or a Met?

-Jason "this could go on and on" Evans

[Blue in the Face]

I am sure we all thought the same thing when, at age 33, Randy Johnson left Seattle for Arizona. Well, which cap does he wear? He was with Zona for a long time, won a ton of games there, and his team was arguably more successful than the ones in Seattle.

Greg Maddux started his career in Chicago and spent 10 years there (2 at the end of the career). He spent 11 seasons in Atlanta and I suspect there is no question he will wear a Braves hat.

Now, a better comp to Pujols may be Junior, who 29 when he left Seattle and went to Cincy for the next 9 years. But his Cincy years were often marred by injury and he was never the player there that he was in Seattle. He will wear Mariners hat in the HOF, right?

Vald Guerrero will be an interesting one. He played 8 seasons with Montreal and 6 with the Angels. He is now bouncing around some other teams and would seem to be certain of making the Hall when he is done (2500+ hits, 450+ homers and he seems to have a few more good years in him). Is he an Expo or an Angel in the Hall?

Mike Piazza (who may not make the Hall) -- would he be a Dodger or a Met?

-Jason "this could go on and on" Evans

Well, in the cases of Maddux and Unit, both got much much better after leaving their original teams. I think it's basically implausible to think the same will happen with Pujols, so that's a good reason for their caps being different than their original team which won't apply to him. Both also had more post-season success after changing teams, which is not implausible, but given baseball history, certainly isn't terribly likely for Pujols. Vlad and Piazza (who, by the way, I think is a lock for the HOF unless someone shows up with receipts signed by Piazza for home delivery of ped's) both had their best years with their original teams, and I think will probably have those caps. Piazza did however play considerably more games in NY than in LA, which might change that, and which I think is unlikely to be the case for Pujols. Griffey Jr, as you pointed out, basically fell apart, which one can only hope won't be the case with Pujols. That would resolve the question very quickly.

At any rate, I think there's a pretty material difference between Pujols and any of these guys. He has been, more or less, as good a hitter as there has been in baseball history. None of those guys was anything close to that in their early years. We'll see what the future holds, but I think it's very unlikely he will continue to be that outrageously good over the next 10 years. I think it's unlikely he will continue to be as rock-solid healthy in his 30's as he was in his 20's (though being able to "rest" at DH will be a nice difference moving to the AL). And I think when he retires, his resume will have some truly outstanding years in LA (and quite possibly some nothing special years), but across-the-board historic years in St Louis, and the choice will be plain as day.

[Matches]

If you think he'll actually play ten years. My guess is he won't, or that he won't be nearly as productive. He'll have a St. Louis hat after all.

His productivity may (probably *will*) decline - but he will play ten more years. No way he's going to walk away from the $ he's owed under that contract.

[Blue in the Face]

NL MVP Ryan Braun tests positive for a PED, but is appealing, saying

There are highly unusual circumstances surrounding this case which will support Ryan's complete innocence and demonstrate there was absolutely no intentional violation of the program.

(Somewhere Matt Kemp is wishing the story had broken before MVP voting).


By the way Jason, one thing we hadn't mentioned about Pujols' hall of fame plaque is the possibility he breaks the HR record in an Angels uniform. That, as they might have said on Seinfeld, would be a pretty big matzo ball, and might sway things a lot, even if his overall career pre and post trade trends the way I expect.

[Olympic Fan]

While it's possible, I think it's very unlikely that Pujols compiles good enough stats in Anaheim to go into the HOF with an Angels hat.

Will he get the HR record? He had 445 home runs. He needs 317 to catch Bonds' tainted record ... 311 to catch Aaron's honest one. That's 30-plus home runs a year for another 10 years? He's on that pace, but how long can he maintain it? Personally, I expect his production to slip just a bit as he ages, especially since he won't have PEDs to artifically extend his career as guys like Bonds and Clemens apparently did. I'm guessing he remains at the top of the batting list for another five years or so, then we see a decided decline.

What's more interesting to me than the HOF hat is his quest to replace Gehrig as the greatest first baseman in baseball history. He's the first real challenger since his contemporaries Foxx and Greenberg fell short.

Pujols' triple crown numbers are good: .328 445 HR 1,329 RBIs. Gehrig was .340 493 HR 1,995 RBIs.

Now, those numbers are misleading because of era. Pujols has played in a high-power, lessor batting average league. He's closer to Gehrig in average than the raw numbers suggest ... at the same time, his power numbers (he's going to end up with more home runs) are probably less impressive ih his era.

When you go to the sabermetic figures, Gehing has a narrow, but clear lead in OBP (.447 to .420) in SLUG (.632 to .617) and, of course, in OPS (1.080 to 1.037).

