Before you ask what the catcher's CERA is, you have to know who he catches.

Whether or not you believe some catchers have a significant impact on ERAs, let's consider the fact that the Angels have had a solid rotation year after year.  Haren, Weaver, Santana, Escobar are four of the names Mathis has thrown to a lot.  Oh, and the Angels had one of the best bullpens in baseball.  There's something to be said for correlation vs. causation. 

If Brandon Morrow starts posting a 2.00 ERA then we can talk about Jeff Mathis.  Until then, let's just remember his average defensive metrics and Jose Molina's 40% career rate of throwing runners out versus Mathis' 24%.

you have to know who he catches.

Well, we know who they are. Dan Haren, Jered Weaver, Ervin Santana. Those guys. Haren is the real big difference maker. His career ERA is 3.59, but with Mathis it's 2.41 (in 216.2 IP.) It isn't even close to that with any of the other catchers he's worked with. Both Weaver and Santana have also been somewhat better with Mathis than with any of the other catchers they've worked with over their careers, with the single exception of Hank Conger (although Conger hasn't worked very much with either guy.)

Granted, one of the reasons Mathis looks so good is most of the time the other catcher was Mike Napoli.

Whether or not you believe some catchers have a significant impact on ERA

See, I think the real question is how could a catcher not have a significant impact on his pitchers ERA?

It's certainly hard to think of Mathis as a good catcher by any other means.  But also, then you have to balance out what a .500 OPS with a sub-Mendoza line brings to the table, plus fielding abilities, plus his below-average arm.  If the half-run is significant, how much of it is negated by the fact he'd be the most useless hitter when he plays, and also be average at the best in all other categories -other- than game-calling?

It's certainly hard to think of Mathis as a good catcher by any other means.

Hard? You mean impossible! You can't regard Mathis as even remotely useful at all except for this one thing he's got going for him... the way Jose Bautista has that hitting thing going for him.

It isn't just Mike Scioscia and Mathis' former battery mates who don't know what they're talking about. Here's some more morons who think Jeff Mathis is a good defensive C : Rob Neyer, who ranked him #1 in MLB in 2011, and Bill James & John Dewan, who had him ranked #2 behind Matt Wieters.

Hahahahaha @ 92-93. Haha. Nice line. "Here's some more morons..."

Mathis tends to catch Weaver and Haren a disproportionately high number of times, doesn't he?  Throw the backup out there when you probably won't need as many runs anyway.  It's hard to meaningfully compare CERA if you don't adjust for the quality of pitcher.

See, I think the real question is how could a catcher not have a significant impact on his pitchers ERA?

Well for one thing a catcher usually doesn't throw a single pitch.  The more veteran-y pitchers tend to call their own game, so that's minimal as well.  So possible impacts come down to two avenues: throwing out baserunners, and "framing" pitches.  I haven't checked the stats but apparently Mathis isn't great at the former.  As for the latter, it's hard to measure, but there was that study published by fangraphs a few months ago which loved Jose Molina for that talent.  I think it had Mathis as pretty decent at it too, but still.  It's hard to overcome the giant sucking sound of his bat.

Mathis has a decent chance to continue the streak in Toronto, but for the wrong reasons.  We'll probably have to wait for A.J. Jimenez to make it to the majors for there to be a fair CERA fight, and by then, Mathis will be long gone.  Mathis' arm is now below average.  He's OK, but not great at framing pitches.  He does other things well.  Now, if only he could hit like Gregg Zaun, you'd have something.

I really don't get the hate with Mathis. Sure, he's a terrible hitter, but he's a former top prospect with a solid defensive game. Why not let him catch 30 games? I'll bet anyone here tthat he'll hit over .200 with a .250 OBP.

Let's say Mathis plays 30 games. Let's say he gets an average of 4 at bats per game. That's 120 at bats over the course of the year.

If he gets 25 hits, that's a .208 average. Would we prefer it if he hit for a .250 average? Sure. That's 30 hits. Five extra hits over the course of the season.

