withAloe wrote:All these posts, ones from myself included, about Holliday alternatives make me realize how pissed off I'm going to be if we fail to sign Holliday due to an unwillingness to offer trade protection or a couple million more per year. If we don't sign him, it better be because Boston or New York offered him a Teixeira-like contract.
I really agree. To quote myself from a couple days ago . . .
For years the front office has been saying [to paraphrase only a little] "we're willing to spend money, we're willing to increase payroll for the right opportunity. But we're not going to spend money just to spend, we're not going to increase just to increase. Has to be an impact player. Has to produce on both sides of the diamond (offense and defense). Has to be young enough to be increasing the mass of our core. We're talking a special opportunity. We'll jump on one of those, there just haven't been any."
Pros: Boras seems kind of insistent on calling out the Cardinals ownership, seems to want to call out the Cardinals in particular - with the whole "signing two players by signing Holliday because Pujols will re-sign" and the whole investment plans of DeWitt (Stadium v hiring)...part of me thinks that is a good sign - that maybe Holliday wants to come here and Boras is prodding the Cardinals.
Cons: That might just be a move to drum up interest from NY and BOS.
Either way, if NY or Bos doesn't come strong then we should get him - based on how much attention Boras is paying to STL. Imo
I'd be pretty well shocked if I wake up tomorrow and read that he signs with us for 6/105, which is about what I guess the offer was for. I have a hard time imagining that Moz bothered to offer a contract under 9 figures, and the "under 18" line makes me think that number is close.
If word pops up that we offered him 4/70 or 5/85 or something, I'll be pretty confused with our FO .
and the "under 18" line makes me think that number is close.
I could be wrong, but I think it's worded a little more ambiguously than that. As in, it could be 5/100 or 6/104 just not 18M AAV.
Probably obvious, but I was messing around with a WAR spreadsheet and it's incredibly hard if not impossible to make the marginal improvements necessary to equal one Matt Holliday.
You're right, the so-quoted quote just said "Not 18 million per", but I would expect that we all assume that means that it's under Colorado's 2008 18-per offer. I assume the details will come out in the next day or two, assuming Holliday rejects it and we see the ESPN Red Sox Hype Machine kick into full gear.
I would expect that we all assume that means that it's under Colorado's 2008 18-per offer.
I expect Joe Strauss to be a drama queen first and foremost and a bull [expletive] artist second, so the fact that he didn't come out and say it makes me wonder. But you're probably right.
Maclowery wrote:I'd be pretty well shocked if I wake up tomorrow and read that he signs with us for 6/105, which is about what I guess the offer was for. I have a hard time imagining that Moz bothered to offer a contract under 9 figures, and the "under 18" line makes me think that number is close.
If word pops up that we offered him 4/70 or 5/85 or something, I'll be pretty confused with our FO .
Bernie said he was surprised that the Cardinals offered as much as they did, so I would guess it has to crack 90 million or 100 total, but this isn't their final offer ... so it probably doesn't.
I still think this thing comes down to what the Red Sox do. Bay is getting ready to bolt (if you believe the rumor mill) which we all know would open the door to Holliday playing in front of the Green Monster.
I just saw that John Lackey is taking a physical for the Sox, so that might be good news that they're putting money into pitching...
