Smackie: which contract was worse, the one the Angels gave Pujols or the one the Tigers gave Prince? Its really not as easy to answer as one would think on its face...
Absolutely a good question.
A lot of people have hammered the Angels on the deal, especially this season, but they don't realize the Pujols' deal is back loaded. Last year, as bad as he started off, he was actually a steal with 30 HRs and 105 RBI at $12m. This year, obviously less so as his injury plagued season was the worst of his career. But people don't realize he was only making $16m. If he comes back injury free I still don't think the deal is bad for the next 3 years, but the 5 after that could be real trouble.
Fielder, on the other hand, was $23m the last two years and is $24m a year from here on out. Given that he's 5 years younger, you'd have to think this is a better deal. But the Tigers have cuffed themselves and probably can't resign Cabrera to be their DH in 2 years as that's Fielders job for the next 7 years at $24m. He can't play first forever, his deal is untradeable at this point (that's me telling Arte Moreno that) and he's regressing sooner that people thought.
I'd prefer the Fielder deal, but for the past two season's Pujols has been the bargain, even with the injuries.