More Matt Holliday speculation...
Rosenthal believes the Rockies are "almost certain to trade Matt Holliday this offseason." Should be a hot topic at the Winter Meetings in December. Rosenthal says to watch out for smaller-revenue sleepers on Holliday like the Nationals, Royals, and Blue Jays. Holliday, a Boras client, is set to earn $13.5MM in '09 before he hits free agency.
about 1 year ago
doublestix
41 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
i saw this,
it’d be an interesting pick up… i wonder how much we’d have to shell out?
by cfizzle on Aug 19, 2008 1:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm really not interested
Unless he’s really willing to sign a long-term deal as well, which I rather doubt.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Aug 19, 2008 10:26 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Has Colorado
become Dayton’s ATL West?
Don't Stop Believing!
by KC Chris on Aug 19, 2008 10:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
What about Dan Uggla
the rumors are that the Marlins will deal their arbitration eligible players.
It’d be nice to make a splash.
Every fight is a food fight when you’re a cannibal.
-- Demetri Martin
by kcscoliny on Aug 19, 2008 11:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps Mike Jacobs
I think Uggla will take too much.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Aug 19, 2008 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Any potential trade would have to include a 48-72 hour window to negotiate a long-term deal with him
Trading legitimate talent for a rental would be groin grabbingly stupid for the Royals. It would still take a lot to get him (both in trade and the massive contract he’d require). And you have to worry about what kind of hitter he’d be outside of Coors Field. .825 OPS? .850? .875?
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Aug 19, 2008 11:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Can't see a Boras client doing that
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Aug 19, 2008 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doing what? Agreeing to a long-term extension?
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Aug 19, 2008 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Forgoing a shot at the open market
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Aug 19, 2008 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That may be right
And that’s why a negotiating window is crucial. There’s no way I’d trade for him not knowing if he’s interested in a long-term contract extension. That is, unless the Royals would only have to trade a very little for him. For the Royals, adding Holliday for just the 2009 season wouldn’t be worth much.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Aug 19, 2008 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, you still would get comp picks once he re-signs elsewhere, right?
This space intentionally left blank.
by marbotty on Aug 19, 2008 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure
Would I give away significant talent in trade for one season of Holliday (in a rebuilding year) plus comp picks? No way. I’d be happy to give them Lubanski, B. Johnson and Dickerson, but that wouldn’t get it done.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Aug 19, 2008 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rowdy Hardy would be the dealbreaker
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Aug 19, 2008 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
it depends on what you see as our window for competing
I think we have to make a run in the next 2-3 years, while we still have Butler and Gordon on the cheap.
Our pitching seems to be “there” or close to it, so we should be able to dump off some of our pitching prospects. After all, what good is having currency if you don’t spend it? And I’m sure it seems short-sighted, but I’d even throw in Moustakas. There’s no guarantee the guy’s going to make it, and even if he does, it’ll probably be too late to help out our team. If Holliday doesn’t re-sign with the team, then we could potentially get an adequate college replacement with the comp pick. He may not be great, but odds are he’d at least be able to help us during the window.
I don’t know about you, but to me, it seems like we’ve been in a continual rebuilding cycle. I think we have to start looking to actually win, and netting a guy like Holliday would help tremendously. If we grab another marquee player in the off-season, we’re suddenly looking like a contender. Perhaps we could even get Holliday to sign for an additional year or two if he’s played with us for a season.
This space intentionally left blank.
by marbotty on Aug 19, 2008 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it depends on what you see as our window for competing I think we have to make a run in the next 2-3 years, while we still have Butler and Gordon on the cheap.
Even if I were to buy into your “this is our one and only window of competing” argument, that argument seems to go against trading for Holliday. Holliday would likely be a 2009 player only. That’s pre-window. If you use a comp pick on a college player in 2010, he wouldn’t be ready for the majors until 2012 at the very earliest (after only one season in the minors). And, he’d be a rookie who probably isn’t contributing at a high level, and that is at the tail end of your “competing window.” Giving up the organization’s top prospect for a one-year rental and a comp pick is short-sighted, counterproductive and doesn’t even help the Royals in your window.
