Baseball stars of past eras would only be average against talent of today.. agree or disagree anyone?

I understand they have bulky stats. I understand they were great for their era. I do not agree they would have those stats or would be considered great if playing against todays players. If you take a slightly above average pitcher of today (example: Tim Hudson) and you insert him into the same years that Cy Young pitched, I believe the pitching award would be called the Tim Hudson Award. Same with hitting. Take a good power/avg. hitter of today like an Albert Pujols and you insert him into the Early 1900's era and he would have batted over .600 every year with a lifetime of 1200 home runs. The pitchers of past eras would not have been able to get him out. I am just fed up with the all-time lists being only past era player with little to no respect for current talent. The "GREAT" Willie Mays or Joe Dimaggio simply were not as good as todays era "MEDIOCRE" Jim Edmonds. Anyone else agree that Willie's "great" catch wasn't anything that spectacular?