ghostrunner wrote: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.
On that note, found the original article from Colorado with the quotes:
haltz wrote: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.
If Johnson can play a good 3B, I'd be OK with that. He played a little 3B in the minors, but hasn't played there since. I'd take Cameron over Byrd if their demands are similar.
I wonder if Johnson can play an acceptable center field. He's a lefty, but he hits lefties well. He did very well in LF, but that was back in '05.
I haven't seen anyone mention deferred money. I like this deal (as far as what's been tossed about here). 8 years is a bit much, but the annual value is just fine. It's highly likely that it includes another $20 million in defferred money, raising the overall value of the contract and easing the burden of the contract on our payroll.
Would really like to hear something back from them.
Another problem with Colorado's offer is that Holliday would have been 32 or 33 when the contract expired. He probably feels that he'll still be a very productive player at that age, but that's not a great age to be when looking for another big contract. 29 (almost 30) is much better.