I don’t know about you, but to me, it seems like we’ve been in a continual rebuilding cycle. I think we have to start looking to actually win, and netting a guy like Holliday would help tremendously. If we grab another marquee player in the off-season, we’re suddenly looking like a contender.
Frustration and impatience is not a good reason to sell out the organization’s future for a 2009 win-now strategy which might not be enough to even get the Royals into the playoffs.
Perhaps we could even get Holliday to sign for an additional year or two if he’s played with us for a season.
Perhaps, but it is extremely unlikely.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Aug 19, 2008 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we can compete next year
if we have Holliday and perhaps someone like Eric Hinske (or better yet, Dunn) in the fold.
If we can’t get Holliday to sign, that would be a good indicator that we can’t get anyone good to sign. Perhaps our only way to acquire an impact hitter is via trade. Or wait four to five years for Hosmer and Moustakas to make it up, and begin to start hitting.
If you use a comp pick on a college player in 2010, he wouldn’t be ready for the majors until 2012 at the very earliest (after only get one season in the minors).
I think that would put him on the same schedule as Moustakas, right? Maybe a year behind, at most.
This space intentionally left blank.
by marbotty on Aug 19, 2008 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we can compete next year if we have Holliday and perhaps someone like Eric Hinske (or better yet, Dunn) in the fold.
Do you think those two additions turn the Royals into a likely 90-win team? Or are you saying that we’d be more like an 85-win team who is within a few games of first place at some point in September? Actually, I think 85 wins might be a stretch, but if that’s all we’d likely get for selling out the Royals future, I’ll pass. I prefer a win-now strategy for 2010 or 2011 over 2009. The team/organization just isn’t that close yet.
If we can’t get Holliday to sign, that would be a good indicator that we can’t get anyone good to sign.
If we can’t get Holliday to sign then no one good will sign? Huh? That makes no sense. Players who select Boras as their agent are the players most interested in money. Most players do not have Boras as a client. Boras clients are the least likely to sign. So no it is not true at all that if we can’t sign Holliday then we can’t sign anyone.
I think that would put him on the same schedule as Moustakas, right? Maybe a year behind, at most.
Right, a year behind. And out of your window. If the Royals have a single window of competition (which I don’t agree with, but will accept for the sake of argument), then that window is something like 2010-12. And if that is the window, then trading top prospects for a likely one-year rental in 2009 would be a very bad move.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Aug 19, 2008 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you were saying at the outset of the season
that the Royals would win as many as 80-83 games.
Are you saying that if we were to add Holliday and Dunn we couldn’t win 85-90 games?
Granted, things change, but I think that it’s safe to say that the team’s already in a better place than at the beginning of the season. I’m more confident of our pitching staff in years, and the team’s already playing .500 ball with Aviles in the lineup.
This space intentionally left blank.
by marbotty on Aug 19, 2008 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that the Royals would win as many as 80-83 games.
My official prediction was 80. They have proven (both singly and as a group) that they aren’t as good as I thought they were.
Are you saying that if we were to add Holliday and Dunn we couldn’t win 85-90 games?
It turns out that the Royals aren’t an 80-win team this year. Unfortunately they are more like a 75-win team. So, no I don’t think adding Holliday and Dunn add up to 10-15 additional net wins. And if they only get the Royals up to 85 wins, then that isn’t enough to sell out the Royals future by giving up someone like Moustakas.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Aug 19, 2008 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I prefer a win-now strategy for 2010 or 2011 over 2009. The team/organization just isn’t that close yet.
I don’t see much difference in ‘09 than ’10 if you don’t see signs of of this team being a contender in ‘09 it isn’t going to happen in 2010. There are two players on this current roster that could carry this team to a ‘10 contension, Butler and Gordon. If they don’t show signs of that in ‘09 you might as well shoot for 2012 losing Holliday for picks wouldn’t be that bad.
Every fight is a food fight when you’re a cannibal.
