The value remaining on both of their deals (as of opening day for simplicity sake) is 327 million (plus 10 mil for a personal services contract for Pujols, which I'm not including). How much is the rest of Pujols' career worth? Tough to say -- fangraphs says he was still worth 16 mil last year, but he's been in a pretty sharp decline, and pretty poor this year, so age continuing to take its toll seems like a safe bet. Just to pick a round number, let's say 50 million. That leaves 277 million dollars for 5 years of Mike Trout (again, assuming you get all of this year). Just over 55 million per year. You think teams would make that deal? Not in some hypothetical world, the real one, where budgets matter. Even if I say Pujols is worth 70 mil the rest of the way, that's still 50 mil per year for Trout. I mean, I suppose its not 100% impossible someone would do that, for the sake of a shorter term deal. But it couldn't possibly be more than two or three, and I'm skeptical that any at all would do it.
You posed the hypothetical, guy. It's your hypothetical question. Which makes your eagerness to challenge it as a stupid hypothetical question so funny.
Moondog: Hey you guys, hey you guys... would you do this hypothetical question?
Everybody: Yes.
Moondog: No, I mean, not hyporthetically, I mean really do it.
Everbody: We would do it.
Moondog: The answer is no, by the way. I'm skeptical you'd do it.
Everybody: We would. /Reasons.
Moondog: No, you don't understand. Here, let me re-phrase my hypothetical question, because you wouldn't. Would you do it?
Everybody: Yes. Also you don't know how to spell sceptical.
Moondog: No... no one would do it. Not in the real world.
Everybody: Yes we would. /Reasons.
Moondog: No, I don't think so. I don't think anyone would do it.
Everybody: This is stupid.
Moondog: I'm not crazy.
Everybody: Whatever guy.
Moondog: It says "Choo-choo-choose" and it has a picture of a train on it.