The Case for Matt Holliday
At this point, the rumor that the Orioles were pursuing Matt Holliday has pretty much been put to bed. The most detailed word is that the Orioles inquired whether Holliday would consider an offer of $75 million, were told that would not be in the same ballpark as what he will receive, and were thanked for asking. The Orioles, with an outfield/DH glut already with Markakis, Jones, Reimold, Scott and Pie, are prepared to move on.
But should they?
The Orioles are (hopefully) at the beginning of a window where they have a core of young, inexpensive players who should be competitive throughout baseball at many key positions. Brian Roberts is signed for three more seasons, and is currently one of the premier players in baseball at his position. Nick Markakis is an established superior right fielder; not an All-Star in all probability, but as good as any right fielder in our division. And Adam Jones is already the best center fielder in the AL East, although a resurgent BJ Upton or the newly arrived Curtis Granderson could challenge him for that title, Jones has much room to improve as well. Matt Wieters has the offensive upside to challenge Victor Martinez and the aging Jorge Posada and defense that is already superior to both.
That is a strong, mostly young and inexpensive offensive core, and one which can be competitive with even the Yankees and Red Sox, because it features players at key positions. Having elite players at catcher, at center field, and in right is difficult to achieve. The Yankees won the World Series this year starting Javier Molina in two games and Melky Cabrera and Brett Gardner in center. The Red Sox went to the playoffs with Jason Varitek catching. The Rays contended all season with Dioner Navarro doing the bulk of their catching. Garrett Atkins may suck, but he will outhit all those players this season. Or Ty Wigginton, for that matter.
The Yankees, Red Sox, and Rays all make up for these deficiencies by having elite hitters at their infield corners. Alex Rodriguez and Mark Teixeira, Kevin Youklis, Evan Longoria and Carlos Pena. The Red Sox lacked two elite infiled corner men but made up for it with David Ortiz and Manny/Jason Bay. These players have been among the absolute cream of the game, and that we simply don't have. And outside of Wieters, we are unlikely to see any of our homegrown players emerge as that player. Jones may hit .300 with 25-30 home runs, but he's unlikely to develop a great batting eye to go with it. Markakis isn't going to hit 35 home runs either.
We have two question marks - Nolan Reimold and Josh Bell. Reimold's rookie numbers, if extended to a full season, would be excellent and since he was in his first season and is on the verge of his peak seasonal ages should have room to improve upon them. Josh Bell currently appears to be one of the top 5 third base prospects in all of baseball, and while that is a shocking return for George Sherrill, Ned Colletti in the Casey Blake trade gave up one of the three best catching prospects in baseball, so there is reason to believe that it may be genuine. Even so, the ceiling most talent evaluators seem to be giving Bell is that of a solid regular, an above average bat for a third baseman with above average defense to go with it. That's no match for what A-Rod and Longoria bring to the table.
(For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going with the popular wisdom that Brandon Snyder isn't going to show us things he's never shown before and be a superstar hitter in the big leagues.)
The problem with a young, inexpensive core is that it has a short window. No one seems to believe we can extend Matt Wieters, giving us three more seasons until he reaches arbitration and at best six more seasons of his services total. Roberts is with us for only three more seasons. Jones has four. Because of this, if we are not competing in the AL East with this team in three seasons, we can expect to be asking ourselves whether we should trade Jones and other stars before they become expensive, and even if we retain them, that core will no longer be cheap.
For these reasons, it seems to me that we need to add an impact offensive player, preferably a right-handed hitter, no later than the 2011 season. I also believe that in that time frame, the best possible candidate for that role is Matt Holliday.
The philosophy espoused by Andy MacPhail has been to grow the arms and buy the bats. Due to this philosophy, our minor league system is bereft of impact offensive players. Our prospects closest to the majors don't have top offensive potential, and the players further behind them don't project as being superior to them offensively. Our pitching prospect depth in the high minors is needed at the major league level and the prospects further down are not sufficiently elite yet to have high trade value.
Therefore, absent other moves, we are unable to trade for an impact bat. Those on the market - Prince Fielder and Adrian Gonzalez, have a high cost in prospects that would require players required for us to have a sufficient, low-cost core. Our main trade chips, Luke Scott and Felix Pie, aren't enough to get us an impact bat like Billy Butler.