We'd probably be happy if he hit .233 for the season. That's three extra hits.

Not sure why anyone's so upset about the loss of three hits over the course of six months, and willing to trash this deal on that basis.

It must be nice to think everyone that comes to Toronto is hopeless, a waste of time and money (and your GM qualifications are).   That's what the Manager's Staff is for, making improvements. 

In 2008 and 2009, ages 33 and 34, Jose Molina hit .216 and .217 respectively as a New York Yankee.  In Toronto, he hit .246 in 2010 and ..281 in 2011.   He signed with Tampa Bay, 1 year $1.5 MM, plus option year $1.5MM with $300 K buyout. 

In 2007, 2008 and 2009, John Buck hit .222, .224 and .247 respectively as a Kansas City Royal.  In Toronto, he hit .281 in 2010.   He signed with Florida, 3 years $18.0 MM.

Jeff Mathis however:  2012 Contract Status: 3rd-Year Arb Eligible, 1 yr/$1.7M (11) Service Time (01/2012): 5.012, Arb Eligible: 2012, Free Agent: 2013 (Compliments of Baseball-Reference.com) is here on an EXPIRING CONTRACT.  He will hit some 20 -30 points higher (as everyone else does) and sign a nice contract somewhere else.

I don't think anyone is angry about this move.  It's a non-move.  I think the idea that anyone is excited about it is just as ridiculous a notion as being upset by it.  I'm truthfully in the middle, but I'm allowed to feel he's a downgrade from other options.

Mathis tends to catch Weaver and Haren a disproportionately high number of times, doesn't he? Throw the backup out there when you probably won't need as many runs anyway. It's hard to meaningfully compare CERA if you don't adjust for the quality of pitcher.

Try this, then:

Haren with Mathis: 216 IP, 2.41 ERA
Haren with Montero: 253 IP, 3.45 ERA
Haren with Kendall: 530 IP, 3.58 ERA
Haren with Snyder: 314 IP, 3.58 ERA

Weaver with Mathis: 633.2 IP, 3.20 ERA
Weaver with Napoli: 370 IP, 3.89 ERA

Santana with Mathis: 485 IP, 3.84 ERA
Santana with Napoli: 244 IP, 5.01 ERA

Lackey with Mathis: 279 IP, 3.25 ERA
Lackey with Napoli: 399 IP, 3.63 ERA
Lackey with B.Molina: 463 IP, 3.88 ERA
Lackey with J.Molina: 281 IP, 4.25

"Let's say Mathis plays 30 games. Let's say he gets an average of 4 at bats per game. That's 120 at bats over the course of the year.

If he gets 25 hits, that's a .208 average. Would we prefer it if he hit for a .250 average? Sure. That's 30 hits. Five extra hits over the course of the season.

We'd probably be happy if he hit .233 for the season. That's three extra hits.

Not sure why anyone's so upset about the loss of three hits over the course of six months, and willing to trash this deal on that basis."
-------------------------

Well stated, now let's flip to the other side of the discussion:

Everyone is wondering about the CS% - Molina's was 33% and Mathis (reportedly) was at 24%

BUT

JPA and Molina faced 151 stolen base attempts in 2011, that's 0.93 attempts per game. if we supposed that Mathis will start 30 gaaes (laying aside games where on relieves the other for the sake of the point) then he will face 28 attempts.

28 x 33% = 9 caught
28 x 24% = 7 caught

and the vast majority of stolen bases do not in fact result in the deciding run being scored.

I think we'll survive.

At least on that count.

The more veteran-y pitchers tend to call their own game, so that's minimal as well.

Some do, but you'd be surprised by how many don't want to have to think out there - they just want to get the sign and focus on making that pitch. And the ones who do call their own games want a guy who's thinking along with them. They want to get on with it, and they definitely don't want to be standing around waiting for the catcher to finally hit on the pitch he wants to throw. (It's why Greg Maddux, who in every other respect was famously easy to catch, simply couldn't work with Javy Lopez.)

I'll bet anyone here tthat he'll hit over .200 with a .250 OBP.

