Matt Holliday Signs with Cards (7yrs, $120 Million)

[XZero771679666304]

I don't buy into any of this bad luck vs. pixie dust crap, I just think all this doom-saying is a touch ridiculous. The Cubs are going to compete in 2010, and the Cards aren't running away with anything.

 

The Cards may end up running away with it, but I wouldn't hand them the title to them.

 

They could, yes. But they are also one injury away from being in serious trouble. If someone like Carpenter goes down for half the season or more, they simply don't have the resources to overcome it (though poor play from division rivals could help), and could end up looking way up at the Cubs. They are a top heavy team and the Holliday signing does not change this. What it does do is make it likely they remain top heavy.

 

I don't see them as being clearly superior, and talk that they are going to dominate the division for the foreseeable future is patently ridiculous.

[shnsajax]

It's maybe two years too long for me, but the average annual salary is something that before the offseason started, we never would have thought we could get. As a Cards fan, it would be hard not to be excited over the deal. With market inflation, and prospective aging for a player like Holliday, he'll still probably be a pretty good player at age 35 and 36 (he'll play the entire final year at age 36).

 

In a negotation, you definitely have to give something to get something, and I'm not quite sure the Cards wanted to play an ultra game of chicken with the two big spenders (Yanks/Red Sox) still currently having merely decent players manning LF.

 

For a 5-6 win player, the money is great compared to some comparable players who have become free agents lately. This isn't a slam dunk, no questions asked, Boras put his tail between his legs deal. What it is, is a good deal for the Cards, who need Holliday now that everyone else is signing elsewhere. It's a good deal for Holliday due to the length and the NTC.

 

Seems like a signing that I wouldn't be ecstatic over if I were a rival fan. I wasn't ecstatic when the Cubs signed Byrd to a solid deal.

 

 

Great post. I agree.

 

I think the 1st couple of years are a good deal for the Cards, but come years 4-7 its going to be a little more interesting. I think the issue is that a lot of us don't think Holliday will match what he did with the Cards last season, but mostly the impact it will have on the organization when Albert and Carpenter have new contracts as well. I don't think the deal is that bad I just see a day coming soon when the Cards have over $65 million tied into 3 players.

[Soul]

I don't buy into any of this bad luck vs. pixie dust crap, I just think all this doom-saying is a touch ridiculous. The Cubs are going to compete in 2010, and the Cards aren't running away with anything.

 

The Cards may end up running away with it, but I wouldn't hand them the title to them.

 

They could, yes. But they are also one injury away from being in serious trouble. If someone like Carpenter goes down for half the season or more, they simply don't have the resources to overcome it (though poor play from division rivals could help), and could end up looking way up at the Cubs. They are a top heavy team and the Holliday signing does not change this. What it does do is make it likely they remain top heavy.

 

I don't see them as being clearly superior, and talk that they are going to dominate the division for the foreseeable future is patently ridiculous.

I try to stay away from predicting anything in January, but it does seem that the Cards have the upper hand as of right now.

[XZero771679666304]

I don't buy into any of this bad luck vs. pixie dust crap, I just think all this doom-saying is a touch ridiculous. The Cubs are going to compete in 2010, and the Cards aren't running away with anything.

 

The Cards may end up running away with it, but I wouldn't hand them the title to them.

 

They could, yes. But they are also one injury away from being in serious trouble. If someone like Carpenter goes down for half the season or more, they simply don't have the resources to overcome it (though poor play from division rivals could help), and could end up looking way up at the Cubs. They are a top heavy team and the Holliday signing does not change this. What it does do is make it likely they remain top heavy.

 

I don't see them as being clearly superior, and talk that they are going to dominate the division for the foreseeable future is patently ridiculous.

I try to stay away from predicting anything in January, but it does seem that the Cards have the upper hand as of right now.

 

Having the upper hand I'll agree with. Being a clear cut favorite to control the division? I don't think so. That's what was being said about the Cubs before last season, and there was a better case for that claim.

[jersey cubs fan]

So how long before the first offseason fluff piece talking about Soto and Z having lost weight.

 

 

And maybe something like Soriano lifting weights or working out his legs for the first time in his life after a disappointing season.

 

 

A week or two, I'm guessing... Usually pop up right around the convention.

 

Those seem more like mid-February articles.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't see them as being clearly superior, and talk that they are going to dominate the division for the foreseeable future is patently ridiculous.

 

They dominated the division in the 2000's when they shouldn't have. There's no good reason why they should dominate the division going forward, but there's no good reason why Jim Hendry is the Cubs GM, so I wouldn't assume it can't happen.

[Sammy Sofa]

Nobody is saying it can't happen; people are talking down the idiots on the ledge acting like the Cardinals are a lock to run away with it because of this signing. It's simply not a sure thing.

[jersey cubs fan]

Nobody is saying it can't happen; people are talking down the idiots on the ledge acting like the Cardinals are a lock to run away with it because of this signing. It's simply not a sure thing.