The free agent market now offers nothing but Holliday, while the potential free agents for 2011 offer nothing better. Lance Berkman will be 35 and has an option which is likely to be picked up barring injury; Carlos Pena is a Boras client and left-handed; Jorge Cantu is good but not great; Adam Dunn is Adam Dunn; Scott Rolen is injury-prone and will be 36. Jason Werth is an attractive option as well, but is too good a fielder for us to DH and would require moving Reimold.
But the two elite right-handed bats which can be "bought" in this time-frame are clearly Werth and Holliday. Of the two, I believe that we are better off pursuing Holliday. I believe this is the right move for two reasons: first, because neither the Red Sox nor the Yankees are pursuing Holliday, yet both are quite likely teams that will pursue Werth. Werth is an elite right fielder defensively, and both the Yankees and Red Sox will be in a position to upgrade over J.D. Drew and Nick Swisher after 2010. We may have to overpay for Holliday now, but odds are we will have to overpay more for Werth a year from now. Second, I think that if we are going to have to move Reimold, either in a trade or to first base, the time to do that is now.
Reimold put it together in a big way in 2009. And, as mentioned before, that may be the start of great things for him, and we may be talking about a .900 OPS from him for six seasons. But his performance is also quite like that of Ben Grieve, or Marty Cordova, These players were never more valuable than after their rookie season. We will be missing out on a bargain if Reimold reaches his absolute ceiling. But that ceiling is, frankly, Matt Holliday. By trading Reimold at a time when he has great value, we ensure that we will get great value out of him whether or not he regresses, and by adding Holliday we can assure ourselves of Reimold's best possible production in our lineup. And by adding Holliday and trading Reimold, we give ourselves the opportunity to add more top talent either at the major league level or in high-ceiling prospects.
I like Nolan Reimold, followed him as a prospect, rooted for him and am delighted to see him succeed. I'd love to see him do that in an Orioles uniform. My heart doesn't want to see him go. But the pre-MacPhail years have their price. St. Louis doesn't have Boston or New York's money and needs to resign Pujols in a year. The Angels don't seem to be in a big spending mood. We have players who are close to Holliday and money. I think that four years at $25 million with an option for a fifth should be affordable to us, expire before Jones and Wieters are free agents, and will give Holliday a second shot at free agency when he is still somewhat young and able to command premium dollars. I think that Holliday's certainty allows us to cope with the uncertainty of Snyder and Bell. I think that Reimold is an attractive enough trade chip to net us a premium return that Pie and Scott can't. And I think we should jump on chances to add talent to our organization.
And that's my case for the Orioles going aggressively after Matt Holliday at the present time.
FanPosts are user-created content and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of Camden Chat or SB Nation. They might, though.
0 recs |
43 comments
Comments
Nice argument, and I think Holliday would be a great addition
But I just wanted to point out that it’s not a given that Garrett Atkins will suck. He won the NL MVP in 2006 and was NL ROY the year before that. Unless 2005-08 were flukes, I don’t see why everyone’s already written him off as an Oriole.
by Trebuchet on Dec 19, 2009 3:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Well, I said he "may" suck...
…which implies that he might not.
But Atkins did not win the MVP in 2006, and he didn’t win the ROY either. He was fourth in the ROY voting in 2005 and 15th in the MVP voting in 2006.
by James F on Dec 19, 2009 3:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ha!
I was thinking, wow I had no idea he won those two awards!
by Stacey on Dec 19, 2009 9:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As was I
someone must not understand the abbreviations on baseball-reference.com
by daveh873 on Dec 19, 2009 11:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, my bad
I’ve never really used it before, but i shouldve realized that. I’m embarassed now
by Trebuchet on Dec 19, 2009 1:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No biggie
your name rocks by the way. Its like catapult, but much cooler.
by daveh873 on Dec 19, 2009 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Did you know it's French for "catapault?"
Sorry, inside joke. I think it’s funny, no one else here will get it. But that’s OK.
"(Brock Lesnar) is never in good spirits and he's not in good spirits now." - Dana White
by duck on Dec 19, 2009 9:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
should have read the other responses before posting…my bad
by O'sFan21 on Dec 19, 2009 5:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
When you said
I think that four years at $25 million with an option for a fifth
Is that in regards to Holliday? You really think he would take ~$6 million a year??
by ryanplat on Dec 19, 2009 9:35 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I mean $25 million per year
$100 million total.
by James F on Dec 19, 2009 10:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think he would take that?
