Update: HOLLIDAY A CARD 7yr/120 million, p178

[cards2468]

I think that means that we're out on Holliday. No way Boras lets Holliday accept a low ball Cardinal offer before the Red Sox or Yankees have made any offer. Looks like Mo has some work to do.

I don't think it means that. If Holliday wants to play in St. Louis, then I think they'll work something out with him. If he doesn't care about playing in St. Louis, then we're probably screwed anyway.

I don't think Holliday/Boras are going to have any favoritism towards any location. I really think Holliday just wants the best contract possible, and it's just a matter of whether our FO finds that contract to be reasonable.

[Spider John]

Miklasz reports:

Joined: 10 May 2001
Posts: 14737
Post subject: Mozeliak confirms offer made to Holliday
Posted: 12/11/2009 11:47 AM
Mozeliak was on the Bernie show just now:

* He said the team has made a formal offer to Matt Holliday and expects to hear back within 48 hours.

* Though not committed to a hard timetable, Mozeliak suggested "the middle of next week" as the point where the Cardinals might have to move on.

"If we can't get something done, there's other ways to skin this one," Mozeliak said.

* Was bothered by Boras suggestion that Pujols may leave if they don't sign Holliday. Called it "unfair" and doesn't think Holliday is directly related to Pujols' thinking on staying or going.

http://www.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopi ... 327a9644dc

[ManEatingTarp]

Not good.

There's no way Holliday signs ANYTHING till Bay does.

What this tells me is that the Cards have set the floor for Boras and have done their part for PR purposes. We'll hear how they offered a 100 Million dollar deal that was turned down, so they moved on. Knowing that it's going to take at least 110 or more (imo).

Oh well. Go get DeRosa and Smoltz and we'll try and do this thing again.

At least the Cubs are having a terrible time getting rid of Milton. That's going to keep them out of any talks with FAs for a while.

[Rieges]

I have to admit that I'm a little surprised that there's so much support for giving DeRosa what will likely be a 3-yr deal if you believe the reports.

[InvincibleCakeEater]

I have to admit that I'm a little surprised that there's so much support for giving DeRosa what will likely be a 3-yr deal if you believe the reports.

3 years? Yikes. I guess it would open up the opportunity to trade Ludwick.

[Rieges]

I have to admit that I'm a little surprised that there's so much support for giving DeRosa what will likely be a 3-yr deal if you believe the reports.

3 years? Yikes. I guess it would open up the opportunity to trade Ludwick.

I don't know why we wouldn't just hang on to Ludwick, take the draft pick for DeRosa and sign someone comparable like Nady to a shorter term deal. I really don't want 35-year old DeRosa on a 3-yr deal.

[jagtrader]

I have to admit that I'm a little surprised that there's so much support for giving DeRosa what will likely be a 3-yr deal if you believe the reports.

I think it says something about what's available. During the season, I liked the idea of acquiring DeRosa because it was a huge upgrade over Thurston. Now I think they'd be better off trying to find other ways to approximate DeRosa's value without getting locked in a three-year commitment.

[epinephrine]

I have to admit that I'm a little surprised that there's so much support for giving DeRosa what will likely be a 3-yr deal if you believe the reports.

3 years? Yikes. I guess it would open up the opportunity to trade Ludwick.

I don't know why we wouldn't just hang on to Ludwick, take the draft pick for DeRosa and sign someone comparable like Nady to a shorter term deal. I really don't want 35-year old DeRosa on a 3-yr deal.

Ludwick is not good.

[Rieges]

I have to admit that I'm a little surprised that there's so much support for giving DeRosa what will likely be a 3-yr deal if you believe the reports.

3 years? Yikes. I guess it would open up the opportunity to trade Ludwick.

I don't know why we wouldn't just hang on to Ludwick, take the draft pick for DeRosa and sign someone comparable like Nady to a shorter term deal. I really don't want 35-year old DeRosa on a 3-yr deal.

Ludwick is not good.

He's a younger, better player and a better overall value than DeRosa.

[Swingingbunt]

I have to admit that I'm a little surprised that there's so much support for giving DeRosa what will likely be a 3-yr deal if you believe the reports.

3 years? Yikes. I guess it would open up the opportunity to trade Ludwick.

I don't know why we wouldn't just hang on to Ludwick, take the draft pick for DeRosa and sign someone comparable like Nady to a shorter term deal. I really don't want 35-year old DeRosa on a 3-yr deal.

Ludwick is not good.

He's a helluva lot better than going after Nady or some other terrible defensive outfielder. He was a little better than average this year according to some stat that I don't know much about, and he works well as a 5 hitter. He also plays good defense and has a strong, accurate arm. If I had to choose between Ludwick and DeRosa, I'd pick Ludwick.