Jump to content

Why not Holliday?


JTrea81

Recommended Posts

So lets say hypothetically we make that deal and sign Holliday for whatever money. Now we sit with 6 outfielders, no third baseman, no first baseman, no closer, and still wanting pitching depth. The value of our trade bait, whether it be Scott, Pie, or whomever, takes a BIG hit (ala Soriano in Atlanta) because teams know we HAVE to shed some of the outfield depth. Its just not a smart way to go. You fill positions of need. Period.

Ding Ding Ding.. We have another winner!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Matt Holliday has said he has no preference IIRC, I believe he's just looking for whoever gives him the most $, as a typical Boras client does.

I'm not quite sure how taking Reimold out of LF and putting Holliday there makes the defense worse.

And instead of paying 20 million per season for a 1B man, you could go get a Joey Votto type and pay him less. You'd shift that cost to Holliday.

Or you could find a LT solution at SS or 3B.

Check it:

I don't think we need another one.

RF: Markakis

CF: Pie

LF: Jones

DH: Reimold

Trade Scott.

No good reason other than infatuation with OPP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ding Ding Ding.. We have another winner!!!

Not really as you aren't likely to trade any of those OFers in a 1 for 1 swap. They would each be part of a larger package for a top player so their trade value won't exactly diminish in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because we have 4 above average OFers and pissing away 18+ million a year on another one is a stupid use of resources.

I agree with this. To be honest until we trade Luke, you could make a case we have 5. I would rather spend the money on pitching and securing good corner infielders then fool around with Boras and Holliday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would rather spend the money on pitching and securing good corner infielders then fool around with Boras and Holliday.

Again, we can trade for pitching and also acquire good corner IFers by obtaining Holliday which would make our other quality OFers redundant, and therefore expendable in a trade to acquire those other pieces.

Holliday does not have to be looked at as just an upgrade in LF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the Orioles aren't likely about to move Jones to LF as Tony said. Nor will Pie be a full time player IMO.

So with that in mind, Holliday does improve the defense.

Duh..............

They're just as likely to move Jones to left field and put Pie in center as they are to sign Holliday.

You're saying they should sign Holliday. I'm saying they should move Jones.

What's the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So lets say hypothetically we make that deal and sign Holliday for whatever money. Now we sit with 6 outfielders, no third baseman, no first baseman, no closer, and still wanting pitching depth. The value of our trade bait, whether it be Scott, Pie, or whomever, takes a BIG hit (ala Soriano in Atlanta) because teams know we HAVE to shed some of the outfield depth. Its just not a smart way to go. You fill positions of need. Period.

You could call it the "All-MASN Strategy." Last year the Nats had six or seven outfielders and no pitchers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because while he may be better now, he is older and costs at least $90 million to start the talks. And truth be told, he is only marginally better than our current outfielders. If you are going to spend the money we are talking here, you do it for a positon of NEED, not a position of depth.

I understand what you are saying. I know we are set at the outfield positions. Here is how I am thinking, money aside because AM said he would spend it in the right situation.

We sign Holliday, trade one of the young outfielders and Scott and bring in a corner infielder and some bullpen help. I know it's not that easy but I personally think Holliday as our number 4 hitter and LF is a good move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removing Reimold or Pie and adding Holliday adds how many wins?

I'd have no problem whatsoever moving Pie/Scott and a few others. But it's ridiculous to try to make a huge move like this, costing us millions, and not have a HUGE increase in production for a position. This isn't AGon or Fielder. These guys would be FA's to at least think about because they are huge upgrades over who we have at those positions.

Whine about Pie or Reimold's fielding ability or lack thereof. Complain about how their numbers stink (which they don't). But if you're going to do that, make a well-supported argument for how many wins we will gain by subtracting any of our fielders and adding in Holliday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what you are saying. I know we are set at the outfield positions. Here is how I am thinking, money aside because AM said he would spend it in the right situation.

We sign Holliday, trade one of the young outfielders and Scott and bring in a corner infielder and some bullpen help. I know it's not that easy but I personally think Holliday as our number 4 hitter and LF is a good move.

This is NOT the right situation.

Move Wiggy, Pie, Scott, whatever. There is no reason to increase payroll to a position without a drastic improvement at that position. This is MFY logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really as you aren't likely to trade any of those OFers in a 1 for 1 swap. They would each be part of a larger package for a top player so their trade value won't exactly diminish in that regard.

Trea, this makes no sense to me, not saying it doesn't make sense at all as maybe I am missing the point here but I think what Dipper was saying is that your trade partner knows you can't have 6 OF so you have lost some leverage which in turn reduces the value of the player. And really that is regardless of whether it is a package deal or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...