Albert Pujols could be the greatest player ever

[Palanion]

Teams with 1b and/or DH starters expected for 2012 due to contract situations and speculation.

AL-- 1b, DH
Balt--1b open (unless you count C. Davis), Scott arb-elg. (Guerrero FA)
Bos--Gonzalez, Youkilis (Ortiz FA)
NYY--Teixiera, Jesus Montero/ARod
TB--both open (Kotchman, Damon are FA)
Tor--1b open, Lind
Cle--LaPorta, Hafner
ChW--Konerko, Dunn
Det--Cabrera, VMart
KC--Hosmer, Butler
Minn--Morneau, Mauer?/Kubel
LAA--Trumbo, Morales
Oak--Barton, open
Sea--Smoak, open
Tex--Moreland/Young, Young/Napoli

NL--no DH, only 1b
Atl--Freeman
Fla--Sanchez/Morrison
NYM--I. Davis
Phi--Howard
Was--LaRoche
ChC--open
Cin--Votto
Hou--Wallace
Mil--open
Pitt--Lee
StL--open
Ari--Goldschmidt
Col--Helton
LAD--Loney
SD--Rizzo
SF--Belt

Certainly some of the young players on teams (e.g., SF, Hou) could become trade bait if the team decides to chase Pujols or Fielder. They might be more likely than a team that has high money locked in (e.g., ChW).
However, by looking at the teams, considering their cap issues and trends, the following teams would be the most likely:
[b:b872b0e743]Baltimore[/b:b872b0e743]--$14m come off the books with Vlad and Mike Gonzalez gone, and I'm sure they don't count Davis at 1b. However, they also have pay hikes coming to arbitration-eligible players: Wieters, Jones, Guthrie, Andino, and Scott, that could make a big money player hard to do. Plus, they really need pitching, more so than hitting.
[b:b872b0e743]Toronto[/b:b872b0e743]--They have money coming off the books too, but arbitration may eat most or more of that with Rasmus, Cecil, Litsch, and Morrow elgible. It may partially depend on what they do at 2b. If they exercise the 500k option with Encarnacion and put Lawrie at 2b, then they could be a player for someone. But they might stick with Lawrie at 3b and then 2b is wide open and a big need. However, if they went for Pujols or Fielder, they would become big threats in the AL East.
[b:b872b0e743]Seattle[/b:b872b0e743]--It depends on the self-imposed cap as Felix gets $7.5m more in 2012 than in 2011. The club must also plan for Ichiro, whose contract is up after 2012. Is Ichiro heading toward DH-dom? Do they want Ichiro to retire a Mariner? Is Smoak definitely in their plans? And despite all of that, if Seattle is still considering trading the King partially due to his contract, then I don't see them going hard for Pujols.
[b:b872b0e743]Cubs[/b:b872b0e743]--Despite the Soriano and Big Z contracts, they have some room to make a move. Guys like DeWitt and Baker can play 3b if Ramirez hits FA (which is expected, the $2m 2012 option is mutual). So ARam and Pena, which totalled $24m in 2011, for Pujols seems like a fair swap financially.
[b:b872b0e743]Houston[/b:b872b0e743]--They have only one more $19m year of Carlos Lee, so they could allow for a single-season payroll hike, IF they are ready to give up on Wallace at 1b. But this would be more like a Band-Aid on a compound fracture.
[b:b872b0e743]Milwaukee[/b:b872b0e743]--It's a tough spot for the Brew Crew. They have $56m tied up in Grienke, Wolf, Braun, Weeks, Hart, and Gallardo (up $12m from 2011). And Marcum, Magahee, and Morgan are arb-eligible, which means a payroll increase of probably $5-8m for those three, assuming the club tenders.
[b:b872b0e743]St. Louis[/b:b872b0e743]--I think they are the favorite for Pujols, but they will have to pay big to do it. And they will hesitate with Berkman able to play 1b and Allen Craig looking ready to be the everyday rf.
[b:b872b0e743]Washington[/b:b872b0e743]--LaRoche is under contract for one more year at $8m, which was a bit high when it happened. He's also coming off an injury and a sub-.200 bavg. The Nats would consider the big splash regardless, I think. LaRoche is not the one in the way. The possible roadblock is Werth's contract. Starting in 2013, Werth gets $20m per. Will the Nats tie their wagons to two players making a combined $40m+?

