Pujols for Howard?

So, the latest round of rumors includes one that that Cardinals and Phillies may swap first basemen, with Albert Pujols going to Philly in exchange for Ryan Howard. The reasoning behind the deal seems to be that the Cardinals may be considering giving up on signing Pujols to a long-term deal after 2011 when his contract ends, and could see Howard as a more affordable but similar player.

Two points strike me right away. First, though fans may not realize this, Howard is actually older than Pujols. Only two months older, it's true, but since Pujols has been a mainstay since 2001 and Howard didn't arrive on the MLB scene until 2005, many people seem to have the impression that Howard is the younger player. He isn't. (Unless you believe that Pujols is older than his reported age.) Second, Howard is actually more expensive than Pujols in the short term. Pujols is scheduled to make $16 million in 2010 and 2011; Howard will make $19 million in 2010 and $20 million in 2011, and would be owed another $1 million as a bonus for being traded before the end of the 2010 season. This isn't a huge difference, but it's enough that I start to question just how frugal acquiring Howard would really be.

From the Phillies' perspective, the trade would make great sense. They've won consecutive NL titles, they just got Roy Halladay, and they're in win-now mode. Even if they don't sign Pujols long term, they're going to be better off with Pujols than Howard for the next two seasons, when their chances are already going to be at their highest. And make no mistake, Pujols is much MUCH better than Howard.

That's not a slight on Howard, who has been a terrific hitter since his call-up in 2005. But another misconception that fans seem to have is that Howard is fairly close in value to Pujols. Not that he's as valuable, they say, but it's close. After all, Howard has hit 198 homers in the last four seasons. That's 33 more than Pujols has hit in the same period, so the Cards would actually be getting more punch in the lineup, they say. Plus, Howard is a run producer like no other. He's totaled 572 RBI in those four seasons, compared to Pujols's 491. Really, when you get down to it, the Philly fan says, the Cards wouldn't miss Pujols's bat at all; the difference really comes down to the defense.

Ugh. Our straw-man Philly fan is irritating the crap out of me already.

Well, RBI men have always been overrated, and maybe they always will be. Thing is, a big part of Pujols's role is to get on base. While he's never led the league in RBI, he's led the league in runs scored four times. And he does that by getting on base. A lot. He led the league in OBP last year with .443. Pujols is one of those rare guys who is so good at both getting on base and at driving guys around the bases that even Tony LaRussa at his most over-managing doesn't consider batting him anywhere but third.

This point really blends in with the next... we often tend to overrate guys who have one or two signature seasons. Howard was stellar in 2006. He hit .313, walked 108 times, hit 58 homers, drove in 149 runs and won the MVP award. He was awesome. And because he's been good, and because he's continued to drive in about 140 runs and hit close to 50 homers a year, a lot of people think that line he produced in 2006 really is Ryan Howard. Never mind that he's hit .268, .251 and .279 since. Never mind that the reason his RBI numbers haven't dropped much is because the Phillie offense has been better. Never mind that his OPS+ has gone from his high of 167 to 145, 124 and 140. Ryan Howard is still awesome because of that .313/.425/.659 line in 2006.

And Pujols? Well, he does the same thing every year, almost, and we sometimes forget about just how brilliant he is because of that consistency. That .425 OBP that Howard had in 2006? Pujols has failed to match it three times in his nine year career. The last time was in 2004. His worst year is better than Howard's second-best. He's failed to match the 167 OPS+ three times as well. Think about that. Albert Pujols's fourth worst offensive season is better than Howard's best. And while Howard's best season came four years ago, Pujols's best two seasons came in... 2008 and 2009.

And then there's the defense, where Howard is indifferent, and Pujols is the best in the game.

Of course, the question really isn't which of these players has been the best, but which of these players is likely to be better in their 30s. And I think Pujols is a much stronger bet to age gracefully. Power hitters with low batting averages don't tend to last as long as those with higher averages. This strongly favors Pujols. Players with speed tend to last longer than those who have no speed. While Pujols is no sprinter, Howard is likely even worse off. Better defensive players tend to age better, since their skills have farther to erode.

Looking at similarity scores, the top retired comparables to Howard are Jim Gentile, John Jaha and Dick Stuart. Gentile was, if anything, a more extreme version of Howard, coming out of nowhere to have a great partial season at age 26, had an even better signature season than Howard at 27, and settled in as a solid hitter for several more seasons. He was done at 32. Jaha was a tremendous hitter in his late 20s and early 30s, had one final fantastic year the season he turned 33, and was done. Dick Stuart was an average hitter at 32 and 33, and was done. Pujols's top retired comparables are Hank Greenberg, Albert Belle and Johnny Mize. Greenberg was a terrific hitter at 35, and still very dangerous at 36 when he chose to retire. Belle battled injuries and was effectively done at 32. Mize was awesome at 35, and stayed around until 40. It's not definitive, of course. Could Howard decline more slowly from this point? Yeah, it could work out that way. But the odds don't favor that outcome.

Combine this with Pujols starting his decline from a higher point, and having much better chances to reach the kind of milestones that will make him a late-career draw, and it's hard to see how Howard would be a better value than Pujols unless he were much, MUCH cheaper. And how cheap does anyone really expect him to be, coming off a contract where he's making $20 million in the final year? It's possible, even probable, that any team signing either of these guys long term in their 30s is going to regret it. That's the nature of older ballplayers. But I'm betting on the team that signs Pujols to have better odds of avoiding buyer's regret, even if the price tag is a lot higher.