-- Demetri Martin
by kcscoliny on Aug 19, 2008 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course there should be a significant difference between 09 and 10
Butler and Gordon could/should continue to develop and ready to seriously help the team contend in 2010. Hochevar also should continue to improve and help the team contend in 2010. Rosa could show next year that he’s ready to be a 3/4 starter. In short, there’s no reason to believe that the team is anywhere near ready to contend in 2009. If key player continue to develop/improve, then they might be ready by 2010. Of course it is possible that they won’t be ready in 09 or 10. But that isn’t any reason to sell out the team’s future for a win-now strategy in 2009 when the team is obviously not yet ready to contend. (I’m only for a win-now strategy in 2010 if the 2009 team proves that we’re fairly close to contending).
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Aug 19, 2008 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Simply adding Holliday and Hinske
Will not make us competitive. We need to upgrade the pitching as well. We are 11th in runs allowed. With our offense, even with Holliday, that’s not good enough. We can expect Hochevar to improve, but who else?
Trading for Holliday without an extension would be one of the most foolish things we’ve done since trading for Roberto Hernandez. We need to build up a nucleus of young players that can be competitive for years. I’m really not interested in gearing up for one year, then watching talent disappear.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Aug 19, 2008 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
depends who we trade
This space intentionally left blank.
by marbotty on Aug 19, 2008 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that it depends on who we trade
If it is lesser prospects, I’m ok with it. If it involves anyone in the Royals top 7, then no way. Not for a rental in a non-contending year.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Aug 19, 2008 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure
There’s no reason to think the asking price for Holliday won’t be steep. Many teams closer to contention than us will be interested in him.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Aug 19, 2008 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, there are at least a dozen teams for whom Holliday makes more sense
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Aug 19, 2008 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What more is this team gonna do in 2010 as opposed to 2009?
I don’t understand the 2010 spot everyone talks about. Butler and Gordon are the only potential position players who can carry this team unless a freak occurrence like Kila being David Ortiz happens. Trading for somone like Matt Holliday and giving away anyone other than Moose, Hosmer and either Rosa or Cortes won’t change that.
This team will know by mid to end of the season if they can contend in 2010 giving them leverage with Holliday whether they want to sign him or not. Getting picks isn’t the only option there either if Holliday is performing KC can trade him for a stud like a LaPorta and a few other prospects.
Every fight is a food fight when you’re a cannibal.
-- Demetri Martin
by kcscoliny on Aug 19, 2008 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe they won't be ready to contend in 2010
But we know that there is no reason to believe they are ready to contend in 2009. Continued improvements from Butler, Gordon, Hochevar and other young players could move the Royals closer to contention next year. But I’d certainly not sell out a top prospect for a win-now strategy until the team proved that they were close enough to contention for the move to make sense.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Aug 19, 2008 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Holliday might be a better alternative than Dunn if they could negotiate a deal.
Higher OPS his Road splits have climbed every year of his career. Dunn also plays in a very hitter friendly park as well.
Every fight is a food fight when you’re a cannibal.
-- Demetri Martin
by kcscoliny on Aug 19, 2008 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dunn vs. Holliday
Dunn would only require money to acquire; the Royals wouldn’t have to give up any talent for him. Dunn would help the Royals for multiple seasons, whereas Holliday almost certainly would only be here for one season.
The talent the Royals would have to give up is reason alone to not acquire him. We couldn’t get him for a handful of secondary prospects. Giving up a top prospect plus Teahen for him would be horrendous.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Aug 19, 2008 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
Other than Moose, Hosmer and either (Rosa or Cortes) all should be on the table. KC would have one of many options with Holliday a younger stud that signs, a trade at the deadline that might net them more than what they gave away in the first place or two picks that could net you a couple young good prospects. I wouldn’t trade both Cortes and Rosa but I would be open to trading one especially if KC has designs on moving Soria to the rotation. Adding Teahen in the deal well that is just a plus to me.
Every fight is a food fight when you’re a cannibal.
-- Demetri Martin
by kcscoliny on Aug 19, 2008 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The other problem with FA's is what you get stuck with.
