Ken Rosenthal wrote:Don't pencil Matt Holliday into the Cardinals' lineup just yet.
Despite reports Thursday that St. Louis and Oakland are discussing a trade for the A's slugger, one source with knowledge of the Cardinals' thinking maintained that "there is nothing going on."
St. Louis is exploring many options ahead of the July 31 non-waiver trade deadline, but the source said that, at this point, the Cardinals' interest in Holliday is "mild."
Holliday, whose offseason acquisition helped make the A's a preseason sleeper pick in the AL West, struggled during the early part of the season. However, the right-handed hitting left-fielder has caught fire in July and raised his batting average to .287 entering Thursday. He also has 11 home runs and 54 RBIs.
St. Louis is looking for a big bat to complement Albert Pujols, who leads the NL in home runs and RBIs, and is second in batting average.
Discussions of a Holliday trade were first reported by the San Francisco Chronicle and ESPN.com.
M1IRONMIKE wrote:I am all for getting Holliday and would be willing to give up Wallace for him provided he is signed for a minimum of 3 years before the deal takes place. Giving up Wallace for 6-8 weeks of Holliday would make my blood boil....
Agreed.
What if he leaves and we get a 1st rd pick and a 1st round supplemental pick?
Yeh that would be great except we need to have Major League Talent around Pujols sooner not later. Draft picks still take time. Wallace is near ready and trading him would start the developing process all over. It's not every year you draft a kid and he is in triple a the following year with a legitimate claim to being called up in a position where we deperately need some help. So again I say Holliday must be signed before the Cardinals agree to that deal. Therefore I am confident that, with Holliday being a Boras guy , there is a snowballs chance in hell of the cardinals getting him.
M1IRONMIKE wrote:I am all for getting Holliday and would be willing to give up Wallace for him provided he is signed for a minimum of 3 years before the deal takes place. Giving up Wallace for 6-8 weeks of Holliday would make my blood boil....
Agreed.
What if he leaves and we get a 1st rd pick and a 1st round supplemental pick?
If the FO takes the best players available and is willing to spend the money to sign them, and doesn't pass up a Porcello. Shelby Miller hasn't signed yet, and until he does I will be a little skeptical.
M1IRONMIKE wrote:I am all for getting Holliday and would be willing to give up Wallace for him provided he is signed for a minimum of 3 years before the deal takes place. Giving up Wallace for 6-8 weeks of Holliday would make my blood boil....
Agreed.
What if he leaves and we get a 1st rd pick and a 1st round supplemental pick?
Yeh that would be great except we need to have Major League Talent around Pujols sooner not later. Draft picks still take time. Wallace is near ready and trading him would start the developing process all over. It's not every year you draft a kid and he is in triple a the following year with a legitimate claim to being called up in a position where we deperately need some help. So again I say Holliday must be signed before the Cardinals agree to that deal. Therefore I am confident that, with Holliday being a Boras guy , there is a snowballs chance in hell of the cardinals getting him.
It's not like they can't trade Wallace, lose Holiday to FA, claims picks, draft players, and trade them for the next guy, next year.
M1IRONMIKE wrote:I am all for getting Holliday and would be willing to give up Wallace for him provided he is signed for a minimum of 3 years before the deal takes place. Giving up Wallace for 6-8 weeks of Holliday would make my blood boil....
Agreed.
What if he leaves and we get a 1st rd pick and a 1st round supplemental pick?
Yeh that would be great except we need to have Major League Talent around Pujols sooner not later. Draft picks still take time. Wallace is near ready and trading him would start the developing process all over. It's not every year you draft a kid and he is in triple a the following year with a legitimate claim to being called up in a position where we deperately need some help. So again I say Holliday must be signed before the Cardinals agree to that deal. Therefore I am confident that, with Holliday being a Boras guy , there is a snowballs chance in hell of the cardinals getting him.
Do you think it was a mistake for the Brewers to trade LaPorta for Sabathia?
M1IRONMIKE wrote:I am all for getting Holliday and would be willing to give up Wallace for him provided he is signed for a minimum of 3 years before the deal takes place. Giving up Wallace for 6-8 weeks of Holliday would make my blood boil....
Agreed.
What if he leaves and we get a 1st rd pick and a 1st round supplemental pick?
Yeh that would be great except we need to have Major League Talent around Pujols sooner not later. Draft picks still take time. Wallace is near ready and trading him would start the developing process all over. It's not every year you draft a kid and he is in triple a the following year with a legitimate claim to being called up in a position where we deperately need some help. So again I say Holliday must be signed before the Cardinals agree to that deal. Therefore I am confident that, with Holliday being a Boras guy , there is a snowballs chance in hell of the cardinals getting him.
Do you think it was a mistake for the Brewers to trade LaPorta for Sabathia?
No. Sabathia got them over the hump and into the playoffs. That can be worth a lot.
I know some folks like to poke fun of the FanGraphs people when they delve into analysis but I'd say that I agree with Erik.
A lot of people know that I'm not as high on Wallace as the general consensus, but I still wouldn't deal him for Holliday. Doc Halladay is a different story altogether.
