Just a little thought to get the minds rattling a little bit.. What would you (if your are GM of Rangers, or GM of Cards) say to a trade of Pujols and some player to be named for Michael Young and 10 million, Sheppers, Perez, and a choice or both of Moreland & Chris Davis.??

What are your thoughts? Again, I am not saying this should happen or I want it to but just to stir some dust here... The problem I think arises when trying to payout Pujols, CJ, Hammy (when his 2 year deal is over) and everyone else...

But you have to think we would be front runner for several years of title contentions, and this will be prime time baseball for the Rangers, we will receieve funds from playoff runs, more ticket sells, and greater tv and radio publicity.

Thoughts??

Only if you decided to sign Pujols for 8 years and he agreed to terms before the trade. That would never happen and he doesn't want to be traded anyways as far as I know, and has a full no trade clause.

Even if all of that were in place I don't know if I'd want to do it.

Such a trade in my mind would make no sense for the benefit of having Pujols for one year.

I would definately not do it just to "Rent a player" he would have to agree to be signed at the time of the trade.

I love how everyone was so reluctant to go 6 or 7 years on Lee, but are just ready to give Pujols the franchise.

Whoever takes on Pujols and his monster-to-be contract, is going to be in a world of hurt for the next 8-10 years. Don't forget that by the time Pujols' next contract is coming to an end, he will be knocking on 40 years old. Do you guys really think he is going to bring 25+ million dollars worth of production for the next 10 years? I sure as hell don't.

Agree with Roy Hobbs. Wouldn't sign him for more than 5 or 6 years. Even then I think there would be better places to put that money moving forward. He's going to get up there in age quickly...is A-rod still worth $25 per? Long contracts are bad ideas.

I see STL just working to get an extension signed but if that doesn't work they know they will either have him for their own value through the playoffs ... and if not they will stock the entire farm system to rent him out.

You want to get a Pujols at the front of the career rather than the back, though. So I'd say no.

I think when it's all said & done, Texas will be glad they didn't sign Lee to a 7 year deal, just like they're glad they didn't get Zito.

I also think they will come to regret the Beltre contract, too.

He is a very good player, but he is a 1st baseman that even in his best years gives you 5-8 wins over replacemnt and will cost 30 mill a year. Not sure that is great value especially in 4 years when he needs to become a DH. And you have to give up premuim prospects. Not worth it IMO...

Wouldnt do that trade or sign him for 300 mil over 10 years but someone will and if u ask me that team needs to hope theyre in the AL so he can DH at the end of it. So i guess im sayin Cubies and Cards should be careful with this. And if somehow we sign him we better be able to sign CJ and hambone or it is a very bad deal.

@the natural - everyone?

But actually, yes, I think there is a very good chance Pujols brings in that kind of value. Pujols should be a lock for 7 WAR in 2011 (and that might be conservative, since he's averaged -- AVERAGED -- over 8 WAR over his entire career). The standard aging curve is to lose about half a WAR each season.

That gives you about 40-45 WAR over the next ten years. That will be worth around $250-$275 million dollars in market terms. I would not want to risk a 10 year contract, but you can temper that risk with a couple of option years at the end that ensure he only gets paid if he's healthy, and insure the deal.

Like the Arod deal, there's a good chance Pujols will be worth whatever ridiculous amount of money he signs for. And remember, wins at the top of the marginal value curve are worth more for a contending club trying to ensure a playoff run. A contending team should definitely be talking to Pujols' agent. If he asks for $300M, that's a starting point, and it's actually not a ridiculous place to being negotiating from.

I don't want him to be on the Rangers when it comes out he's been doing PEDs. Club has enough bad publicity.

I would trade all that for a Felix Hernandez or Josh Johnson. Free up some salary from Young's contract. And try and use that to entice Pujols and get his deal up to around $26 in a contract that can work it's way up to $30 mil and a guaranteed 7th or 8th year based on performance.

It wasn't long ago we had hoped we wouldn't have to sing the "same old song" again...but here we are, in need of pitching. The team we have has proven it can hit....why would you trade our young talent (and Michael Young) for Pujols? I understand our hitting would really be a show to watch but at what cost?

The Rangers aren't a team thats "one great hitter" away from the World Series. It's a team thats "one great pitcher" removed since the World Series. For this team its all about pitching at this point and any subject beyond that is a side-show.

98wingman, I think that's a pretty limited way of thinking. You do not ever just say "we do not need to pursue a hitter", period. If you can improve the club's chances of winning and the cost is a reasonable value, you do it. Of course right now there might be a bigger upgrade on the pitching side, but we really don't know for sure.

Right now it behooves the Rangers to give some of their young guys a shot at establishing themselves. In midseason, if no one has stepped up, or there is an injury in the rotation, it may make more sense to upgrade there than on the hitting side. But that doesn't mean you aren't open to dealing for a hitter if the right opportunity presented itself.