Some reports are that the Cards will offer 8 years and 160 million. With the chance to stay with Pujols I don’t see how he would choose us over that.
by reimolddaman on Dec 19, 2009 12:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that is crazy
I think if he had been offered 8/160, he’d have taken it already. I think the Cards top out at 5/90 if that – now that Damon can be had on the cheap, I suspect they’ll go with Damon.
I think that 4/100 with a mutual option for a fifth year gets it done for the Orioles.
by James F on Dec 19, 2009 1:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I also think thats insane
if he had been offered that, he’d have been signed. I think it takes less than 25m/yr, but more years than 4. 5/100 might get it done. If St. Louis goes with Damon, maybe it takes even less. The market isnt much better than it was last year.
by daveh873 on Dec 19, 2009 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
$25 million is too much
That would make him about the second highest-paid player in the game. Too much for a guy who struggled in his only stint in the AL last season.
by ryanplat on Dec 19, 2009 12:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don't really agree that he "struggled"
In a new league, in a pitchers’ park, he had to adjust, but he still had an OPS+ of 120 with Oakland.
Taken outside of context, it is a bit much for a player who isn’t among the absolute best in the game. But it isn’t a ridiculous overpay – Holliday has been worth that much, per Fangraphs, every season he’s played. And in context, it looks even better – by adding Holliday when we’ll be cheap nearly everywhere else on the diamond, we still end up with a low average salary. Moreover, it isn’t like we have the option to spend the money on someone better. It is Holliday or a bunch of B- and lower guys.
by James F on Dec 19, 2009 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
PS
I’m also, in this scenario, paying Holliday more over a shorter period. I think that’s the wiser choice. I’d rather pay him $100m over four years than $125m over six.
by James F on Dec 19, 2009 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
either way I think $25M is way too much
by Stacey on Dec 19, 2009 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah that is way to much
Maybe if we were a +.500 team and we needed a push we could pay that for 2-3 maybe 4 years
by ravensfan3 on Dec 19, 2009 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't we believe we are a .500 team in 2010?
Meanwhile, I only think we pay that much if it is for only four years, which is what I’d like to see.
by James F on Dec 19, 2009 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why?
I mean, it is certainly possible that it is. But what would you suggest?
Millwood is costing us $9m. Gonzalez costs $6m, Atkins $5m. Millwood and Atkins should come off the books in a year and be replaced with players earning the minimum, as will Koji.
Player costs in 2011:
Roberts 2b $10m
Markakis RF $10.25m
Gonzalez CL $6m
Jones CF 1st arb year
Scott DH final arb year
Guthrie SP 2nd arb year
Johnson RP 2nd arb year
Pie OF 1st arb year
Reimold, Bell, Matusz, Tillman, Arrieta, Bergesen, Snyder et al will be earning the minimum still. My argument is that we’re better off paying a ton of money to Holliday than we are paying out $25 million to spare parts like Millwood, Atkins, Wiggy and Koji. And even with Holliday at $25 million, we’d have this lineup/rotation at less than $60m:
Roberts 2b
Jones CF
Markakis RF
Holliday LF
Wieters C
Reimold DH (of course, I’d think we’d trade Reimold)
Bell 3b
Snyder 1b
???? SS
Matusz SP
Tillman SP
Bergesen SP
Guthrie SP
Arrieta SP
Hernandez RP
Johnson RP
Gonzalez CL
That’s a $60m team without a ton of holes.
by James F on Dec 19, 2009 1:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but we would also probably want to get an ace to replace guthrie
by ravensfan3 on Dec 19, 2009 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ack! No!
That runs utterly against the philosophy – grow the arms, buy the bats. There is an excellent rationale behind that philosophy – pitching is too mercurial to justify its market cost. In addition, our entire organization is built around the notion of not going out and getting an ace from outside. We should not be pursing an ace from outside our organization, period.
by James F on Dec 19, 2009 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
PS
If by 2011, we don’t have an ace in one of Matusz, Tillman, Arrieta, Erbe and Britton, then we’ve failed and should trade Wieters, IMO.
by James F on Dec 19, 2009 2:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So your saying...