Mathis has done that twice in his 6 major league seasons.

Along with the offensive drop and the decrease in caught stealing, Mathis is also significantly worse at framing pitches than Jose Molina. If you take the numbers from Mike Fast's study, Molina is 28 runs better than Mathis per 120 games over the last five seasons. If you divide that by four, assuming Mathis may play 30 contests, he's costing you somewhere around 7 runs through his glove.

Of course, Mathis may add blocking ability that Molina doesn't and the difference in receiving runs save wasn't huge in 2011 (although it was greater than 10 runs the previous three seasons).

I think part of the issue is now just that Mathis is terrible, it's that he's terrible and will cost good money.  Now, if they can someone use this to negotiate a small contract (say $750k) before the arb deadline, it's not the end of the world.  But if they end up paying him $2 million a year, well that's money that could have been added to whatever you're paying your closer, second baseman, whoever.  I think a lof of the fear is how he wsa used in Anaheim - if he catches 30 games, fine, but if he catches more than that then this move is a disaster.

Once upon a time Jeff Mathis was a legitimate prospect. Obviously that ship has sailed and things didn't work out so well for him, but you have to ask what the scouts etc. saw in him. Maybe he needs a fresh start and a chance to prove himself.

In fat, while I would agree that Molina is LIKELY better, I think that with him what you get is what you have seen... and that isn't great. Just okay. I think Mathis has more upside. It is just a question of whether it appears or not.

It's a disaster if he gets a bunch of quality starts out of Morrow and Drabek?

I've seen a couple people comparing Mathis to Molina as 2012 options.
That may not be fully legit because Molina was a free agent, and may not have even wanted to return. We also received a pick for Molina.

Net in: Mathis (~1.8-2.2m in arb if we don't cut and resign him for minimum (~400k buyout + 450k new salary= 750k)) + supp pick for Molina (estimated surplus value ~1-3m)
Net out: Molina (got 1.8m with Tampa) + Mills (who was going to hit the waiver wire soon anyway as he was on the boundaries of the 40 man roster and out of options) 

It's a disaster if he gets a bunch of quality starts out of Morrow and Drabek?

Well I guess that depends on what you think of CERA.  I don't put any stock into it, so yes, I think it's a disaster if he gets all their starts. 

Magpie: There are many reasons I love to read this blog. In this thread it isn't just the articulation and defense of what "might" be a really great concept, but also the elegance of the abridging. Burp!

Mathis will obviously get better as soon as he learns to look for the man in the white shirt.

I'm not convinced he can hit a fastball even if he knows it's coming.

I'm not convinced he can hit a fastball even if he knows it's coming.

Well, if the pitcher throws it exactly where Mathis happens to be swinging... I'm not sure that can be described as "hitting."

I don't know why Angels' pitchers were much more effective working with Mathis. I know that as soon as you mention the subject, people will say you have to look at who the pitchers were. As soon as you look at who the pitchers were, they will start to say the samples are too small (I included all the 200+ innings samples for the four Angels pitchers above.) I don't know why it happens - if it's because he frames pitches nicely, or if he's a master psychologist, or if he slips the umpire a fiver before the game. Whatever makes it happen is fine by me.

According to CBSCleveland.com, the Jays are the current favourites to land Prince Fielder. I'm taking it with a grain of salt though, especially this time of year when baseless rumours abound. Still, it's exciting.

http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2011/12/04/free-agent-powerhouse-prince-fielder-reportedly-has-narrowed-his-choices-of-teams-to-three/

Mags, you are now outrightly causing our users to "Burp" -- I knew you gave some people gas, but come ON!

Well I guess that depends on what you think of CERA. I don't put any stock into it, so yes, I think it's a disaster if he gets all their starts.

No, you are conflating "game-calling ability" with "a baseball stat that might show game-calling ability". We're not only looking at his CERA, but also the opinions of experts. A catcher could be great at game-calling, and CERA might reflect that, even if CERA doesn't work as a stat. The stat can be discredited without the notion that all catchers are fungible when it comes to the skill of game-calling. So no, it doesn't depend on what I think of CERA.