[b:b872b0e743]Tampa Bay and Oakland[/b:b872b0e743]--I dismiss both teams because they won't spend the money. Tampa has made the playoffs 3 straight years with payrolls that combined will be less than Pujols' next contract.
[b:b872b0e743]Dodgers[/b:b872b0e743]--They would dump Loney and chase Pujols or Fielder in a heartbeat if the ownership issue was not handcuffing them.
[b:b872b0e743]Mets [/b:b872b0e743]already have $60m locked into three guys (Santana, Bay, Wright) and may not pursue re-signing Reyes, who would be better in the long run for them since they have Davis at 1b.

Overall, I think the likely landing spots for Pujols and Fielder are, in order:
Chicago Cubs
St. Louis
Washington
Toronto
Milwaukee

[gkhd11a]

God I hope the cubs stay away from those 2

[Munich_Man]

Pujols in Wrigley. The mind boggles!

[Hack Wilson]

You can't penalize players for the era they played in. It's not their fault, and after all, the question in essence is really who was MOST dominant in their era compared to who was MOST dominant in another era. It's not about being the best athlete. Secondly, what are the values or criteria that we are talking about? Are we talking both sides of play, offense and defense, are we just talking about hitting?

Clearly, Ruth was the most dominant player of his era, and of any other played in their era. You can;'t time travel him and speculate what might have been in the 1970s with Ruth. That's hypothetical.

That said, Pujols has been the most dominant player in baseball since -- arguably -- Willie Mays. They are different players, so let it go at that. Before Willie, it was arguably Ted Williams. Before him, Ruth, and before him, Wagner and Cobb.

So those are my picks. I isolate them to their era. The game has changed, and it's unfair and silly to compare the greats of the deadball era -- who excelled in the game they knew -- to the players of today. Give them their due, and leave it at that.

In all, it seems unlikely that any player will ever be as dominant as Ruth. The true question is who are the ones after him.

[JohnnyBlazers]

I have an idea that's been percolating after reading the posts on the "Pujols" debate.
Twelve teams from different decades. I think it might be doable as we have a large card base:

1) 1800's-1910
2) 1911-1919
3) 1920-1929
4) 1930-1939
5) 1940-1949
6) 1950-1959
7) 1960-1969 - johnnyblazers
8) 1970-1979
9) 1980-1989
10) 1990-present
11) Negro Leagues-I
12) Negro Leagues II

We should do this as an Auto draft, 100M, DH - cards with years that cross "decades" (ex. Joe Dimaggio '39 & '41) can be drafted by the '30's team or the 40's teams - auto draft determines whether or not you get the card. All the should have the decade as part of their team (ex. 60's Bronx Bombers) . I also added two Negro league teams to round out field. The park you select must come from the decade as well. If there are any ideas or revisions to the breakdown of decades, periods, etc, please post. I think the card set will provide every team with enough players. All rosters must have players from the specific decade or NEL cards. Let's get this started!

[macnole]

so 3 homers elicits thoughts of best ever...does the error elicit thoughts of an overrrated defender? obviously thats tongue in cheek...

He's no doubt a dominant player. And his peers make up a better overall pool of players with distinct advantages. But he is not on a completely different performance strata than his peers. Ruth and a handful of some of the others mentioned were anomalies of their era. You cannot compare across eras except in terms of relative value and performance.

Albert has superior equipment, nutrition, training, smaller parks, etc etc.

He is great, but from year to year he has peers who also achieve. Ruth didn't.

What makes him enter the conversation and where I agree, is on longevity, just like Aaron. That counts for something because in a relative sense, it is an uncommon achievement across any era.

So, if he continues, it could be a valid comparison. But for now, he's a great player who cannot displace every other first baseman in the league necessarily. I mean, even the Yankees would likely use him at DH--because Texiera is at least as good defensively and the offensive delta doesn't make it worth it. Whereas Ruth would have displaced anyone at his position; no matter the defensive comparison.