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

Classic threads for your viewing pleasure.
Locked
User avatar
Richie Allen
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 6916
Joined: December 22 06, 1:06 am

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

Post by Richie Allen »

When Holliday puts up 5 straight all star seasons, we may be quite thankful that we have him pinned down an additional two years at, what may then be, quite a bargain.

Anyone remember the reaction to Tex(howeverthe****youspellhisname)'s signing?

Faceman
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 4812
Joined: May 23 06, 11:56 am
Location: Memphis, TN

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

Post by Faceman »

Michael wrote:From Olney:
1. If the view of the Cardinals' $120 million deal with Matt Holliday isn't unanimous on the side of baseball management, it's pretty darned close. "Given what was in front of the Cardinals, that will go down as one of the worst deals in major league history," one MLB official said. "I have to give [Scott] Boras credit -- he managed to get them to bid against themselves. After the Mets signed [Jason] Bay, everybody pretty much knew who was in and who was out. No Yankees, no Red Sox, no Mets, no Dodgers, no Angels -- and he still got $120 million. Incredible."

Some respected negotiators on both sides -- veteran agents and baseball executives -- offered identical takes on how, in their eyes, the contract talks should have shifted after the Mets reached an agreement with Jason Bay. Said one longtime agent: "At that point, the Cardinals should have called [Boras] and said, 'You know that other offer we had on the table? Well, it's obsolete. We're now offering you $80 million for five years, and you've got 48 hours to make a decision.' I don't think Boras would have had a choice but to make a deal."

And there continues to be great surprise that the Cardinals put themselves on a course in which they have to devote such a large share of their payroll to two players, which absolutely goes against the current industry trend among teams that don't have mega-payrolls, such as the Yankees and Boston. Joe Strauss has specifics on the Cardinals' plan here. Holliday will wear No. 7, writes Derrick Goold.
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/in ... ney_buster


haha wow
So stupid. What is the difference between 5/80 and 7/119 (which I think I've read is actually $16 per year because of the deferral of portions of the deal.

It's 1 (or 2) million per year for 5 years - which is basically nothing for the payroll.

Then you have 2 more years at 17 per. 6 years from now, $17 will be like what, $10 in today's dollars (considering the annual avg increase of salaries).

Everyone acts like the Cards held all the leverage. That is wrong. If you are Boras you are reminding the Cards what the lineup looked like without Holliday, and that most of the acceptable replacements were now off the table. Holliday had some leverage - he could have thumbed his nose and went to the Yanks or Sox. You cannot tell me that if the Sox (who offense needed help) heard it was 5/80, they wouldn't jump in and deal with the consequences later (by trading someone).

TimeForGuinness
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 20035
Joined: April 18 06, 7:38 pm

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

Post by TimeForGuinness »

5yr/80million...lol...we'd be sitting here MFing the FO if they offered that because Holliday wouldn't be a Cardinal. The Halos, Mariners, Yankees, O's, and probably Boston would have jumped in quickly.

If the Cards wanted to lower their price, drag it out with other teams, they'd be sitting at 6yr/105m (IMHO)...and miss the bulk of the free agent market.

...and another thing, are we really believing DeWitt with $100 million dollar payroll? Any good businessman wouldn't show his full hand...my guess is there is still $10-$20 million that he *could* spend, but chooses not to. You always leave yourself a buffer...he's not a billionaire because of luck, folks.

/rant over

User avatar
obucard
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 7570
Joined: April 18 06, 11:04 pm
Location: Central AR

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

Post by obucard »

Faceman wrote:
Michael wrote:From Olney:
1. If the view of the Cardinals' $120 million deal with Matt Holliday isn't unanimous on the side of baseball management, it's pretty darned close. "Given what was in front of the Cardinals, that will go down as one of the worst deals in major league history," one MLB official said. "I have to give [Scott] Boras credit -- he managed to get them to bid against themselves. After the Mets signed [Jason] Bay, everybody pretty much knew who was in and who was out. No Yankees, no Red Sox, no Mets, no Dodgers, no Angels -- and he still got $120 million. Incredible."

Some respected negotiators on both sides -- veteran agents and baseball executives -- offered identical takes on how, in their eyes, the contract talks should have shifted after the Mets reached an agreement with Jason Bay. Said one longtime agent: "At that point, the Cardinals should have called [Boras] and said, 'You know that other offer we had on the table? Well, it's obsolete. We're now offering you $80 million for five years, and you've got 48 hours to make a decision.' I don't think Boras would have had a choice but to make a deal."

And there continues to be great surprise that the Cardinals put themselves on a course in which they have to devote such a large share of their payroll to two players, which absolutely goes against the current industry trend among teams that don't have mega-payrolls, such as the Yankees and Boston. Joe Strauss has specifics on the Cardinals' plan here. Holliday will wear No. 7, writes Derrick Goold.
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/in ... ney_buster


haha wow
So stupid. What is the difference between 5/80 and 7/119 (which I think I've read is actually $16 per year because of the deferral of portions of the deal.

It's 1 (or 2) million per year for 5 years - which is basically nothing for the payroll.