No, you are conflating "game-calling ability" with "a baseball stat that might show game-calling ability". We're not only looking at his CERA, but also the opinions of experts. A catcher could be great at game-calling, and CERA might reflect that, even if CERA doesn't work as a stat. The stat can be discredited without the notion that all catchers are fungible when it comes to the skill of game-calling. So no, it doesn't depend on what I think of CERA.

Well, I guess it depends what you think I feel about CERA.  I don't think it exists, so yes, it would be a disaster if he played that many games.

I don't think it exists,

Of course it exists, in the exact same way that batting average exists. You may not think it's particularly meaningful, but it certainly exists.

For what it's worth, this is from MLBTR today: "The Nationals, along with the Marlins and Blue Jays, are seen as probable big spenders at the (winter) meetings."

In fact, CERA is essentially a counting stat expressed in terms of playing time. While the context of counting numbers must always, always be considered - I certainly believe that such a stat, a record of what actually occurred, is always preferable to any measure that depends on a theory of the game. A theory which is then imposed on the counting stats to produce... something. Like WAR, or Win Shares, or OPS+, or Runs Created.

you know, the comparison to batting average is interesting...though this comparison would work with regular ERA or a lot of other stats.

It's quite true that CERA is influenced by a lot of contributing factors - which pitchers were caught, who the opposition was, how big the sample size is, and on and on and on.

in like manner, batting average can be skewed by sample size, by the quality of the opposing pitchers, ballpark factors and the like.

Essentially, ANY stat that is not highly controlled for suffers that problem. Can you really say that a guy who had a higher batting average in the NL Central than a guy in the AL East had is a better hitter for average? it's almost impossible to control the sample such that you compare them against the same pitchers, in the same parks, and over a decent sized sample.
And yet we routinely make such comparisons - and all the more so when you get into more refined statistics.

so it seems to me that while CERA is, in fact, a sort of subjective stat - is it any more so that pitchers ERA, or OPS?

Don't think CERA matters much at all. Mathis was better than Napoli for years and last year, with a worse staff in a better hitter's park, Napoli had the best CERA in the AL. What does that tell you? Not much I think. Mathis is a very good defensive catcher who is one of the worst offensive players in baseball. As long as he isn't going to play much, this move doesn't matter much.

last year, with a worse staff in a better hitter's park, Napoli had the best CERA in the AL.

You're absolutely right (except for the worse staff part - that was the ballparks talking.) I think it probably did Napoli a world of good to get away from Mike Scioscia, and play for a manager who was an infielder in his own playing days.

I haven't run across a C defensive metric I've been a fan of yet (the Mike Fast stuff is the most interesting at what it's measuring, but only one piece of what makes up a catcher's defensive value). In lieu of that, I'll begrudgingly fall back to my memory of both what I've seen on TV (I haven't watched many Angels games, though, because their announcers are horrific) and what I've read from those with an educated opinion (again, not their TV crew). He's a very athletic catcher with a strong arm (it's not his fault he has to catch Ervin Santana) who looks and sounds like he calls a good game and can block a pitch. I don't have any impression of how he blocks a plate, and it's pretty obvious he can't hit, but that sounds like a good combo of skills to bring to the backup catcher role. Hopefully that's what actually shows up in the spring, and my memory isn't merely playing its usual tricks on me.

I have no problem with the trade, though I would have preferred Teagarden whom the Orioles got from Texas.

Hmmm. Prince likes Toronto says one writer.

http://tsn.ca/mlb/story/?id=381952

Prince to Toronto seems to be gaining steam from writers. Jon Heyman tweeted:

SI_JonHeyman Jon Heyman #bluejays have plenty of spending $. They do appear to be in prince market. (side note: dad played there)

I love athletic players as much as anyone but Prince can flat out demolish a baseball. The length of the contract may be the biggest concern from Jays brass though.