You can take it one step further with OPS plus (to even out the era-effect and the home ball park impact). Gehrig's 178 is slightly better than Pujols at 170. Those are both extraordinary numbers. Gehrig is fourth in baseball history (behind Ruth, Williams and that doper from SF) ... Pujols is No. 7 (also behind No. 5 Rogers Hornsby and No. 6 Mickey Mantle).

Of course, Pujols hasn't had a decline phase yet. Gehrig's was artifically shortened by his disease. He was still a great player in 1937 and a good one in 1938. By May of 1939, he was out of baseball. I've always wondered what his career would have looked like without the disease -- he was just 36 years old in 39 and reportedly was one of the few players in that era who worked hard to stay in shape year-around. With the war coming and the younger players drafted, a healthy Gehrig might have played through 1945. His averages might have dropped (or might not, considering the war-time level of competition), but his HR and RBI totals would be stratopheric.

Even in peak value, it's unlikely that Pujols will ever match Gehrig -- Albert's four best OPS plus seasons were 190, 189, 178, 173. Gehrig's were 220, 206, 203 and 194 (not counting his partial first season of 217).

No disgrace to be the second-best first baseman in history. But unless he has an extraordinary tenure in Anaheim, that's where Pujols will rank.

My Top 10:

1. Gehrig
2. Pujols
3. Jimmie Foxx
4. Hank Greenberg
5. Johnny Mize
6. Frank Thomas
7. Mel Ott
8. Dick Allen (greatly underrated)
9. Mark McGuire (hate to list a doper)
10. Willie Sargell

I might include Stan Musial -- he's a little like A-Roid ... he's in the top 10 somewhere, but split his career almost equally between LF and 1B

[Blue in the Face]

I might include Stan Musial -- he's a little like A-Roid ... he's in the top 10 somewhere, but split his career almost equally between LF and 1B

As opposed to Stargell and Allen? (And were you thinking of someone other than Ott)?

[theAlaskanBear]

It still hasn't sunk in that Albert Pujols will not be a Cardinal next year. I know it will hit me hard in Spring Training when I start checking box scores...

What I read today though about the Cardinals management/negotiation disgusts me.

"It was about the way he made me feel," Pujols said. "Arte made me feel like he wanted me to be with the Angels forever. He doesn't want me to be 37 years old and go somewhere else."

The comment was an oblique reference to the Cardinals' five-year, $130 million offer earlier this month — their first bid since Pujols rejected the club's nine-year, $198 million bid during spring training. Pujols' new contract also includes a 10-year personal service provision, something the Cardinals were reluctant to discuss, according to sources familiar with the process.

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseb...#ixzz1gGrGllde


As a Cardinal fan I am schocked and disappointed they only offered Pujols 5 years. Thats a slap in the face. I knew DeWitt was a cheap bleep from the way he conned the StL City with promise of a "ballpark village" (the same thing he did in Texas)...but this is shocking...I assumed the Cardinals still had an 8 or 9-year offer to him like last year. If this is true, management basically drove Pujols off on purpose.

[Olympic Fan]

As opposed to Stargell and Allen? (And were you thinking of someone other than Ott)?

That's what comes from trying to do it off th top of my head. My bad -- Ott is definitely an outfielder. Replace him with Buck Leonard, who would almost certainly be there without the color line. Maybe Mule Suttle too ...

You also have a point about Stargell (who played more games in the OF) and Allen (who played 60 percent of his games at 1B, then rest at 3rd and the OF). I could also throw in Ernie Banks, who split his career almost equally between 1st base and shortstop.

Give me some time to think about it ... but I think the first five are pretty solid 1. Gehrig; 2. Pujols' 3. Foxx; 4. Greenberg; 5. Mize. The only guy who could crack that for his career would be Musical -- if you give him credit for everything, he's right up there with Foxx. Of course, half of that was in the outfield.

[SmartDevil]

My Top 10:

1. Gehrig
2. Pujols
3. Jimmie Foxx
4. Hank Greenberg
5. Johnny Mize
6. Frank Thomas
7. Mel Ott
8. Dick Allen (greatly underrated)
9. Mark McGuire (hate to list a doper)
10. Willie Sargell

Renowned baseball expert Scott Boras, esteemed for his objective analysis, would no doubt list Prince Fielder as tied with Jimmy Foxx or right behind him.

[rasputin]

That's what comes from trying to do it off th top of my head. My bad -- Ott is definitely an outfielder. Replace him with Buck Leonard, who would almost certainly be there without the color line. Maybe Mule Suttle too ...

You also have a point about Stargell (who played more games in the OF) and Allen (who played 60 percent of his games at 1B, then rest at 3rd and the OF). I could also throw in Ernie Banks, who split his career almost equally between 1st base and shortstop.