 

I realize that, it is foolish to assume the Cardinals have anything locked up. However, until the Cubs make changes and improvements, I will downgrade their chances.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I dont care about this contract at all other than the fact that the cardinals are going to end up committing half their payroll to 2 guys

 

This is the important thing. Even before Holliday, they were definitely a stars and scrubs team. Now they're committing a huge portion of their payroll to Pujols, Holliday, Carpenter, and Lohse.

 

Only for 2010 and 2011. And the team is in good position to win the division those two years. Not really an issue.

 

In 2012 they'll probably be paying 60 million for Pujols, Holliday, Lohse, and Wainwright. 75 million if they keep Carpenter.

[Clem Fandango]

I dont care about this contract at all other than the fact that the cardinals are going to end up committing half their payroll to 2 guys

 

This is the important thing. Even before Holliday, they were definitely a stars and scrubs team. Now they're committing a huge portion of their payroll to Pujols, Holliday, Carpenter, and Lohse.

 

Only for 2010 and 2011. And the team is in good position to win the division those two years. Not really an issue.

 

In 2012 they'll probably be paying 60 million for Pujols, Holliday, Lohse, and Wainwright. 75 million if they keep Carpenter.

 

We'll be doing the same with Soriano, Dempster, Ramirez, and Zambrano (assuming Aramis doesn't opt out). $68 million to be precise (according to Cots). Not trying to justify or make a point, just saying we're in the same boat.

[phinstd]

Other than Lohse though, I'm perfectly fine with paying 60 for those guys, and 75 with Carp. By then, the Cards payroll will probably be pushing 115-120 million, and they'll inevitably have the studs and scrubs philosophy still employed. Percentage wise, that's a similar payroll allocation to now. We do need another above average player to emerge over what we have now to offset what we'll lose from downturn in performance for those guys, but I like the way the Cards are set up personally.

 

There is risk to the strategy, and if I were a Cubs fan, I'd focus on the negatives of the strategy as well. If the Cards draft well these next two years, they'll be in a great position with that foundation though.

[dew1679666265]

I dont care about this contract at all other than the fact that the cardinals are going to end up committing half their payroll to 2 guys

 

This is the important thing. Even before Holliday, they were definitely a stars and scrubs team. Now they're committing a huge portion of their payroll to Pujols, Holliday, Carpenter, and Lohse.

 

Only for 2010 and 2011. And the team is in good position to win the division those two years. Not really an issue.

 

In 2012 they'll probably be paying 60 million for Pujols, Holliday, Lohse, and Wainwright. 75 million if they keep Carpenter.

 

We'll be doing the same with Soriano, Dempster, Ramirez, and Zambrano (assuming Aramis doesn't opt out). $68 million to be precise (according to Cots). Not trying to justify or make a point, just saying we're in the same boat.

 

We'll be in better shape, though, because (I would assume) our payroll will still be in the $130+ range. The Cardinals will have to bump up their payroll from the current $88-100 million they've been at to be able to have any other non-rookies on the roster.

[Sammy Sofa]

Ramirez, and Zambrano (assuming Aramis doesn't opt out). $68 million to be precise (according to Cots). Not trying to justify or make a point, just saying we're in the same boat.

 

Well, those are actually pretty different boats unless the $50-$30 million gap between the two teams' payrolls gets closed.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

We'll be doing the same with Soriano, Dempster, Ramirez, and Zambrano (assuming Aramis doesn't opt out). $68 million to be precise (according to Cots). Not trying to justify or make a point, just saying we're in the same boat.

 

We also have superior resources and a superior farm system.

[jersey cubs fan]

We'll be doing the same with Soriano, Dempster, Ramirez, and Zambrano (assuming Aramis doesn't opt out). $68 million to be precise (according to Cots). Not trying to justify or make a point, just saying we're in the same boat.

 

We also have superior resources and a superior farm system.

 

Same thing was said at the start of the last decade.

[mul21]

I don't care about this contract at all other than the fact that the cardinals are going to end up committing half their payroll to 2 guys

 

This is the important thing. Even before Holliday, they were definitely a stars and scrubs team. Now they're committing a huge portion of their payroll to Pujols, Holliday, Carpenter, and Lohse.

 

Only for 2010 and 2011. And the team is in good position to win the division those two years. Not really an issue.

 

Right, but you know they have to keep Pujols to make this signing worthwhile. And who replaces Carpenter when his deal is up? They certainly don't have anybody special in the minors who will be ready to fill that hole by then. The kid they just drafted (Shelby Miller?) may well be close to the bigs by then but there's no way he'll be a Cy Young candidate that early. They'll have to pay Pujols and then probably pay Carpenter another $10M or so to keep him around if his arm is still attached at that point.

[Sammy Sofa]

Same thing was said at the start of the last decade.

 

Hey, that's baseball. The Cubs have a new owner and Hendry isn't going to be around for much of this decade and even his crappy contracts can't be used as an excuse to be saddling the team after a couple of years. What happened over the last 10 years isn't any kind of sure thing to happen again over the next 10 years.

[jersey cubs fan]

Same thing was said at the start of the last decade.

