Skip to content

The Holliday deal "will go down as one of the worst deals in major league history"

Jan 8, 2010, 12:00 PM EDT

Buster Olney and Ken Rosenthal were on the same page with their Hall of Fame voting pieces this morning. They’re likewise on the same page in passing along disdain for the Matt Holliday deal too.  First was Robo talking about Boras’ bluff and now here’s Buster passing along two quotes regarding the Cardinals’ overpayment, the first from an MLB official:

“Given what was in front of the Cardinals, that will go down as
one of the worst deals in major league history. 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.”

And then one from a “veteran agent”:

“[When the Mets signed Bay] 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.”

I agree that the Cardinals overpaid, at the very least in terms of years. I wonder, though, whether other teams would have come back into the bidding if a five-year, $80 million take-it-or-leave-it offer was on the table.  

  1. misterv - Jan 8, 2010 at 11:24 PM

    A 7 year contract is risky…
    Matt Holiday will be 30 years old next week.
    7 years down the road could be bumpy.
    The $120 million will have an impact on affordability of the rest of the roster.
    One or two highly paid players cannot carry a team. Look at the Cards in 2009 – I didn’t see them in the World Series.
    Boris played them like he has played many teams.

  2. Mike - Jan 9, 2010 at 2:36 AM

    I think you’re misssing the point. It’s not about whether the Cards have the right to spend big bucks, it’s wether they spend it wisely. No one else seemed to want him for that price. the Yankees can use an outfielder, but they are not going to throw moneyt away on Holliday. Boras got his hand slapped in the A-rod deal when the Yankees called his bluff, so no way do they do it again. he pimped the Cards and now looks like a genius. do you think if he was worth 120 mil someone would have offered 90? Puhols will look great in pinstripes.

  3. Sven-Erik - Jan 9, 2010 at 5:05 AM

    It’s time to ditch the remnants of the Reserver Clause and make everybody a free agent, just like Finley said to do years ago, then these absurd salaries would fall real fast.
    The owners are just dumber than dumb, they just keep shooting themselves in the foot.
    What so we get from the current system? Lame baseball, useless farm systems that don’t produce, higher ticket prices and Pay Per View TV.

  4. JR - Jan 9, 2010 at 5:07 AM

    Two words from Toronto: VERNON WELLS
    Long term contracts can come back to bite a team.

  5. Fast Eddy - Jan 9, 2010 at 10:45 AM

    Hey, it sounds like we have a bunch of potential GM’s in the crown. Especially Olney (and Ken). They know soo much about negociating, they must get into the business. Of coourse it sounds very reasonable when you accept their premise. Who said No body was interested? You and they don’t know that. They are guessing. It is always easy to second guess.

  6. Fast Eddy - Jan 9, 2010 at 11:22 AM

    Hey JR: Two words regarding long term contracts. A-ROD and D. Jeter. Does that sound OK? It all depends on who is getting the contract. Another bad deal was Milton Bradley. Does that make them all bad?

  7. Fast Eddy - Jan 9, 2010 at 3:12 PM

    Lets all get serious. No one knows if other clubs were serious or not about Holliday. These two writers think they know but they don’t. It is a wild guess!

  8. Joe - Jan 10, 2010 at 9:11 AM

    Hell the worst deal is for A-Rod on the Yankees $ 27 million a year for 10 years. Now on top of that he gets $3 million a year because the team was stupid in giving him extra money for closing in on the homerun record and he comes out as a roid user. Dam bring back Barry Bonds to the Yankees to put more distance between the two of them and the homerun record neather one should own. On top of that bring Hank Aaron back as a Yankee and give him the Roids and have him go ahead of Barry Bonds and keep the record as the honest homerun hitter.

  9. Joe - Jan 10, 2010 at 9:27 AM

    The best thing is to have s set payment scale. All field positions and pitching positions are seperated. Top player by all around stats has the highest pay that year and goes down in order for each player. Best players at position make the highest pay. All players go into a yearly draft pool with lowest team picking first and go by rounds to fill out team. Only difference is in minors you can bring your own players up and if they get to a certian number of games played the next year they go into the majors players pool.Ok you know this was only for a laugh.

  10. Bernie - Jan 10, 2010 at 11:18 AM

    Moses Green, good point about the VetA. Sometimes there is no real “anonymous source”. It’s a trick writers use to express their own feelings or another view point. Not saying that’s the case here but who knows except the writer.

  11. Thumper - Jan 10, 2010 at 2:09 PM

    Answer this question: Why do the Cardinals want Matt Holliday in their everyday lineup?
    Perhaps, if you understand why THEY see value in him, you’ll also understand why they locked him up.
    ANSWER: Without Holliday in the lineup, who was going to protect Albert so he doesn’t lead the league by far in walks? Khalil Greene? Taking a flyer on Gary Sheffield? Johnny Damon? Churning through the kids for perpetual cups of coffee? Get serious. Holliday is the exact piece they wanted (and I assume needed). His defense is definitely better than Jason Bay or Johnny Damon, btw. One muffed fly (albeit in a critical situation), doesn’t make or break your overall defensive skill. Bitching about the price is simply a weak attempt at fanning the flames of buyer’s remorse (MY dad always said, don’t ever go back and look at the weekly specials in the paper after you make a big purchase…)
    Don’t you think Albert is smart enough to know this also? If the Cards expect to re-sign Albert for 2011 and beyond, he needs to see they are both committed to winning (and being serious about providing hitting depth around him). Cards just sent a HUGE signal to Albert. And, that is worth something, irrespective of what poor Buster Olney believes.
    Heck with both Buster and Ken Rosenthal. Bitching like theirs, without the backing analysis of why the Cards see value in Matt Holliday, renders their opinions moot in my book. Who, in their fair opinions were the Cards going to get to protect Albert from amongst the available options out there? Anybody? Precisely, they have no legitimate complaint. 2011 means absolutely nothing now, if you don’t have the team ready for 2010 (somebody else said that to Cards management recently, can you guess who?)
    Hey, I’m not even a Cards fan, but I respect their organization and the way they have conducted their business over the years. Besides, check this out for early 2011 rumblings:
    http://www.newser.com/article/d9d370m00/matt-holliday-and-cardinals-finalize-120-million-7-year-contract.html
    Follow that link and read carefully. There is gold in them thar hills. Much more informational value there than what Buster has to say about this deal (if you read between the lines of what Holliday is saying).
    PS if I was a Cards fan, I would simply tell poor Buster Olney to shove it and then STFU. Cards will be fine with this deal.

  12. Rob - Jan 13, 2010 at 2:49 PM

    Moses….you’re a moron. If your job is to get players the most you can get you would speak anonymously about what a team should have done to pay less. If teams knew who we was they would now know how to deal with him. And everybody hates Boras except for his clients.

  13. coffeetablesgalore coupon - Jan 18, 2010 at 1:32 PM

    I have a coffetable in my livingroom but I never used it for coffee, not event for tee. I think the name comes from the social aspect that the low table has rather than wehat is seved on it.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

All the trade deadline news to know
Top 10 MLB Player Searches