If we had a rotation with 4 ptichers, had an open spot and the money to sign say Felix Hernandez when he is a free agent. You would not want them pursuing him because he is not from our orginization?
by ravensfan3 on Dec 19, 2009 7:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, I'm saying that I wouldn't want them pursuing him...
…because he’ll cost too much money without there being enough certainty that he’ll pitch well, or at all.
75% of injuries at the major league level are to pitchers, and there is greater variance in the performance of pitchers from season to season than there is for hitters. Put it this way, in 2009, Felix Hernandez posted a WAR of 6.9 and Prince Fielder posted one of 6.8. But if you were going to invest in the future performance of Felix and Prince, Prince would be the far safer investment.
Therefore, I don’t think we should spend the kind of money on an ace that it would cost. Simply put, it is a higher risk investment strategy. Better to spend the money on developing a deep pool of young pitching talent and on a premium offense and defense to support the pitching.
by James F on Dec 19, 2009 7:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
$25M would be at least 25% of our payroll
I just can’t advocate giving it to one person
by Stacey on Dec 19, 2009 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK
I guess it just represents a difference in philosophy. I think we should have a roster where about 20-22 of the players are in their first seven years and the rest are stars. Our payroll is the same, but we only end up paying for players really worth paying for. Paying $5-10 million for 1-2 win players is what I think will kill our chances, not paying $15-25 million for 5-8 win players.
by James F on Dec 19, 2009 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We'll be in 2004 all over again
if we think mid-priced FAs will dig us out of this hole.
"(Brock Lesnar) is never in good spirits and he's not in good spirits now." - Dana White
by duck on Dec 19, 2009 9:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I can
We need a bat in this lineup. There isn’t another decent choice on the FA market for two years.
And I swear to God I will strangle a kitten if any of you posts “But what about Adam Dunn????”
And he’s 25% of our payroll because the rest of our studs are so damn cheap. We have so many regulars that won’t even hit arb by the end of next year, we are in a PERFECT scenario to do this deal.
Pull the trigger, Andy. Show Matt The Money!
"(Brock Lesnar) is never in good spirits and he's not in good spirits now." - Dana White
by duck on Dec 19, 2009 9:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Quick Question
In your post you say that St. Louis has to pay Pujols next year. But before that you say the 2011 crop of free agents isn’t very good.
Why would we overpay for Holliday now, when we can go through the season with what we got, hopefully show that we can be threat, and pay the big bucks to go get Pujols?
To me that makes way more sense, we can get a guy who has the biggest bat out there, without having to trade anyone. Of course, he’ll be the top guy on everyone’s list, but if our young starters show the improvement we expect and our young hitters keep progressing as they have, wouldn’t he be the big bat you go get to combine with our home grown arms?
The Yankees have Tex, so they won’t be in the mix, the Red Sox have Youk, so I would think they wouldn;t be in the mix. Which means if we can show any type of sign of being a threat with our current lineup, we should be an attractive landing spot. I don’t think he wants to stay in St. Louis, if he did he would’ve signed an extension by now, I haven’t even really heard any talk about an extension.
Maybe I read your post wrong, and maybe I’m just not as up on baseball info, but it makes sense to me.
by Ceasaleo on Dec 19, 2009 3:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
It's kind of like what the Chicago Bulls want to do...
Show enough with a regular lineup that has a couple of young stars in it, that they can get a big name player this upcoming off season.
No matter what you may think, I believe Bmore is still an attractive spot for free agents if we can show some promise. You’re playing in a great stadium, and surrounded by great fans. The organization has a huge tradition. And you get a chance to play in the best division in baseball and stick it to the Yanks and Red Sox. That’s gotta perk some guys interest in my mind.
by Ceasaleo on Dec 19, 2009 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think there is any way that Pujols leaves St. Louis
I think they’ll pay him A-Rod money, and I don’t think he wants to go in any case.
Pujols isn’t technically a free agent after 2010 in any case – they hold an option for 2011 that will be used if he isn’t extended. And if by some insanity St. Louis decides not to retain him, then they will trade him to a team which will extend him anyways – I just don’t see Pujols ever hitting the open market. And if he did, the price could be $40 million per, and the Red Sox would certainly be involved (I don’t expect them to extend Youk beyond 2011 in any case). Pujols is the rarest of players, a Jeter/Ripken type whose contract even at a very high level pays for itself in merchandise, publicity and the like. They bring more than simply what they do on the field.
