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

[Jmodene]

wait a second.. 8 years? Good Lord. Get Marlon Byrd, Kelly Johnson and Ben Sheets instead.

Those three guys won't play another 8 years in the major leagues, combined.

[Eephus Speed]

wait a second.. 8 years? Good Lord. Get Marlon Byrd, Kelly Johnson and Ben Sheets instead.

Those three guys won't play another 8 years in the major leagues, combined.

Why do you say that?

[Swingingbunt]

wait a second.. 8 years? Good Lord. Get Marlon Byrd, Kelly Johnson and Ben Sheets instead.

Those three guys won't play another 8 years in the major leagues, combined.

I can see where haltz is coming from, though. Will Holliday be worth the $20+MM he's owed in 8 years? Maybe, maybe not. More likely not in terms of his personal production. Where as Byrd, Johnson, and Sheets can be had for one (MAYBE two) year deals, which is more easily projected.

But I look at it this way, for the next three years, he'll be worth a whole lot more than the team would be paying for him. And if it helps Albert decide to re-sign, then yes, he's worth that $20+MM in year 8.

[haltz]

wait a second.. 8 years? Good Lord. Get Marlon Byrd, Kelly Johnson and Ben Sheets instead.

Those three guys won't play another 8 years in the major leagues, combined.

Why do you say that?

I know, bc sheets gets hurt and kj had a [expletive] battin averag last year. Actually, not sure about byrd.

Johnson/Freese at 3B, Byrd/Rasmus in CF and Byrd/Craig in LF and gambling on Sheets' rates being the biggest improvement on Garcia et al has to ne your best bet aside from big trades. And it much much cheaper.

I the aav is lower then whatever, but of we're heading to a midpoint of 8/140 that's more than I'd want them to pay. But it's not my money.

[jim]

Holliday appears to me to be a player that will age well. Of course there is a huge risk with 8 years, that's a long time, but if that's the price then that's the price I guess. The idea of a Holliday/Pujols tandem for years to come is very difficult to resist.

[Eephus Speed]

I do think there's a point at which certain alternatives (not Nady, Wang, etc.) would look more appealing. But do we reach that point at 8 years? Do we reach that point at $20M/yr? Would 8/128 not be acceptable? What about 6/120?

It seems to me that we could afford both Holliday and Sheets, assuming Sheets is just wanting to sign a 1-year contract to re-establish his value.

[TimeForGuinness]

Holliday appears to me to be a player that will age well. Of course there is a huge risk with 8 years, that's a long time, but if that's the price then that's the price I guess. The idea of a Holliday/Pujols tandem for years to come is very difficult to resist.

Well, we had Jimmy Ballgame for 8 years and signed him at 30.

/I know...I know...there were extensions in there, but 8 years after 30 isn't a death sentence.

[ghostrunner]

Interesting read from a Yankees blog from a few days back. I can't tell anything about the blog's quality, but the quotes from Holliday are relevant to this offer (assuming it's accurate).

http://www.i-yankees.com/?p=12971

From Joe Strauss of the St. Louis Dispatch, we learn that the Cardinals have extended a formal offer to free agent left fielder, Matt Holliday. According to Strauss, “a source familiar with the process said it does not offer an average annual value of $18 million,” and Holliday is “seeking no-trade protection as part of any deal.” This information will likely be prevalent to the Yankees if they are, indeed, open to signing the Oklahoma native, although, for financial reasons — yes, even the Yankees have payroll concerns — it’s unlikely (but such a signing can’t be ruled out).

Remarkably, for Holliday, as unbelievable as this may sound, average annual salary has always been discussed as a secondary issue. In the past, he has candidly noted that his main priority as a free agent would be to acquire security via a long-term deal, one with a no-trade clause attached.

During spring training in 2008, when the Rockies offered Holliday a 4-year deal worth $82M (before the market crashed), he rejected the proposal because of the lack of years provided by Colorado, and because the deal was devoid of no-trade protection. “How many years is the bottom line,” Holliday noted last September when discussing the rejected contract. “The offer doesn’t even have to be market value. But half of the years that I could get on the open market, to me, is not in the same ballpark. What about when they won’t give you a no-trade clause,” he added, “and the first chance that comes up where they want to trade you, they just trade you?”

Expounding on the issue of security, Holliday stated, “The advantage of being a free agent and having a long-term deal is the security of staying in one place, right? So you can raise your family and be a part of that community… If you get a chance to entertain offers of six or seven years with a no-trade clause, you can have a chance to live a normal life for six or seven years in one city.” Thus, to Matt Holliday, the virtues of free agency revolve around long-term comfortability for him and his family. Sure, money is a big part of that, too, but geographical security — knowing you will remain in one city for 6-7 years — might be more fundamental.

[Swingingbunt]

Dear Matt:
You have that offer. Sign it.
Sincerely,
Me

[Fan_In_NY]

Interesting read from a Yankees blog from a few days back. I can't tell anything about the blog's quality, but the quotes from Holliday are relevant to this offer (assuming it's accurate).

From Joe Strauss of the St. Louis Dispatch, we learn that the Cardinals have extended a formal offer to free agent left fielder, Matt Holliday. According to Strauss, “a source familiar with the process said it does not offer an average annual value of $18 million,” and Holliday is “seeking no-trade protection as part of any deal.” This information will likely be prevalent to the Yankees if they are, indeed, open to signing the Oklahoma native, although, for financial reasons — yes, even the Yankees have payroll concerns — it’s unlikely (but such a signing can’t be ruled out).

Remarkably, for Holliday, as unbelievable as this may sound, average annual salary has always been discussed as a secondary issue. In the past, he has candidly noted that his main priority as a free agent would be to acquire security via a long-term deal, one with a no-trade clause attached.

During spring training in 2008, when the Rockies offered Holliday a 4-year deal worth $82M (before the market crashed), he rejected the proposal because of the lack of years provided by Colorado, and because the deal was devoid of no-trade protection. “How many years is the bottom line,” Holliday noted last September when discussing the rejected contract. “The offer doesn’t even have to be market value. But half of the years that I could get on the open market, to me, is not in the same ballpark. What about when they won’t give you a no-trade clause,” he added, “and the first chance that comes up where they want to trade you, they just trade you?”

Expounding on the issue of security, Holliday stated, “The advantage of being a free agent and having a long-term deal is the security of staying in one place, right? So you can raise your family and be a part of that community… If you get a chance to entertain offers of six or seven years with a no-trade clause, you can have a chance to live a normal life for six or seven years in one city.” Thus, to Matt Holliday, the virtues of free agency revolve around long-term comfortability for him and his family. Sure, money is a big part of that, too, but geographical security — knowing you will remain in one city for 6-7 years — might be more fundamental.

Its amazing that this could be written up by a baseball blog, but those quotes dont appear in Stl's only paper.