Give me some time to think about it ... but I think the first five are pretty solid 1. Gehrig; 2. Pujols' 3. Foxx; 4. Greenberg; 5. Mize. The only guy who could crack that for his career would be Musical -- if you give him credit for everything, he's right up there with Foxx. Of course, half of that was in the outfield.

If you're uncomfortable with including Stargell at 1B because of all those games in left field, you could substitute another Willie (McCovey), who was a very similar offensive player.

In today's world where OPS is everything, George Sisler is sometimes overlooked. Maybe he was overrated for a long time, and I realize that his career was fairly short and he didn't sustain his peak. But he did hit .340 lifetime, exceeding .400 twice (1920, the year in which the Babe invented the home run, and again in 1922, when he hit .420). His OPS is held back largely by the fact that he didn't walk much. Even without a lot of power, his slugging was impressive at his peak--.632 in 1920, and .594 in '22. Sisler missed the entire 1923 season, and he had some good years after that, but nothing approaching his peak.

[Blue in the Face]

Give me some time to think about it ... but I think the first five are pretty solid 1. Gehrig; 2. Pujols' 3. Foxx; 4. Greenberg; 5. Mize. The only guy who could crack that for his career would be Musial -- if you give him credit for everything, he's right up there with Foxx. Of course, half of that was in the outfield.

Oh sure, I definitely wouldn't quibble with that list.

[Olympic Fan]

If you're uncomfortable with including Stargell at 1B because of all those games in left field, you could substitute another Willie (McCovey), who was a very similar offensive player.

In today's world where OPS is everything, George Sisler is sometimes overlooked. Maybe he was overrated for a long time, and I realize that his career was fairly short and he didn't sustain his peak. But he did hit .340 lifetime, exceeding .400 twice (1920, the year in which the Babe invented the home run, and again in 1922, when he hit .420). His OPS is held back largely by the fact that he didn't walk much. Even without a lot of power, his slugging was impressive at his peak--.632 in 1920, and .594 in '22. Sisler missed the entire 1923 season, and he had some good years after that, but nothing approaching his peak.

I'm well aware of Sisler's record and while he's a good player, I don't think he's anywhere close to the guys we're talking about.

Basically, he has two problems -- one almost his entire value was in his batting average. He hit for high averages, but with little power and almost no walks. He was an outstanding defensive first baseman. But while he stole a lot of bases, he was one of the most ineffective baserunners in baseball history. Let me explain that -- he ran a lot and ended up stealing a lot of bases, but he was also caught an inordinate number of times. In an era when hits were easy to come by and there were a lot of runs -- as there were in 1917-22 in St. Louis -- he cost his team a ton of runs on the basepaths. He'd have helped his team score more runs if he'd never run.

Two, he was a great player for a VERY short time. From 1917 to 1922, he hit .353, .341., 352, .407, .371, .420 in successive years. He suffered a terrible beaning in 1923 and missed the entire season. When he returned, he was a below average hitter (believe me, hitting .305 in 1924 in St. Louis was a terrible average for a first baseman).

You have to understand -- he played half his games in one of the great offensive ballparks of all time. In that era, the Browns and Cardinals shared Sportsman's Park and there was always somebody hitting .400 there -- and a bunch of people hitting well over .300. In 1919, seven Browns starters hit over .300 and the eighth hit .298 -- and the Browns still finished 5th. In 1921, St. Louis, playing in the same ballpark as the Browns had starters average .397 (Hornsby), .352 (Mueller), .350 (McHenry), .343 (Fournier), .328 (Smith) and .328 (Mann.

Not trying to knock Sisler, but you have to put his numbers in context. When he was hitting .400, he was an exceptional player -- even if he didnt walk or slug well. When he was hitting .350 -- with no walks or power -- he was merely a good player. When he hit .300, he was a below-average player in that era.

There is a reason we're so fixated on OPS -- it's a much better guage of offensive value that batting average. The years that Sisler hit 400, his OPS-plus were 181 and 170 ... not especially great figures. His career OPS-plus is 124. He reminds me a little of Bill Terry, the last NL player to hit .400. He was also a high average (career .341) player who hit singles, but never walked. Terry's career OPS plus was 136, about the same as Fred McGriff ... by contrast, Dick Allen was 156.

Again, please don't think I'm ripping Sisler -- only the perception that he belongs in the discussion as an all-time great.

[ncexnyc]

It still hasn't sunk in that Albert Pujols will not be a Cardinal next year. I know it will hit me hard in Spring Training when I start checking box scores...

What I read today though about the Cardinals management/negotiation disgusts me.





Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseb...#ixzz1gGrGllde


As a Cardinal fan I am schocked and disappointed they only offered Pujols 5 years. Thats a slap in the face. I knew DeWitt was a cheap bleep from the way he conned the StL City with promise of a "ballpark village" (the same thing he did in Texas)...but this is shocking...I assumed the Cardinals still had an 8 or 9-year offer to him like last year. If this is true, management basically drove Pujols off on purpose.

Exactly what disgusts you about a $26 million per year contract? Are you actually telling me you'd want your Cardinals to make a stupid offer like the one the Yankees made to A-Rod?

[JasonEvans]

While it's possible, I think it's very unlikely that Pujols compiles good enough stats in Anaheim to go into the HOF with an Angels hat.

Will he get the HR record? He had 445 home runs. He needs 317 to catch Bonds' tainted record ... 311 to catch Aaron's honest one. That's 30-plus home runs a year for another 10 years? He's on that pace, but how long can he maintain it?

Have we pretty much decided that A-Rod is not going to get there? He's like 145 homers short of Bonds and he is 35 years old. If he plays 5 more years, that's 30 homers a year, which may be asking quite a bit of him given his recent injury history and the natural decline that guys face as they get toward 40. 16 homers last year for A-Rod was a huge setback for him.

-Jason "I recall when Bonds broke the record thinking that A-Rod was sure to be #1 before he retired, but the past few years have been well off A-Rod's earlier pace" Evans

[Matches]

A-Rod is signed for six more years, so it's likely he'll be in the league that long barring a career-ending injury. Clearly he has begun to decline physically though. He needs to average about 25 HR per year over those six years - seems attainable for the next few, but it's hard to imagine him hitting 25 HR at age 41.

The Yankees are really going to have a mess on their hands when Jeter and A-Rod both get to the point where they aren't credible fielders - can't stash either of them at 1B and only one can DH at a time.

[A-Tex Devil]

The Yankees are really going to have a mess on their hands when Jeter and A-Rod both get to the point where they aren't credible fielders - can't stash either of them at 1B and only one can DH at a time.

Curious why A-Rod couldn't be a serviceable first baseman? I know he's not left handed, so that's not ideal. But it seems like he could swing it.

[Blue in the Face]

Curious why A-Rod couldn't be a serviceable first baseman? I know he's not left handed, so that's not ideal. But it seems like he could swing it.

For all but the final year of A-Rod's contract the yankees already have $22.5MM committed to Teixeira to play 1B.

[Olympic Fan]

It's not official yet, but the news is widespread that Toronto Blue Jays have won the bidding war for Japanese ace Yu Darvish. Just to be clear, we're talking about won the right to negotiate for him -- the Yanks and Rangers also put in bids, but they were apparently smaller.

Don't know what the Blue Jays paid, but Boston paid $51 million a few years ago to win the rights to negiotaie for Dice K ... and most scouts believe that Darvish is a far better prospect.

David Schoenfeld, who writes for ESPN, thinks that the Blue Jays are the frontrunner for free agent Prince Fielder and that if he lands in Toronto, the Blue Jays will be a championship contender:

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/po...ast-in-al-east

Wow, the AL East could be redonculous ... the Yanks aren't going anywhere, the Rays have as much young pitching talent as anybody in baseball and the Red Sox are still the second-highest payroll in baseball. Man, it must suck to be a Baltimore Oriole fan ...

[Blue in the Face]

It's not official yet, but the news is widespread that Toronto Blue Jays have won the bidding war for Japanese ace Yu Darvish. Just to be clear, we're talking about won the right to negotiate for him -- the Yanks and Rangers also put in bids, but they were apparently smaller.

Don't know what the Blue Jays paid, but Boston paid $51 million a few years ago to win the rights to negiotaie for Dice K ... and most scouts believe that Darvish is a far better prospect.

The bidding for Darvish did top that for Dice-K (barely), but it's the Rangers who walk away with his rights. Might be for the best for Toronto - big posting fees haven't worked out too well in the AL East.

[Olympic Fan]

The bidding for Darvish did top that for Dice-K (barely), but it's the Rangers who walk away with his rights. Might be for the best for Toronto - big posting fees haven't worked out too well in the AL East.

Now the Rangers have to sign Darvish -- they just paid all that money to earn the right to negotiate with him.

Next, we'll have a bidding war for the Cuban outfielder Yoenis Cespedes -- 26 year old centerfielder -- great speed, power and average. He's going through a fairly complicated process to become eligible, but looks like within the next week or so the bidding war will start:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/73...-republic-week

Lot of teams interested, but he's going to cost a bundle -- maybe as much as Darvish for a contract (but there won't be any $50-plus million posting fee).