So I think that talking about Pujols is as futile as talking about the fact that Jeter is a free agent after 2010. Sure, technically so. But he’s not going anywhere. And if he is, like Johan Santana or Roy Halladay, he’ll never be on the open market.
by James F on Dec 19, 2009 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
and if he DID hit the market, Boston would certainly be in on him. Evn if Youk is still on the team, he can play 3B and they can move Beltre to another team (assuming they get him). Youk is a very nice player, but he by no means keeps Boston from going after Pujols.
That being said, if Pujols ever hits the market i’d be extremely shocked.
by daveh873 on Dec 19, 2009 4:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"The Yankees have Tex, so they won’t be in the mix"
Keep telling yourself that. It will help you sleep at night.
Ever hear of the DH?
"(Brock Lesnar) is never in good spirits and he's not in good spirits now." - Dana White
by duck on Dec 19, 2009 9:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK I get what you're saying but...
Wouldn’t we have enough ammo with young arms and a couple of position prospects to make a nice bid for him if he was held out there for trade bait?
by Ceasaleo on Dec 19, 2009 4:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Maybe, but we need them...
…we essentially have no expendable position prospects with value at all – our only expendable position prospect with significant trade value right now is Xavier Avery, and he doesn’t have that much. The rest – Bell, Snyder, Waring – are desperately needed and a key part of our plans going forward. The case is similar right now with our young arms – the ones at the top, Tillman, Matusz, Arrieta, Britton and Erbe, are all needed for our team to have hope of success. As the next wave of Drake, Bundy, Hobgood, Coffey, et al move up through the ranks, some of them may become expendable. But the caveat with that is that our acknowledged plan is not to retain Tillman, Matusz etc. as they reach free agency, but to replace them with players from our system. In six years, our best case scenario is that we will need young pitching prospects to replace our established pitchers.
But in any case, that is an inefficient use of resources. To trade a bevy of prospects for Pujols and to have to pay him big bucks to stay is the worst of all possible worlds. Why give up the prospects if we can have someone provide the offense for money alone?
by James F on Dec 19, 2009 5:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
At the end...
…of the day, the O’s will need all of the stars to align in order to beat the Sox and Yanks, regardless of how much young talent they have. That’s what happened for the Rays in 2008.
So…I’m of the opinion that they continue to follow the Rays model. They got it done with pitching and defense and just enough offense. Oh…and BJ Upton turned into Babe Ruth in the playoffs.
I think the O’s are still two years away from their optimal chance of pulling this off. Players like Weiters, Jones and Reimold will have time to mature, and guys like Roberts and Markakis will still be under contract. The young pitching will have sorted itself out in that the O’s will know then who lives up to their promise and who does not.
I don’t think that spending a large percentage of limited resources on one player is a good idea, especially at a position which is already productively filled from within. 1B is the real position of need, and with the surrounding players in the lineup, I think a veteran guy with power on a short-term deal would be fine…ex. Delgado (if healthy), LaRoche, and…wait for it…Dunn. I’m not sure why duck is so against a guy that hits 40 dingers every year.
by sabertooth5185 on Dec 23, 2009 9:03 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
great analysis...James F
Great work and I agree with your conclusion to sign one of the top of the line free agents. However, as any contract lawyer will admit, you need three components to come to an agreement. You must have an offer (we can do that), consideration (money we got) and finally, acceptance of the offer (oops, this is where your analysis/recommended course of action falls short). Holliday will not likely accept the offer you propose regardless of how attractive financially until he believes the team making the offer can win and get to the playoffs, consistantly. Moreover, Holliday has the most skilled agent who constantly gets the maximum salary and years for his players in the place the player wishes to perform. Jason Bay would have represented more likely target for your recommendation; too late for that alternative. Please keep thinking brilliant ideas such as the one you presented while we watch the market perculate. Hopefully the guys in the warehouse are thinking creatively as you are.
by 4morushsup on Jan 5, 2010 6:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 





















