Yahoo's Jeff Passan predicts that Matt Holliday will eventually sign for six years at $110 million.
That's $18.3 million a year, which would put Holliday over the magic number of $18 million a year he turned down from the Rockies. Some claim topping that rejected deal is his sticking point.
That would probably be a reasonable deal for both sides since the Cardinals wouldn't have to take the chance of paying a 37 and 38-year old Holliday $16 million if the originally rumored eight-year deal went down. And it sounds a lot better than the rumors of a $140-million, seven-year contract that have been floating around lately.
I'm not sure why Holliday seems to want a six-year deal instead of a five-year or eight-year deal. I think it just sounds less enticing to sign a 36-year-old guy to a three or four-year contract than a 35 year old. If Holliday signs a deal that lasts until he's 38, you can probably figure he won't get another big dollar deal.
I want to see the Cardinals get Holliday in the fold -- and sooner than later. But I don't want to seem them pay $20 million a year to do it. Especially when there is no other team that seems likely to pay him anywhere close to that amount.
I guess it would be good in terms of future flexibility if the newly rumored reports of a one or two-year deal for $20 million a season panned out. But I don't like the idea of the Cardinals facing a total makeover in 2012 when Holliday, Chris Carpenter and Albert Pujols could all potentially be free agents.
I'd rather see the Cardinals lock up a solid core and then fill in around the edges like they did in the Pujols, Scott Rolen and Jim Edmonds era.
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to Belleville News-Democrat