Jump to content

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


TiredofLosing20

Should the O's have offered 7/120 with a Full NTC to Holliday  

240 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the O's have offered 7/120 with a Full NTC to Holliday


This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

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...

#1. Sorry, didn't realize that you had decided not to post in this thread any more.

#2. I was genuinely curious about your thinking here. Just trying to "peel the onion," as Stotle might say.

#3. It doesn't seem like 7/133 would get it done, but that's speculation on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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.

This is what I think really happens and that the Cardinals will be trading Pujols after "trying to sign him" to either Boston, NYY or the Angels. IMO, this and the other big potential FAs (Gonzalez, Fielder, Lee, Beckett, F. Hernandez) are the real reasons why Boston proposed "so little" and the Yankees and Angels didn't even get involved. I read somewhere (sorry forgot, so no link), a proposed Texiera plus for Pujols. That kind of trade would help assuage the outrage and backlash (though not entirely and may be not even enough) the Cardinals will get from their fans if Pujols leaves.

Pujols, IMO, will be asking for the most money in both dollars per year and years - see A. Rodriguez and more than what he got. Only those three and mainly the Yankees and Red Sox could even swing that type of deal since there are no other Tom Hicks type owners that I see now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Differing opinions make it so that people have to think a little more. If everybody agreed with each other, there'd be no use for a forum other than informational purposes. I know that the results are overwhelmingly one-sided, but there's nothing wrong with his opinion. For all we know, The Cardinals could run three titles in a row because of this acquisition.

That said, yes, I agree with the majority.

Yes but the question is should the orioles have offered the deal not should the Cardinals have. This deal would be exponentially worse for us than it is for them, since they are ready to compete for the NL now, whereas the time in which we will compete will likely be past Matt Holliday's prime.

Give it a rest SG! I didn't say he should change his opinion. But perhaps he should not go ito EVERY thread and ***** and moan about how the Orioles aren't doing anything significant. WE GET IT! We understand how he feels. However, 94+% of the board does not agree with him, and thus probably doesn't want to hear it in EVERY thread!

But why I am discussing anything with you is besides the point anyway, as you make it clear that YOU are always right and those who disagree with YOU are wrong.

This post is so full of win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...

Bump...looked for this thread from 2010 after reading that the Cardinals will not pick up Holliday's option for 2017. He ended up giving the Cards 24.4 fWAR for $120 mm. Fangraphs says that was a bargain, worth about $169 mm at the prevailing prices over the life of the 7-year contract. One deal JTrea81 may have been right about, though there's no telling how much we would have had to bid to lure Holliday to Baltimore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bump...looked for this thread from 2010 after reading that the Cardinals will not pick up Holliday's option for 2017. He ended up giving the Cards 24.4 fWAR for $120 mm. Fangraphs says that was a bargain, worth about $169 mm at the prevailing prices over the life of the 7-year contract. One deal JTrea81 may have been right about, though there's no telling how much we would have had to bid to lure Holliday to Baltimore.

When you want everyone, some end up looking ok!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holliday's reaction.message thanking the Cardinals and those awesome St. Louis baseball fans was classy....I wonder if weighing a guy's character should be more a consideration in signing these huge contracts? Does Holliday at 36/37 have anything left to hold down right field?

I think that St. Louis will keep him for less money per year, like a 2/16 million deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are we digging up this ancient history? Who's next? Bobby Bonilla?

As I explained, it came up because his contract is ending and the Cards announced they are not picking up his option. So it's just an opportunity to look back on this now that his contract has entirely played out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...