Four years, $25 million per, and we're done! That gives Prince the per-year rate he wants, and he's still young enough, going into his age 33 season, to collect another huge pay cheque.

Win-win. Where do we sign?

Heyman has the best information from the Boras camp, and Fielder is a Boras client. I assume this is Boras trying to generate more interest and more dollars for his client and using the Blue Jays as bait. Unless Prince is willing to sign a much shorter contract I don't see the Jays signing him.

Prince is not going to sign for less than 7 years - this sounds like Scott Boras trying to create more buzz about his client.

If we can get him for 6 years and option, it's a steal.  7 is steep, but honestly, even if the kid declines, there is no way we aren't going to get 4-5 fantastic years out of him.  When you talk about decline, you have to consider the starting point.  I fail to believe even him declining 5-6 years from now would be any worse than what we are getting right now.

I think the Fielder deal would be a good one to make, as long as they don't back-load the contract.  I'd like a nice level salary throughout.  Keep in mind guys that Milwaukee offered 6/120, so really, we'd have to be offering either a higher rate over 6 years, or be offering 7 years.

I know Prince's body is a topic of concern, but really he has a track record of being great. The one player I think of for a comparison is David Ortiz. If you look at what Ortiz has done from his age 28 to age 34 seasons, would you be willing to pay a premium for that type of production? I would. You are going to probably get 3 or 4 years of peak production, then early decline for the remainder. I would have no problem going 7 years with a guy who is only 27. There are no premium 1B prospect coming for the next few years, and he would provide quite 3-4 combo with Bautista. He would completley change the lineup. With any progress from the kids and you have an offence that could be the best in the game.

Flex

4 years, plus age 27 until May 9: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/f/fieldpr01.shtml equals 31 years of age.  Which then makes him 1 year, 3 months and 15 days younger than Albert Pujols, and still a chance for 6-7 years more.

I hate rumours like this.  Now if we don't get Prince Fielder Ima gonna be upset.

Looks like the Marlins are closing in on Jose Reyes for a reported six years, 110 million dollar contract. Let the winter meeting madness begin.

Joey Bats
Prince
Lawrie

middle of the lineup

time to dream . . .

A lineup of

Escobar
Prado
Bautista
Fielder
Lawrie
Lind
Arencibia
Rasmus
Thames/Snider

That's something dreams are made of if Rasmus hits like he did in 2010 and we see steady progression out of Lawrie, Arencibia and Tham-der. The pitching still has question marks though.

If we don't get Prado, then something like this would be mighty appealing.

Escobar
Lawrie
Bautista
Fielder
Arencibia
Rasmus
Encarnacion
Thames/Snider
Figgins

Presuming we got Figgins with the Mariners eating a lot of salary and we traded Lind away for pitching.

But ya, if the Jays were to sign Fielder I would certainly be attending more games than usual.

It's Geoff Baker...so uhh...there's that - but here's what he's tweeted  from Dallas:

gbakermariners Geoff Baker Blue Jays making it known here in Dallas that they are NOT after Fielder. Will M's be? Depends how much price comes down, it would seem

I don't understand why they wouldn't have interest.  In a division where other teams have Teixeira and Gonzalez, Fielder would at least level that playing field (and is better than Teixeira).  I rather go for Fielder than wait for an aging Votto.  Fielder would be an important piece for an attempt to compete.

Its beginning to look like the Jays intend to go the cheapest route possible looking for every positional need.With the opportunity to stack draft picks or spend internationally anymore pretty well gone ;it becomes apparent that the jays will take on the role of opposition or bridesmaid.Someone for the serious teams to play until October.Not very interesting for fans over a 162 game season.Too bad because they have the money but insist on being the montreal Expos and we know where that goes.c'est la vie.