 

Hey, that's baseball. The Cubs have a new owner and Hendry isn't going to be around for much of this decade and even his crappy contracts can't be used as an excuse to be saddling the team after a couple of years. What happened over the last 10 years isn't any kind of sure thing to happen again over the next 10 years.

 

There are no sure things, other than that chick from that movie Sure Thing, but the Cardinals organization has earned the benefit of the doubt much moreso than the Cubs organization has. It may be new ownership, but they haven't done anything yet, and management in completely intact.

[Sammy Sofa]

Sure, but it's almost a moot point to bring up the last 10 years as if they're an indicator as to how the next decade will go given the significant changes that have occured and will continue to occur over the next couple of years.

[Soul]

Same thing was said at the start of the last decade.

 

Hey, that's baseball. The Cubs have a new owner and Hendry isn't going to be around for much of this decade and even his crappy contracts can't be used as an excuse to be saddling the team after a couple of years. What happened over the last 10 years isn't any kind of sure thing to happen again over the next 10 years.

 

There are no sure things, other than that chick from that movie Sure Thing, but the Cardinals organization has earned the benefit of the doubt much moreso than the Cubs organization has. It may be new ownership, but they haven't done anything yet, and management in completely intact.

Just waiting for Hendry to be gone, that's all.

 

Then we'll see if the Cubs can start building up more of that "benefit of the doubt" that the Cards currently have.

[jersey cubs fan]

Sure, but it's almost a moot point to bring up the last 10 years as if they're an indicator as to how the next decade will go given the significant changes that have occured and will continue to occur over the next couple of years.

 

I completely disagree. First off, we don't know what all these changes are, when they will happen, or if they will be the right ones. Second, STL has proven they can dominate the division without being the big dog, that is meaningful. I don't see how anybody can look at 6 division titles and 1 wild card win while fighting an uphill battle against a stronger franchise and not think it's an indication of what would happen the next ten years.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

We'll be doing the same with Soriano, Dempster, Ramirez, and Zambrano (assuming Aramis doesn't opt out). $68 million to be precise (according to Cots). Not trying to justify or make a point, just saying we're in the same boat.

 

We also have superior resources and a superior farm system.

 

Same thing was said at the start of the last decade.

 

Except they had a garbage MLB roster and didn't have a resource advantage.

 

Seriously, say something positive about the Cubs. It's almost fun to like your favorite team.

[jersey cubs fan]

We'll be doing the same with Soriano, Dempster, Ramirez, and Zambrano (assuming Aramis doesn't opt out). $68 million to be precise (according to Cots). Not trying to justify or make a point, just saying we're in the same boat.

 

We also have superior resources and a superior farm system.

 

Same thing was said at the start of the last decade.

 

Except they had a garbage MLB roster and didn't have a resource advantage.

 

Seriously, say something positive about the Cubs. It's almost fun to like your favorite team.

 

The Cubs had a clear resource advantage the last decade.

 

What do you want me to say? This is a poorly run organization with a highly flawed roster. They are the big dog in their division and haven't come close to ruling over it. I could just have blind faith that things will get better, but until they actually do something I'm not going to assume they will be all that good. I've said it's dumb to hand the title to the Cardinals, and I'm not doing that. But they do deserve much more benefit of the doubt than the Cubs.

 

I have plenty of good things to say about the Blackhawks, as they are actually a good well run team after decades of poor decision making. I had some nice things to say about the Bears a few years ago, but they are run by inept stubborn morons and much like the Cubs blew a great opportunity. Until the Cubs or Bears start actually doing good things, and not circle jerking the .500 line, I'm not going to praise their work.

[Sammy Sofa]

Sure, but it's almost a moot point to bring up the last 10 years as if they're an indicator as to how the next decade will go given the significant changes that have occured and will continue to occur over the next couple of years.

 

I completely disagree. First off, we don't know what all these changes are, when they will happen, or if they will be the right ones. Second, STL has proven they can dominate the division without being the big dog, that is meaningful. I don't see how anybody can look at 6 division titles and 1 wild card win while fighting an uphill battle against a stronger franchise and not think it's an indication of what would happen the next ten years.

 

Why not? It's not like the decade before is a lock to predict the next decade. If that was the case then the Cardinals should have been horrible in the aughts. The Cubs have turned over their ownership and will be turning over their management early into the decade. The Cardinals lost Jocketty after 2007. Are they going to lose LaRussa after next season? Even if that's not a huge deal what that could mean is that Duncan is gone after next year. The last decade is by no means a model for how this decade will go for these two teams.

[jersey cubs fan]

Why not? It's not like the decade before is a lock to predict the next decade.

 

What do you mean why not? First off, I never said anything about exapt replicas or duplication. I'm saying the trend of the last decade showed the Cardinals organization can win consistently much better than the Cubs can, and the Cubs haven't done any of these thing people are assuming they will do. They haven't made any management moves. We don't know where they will go. We've heard some words from the owners but words are meaningless. The last 10 years doesn't mean the Cubs can't win, but I never said that. It has nothing to do with luck or pixie dust or any of that crap, the Cardinals have had a better track record, and I'm not talking about ancient history either.