With Holliday if he doesn’t pan out you can walk away and chalk it up as a mistake but with FA’s you are roped in longterm. Look at the Dodgers if KC had signed a Juan Pierre or Andruw Jones at those type of deals they would be hosed for quite sometime with there budget restraints.
Every fight is a food fight when you’re a cannibal.
-- Demetri Martin
by kcscoliny on Aug 19, 2008 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really think these are the kind of moves KC
needs to make to compete over a long time. Trade prospects, reload, trade, reload and keep spending big money on the draft like they did in ‘08. Maybe that guy isn’t Holliday maybe it is Jacobs or Uggla or someone else. The other nice part about these type of deals is it shrinks the pool in which you can compete for that player at first at least. Dunn or any top FA is on almost all teams radars which hurts KC chances of getting them.
Every fight is a food fight when you’re a cannibal.
-- Demetri Martin
by kcscoliny on Aug 19, 2008 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Royals couldn't get Holliday for Teahen + Blake Wood
It’s going to take a top prospect. If you take Moustakas, Hosmer, Rosa and Cortes off the table, the Colorado wouldn’t be interested. They’d get a better offer than that from a contender. And if you’re talking about trading any of the top 4, then this doesn’t help the Royals get closer to contention. It moves them further from it in years that they could actually contend (at some point after 2009).
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Aug 19, 2008 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never said Rosa and Cortes
I would be open to trading one of them. I am not in the Soria starter camp but I know you are and if KC is gonna move him to the rotation then I would think trading one of them isn’t that bad of deal because you would already be loaded with starters.
Every fight is a food fight when you’re a cannibal.
-- Demetri Martin
by kcscoliny on Aug 19, 2008 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Giving up Teahen plus Rosa or Cortes for one year of Holliday would be a huge blunder
We don’t know if Soria will ever get to the rotation. And if we flipped Holliday at the deadline, we have no idea if we could get that kind of return for him for a two-month rental. And there’s the risk that he’s injured at the time, making it impossible to trade him at all. And the draft compensation for him (a late first round pick and a sandwich pick, or perhaps no first round pick at all depending on who signs him) would likely not give rise to players who would eventually be as good as them. Trading for Holliday only makes sense for a team who should be expected to contend in 2009.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Aug 19, 2008 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those are ifs not different than the ifs of free agency
There is risk involved either way and that shouldn’t shy anyone away from a trade or a signing. If teams only looked at the negatives of moves then many moves wouldn’t be made. KC would have to have contingency plans with everything maybe that is also signing a J. Rivera or a Baldelli. You can’t just look at the negatives and say that is the reason it can’t be done.
Also spotting win projections leaves out many things like competition. Detroits owner has already been quoted as saying he is gonna trim payroll, The White Sox are getting older everday and Cleveland is already around KC’s level. That leaves just the Twins ahead of KC while I look at KC’s position players and say they can’t compete in ’09 their pitching staff could put them in contension to and a player like Holliday might put them over the top.
Every fight is a food fight when you’re a cannibal.
-- Demetri Martin
by kcscoliny on Aug 19, 2008 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can’t just look at the negatives and say that is the reason it can’t be done.
What you do is a cost-benefit analysis, as well as a risk-benefit analysis. The cost and risks are high. The benefit doesn’t involve the Royals getting into the playoffs. Doesn’t sound like that’s a deal that makes any sense for the Royals in 2009.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Aug 19, 2008 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree to disagree
Every fight is a food fight when you’re a cannibal.
-- Demetri Martin
by kcscoliny on Aug 19, 2008 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But everyone knew that Pierre, for example, sucked
The Andruw Jones deal was a bit better, in outlook, of course, because it was only two years.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Aug 19, 2008 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My take
While I would love to add Holliday, I think I would prefer signing a big bat as a FA instead. I just don’t see our minor league system as deep enough yet to warrant trading for him.
Obviously, if Moore does decide to trade for him, then I would only agree if it was contingent on Holliday signing an extension.
by loyal2sdad on Aug 19, 2008 5:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