I completely agree that the Jays are pretending that they don't have the money to compete.  Rogers just rakes in the money and says things like, "the money will be there when the team needs it" and then they go about doing their best to make sure the team never needs it.  AA keeps doing his best to act like Billy Beane but whereas the Oakland franchise doesn't have the money to sign big name players, Toronto is just play acting.  It would be very easy for Rogers to make such criticism go away, but so long as no one calls their bluff, they don't have to.  And I'm not talking about signing Pujols or Fielder.  Why this song and dance about a closer?  You want one?  Buy one.  And what about Kelly Johnson?  Why do we have to wait to see if he'll accept arbitration?  Is there a second baseman in the organization in AAA who is almost ready to break through?  Is there one in AA?  The Jays need a second baseman for more than one year.  They should buy low on Johnson--what will it take to lock him up for two or three years? Is Jeff Mathis an improvement on Jose Molina?  We don't know what trade offers AA is considering regarding the closer position or the second base postion or  for a starting pitcher but why give up quality prospects to save Rogers some money?  A good GM uses his resources wisely and doesn't waste money but this is just ridiculous.  Rogers runs the team the same way they bought Skydome--that is for a fraction of what it is worth.

 

I suspect the issue with Fielder is the years. As to those who say 'who cares' I respond 'Vernon Wells'.

With Wells, even as he slows down at least you can shift him from CF to LF to 1B/DH. But Fielder, when he slows down, will have nowhere left to go. If he stops hitting you have a Frank Thomas type situation, but at 2 times the cost and for a heck of a lot more years.

I fully understand, and agree with, limiting deals to 5 years max unless something exceptional occurs (ie: a 25 year old free agent who plays at a premium position aka: A-Rod when he first hit free agency). If Fielder hit like he does but played second base, then I'd risk 7 years on him as a decline in offense or defense could be worked around. But at 1B any decline will stand out like a sore thumb thus going past 5 years is 'a bridge too far' imo.

Fielder has been a lot better hitter than Wells was.  Mo Vaughn, Boog Powell and Kent Hrbek are the more relevant marking points. They managed 4-6 good years after age 27.  Fielder is better and bigger than all of them.  I have no idea how that will all shake out. 

With Wells, even as he slows down at least you can shift him from CF to LF to 1B/DH

Except it wasn't really an issue of Vernon Wells slowing down. It was an issue of him not being a particularly good hitter. If he had put up the same offensive numbers, his drop in range in CF wouldn't have been a big problem. It became a problem when it was combined with the fact he popped up to short every second at-bat.

In the discussion of money:-
1) I do not expect the Jays to even try to compete with NYY & Boston. I also do not think anyone else will compete with them in spending. So I am conceding them to be the "overall favorites" to win the AL East and the 1st Wild Card most years due to the $ factor.
2) So that leaves competing $ wise with everyone else. That may be about 7 teams (my guess), that are in this $ competition.
3) Any of those 7 teams that takes on a big contract that turns bad, will handcuff themselves $ wise IMO. And maybe worse they may feel that they are obliged to play that player a lot and in a key role.
4) "Flexability" now comes into play. What ever that means.
5) A strong farm will also be a major factor. This should be a cheaper area.

I imagine there are a lot of teams willing to give Fielder six years. There should be enough competition to up the ante to 7, 8, 9 or even 10 years. Offensively, Teixeira is a reasonable comp (8 years/$180M). If I had to guess, I would say Fielder gets seven or eight years, around $25M per.

Interestingly, Teixeira's numbers have fallen off somewhat over the last two seasons (his age-30 and 31 years), which might give some teams pause.

I did a quick check on the recent long term big money deals at http://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20111117125517877

Bottom line? Of the top 35 deals (raw dollars) all time you get odds of a 'win' (Fangraphs dollars within eyeshot or above the contract) at 31% (counting actives which is a big assumption), of getting at least something worthwhile but not a win 29% (loosely being worth at least 2/3 to 3/4 of your contract), of losing your job over it or wishing you did 40%.

I know a few here hate Fangraphs but their dollar value gives at least a ballpark figure to compare the contract to. Don't go dollar for dollar (ie: if it is off by $1 then it must have been a loss) but instead as a general guideline.