Then you have 2 more years at 17 per. 6 years from now, $17 will be like what, $10 in today's dollars (considering the annual avg increase of salaries).

Everyone acts like the Cards held all the leverage. That is wrong. If you are Boras you are reminding the Cards what the lineup looked like without Holliday, and that most of the acceptable replacements were now off the table. Holliday had some leverage - he could have thumbed his nose and went to the Yanks or Sox. You cannot tell me that if the Sox (who offense needed help) heard it was 5/80, they wouldn't jump in and deal with the consequences later (by trading someone).

Exactly. Had that happened, the sports "experts" would be blasting the Cards for being cheap; they should have known it wouldn't have been enough.

AWvsCBsteeeerike3
"I could totally eat a pig butt, if smoked correctly!"
Posts: 25352
Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Location: Thinking of the Children

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

Post by AWvsCBsteeeerike3 »

Wouldn't Holliday have to be worthless to go down as one of the worst signings in baseball? I bet any amount of money with any of these experts that after 7 years, if you compare the Zito contract to the Holliday contract Zito is way worse. Same with Hampton. Same with Kevin Brown. Same with Vernon Wells. Same with Soriano. Hell, given the circumstances, I bet the Texeira deal will look about 60 million dollars worse than the HOlliday deal in 7 years. What a bunch of twits.

User avatar
Eephus Speed
All-Star
Posts: 1642
Joined: August 28 09, 5:33 pm

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

Post by Eephus Speed »

I really doubt Boston was going to jump back in after taking what they offered Holliday (5/82.5) and giving it to Lackey. Not to mention the signings of Cameron and Beltre. I suppose the Yankees might have jumped in. The Angels probably weren't going to become interested after signing Matsui and Abreu. Baltimore has no hope of contending, but I guess they may have been interested in offering $100+M for some screwy reason.
And there continues to be great surprise that the Cardinals put themselves on a course in which they have to devote such a large share of their payroll to two players, which absolutely goes against the current industry trend among teams that don't have mega-payrolls...
That's a line that needs to stop. The Cardinals have a grand total of *three* players who will make more than $9M in 2010 and only Lohse is due to join that group over the following 2 seasons. That's not the least bit unreasonable for a team with a $100M payroll. And I figure the payroll will get a bump by 2013 or 2014.

In 2011 and 2012 (when Pujols, Wainwright, Molina and Rasmus get raises, and Lohse is making $12M), Mo might need to be a bit creative. But that's fine. It just means we won't be able to afford to pay market value for free agents who are league average players. Oh well.

TimeForGuinness
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 20035
Joined: April 18 06, 7:38 pm

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

Post by TimeForGuinness »

withAloe wrote:I really doubt Boston was going to jump back in after taking what they offered Holliday (5/82.5) and giving it to Lackey. Not to mention the signings of Cameron and Beltre. I suppose the Yankees might have jumped in. The Angels probably weren't going to become interested after signing Matsui and Abreu. Baltimore has no hope of contending, but I guess they may have been interested in offering $100+M for some screwy reason.
I never rule out the Yankees, Halos, and Red Sox if a steal is on the table...they have all paid luxury tax before, and getting Holliday at 5/80 would have been an easy stretch for any of them.

User avatar
Richie Allen
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 6916
Joined: December 22 06, 1:06 am

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

Post by Richie Allen »

This is all I need to read if I start to doubt whether we should have signed Holliday or not.

Fangraphs: Today, we take a look at three of the top free agents left on the market now that the Jason Bay and Matt Holliday sweepstakes are over. These three are Felipe Lopez, Ben Sheets, and Johnny Damon.

User avatar
TGantz
R-E-S-P-E-C-T...What Dr Pepper Means to Me
Posts: 5041
Joined: July 27 06, 11:59 pm
Location: The Lou

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

Post by TGantz »

Richie Allen wrote:This is all I need to read if I start to doubt whether we should have signed Holliday or not.

Fangraphs: Today, we take a look at three of the top free agents left on the market now that the Jason Bay and Matt Holliday sweepstakes are over. These three are Felipe Lopez, Ben Sheets, and Johnny Damon.
I agree. If we had more options then maybe I would have questioned it a little more. I think before the signing, we weren't the favorites to win the division. Now I think we're one of the best teams in the league.

Nice sig BTW.

User avatar
Eephus Speed
All-Star
Posts: 1642
Joined: August 28 09, 5:33 pm

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

Post by Eephus Speed »

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Wouldn't Holliday have to be worthless to go down as one of the worst signings in baseball? I bet any amount of money with any of these experts that after 7 years, if you compare the Zito contract to the Holliday contract Zito is way worse. Same with Hampton. Same with Kevin Brown. Same with Vernon Wells. Same with Soriano. Hell, given the circumstances, I bet the Texeira deal will look about 60 million dollars worse than the HOlliday deal in 7 years. What a bunch of twits.
We don't even have to look outside the organization for recent examples of worse signings. Adding money to the final 2 years of Carpenter's last contract in addition to the 3-year extension (for a 31-year-old pitcher who had missed a lot of time over the course of his career). Giving Lohse $41M over 4 years.

Locked