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

[Swingingbunt]

Piggybacking on what Jim said...I would find it pretty humorous if our SB leaders were our number 3 and 4 hitters next year.

And by humorous I mean ridiculous.

[Eephus Speed]

Is Holliday a better all around player than Bay? Absolutely. Is Bay a better all around player than some combination of DeRosa/Cameron/Freese in LF? Absolutely.

Because defense matters, I'd say Bay's value is closer to Cameron's/DeRosa's than it is to Holliday's. Assuming for a moment that we don't re-sign Holliday, what Cameron/DeRosa (and maybe Craig) do is buy us time until we find a comparable replacement for Holliday. They aren't going to require the dollars/years that Bay will, providing us some flexibility.

Hypotheticals:

Option A: Sign the 6-win player for $126M over 7yr.
Option B: Sign the 3-win player for $80M over 5 yr.
Option C: Sign the 1.5-win player for $12M over 2 yr.

Option A is my Plan A. Option C is my Plan B. Option B is a nonstarter.

[TimeForGuinness]

For the record, I'm no fan of Bay's. I think he's a great (not elite) hitter, but a horrible defender. I certainly think Holliday is a better player, but the gap isn't very large offensively. Defensively, UZR says it's a landslide for Holliday. I personally think it's closer (Holliday still being better).

I agree with this. No offense to those in the middle of the discussion, but comparing the merits of Bay and Holliday are a bit silly. Not because it's a silly discussion, but its silly not to couch the entire discussion in terms of money. Is Holliday a better all around player than Bay? Absolutely. Is Bay a better all around player than some combination of DeRosa/Cameron/Freese in LF? Absolutely.

You pay for production and sometimes the difference between really good and great is $5-$10 million annually.

And there's a bigger question, I think, that should frame this discussion. Are we interested in being a decent team going forward? A good team going forward? Or a great team going forward?

Because we're at the point as a ballclub where we're going to have to decide to spend millions extra for players that provide small but measurable benefits over other comparable players. Those small benefits lead to more wins, more margin for error within the marathon seasons, and better odds entering the postseason.

For my money it's Holliday at whatever cost. Both becasue I think (and know) that we can afford him at even $22 million per year AND I think that we've rather effectively proven that you can't just throw whoever "comparable value" players that you want out there and expect them to perform at their projections.

We have money. We have a great core group right now to build a small dynasty from. We have cheap fill-ins at less important positions that we can put out there and let succeed or fail without hurting the overall odds of this club reaching and succeeding in the postseason for the next 4-5 years.

I'm with you fat, I think we can get it done...we have the money.

[Fat Strat]

Option A: Sign the 6-win player for $126M over 7yr.
Option B: Sign the 3-win player for $80M over 5 yr.
Option C: Sign the 1.5-win player for $12M over 2 yr.

Option A is my Plan A. Option C is my Plan B. Option B is a nonstarter.

First, Holliday is going to make quite a bit more than $126 million next year and he's still worth it. Second, why are we so willing to just give up on 2 "paper" wins when that's often the difference between making the playoffs and not making the playoffs -- especially when you're relying on two players nearing 40 years old.

With DeRosa/Cameron playing in LF this club is barely a playoff contender with millions of $$'s sitting in the bank or lining DeWallet, and that's assuming those two gray hairs could stay healthy and productive for the season -- which I find doubtful.

You have to pay premium dollars for those wins and we won't win any awards for running an efficient franchise while wasting Pujols prime seasons.

[JL21]

You can use the money you save in option C to upgrade elsewhere. Just because they don't spend the money in LF on Bay or Holliday doesn't mean they have to hold onto the money. For instance, just yesterday, I read that Mo is considering insurance options for the closer role.

[Fat Strat]

You can use the money you save in option C to upgrade elsewhere. Just because they don't spend the money in LF on Bay or Holliday doesn't mean they have to hold onto the money. For instance, just yesterday, I read that Mo is considering insurance options for the closer role.

That's true, but we're not going to get the value out of any other position that we could get out of LF. Paying $7 million to back up Franklin? That might not even net us 1 WAR... For example, Jose Valverde was worth .7 WAR last year.

And then you've put $19 million (to borrow from Aloe's #'s above for option C) into maybe 2.2 wins.