So, if you are a GM would you take a 40% risk of a disaster? Those disasters were Joe Mauer $184,000,000 (2011-18 on pace to 'earn' just $63.2), Carl Crawford $142,000,000 (2011-17 on pace for $6.3 total), Vernon Wells $126,000,000 (2008-14 on pace for $40.6 and that is generous), Barry Zito $126,000,000 (2007-13 on pace for $38.92), Mike Hampton $121,000,000 (2001-08 $27.2 generally viewed as a standard for ugly), Jason Giambi $120,000,000 (2002-08 - $69.2), Ken Griffey Jr. $116,500,000 (2000-08 $15.2), Kevin Brown $105,000,000 (1999-2005 $54.4), Carlos Lee $100,000,000 (2007-12 $54.8), Carlos Zambrano $91,500,000 (2008-12 $53.25), Mike Piazza, $91,000,000 (1999-2005 $41.8).

In that 'ugly' group you see HOF locks (Piazza, Griffey) and all-stars (pretty much everyone else). How do you know for certain with any that they will work out? Answer: you don't. If I was AA I'd think long and hard before giving more than 4-5 years to any player unless it was at such a bargain rate you'd be nuts not to.

The only reasonable comparison to Fielder on that list is Jason Giambi - the rest of them are just comparing contracts based on size, which makes as much sense as writing off all Japanese infielders because Matsui & Nishioka haven't been any good. An 8 year deal with Fielder would take you through his age-35 season. Under his deal with NYY Giambi hit .266/.415/.535 through his age-35 season, and he dipped at age-36 before a nice rebound at age-37.

Huh? Wasn't Giambi on steroids for most if not all of those years?

No, he wasn't. Or at least he hasn't admitted to being on them or tested positive for them, which puts him in the same boat as Fielder.

No, but he was on "that stuff", and he was non-specifically really, really sorry.

I think it is worth looking at as a warning. Long term deals carry long term risks. Sometimes you get Albert Pujols' peak (massive gain for the team). Sometimes you get Griffey Jr's injury years. The bottom line is that the odds of a disaster is extremely high. Who wouldn't expect a better aging process for Joe Mauer, Carl Crawford, Vernon Wells, Ken Griffey Jr., Carlos Lee, or Mike Piazza than one would expect for Fielder?

Now, on the plus side lets see what B-R's most similar list provides through age 27...
Eddie Murray, Juan Gonzalez, Jose Canseco, Mark Teixeira, Greg Luzinski, Darryl Strawberry, Kent Hrbek, Boog Powell, Jim Rice, Orlando Cepeda.
Removing Teixeira (still active) you get an average of 8 more seasons in the majors, 278/360/477 124 OPS+. A 135 OPS+ was the best for the remainder of a career (Boog Powell) while none has under a 119 for the rest (Luzinsi/Rice tied). All had at least 6 seasons left in the tank, 14 was the most (Murray).

This suggests a 6 year deal isn't crazy but that a 10 year one would be.

Pujols, on the other hand, has a bigger spread. From 4 more years (Juan Gonzalez) to 11 (Hank Aaron, Willie Mays). From a 109 OPS+ (Juan Gonzalez), a 113 (Griffey Jr), and a 129 (Jimmy Foxx) to the rest being 149 and above. 5 lasted 8+ years, 4 for 9+ so there is a reasonable chance a 10 year deal could work out very nicely for someone (150 OPS+ over 10 years...I'd take that).

In the end it all comes down to how much risk you are willing to take. With Fielder you likely have a 120-130 OPS+ guy for up to 7 years. For Pujols you have around a 20% chance of 'dang' over 5 years but also a good shot at 'woohoo' over 8+ years (with the old assumption that his age is indeed his age, although I view the age question as much like the 'birther' issue in the US).

If money wasn't the issue I'd sign Pujols. You have a shot at amazing results (150 OPS+) for the duration. Fielder, on the other hand, is the 'safe' pick - less variability but smaller peak potential. Or you just stick with Lind :P

The Santos trade is another opportunity to save money.Why spend money on a close when you can just throw away one of your best prospects and save all that dough.