Comments on: Lincecum for Pujols?

By: B

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:37:43 +0000

“Assuming that Pujols peaks around 33 / 34 years old”

Keep in mind on average a players peak is from 25-29.

Pujols is on the juice.

On a more serious note, obviously “Every player in baseball is just as suspicious as Pujols” is a reasonable thing to say, since Pujols hasn’t been connected to it in any way. But can you really blame someone for thinking there’s a greater chance he’s on it than guys like Jeter, Mauer, Utley, Longoria. Have you seen Pujols? The guy is a monster, in a way that they are not. That’s at least something.

As for the real topic at hand, Pujols vs. Lincecum…well considering Lincecum is going to go down as the greatest pitcher of all time, I’d prefer to keep him. My #1 trade target would be Hanley, but I’d still say no to that trade.

By: Brad Jensen

Brad Jensen — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:11:20 +0000

Assuming that Pujols peaks around 33 / 34 years old, you’ve got about 3-5 more seasons of him playing at the level he is playing at now. He’s making significantly more than Lincecum right now. He also has that ongoing elbow issue which is going to require surgery at some point and cause him to miss some time.

I agree on the injury issue with pitchers but I think with a guy like Lincecum that is likely to be less of a concern with other power arms. Again assuming that Pujols has about 3-5 more years at the peak of his powers, he is costing a team a lot more than Lincecum will cost over that time frame.

Another consideration is that a hitter can to some degree be neutralized. You can pitch around them in certain situations, especially if they don’t have any protection. You can’t do that with a pitcher. They throw and you hit. About the only thing you can do is try to make them throw a lot of pitches but if they throw a lot of strikes like Lincecum that really doesn’t work all that well.

If Lincecum were carrying Zito’s contract then I think the argument becomes a little more cloudy but at the current costs I’d have to go with Lincecum. I don’t have the numbers handy but I can’t imagine that Pujols cost per win share is less than Lincecum with the large delta between what they earn per year.

By: Genepool

Genepool — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:17:21 +0000

If you read past the headline to make the call on this one, then you may need to study up on your baseball.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:56:10 +0000

Only a jackass would make a comment like that and it really annoys me. Every player in baseball is just as suspicious as Pujols. If you are going to go by the eye test which is all we can do, then he passes with flying colors. He’s been great his entire career, he’s always had very consistent play, and he’s never had a big increase in muscle mass. If you’re going to say Pujols is obviously on the juice, then you might as well say Evan Longoria, Chase Utley, Joe Mauer, and Derek Jeter are on the juice. When you’re saying he’s on the juice you’re not basing off anything, but pure speculation, which means absolutely nothing.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:50:38 +0000

So obviously on the juice? Based on what? Because he’s great he’s obviously on the juice? Use some damn logic.

By: zgreat

zgreat — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:20:07 +0000

I agree hitters are more predictable and durable then pitchers but I voted for Lincecum anyway because his salary is a lot lower.

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:11:18 +0000

I voted no, largely because Pujols is so obviously on the juice. I wouldn’t want him wearing a Giants uniform when he finally gets exposed. I’ve had enough of that.