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.