Should we have signed Holliday for 7/120 with a Full NTC

[DrungoHazewood]

The thing is that it's not unreasonable as long as it has some sort of definitional component.

Maybe you're willing to spend 20%/year and 2 years over a player's expected value. At least that's debatable.

The generic, "we need a big bat in the middle of the lineup" stuff isn't debatable. Of course we do. Everyone agrees. The details just matter more to some than others. I think it comes down to people who just think differently from one another.

Not to guess other's motivations too much, but I think there's a sentiment among those folks that MLB cooks the books so much (and also that profit should never be taken, especially by a team that's not winning a lot) that almost any amount of spending could be justified. He's free to correct me, but I think he believes that the O's are making $50M, $75M, maybe even $100M in pure profit every year, and have been for years, and that they should be spending almost all of that on player payroll.

I think that's almost certainly very wrong. But using that outlandish scenario as the baseline, what he's proposing isn't outlandish.

[VTmook213]

Interestingly, we'd have obviously had to beat this deal to sign Holliday, though we don't know by how much. I wonder what the cost/years threshold would have been for the 6 voters who favored the deal.

I honestly get the feeling that Trea would have supported anything up to 9/180.

I asked Trea what he felt was a "bargain" for Holliday multiple times but he never responded

[LookinUp]

I asked Trea what he felt was a "bargain" for Holliday multiple times but he never responded

I hope he responds to these posts.

[El Gordo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjMfQG4DejQ

[JTrea81]

I hope he responds to these posts.

I've said 6/114 with a vesting 7th year option for a total value of 7/133 is what I would have offered, and I would have frontloaded the contract to give him more money upfront, making the deal worth even more.

And no I wouldn't go higher than that. But that is a competitive offer and one that should have a good chance of landing him IMO.

The Orioles apparently didn't make an offer that we know of and reportedly didn't want him for more than 75 million.

That's completely misjudging the market for him IMO.

And that is the last I will say about it as the reason I didn't respond is that I said I was only going to make that one post.

This is the final one, so please let it go. I'm moving on...

[Dipper9]

I've said 6/114 with a vesting 7th year option for a total value of 7/133 is what I would have offered, and I would have frontloaded the contract to give him more money upfront, making the deal worth even more.

And no I wouldn't go higher than that. But that is a competitive offer and one that should have a good chance of landing him IMO.

The Orioles didn't really even make an offer and didn't want him for more than 75 million.

That's completely misjudging the market for him IMO.

And that is the last I will say about it as the reason I didn't respond is that I said I was only going to make that one post.

This is the final one, so please let it go. I'm moving on...

How do you know this?

[CSB Jack]

Where's the choice for "Hell no!"?

[JTrea81]

How do you know this?

See edited post for clarification.

[byrdz]

How do you know this?

JTrea is actually Miss Cleo from the Psychic Friends Network, "Call me now!", "Call for your free readin'"

[Maverick2143]

JTrea is actually Miss Cleo from the Psychic Friends Network, "Call me now!", "Call for your free readin'"

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSR-uefPmME&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSR-uefPmME&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[clapdiddy]

The Holliday signing reactions don't appear to be very favorable:

MLBTR - Holliday Reactions

[Burg]

I've said 6/114 with a vesting 7th year option for a total value of 7/133 is what I would have offered, and I would have frontloaded the contract to give him more money upfront, making the deal worth even more.

And no I wouldn't go higher than that. But that is a competitive offer and one that should have a good chance of landing him IMO.

The Orioles apparently didn't make an offer that we know of and reportedly didn't want him for more than 75 million.

That's completely misjudging the market for him IMO.

And that is the last I will say about it as the reason I didn't respond is that I said I was only going to make that one post.

This is the final one, so please let it go. I'm moving on...

Would you have given him a full seven year NTC as well?

[Going Underground]

Not at all positive from Buster Olney:

The Cardinals finished their negotiations for Matt Holliday, Joe Strauss writes. Holliday was an MVP candidate in Colorado and he performed exceptionally for the Cardinals in the last nine weeks of last season, giving St. Louis a devastating two-man punch in the middle of its lineup.

That said, the news of the Cardinals' seven-year deal is stunning to many in rival front offices. "Who were they bidding against?" asked one GM. "If the Red Sox, with their money, offered him $82.5 million, and then pulled out of the running, then why go higher than that? They [the Cardinals] look like they spent about $30 million more than they needed to."

Said another executive: "I guess that will end the collusion talk."

Part of the rivals' confusion over the Cardinals' deal is that from the outside looking in, it would seem to put the team into a position in which they would have to offer Albert Pujols a deal much higher than the record-setting contract (for St. Louis) that they just gave Holliday. "What is it going to cost them to keep Pujols now? Thirty million a year?" asked another high-ranking executive. "After this contract, he wouldn't be out of line to ask for that, because he's the best player in the game."

Holliday is exactly one day older than Pujols, and both turn 30 in the next 10 days. Pujols' contract runs out after the 2011 season. This means the Cardinals are headed down one of two roads.

Route A: They are prepared to pay something in the range of $43 million to $47 million annually to two players who will be past their 32nd birthdays, from 2012 forward.

Or ...

Route B: They won't sign Pujols.

[alexei606]

The Holliday signing reactions don't appear to be very favorable:

MLBTR - Holliday Reactions

Rosenthal says in his article:

The Orioles were involved, no matter how much they deny it, but they would have needed to make a monster offer to persuade Holliday to leave St. Louis.

I agree although for somewhat different reason - the Cardinals are desperate to show Pujols "their seriousness" in contending, which they did with resigning Holliday, and would IMO, gone higher and the Orioles would have had to seriously over pay. The rest of his article really shows the dynamics of trying to keep your franchise player and how difficult it is going to be. Not an enviable position for Mozeliak and the Cardinals.

[Going Underground]

I think the Orioles were involved with Holliday. I don't think they would have gone over six years and not over 95 million.