Pujols or Prince?
Who would you rather have if offered both with an identical contract (say 9-yr/$22M), Fielder or Pujols?
Before anyone jumps down my throat, think about it. Pujols is declining, his peripherals are getting worse. He is chasing more pitches, taking less walks. Fielder OTOH, is as good as Pujols right now and is in his peak with 2-4 years of the peak left. The only question about him is how he will age given his body type. A similar question can be posed toward Pujols, given a slight uncertainty about his age and the fact that is looks as if he might be aging early which, along with his early peak, raises questions.
I honestly don't know which I would prefer. I leave it to the collective intelligence of CC.
FanPosts are user-created content and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of Camden Chat or SB Nation. They might, though.
3 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Neither would be a prudent move
but I just like Prince more, so I pick him. I’d enjoy all the slow-mo video of him hitting homers as his body fat moves in 17 different directions.
"things like locig and prrofreading are actually valued here" - zknower
This is purely a theoretical question. I don't want either of them.
But that is the kind of contract it’ll take to get one of them.
I'd put it this way; if an offense is a sugar cookie, on base percentage is the pastry part of the cookie, power is the icing, and baserunning is like the jimmies that they sprinkle onto the icing. - Bill James
Keep in mind
That Pujols’ walk rate and OBP rate are largely a function of a drop in IBB tied, at least coincidentally in part, to Berkman hitting extremely well behind Pujols. Also, the other drops in performance relate to around a six-week stretch at the beginning of the year, after which he hit like normal Pujols.
That being said, I would still likely choose Prince because we would be more likely to take advantage of more productive years under that contract since Prince is so much younger.
Mother, did it need to be so high.

by 


