Now, its conceivable that we could do something a little crazy and sign Lackey. I'm as big a fan of John Lackey as anyone. Would love to see him as a Cardinal, but he doesn't make much sense for the Cards roster as it's currently aligned.

I just can't find anyone available on the market that would better complete this team, help it hold it's competitveness longterm, and maximize its current core potential than Holliday and to a lesser extent Bay. I think that Freese can aproximate DeRosa's potential production for fractions of his cost. Cameron, imo, is simply a bad fit for a team looking for longterm solutions and not expensive, old, replacements.

Finally, Aloe mentioned that we should hold on until we can find better replacements for LF if we get priced out of Holliday. I get that, but also keep in mind that we might have to do just that with Ludwick next year. I don't think any of us want to pay him $8 million plus, which is what he'll earn in FA if he continues to perform as he's performed the last two years.

[Eephus Speed]

For one, I'm not sure there's even a 2-win difference between Bay and Cameron/DeRosa/Craig. For another, I'm not suggesting that the money go unspent. A trade could be made for someone who has more value than Bay (either a position player or a pitcher).

I just read the Dave Cameron article that haltz posted, and he suggests that Cameron may have to settle for a 1-year offer. Even better. That'd buy us time to see what we have in Craig and Freese without locking us into overpaying a 3-win player for the next 5 years. If Craig is Bay-like (for the league minimum) and Freese is significantly better than Thurston et. al, we're better off than we were in 2009. If they aren't and we're not satisfied with Cameron/DeRosa, we explore trade possibilities.

Holliday is going to make quite a bit more than $126 million...

Maybe. I'm not sure about that, though. I guess it depends on which teams get involved. Anyway, those were just my arbitrary figures, thus my use of the word hypotheticals.

[JL21]

That $12M in withAloe's example was for 2 years ($6M per).

I'm with you on Holliday- you'll get no arguments from me there. He's the most obvious and easy way to make it a successful off-season, and to put them in position to make the playoffs next year.

But I tend to lean the other way on Bay. He's a horrible defensive LFer and if the options are Cameron or DeRosa in LF, or Bay for considerably more money, well I think I'd rather Cameron or DeRosa. Re: their age, the team is set for at least two years at 2B, CF, 1B, C, SS, and RF. That's a core. Throw in Lohse/AW/Carpenter (to a lesser degree because of health) and you've got as decent a core as you could hope for. It's not like there's a LFer on the farm who would be blocked by Cameron or DeRosa. Last but not least, even if they're old, Cameron has the skill set (speed plus power) to age well and he didn't show any signs of slowing down last year. DeRosa has actually been getting better with age, save for the wrist injury.

As currently constructed, I was thinking about this- this is probably about an 80-win team. But that's assuming they get replacement level production in LF and at 3B and in two of the rotation slots. There's room to grow and it's not limited to LF. Insurance will be important in the 'pen, IMO, because it'll be a big gamble to assume that Franklin/Miller/Hawksworth can duplicate their efforts. Nothing would prevent them from snagging a 2B and moving Skip back to LF. It's unlikely, but it's a possibility you'd have to consider if it's the best way to construct your roster. There's too much flexibility around the core that's in place to get sucked into the LF-or-bust mentality.

[Eephus Speed]

Paying $7 million to back up Franklin?

Not a wise move, and I think we can all agree on that. But I'm not sure that would piss me off as much as investing $60-80M in Jason Bay.

I get that, but also keep in mind that we might have to do just that with Ludwick next year. I don't think any of us want to pay him $8 million plus, which is what he'll earn in FA if he continues to perform as he's performed the last two years.

We can cross that bridge when we come to it. I'm all for thinking ahead, which is a big reason why I don't want us to express any interest in Bay. But the need for long-term solutions isn't so pressing that we should make bad investments.

[Fat Strat]

A trade could be made for someone who has more value than Bay (either a position player or a pitcher).

I thought long and hard about that because it's usually my first answer. I don't like getting into this whole FA thing because it's such an unreliable way to build a franchise (unless you have an unlimited budget).

I just can't see the Cards further depleting their already decimated system. We don't have much left to trade. Lynn? Craig? Jones? Those guys have some value, I suppose, but it's limited at best... far below Jess Todd and Chris Perez who only managed to bring us DeRosa this season.