I was against signing Matt Holliday then and I'm also against it now. The biggest reason is that it brings more questions than it answers. The biggest one is how does this make the 2010 Cardinals any better than the 2009 team? You have the same lineup as last year minus Mark DeRosa, you haven't addressed the bullpen, and you currently don't have a third baseman. We also have to consider the following question marks:
Why did you give him so much money and so many years?
How are you possibly going to resign Pujols?
If you do resign Pujols, how are you going to keep Wainwright and Carpenter?
These questions lead me to this conclusion. I believe that either this signing was made to shut up the critics of owner Bill Dewitt on not spending money and to keep the stadium filled for at least the next two to three years until the Dewitt group sells the team, or the team has no intention of resigning Pujols. Take a look at the evidence.
Let's look at the first question. Why was he given so many years and so much money when according to most reports that there were no other competitors for Matt Holliday? Jason Bay, the most similar player to Holliday on the market, by comparison only got 4 years worth 66 million dollars from the NEW YORK Mets. According to Buster Olney of ESPN, the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox (after signing John Lackey), Angels, and Dodgers had no interest in Holliday. He also said that the only other team interested in Holliday, the Baltimore Orioles, only offered 70 million. So market wise, the Cardinals had no reason to give Holliday the contract they gave him. So, why do it? I'll hold off answering that for a little while.
Now let's take a look at the last two questions I asked. How does this signing allow for the Cardinals to resign Pujols? Do you really expect the Cardinals to resign Pujols at the 25 to 30 million dollars that he will likely command? Now I admit that I would have never expected the Cardinals to sign Holliday at 7 years, 120 million dollars, so for the sake of argument let's assume they do sign Pujols. This brings a new question mark. How will the Cardinals be able to keep a team around Pujols and Holliday? I'll use the conservative estimate on resigning Pujols at 25 million. So that means that Pujols and Holliday combined will cost the Cardinals 42 million dollars. If we add Chris Carpenters 13 million dollars to the mix, that brings the total up to 55 million dollars for three players. Now let's throw in Adam Wainwright. Wainwright in 2012 will make 9 million dollars. The total is now up to 64 million dollars on FOUR players.
So now lets assume the Cardinals, over the next several years, will keep a 100 million dollar payroll. Now what kind of team are the Cardinals going to put around their four-pillars for 36 million dollars? There are still 21 positions to fill. (Okay, ill take out one for the backup catcher. ) So, thats 20 positions to fill, and the Cardinals have only an average of 1.8 million dollars to spend on each player. What kind of team do you think the Cardinals are going to be able to field with that little amount of money left? It's hard to tell exactly but its safe to say that it won't be a good one.
So whats the point of all of this? Bill Dewitt and John Mozeliak are not stupid people. If this meaningless blogger has gone through this and figured this out, then we know they have too.
This leads to my final question. If they already know this, then why would they do it? This Holliday signing may make sense in the short term, but it makes no sense in the long run. So why would Bill Dewitt, a guy who has gained a reputation of being a guy who only looks out for his own bottom line, do something that hurts them in the long run? As I mentioned before, one of the only two possible explanations is that Dewitt is looking to sell the team. That would explain why the Dewitts don't care about the team long term. They could just milk as much money as they can out of Cardinals fans by marketing Pujols and Holliday and then sell the team. The only other possibility is that the team has no intention of resigning Pujols. The Cardinals not resigning Pujols would be the only way for the Cardinals to spend the money that they need to put a competitive team out on the field. Then giving Holliday this contract despite his lack of demand in the free agent market would make sense. It leaves the Cardinals a backup plan for if they do not sign Pujols and leave money on the table to keep a competitive team on the field.
Which do you think is going to happen?